410

submitted 6 months ago by usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

161 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Spy Cams Reveal the Grim Reality of Slaughterhouse Gas Chambers

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It was three distinct points. But it wouldn't matter if I did reason it out for you - your stance is emotive, and you won't agree with me unless that viewpoint underlying your stance changes, and it won't change due to someone reasoning it out for you.

The slow grind of time, and the steady erosion by nature may cause you to change, though. Fortunately, whether it does or not, it's basically irrelevant to me whether or not you believe or act as I do.

Edit, in response to your edit:

You sure do assume a lot about me. But, so it goes. Again - I'm not really concerned with whether you think like I do or not. You can even hate me if you like. I don't expect you to come to my viewpoint by anything I say. My viewpoint is different than yours, and that suits me fine. Such is diversity.

[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

The most charitable read I can see is

1 - everyone dies 2 - I assume without evidence that death is generally unpleasant and painful 3 - I assume without evidence animals don't have complex internal worlds and desires for things like freedom or long life 4 - I assume the lives animals lead in farms is good 5 - I am a naive utiliarian and see no issues with mere addition/the repugnant conclusion 6 - a quick death does not count negatively in a utiliarian sensw C - therefore we should breed as many animals as we can, kill them whenever convenient as long as they are not old, and this makes the world better.

I do not see how 1 through 3 connect to 4 through 6. And 4 through 6 is just the repugnant conclusion.