Hacker News Reader

Comment by easytiger | Hacker News Reader

> is they require no violence against animals.

And you wonder why people can't take absolutists seriously. The marketing power of the moral superiority concept is no new thing. Pivoting the crux of success of your ideology around an incredibly poor burger filling makes no sense either.

In the UK restaurants are being allowed to reopen in 10 days. In London there are an incredible density of steak restaurants which happen to already be booked out completely.

I think your appeal to squeamishness around slaughtering animals will feel entirely cringeworthy to most emotionally intelligent persons.

View on HN

The person you're replying to has a different opinion from yours and you seem very offended by it. It hasn't got anything to do with lockdown in London, how booked steak restaurants will be there, or how much the "emotionally intelligent people" cringe. This all feels like non sequitur or ad hominem.

I eat meat with no plans to stop and I don't have a problem with the comment you're replying to.

It's funny calling this "being offended" when the original post is offended by the idea of eating meat to the point of calling it unethical.

Not that there's anything wrong with being offended if you think a moral evil is happening, but it's hard to call defending yourself after being accused of evil deeds "being offended by a different opinion"

I completely understand why somebody would consider eating meat unethical. I also understand that people disagree about ethics all the time and it's often not a huge deal.

I know people who feel this way about the ethics of meat and I respect them and their opinions but I don't follow their standards and I don't think they mind, I remain friends with them.

You call it defending oneself but there is nothing to defend. So it struck me as "being defensive".

I'm not offended. I'm examining why their transparent attempt at emotional and moral manipulation is how they are approaching this issue. It's pathetic.

Again. You're attacking them. If you let them express the opinion and move on, nothing happens. But you call them a pathetic manipulator. That to me suggests disproportionate anger and a bit of paranoia. I don't think they're really trying to manipulate you so much as explaining how they feel about it.

Such a bizzare response. I'm attacking an idea and a methodology. What's the problem with that?

It is not squeamishness. I have killed animals for food with my own hands and being part of people killed in war. I would like to not do it when I have the opportunity.

The parent comment explicitly and clearly attempts to use an emotionally designed device leveraging people's presumed distaste for distressing animals. An errant assumption.

I have killed animals for food with my own hands and don't mind the process. Worst, I prefer a 1000x killing my own food rather than buying highly pre-processed industrial food of dubious quality (and manufacturing process).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com