>Yes, of course there's a cost-benefit analysis for plastic, which doesn't apply to slavery.
Which totally invalidates your analogy. Slavery wasn't wrong because the cost benefit analysis came out against it, even if the cost benefit analysis was positive it would have still been wrong.
That is why the argument that you need a cost benefit analysis is valid for plastic, but not for slavery. The analogy totally falls apart at that point.
>That does not mean "abolishing plastics as a whole", as you seem to think my comments concern.
If your analogy had gelt any water it would have. If plastic use was inherently immoral global plastic abolition would be the only moral choice, as has happened with slavery, which is now near universally condemned and outright ceased to exist on much of the globe.
Why do you think userbinator was perplexed?
Instead of the slavery example, consider how a white man in the 1950s could be perplexed that another white man would want to share civil rights equally with women and blacks. After all, both white men were brought up in a system which benefited them over others - why change?
Or how a native born citizen could want to allow more immigration, when another native born citizen could be perplexed about how that can reduce the opportunities for native born citizens (eg, "they will take our jobs").
No idea. I am still perplexed why you don't seem to understand that your argument is totally invalid, since the comparison does not make sense.
My argument concerns the reasoning behind the perplexity. Since you don't understand the perplexity in the first place, you must not understand the reasoning either, which means your comments have no bearing on the topic, why is why you think I'm not making sense.