Comment · Wed, May 2, 2012
Just an abused elephant killing people.
What they were answering
natalie2k8 · 1 points
I did not need to "binding moral implications" to your statements, they already had such implications because of the way they were stated. If I said "you're stupid," your interpretation that I find myself to be intellectually superior to you would not be subjective.
However, lets look at this another way. If you really don't feel as strongly about animal abuse as you implied and it's really just a preference, then you are weaker and stupider than I originally thought. Allowing a moral obligation to take precedence over the life of your loved ones is bad enough, but if it's only a preference then it would appear that you're not only stupid and weak but also selfish. How could you let your little preference come before the lives of the ones you love? That would be like me letting my family die because I refused to wear the color purple.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb
You are arguing semantics. I could call you stupid, while also considering myself stupid. The two are not mutually exclusive. Again, the implication is subjective.
You are assuming that there are only two options. The "weak" way out would be to accept that and go against your moral judgement. The "strong" thing to do would be to figure out another way, no matter how difficult that may be. Now this last statement can be seen as implying moral superiority. My original post does not.