It is within the context of this conversation. Words can change their meaning depending on context and no one definition will hold true always. If you actually cared about the topic within the context of a formal debate you would have challenged the other person for asserting a claim and then asking for proof of the contrary. But you’re just a pedant.
the other person seems to have been making the same point that I am, and in pointing out that what you provided is not proof to the contrary, I am engaging in the discussion at the same level.
try not lying about whether you’re providing proof.
No they haven’t, they asserted that it is no less moral to eat meat than to be vegan. In the case that animals are sentient but plants are not, clearly eating only plants is the more moral choice. Therefore a necessary condition for their assertion is that both animals and plants are not sentient or that both are. Their call for proof that plants aren’t sentient suggests that they meant the latter.
Since they made an assertion requiring the assumption that plants are sentient and then asked for proof that they are not, my statement that they made a claim and asked proof of the contrary is correct. Which is different from the statement you made, that my proof is not actually one.
I’m not engaging with this 🤓👆-ass bullshit further. We are supposed to make these formally correct arguments in a polite and restrained manner while the bloodmouths make snide remarks and jokes, the stupidest hypotheticals imaginable and overall just be gross? Fuck that.
anyone can read what they wrote, and see that they did not claim plants are sentient. they said you can’t prove they aren’t. which is the same thing I said.
Engage with what I wrote about how their statement requires it as an assumption and dont just hide behind “thats not literally what they said”!! They required the claim as an assumption, even if they didn’t outright state it. They used it to assert that eating meat and plants is morally the same thing and dismiss my earlier point by saying that I couldn’t prove their (unstated, but necessary) assumption is incorrect.
Don’t just try to silence one side with your pedantry.
your position requires that plants aren’t sentient, but their position only requires that they cannot be proven not to be sentient. it is you who is making the assumption.
surely you are skilled enough at logic and reasoning to read what was written and see that I’m just describing the conversation above. if not, I don’t think it’s something I can explain to you.
I didn’t say what I believe. I said what you provided is not and cannot be proof that plants aren’t sentient. no such proof can exist.
It is within the context of this conversation. Words can change their meaning depending on context and no one definition will hold true always. If you actually cared about the topic within the context of a formal debate you would have challenged the other person for asserting a claim and then asking for proof of the contrary. But you’re just a pedant.
the other person seems to have been making the same point that I am, and in pointing out that what you provided is not proof to the contrary, I am engaging in the discussion at the same level.
try not lying about whether you’re providing proof.
No they haven’t, they asserted that it is no less moral to eat meat than to be vegan. In the case that animals are sentient but plants are not, clearly eating only plants is the more moral choice. Therefore a necessary condition for their assertion is that both animals and plants are not sentient or that both are. Their call for proof that plants aren’t sentient suggests that they meant the latter.
Since they made an assertion requiring the assumption that plants are sentient and then asked for proof that they are not, my statement that they made a claim and asked proof of the contrary is correct. Which is different from the statement you made, that my proof is not actually one.
I’m not engaging with this 🤓👆-ass bullshit further. We are supposed to make these formally correct arguments in a polite and restrained manner while the bloodmouths make snide remarks and jokes, the stupidest hypotheticals imaginable and overall just be gross? Fuck that.
anyone can read what they wrote, and see that they did not claim plants are sentient. they said you can’t prove they aren’t. which is the same thing I said.
Engage with what I wrote about how their statement requires it as an assumption and dont just hide behind “thats not literally what they said”!! They required the claim as an assumption, even if they didn’t outright state it. They used it to assert that eating meat and plants is morally the same thing and dismiss my earlier point by saying that I couldn’t prove their (unstated, but necessary) assumption is incorrect.
Don’t just try to silence one side with your pedantry.
your position requires that plants aren’t sentient, but their position only requires that they cannot be proven not to be sentient. it is you who is making the assumption.
How so?
surely you are skilled enough at logic and reasoning to read what was written and see that I’m just describing the conversation above. if not, I don’t think it’s something I can explain to you.