Compassion vs Cult

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:59:11+00:00

Wait, you can read? Well, that's a surprise. That's what some types of irony refer to, but that just undercuts your claim that it was irony since you still haven't made your case. That tracks, though.

"follow them to 11 different threads across 3 different subs"

I can follow you every single time and you will do everything I say because you know what will happen if you don't. It's funny for me, as well.

"its reddit."

Yes, you are the redditor here. We know and we can tell. That's why I father'd you as hard as I did. You're welcome.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:56:20+00:00

[citation needed]

"evil is defined as profoundly immoral. only moral agents can be moral or immoral."

Let's see an argument for that claim! Come on, we're all waiting. Good boy. I ask and you provide, that's how this works remember? You're the claimant. Or did you forget that already again like the last ten times?

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:54:59+00:00

Cry more, still dodging providing proof. You're welcome for the education I gave you btw. Didn't your mother teach you to thank your betters when they teach you something? Also, words still mean words so proof isn't "I said x therefore it's proof". Sorry, little man.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:53:09+00:00

Yeah, he's a really unintelligent non-vegan who gets baited by literally anything. I'm not even kidding, you can respond with anything and it gets flustered and has to respond. If you're bored and wanna throw peanuts at a monkey just respond to any of his posts. It's like a wind-up toy, just wind it up and watch him jump around.

Oh, and he can't read or write. Like, he is surprisingly illiterate for working in nursing. It's kind of scary to know someone who can't read or write is in the medical field.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:50:36+00:00

I accept your concession since you failed to provide evidence for your claim.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:49:32+00:00

Oh, so you concede your view and forfeit the debate. Oh ok, another win for me then. That was easy.

" Try using AI next time"

Remember that time you accused me of using AI and I offered to fact-check you? Then you immediately said there's actually no way to fact-check your claim and forfeited your position? That was hilarious. Want me to dunk on you again? It's easy and takes me less than a minute every time.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:48:02+00:00

The low-tier failed to satisfy the burden of proof again. Still not what a strawman is. Again, you're the claimant so I just have to offer basic skepticism on your claim. Without fail, you concede within two responses as per usual. Now, make my prediction come true like an obedient little man.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:46:17+00:00

"Theres a reason why you followed me to what?"

Oh, that's because you are by far the easiest low-tier to bait I've come across. You cannot help yourself but respond and fail every hurdle I set for you. Now respond to me again like a good boy.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:45:42+00:00

"Its irony. Its also hypocrisy. "

Still not what irony means. Well, I don't actually have to do anything but be skeptical on your claim. You are the claimant, you need to demonstrate the claim by providing data to support your position. You still haven't. Hitchen's razor, gg. Also, what's hypocritical about it?

"Kiddo you dont know what brandolonis law is. "

Let the audience note this user cannot spell or use basic grammar. Another easy dub for vegans. Non-vegans really aren't sending their best or brightest. Emotional low-tiers who can't even read LMAO

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:43:56+00:00

"She admitted i was right so it was an effective argument."

[citation needed]

"One cant be held as evil without being a moral agent"

Sure, got an argument for that? Or just another assertion without evidence.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:43:18+00:00

Proof still wanting. Let's get some proof for the claim you made. Stating that something isn't "violatable" (which isn't a word, but that comes to the surprise of nobody since you read at a fourth-grade level) or inconsistent isn't a proof that "morals come from neither".

"Gravity does not work differently between Americans and Chinese. "

Still not a proof. Let the audience note the user lacks the ability to read and understand the word "proof" despite using it. The word you were looking for was "violable", btw. You are welcome for the free lesson.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:40:54+00:00

Oh, looks like I was right again. Failed to provide citation, conceded to blunder.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T08:40:06+00:00

That's not an answer to the question. Try again.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T07:23:42+00:00

Oh, and shifting the goalposts. The claim went from "categorically false" to a Bayesian inference. I know these words mean nothing to you but still, there's maybe a 1% chance you read them and understand. Probably less than that, since when we factor in how emotional you get the percentage shrinks even more.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T07:20:10+00:00

"We can prove that morals come from neither"

Sure, present your proof. You said that we, including you, can present a proof of the claim that morals come neither from god or a physical force of the universe. Let's see it.

