Engage with what I wrote about how their statement requires it as an assumption and dont just hide behind “thats not literally what they said”!! They required the claim as an assumption, even if they didn’t outright state it. They used it to assert that eating meat and plants is morally the same thing and dismiss my earlier point by saying that I couldn’t prove their (unstated, but necessary) assumption is incorrect.
Don’t just try to silence one side with your pedantry.
your position requires that plants aren’t sentient, but their position only requires that they cannot be proven not to be sentient. it is you who is making the assumption.
surely you are skilled enough at logic and reasoning to read what was written and see that I’m just describing the conversation above. if not, I don’t think it’s something I can explain to you.
if this thread is to be linked, I would hope that basic reading comprehension skills would be sufficient for anyone to see what has happened. weirdly, the edit to the comment below introduced an entirely separate argument, moving the goal posts. but surely the reader can remember when it was said
Do you, as a non-hypocritical person with certain principles, think the exploitation of sentient beings is unethical and should be boycotted?
funny, then, that the comment below is excusing the hypothetical exploitation of sentient beings, so long as it is to a somewhat lesser extent.
edit: since I’ll be referencing this conversation should I see this user again uphold a double standard in debate I’ll state this:
If by “my position” they meant veganism, it doesn’t require that plants aren’t sentient. It’s a sufficient condition to show veganism is the morally superior option (and imo rather obviously true, if annoying formally prove because you have to get settled on formal definitions first). However, given that plants and animals are both sentient the argument (a variation of which is presented in the text which started this whole chain)
“Meat ‘production’ requires a multiple of plant by mass, not to mention how many many many more plants have to ‘die’ by the numbers to feed one animal before you murder it.”
also implies that veganism is the morally superior option.
If they meant a different position, well they didn’t elaborate, this is my best guess.
Engage with what I wrote about how their statement requires it as an assumption and dont just hide behind “thats not literally what they said”!! They required the claim as an assumption, even if they didn’t outright state it. They used it to assert that eating meat and plants is morally the same thing and dismiss my earlier point by saying that I couldn’t prove their (unstated, but necessary) assumption is incorrect.
Don’t just try to silence one side with your pedantry.
your position requires that plants aren’t sentient, but their position only requires that they cannot be proven not to be sentient. it is you who is making the assumption.
How so?
surely you are skilled enough at logic and reasoning to read what was written and see that I’m just describing the conversation above. if not, I don’t think it’s something I can explain to you.
This is the claim I’m asking you to elaborate on, it was not part of a previous conversation.
have a nice day
edit:
if this thread is to be linked, I would hope that basic reading comprehension skills would be sufficient for anyone to see what has happened. weirdly, the edit to the comment below introduced an entirely separate argument, moving the goal posts. but surely the reader can remember when it was said
funny, then, that the comment below is excusing the hypothetical exploitation of sentient beings, so long as it is to a somewhat lesser extent.
🤣
edit: since I’ll be referencing this conversation should I see this user again uphold a double standard in debate I’ll state this:
If by “my position” they meant veganism, it doesn’t require that plants aren’t sentient. It’s a sufficient condition to show veganism is the morally superior option (and imo rather obviously true, if annoying formally prove because you have to get settled on formal definitions first). However, given that plants and animals are both sentient the argument (a variation of which is presented in the text which started this whole chain)
“Meat ‘production’ requires a multiple of plant by mass, not to mention how many many many more plants have to ‘die’ by the numbers to feed one animal before you murder it.”
also implies that veganism is the morally superior option.
If they meant a different position, well they didn’t elaborate, this is my best guess.
Edit 2: 🤣🤣