debate

"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?" If you are asking me if a nazi would think it's ok to kill jews, he probably would think so. However, I am not a nazi, so I dont think it was justifiable by my standards.

"Would you engage in the killing and torture of them? Why or why not?" No. I wouldnt gain anything from doing so.

Yeah, sure. I've heard this statement before and its not that outrageous, it has real logical backing, just not moral backing. edit: OOF I JUST READ THAT, ok lemme construct something. Why isn't it ok to kill them? Why are you not in favor for genociding anyone who wont agree to social contract? If you stated because please reiterate or grab where you said it.

i didnt ask how the nazi felt, i asked how you felt. why isnt it justifiable by your standards if the crux of your moral view is social contract? still waiting for you to debunk my empathy argument (ill apologize for misreading some of your responses, im goin on 3 hours of sleep xD but iv caught my mistakes and readdressed them)

"edit: OOF I JUST READ THAT, ok lemme construct something. Why isn't it ok to kill them? " Just now saw your edit. Thank god. I thought I was getting pranked or something. I wouldnt kill them because just one instance of them stealing something from me wouldnt guarantee that they would never be able to form a social contract (something like I think they have the ability to change their views). If it were a serial killer, then maybe I wouldnt care about what happens to them? But that's something that I would have to think about. If they were completely unable to change and would continue to kill/steal, then I wouldn't care about what the fuck happens to them. "Why are you not in favor for genociding anyone who wont agree to social contract? If you stated because please reiterate or grab where you said it." 1) for the same reason as I posted above. 2) because I have nothing to gain from genociding them. "i didnt ask how the nazi felt, i asked how you felt. how did you feel about the gassing and holocausting of jews?" What kind of monster do you think I am? XD Obviously I am against it because I didnt think that the nazis could rationally defend why they thought it was OK to kill jews. FROM MY MIND THEY WERE COMPLETELY ABLE TO ENGAGE IN SOCIAL CONTRACT. I dont think that germany was rational in their analysis of the jews and therefore I am against it. "still waiting for you to debunk my empathy argument" Maybe if I post it enough times, you would read it. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. p.s. This last part was just a joke. I understand why you might misread things XD

Calm down. This debate was never me proving why you should be vegan, i can never do that. This was you trying to disprove veganism through logic or "philosophy" as you started this out saying. right now the debate is my disproving social contract and proving empathy is where morals are constructed from You have nothing to gain from genociding them? But all of those people commiting moral wrongs would be gone, why is that not a good thing? Throwing them in jail to be reformed is giving them moral consideration, your not being consistent

https://i.gyazo.com/810132fbb9bf1bc56d78a5972b0b1b4e.png ^This made it seem like you were trying to argue that I should be a vegan. I could have just misinterpreted what your argument was, which is my bad. This whole time my argument was just giving a defense to meat eating. I'm not trying to disprove veganism. You can be a vegan if you want. I'm just trying to defend me eating meat. "You have nothing to gain from genociding them? But all of those people commiting moral wrongs would be gone, why is that not a good thing?" Should everyone who speeds when driving be shot? Of course not. They are still capable of engaging in social contract. If a poor person tries to rob a store for some food, this doesnt mean that they are suddenly never going to engage in social contract. Breaking a social contract doesnt necessarily mean that you will not be willing to be in one.

because i posted that imagine xD? no, in my previous debate with el and the other debates iv been in i told them that my goal is to prove them to be hypocrites even with leo i told him im trying to probe him for hypocrisy and thats what i was doing same with you same with everyone and if you want to go off the sign, then tell me why we shouldnt all be vegan? you came at me to debunk you, not you debunk me there for it was my responsibility to probe you for logical inconsistencies, which i did if you wanna turn the debate then im happy for you to try and prove me wrong on the side of ethics how am i being hypocritical on the side of ethics? can you prove me wrong anywhere? can you tell me why veganism isn't the optimal lifestyle? we should all be vegan change my mind dude (on the basis of ethics as i prefesited earlier in the thread) ill wait for your questioning >w>/ ok but why? why cant we kill them? they broke the social contract they have proven unwilling to abide by it could it be because they still are under the umbrella of moral consideration ;3?