this reads like an appeal to ridicule. it is not a rebuttal.
this reads like an appeal to ridicule. it is not a rebuttal.
Another debate term.
didn’t this start because you were linking fallacies??
if you don’t care about whether what i said is true, and alli did was state a fact, then why are you responding at all? it seems to me you very much want to discourage me from keeping the discussion truthful, and i speculate it is because the facts damage your own position.
i don’t tell you what to value. please extend the same courtesy.
it. Find something you actually care about then argue about that.
truth. i care about what is true.
youre probably really young
another attack on identity. try to stay with the topic at hand. who i am has no bearing on the truth of my statements or yours.
you just want to debate.
frankly, i don’t. i’m happy correcting the record.
i object to your characterization, and it does nothing to either bolster your own claim nor undercut my own. it’s a simple ad hominem.
i’m pointing out that you’re spreading misinformation.
Your action led to a dead cow in the future.
Does that work?
no, that’s not causal. but even if it were, it doesn’t make me responsible for the killing of the plants or animals in the past.
the company has to produce now to replace the one you bought.
no, they don’t. they could choose not to do that. I am not responsible for their choices.
You shouldn’t need your hand held for this, it’s pretty basic stuff.
this is just posturing. it doesn’t support your (erroneous) claim, nor does it undermine my (obviously correct) position.
supply and demand.
that’s a theory about price discovery that actually has no predictive value. it is not a magic phrase that traverses space-time
your link implies that male calves all become veal, but the vast majority of male calves are brought to full weight before slaughter.
“plants dont feel pain”.
you can’t prove that.
this is a straw man. perhaps you could try dealing with the facts and what I said.
surely you can see that there are going to need be more evidence. some kind of communication prior to the fact is probably going to need to be established.
If you’re eating meat, then you’re contributing to the death of all of those plants that had to feed the animals you’re eating
impossible. an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past.
I can only think of one that does: utilitarianism. it’s frought with epistemic problems not to mention it can be summed up “the ends justify the means” which most people think is itself unethical.
I’m not responsible for the decisions of other people.