• BlackDragon@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not only do you jump to an insane straw man.

    It wasn’t an insane strawman though? It was literally the argument they made. Something has to die for you to eat, therefore it doesn’t matter how many things you kill or how necessary those deaths are. The fact that you must kill something absolves you of any guilt for any amount of killing, is the ridiculous argument the person made (and which carnists often make) which we are making fun of for being obviously evil and wrong.

    • mildlyusedbrain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      It is - it’s a super affirmative position. It takes an extreme position within the sphere it’s trying to criticize to make an exaggerated point to attack. It’s literally a classic strawman.

      Your follow up is in the same vein. Its empty rhetoric

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s called Reductio Ad Absurdum and is a valid, classic form of argumentation. If you take their premises to their logical conclusion, the result is absurd, so their premises must be false.

        You don’t get to arbitrarily limit where a premise gets applied in order to pick and choose which conclusions to stand by. It isn’t a strawman to show that someone’s premises lead to conclusions that they would disagree with, that’s literally the point.