debate

@mountain_tiger so it seems your saying that your meat consumption isn't needless, so id ask you to prove that you do infact need to eat meat to survive. your talk of 'life and death' is irrelevant, as iv been trying to explain. a cow, pig, and chicken are not going to kill you, so why are you paying for their murder? a chicken does not pose the same threat to you as a child soldier, ergo the comparison is not congruent. also children are vastly inferior in many ways, but vasty superior in any others (such as their ability to learn so much so quickly). a child could learn a language faster than me, but I'm physically much stronger and already have a shit ton of info stored in my brain. i can hold children to a lower standard without looking down on them by doing so, i simply understand that they have much less control over their emotions than an adult, so i keep that in mind when judging them for their deeds. this is getting off topic though @alephy meat do be tastin good, but that comment is hella stale by now. the amount of 'bacon tho' comments iv seen just makes the gag tired

@momochi "It seems what you're saying" No. "Life and death is irrelevant" Then don't bring up "what if a child tries to kill you", and I won't bring up child soldiers. I already pointed out that "needless" and "purposeless" are different because you seem to think they are the same thing. Something can be arguably "needless" but still have a purpose. You can say it is needless for people to hunt for food because modern society can provide alternatives, that doesn't mean hunting has no purpose. You are just trying to find "got ya" points at this rate. o7

The purpose of a debate in the classical sense is that two parties simply discuss a topic for the purpose of expanding their minds, not simply over who is "winner". Otherwise, it's just an argument and a waste of time. If you're in the discussion just so you can feel an "intellectual victory" of some kind, this debate is over. (ヘ･_･)ヘ┳━┳

@mountain_tiger ok so your missing the context of life and death being irrelivent to this argument... again, ill try and reexplain it yet again, cows and pigs are not going to kill you, there for your "its me or them" argument isn't an argument in this circumstance... these are animals you have never even met, how could they kill you.... the reason behind the 'what if a child tries to kill you' is me trying to find out more about your moral beliefs, as small children are akin to animals in many ways. your the one that kept bringing up child soldiers. need·less /ˈnēdləs/ Learn to pronounce adjective (of something bad) unnecessary; avoidable. pur·pose·less /ˈpərpəsləs/ Learn to pronounce adjective done or made with no discernible point or purpose. they are nearly synonyms. this isn't a gotcha, sorry you seem to think there is. if something is purposeless that means your actions are needless.... example; because there is no purpose to eat meat, the act is needless also, debates are a battle of ideas, and yeah there usually is a winner when it comes to certain objective moral truths, truths like killing sentient creatures needlessly is immoral. seems like your chickening out of this debate because your argument has nothing to do with the reality of the meat and dairy industry sad.

debates like these actually make me miss my debate with mio... at least he used social contract and actually understood the meaning...

@momoichi Needless and purposeless are still different words fundamentally, being similar does not mean they are the same. Again, just because something can be arguably "needless", doesn't mean it is "pointless". Not every needless action is pointless, even if most pointless actions are needless. Obviously I'm the one bringing up child soldiers, you are the one bringing up children trying to kill people. Bringing up children killing people naturally leads to the topic of child soldiers. This entire debate was whether or not is is okay to eat animals for any reason. You already conceded that it is "excusable" to do so in some circumstances. I do not argue along the lines of industrialized animal harvesting because it's not the base topic. The fundamental debate is "is it okay to eat animals, yes or no". Your attempts to bait me with insults just demonstrates you're in it just because you want to argue and feel intellectually superior. If you want to argue about the social contract and whether it extends to animals, that is a different topic even if it's related to this one. Lastly, on debate. I speak in the traditional sense of debate, not this new argumentative association with "debate". Debating is meant for both parties simply to share their ideas for greater understanding of one another, not for people to argue about which one of them is right or wrong. (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