• LadyStalin [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t see a single person defending that at all, even the banned dude.

    So intention means nothing? You have jumped from vulgar ideology to vulgar materialism.

    These are extremely online arguments. And using parallels that just don’t match. Again, find an argument worth having.

        • Sephitard9001 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m asking you what the fuck you’re talking about. You keep saying “these arguments are online, this parallel doesn’t match, this is vulgar materialism and vulgar idealism” but you never offer an argument or explanation why. Just vaguely gesturing that you disagree with what’s being said. From the very first response where I asked if it would be suddenly wrong to consume a steak only if it sexually gratified you, to which you simply said “This makes no sense”. But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don’t want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.

          For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain

          • LadyStalin [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain

            No, a real position is just a ban, especially if it doesn’t match vulgar ideology like the ones shown in these comments.

            But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don’t want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.

            It literally doesn’t make sense. The example you just randomly magikked into existence to mock didn’t even reflect a real situation. Farmers do not get sexual gratification from their work, they slaughter and move on. Its a malformation of an argument designed to do nothing but bring moral scorn upon the subject.

            I do not want to truly engage with an entity that has the opinion that people are one step from having sexual intercourse with animals because they eat thanksgiving turkey. Most people either don’t care or don’t think about where it comes from. Educate them there, don’t make up some ‘moral’ nonsense to browbeat them over. This isn’t class, this isn’t marxism, this is veganism. An important matter but far less so than others of gender, sexual, and worker liberation.

        • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Registered a few hours after CatradoraStalinism was banned

          “Stalin” in username

          Arguing in the same thread Catradora was arguing in, on the same side

          sus