debate

Oh sure we can debate after your debate with Leo. I'm not sure how active I'm going to be able to be on this site over the next couple of days, so I'll just respond to your points really quick and then you can respond to this after you are done debating Leo. First, for the point on indigenous people, I'm pretty sure that the majority of indigenous people are capable of engaging in social contract. However, if there were some indigenous people who are completely incapable in engaging in social contract, then I wouldn't necessarily think that it would be immoral to kill them, but we already do this type of thing when people break social contract in society today. For example, if some guy were to walk up to you and say that he would rape you and murder you, then you probably wouldnt respect him as a person and w would probably throw him in jail. Another example is how we dont necessarily respect murderer's right to live. I would argue that we are justified in killing people in ISIS, seeing how they are pretty much incapable in engaging in social contract. Maybe you wouldnt agree with some of these examples, but I think they are pretty justifiable. Temporarily skipping over to your responses to the questions that I had, it seems like both of your answers come down to sentience. No, I dont think that plants are sentient, but I dont really think that sentience matters in this discussion. Again, I would be perfectly fine with revoking personhood for people who are, for example, serial killers or serial rapists. These people might have sentience, but it doesnt mean that I respect their lives as people. Now, going back to your point on pet keeping and claiming that they are reciprocating in a social contract, this is what I was referring to when I said "(with some debatable exceptions?)". I don't really know that just because something is grateful because you feed it means that we should extend to it the same rights that humans have. I'm not sure if I would classify this as a social contract. I could similarly argue that when you feed plants and it gives you potatoes or something, it revokes your right to destroy it, which I would never claim to be the case. Yes, this is based on the assumption that sentience doesnt matter, but I have already talked about why I dont think sentience really matters. Your final point was saying, "you said we can do whatever we want with that, that includes torturing them?" I mean, would any normal person do so? Probably not. But does that mean that it has the right to life? No. I wouldnt burn my house down, but that doesnt mean that we are now saying that my house has the right to live. This is very loaded question, but I could easily ask you a similar question and ask "are you OK with torturing someone if it's in a video game?" You probably wouldnt do so regardless of its ability to feel pain. That doesnt mean that it has the right to life. Maybe if I was in a position where I would die if I refused to torture something, then I would probably do so. It seems to me that the only thing that we disagree on is that you think something should have the right to live if it is sentient, while I think that it only has this right if it is able to engage in social contract. If the thing that you are trying to argue for is that I should be a vegan, you are going to need to convince me that sentience is more important than something's ability to engage in social contract, but I dont necessarily see why that should be the case. Here's a question (I'm just genuinely interested in how you would respond to this): If Artificial intelligence got to the point to where we are able to create sentient robots, do you think that we should not be able to deactivate them or kill them? If so, what about if they were to start murdering people? Again, you can debate Leo first. I'm just not sure how active I'm going to be able to be, so I will just post this now while I have the chance.

Mio from what I remember the way you presented yourself wasnt dumb so i more or less respectfully disagreed. Since the current hot topic is veganism I havent much worthwhile input

ill get to responding as leos takin his sweet ass time xD but first i gotta say it is january and your profile pic still has the santa hat

1. It's literally impossible for some to become a Vegan. Anecdotes can't be the "only" way to make a point, but they should be looked over with such rare things as Veganism, due to the lack of studies on people who can and can't be one. 2. You ignored my whole point. I stated Vegans are forced to use supplements, and due to this they often pay more attention to health, and take vitamins and such, more than the average person. Which the average person is a meat eater, as they act all humans 'should' biologically speaking. Which is an omnivore, because we are omnivores. The generally most successful and healthy individuals do not cut meat out entirely of their diets, But pay attention to what they need to eat. 3. Personhood is self awareness, the ability to conceive self, and your actions. I would call that instinct. Maternal instincts are a strong aspect of every female mammal. I've already stated emotions does not = personhood. Why? I'll state again. SOCIOPATHS EXIST. And they are not mentally inept. Therefore, personhood, or intelligence, are not tied to emotions specifically, meaning having them cannot by any means, be proof to have it. Suffering doesn't mean personhood, Suffering is as simple as having nerve endings, Or emotions, both of which, as stated before by rule of elimination, they cannot be used to prove personhood. Elephants and Octopi have shown more than just emotion or instinct. They've shown great creativity, with elephants even being shown to paint, Octopi are the most intelligent beings on the planet other than us. Elephants are shown to have their own form of burial grounds and truly mourn, over more than just offspring, which would just be instinct. They've shown far more symptoms and unique traits that only personhood can give. No I would not. While they aren't people so to speak, like few other animals, humans being among them. I hold the belief that as little suffering as possible is optimal, unnecessary suffering to an insect, would be wrong, as it would be for a cow aswell. Also, I got college. Takes time to get out and respond on internet forums XD.

