This comment chain is you defending PETA having high euthanasia statistics due to euthanizing animals they had taken from families yards and from homeless individuals. You had suggested that these euthanasias were mercy killings, and when another commenter pointed out that pets can’t be considered suffering even under the loosest definition of the word, you posed a rhetorical question in bad faith. If you actually wanted to argue that PETA’s euthanasias are only done in situations of suffering animals, you would have just said that and perhaps included a source for that claim like the initial commenter did for theirs.
I think you’re just being obtuse and pedantic for your own sake, if you’re really curious you could very easily look this information up. Please stop being like this, you don’t have to be this way. Touch grass for fucks sake, good luck out there, must be tough being an insufferable git.
Except you’re not causing anyone to question their beliefs, you’re just being intentionally obnoxious. If you wanted to provide some counter evidence to their point that would be a solid way to cause people to reconsider. As is I doubt you are being honest with your intention, even if to yourself. Maybe talk about it in therapy?
They have shelters that euthanized a high number of animals. They have also stolen animals from owners including homeless people and children.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/
Euthanasia as in mercy killing?
Your beef with PETA is that they euthanize sick animals when shelters can’t afford to?
It’s not mercy killing when the animals weren’t suffering and weren’t voluntarily given up. It’s murder for the sake of their agenda.
So PETA doesn’t euthanize sick animals?
You are arguing in bad faith
Asking for clarification is bad faith?
This comment chain is you defending PETA having high euthanasia statistics due to euthanizing animals they had taken from families yards and from homeless individuals. You had suggested that these euthanasias were mercy killings, and when another commenter pointed out that pets can’t be considered suffering even under the loosest definition of the word, you posed a rhetorical question in bad faith. If you actually wanted to argue that PETA’s euthanasias are only done in situations of suffering animals, you would have just said that and perhaps included a source for that claim like the initial commenter did for theirs.
>you think euthanizing sick animals is bad?
>PETA euthanizes more than sick animals
>you think PETA doesn’t euthanize sick animals?
There isn’t a single thing I can say to convince someone who isn’t arguing in good faith.
Am I arguing or using the Socratic method?
Have you always felt the Socratic method is bad faith, or just when you already have a strong opinion?
I think you’re just being obtuse and pedantic for your own sake, if you’re really curious you could very easily look this information up. Please stop being like this, you don’t have to be this way. Touch grass for fucks sake, good luck out there, must be tough being an insufferable git.
Maybe it is pedantic. But people should have examined beliefs. I’m sorry you are against that.
Except you’re not causing anyone to question their beliefs, you’re just being intentionally obnoxious. If you wanted to provide some counter evidence to their point that would be a solid way to cause people to reconsider. As is I doubt you are being honest with your intention, even if to yourself. Maybe talk about it in therapy?