debate

napalm, morally im against abortions 'i believe it is murder but politically i will not tell a woman what my view of murder is its her life thats affected by the child, not mine, so im not gonna poke my nose into her business and force my values on her that is freedom *puts on merican sunglasses

wall of text my biggest weakness panda, a child is weaker than you, yes? would it be ok to kill a kid if they were annoying? what if a person enjoys killing children is it not his right because he is the stronger of the two?

A kid being annoying doesnt stop you from living and i mean "living" not partying and junk. But kids are literally our future, if anything they are why we continue to live on this planet. Without kids eventually the human population would decrease into extinction. Your point makes no sense. Just because they are weaker doesnt mean i need to harm them. If they impede on my survival thsts a different story however my survival also means the passing of offspring. Which is why mother animals protect their young with their life. But at the same time mpther animals also eat their babies for food cuz it means survival. The weaker ones are caught the stronger ones suvive. Wish to continue?

Lamby just stop - you're causing people who can logic to have massive headaches. Your mental gymnastics is impressive if not horrifying. So its a 100% black and white yes or no on whether humans can kill other humans (no nuance what so ever) BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT some humans (indigenous hunters - and/or those who implement their methods) have the moral okay to kill another animal for food but some humans "have no excuse" ? Either it is okay to kill another animal for sustenance or it is not - which is it Lamby ? Your whole "logic" for things is so fractured and compartmentalized I don't think you see that you self own yourself more than others do. If you're going to get on others (dat boi for instance) for avoiding nuance and hold him to a strict black and white yes or no standard..... then hold yourself to that same standard. If you're going to have two standards you better have a sound rationale for doing so.

your moving the goal post you said strength gives moral authority, did you not? now its potential for what they can do in the future? so survival of the fittest only counts when its against animals? humans arent included UNLESS its humans vs animals? why not humans vs humans? because "future of the world" what? thats not part of this argument, thats just some added nonsense either its survival of the fittest or your choosing a different things

napalm i think your having a headache because of the lack of logic i said its ok for a human to kill an animal human life trumps animal life and with moral arguments it is absolutely a yes or no question why isnt it? how more nuanced can "does intellect matter when deciding life" be?

napalm, lets make this easier pick a trait that humans have over animals that allows for us to forgo their right to life or pick multiple traits i will debunk them all