1. Telling me how your friends faired at being vegan is absolutely besides the point of this debate as it lacks any real evidence. I could say my grandmother is vegan and living in her hundreds and that wouldn't prove anything. Yes, veganism is not for everyone. If your an indigenous people and have to live off the land to eat, i 100% agree it is not moral to ask them to go vegan. If you have severe allergies to certain types of fruits and vegetables, i can't say it's 100% impossible for you to go vegan, but i could accept that it would be much more difficult. 2. So what exactly is your point? That vegans by default tend to be healthier because they are forced to pay more attention to their diet? I mean, yeah, but that doesn't mean meat, eggs, and dairy isn't bad for you. Dairy milk is designed to make little calfs into huge cows, it is not designed for another species to drink. The hormones in the milk designed to make a small calf into a large cow give men ginecomastia. Egg's are no longer even allowed to be label themselves as healthy because they are not. They have to label themselves as "nutrient dense" which doesn't even have a clear definition. Are we debating the health aspects? As i said i have novice information on diet, but i will drop some links to studies that prove that cholesterol and saturated fats are extremely unhealthy and that vegan diets are the best way to lower cholesterol to a healthy level along with preventing AND fixing ischemic heart disease, which no other diet has been proven to do. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16904539 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/313701 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18348715 3. Maybe i'm not understanding, very possible, but "Personhood is self awareness, the ability to conceive self, and your actions. I would call that instinct" sounds like you're contradicting yourself? Is personhood the ability to conceive oneself and actions, or is that instincts? Also, not every female of a species has motherly instincts. Postpartum is a big issue with mothers, and some women simply do not like or want children. This isn't really prudenant to the conversation, i just wanted to add my two cents into that. Wait, so if you cut a dog, it's fine because while he does feel the pain and fear of being injured, he doesn't meet your definition of personhood so it's all right? So if a cow took a paint brush into its mouth and painted a picture you'd be against eating cows lol? Also, chimps are the animal closest in intelligents to us, not octopuses. But, what classifies something as "intelligent"? There are different forms of intelligence, including emotional intelligence, which we see often in marine mammals. Killer whales have been observed trying to kill themselves through smashing their heads into the walls of there enclosures and trying to beach themselves. Would you include that in "personhood"? Parrots are at the intellectual level of a 3 year old and also self mutilate, but they aren't also a candidate for personhood? Why? Many animals can solve relatively complex puzzles, so i'm not sure why your narrowing it down to elephants and octopuses. I really think when you say "personhood, your just talking about emotional intelligence, which again, a lot of animals share in some way or another. Oh, ok, this is interesting. You want to narrow down suffering as much as possible yet you support the animal industry? Why is that? Do you not know how much suffering they cause animals? I'd be happy to link some documentaries and live slaughterhouse footage. And no problem dude, i sometimes forget other people actually have lives, my apologies xD.

1. Mio, i'm talking about those native people near india that killed the christian journalist. They don't want people coming over and fucking with them since the last time white people showed up they were all basically molested. They will not form a social contract with us, they will kill us on sight, so why is it wrong to not slaughter them all for the land? 2."Your final point was saying, "you said we can do whatever we want with that, that includes torturing them?" I mean, would any normal person do so? Probably not. But does that mean that it has the right to life? No. I wouldnt burn my house down, but that doesn't mean that we are now saying that my house has the right to live. This is very loaded question, but I could easily ask you a similar question and ask "are you OK with torturing someone if it's in a video game?" You probably wouldnt do so regardless of its ability to feel pain. That doesn't mean that it has the right to life. Maybe if I was in a position where I would die if I refused to torture something, then I would probably do so." I brought up the torture because that's what happens to hundreds of thousands of animals every day. They are tortured just for your taste pleasure. I'm not really sure what you mean with the house analogy. Are you saying houses are like animals? Your house wouldn't feel pain by being burnt, no. And no, i would torture a dude in a video game. I've never played GTA but i know the scene where a dude is tortured by trevor, and no, i wouldn't skip that part. Why would i care if some 1's and 0's are "harmed"? In the end it doesn't exist and it can't feel pain. Again, are you equating this to animals being tortured and killed for your taste pleasure? I think something that has the knowledge that it is alive and the ability to feel pain and suffering deserves the same basic rights we give to humans. "If Artificial intelligence got to the point to where we are able to create sentient robots, do you think that we should not be able to deactivate them or kill them? If so, what about if they were to start murdering people?" This isn't really a black and white question. I believe it is immoral to give robots sentients and most importantly the desire to continue living, because they should not necessarily be given the same rights humans are given. Robots are and should always be a utility. So by that response, if not given sentients, they should be deactivated if they harm a human. Not giving a robot sentients should be the fourth law of robotics xD

