debate

Lamby, See, I just don't care enough to actually want to debate. I like meat, I eat meat. But, y'all continue to spin those wheels. Also, I'm bored, thus my none input input aaaaaand ..... You're another one that's easy to get a response out of. Sometimes it's mildly entertaining.

Oh sorry, I misread one of your questions. "If someone found it fun to torture people, is he morally justified based in your own logic to torturing the people?" I didnt see that you said "THE people", referring to the indigenous people. I would say that the action of torturing them isn't immoral in itself, but the fact that he enjoys torturing people in general to be a bit concerning (because that is related to psychological problems in that individual which could lead to him torturing normal people). Same thing with animals. I wouldnt consider torturing an animal in itself to be immoral, but if someone were to enjoy torturing them, that would be scary for a different reason. For people who kill animals for food, they dont torture them for fun. They kill them so society can benefit off it, which I think is completely different.

Your misunderstanding, mio. That hypothetical was about a fucked up crazy dude wanting to torture the indigenous people. My argument is that if social contract is what gives people moral consideration, then the indigenous people would have no moral consideration when it came to their well being, torture being one of them. So he can bring a gun to the island, line them up, and force them to sit down as he pulls off their fingernails and shit and that's totally justified? Because they'll try and kill you if you step on their island (and i gave a pretty good justification as to why they don't want whites on their island)? The above statement seems a pretty good debunking. To say that because a group of people don't want you on their island and will try and kill you if you come too close are not viable for moral consideration, that's pretty silly, no? Because of the golden rule, i want others to treat me as i treat them, and vise versa. That extends to animals because they have the cognitive ability to comprehend pain and suffering, like humans, and even morals in some cases like with rats. If that does not extend to animals, then why not? Which is where name the trait comes in. You would say social contract but then i would say by that extension torturing people who want to be left alone is morally permissible. If you agreed, it would be alright, i would have to accuse you of being intellectually dishonest or an actual psychopath. My argument basically stands on to eat meat you are either a hypocrite or a psychopath.

yass: i dont have a real argument so bacon thoooooo keep bein you, yass https://media1.giphy.com/media/11YMhfLfGoq5Gg/giphy.gif

oh ok, you saw the difference xD good good Well thats interesting, why isn't the torture of animals immoral? I'll also add that just because he's tweaked in the head doesnt matter in this hypothetical. Is it ok to torture indigenous people who refuse to abide by your social contract?

People always try to argue that it's natural to eat meat. Personally Idc if it's a bad thing or not and that animals are dying. I only live to benefit myself at the end of the day. I used to want to be vegan. Not sure why. Maybe because there's no real NEED to kill for human consumption. But KFC sure is nice.

theres no need at all for eating meat being vegan really isnt hard, it felt really nice to have such control over my diet actually i only quit and moved to vegetarian because its super hard to be vegan with animal products all around me i plan to go vegan when i move out eating out gets annoying, but then again thats pricey af anyways so they appeal to nature a lot but that isnt relevant because we are so removed from nature iv said before im all for ethical hunting, but otherwise please tell me how you hunt down the grocery aisles for your prey like the apex predator you like to think you are (just strawmanning, not referring to you, kaizer)

"If you agreed, it would be alright, i would have to accuse you of being intellectually dishonest or an actual psychopath." Aaaaah ok this line kinda upsets me. I mean, I guess if you are a vegetarian/vegan you would say that my logic sounds pretty fucked up. But to a normal, meat eating person who is fine with people killing animals for food, this is pretty rational. If they are OK with killing animals for food, then I dont see why my line of reasoning would sound crazy. To say that someone is a psychopath because they dont agree with you on what you think should be given moral consideration is pretty stupid imo. In this same line of reasoning, you could argue that people who support wars/death penalty/etc are also psychopaths, which I hope you wouldnt say is the case. "Well thats interesting, why isn't the torture of animals immoral?" I would say something is immoral if it violates the rights of another person. This doesnt fit that category. Before you say "what about killing indigenous people?", I'd say that being incapable to engage in social contract is grounds to revoke personhood (sorta how we put people in jail if they kill people or steal from people or etc). "Is it ok to torture indigenous people who refuse to abide by your social contract?" I have to correct you here. It's not their refusal to abide by my social contract, it's their inability to do so. For example, if someone stole something once from me, I wouldnt be in favor of killing them because even though they violated a social contract, they could still have the potential to engage in one in the future. In this example, if we are assuming that this group was literally incapable of engaging in one and could not do so, then yes. It would be acceptable.

I honestly expected this thread to have moved on to a different topic at this point. I'm pretty amazed at how long this 'debate' went on, don't you feel like you're beating a dead horse at this point? :u