debate

https://preview.redd.it/js7kuqv1zn831.jpg?auto=webp&s=b44d1187eec4a105df7b9cb925e8e1c1e5780693 same energy

*my proposition got bumped so reposting* anyone wanan debate veganism from the stance of ethics? just have to name the trait that animals lack that allow you to forgo their moral consideration

@alephy i skimmed but from what i remember you were talking about meta ethics weren't you? it was a lot to read, seemed like you were getting into meta ethics instead of veganism, and you didn't seem committed to a real debate so i dipped xD we can try again, but id ask you to answer my debate proposition to keep things as simple as possible

You did not reply because I "seemed [to be] getting into meta ethics instead of veganism ,and [I] didn't seem committed to a real debate so [you] dipped." I found several contradictions in your logic. You Lamby are not committed in a serious debate. A committed person to a debate: A) Does not merely skim through opposing arguments. B) Fully comprehends the opposing arguments. Which can be done by fully reading the opposing arguments. C) Is not offset by long readings. As a debate usually requires long readings. You failed A,B and C. You killed yourself with your own words. You are not committed to a serious debate. I can see your probable counter argument. I (Aleph) wasn't committed because I only wanted to reply once a day. My response is that a serious committed debate is not really a function of time. But rather articulate concise arguments from both sides. It is better to have logical well structured arguments then arguments based off arbitrary time limits. Setting arguments to a time window does not necessary make them stronger. But rather well structure logic gives strength to the arguments. The topic of my argument was on veganism. But you stated that I got into "meta ethics instead of veganism." If you had not skimmed, fully read, and fully comprehended my arguments. Then you would have likely known that my arguments were on topic against veganism. Although meta ethics could be entered into the conversation. Meta ethics is another topic. The question was not, what is better 1st order logic (normative) or 2nd order logic (meta)? The question was,"the trait that animals lack that allow you to forgo their moral consideration?" We are not directly arguing lower and higher level logic of philosophy i.e. meta ethics, but rather veganism itself. I did answer your question. But it perhaps completely missed you because you merely skimmed, did not fully read and did not fully comprehend my arguments. In your own words "we can try again, but id ask you to" commit to a real debate by actually rebutting my arguments. @momoichi

@alephy i debated people in the past im kinda known for being the annoying vegan debater why would i dodge a debate with you? answer it again, please what trait does an animal lack that allows you to remove its moral consideration