debate

@kaizer, debating the same point over and over is abit tiring, specially when both sides have to repeat outselves, but on different aspects i do have to think and try and convince the other person when one argument fails, try another its mentally stimulating, even if slightly repetitive

I mean like I said it's not that I disagree with the fact that there is no need to eat meat. It's just that I've grown up eating meat so generally, I know I like it. People are homeless but I'm still spending money in the club instead of buying them a meal. It's all about being selfish rather than being a part of the food chain. Maybe I will become vegan one day once I move out. But as someone who loves cooking, I would still cook meat and fish and what not for other people so my original idea of not wanting animals to die for my sake would still fail.

yeah the above guy is kazier too, my bad and i know, was more spit balling on the concept of the need for meat anyways

oh yeah, with an s forgot xD

(reposting so i can add something on) Lamby 13 minutes ago I dont mean to offend you, thats just how i saw things. I was impying you would be a psychopath or simply lying by saying it's ok to torture indigenous people because they don't agree with you. I can't see the leap in logic here. I would say anyone who isn't directly affecting you in a negative way is deserving of moral consideration. You seem to see social contracts as a 0 sum game. If they dont agree to my contract, they aren't deserving of moral consideration. I would look at it is a neutral perspective. Are they agreeing to our social contracts? No? Are they harming anyone in neglecting to do so? No? Then they deserve moral consideration. The second they use that lack of a social contract to harm someone unjustifiably, i would say they dont deserve agency. What about the abolitionists that fought against slavery. The social contract was slaves are ok, so to let slaves go free or assist them in being free would be breaking that social contract, and that isnt even getting into the fact that social contracts differ depending on where you are. Nazi germany the social contract was jews are bad, and if you house a jew you are as bad as them. Is that morally righteous? Maybe now you can see how social contract is a very slippery slope? Ok, again, what gives humans rights above animals? Social contract? i point to above on why social contract isn't something you want to aline yourself with. To me the crux of morality is not social contract, but empathy. Empathy being what we base our morals and ethics from, not social contract. Can you give me an argument that would disprove this? Ok let's give one last hypothetical for social contract. You said you would kill anyone who tried to steal something from you, would you torture them to death? If yes, why? If no, why? Would it be morally permissible to torture them to death because they tried to take your car? Why or why not? Ok i lied, thought of another. Say a mentally handicapped person doesn't understand social contract, and he will hit and yell ect. Should he be put to death for his inability to comprehend the contract? Why or why not?

Ok it looks like you are confusing a couple of things, so let me step back and clarify a couple of things. When I say something is "ok" to do, I mean that I personally wouldnt be heavily against nor for someone doing it. So when I say that it is "ok" to torture the group of people in the hypothetical, I mean that I wouldnt be in outrage if someone did it to them, and I wouldnt celebrate if someone did it to them. I simply wouldnt care. What I'm NOT saying is that I dont think anyone should give them moral consideration. I would leave that to an individual basis to determine if they want to give them moral consideration. So when you think I'm saying "If they dont agree to my contract, they aren't deserving of moral consideration", what I'm really saying is, "If they cannot engage in social contract, they have no value to me and therefore I dont really care what happens to them". I'm not saying that they should not be treated with moral consideration, I'm saying that I dont care if they are treated with moral consideration. There is a HUGE difference between these things. Social contract is just what I use personally to determine if I would morally defend someone. If someone can engage in social contract, they should definitely have moral consideration. If not, I dont really care about them or what happens to them. I just wanted to clarify that quick. On your statement on jews, I would have to ask what the nazi's rationale is for treating them differently on a societal level, which isnt something that I think anyone could realistically defend. I think that the nazi's were capable of engaging in social contract, so this wouldnt apply to that at all. Same thing for your point on slavery, they would not be able to rationally defend their position.

Ok, so to you ok is a neutral term, but it really isn't, it's an affirmative. Ok i understand better, its morally neutral to you. Fair enough. Would you engage in the killing and torture of them? Why or why not? No, this would be Nazi Germany, in Nazi Germany the social contract was that jews=bad. By your logic the gassing and holocausting of jews based on blood is morally neutral. That slavery was morally neutral. Am i right in assuming these points? I'll wait on the statement on the two hypotheticals and for you to debunk empathy being the crux of morals

"To me the crux of morality is not social contract, but empathy. Empathy being what we base our morals and ethics from, not social contract. Can you give me an argument that would disprove this?" I can't disprove your moral system. However, if you are trying to convince me that I SHOULD be vegitarian, then the onus is on you to say why my moral system doesnt work. "You said you would kill anyone who tried to steal something from you" PLEASE post a screenshot of me saying this. I REALLLLLLLLY want to see where I have said this. "Say a mentally handicapped person doesn't understand social contract, and he will hit and yell ect. Should he be put to death for his inability to comprehend the contract? Why or why not?" I think I clarified this in my previous post, where I say that I'm not actively interested in genociding everyone that fails to engage in social contract.