The Socratic method involves asking questions to lead on discussion and participation. You’re trying to discourage discussion by putting contributors on the defensive with an ad hominem disguised as a (loaded) question.
,If you can’t answer questions that make you uncomfortable to answer, that’s something you should reflect on.
Again, you’re attacking the other person instead of their argument.
It doesn’t make your point any stronger. It makes people unfamiliar with debates defensive from being personally attacked, and it makes those familiar with debates realize that they’re wasting their time.
Lol, I think you forgot to sign into the other account because this chain is me talking to your pivot account.
But, no, I am not attacking you. i am merely pointing out that you have a formed opinion without being able to answer incredibly simple questions about your stance.
You know that “the other person” can be used in a general sense, right?
Aside, why would I engage in an ernest discussion with someone who doesn’t appear willing to accept that the other person in the discussion holds any stance different than the one they are perceived as having.
It would be a waste of my time to take this seriously, and I’m already having fun playing fallacy bingo.
You haven’t answered any questions though. How many pets taken and euthanized the same day would be acceptable to you? How many animals that are adoptable, not ill, don’t have behavioral problems, and aren’t elderly should they be allowed to euthanize? Should they have to retract their ad campaign that ran for years claiming a link between autism and milk or should they be able to quietly redirect it and not confront it because the “science” was almost as laughable as the link between vaccines and autism?
You’ll willingly answer, so I am eagerly awaiting answers rather than redirecting or trying to be the Glen Beck of PETA by JAQing off (I’m just asking questions!).
Ah, so you’re not willing to answer questions. I don’t engage with lying pieces of shit. If you had, you could have changed hearts and minds. Instead you’re as worthless as PETA.
I think you’re just being obtuse and pedantic for your own sake, if you’re really curious you could very easily look this information up. Please stop being like this, you don’t have to be this way. Touch grass for fucks sake, good luck out there, must be tough being an insufferable git.
Except you’re not causing anyone to question their beliefs, you’re just being intentionally obnoxious. If you wanted to provide some counter evidence to their point that would be a solid way to cause people to reconsider. As is I doubt you are being honest with your intention, even if to yourself. Maybe talk about it in therapy?
No, it’s actually more your general tone and lack of desire to actually put forth any stance of your own that I find obnoxious, but go off bud. Hope you’re enjoying yourself, what a way to spend an afternoon, just responding to dozens of people being as annoying as you possibly can. You can deny it obviously, but I do genuinely hope you find better ways of spending your time.
This comment chain is you defending PETA having high euthanasia statistics due to euthanizing animals they had taken from families yards and from homeless individuals. You had suggested that these euthanasias were mercy killings, and when another commenter pointed out that pets can’t be considered suffering even under the loosest definition of the word, you posed a rhetorical question in bad faith. If you actually wanted to argue that PETA’s euthanasias are only done in situations of suffering animals, you would have just said that and perhaps included a source for that claim like the initial commenter did for theirs.
It’s not mercy killing when the animals weren’t suffering and weren’t voluntarily given up. It’s murder for the sake of their agenda.
So PETA doesn’t euthanize sick animals?
>you think euthanizing sick animals is bad?
>PETA euthanizes more than sick animals
>you think PETA doesn’t euthanize sick animals?
There isn’t a single thing I can say to convince someone who isn’t arguing in good faith.
Am I arguing or using the Socratic method?
Have you always felt the Socratic method is bad faith, or just when you already have a strong opinion?
The Socratic method involves asking questions to lead on discussion and participation. You’re trying to discourage discussion by putting contributors on the defensive with an ad hominem disguised as a (loaded) question.
So, in fact, you’re doing neither.
Nobody is forcing you to be in this conversation, or be on the defensive.
If you can’t answer questions that make you uncomfortable to answer, that’s something you should reflect on.
I am willing to answer any questions you may have of me.
Again, you’re attacking the other person instead of their argument.
It doesn’t make your point any stronger. It makes people unfamiliar with debates defensive from being personally attacked, and it makes those familiar with debates realize that they’re wasting their time.
Attacking the other person?
Lol, I think you forgot to sign into the other account because this chain is me talking to your pivot account.
But, no, I am not attacking you. i am merely pointing out that you have a formed opinion without being able to answer incredibly simple questions about your stance.
You know that “the other person” can be used in a general sense, right?
Aside, why would I engage in an ernest discussion with someone who doesn’t appear willing to accept that the other person in the discussion holds any stance different than the one they are perceived as having.
It would be a waste of my time to take this seriously, and I’m already having fun playing fallacy bingo.
You haven’t answered any questions though. How many pets taken and euthanized the same day would be acceptable to you? How many animals that are adoptable, not ill, don’t have behavioral problems, and aren’t elderly should they be allowed to euthanize? Should they have to retract their ad campaign that ran for years claiming a link between autism and milk or should they be able to quietly redirect it and not confront it because the “science” was almost as laughable as the link between vaccines and autism?
You’ll willingly answer, so I am eagerly awaiting answers rather than redirecting or trying to be the Glen Beck of PETA by JAQing off (I’m just asking questions!).
How many healthy pets do they actually euthanize?
Is this something they are regularly doing, or is there one or two cases?
Ah, so you’re not willing to answer questions. I don’t engage with lying pieces of shit. If you had, you could have changed hearts and minds. Instead you’re as worthless as PETA.
I think you’re just being obtuse and pedantic for your own sake, if you’re really curious you could very easily look this information up. Please stop being like this, you don’t have to be this way. Touch grass for fucks sake, good luck out there, must be tough being an insufferable git.
Maybe it is pedantic. But people should have examined beliefs. I’m sorry you are against that.
Except you’re not causing anyone to question their beliefs, you’re just being intentionally obnoxious. If you wanted to provide some counter evidence to their point that would be a solid way to cause people to reconsider. As is I doubt you are being honest with your intention, even if to yourself. Maybe talk about it in therapy?
Asking for clarification is obnoxious?
Do you always believe that, or just when the meat industry and the information found on their websites is being questioned?
No, it’s actually more your general tone and lack of desire to actually put forth any stance of your own that I find obnoxious, but go off bud. Hope you’re enjoying yourself, what a way to spend an afternoon, just responding to dozens of people being as annoying as you possibly can. You can deny it obviously, but I do genuinely hope you find better ways of spending your time.
Aww shit, we got one of those master debaters.
You are arguing in bad faith
Asking for clarification is bad faith?
This comment chain is you defending PETA having high euthanasia statistics due to euthanizing animals they had taken from families yards and from homeless individuals. You had suggested that these euthanasias were mercy killings, and when another commenter pointed out that pets can’t be considered suffering even under the loosest definition of the word, you posed a rhetorical question in bad faith. If you actually wanted to argue that PETA’s euthanasias are only done in situations of suffering animals, you would have just said that and perhaps included a source for that claim like the initial commenter did for theirs.
What percentage of euthanasia is from kidnapped pets and not sick and dying animals?
If you want to make the claim that PETA’s behavior to people’s pets is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, the burden of proof is on you.
I haven’t made any claims, i am just asking for the factual information regarding other people’s claims.
You are the only one who has said anything related to sick animals.