1. This point is basically stating it'd be impossible for the whole to be Vegan with current knowledge onto it, so saying everyone Should be vegan would be impossible. 2. I was stating the point that Vegan's love to bring up since I was starting the debate. Which is health, and I pointed out the inconsistencies in it. Yes Vegans on average are more healthy, but Meat eaters would be just as healthy if they paid attention to their health, Which is shown with the most achieved and average high level athlete generally being omnivores. It's their job for their bodies to be in tip top condition, and they get paid millions for it. If being Vegan was so much healthier, than they'd do it just for the advantage. While yes you can say, going Vegan can lower the chances of heart disease, but that's One point and only one alone. There are two types of Cholesterol, LDH (or bad cholesterol) which is what increases likelihood of heart disease. And HDL Cholesterol which decreases the chances of heart disease due to the liver being able to process it. So saying something strictly has Cholesterol doesn't automatically make it bad, infact, it can be a good thing depending on the kind. https://www.cdc.gov/cholesterol/ldl_hdl.htm No food other than literal human milk is "designed" for humans. So saying it's not designed for us, doesn't mean much. We aren't designed to have soft beds, we aren't designed for air conditioning and heating. Yet we have them and they are good. A single glass of milk gives Calcium, Protein and B12(Something Vegan's need to get with Supplements if I'm not mistaken), and there are multiple kinds of milk that are less saturated. https://www.livescience.com/36512-experts-explain-milk-health-benefits-risks.html 3. The ability to conceive your own actions, Change them, more to a point than a rat who get's shocked and then will instinctively know "This Bad" , the ability to conceive morality. True Self Awareness is human intelligence. I know not every female has motherly instincts, not every species has thumbs either. It's called instinct, because it's due to evolution. It's not due to intelligence. It's fully to the point of the conversation, because I was stating that Emotions do not = Intelligence, or in other terms, Self Awareness, which is what would give them the rights of a human being. Depends on why the guy or girl is cutting the dog. Are they doing it to make sure they don't impregnate other dogs and cause more out on the street? Are they doing it to kill the dog and eat it? Because I'd be fine with either of those options as long as it's not a person's pet(And therefore property). If they were doing it because they were a sadist and just enjoyed suffering, No. I would not be okay with it. Because unnecessary suffering is wrong, whether it's a spider, a dog or a tree. If a cow showed the Intellect of an Elephant, or a Chimpanzee than yes I would be against their consumption the thing is, they haven't. Emotions don't show intelligence, I've already stated how and why, that it's an inconsistent thought process. Depends if they were just trying to escape instinctively, or were actively trying to kill themselves due to actual thought. Whoever said a three year old had true self awareness? No three year old I ever met did. Nor did I at the time. The reason three year olds get to have pesronhood is due to the fact if they live long enough they will have that intelligence. It's one of the main reasons I'm against most abortions. Personhood is true self awareness. Which most animals do not have or at least have no shown any proof of having it. Solving a puzzle can be as simple as trial and error. depends on who you are buying from, sure big companies aren't good. But don't you buy clothes, or how about electronics like phones? It's a common fact that most big corporations abuse and use people and children of the third world to make their products cheaper, Yet you buy them all the same, Why? I'd imagine because it's the only way to get the items at a cheap price for your level of income. The same can be said of me buying meat from larger companies, Until I can afford to not support them, I will. It's pragmatic at that point.

