Big horse-fucking discourse, apparently. Vegan debate nerds demand formal logical proofs before accepting that horse-fucking is bad.

Abolish debate club.

Unpictured (note: this person is a lib): Never thought I'd live to see the day where some lefties would be making biological essentialist arguments in regards to veganism.

Tweets in image:

https://twitter.com/OMN1SAM/status/1402853387339812864?s=19

https://twitter.com/OMN1SAM/status/1402858057290354688?s=19

https://twitter.com/OMN1SAM/status/1402858260630212609?s=19

Their first foray, before they corncobbed live on the TL: https://twitter.com/OMN1SAM/status/1402665321073315840?s=19

Where it began; or, horse-fucker zero: https://twitter.com/ChadNotChud/status/1402010588318928902?s=19

I discovered this just now and it brightened my morning and I wanted to share. It's rare to see such a pure little meltdown in the wild like this, especially after May!

  • Knoll [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Yeah and the correct answer is obviously that it's wrong to fuck horses, that's the entire point, do you not get that?

    • MazovianThought [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      They keep interrogating exactly that obviously correct answer, which is what I'm making fun of.

      It's a weird argument to choose to make, in a universe of so many other arguments, one could simply not make the horse fucking argument.

      • Knoll [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        They're trying to do the Socratic method by imploring people to examine why they're against one but not the other, hoping to make them realize that they hold contradictory values and thus nudging them towards veganism.

        It can be an effective argument, but of course this is Twitter so any interaction is going to turn to shit because the platform is inherently hostile to productive discussions.

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          But it's not going to be an effective argument because it goes straight for the jugular that eating meat is morally equivalent to horse fucking. Most people are going to be instantly pissed off and leave the conversation, or get angry and leave a shitty reply.

          It's the same shit edgy internet atheists do by instantly saying that religious people worship a genocidal monster or whatever. It's not a good argument. These people also say they're using the socratic method to cover for being an asshole. Not every edgy internet argument or equivalence is "the socratic method"

          • MarxMadness [comrade/them]
            ·
            3 years ago

            These are good points to remember. No one cares about how technically correct your argument is -- if it sounds silly, invites ridicule, or even just annoys your target audience, you aren't going to accomplish very much.

            • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              3 years ago

              Yeah pretty much. If they're just doing this to get a cheap dunk on meat eaters, have it at it. We do that type of thing on here all the time, making fun of libs and chuds in absurd ways. It's funny, it's cool. But if anyone thinks that this is going to actually be a convincing argument, it's not. No one will take you seriously like this.

          • Knoll [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            I agree with that, debate club sucks because it frames a discussion as a game one can win, instead of a tool one uses to achieve understanding.

            • MazovianThought [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              Bullying lib internet debate nerds is cool and good and it's a great pastime here from way back, if anyone gets upset because it's their debate nerds getting made fun of, that's their problem lol