You make some pretty stupid assumptions out of nowhere and expect me to explain them to you ?Freshman said:Where did you say that? If that wasn't your point, what was?Breadzombie said:Where did I say that ?Freshman said:Wow.
1st bread guy, you can't say that because something happens a lot that it is morally respectable. thats a fallacy. I think its a fallacy of frequency or something like that.
2nd Dragon guy, you used the same fallacy that he did to attack his argument. you can't do that. Cant remember what kind of fallacy that is; I think it is one of false premise or maybe inference.
3rd bread guy again. To counter his argument, you attacked his character, bringing up ambiguity about whether or not he cares about other people. That's a fallacy of irrelevance, you cant do that either. however, the point about comparing the life of an animal to that of a human is semi-valid.
You seem to be under the impression that this is a debate with established rules of some sort.It is not.
Ah yes, excuse me for expecting people to make sense. if there are no rules, I guess calling you a stupid head is a legitimate argument. see how that doesn't exactly work?
Do you even know what "morally respectable" means ? I meant that it is something that society has gotten used to, in the same sense that it has gotten used to car crashes for example.It can totally be avoided, by fallowing some simple rules ,but some jerk steps on the gas and voala - 4 died in a car accident, more on that on the 22:00 news.It would have been shocking if the kid raped the dog or ate it's brain or some shit like that, but it didn't.
I really don't want to touch on the "debate" part, simply because there is no point and I don't really care what you think a debate should be, where there is non).