One of the worst tools in the debating playbook is the "I'd like to think we all" or "Surely all of us can" arguments. It is attempting to set up the other person as being unreasonable if they take a contrary position. But people can disagree legitimately without their position being unreasonable.
"I'd like to think" was meant quite literally as an expression of hope. I really would expect everyone, including the most ardent of carnivores, to recognise the special responsibility we have not to waste the flesh of animals, and it surprises and disappoints me that this doesn't appear to be the case.
"Surely all of us can" was said of something that any and every sensible person should be able to agree with. To argue that less waste isn't a good thing is to be unreasonable (I'm not saying you or anyone else here is doing that).
Last edited: