debate

@atmousfear i use basic human rights to debate for animal rights as well I believe the same reasons why we give humans the basic right to life is the same why we would give it to animals frozen hasn't responded yet so do you want to have a debate?

I mean, perhaps the transport and refrigeration of fruits and vegetables can be argued to contribute to greenhouse gasses. But I’d wager that the area at which a field of fruit and vegetable producing plants themselves reduce greenhouse gasses. As the nature of plants is to take in carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen.

haha sorry, i'm slow-but-purposeful! i always tell myself that. and oh my I feel the pointed ends of those statements to my neck. to say you are a fierce adversary would be appropriate. and yes I am saying that raising your own chickens for egg production and inevitable slaughter is quite ethical. same with fish farming. while I don't think I could ever convince someone as passionate as yourself that consuming flesh is perfectly okay in its own right (which i still do, for reasons ill try to explain), I think you'd be remiss if you didn't agree that if most meat-eating folks procured their own meat privately and individually it would dismantle factory farming overnight. that would objectively mean notably less emotional pain and suffering for those animals involved in those operations, as those operations would cease. so although animal flesh is still being consumed, the cases where animals live longer/better/healthier lives would be greater than what it is currently. so minimum it is harm reduction. moving on to those other word-swords pointed at my throat (=p, still in good fun at this point, mind you) you bring up ridiculously relevant points. especially the bit about appealing to culture and slavery! i think morality is malleable enough that whatever the majority of people think/feel at any given cross-section of time DEFINES what is morally justifiable. it's up to the individuals that compose a society to come to those conclusions together! i really don't know how to respond to that last bit. I feel deep-down that there's a contradiction there on your end but I'm not argumentatively adept enough to explain. maybe something like that sounds arbitrarily nit-picky but I guess that's kind of the nature of a discussion like this. I still feel like the ultimately ethical and logical person would just choose to not eat anything and starve, and have been talking from MY perspective and not my ideological purist perspective. clearly, I still eat food, so I am just a walking contradiction, but idk. do you agree that existence is extremely bizarre and that morality is not a universal 'rule' like gravity or time? i think i'm so caught up in THAT bs that it's hard for me to have fair conversations with argumentatively adept ppl like you. yall always citing 'this fallacy' or 'that fallacy'. i barely am willing to admit that I exist haha. and ye ye sorry for taking forever, definitely give these fools a taste of that linguistic vengeance! i only have so much armor =p

No, I was just replying to the person above me. I believe he was saying that plants contribute to greenhouse gasses, which as far as I know is false, but I could be wrong. Though I’d definitely say that cattle themselves regarding methane emissions alone would far outweigh the potential greenhouse emissions that plants would be remotely capable of. In fact as I understand it, plants reduce greenhouse gas.

Im just asking you to clarify your point. This is what it sounds like to me, I'm not putting words in your mouth. But you yourself said that its because the majority of people agree that eating meat is ok is why eating meat is ok, right? "i think morality is malleable enough that whatever the majority of people think/feel at any given cross-section of time DEFINES what is morally justifiable." Why exactly does this not extend to other things the majority of people agree to being ethical? if slavery is a bit uncomfortable I can bring up that indigenous tribes people still engage in cannibalism, it's their culture. Does this make cannibalism ethical? If you asked me this I would say no, because culture evolves over time and should evolve over time to become more ethical. The animal product industry being one of these things. "i really don't know how to respond to that last bit. I feel deep-down that there's a contradiction there on your end but I'm not argumentatively adept enough to explain." The thing is it isn't a logical contradiction because you yourself don't need to eat meat. I hold human lives above animals the same way I hold a scientists life above a homeless persons. Ones life is more important to society but that doesn't mean I think its ok to end the life of the one that's less important. It's the same thing. I just ask for moral consideration and basic empathy for all living creatures on a scale based on sentients. And I encourage anyone else to point out any logical inconsistencies with my prior statement. I don't want to be right, I want to be correct. "do you agree that existence is extremely bizarre and that morality is not a universal 'rule' like gravity or time?" I actually contest this strongly. We would never justify things like pedophilia on the grounds of "subjective morals" because we all agree pedophilia is reprehensible. So that is an objective moral. Same with how we agree that killing something for an unreasonable reason is also objectively wrong. And where morals may not cover, I use my empathy. Let me ask you this. This is getting into metaethics and this will sound a bit risque, but this is how discussions on morality become, they get uncomfortable. Would it be moral, immortal, or amoral for a man to rape someone in a coma. That person would never find out they were raped, and the man will get pleasure out of it. And please explain your answer.