2 ms·

The person you're replying to has a different opinion from yours and you seem very offended by it. It hasn't got anything to do with lockdown in London, how boo

The person you're replying to has a different opinion from yours and you seem very offended by it. It hasn't got anything to do with lockdown in London, how booked steak restaurants will be there, or how much the "emotionally intelligent people" cringe. This all feels like non sequitur or ad hominem. I eat meat with no plans to stop and I don't have a problem with the comment you're replying to.

Smithalicious 6y ago
It's funny calling this "being offended" when the original post is offended by the idea of eating meat to the point of calling it unethical. Not that there's anything wrong with being offended if you think a moral evil is happening, but it's hard to call defending yourself after being accused of evil deeds "being offended by a different opinion"
- asveikau 6y ago
  I completely understand why somebody would consider eating meat unethical. I also understand that people disagree about ethics all the time and it's often not a huge deal. I know people who feel this way about the ethics of meat and I respect them and their opinions but I don't follow their standards and I don't think they mind, I remain friends with them. You call it defending oneself but there is nothing to defend. So it struck me as "being defensive".
easytiger 6y ago
I'm not offended. I'm examining why their transparent attempt at emotional and moral manipulation is how they are approaching this issue. It's pathetic.
- asveikau 6y ago
  Again. You're attacking them. If you let them express the opinion and move on, nothing happens. But you call them a pathetic manipulator. That to me suggests disproportionate anger and a bit of paranoia. I don't think they're really trying to manipulate you so much as explaining how they feel about it.
  - easytiger 6y ago
    Such a bizzare response. I'm attacking an idea and a methodology. What's the problem with that?

Smithalicious 6y ago

It's funny calling this "being offended" when the original post is offended by the idea of eating meat to the point of calling it unethical. Not that there's anything wrong with being offended if you think a moral evil is happening, but it's hard to call defending yourself after being accused of evil deeds "being offended by a different opinion"

asveikau 6y ago
I completely understand why somebody would consider eating meat unethical. I also understand that people disagree about ethics all the time and it's often not a huge deal. I know people who feel this way about the ethics of meat and I respect them and their opinions but I don't follow their standards and I don't think they mind, I remain friends with them. You call it defending oneself but there is nothing to defend. So it struck me as "being defensive".

easytiger 6y ago

I'm not offended. I'm examining why their transparent attempt at emotional and moral manipulation is how they are approaching this issue. It's pathetic.

asveikau 6y ago
Again. You're attacking them. If you let them express the opinion and move on, nothing happens. But you call them a pathetic manipulator. That to me suggests disproportionate anger and a bit of paranoia. I don't think they're really trying to manipulate you so much as explaining how they feel about it.
- easytiger 6y ago
  Such a bizzare response. I'm attacking an idea and a methodology. What's the problem with that?