You keep relying on hot-swapping to new arguments and ad hominem! Stick to a point, please! One? A single argument?
You claim I argue like a republican and am smug. Smug, I'll concede. Republican though? Only if Republicans are those whose points go unaddressed by opponents, maybe.
It's very clear you're interested in trolling and not in making any rational arguments. The projection in comparing me to a Republican is a nice touch, however.
Which points did you make that you feel went unaddressed? I only count one. So which points, aside from your bizarre "I'll torture 2 puppies today out of spite!" comment?
Edit: by the way, that comment is quite worrying. You should see someone about those kinds of feelings!
Which part remains unclear? Is it the use of a hypothetical? Specifically, this hypothetical asks you to imagine a world with no vegans. Do you think that, in such a world, there would be more animals killed for consumption or fewer animals killed for consumption, compared with reality?
I see! Maybe you've never before encountered the concept of opportunity cost before. It's something like this: if I don't murder someone on a given day, I'm not actually decreasing the total number of real murders on that day. But contrasted against the hypothetical day where I made the inverse decision, it does. Does that help?
The above commenter is an antivegan troll; disregard!
You keep relying on hot-swapping to new arguments and ad hominem! Stick to a point, please! One? A single argument?
You claim I argue like a republican and am smug. Smug, I'll concede. Republican though? Only if Republicans are those whose points go unaddressed by opponents, maybe.
It's very clear you're interested in trolling and not in making any rational arguments. The projection in comparing me to a Republican is a nice touch, however.
Which points did you make that you feel went unaddressed? I only count one. So which points, aside from your bizarre "I'll torture 2 puppies today out of spite!" comment?
Edit: by the way, that comment is quite worrying. You should see someone about those kinds of feelings!
You haven't addressed a single point I've made. Maybe read your own comments?
Huh?
Being gay is victimless. Eating meat entails violence. I hope that clears it up!
That argument can justify a lot of atrocities. Careful!
Huh?
Eating meat is evil, and meat eaters need to be told that at every opportunity.
For not needing to be told not to do evil?
Ditto for meat eaters
And for cows
Edgy!
The only reason to care is if there are innocent victims involved
Exactly! In a world with more vegans, fewer animals are killed. Hence, vegans help.
Which part remains unclear? Is it the use of a hypothetical? Specifically, this hypothetical asks you to imagine a world with no vegans. Do you think that, in such a world, there would be more animals killed for consumption or fewer animals killed for consumption, compared with reality?
I see! Maybe you've never before encountered the concept of opportunity cost before. It's something like this: if I don't murder someone on a given day, I'm not actually decreasing the total number of real murders on that day. But contrasted against the hypothetical day where I made the inverse decision, it does. Does that help?
I already refuted it, but you never addressed that aside from the non-sequitur "What's your excuse?"
Most people regularly eat dead animals, so violence is still everywhere. In fact, there's more now than ever before. :(
Nothing about you. Just the argument! It's quite plainly stupid, you see.