4 ms·

This is specious logic. You're saying that anything up to, but not including, getting eaten alive is ok because "it could always be worse."

• PeCaN 10y ago
  I suspect your parent's point was that saying putting tattoos on pigs is "disgusting and shameful" is a little odd, given that animals eat each other all the time (which is presumably not disgusting nor shameful).
  • pyre 10y ago
    The logic doesn't work because the two acts are not necessarily equal. Let's take another example: Would you equate the following items? - Torturing an animal to death for fun. - Killing an animal quickly and eating it. They both end up with the animal being dead. Does that mean that they are equal and that you can't find one "disgusting and shameful" but not the other?
    • vacri 10y ago
      I wouldn't equate those two, no. But it's also worth mentioning that it's common in the natural world for prey to spend hours dying (and more rarely, days or even weeks). The idea that a 'natural predator' death means a quick death is a myth. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
      • pyre 10y ago
        Using that as an excuse for (or in defence of) your own actions is akin to saying "he's doing it, so why can't I?" though.
        • CydeWeys 10y ago
          The point is that you keep making leaps of logic in order to knock down strawmen, rather than addressing the actual substantive arguments at play. My point is that a pig in captivity that is treated well and protected from predators, oh and that happens to get tattoo or two, is still doing better than a pig out in the wild, which is subject to much worse things happening to it. The pigs in captivity even get health care!
• Chris2048 10y ago
  It's only specious if your interpretation is correct. > Getting a tattoo isn't even close to the worst thing that can happen Isn't the same as "it's ok"; or "anything up to" (the distance is mentioned, implying it might be relevant to context).
  • pyre 10y ago
    I'm not sure you would find anyone in agreement of a defence of the Iraq War that was along the lines of "It could be worse, just look at the Holocaust!" Pointing to something else and saying "it could be worse" isn't a defence of the actions in question. It's something along the lines of "passing the buck."
    • Chris2048 10y ago
      It sounds like you are reducing OP to a binary, with us or without us - on the attack or or the defense. This is the discourse of binary politics, and that's why there is no nuance to discussions of the Iraq war.