debate

What purpose do you have to eat meat if it isn't for health reasons? Is it because taste pleasure? Simple yes or no would suffice instead of dancing around that part. Ok i'll walk you through it. My position is that to live a healthy life you do not need meat or animal by products, which is scientifically proven through multiple health studies, and no the crux of the study was not "vegans over all tend to be more active and health conscious" it took those variables into account to make the study as neutral as possible, i can link it below if your curious. So eating meat is not a requirement for health, nor is it ethically sound, there for veganism is the best diet. So that's my stance on why we shouldn't eat meat, and it seems that your stance on why we should is that we've been doing it for awhile? Nutrient deficiency happens in everyone, most commonly vitamin D. Meats and milk are all artificially fortified with certain vitamins the same way vegan food is also fortified. here is the study, ill ad a few more as well These are basic health studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114510/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26707634 why vegan diets are healthy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK396513/ and here is the population study that proves that vegan diets lower risk of all cause mortality https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/ Now that i gave you the study proving veganism is healthy, i need you to give me a study saying we have to eat meat. It's only fair or you would need to concede the nutrition side of the debate if you can't find substantial enough information No, veganism isn't something you need to be rich or even middle class to do. Have you seen how expensive meat is? Would it be harder to be healthy and vegan? Sure, but the same goes for a meat eater, being poor tends to correlate with poorer health over all. Sure, but where do your morals start and stop? With sentients? Eating a corpse is ok if no one gets hurt? I'm all for you eating roadkill, just not promoting the death and suffering of animals, which you are doing. Eat as much roadkill as your tummy can handle my dude, just leave living animals out of it. It is not necessary for humans to eat meat, already covered this. Your instinct to eat meat? So you see a squirrel and your tummy rumbles? I mean i crave meat sure, but the same way i crave chocolate, and when i do eat meat i treat it like a dessert. Ok, lets get into the ethics of it. Do you believe that the chinese dog festival is morally acceptable Why or why not? and nah, im just retarded and accidentally type anime sometimes lel *reads back a page* but morality and ethics go hand in hand, morality is what we base our ethics on no one has yet to win the ethical debate, if they can do that they win the whole debate xD

all humans are preprogrammed with a short list of possible responses and outcomes in them that based on genetics and environment there is no true freewill change my mind

no idea my dude this is some meta philosophy stuff thats out of my pay grade can you tell me how we have full free will?

Oh geez. 20 pages of this thread have formed since I have left. I'm probably not going to read all 20 pages, but if I said something that someone else has already responded to, just mention it again or something. With that, I'll respond to lamby's comments to my post (on page 11). I guess my argument would be better stated this way: I try to form my moral beliefs (as well as political beliefs) in a way such that my personal preferences and the personal preferences of those who are close to me (such as my friends) are maximized (since this is how I believe I would be happiest in life). If I live in a society in which we arbitrarily accept that it is OK to kill or steal from each other, then that would probably run contrary to my personal preferences (seeing how I prefer not to be killed or have my things stolen from me) and therefore I am heavily against the idea that it is OK for humans to kill and murder other humans. With this in mind, I tend to value social contract over anything since, without social contract, it would be impossible to maintain the rules required to have a functioning society (basically I would know not to kill/steal from them but I cannot guarantee that they would not kill or steal from me in return). Therefore, things that are completely incapable of engaging in social contract have no real value to me and therefore I don't really care what happens to them. "Mio, i'm talking about those native people near india that killed the christian journalist. They don't want people coming over and fucking with them since the last time white people showed up they were all basically molested. They will not form a social contract with us, they will kill us on sight, so why is it wrong to not slaughter them all for the land?" I would not necessarily think it would be evil to kill them, but I wouldnt necessarily advocate for it since I dont see how I could benefit from it. Going back to a previous example that I have used, I dont think it's evil to kill people in ISIS. How would this be any different? "I brought up the torture because that's what happens to hundreds of thousands of animals every day. They are tortured just for your taste pleasure." When you brought up torture and asked if I would be OK with torturing animals, I thought you meant something like skinning them alive out of pure enjoyment. I said that I probably wouldnt do so, because I wouldnt gain anything by doing so. Skinning animals alive isnt something I enjoy doing to pass the time. I'm fine with people killing them if it means I get to eat good food out of it. The purpose of the house analogy was to point out that I wouldnt necessarily do something even if I dont think it's immoral. It seems like the major discrepancy between us is that you value sentience while I value social contract. You didnt answer this the last time I asked, so I will ask again: What specifically makes sentience more valuable than social contract?

