debate

Lamby my dear. You’re debating moral consideration to a comment that I clearly stated morals don’t fit into. The only social contract you might have with an animal, is with a pet. And you don’t eat your pets. Also we aren’t agruing the morality mudering your own species. And obligate omnivore? Really? Do we really need proof humans are omnivores? Whether you question whether it’s obligatory or not, it’s a simple fact.

ill add to the statement how should an anime be treated before you kill it? whats acceptable enough to justify killing a sentient creature for pure taste pleasure? and why doesnt it justify killing a human as well?

no wes, actually its to disprove that social contract should not be used as a means to meaninglessly kill animals you wouldnt slaughter these people for sport because of the lack of social contract, why are animals different? yes wes i need proof because i have proof that humans are perfectly healthy on 0 meat diets so its only fair you show your evidence, that isnt "its simply fact" ill add that i said "obligate" omnivore, which means we have to eat an omnivorous diet to live a healthy life wes this is what morals come into what gives a human moral consideration that an animal doesnt fit into?

Its pretty hard to have a good legitimate debate when the debate is confined to "feelings" "ethics" and a specific subset of an issue. Feelings and morals are tough to debate to begin with as feelings are widely accepted to be susceptible to irrational conclusions. Itd be really easy to "win" by setting a (very) restrictive playing field. For example I can say I want to debate guns but only American data is valid (no international data), or suicides are not allowed to be counted in a gun death total (without a logic or argument as to why). When you leave out other critical and real aspects (particularly praticality) even if one does "win" so fucking what. Is winning a purely theoretical narrowly focused debate really a victory?

@lamby Why is it “meaningless” killing animals? I see reason in it, even if you don’t agree with it. Also, I wasn’t using social contracts as an argument. (That was you) So what’s point of disproving a point I never made? Also why do I need to prove something that has been a historical fact since before the written word? Though I’ve yet to see actual proof that a vegan diet is healthy for everyone, let alone the most healthy. In fact, nutritional deficiencies have been repeatedly argued by people with far greater nutritional knowledge than either of us. Further more still, the ability to participate in a vegan diet is a luxury afforded to wealthy nations. You need manufactured supplements to resolve nutrition problems that simply aren’t naturally available. And they aren’t readily accessible in second or third world countries. Wouldn’t that fact alone prove that humanity is in fact omnivores out of necessity. You’re bringing animals to humanities level. I’m doing the opposite. Simply eating meat isn’t immoral. Not for the animals themselves, nor us. How big industrials treats animals is another thing entirely. You’ll win that ethical argument every time. But arguing the morality of killing people vs animals. We kill each other too. Even in morally justifiable ways. That’s not a good argument. Humanity has the potential to think and act AGAINST our nature and make moral decisions. But humanity isn’t a moral creature. Morality is taught, and exist arguably because we created it to increase our own odds of surviving and flourishing, so not to constantly destroy ourselves and our societies fighting amongst each other. Same with slavery, which you brought into the discussion. It was created out of necessity. Too much labor was needed and the funds were too limited to simply pay for it all. Any claim to racial superiority was BS justification to bend morality to match their necessity. Which goes to show morality is subjective and evolving to match people’s convenances and beliefs at the time. Morality is trumped by necessity. And so the morality and ethics you’re clinging to are also arguably luxuries not everyone have. I definitely agree with you about corporate raised live stock. Your heart is in the right place. How we treat animals is definitely a moral debate, but simply eating meat is not. No animal, humanity included, respects another animals right to life when it’s own hunger and survival comes into play. Pure taste pleasure? Granted in our society we now have the luxury of picking what we feel like eating. But that doesn’t change the fact that we still have a necessity to eat, or the instinct to eat meat. Maybe someday humanity will evolve past it’s desire for meat, but that day isn’t here yet. Maybe you’re just ahead of the curve. As for killing anime. I don’t know. I’ve never killed one. Though I think there’s quite a few anime it would be incredibly moral to kill... lol. (yes I realize that was auto complete typo. It got me too.)

@napalm you can have a debate on ethics without it being feels base, which is the crux of my debate if you dont think so i recommend you look back over this debate, my position is to make people get over the feels of "but doggo so cute and cow-chan tasty" and see logically that all animals are basically the same is winning a theoretical debate worth it? why else am i here xD? why is everyone else here? why do you think people debate? i dont understand what you mean

Soooo.. Eat all animals indiscriminately? Can do. Well, could do, except for those pesky legalities. Nope, don't care about this "debate", sue me. :)

The morality debate has probably been beaten to death to the point of arguing in circles and just repeating ourselves. Lamby has a valid point about the treatment of animals. Her heart is set and there’s no persuading her. But we’re still going to keep eating meat. Maybe it’s time to debate a different aspect of it, or pick a new subject entirely?

I'll pick a new debate topic, taken from my boy Juice WRLD himself... All girls are the same Change my mind