Quote Originally Posted by Raistlin View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Anaisa
It's logical, you just don't understand it. If you believe that nobody is morally superior to anyone else regardless of what they eat, then to say that you're morally superior to a human that eats another human, because you don't eat other humans, would be a total contradiction.
Yes, but nobody is actually saying that, so this is a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. The obvious implication in the assertion made by Yamaneko and Chemical is that choices between what we <i>currently</i> have as sources for food are not inherently morally superior/inferior to any other choices in that category. Drawing an absurd, extreme conclusion from a point in order to justify another point is a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. logical fallacy.
It's not a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking., nor a logical fallacy. Somebody else not being capable of understanding the logic behind it, doesn't make it a logical fallacy. It's a clear comparison. An I didn't say that's what was said, I said if that's what you believe. An it clearly is what they believe. If they don't, then fine, their point stands. But if they do, it's as I've said, hypocritical.