I suppose there's no such thing as "true freewill" because our actions are influenced by societal norms, acceptance standards, and consequentialist morality. You could theoretically go out in the nude and flash everyone, but you're likely to get arrested and have people run away from you. In that, you've learned that it's unacceptable to do it, people don't like it, and you'll face consequences for doing it. So you're likely influenced to not do it. The list of examples this kind of ideology applies to is basically limitless. But yeah, it's not exactly untrue to say there is no such thing as "true free will." We have a limited free will, but everything we do is ultimately bound to how we think people will react and what is viewed as acceptable and until you're able to get away with doing absolutely anything (aka: an anarchy), you will have no true free will. The debate, in my opinion, should be on whether or not we SHOULD have true free will. I'll advocate for no because a society without rules is not a society and "anarchy" is not a legitimate form of government or enforcement.

On the social contract front, you shouldn't say "evil" as that brings on implications and this is a debate on logic. (i dont even believe evil exists, so id prefer not to use that kind of broad wordage) Based on your logic alone, is it justified to slaughter indigenous people? If someone found it fun to torture people, and because to you the lack of a social contract is enough grounds to ignore all moral consideration, is he morally justified based in your own logic to torturing the people? If no, then why is that? If yes, then why is that? Would you want to maybe get into name the trait? That's a logic base (i hate using the term philosophical) argument. What trait does a human have that gives them the right for moral consideration that animals do not have? You so far appealed to social contract, but i think i did an alright job debunking that, but if you don't think so we can continue on that front. Ok, let's say it like this. There's a serial killer that kills his victims, skins them and tans their flesh to make coats. You knew he was doing this, and that by giving him your money would be enabling him, but you reeaalllyyy like the feel of tanned human skin. Are you morally justified in purchasing his wears? On the house analogy, why is it immoral? Because it causes undue suffering, right? I don't know about sentients honestly, i think if a creature can experience pain, suffering, and the concept of death then it should be given moral consideration, though you could argue that is what makes sentients xD i hope you can take the time to respond because im really enjoying this debate with you, mio. other people iv debated seem pretty intellectually dishonest, but you seem in a grey area atm that i think i can turn you on

w0w yass, great job hopping into a thread just to disappear again my arguments have been destroyed you have shown me the error of my ways i might go as far as to say you cant hold your own in a debate against the ethicalities of veganism against me, and thats why you keep running away instead of having a formal debate but hey, who knows maybe youv got a hidden argument that no one here has been able to think up yet, and your just keeping it to yourself for the lawlz either way, gr8b8m8r88/8 https://media.giphy.com/media/3ogwGbm6RDwAdl2HIc/giphy.gif

Sure I can avoid saying evil. I guess, by "evil" I am referring to immoral, but I can just explicitly say "immoral" next time. "Based on your logic alone, is it justified to slaughter indigenous people?" Only if they are incapable of engaging in social contract and do not have the potential to do so. "If someone found it fun to torture people, is he morally justified based in your own logic to torturing the people?" If someone found it fun to torture people, then wouldnt you say that he is the one that is failing to engage in social contract? Again, it is generally agreed upon in society that it is not OK to torture other people, so by doing so he is violating that social contract. I would not mind it if WE were to kill HIM if he was torturing other people, but I dont know how you came to the conclusion that I would think he is justified torturing other people. "You so far appealed to social contract, but i think i did an alright job debunking that, but if you don't think so we can continue on that front." Could you please explain how you debunked that? Did you say something in the ~20 pages that I missed that you think makes my argument morally inconsistent? If so, could you restate it? "If a serial killer killed his victims, skinned them and tanned their flesh to make coats. You knew he was doing this, and that by giving him your money would be enabling him, but you reeaalllyyy like the feel of tanned human skin. Are you morally justified in purchasing his wears?" If he was killing humans then no. He should not be allowed to exist in society. Again, killing another human is bad because generally people are able to engage in social contract. "On the house analogy, why is it immoral? Because it causes undue suffering, right?" I never said anything was immoral in that argument. "if a creature can experience pain, suffering, and the concept of death then it should be given moral consideration" Ok, could you explain why you think that these things determine what should have moral consideration?

@napalm, then debate me and show me how wrong i am if i do use feels over reals, then please debate me on the ethicalities of veganism and point out where im letting my feels get in the way of clear cut logic? or are you not actually confident enough in your above statement so you wont take responsibility and back up your claims? (sorry to be so aggressive, but as is the nature of debates, dont strawman problems in my argument, if i slipped up then quote me or screen shot or better yet just have a debate with me)