debate

im up for another vegan debate though on the grounds of ethics just name the trait that animals have or lack that allows you to forgo their moral consideration~ https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/d6/d5/17d6d5d446e7727b2eee796c9d3baf89.gif

that's one hell of a text block lamby. but the only thing that caught my eye was the last sentence, and the answer is: yes.

"largest genocide in our planets history" please look up the meaning of genocide and change the word to "mass slaughter" or something more appropriate. unless you consider animals to be people that have a civilization/nation, religion or certain ethics. but as long as they are bred and are not threatened by extinction, their deaths do not get anywhere near any genocide. last time i was on this thread it was on page 186, it seems u've successfully baited people into talking to a wall over the past months.

mass slaughter doesnt hold the same weight as genocide, so i used that instead the amount of animals killed in just one year for the animal agriculture industry is astronomical and 'mass slaughter; just isn't enough to describe it "It is estimated that each year 77 billion land animals are slaughtered for food. In general, the animals would be killed for food; however, they might also be slaughtered for other reasons such as being diseased and unsuitable for consumption." just in a single year so yeah, for me genocide is the better word, but its to each their own

@kyros96 are you trying to start a debate >w>? now adays i only discuss veganism for debates, so i cant entertain your assertions unless ou can commit to a real debate if so then id be happy to respond though

@momoichi I am here both to learn and to teach, the point of me engaging with you was to discuss things for mutual understanding. If you think I am being false on this idealization then I can do nothing about that, but I know where I stand myself just as you know where you stand. Again, I'm not mad at you making assumptions, I am annoyed at you only make assumptions for the sake of weaponizing them against people. I believe we just have a misunderstanding of each other because we both have different goals in mind, which unfortunately don't seem to overlap. Your goal appears to be just victory over someone else, which is why your standard for winning is either "you are a hypocrite or sociopath". Regardless of what I will ever say, you are cemented in your position and will think of me one or the other so that you can win no matter what. If it is your hobby to argue with people, that is your own hobby. I am quite the opposite of you in this manner and don't find the activity fun, it feels more like a dull chore to me, even a mental prison if I want to be dramatic. I believe the competitiveness of arguing tends to spoil the opportunity to learn and can generate pointless animosity. I don't consider "understanding others through discussion" to be a hobby, but I think it is useful to do so. I do it when I believe there is a decent opportunity to learn, not for fun. (」＞＜)」 I already discussed why I don't just ask you questions about the practice of veganism. I am already familiar with the arguments in favor of it and find myself in agreement with some of the points they make. I could also go look up more about the practice in greater detail if I wanted to. I wanted to discuss with you your own thoughts on the morality of it, not necessarily the mechanics of it. Even if vegans make exceptions, they seem to still believe such things are immoral, which is what I find myself disagreeing with. The reason I reiterate points I have made under "thoughts" is just to summarize my ideas for convenience. Additionally, I keep things "vague" because I consider the concept broad. It may sound like 'fence sitting' to you, but I think that is just due to different interpretations of the concept. To me, it is: "Do I agree eating all animals is morally acceptable?" vs "Do I think all animals are morally unacceptable to eat?" (￣﹏￣；) Understanding your goal is either to label me a hypocrite or a sociopath at any cost, I will opt for the label of sociopath. To answer your question, yes I would eat a dog. If I would eat a pig, who shares similar qualities to a dog, of course I would eat a dog. Perhaps you don't understand this if you've never been through food insecurity and malnutrition, but I have and thus I am sympathetic to those who shared a similar problem. No, I will not share the details of my personal life experience in this area, so do not ask for them. I am not unfair to animals just because of their domestication status. Regardless, "preference" does not necessarily have to strictly abide by one's morals. I believe it is morally tolerable to engage in cannibalism, but I prefer not to do it if I can out of my own subjective feelings on the matter. If you are satisfied with discovering I am a sociopath, then I am satisfied with being free from this discussion. o7