Quote:
Quote by: kubedawg  This is why we need to develop better treatment of the animals before they are killed. In fact, I know someone who works at a slaughterhouse and I've been there, and seen the process, and it's not at all how you described. Only a few are like how you described, at least all except poultry. ... What I see in those videos is propaganda for the most part. |
Slaughterhouses have one of the highest, if not THE highest worker turnover rate of all industries. It comes close to 90%. The work clearly gets to them.
Furthermore, slaughterhouses do not open their doors for the general public to see what is going on at their plants. If they have nothing to hide, why not let at least allow AWists in to monitor how the animals are killed?
Again, testimonials are weak support and no proof at all in debate.
Quote by: StrongHeartsWin
You are still using what is known as the "appeal to ignornance" argument
Huh? Where? Point it out.
Quote:
|
If scientists proved how plants can feel, and can suffer, then your appeal would be to ignorance all along,...
|
Obviously Kubedawg, you are unaware as to what is meant by the "appeal to ignorance" argument or HOW IT IS attributed to the user. It is not or never is meant to be based on the future "if" and "then" construct and made to be hindsight.
It would be nice if the other mature debaters here could point this out to Kubedawg.
Quote:
|
Therefore, both our sides are known as the "appeal to ignorance" ...
|
No, they are not. Yours is. If the "appeal to ignorance" were so loosely defined as you do, then every argument would be an appeal to ignorance because you are applying it to possibilities that may be proven in the future and then look back on an issue with hindsight. That is not an appeal to ignorance.