debate

mhm, exactly! because as a society we do not base our morals on "social contract" but by empathy if my child was born retarded i wouldnt want them to someday be fed to these aliens who dont need to eat human to begin with, or that if i was born with a low iq i would want to live my life the best i could, not fed to some aliens same with animals yeah thats what the ghouls in tokyo ghoul did, they were fed suicide victims and murdered people

Back on the subject of animals, I don't really think using wool, eggs, milk, etc. is unethical. Most of the time no animals are harmed in the making of those, I mean we could definitely cater more to the animals in our harvesting method but if an animal makes excess product, is it really so bad to take it? You could also make an argument similar to the aliens thing with humans. Eat an animal that has died naturally or due to an accident. Would that be an acceptable compromise?

um, well it depends cows do not produce milk naturally, they are constantly impregnated and once she gives birth after a week they rip the calf away from her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBnZPJJ2QG4 cows will cry for weeks on end for there baby, and will chase the car that takes the baby super fucking horrific stuff chickens are genetically engineered to lay as many eggs as possible and kept crammed in tiny cages https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utPkDP3T7R4 and as male chickens are deemed unnecessary, this is what happens to them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pixGkSFBty0&t=1s if the cow is just a farm pet and breeds and gives birth naturally, sure why not? same with chickens, having chickens for pets and eating there eggs is fine now personally i think its alright to farm a cow or something and eat it once it dies of natural causes, but iv heard it argued on why thats actually wrong ok so is it ok to rape an unconscious women? she wont know she was raped and the men gets pleasure, so why is it wrong? because of exploitation. the cow is being exploited by the nature of being raised for food, sure he doesnt know hes gonna be eaten when he dies, but neither does the women being raped i think neither would be ok with it personally thats abit extreme, i personally would want to be eaten when i die so im of use to something (i think coffins are fucking stupid) but that doesnt mean i would think its ok for anything else with sheep, being sheared is good for them, i think not 100% on the ethicality there but maybe its kool, yeah

Yeah that's what I meant by refining our methods for harvesting animal products. Ever since animal farming became industrialized, much of the ethics of it were lost. Looking at old fashioned farming, it seemed much more respectful towards the animals.

Aha well no amount of being nice will ever justify slaughter, I'm talking more about the other products produced by animals. Like your example with cows, I doubt they ripped their young away in older farming techniques. Chickens weren't kept in warehouses in cages and were bread naturally instead of breeding the ones that will produce the most eggs.

Ok, i'm gonna try again to wrap this up, i keep throwing out littled added bits because i have time to think about this stuff between your responses so ill try and wrap the response up nice and neatly every culture has a different social contract to appeal to social contract as the baseline of morals is to say all social contracts are morally justified such as nazi germany such as pedophilia such as cannibalization such as slavery to you because these were all social contracts that means they were all morally justified i dont think you really understand this and think that you can pick and choose which social contracts you agree with, which is simply a special pleading fallacy hence why your fence sitting and wont agree its fine to shoot and kill a robber hope this clears things up

"what does moral consideration mean, mio?" When I say "moral consideration" I mean that I care about someone's rights as a human. "ok why wouldnt you want them to be killed if there was the possibility to rehabilitate them? " Because after the rehabilitation process there is a chance that they would be at a point where they would be accepting to the social contract. The cow, however, is literally incapable of engaging in one. Notice how one IS capable and one IS NOT capable. If a retarded person is incapable of engaging in social contract, I literally dont care what happens to him. If he were to be killed/raped/tortured for fun, I would not be concerned with the death/whatever of the victim, but more of the mental instability of the person who committed the act. I would not care if the retarded person would die, but I would not kill him myself because I have nothing to gain from it. If aliens were to eat them, I would not care. I feel like I'm responding to the same 3 questions over and over again. Here's my view on this (as fucked up as it may sound): If someone is close to me, I empathize with them. I genuinely care about their well-being. If someone isn't close to me, but they can engage in social contract, then I would not empathize with them, but I would acknowledge any negative action done to them to be a negative outcome. If someone that I didnt know died, I would not feel anything from hearing that he died, but I would recognize that his death was a bad thing. If someone or something is incapable from engaging in social interaction, I would not empathize with them, nor would I recognize that something bad being done to them is a bad thing. For example, if a serial rapist would die, I would not feel anything from hearing that he died, and I would not think "Oh no. He died. That's a bad thing." Similarly, if a cow would die, then I would not think that its death is a negative outcome. "every culture has a different social contract to appeal to social contract as the baseline of morals is to say all social contracts are morally justified such as nazi germany such as pedophilia such as cannibalization such as slavery to you because these were all social contracts that means they were all morally justified" OK you CLEARLY dont understand anything about social contract. And if I have to keep responding to these same talking points over and over again, I'm going to fucking kill myself (in a game). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract Take some time to read this. Then maybe you can have an educated debate on this topic. AFTER you read this, ask yourself "How are things such as nazi germany related to social contract?" The ONLY way that this could be related to social contract (that I have thought of) is if the actions that they commit are justified. For example, if the jews were mass murdering Germans, then it might be justified as it would be the government securing the natural rights of the people. However, as I responded the last time you brought up this topic, they werent justified with their actions.