debate

@momoichi For a moment I thought I was finally free... （；´д｀）ゞ It may seem idealistic to you, but my intention is not just to argue with people, but to understand other people's thoughts and to hopefully have them understand my own. Our interpretations of the concept of debate are of course different as Flare3 pointed out previously. I do not speak with you with the intention of "beating" you, but to gain some understanding of a vegan's perspective regarding whether it is truly immoral to eat animals at all. Of course, if I wanted to learn about veganism as a practice, I would just look it up, which I have out of my own personal interest because I do not buy meat. But I wanted to actually talk to a vegan about the concept because you presented the opportunity. Secondary sources are fine in some instances, but I thought of you as a primary source to talk to, so I thought why not? I don't need you to define veganism, I just wanted to understand what veganism means from your perspective of morality. Instead you just try to play games against me to feed into your drive for some "internet victory". We have discussed it and found ourselves in a mutual agreement already that it is at the least morally excusable to eat animals in some circumstances. Rather than continue to discuss why we have come to that agreement, you feel the need to continue arguing and have tried to focus the subject more onto me. What is the point of trying to catch me in hypocrisy when you yourself admit to it? What a hollow victory, something akin to mutually assured destruction. You 'win' but at the cost of making yourself also a loser by the standards of your own argument. What is the fruit of such an argument? You or I win an internet point? Did we really benefit from such chatter? At this point, you will just never stop trying to argue until you have satisfied your own personal standards of victory because that is the nature of arguing. It may look like it, but I do not intend to try sounding like some pseudointellectual, so please do not take it that way. I just do not enjoy our time together, but out of immaturity I will reluctantly continue to engage in this purgatory with you. I've already told you my dietary habits, call me a hypocrite or declare I am not one so we can drop the subject of "hypocrisy" already and move on to something more fruitful. If it is true that all you're really seeking are these hollow victories and not mutual understanding, then just declare yourself winner regardless so I can be freed from my immaturity and your vanity. It's all the same to you, is it not? I doubt you will remember anything from this conversation other than "Vegans win again!" once you declare yourself "victor". (*_ _)人 Here, I will put down some thoughts if you change your mind and want to have a discussion for mutual understanding: I believe is not inherently immoral to humans to eat animals, or for animals to eat humans, or even for humans to eat humans. I think it is not immoral to act in the interest of your welfare or survival, whether you are an animal or a human. I do not blame humans for attacking someone entering their territory, and I do not blame animals for doing the same to other animals or humans. Animals eat other animals and even humans because it is in their interest to eat. Humans can also safely consume animals and gain nourishment from them, such as the Omega 3 and Iron. You can argue that "we are not animals", but these thoughts aren't about being above, below, or equal to animals, but just acting in your own interests. Animals just happen to do this by default. I project what I believe is tolerable for humans onto animals, not the other way around. While we generally agree killing is a bad thing, we still accept it is occasionally morally acceptable. The same is with cannibalism, in which we cannot label that Uruguayan rugby team immoral for cannibalism while being stranded on top of the Andes. Even in the context of society, we still have instances of food insecurity in which it is simply more practical to eat animals for proper nourishment and development at the current moment. Why should humans totally eliminate meat as a potential food source? While I respect vegans who seek to live according to their beliefs of what is right, I do not agree with them that all meat consumption is inherently immoral. Are we in disagreement with this? Do you believe all meat consumption is inherently immoral? （；¬＿¬) Lastly, if you want to talk further, please read everything I have said this time. I am tired of reposting the same answers because you keep asking the same questions. o7

I have a topic I would like to discuss. There is a bill circulating among the states about banning the use of hormone therapy for transgender teens under 18. I am completely opposed to this bill. Anybody take the opposite stance on this? I'd like to see another perspective on this if anybody has an opposing view. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-transgender-teens-minors-utah-hormone-replacement-therapy-ban-20200115-jsewgqh2ojd3ncol373gx6tmau-story.html

