• BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    You’re loosely describing most of human history.

    “Let’s take these plant babies and grind them into a pulp, drown it, let it be eaten by a bunch of tiny monsters until they fart enough gas, and then burn it” also sounds kinda weird. Welcome to the universe; shit’s a little whack.

    • GONADS125@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      You’re loosely describing most of human history.

      To play devils advocate, you’re arguing an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy.

      Just because we’ve historically operated in a certain way, it does not mean it is morally permissible behavior.

      The appeal to tradition has been used to argue in favor of slavery, racism, and a lot of other horrendous human behavior.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        So? It’s patently obvious that millions of people go hunting every year without turning into mass murderers. Pointing out logical fallacies isn’t an argument.

        • GONADS125@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          It’s patently obvious that millions of people go hunting every year without turning into mass murderers.

          I never said they do.

          Pointing out logical fallacies isn’t an argument.

          I wasn’t staking any claims in this argument. Just pointing out how yours is invalid.

          I did so because it’s constructive criticism to promote better reasoning. But of course you’re too immature to receive constructive criticism, so you defensively deflect it instead.

          Edit: oh wait you’re not even the user I was speaking to…

          • I think it was an appeal to natural order, not tradition.

            One time after GPS became pretty well available a court somewhere was called upon to decide whether, now that we have this cheaply available magical system of maritime navigation, is it negligent to crash into the rocks and destroy the vessel because you were still using a sextant and navigating by the stars? I mean, that’s the way we’ve always done it. That’s an appeal to tradition.

            • GONADS125@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I disagree. It was clearly an appeal to tradition, given his specific reference to human history (traditional human hunting behavior). But the appeal to nature is also a logical fallacy anyway.

              I’m not even condemning hunting, btw. It’s necessary in some cases for healthy animal populations.

              • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                This is far past the point of mattering, but the actual thing I was targeting was the statement “seems pretty weird” by stating that in the context of human history, hunting is objectively not weird, that is to say, unusual or abnormal, at all.

                And I mean, if we’re trying to entertain logical rigor, I don’t think the original “appeal to vibes” is exactly a good start.