It sounds like you didn’t understand Derek’s comment. With his points in mind your response sounds like:
I agree! There seems to be a utility monster problem when weighing short-term chicken welfare against moral good that has no compounding value. This is why I added the line about not being sure whether this should be weighed as a criticism of caring about short-term chicken welfare or against stopping keying strangers’ cars even if it helps you relax.
It seems to me like your argument proves too much, and Derek’s comment helps reveal that, but it doesn’t seem like this comment of yours acknowledges that despite the initial “I agree”.
It sounds like you didn’t understand Derek’s comment. With his points in mind your response sounds like:
It seems to me like your argument proves too much, and Derek’s comment helps reveal that, but it doesn’t seem like this comment of yours acknowledges that despite the initial “I agree”.