I really don’t see how they are strawmen. The vast majority of people do not need meat, the reason they eat meat is because it tastes good. Taste is merely one of our senses, why is it ok to kill to enjoy the taste, but not ok to enjoy the sound or sight? That’s what the meme is getting at.
Nature playing out
Why is this an argument, when it isn’t an acceptable reason for anything else? Rape, murder, thievery are all things that most people see as wrong, despite them happening in nature plenty.
One of the things that makes humans unique is our ability to consider logic and mortality beyond what happens in nature, because nature certainly isn’t perfect.
i’m stating facts, and you concede those facts, and then claim i’m arguing in bad faith. you don’t know what that means: your accusation of bad faith is, itself bad faith.
You are stating strawmen: facts with no relevance to the argument presented, which you then point to and refuse to address the actual argument.
I never claimed to know what any individual needs, but you have started it as a fact as if that is at all relevant. It’s not, because I never claimed it. I claimed that I know that the vast majority of people need, based on basic science and statistics. If you have fact which actually argued against that, then please go ahead. But unrelated facts posing as arguments are strawman arguments, and are bad faith.
I really don’t see how they are strawmen. The vast majority of people do not need meat, the reason they eat meat is because it tastes good. Taste is merely one of our senses, why is it ok to kill to enjoy the taste, but not ok to enjoy the sound or sight? That’s what the meme is getting at.
Why is this an argument, when it isn’t an acceptable reason for anything else? Rape, murder, thievery are all things that most people see as wrong, despite them happening in nature plenty.
One of the things that makes humans unique is our ability to consider logic and mortality beyond what happens in nature, because nature certainly isn’t perfect.
That’s not an argument. it’s a fact.
It might be a fact, but it’s being used as an argument to make a specific point. These things are not exclusive.
And my question stands, why is it being used as an argument when it has no relevance?
you don’t know what others need
I of course don’t know what any specific person needs, but knowing what the vast majority of people need is trivial, it’s basic science.
Please stop arguing is such bad faith in every response you make.
i’m stating facts, and you concede those facts, and then claim i’m arguing in bad faith. you don’t know what that means: your accusation of bad faith is, itself bad faith.
You are stating strawmen: facts with no relevance to the argument presented, which you then point to and refuse to address the actual argument.
I never claimed to know what any individual needs, but you have started it as a fact as if that is at all relevant. It’s not, because I never claimed it. I claimed that I know that the vast majority of people need, based on basic science and statistics. If you have fact which actually argued against that, then please go ahead. But unrelated facts posing as arguments are strawman arguments, and are bad faith.
we can all read what you said