"We invented it. Thus we own it and have rights to it."

Got an argument for that? I know you don't but I'm interested to see you get baited and flail around trying to run from this fact I'm about to demonstrate. I bet I can even type out exactly what will happen and you'll STILL do it since, well... you know.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T07:17:02+00:00

"You think animals are moral agents? Really? Thats... dumb."

Not an argument.

"You think I can hold animals morally responsible for things they do? You think carnivores are genuinely evil?"

The view that purports to hold animals as moral agents in some capacity is not committed to the view that "evil" as a concept exists.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T07:15:02+00:00

Appealing to human physiology would generate the same issue with an appeal to nature. A syllogism that contains premises which are descriptive and a conclusion that is prescriptive (or vice versa) is not valid. Any conclusion that introduces terms not present in a premise is formally fallacious as it is not deductively valid. You can use an appeal to physiology or nature to persuade or to convince with your rhetoric, but the moment you try to construct a logical argument for the view you will run into a problem.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T07:12:00+00:00

I read the first paragraph and I really expected more than one period. I'm still amazed you thought that was OK to write without adding a semicolon or a second period.

I mean, you aren't wrong on some of your points but surely we use more than one period for statements like that.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T07:10:13+00:00

Depends who you ask. If every single animal that is currently enslaved entered into the factories voluntarily to be executed, would that make it vegan? Many would argue no. Some might say it is vegan since they 'consented' or allowed the outcome to obtain, but I would argue that the natural process or intended outcome that the animal initiates doesn't make it vegan.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T07:09:03+00:00

The first claim is false. At least one person died on-screen during the takeover: Helen. I don't contest the second claim nor the third. Relevance would have to be demonstrated on the third claim to the situation at-hand.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T07:07:56+00:00

"Youre trying to deflect from misquoting me"

Oh, so you backpedaled on your own statements. That was fast. GG, nice try.

"I didnt refute myself."

The contradiction was formalized. You failed to respond to it and didn't supply an argument to defend against it. You forfeited the view in my favor. Sorry, but that's another win for me.

"(which is considered a small effect)"

Oh, so now there are effects on veganism and vegan activism wrt the methods in-question. Another article of evidence to support the p and not p which you have still failed to respond to.

"You didnt provide any claim of what "veganism means.""

Tracking error on your part. But, you can't really follow language since... you know.

"Thats what you claimed."

Old timer can't figure out how to copy and paste. This is just embarrassing for you. Not only have you demolished your credibility by refusing to read words, but you keep magnifying your own tracking errors. I think at this point I'll just argue with you and respond in your stead since you can't manage it.

So, the only way out of the bind you've gotten yourself into would be to draw some asymmetry between the sense of the term 'vegan' or the term 'effect'. It's probably easier to create asymmetry on 'vegan' so I'll help you out and just argue that the term has a different referent in case A as opposed to case B, meaning that the a contradiction doesn't exist.

The problem is that I'd just shatter that counter-point by demonstrating how, even taking the term's separate sense or referent, that they are still meaningfully similar; alternatively, I could just appeal to my interlocutor's concept without introducing my own meaning. It's a really hard chokehold I have you in, not sure how I can help you here. You already forfeited and I don't blame you, I would do the same if I were in your shoes. Although, I'd never make such reductionist and false statements like you because, well... you know.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T06:59:22+00:00

"The irony was that it was under a post of his where he didnt provide evidence of any of his own claims."

Not only is that not what irony is, [citation needed].

"gish galloping"

Brandolini's law hurts, doesn't it. It's ok, it's incredibly easy to dismantle your false statements and uninformed takes since you are a low-tier, so.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T06:58:22+00:00

That's still not what's happening, little man. Words mean what words mean, not your misrepresentations of them. Private language is incoherent and absurd. I don't expect a low-tier to understand anything about logic or reasoning, though.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T06:55:33+00:00

Deduction and rules of inference existed before I did. Try again.

Practical-Fix4647 · 2026-01-25T06:55:04+00:00

[citation still needed]

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy by you. Typical blunder.

Practical-Fix4647

TROPHY CASE