debate

I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. I don’t think you’re narcissistic or that you’re a bad person at all. Self-appraisal rather than discourse is a common pitfall in debates and I’m no exception to it.

Wtf you didnt beat me in the debate lamby lol. You literally were just saying that a social contract would justify nazi germany or slavery. Your lack of knowledge about anything related to social contracts and the unwillingness to read a wiki article on it to gain the requisite knowledge necessary to have a philosophical argument on the topic made me concede before it made me want to kill myself. I guess if you want to call that a victory you could, but I dont know if anyone else would say you "won" that debate.

Self loathing isn't something you should let yourself stew in. You aren't a shit person and thinking that you'll "always" be one is a recipe for disaster. With that said, you and I never had a debate. You asked for my reason for not being vegan and I told you it. IF there was something that you were unclear on or wanted me to expand upon I'd be glad to. And if you want to take it as a victory that I didn't feel like debating the moral righteousness of using and consuming animal product( because I find the specific ethical debate pointless) then by all means take the W on it. You win. You feel free to say that you won. But I told you why I am not vegan personally. Whether or not I or anyone else SHOULD be was never a point of contention for me. Your metric for winning here seems odd to me. Of course you'd think your points are more valid. They are YOUR arguments. You could say that you won because the others "ran away"... Though it seems odd to say that you win just because the other person gets tired of arguing. Because at that point the ONLY metric for victory is who is more stubborn and willing to spend their time arguing for sport. Example: If I have a play fight with my 12 year old cousin, then he can say that he won because I had to get up and go to work (so therefore I "give up" ). But you'd be pretty thick to think an actual contest of strength has him winning even once out of 100 times. Not trying to imply that your debating is on the level of a 12 year old fighting a grown man in a fistfight. Was just an example

OK guys I have no idea what's going on but plz no self loath lamby-neechan. it's really not a good thing to do to yourself. hating yourself can be addicting, however weird it may sound. try to get out of that loop. loving yourself is a lot more fun than hating yourself, and it takes less energy to do. appreciate the way things are and appreciate the things you have (got going for you). you have a lot of people who care about you, and those people also see the good in you. don't let things bring you down too much, you are worth more than you think.

mio, social contract is an agreement people come to for the benefit of the masses that is what a social contract is in nazi germany people agreed jews were second class citizens and same with slavery that was their social contract i dont care for the history of social contract and every detail of its founding, because that doesnt take away from the fact of what a social contract is animals engage in social contract, be nice and work for the hole or get killed/forced away

its easier said than done i do bad things, so to me im a bad person i know i need to improve, and im sure i will

But that isnt what social contract is. That's what you fundamentally dont understand. Social contract is a voluntary agreement among people in a society to give up some of their rights to protect their other rights, and benefit as a whole. Slaves did not consent to being slaves, nor did they benefit from being a slave, which means it wasnt a social contract. Slave owners did not give up any of their rights to protect other rights, which means they did not engage in a social contract. If it was the case where the slaves went up to the slave owners and said "Hey I'd work for you for free if you protect me from being killed and make sure all my basic needs were met", then you could argue that this is a social contract. However, slavery in itself was not a social contract. An example of a social contract is when we give up some of our freedoms to the government and in return they protect our rights from being harmed. I give up some of my freedoms, such as my ability to go around and kill people, and in return the government protects my rights, such as them protecting me from being killed. However, if you were to get together with 10 people and you agree as a group to beat up someone and take all their money, this isnt social contract; it's just stealing from this person. "The condition in which people give up some individual liberty in exchange for some common security is the social contract" It's not about the historical context, you fundamentally dont understand what social contract is and you were trying to have a philosophical debate about them. Animals dont really engage in social contract; they just react well to you feeding them. It's true that babies also cant really engage in social contract, but they can grow to the point where they can.

"an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits" like when a puppy wolf plays too hard and wont be nice, they abandon it just like when a human breaks the law, hes locked up thats a social contract and animals engage in them all the time all social creatures have to have their own social contract to function cohesively in a unit, humans arent special in this like the relationship you and your dog have, you take care of him and he shows you affection this is a social contract and im sorry if you dont understand that here, maybe this can help us bridge the gap between our arguments http://www.animalethics.org.uk/contractarianism.html