debate

elohan, ill explain the golden rule the golden rule is to treat others as you want to be treated can you tell me why animals do not deserve the same moral consideration we give humans? i'll ask you not strawman me and maybe read some of my points above, but id be happy to have a formal debate its really a very interesting topic that im pretty confident on and this is to everyone, this thread isnt to post your opinion on veganism and peace, its for formal debates so please approach me with a formal debate on the topic of ethics relevant to veganism and we can discuss it properly

Right and wrong depends on the collective ideals of the place you are in and your own moral compass. Animals are not humans and I am not going to treat them like humans. With that said, I do love animals but when they die, I don't feel the same way I do when people die.

ok so your appealing to species so if aliens came to earth and were as intelligent as us, we could slaughter them and its totally morally justified because they arent humans?

@kiddo i mean, this is on the nutrition debate, and again, i beg of you just ask me for a proper debate and then say your piece this isnt a vegan Q&A, so ill answer you if you want to have a real debate

1. Depends if they "wanna be starting somethin~" 2. If they have a high capacity to understand suffering, it would be that much more wrong. 3. As I said before, right and wrong are relative to the individual and the universal consensus. 4. People aren't slaughtering animals for NO reason. They are doing it for food and have been doing it since the birth of the human race. 5. Can animals really understand right and wrong outside of instinctual response? Can they ponder such a deep and philosophical constant?

alright 1. the question was cut and dry, its really a yes or no 2. so now its not species but greater cognitive understanding? so killing and eating retarded people or people in vegetated states? a lot of animals show higher cognitive functioning like that to a human, like marine mammals and certain birds, and even pigs and cows 3. so slavery was justified because the general consensus was its alright? tbh im not really totally confident in this part of the debate, so i cant say much on this 4. we dont need to eat meat to survive and be healthy, so the only reason is taste pleasure 5. there was a study where rats would save another rat, forgoing a chocolate to rescue its drowning counterpart, and why does the ability to comprehend philosophical have to do with moral consideration? retarded people and generally people with low iq cant dabble in that, should they forgo moral consideration?

1. I do not deal in absolutes, cut or dry. 2. Canabilism has negative side effects so I don't think that would be a good idea. As for the higher functioning mamals, the more it can understand the more painful the experience is, so yes i'd feel worse for it. 3. Slavery was ok, until it wasn't. The suffering of the people was understood and abolished. 4. A lot of people don't want to eat none meat diets. Depriving yourself of what you truely want is a type of suffering in itself. You are tell people to do something for the rest of their, that they don't want to do. Isn't that wrong too? 5. You wanna know how invalid that awnser is? Watch this experiment. Its insanely fascinating. https://youtu.be/NgGLFozNM2o

lamby if you are going to ask people to not strawman you then you should follow your own advice and stop doing the same thing lmao