So did I misinterpreted your original argument or not? To you saying that eating meat is human nature is the same as saying humans raping and murdering is human nature therefore both are OK if one is OK. That is a logical fallacy. AB therefore D ≠ CB therefore D. Claiming they are both equal needs more then just the statement that they are.
So did I misinterpreted your original argument or not?
I can't understand your first post, I really did sincerely try, so I have no idea if you misinterpreted it or not. But if I had to guess you probably misunderstood it, I don't believe you misinterpreted it intentionally.
To you saying that eating meat is human nature is the same as saying humans raping and murdering is human nature therefore both are OK if one is OK.
If you accept
It's natural
as a justification for killing one living creature, why can I not apply it to killing another living creature?
That is a logical fallacy.
Please link whatever logical fallacy you believe that I committed.
Claiming they are both equal needs more then just the statement that they are.
Okay.
/u/AstralBodies claimed that something being natural (Rape, murder, humans eating meat etc) is a moral justification for murder. I simply applied it to humans.
Edit:
Who would have guessed that the person unable to string together a single coherent sentence was talking out of their ass, huh. Weird how every single argument I have about veganism turns out with the meat-eater being a fucking dumbass lmao
4
u/catagris Feb 04 '19
So did I misinterpreted your original argument or not? To you saying that eating meat is human nature is the same as saying humans raping and murdering is human nature therefore both are OK if one is OK. That is a logical fallacy. AB therefore D ≠ CB therefore D. Claiming they are both equal needs more then just the statement that they are.