@chaos_loupgarou@fluffypawsz St. Cyril of Alexandria already refuted this pagan accusation. You’re relying on a modern definition of cannibalism. We don’t eat the flesh of some guy because there is no human hypostasis in Christ. We eat the deified flesh of the second person of the Godhead
@Newt13C@MolonLabeIII@EndWokeness Calling people whiny when you can’t even construct a sentence without an insult. Typically the first sign of midwittery. I question if going into any philosophical analysis with you is worth it
@_AmethystMoon@Pope_Ebik_I@creamig1 @xXHadesUndeadXx @beyoncegarden @FreedumStoopid You’re now shifting the conversation about my position when really all I’ve been doing is pointing out a basic fallacy. If you want to concede the fallacy to move on that’s fine but your issue is that you’re conflating an internal critique with a positive claim
@_AmethystMoon@Pope_Ebik_I@creamig1 @xXHadesUndeadXx @beyoncegarden @FreedumStoopid You’re just presupposing anthropocentrism and the principle of consent as axioms. Neither of those are evident on naturalism. Maybe the animals have it right, maybe them not having a MeToo movement is the correct position. You need to justify those axioms
@_AmethystMoon @xXHadesUndeadXx @beyoncegarden @FreedumStoopid Natural facts gives us mere descriptions, it tells us nothing about normativity or metaethics
@_AmethystMoon @xXHadesUndeadXx @beyoncegarden @FreedumStoopid My fellow Dyerite is simply pointing out that an appeal to nature is a fallacy. There is nothing about natural facts that tells about what is good, acceptable, or what ought to be the case
@StellarFox16@aidannonX@sarahcstock If you’re engaging in arguments, then you’re engaging in philosophy. And if you’re familiar with philosophy you would know there is a distinction between knowing concepts and content. The latter will always lose, the Dr is that example
@Prolife_Sam@sarahcstock Someone in her academic route can go all the way through it without taking a single advanced class in philosophy, math, or stats