logic FAIL

I read a post on an anti-BSL string on Facebook, the author argued that wearing faux fur is no better than wearing real fur, except there's no cruelty, because it still looks like fur and thus promotes the idea that it's ok to wear fur.  That's hands down the stupidest argument I've ever read in my life.

To say that faux fur is just like fur "except for the cruelty", well that's a BIG exception to most of us. If we apply this logic to BSL, one could argue that owning a pitbull is the same as owning a fighting dog, "except for the cruelty", because pitbulls look like fighting dogs thus owning a pitbull promotes dog fighting. FAIL.

Say we stick to applying that logic to consumer products rather than companion animals.  One could argue that eating meat substitutes like veggie chilli or veggie burgers is the same as eating chilli with ground beef, or beef hamburgers, "except for the cruelty", because it looks like meat and is used in place of meat thus vegetarian meals promote eating meat. FAIL.

I'm all for people having different philosophies and convictions but before publicly bitchslaping someone by claiming that his or her choice or position is unethical, which this poster did to another poster, make a sensible argument, ok?