debate

oookkk (you guys disgareed earlier so idk where thats comin from xD) continue to debate me on veganism leo, i think i cornered you our last debate i wanna flex my brain muskuls

What did me and leo disagree on?Hes pro EC (more or less) and pro gun. Im less strong on my EC knowledge/stance than my gun one. So if anybody is dumb on that ill correct that - it just happened to be you. Nobody else said much I disagree with. Mayyybe tabris but his thoughts were from a much different angle

"Crazy people shouldn't be able to buy guns. The NRA is the most powerful lobbyist group in America. Good luck changing this. Stop the unnecessary endless wars. Not gonna fly with the military industrial complex. You see I trust the commons sense approach that the normal everyday American has. Not the paid opinions by these politician" from tabris-san

Just saying that quote is a very dangerous one before we go to Veganism. Who decides who's crazy? Is it those who have committed murder? Because it's difficult to get a gun with an assault in your background(We actually have strong background checks.). Murderers will still get guns even if guns were outright banned because there's no conceivable way you'd get rid of over 350 Million guns(And I'm lowballing that number.), Especially when half the country has the knowlegde that guns keep them safer and others safer by statistics alone. It'd be like when Alcohol was made illegal all over again. I don't exactly feel I was cornered, more so we met an ideological barrier(Which is fine.). Alright. We shouldn't all be Vegan. Because it's impossible for one. 1. I know a few people who have tried to be Vegan and even with great knowledge on the subject of food and diets. Being one was just unsustainable, they got weaker, and less healthy. Even with the help of dietitians with experience of that lifestyle. 2. We are Omnivores. Our bodies are built to consume meat. Why do you think all the most powerful body builders and power lifters eat so much of it? Certainly there are a few body building vegans, but it's much harder to sustain. While I do admit on average Vegans get more nutrients, that's because they actually pay attention to what they eat, because it's downright necessary, since they have to take supplements. While the average person does not pay any attention and scarfs down fast food half the time. If the normal person ate correctly(That includes the correct amount of fruits and vegetables.), it'd be far healthier due to the fact they wouldn't need supplements at all. 3. Most animals are not cognitively complex beings due to the small size of their neuro-cortex. The thing that makes you, You, physically speaking. They work on instinct, not personhood, and therefore only have fear and only have suffering due to said instincts. After all if emotions gave personhood than all sociopaths would be mentally impaired to being able to not function, yet infact, many are dangerously intelligent. I am against eating of animals that it's an argument for said personhood, such as Elephants, Orangutans, Octopi and the like. But the most we eat, cow, pig, and chicken, while having some intellect are not the point, biologically speaking alone, to have that level of consciousness. So eating them is fine.

@leo, that wasnt my quote that was tabris

1. no anecdotal claims, they have no bearing in a debate 2. why do you say your made to eat meat exactly? bears are built with muscle, so are elephants, and hippos and gorillas, and they all sustain themselves on plants. only before hibernation will a bear eat fish, and thats to bulk up and get fat. meat eaters take supplements too. the most commonly lacked vitamin is vitamin D, it lacks in meat eaters too. the most the average vegan supplements is vitamin B, and most meat eaters are lacking in that as well. vegan foods and meat foods are all supplemented with vitamin B because its hard to get. honestly its not too hard to pop a vitamin b and d in the morning if it means lessening the suffering and death of animals. 3. no, leo, animals have emotions. animals get irritated and happy and sad. they can also feel pain and suffering. when a mother cow has its baby taken away it will go for an entire week crying and looking for the missing calf. what would you call that? if animals became tastier if they were all beaten then would you condone beating live animals and making them suffer just because the suffering makes them taste better? also, what makes an octopus and elephant have personhood but not other animals?

I did snap back at his ignorant gun related remarks on pages 5 and 6. His comments were briefer and less therefore gathered less response.

If anyone wants to debate anything in particular, I would probably be down to do so (I tend to be a bit left leaning in my political views, with a couple of exceptions. If you wanted to debate anything with that in mind, just bring it up). On the debates that have happened so far, Brexit seems like a horrible idea for the UK. I hate democracy in general, but I think indirect democracy is better than direct (for reasons already stated in this thread). I have already given my opinion on gun control in a different thread (which I think Napalm was in agreement with, but I'm not entirely sure), so posting it again here doesn't seem very productive. On veganism, I think that philosophically speaking, because of an animal's inability to engage in social contract (with some debatable exceptions?), it gives us the right to do whatever we want with them, especially if it's for our benefit. I have a couple of questions for you though: 1) Do you think it is morally acceptable to kill, say, insects? If so, where do you draw the distinction between them and other animals? Also, there are millions of insects that die from people farming plants. Why is it acceptable for these to die for the sake of you eating plants? 2) Why do you draw a distinction between the suffering and death of animals vs the suffering and death of plants? Pain and suffering are basically just mechanisms that these things have to avoid harm and survive, and it is present in both animals and plants. From my point of view, I dont think that something having these mechanisms suddenly grants it protection from being eaten. However, I dont really think that a vegan should make this distinction. If you are trying to reduce the amount of pain inflicted on animals, why is the same not true for plants?

@mio ill debate you after leo, but if your only for eating animals because of a lack of social contract, then youd also have no problem in slaughtering indigenous people for no good reason? or i could bring up the fact that animals do infact form social contracts with humans, its called pet keeping. you said we can do whatever we want with that, that includes torturing them? 1. insects are on a lower plain of sentients. they dont have the complex enough neurons to comprehend pain and suffering the same as higher order animals, the same as i would not equate a humans suffering to another animals suffering. would you prefer to squish a bug over hitting a dog? i imagine youd say yes. but that doesnt mean i kill any bug i see. if a bug is in my house, i catch it and let it go. and the principal of veganism is cause as little harm and suffering as possible to live, not be completely without doing harm in this world. ill also add that most farms are created to feed livestock, so if we got rid of animal farms the amount of space needed to feed humans (substantially less than cattle) drastically decreased and less insects would be harmed by pesticide. 2. this argument is quite silly. plants dont have brains and dont have nervous systems. they move via their chlorophyll (i think?) and while if you cut a blade of grass it will send out a defense mechanism, it does not in the end feel pain. pretty silly when meat eaters try and bring up this distinction and say plants are sentient, kek. after im done with leo ill properly debate you, mio