This isn’t whataboutism. Whataboutism isn’t about using the words “what about”, it’s about misdirecting the conversation to a seemingly related but actually an unrelated topic in order to counter argue the point. It’s a sub-type of ad-hominem attack, a fallacy.
The person you’re responding to is directly answering why people need to eat fish (I’m not validating the claim, just explaining) with sarcastic questions starting with what about.
He’s not bringing something else to compare. You can rephrase the discussion like this:
Claim: We don’t need to eat fish. It is not necessary for humans.
Counter claim: we need to eat fish because humans need nutrients such as omega 3 fatty acids.
This is a direct dispute. The claim and counter claims have not been changed. They are both directly on topic.
Here is an example of whataboutism.
Person1: Biden says 1 + 2 = 4! Biden is wrong!
Person2: But Trump said 1 + 2 = 1000000! He’s even more wrong!
This argument does not address the claim that Biden is right or wrong. He does not talk about the problem. Person2 is misdirecting by bringing a separate person as form of counter attack. They’re both wrong. Trump being more wrong does not validate Biden’s incorrect answer. Like I said, whataboutism is a subtype of ad hominem attack.
It’s also possible person2 could’ve said: What about Trump? He said, 1 + 2 = 1000000!
It’s easy to formulate whataboutism by using the words “what about”, and it is done so commonly. That’s why it is called whataboutism. But again, what is being said is important, not how it is said.
A person3 could say: What about 3?
This is not whataboutism. He’s showing what is his side to the argument. Even if the person3 gave the wrong answer like “what about 2?” It is still not whataboutism as they are still talking about the problem rather than misdirecting.
“Whataboutism” was invented by the british to say whenever the irish talked about oppression. It was invented to oppress. It is not a fallacy, saying “Whataboutism” is.
Would you believe that I don’t want to eat just plants and pills for each meal? Would you also believe that I disagree with the industrialization of farming and the animal abuse that is so commonly paired with it.
There are humane ways to eat meat, and while they’re difficult to find, it’s a lot easier than eating what most people would consider disgusting everyday.
Animals other than humans aren’t people, that’s why it’s okay. You should be the first law enforcement official that prosecutes predatorial non-human animals
It’s shocking to me how many people don’t understand that saying “they aren’t the same species as us, so because of that we can treat them with impunity” is analogous to saying “they aren’t the same skin color as us, so because of that we can treat them with impunity”
See, now you’re actually just forcing your worldview on people. They literally are not people, they are not sentient, intelligent, nor do they have language. They are not analagous to people, and you comparing this to racism is a really shitty attempt at ad hominem.
Science disagrees with you here. Most of the animals being used for meat are in fact not just sentient, but also conscious:
Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.
Whataboutism
This isn’t whataboutism. Whataboutism isn’t about using the words “what about”, it’s about misdirecting the conversation to a seemingly related but actually an unrelated topic in order to counter argue the point. It’s a sub-type of ad-hominem attack, a fallacy.
The person you’re responding to is directly answering why people need to eat fish (I’m not validating the claim, just explaining) with sarcastic questions starting with what about.
Dude actually said “what about….”
Again, the wording is not the issue
Guy says “whatabout” and goes on to bring up something else to compare, and you’re saying it’s not a whatabout?
ROFL!
He’s not bringing something else to compare. You can rephrase the discussion like this:
Claim: We don’t need to eat fish. It is not necessary for humans.
Counter claim: we need to eat fish because humans need nutrients such as omega 3 fatty acids.
This is a direct dispute. The claim and counter claims have not been changed. They are both directly on topic.
Here is an example of whataboutism.
Person1: Biden says 1 + 2 = 4! Biden is wrong!
Person2: But Trump said 1 + 2 = 1000000! He’s even more wrong!
This argument does not address the claim that Biden is right or wrong. He does not talk about the problem. Person2 is misdirecting by bringing a separate person as form of counter attack. They’re both wrong. Trump being more wrong does not validate Biden’s incorrect answer. Like I said, whataboutism is a subtype of ad hominem attack.
It’s also possible person2 could’ve said: What about Trump? He said, 1 + 2 = 1000000!
It’s easy to formulate whataboutism by using the words “what about”, and it is done so commonly. That’s why it is called whataboutism. But again, what is being said is important, not how it is said.
A person3 could say: What about 3?
This is not whataboutism. He’s showing what is his side to the argument. Even if the person3 gave the wrong answer like “what about 2?” It is still not whataboutism as they are still talking about the problem rather than misdirecting.
Edit: Grammar
“Whataboutism” was invented by the british to say whenever the irish talked about oppression. It was invented to oppress. It is not a fallacy, saying “Whataboutism” is.
Elitism
Actual proteins you need supplements for if you go vegan
No you don’t. Literally every plant contains EVERY amino acid in varying amounts. You don’t need to supplement protein as a vegan.
Would you believe that I don’t want to eat just plants and pills for each meal? Would you also believe that I disagree with the industrialization of farming and the animal abuse that is so commonly paired with it.
There are humane ways to eat meat, and while they’re difficult to find, it’s a lot easier than eating what most people would consider disgusting everyday.
Yes you don’t want to just eat plants, hence you are eating animals for taste pleasure.
Why do you think it’s okay to kill someone for pleasure? What’s humane about that?
Man, you are gonna be real mad when you learn how conservation and wildlife management works
Ploughing fields for plants kills animals too
If everyone were vegan, only a quarter of current farmland would be needed
Yeah and having an accident with your car may also kill people. Should that count as murder? You know, since apparently intention is irrelevant.
I think it already does
Vehicular manslaughter under a variety of different names is a crime in many many maaaaannnny countries.
You should look up the definition of murder. Murder requires intent, otherwise it’s manslaughter.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
Animals other than humans aren’t people, that’s why it’s okay. You should be the first law enforcement official that prosecutes predatorial non-human animals
It’s shocking to me how many people don’t understand that saying “they aren’t the same species as us, so because of that we can treat them with impunity” is analogous to saying “they aren’t the same skin color as us, so because of that we can treat them with impunity”
See, now you’re actually just forcing your worldview on people. They literally are not people, they are not sentient, intelligent, nor do they have language. They are not analagous to people, and you comparing this to racism is a really shitty attempt at ad hominem.
Grow up.
Science disagrees with you here. Most of the animals being used for meat are in fact not just sentient, but also conscious:
– From the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
deleted by creator
Guess we can all survive on grass then. Agriculture and societies were a mistake, let’s just become cattle and chill all day /s
Or you can just eat plants that you can actually digest but that wouldn’t make for a snarky comment huh?
You said “Literally every plant”. It’s right up there.
They also said, “in varying amounts”. That would imply you need to vary your diet. But again, not useful for snark.
Sorry, I can’t stomach grass without some mayo or tomato sauce.
That is just a non sequitur.