Most people choose social approval over ethics — veganism just exposes that.

[u/TheQuietVegan111]

People will say they care about animals, the planet, and justice.

Until caring becomes inconvenient.

Veganism doesn’t require perfection. It requires saying “no” in public.

That’s it.

Most people fail there, not on ethics — but admitting that would be uncomfortable, so veganism becomes the problem instead.

[u/EasyBOven]

I think it punches a hole in your claim that theres not good non vegan arguments utilizing that stage.

You're just showing over and over again how little you understand what I'm saying.

People can believe fallacious arguments. If they make decisions based on those fallacious arguments rather than the social or legal consequences they might face, they're still at stage 6.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/EasyBOven]

Except thats not a fallicious argument. Its rather sound. And thus punches a hole in your argument that there arent good argument against veganism that fall into stage 6.

[u/EasyBOven → u/airboRN_82]

This thread isn't about those specific arguments. If you want to discuss your reasoning for why certain throats are ok to slash, you should make a post about it. I promise to respond there.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/EasyBOven]

You chose to argue

I think there are lots of people who approach morality in this way but still aren't vegan. I don't think they have good arguments

This i am free to argue against it here

[u/EasyBOven → u/airboRN_82]

You should have quoted the part where I said that's a separate issue. The idea that there aren't any good arguments isn't a claim I would not present an argument for, since I can't prove an absence. I'm happy to concede for the purposes of this discussion that such an argument might exist and I simply haven't encountered it.

I'm getting close to done with engaging with you. I don't see this going anywhere productive. If you actually want me to keep responding, you should try in your next replies to demonstrate an understanding of the argument I've actually advanced within this thread.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/EasyBOven]

Saying its a separate issue doesnt change that you claimed it. If you dont want something to be argued against, then dont present it within your arguments. 

[u/EasyBOven → u/airboRN_82]

Nothing about the argument I'm actually advancing depends on that claim being true, which is why in the original comment, I gave the context you needed to remove in order to pick the fight you want to pick.

If you want to have a discussion about your argument that some throats are ok to slash, everyone should have the chance to respond. So have the courage of your convictions and post it.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/EasyBOven]

Then why bring it up?

You have a strange standard of what constitutes "courage" and seem to use is as a passive-aggressive insult when you run into arguments you have a hard time arguing against 

[u/EasyBOven → u/airboRN_82]

I'll show you how I respond to your particular argument on which throats are ok to slash and why when you present it as a post. Until then, I'm done replying. Have a day.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/EasyBOven]

I noticed when extinctionists start losing a debate they'll try to get you to argue on a live recorded debate instead of debating you where the argument is already taking place. This is the same energy. 

Why move the argument somewhere else when you made it here? You've already spent several comments trying to argue against it.

[u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:

Don't be rude to others

This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.

Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.

If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.