debate

thats a discussion not a debate xD to propose a debate you need to say which side your on cant throw the knives to the monkeys in this thread (kek i remembered)

we could spurg debate veganism if your bored

Oh well if you're trying to prove that I'm a hypocrite, then good luck. I legitimately hate hypocrites. "and if you want to go off the sign, then tell me why we shouldnt all be vegan?" Ok I think I understand the question. You are basically saying "Looking at the universe from my perspective and from my set of morals, I think everyone ought to be vegan". This is different from how I interpreted it, which is "everyone should become vegan". Am I understanding this now? I'm legitimately confused. "ok but why? why cant we kill them? they broke the social contract they have proven unwilling to abide by it could it be because they still are under the umbrella of moral consideration ;3?" You think that if someone breaks a social contract that this automatically proves that they are unwilling to abide by it? Could you explain how you came to this conclusion?

thats silly everyone is a hypocrite the extent is what matters mio, i never said everyone should be vegan (when talking with leo i SAID not everyone can be vegan, so your wrong and your putting words in my mouth) context matters i tried to find a "change my mind" meme for veganism and that was the best i could find hope we can move on from this xD though i would LOVE to defend veganism, so if thats a debate you would like to have im hyped my dude are you saying humans have 0 accountability and freewill? that thieves dont know stealing is bad and rapists dont know rape is bad? these people know that this is antisocial behavior and yet they act on it to consider the individual case would be empathetic, but your argument isnt in empathy, its cut and dry social contract you yourself said that if you break social contract that you are no longer protected by moral consideration or even given personhood can you tell me how one can forgo moral consideration and still have their life valued? it didnt matter with the natives, why does it matter here? and how is this different in animals then, who cant even grasp the concept of a social contract to begin with so say that they can be rehabilitated and to spare the death penalty is giving them moral consideration and therefore a contradiction

"mio, i never said everyone should be vegan (when talking with leo i SAID not everyone can be vegan, so your wrong and your putting words in my mouth) " Geez no need to be so dramatic about it XD. All I saw was that leo was defending meat eating, and you were trying to find holes in his argument. I knew I could defend meat eating, so that's what I tried to do. I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I just was misunderstanding what you were arguing. If you think that anyone on this site is going to argue that you should not be a vegan, then you are crazy. For your other point, no I dont believe in freewill. However, I dont think that's too relevant. What I am saying is that people tend to either learn not to commit crimes after going to jail or they commit a crime while still respecting social contract. For example, someone can know not to kill and still be drunk driving. If a starving person stole for food, and they are arrested, if they were to become wealthy after being released from jail, they probably wouldnt need to steal to survive, and therefore wouldnt commit the crime anymore and would then participate in social contract. Just because someone breaks a crime once doesnt mean they get the death penalty. It's only if they have the inability to engage in social contract where I wouldn't give them moral consideration (such as mass shootings or a serial rapist). "you yourself said that if you break social contract that you are no longer protected by moral consideration or even given personhood" I might(?) have said this and if I did I shouldnt have. What I should have said was that if someone refuses to engage in social contract, then they are no longer protected by moral consideration (again this is all in MY moral system, so only I wouldnt give them moral consideration). Hopefully this clarified things. This is my last post tonight. I really need to finish homework >>

you literally did when you said i wanted everyone to go vegan xD and your evidence for that was posting a meme wait. "I knew I could defend meat eating" "If you think that anyone on this site is going to argue that you should not be a vegan, then you are crazy." xD? (fyi multiple people have tried to do that already, so maybe i am truly a bit touched in the head in that case) my stance is you cant ethically be opposed to veganism and not be a hypocrite or a psychopath can you give me a crime statistic that shows the rehabilitation rates compared to repeat offenders? pretty sure here in america we have a revolving door prison system, so thats against your point, but doesnt even pertain to a logic based debate anyways but to get in a car drunk is taking the chance of murdering someone, so why should they be given moral consideration? they broke that precious social contract the moment they out other peoples lives in danger. im pretty sure what your doing is based in empathetic situations, like stealing bread to live. under social contract that doesnt matter, they broke the law they lose moral consideration, aka they should not be given protection under moral codes, or under the same banner, basic human rights (meaning life as well) and if "lose moral consideration" not mean death then wer circling back to animal death and torture. you said its fine to torture and kill an animal because social contract, so can you explain why its fine with animals as opposed to humans? if you say "well they cant grasp a social contract" ill come back with "well neither can someone of substantially low iq" iv heard this debated really well. that if someone went into this mans house with the intent to steal, he was morally justified in shooting him simply because he broke that moral contract i think you want to fence sit on this topic, but we'll see tomarrow you didnt clarify anything, so ill cya tomarrow :>

(ill add to it) your appeal that they should be sentenced to prison is an empathetic point of view. because they may have been down on there luck and could be set straight, and you would wish for the same consideration should you have been in that situation. we all make mistakes a social contract stance would be that they broke the means in which they were given moral consideration in the first place, and there for have no rights no difference then being unable to accept the contract to begin with(aka animals) no contract, no consideration and rehabilitation is a consideration