@mountain_tiger i simply must disagree with this assessment. example would be like the show wife swap, where they swap wives to learn about differing families, but if you ever watched the show, you would know that never happens. its always the wives that want to dominate and the families who never want to comply. people say they wish to learn and to teach, but truly all they want to do is to teach. again, if you actually wanted to learn about veganism you would have asked questions, and as i was a carnist for the longest time (even making fun of vegetarians) i already know about what that kind of cognitive dissidence was like. i simply don't believe you ever wanted to learn anything from me, but this will have to be a agree to disagree situation, its just a quality flaw of mine i suppose. also im not looking for some 'internet victory' xD i enjoy debating irl too (to my mothers exhaustion really) i just like debating. its really nothing more than that dude. for a guy that denounces assumptions you sure make a lot yourself. my issue is that iv always believed this, you can go back to my other debates and iv always said that these are the times that humans can kill animals, because i put human life above animals in every survival situation. so it sucks for me that your ending this debate with this knowledge but im kinda left with nothing. unsatisfying. like when you try and sneeze and nothing comes out! i only try and debate that the majority of people in the world do not fit any of these circumstances, but still still morally grandstand instead of admitting that they are indeed hypocrites. they use all forms of means to justify their actions, and i strongly dislike people like this. i can admit im a hypocrite for eating eggs and milk, why cant everyone else? i mean im not losing to my own moral failures xD what an odd view of it. i believe i am a shitty person because of my dietary proclivities but my main point is to get people to recognize what theyr doing is shitty, and iv myself recognized it thanks to documentaries, speeches, and debates. that's my goal. and i believe iv achieved it many times because no one has been able to give me a sufficient argument as to why its moral to eat meat excluding such edge cases. (which are so minute in demographic i usually don't even bring them up unless expanding on a point of conceding that such people indeed exist) ill say that this is what every vegan believes btw. veganism is not a diet, plant based is a diet. vegans believe in doing as little hard as /humanly possible/ so we ofcourse excuse people that need to eat meat to live. if someone had an insane citrus allergy and could not eat the foods necessary for a vegan than id also excuse that person for eating meat. there are many edge cases, but they are irrelevant to the general discussion, i want people living in a first world country to tell me why they are morally richeous in consuming animal biproducts. and yes, i want to continue the debate because so far its been nothing but derailing and backpeddling. i ask you a question and you go to the most extreme example to try and justify it. like your 'well if a child soldier was gonna kill me id kill them' or 'well animals would eat me, so id eat them.' i want a real, concrete argument and i want you to stick with it. iv been consistent this entire time, which is not something iv felt iv seen from you. not sure why you look down on debates so much, its just fun dude. this is how some people have fun. myself included. iv had fruitful debates with people and it wasn't a discussion to learn more. my debate with tiger was pretty fun, and we were butting heads the entire time. pretty rude to just shit on all of debating because you don't like it, jeez. as for the 'discussion" "I believe is not inherently immoral to humans to eat animals, or for animals to eat humans, or even for humans to eat humans." this is extremely ambiguous, and it feels like a fence sitting response. like saying 'i don't necessarily think anything is wrong or right because people get hurt and benefit from everything that's done'. you arent showing a real, concrete opinion. "I think it is not immoral to act in the interest of your welfare or survival, whether you are an animal or a human." no one said it was immoral, you even saw me agree to this, so there's no reason to add that here. "I do not blame humans for attacking someone entering their territory, and I do not blame animals for doing the same to other animals or humans." again, not sure what you'd think i was gonna disagree with? its just another vague statement 'Animals eat other animals and even humans because it is in their interest to eat." no actually, it isnt in a humans interest to mass farm animals. again you use these vague terms like 'eat' when im looking at the reality of the moral failures we live in, such as the farm industry. its a pointless asspatting parade for us to just talk in such vague terms and agree on them. "Humans can also safely consume animals and gain nourishment from them, such as the Omega 3 found in fish." this would be shifting the debate to health, which im extremely novice on but could try. my response would be that i disagree with the statement that the SAD diet and the amount of meat that humans ingest is healthy. "You can argue that "we are not animals", but these thoughts aren't about being above, below, or equal to animals, but just acting in your own interests. Animals just happen to do this by default. I project what I believe is tolerable for humans onto animals, not the other way around. While we generally agree killing is a bad thing, we still accept it is occasionally morally acceptable. The same is with cannibalism, in which we cannot label that Uruguayan rugby team immoral for cannibalism while being stranded on top of the Andes." i mean, taximonically speaking we are indeed animals, but we have evolved societially so far from them i would ofcourse not hold us to the same standard, and neither would you. animals rape and kill almost indiscriminately, something humans understandably hold as immoral because we have the capability to see it as immoral, which they do not. we do not "generally agree" that killing is bad, because the animal agriculture industry is massive and is responsible for the largest genocide in our planets history. most people do not think killing a farm animal is immoral. "Even in the context of society, we still have instances of food insecurity in which it is simply more practical to eat animals for proper nourishment and development at the current moment. Why should humans totally eliminate meat as a potential food source? While I respect vegans who seek to live according to their beliefs of what is right, I do not agree with them that all meat consumption is inherently immoral. Are we in disagreement with this? Do you believe all meat consumption is inherently immoral?" we would not have a global food shortage if we allocated the food that we give to animals to humans instead. i said this already in our debate, but animals eat more calories then they produce, so its a net calorie loss for us to feed them and eat their meat. now that i answered you, can you answer me/ If your host gave you dog meat to eat, would you eat it?

dat wall o text oof