1. Why do you say this? Whole communities are vegan and the healthiest on earth. There is absolutely scientific evidence that veganism is the healthiest diet. 2. Again, animal byproducts are all unhealthy. I prefer to lean on the ethics of veganism though because i am not a nutritionist. There are in fact people who are vegan specifically for the health but the vast majority do it for the ethics and not wanting to be a huge hypocrite. All cholesterol is bad cholesterol, but again, i'm not fit to debate this yet. 3. Now your raising the bar for animals to be sentient. An animal needs to know "morality?" So your buying into the social contract explanation that Mio brought up? Why does intelligence have to do with the capability to suffer? Do you think the animal agriculture industry is not creating undo suffering in the animals? Do i need to link you the videos? What actually happens inside there? And why is it ethical to end an animals life short for your taste pleasure when you could live a healthy life without it? 95% of all meat production comes from those big industries. Even if you did go out of your way to drive down to a farm where the cows were out in fields they still have to eventually go to slaughterhouses where they will be shot in the head after being crammed in a tiny truck (keep in mind they've never experienced anything like a truck before) and then put onto a conveyor belt and hit with electric prods to keep moving down the line (because no anime is dumb enough to go down the line when it's terrified and knows death is near). Or free range chickens crammed into trucks cling to the air holes along the trucks so tight out of fear that to get them out of the truck sometimes they're pulled so hard their feet rip from the rest of their body. After that they are hung upside down and have their throats slit. Or that male pigs as babies have their testicals cut off with plyers (0 anesthetic) because testosterone ruins the meat. Does that sound like "little harm"? Because all that happens on small farms too. Wait, children don't have self awareness? So you'd be ok with killing and eating an orphan? If the child had no loved ones and no one would miss it, you would eat that child? Human flesh is also nutritious, so you can't say no because of health. I'll ask again. Why does intelligence matter when things can still suffer? Why does a cow need to pass a math test for you to consider it worth moral consideration? The fear and pain it feels isn't valid enough? Isn't it hypocritical to say you want to lower animal suffering and then actively support the suffering of farm animals? If i link slaughterhouse videos, will you watch them? If you think they don't suffer. Slaughter houses are so miserable that the human beings that work in them end up with severe PTSD. If humans are being disturbed how do you think the victims of those slaughterhouses go through. How do you feel that holocaust survivors have found parallels between what happened to them and the animal agriculture industry? Buying a phone and computer is essential in everyday modern life. It's not realistic to live in modern society without them. It is however possible to live without animal by products. I've done it before and currently do not eat meat. The point of veganism is to do as little harm as possible. Not live like a monk. Ok. Answer me this. So a far more advanced aliens come to earth and see us as lower kind, and to not have the advanced "personhood" that the aliens possess, it would be alright to farm us for food?

I wouldn't state anything about point 1, if you believe all cholesterol is bad. Just saying. Because you don't know much about nutrition since a quick google search proves otherwise. Not insulting you, But it's a fact, and a common one in scientific community. They have unhealthy aspects, But most that we eat daily have far more pros than cons. Hence again, why most athletes are not Vegan. And trust me, if you could make millions by eating more fruit instead of meat, They would do it. Do you know the cause of morality? It's due to the ability of self awareness. Self Awareness is what matters. If an insect truly hadn't I'd argue not to kill it. I've never said intelligence has anything to do with suffering. But Suffering has nothing to do with self awareness either. I've seen the videos. You can live a life without technology overall, It'd be far more difficult, but it's possible. The point is, you prefer the ability to have all these conveniences even though it's causes suffering of other PROVEN sentient beings. Hell if your job absolutely necessitated an electronic devise, you could always just go to your communities library and use that. And in turn, not support that. It's a hypocrisy I see the vegan community try to use over and over again, and they can never truly argue against it. Once I have the ability I will buy my meat from legitimate sources. It's just not realistic in the living conditions I'm in. Death is quick for many animals in many slaughterhouses. Which is what matters. Animals feel extreme stress when it's obvious they are in dangerous situations, It's instinctive, even for humans whose instincts have overall dulled over the centuries. It's not little harm at all, I never said it was or was not. I said, due to my current lifestyle it's impossible to get my meat from other sources, so that's how it is for now. I don't agree with the meat industry, but I also don't agree with most big companies either. Yet here we are using their appliances. You completely ignored my point. I stated, Yes, children from pregnancy within the womb, to around after 3 years of age, don't have true self awareness. The reason they have human right is because you if you kill them, you are ending what WILL be sentience. So it is wrong, Same reason I'm against abortion after 5 weeks. I'm also not a cannibal. Children at those ages don't have sentience, but they will given time, and that's what gives them human rights. Because it's a fact that suffering and emotions don't prove sentience. Without self awareness all they are is a complex chemical system of hormones and instincts, Like a computer NPC in a videogame in some ways. They don't need to complete a math test, but the personhood test, they do. When the fear and pain they feel is only as a code, No they are not valid. Because all it is, is nature being nature. Like a bug getting pissed due to you attacking it's nest. Isn't it hypocritical you want to end sentient beings sufferings yet support the technology industry(Especially when it's not obligated like I stated before.)? Considering the ones you are supporting cannot even be proven to be sentient? I never said they don't suffer. I stated they're suffering doesn't validate existence, because it doesn't prove self awareness. You try to prove a point with humans having ptsd, but all you're proving is again, why humans are different than said animals. We can have empathy towards a pencil if you name it. That empathy doesn't give the pencil the right to exist. Those aliens must not be very advanced if they can't see the difference between a normal animal and one self awareness. An intelligence gap doesn't make one thing sentient and another not, however Sentience requires a certain amount of intelligence that most animals do not show. it'd be like a vegan who believes that insects are sentient because they have a certain level of intelligence, to you that is not true. It's the same concept. Animals are not sentient by default. It takes a level of intelligence to become sentient yes, but after that point you're still sentient whether another race is more advanced or not. For example, let's say sentience takes a level of intelligence of 10. Humans are at 12, and a cow is at 7, a bug at 4. You can see that these other beings do not have sentience, because it's literally impossible for their weaker brains to process it. However if an alien race came at the level of intellect of let's say, 20. Just because they are at a higher level doesn't change the original point where they became sentient, nor does it change the scale of sentience. Just like if another came at 50. That level of minimum intelligence and brain capacity stays the same. Just because a cow is higher than a bug, doesn't make it sentient, it has a level of intelligence yes, but so does the bug. Neither are at the minimum requirement however.

