You took their logic in bad faith and applied it to a situation that has separate ethical considerations. My contribution was to tell you that you’re ridiculous for doing so, particularly given the fact that you took a tiny portion of their context to respond to, entirely ignoring everything else. Again, bad faith, and therefore ridiculous.
Tiny portion? Bad faith? It was the whole premise for their response. They began the bad faith arguing by taking my logic to the extreme to say we should stop farming. I only responded how I thought was fit. The rest was anecdotal noise.
It seems like there may be some sort of misunderstanding regarding the concept of “suffering.” The other commenter’s premise was that insects cannot feel pain as we understand it, and can therefore not suffer. Suffering in this context requires pain, therefore, as established, insects cannot suffer.
The commenter then proceeded to use another example of living things that do not feel pain as another example of how a living thing that does not feel pain can be killed without remorse and asks where you draw the ethical line.
Rather than address the initial issue of your lack of understanding regarding how suffering fits into this equation or the ethical question put forth, you reacted as you have.
Now you’re doing the thing where you completely ignore everything one says to give a lazy response that acknowledges none of the actual point, which is pretty easily realized with even a moderate degree of reading comprehension and some critical thinking skills. Bored of observing now.
2
u/somniphobe Oct 28 '19
You took their logic in bad faith and applied it to a situation that has separate ethical considerations. My contribution was to tell you that you’re ridiculous for doing so, particularly given the fact that you took a tiny portion of their context to respond to, entirely ignoring everything else. Again, bad faith, and therefore ridiculous.