4 ms·

Is this really the thing you want to pick and argue about? About whether it is hyperbole or not to call the stuff that is NOT the subject of this article, low q

Is this really the thing you want to pick and argue about? About whether it is hyperbole or not to call the stuff that is NOT the subject of this article, low quality? Why do you even care. They can "quality" up their meat all they want but in the end they are still a fast food chain that primarily sells buckets of meat. I don't need a citation to think that is disgusting, and if you don't then go take that argument somewhere where it's on topic. Jeez. So they're actually doing the right thing in 2019 and replacing part of their product with non-meat. I hope it goes all the way, or at least make meat be the expensive "special occasion" option.

the_seraphim 7y ago
I think that for one thing your comment could be argued in court to be libellous where you say it "could barely be called meat" for a second, you are the one who introduced the subject by making the above allegation. You made a comment and you are being rebutted. That's how civilised people operate, if you do not want to engage the rebuttal then you don't have to, but to respond with "Why do you even care." is shortsighted, it calls into question your own motives which from your second comment, are clearly tied to your own beliefs your statement "I don't need a citation to think that is disgusting" shows that you were opining in your original comment, not stating fact and therefore their rebuttal of your opinion being placed in response to your attempt to disguise opinion as fact is in fact exactly on topic "So they're actually doing the right thing in 2019 and replacing part of their product with non-meat" this points to your belief that "the right thing" is to "not eat (as much / any) meat" which is again opinion, "I hope it goes all the way" again, showing your opinion. Now this is not to say you don't have the right to say what you will, or to comment as you like, I'm just highlighting that you are making a poor argument over this and have damaged your credibility. If you were trying to convince us that the meat is poor or that the concept and production is generally a negative thing (can't say i disagree, its horrifying what people will put into their bodies on a regular basis) you have harmed your own position by not responding with counter facts, or simply acknowledging that you were only opining and guiding the conversation onto the ideological side. I hope you don't take this as a personal attack. Rather a walkthrough of your comment, and how it likely did not have the effect you wanted it to.

the_seraphim 7y ago

I think that for one thing your comment could be argued in court to be libellous where you say it "could barely be called meat" for a second, you are the one who introduced the subject by making the above allegation. You made a comment and you are being rebutted. That's how civilised people operate, if you do not want to engage the rebuttal then you don't have to, but to respond with "Why do you even care." is shortsighted, it calls into question your own motives which from your second comment, are clearly tied to your own beliefs your statement "I don't need a citation to think that is disgusting" shows that you were opining in your original comment, not stating fact and therefore their rebuttal of your opinion being placed in response to your attempt to disguise opinion as fact is in fact exactly on topic "So they're actually doing the right thing in 2019 and replacing part of their product with non-meat" this points to your belief that "the right thing" is to "not eat (as much / any) meat" which is again opinion, "I hope it goes all the way" again, showing your opinion. Now this is not to say you don't have the right to say what you will, or to comment as you like, I'm just highlighting that you are making a poor argument over this and have damaged your credibility. If you were trying to convince us that the meat is poor or that the concept and production is generally a negative thing (can't say i disagree, its horrifying what people will put into their bodies on a regular basis) you have harmed your own position by not responding with counter facts, or simply acknowledging that you were only opining and guiding the conversation onto the ideological side. I hope you don't take this as a personal attack. Rather a walkthrough of your comment, and how it likely did not have the effect you wanted it to.