I proclaim Anaisa the queen of pulling arguments out of context!

Nominus feel free to correct me on this.


I have read Nominus's post and deciphered the context(in other words payed attention to what I was reading rather than just looking for an someone/something to argue with). You can't just go by the words in this case because unintelligent covers just about everything under the blue moon; thus, one must acertian the degrees through the context.


Anaisa wrote, "So if something is unintelligent, it's ok to eat it. If that's the case, it's ok to eat unintelligent people then" in reply to Nominus's, " Most livestock seem to have the brain capacity of a cucumber."

Lets do this a sentence at a time, shall we?

First Nominus and his cucumber capacity. The degree to which he is speaking of unintelligent is quite high. And he is right one quick thing that comes to mind is ALL animals except humans(and possibly dogs) lack the ability of fast mapping which is an ability that is almost symonous with intelligence. In addition there is much more than just that which as a species completely puts us in another sphere than all other animals.

Enough there, lets head on to Anaisa's sentence.

"So if something is unintelligent, it's ok to eat it."
This statement alone is quite vague(due to how broad unintelligent is); however, being in reply to Nominus as well as in how it also appears as an attempt to summarize his post I can assume that unintelligent is in the same context.

Her second sentence-

"If that's the case, it's ok to eat unintelligent people then"
Once again it can be vague(which was likely the intention in order to set up a form of really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.); however, lets look at it closely. Being in reply to Nominus(and considering she has no other context significant context) we can assume it is using the same degree of unintelligent. Which would mean just about the only humans who aren't intelligent would already be A) brain dead[which is the same as dead], B) dead or I guess there is a slight possibility of C) they had some sort of genetic malfunction that disabled the forms of intellengence that seperates humans from animals in general. Anyways in 2/3 of the cases I don't find it immoral, a bit distrubing maybe but not immoral. The last case meh, I have never heard of such a case but they would only be human in shape and not in reality if it did occur.

Of course another possibility is that Anaisa was using a different type of intelligence that what was implied in Nominus's post, in which case we can assume that the argument feel flat due to misinterpretation(whether intentional or accidental is moot to me).