- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Despite the fact that I keep asking, you continue to fail to offer a morally relevant distinction between the two. The factor of widespread societal approval of the former is not an especially relevant one; if it was a traditional cultural practice to mutilate cats for sport, and that was adopted and practiced on a wide scale, that would not affect its ethical status.
I don't have to address anything except what is relevant. Your attempt to bring together two completely separate issues is YOUR problem.
And yes, widespread social approval is what is relevant here. Norms of the society that this kid was raised in indicate a distinct difference between a pet and livestock for food consumption. That has everything to do with the issue here. His detachment from those norms suggests a severe lack of empathy with his fellow man, even if it doesn't have an ethical bearing on whether the cat was worthy of his empathy or not.
And before you start caterwauling about a fallacy you seem to be very confused about, let me remind you from Logic 101 that the exceptions to the argumentum ad populum fallacies are those points of discussion which innately rely on numbers or acceptance by popularity. For example, democracy, free markets, and social conventions.
Now you may continue preening and adoring your own immense brain power but I, for one, am done with your posturing and pestering.
Last edited: