I never accused you of doing so, and my argument does not depend on you doing so.
Someone said:
Remember, I didn’t say “Just any article about idiots feeding their kids garbage.” I mean specifically an article, in a non-vegan-centric publication, which specifically puts the bad parents’ omnivorousness on blast in the headline the same way this one thinks ‘vegan’ is worth noting.
The very first part of your reply:
Mmhm. Sorry, but no. Why?
Reads a whole lot like talking down to someone. Sorry if I misread you there, but this looks like a signal for: “you are being an idiot”. I.e. “talking down to someone”.
“Understandable in a given context” is a justification. You are justifying a bad behavior – which is having a double standard with regards to veganism vs. non-veganism – and I am objecting to you doing so. (I didn’t say you said or implied schadenfreude was a good thing. Since you admit to trying to justify it, it seems perfectly relevant to me to emphasize that schadenfreude is bad – with the implication that maybe we shouldn’t go around looking for justifications for it.)
It’s somewhat ironic that given your stated intention of explaining why schadenfreude is justified, you seem to ignore the fact that my response is a similar justification of defensiveness on the part of vegans. The fact that you can’t acknowledge that I have a point only reinforces the fact that you are employing a double standard, holding vegans to a higher standard of behavior than you hold non-vegans.
I said as much.
I fail to see how, though as I explained above, you’ve nicely proven mine.
Note: I should probably mention that I’m not a vegan. Accusing me of being “defensive” isn’t really going to fly.
