debate

im so bored anyone else wanna debate veganism with me on the stance of ethics? doesnt have to be a hardcore debate, could just be a discussion change my mind on veganism? are you so secure on the ethics of your dietary choice? eat solely potatoes?! lets debate!!

incest is a morally neutral not morally wrong debate me

"you literally did when you said i wanted everyone to go vegan xD and your evidence for that was posting a meme" Huh. And I guess by that logic you "put words in my mouth" when you claimed that I said "I would kill anyone who tried to steal something from me". Now we're even I guess. Second, I /really/ dont know why it is so difficult for you to understand my points. ""I knew I could defend meat eating" "If you think that anyone on this site is going to argue that you should not be a vegan, then you are crazy." xD?" Do you think that these points contradict each other? This is basically the equivalence of "I like pizza, but I wouldn't hold it against you if you didnt like pizza". I dont think anyone would be "opposed to veganism". Most people (maybe not ALL people, but the majority of people) respect your moral views. They just have differing ones in which it is acceptable to eat meat. Now, maybe there are people out there who hate vegans, but the majority of people just have different moral views in which it is acceptable to eat meat. Therefore, I would guess that most people would not say that you should not be vegan, just that they could defend meat eating on a moral level due to their moral views. Finally, my stance is NOT that if someone, or something, violates a social contract, it loses moral consideration. It's only if it is incapable of engaging in one. Basically, someone's life has value to me only if they can in some way benefit me or someone close to me at some point in life. This is really only possible if they are capable of engaging in social contract. For example, I dont think it is possible for some random fish to positively impact my life, and therefore I would not be upset once it dies. It literally has no value to me. Same thing with the example of the indigenous group of people (which we talked about earlier). They are literally incapable of benefiting anyone or anything, so I do not care what happens to them. However, when looking at something like a baby, although the baby cannot engage in social contract, it can grow to the point where it can engage in social contract. Now, with the example with a drunk driver, although he violated a social contract, he could still have the potential to to engage in one, and benefit me in life at some point, and so it would be wrong to kill him.

no, i simply misread and i apologized and revised my statement you stated because i posted a meme thats what i felt >w> context my dude veganism is a life style ment to minimize the suffering and death of animals as reasonably possible. to suggest that eating meat could be ok for the general person morally is trying to prove veganism wrong. sure, if you said "i like to eat meat and i know that to eat meat and think im in the moral right or that i could consider myself an animal love, is hypocritical" id 100% agree. but your trying to say that you can eat meat and be in the moral right by appealing to social contract hence why this is a debate to begin with you cant eat meat and be morally righteous ok whats the difference between breaking a social contract and being unable to engage in one? do they not lead to the same outcome of being "without moral consideration"? do you understand what a social contract means? can you explain why being considered for rehabilitation is not a moral consideration? so to torture and kill a retarded person is fine because he cant grasp social contracts?

https://i.gyazo.com/4cd815133c7e527a8a7183dbfb7c9ef7.png ^looks like my example fits the definition. Anyway, I really dont care about that. Sure. You can say I "put words into your mouth" when I misunderstood something that you posted. I really dont care. "to suggest that eating meat could be ok for the general person morally is trying to prove veganism wrong." NOOOOOPE. This is wrong. It is trying to prove that there is a differing moral perspective which is perfectly valid in which eating meat is OK. There is no such thing as a "moral truth", and therefore different moral perspectives exist. If you have a certain moral perspective in which another person thinks is flawed in some way, then the onus is on them to explain why it is wrong. Two moral perspectives can exist independently of one another and still be acceptable. "ok whats the difference between breaking a social contract and being unable to engage in one?" If you violate a social contract, you violate an agreement among members of a society. For example, if you kill someone else, then you violate an agreement which is to not kill. However, if you violate an agreement among members of a society, you are not necessarily permanently disabled from agreeing to abide by the social contract at some point later in life, which is what I mean by "being able to engage in one". Only if you cannot agree to abide by social contract do I not extend moral consideration to you. In other words, if you can never agree not to kill/steal from me, I do not care what happens to you. "can you explain why being considered for rehabilitation is not a moral consideration?" I dont see why it isnt. I wouldnt want someone to be killed if they had the opportunity of being rehabilitated. "so to torture and kill a retarded person is fine because he cant grasp social contracts?" If the retarded person is incapable of ever engaging in social contract, then I wouldnt really care what happens to them because I wouldnt ever be able to hold them to the same moral/ethical standards as the rest of society.

yeah im gonna hop off the off topic discussion i concede if it means we can focus on the main debate what does moral consideration mean, mio? ok why wouldnt you want them to be killed if there was the possibility to rehabilitate them? lets take a cow for example he can not agree to our social contract, but by the nature of being a cow, hes not going to hurt anything unless hes provoked, so why does that allow him less moral consideration then the criminal who has already proven he has the inclination to harm others in any way? so if a retarded person takes his dick out and masturbates in public then torturing him to death is morally permissible? should all people of substantially low iq be tortured or hunted for fun? what about about kids born with anencephaly? they are basically brain dead, so is it alright to rape them to death because they cant benefit you? you said before that you wouldnt torture an animal, but is it ethical to torture animals in general?

I'm borderline vegan for a bunch of reasons, for one I just don't really like the taste of most meat besides fish and sometimes chicken, too greasy for me. I still eat eggs and drink milk usually, tho I've been trying out soy milk since I've heard its got more protein and calcium. Then again if someone offers me meat I won't be like "no I'm vegan" its just I don't tend to buy animal products much for my own consumption. I'm not sure what to think about the morality of killing animals and pain and sentience, its just not something I think about that much. Although if I had the choice, I think I would definitely go with lab grown meat if that takes off in the next few years. You get the same taste without having to worry your conscience, after all a lab grown meat is essentially just a very weird plant.

i could help educate you on the sentients and why killing an animal for food and not killing a human for the same thing is a contradiction its really interesting actually, because theres no need to kill an animal if not for taste pleasure and by the extension of pleasure one could say that torturing an animal is fine then animals are absolutely sentient, and even have empathy for their own kind i looked up a research study the other day on the empathy of animals and its fucking amazing and yeah, i wouldnt say not eating animal by products in and of itself is vegan vegan is a life style, not just a diet like to not eat animal by products but to buy leather makes you not vegan automatically

ok this is abit abstract but its an idea iv been cooking in my head its a bit new but please bare with me lets look at the anime, kiseijuu the alien spores came down and parasitically ate the heads of the humans, leaving the parasite to inhabit the head, but the guts and such are still human (incase you werent familiar with the anime) these aliens blend in with society by keeping the humans original face they have the ability to eat human food (as found out in the anime) so its possible for them to live without eating humans, some just want to would it be morally permissible to feed the retarded people, indigenous people, people in permanent comas or people who have suffered extreme brain damage due to being in a coma, babies with anencephaly to these people? even though they can eat human food and be healthy and dont need those people to survive? it might be a weak argument and im not hinging my debate on this, im just more or less testing this idea on you because i thought it was super interesting how close to veganism that show actually ways

So would a vegan also not be able to wear anything made with wool? I understand not wanting to use things made by killing animals but sheep are perfectly fine after being sheered for their wool. As for the feeding of perhaps, "less human" humans (for lack of a better term) to the aliens, I don't think it would be ethical. Even if the people aren't contributing to society, they still feel and most likely have a will to live, so who are we to make that decision for them? I do think it would be perfectly fine to feed the aliens recently deceased bodies though, I.e. accident victims, those who have died of old age. It should be similar to organ donors though. They could only be fed to the aliens if they or their family signed over consent to whoever would be feeding the aliens.