Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>>>I thought my statement was killing animals is mostly
>>>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is your statement, and it's bullshit. It cannot
>>>>>>be the case. Killing animals either is wrong, or it
>>>>>>isn't wrong. It can't be "mostly" wrong. "wrong"
>>>>>>doesn't equate to "bad", although wrong IS bad. "Bad"
>>>>>>has a scale; "wrong" does not. "wrong" is binary:
>>>>>>something is wrong, or it is not wrong. It cannot be
>>>>>>"mostly" wrong; the very concept is sheer nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If it's my statement, then it's not bullshit to me.
>>>>
>>>>It IS bullshit. It is absurd.
>>>
>>>
>>>You can find it absurd all you like.
>>
>>It IS absurd. It is plainly absurd, because "wrong" is
>>binary: on or off, yes or no, wrong or not wrong.
>>There are no degrees.
>
>
> This whole argument is absurd!

By now it is, because you are not amenable to reason.
I demonstrate that your childlike beliefs lead to
logical absurdities, and you simply babble them anew.

>
>
>>>>>>>Um, hate to tell you again and again, but I believe
>>>>>>>that killing animals is mostly wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You do not. You CANNOT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>But I do.
>>>>
>>>>No, you WANT to have it that way, but you can't.
>>>
>>>
>>>But I already do.
>>
>>No, you want to have it that way. You can't.