(10-01-2014, 02:27 PM)Unbound Wrote:(10-01-2014, 12:39 PM)Monica Wrote:(10-01-2014, 02:16 AM)Unbound Wrote: So everyone who eats meat knowing suffering occurs has self-serving intentions, and you know this for sure? (Since you seem to blanket everyone with the same assumptions, even though you also stated you can't know the intentions and motivations of another.)
You are confusing blanketing people's intentions with an action being inherently STS.
What do you think? Do you think that knowingly, unnecessarily supporting cruelty is STS, STO, or neutral?
I thought it was clearly stated that the polarity of any particular action in itself can't be determined? Yet here you are insisting that this particular action is, in itself, always, ever, polarizing STS. I simply don't agree with this interpretation, so your next question is convoluted. It is purely your own interpretation that says it is "inherently" STS. (That just sounds ridiculous to me.)
Nope, I never said that at all. Saying that an action is inherently STS isn't the same as saying that it is in itself, always, ever, polarizing STS. That would be true if I had said "Eating animals is always STS" but I never said that, and in fact went out of my way to clarify that. I'm not talking about a particular action by itself. Apparently you missed the qualifiers I added to the action:
knowingly, unnecessarily
(10-01-2014, 02:21 PM)isis Wrote: GREAT REPLY!!!!!!!

(10-01-2014, 02:27 PM)Unbound Wrote: I think this whole argument is convoluted because it is so entirely black and white in its approach.
Which is it? Convoluted or black and white? It can't be both.
