Serious The Debate Thread: Current Topic, Choosing Topics

VEGANISM!

 

Yeah everybody should just give their reasonning for why eating meat is moral and stuff, at least that'd be more interesting than this or gundur

 

Someone should make the thread

 

isnt that the point of this very thread tho

 

The population is 7 billion and the limit is 10 billion.We have to start somewhere!

________________________________

How is it a lame topic? Overpopulation affects life on earth!

 

affects*

 

This thread is about abortion

 

You could dm me that you know... Dont go offtopic.

 

It's a single comment that is off topic, that's alright.
Also a pm saying "affects*" would be weird

 

The thread is actually about debating, so no, not really.
If it was fixed to a single topic, it would be just be titled "That Topic", but it's not the case.

I just want to change topic because a debate where everybody has the same position is just a circlejerk; not a lot of people are against abortion but I'm sure a lot of people eat meat, and I don't really know of any defensible meat eating arguments, that's why I'm asking.


So I'll just leave this here then :
If you defend animal abuse laws and that people shouldn't be able to hit their dogs and pets, you cannot argue that eating meat is morally neutral or good.

 

My view is that humans are the top species on the planet. We can destroy entire ecosystems and wipe out species easily with our advanced tools. As the top species, we may do whatever we wish with all the other species below us, in a reasnobly humane manner.

Think dogs are cute and good at hunting? Let's domesticate them! Think pigs are meaty blobs good for nothing but meat? Let's breed them and eat them!

As the lion in Africa, we are the worlds apex predator. The lion, like any other apex predator, is not merciful to that which it can use (ie: it's food), it doesn't eat plants so it can spare the gazelles and that's why it has survived as an apex predator for so long.

Going back to your point though, I do defend animal abuse laws, of course it is cruel to physically beat any organism. However we do not abuse pigs or chickens, abuse suggests repeated harm, pigs, chickens and other animal foods are not abused so much as swiftly killed.

Now I do realise that some food animals are abused, as they are kept in tight captivity to minimise wasted energy that could instead become biomass, well, at least the shocking images you see from free range campaigners would suggest abuse, research suggest otherwise, that chickens kept in 'enriched cages' are better off. Of course that's not to say there's never abuse when keeping animals for farming in captivity, but it's possible that they are better off when it's done right.

 

But why derail a thread when you can make a new one about another topic?

 

I agree, we have more influence on this planet than any other species, however, just because we can do it doesn't mean we ought to.
You can decide to burn the ecosystem to the ground, but that wouldn't get us anywhere fast.

If you use that reasonning to justify eating animals, then what would you say to an advanced species of aliens that comes to Earth, and uses this same reasonning to enslave humanity and breed them for food ? Would you be okay with it and see it as a moral course of actions ?

Well the fact that an animal is cute doesn't really make a case for "Should we eat it", as it is a simple appeal to emotion.

But thinking about the pigs being "meaty blobs good for nothing" :
Let's say you get a person in a coma that you know for sure will never come out of it, or a severely handicaped human that has not a single use in our modern society. Is it morally okay with you to kill them swiftly to harvest their organs for others' consumption? Can you make a case for why we can't eat this person but we can eat this pig that has no use other than food?

So, by your admission, is it fine if a person just decides to kill their dogs with a bullet through their head ? What if the dogs' organs are harvested for later use? Does that make it okay? (I guess it would be under a total utilitarian point of view)

You should probably link the study directly if you want me to pay any attention to it whatsoever
It doesn't have a DOI so I can't really see what's in it, though. I'm willing to consider it having a fair point, but I can't see the method, the sample size, or anything else, so it's not really that great to present that at my face lmao

My point of view goes as follows :

P1 => You don't need to eat meat to stay alive and live in good health, as most nutrients that meat contains can be found in other plants (proteins, iron for instance); You still need to accomodate your diet and basically know what you're eating at all times if you don't want any carrences.
P2 => Unecessary killing of sentient life forms is an aggresion on that life form
C1 => Therefore, killing sentient life forms without reason is unjust and unecessary


And before you say "Well, what about humans then ? Should they be treated the same as animals ?" :

We can establish a social contract with humans, but we can't with animals; If I go into the woods and I stumble upon another human, I can engage in communication with that human and I know that he has the potential to respect my right to live.
If I stumble upon a bear, however, there is no way that it can just decide against killing me, since it can't possibly have the mental capacity to respect a social contract, at least with another species.

It also answers the "alien dilemna" : If superior aliens come to Earth and ask why they shouldn't enslave us and eat us, just like some people do with animals, you can retort with my reasonning and say : "Well, you guys can kill us and eat us, but if you do that, you'd have no way of replying to an even more advanced species that uses your reasonning to kill us. We can respect your right to live just as you can, but if you break it, you must have no moral problems with another race eating and enslaving you."

Because the topic of the thread isn't abortion in particular, it's an exchange of ideas.
Reread my reply : If it was only for abortion, then it'd be titled "Debate : Abortion", but it is not, therefore this isn't derailing.

 

Yes, you are. Electro Mantis never said that you could change it or that he was fine with another topic. Otherwise, he would have changed the title first. It's rude to hijack a thread and change the subject without the OP's permission. If you really want to talk about this, go make your own thread or ask for permission.

 

Okay, let's ask him then @ElectroMantis

 

Personally I think it's confusing having more than one topic in one thread

 

Agreed

 

Ima step in here and say that the current topic up for debate is still abortion, as outlined by @ElectroMantis until the title changes and he says that the topic is changed it should remain on the topic that it is supposed to be.

Any further comments that are not about the topic that he has set for the title will be deleted and they would be off-topic.

 

Uh Ice Bear would like to see if anyone considers a human fetus a person or at what point one considers a developing baby a person. Ice Bear alternatively would like to know if the fetus being a person affects this argument at all i.e. is abortion okay at any time including very late ones.

 

Imo abortion is okay at any time