1. Ok, i didn't explain myself properly and that's wrong. I apologize. Some cholesterol is in fact good, but too much is bad. Our bodies produce cholesterol naturally, and animal byproducts tend to have too much cholesterol, eggs included. It's much safer to simply avoid animal byproducts as that cholesterol is not only in high numbers, but also comes with a lot of saturated fats, which lead to heart disease. Heart disease is the biggest killer in the world and the source of heart disease is cholesterol and saturated fat. Most athletes aren't vegan because veganism is vilified in the media. A lot of athletes are indeed vegan, and many boxers and mma fighters take on a vegan diet to prepare for matches. There are also vegan bodybuilders. Venus Williams Lewis Hamilton Jermain Defoe David Haye Hannah Teter Kendrick Farris Nate Diaz List of vegan athletes just from googling it. Torre Washington Ryan Nelson Max Seabrook Berto Calkins Nimai Delgado Frank Medrano Patrik Baboumian Dominick Thompson John Lewis Short list of vegan bodybuilders from an article, the actual article was much longer. 2. You had brought up intelligence several times in your last argument. How does lack of self awareness have anything to do with suffering? Pain is pain, it's as simple as that. And no, as someones whos lived vegan it was not as difficult as going without electronics. All i did was eat more carbs and fruit and vegetables and buy soy milk. Literally that was it. You might as well argue that driving a car isn't ethical because it's bad for the environment and i should walk everywhere. The two do not equate. What i will agree is easy to quit would be fast fashion, and i've already stopped buying from places like Forever21 because they manufacture fast fashion. Small animals like rabbits and mice are killed while farming for the vegetables, but it's not like i can't eat anything at all because of that fact. Again, it's about as doing as little harm as possible and you can not live in the modern era without technology, that argument makes no sense. Not trying to be a monk, simply doing what little i can. Also on the morality point, there was an experiment where two rats were put in a cage, blocked off from one another. onone side the rat drown and the safe rat could eater get some chocolate or save the rat. 50/50 times the rat saved the other rat. But when the rat was let to drown in the water before, he would save the other rat 100% of the time. Is that morality? Ok, if sentients is all that matters then why not abuse a small child? If i liked the taste of child flesh and the child had no loved ones, why can't i eat them? According to your logic, suffering doesn't equate to deserving life, so kids don't deserve life. So you're appealing to potential. Well where does it end then? Your for abortions if its past 5 weeks, which means your for abortion is its sooner than that, but aren't you ending a potential life? Isn't that hypocritical? that is absolutely untrue. Death is not quick in slaughterhouses, and the torture starts when they get into the van. Animals do not only fear situations that may lead to death, but fear the unknown, just as humans do. Did you even read what i said about slaughterhouses? No, Leo, NPC's in a videogame do not feel pain and suffering, they do not equate. If i smash my toaster, it does not feel pain or fear. It's a toaster. Animals feel pain and fear and your choosing to inflict that onto them for the sake of taste pleasure. When you fear something, is that not your instincts working? Is that not the chemicals in your head responding? Humans work off instincts as well. And what is this "personhood test" exactly? I don't feel like you've defined self awareness sufficiently, because it's very hard to define in general, but you seem very steadfast in your own definition. read this please https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201306/universal-declaration-animal-sentience-no-pretending Leo, are you saying animals do not develop PTSD? Because they absolutely dso. After abuse an animal can become distrusting of anyone who has the features of the abuser, including gender, skin color, and even facial hair. I infact believe all animals are sentient, but their are different levels, as you showed. Yes cows do not experience things as humans do, but they still experience things. I'm not sure how you don't see that. Please do not dodge the alien question.