Space

I don't think that first part is accurate or supported by any evidence, but that's besides the point. We're not talking about the world going vegan. We're talking about individauls. The free market will decide what happens with those people who lose their job :^) capitalism Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. We would just feed the world with the food we're giving the animals (which 90% of those calories are wasted raising the animal anyways). Also, refer to my first staement. Anti-GMO is propaganda fear mongering. I enjoy those things too. Doesn't make it right to eat them. If you think that does give you a right to eat them, there are many things that bring pleasure that you don't do or that society decided we shouldn't do. Why are they inferior? What trait separates an animal and a human? Why are they meant to be eaten? Idk before humans animals didn't seem to have much an issue with overpopulation- Atleast, when they did, the population levels would lower as food supplies got over-eaten, etc. I like cool TVs doesn't mean I should be able to take whatever cool TV I want Why don't you give a **** about animals? What separates an animal and a human? Irrelevant because that's not what the discussion is about, but these jobs could easily stay in the agricultural sector. People will still need to eat.

There are many people who are vegan who live full and healthy lives. Unless the assumption is that the healthy ones are lying and eating meat or something, there are manageable ways to exist. Following your logic, the flaw at the end is that it is not necessary to eat meat for the vast vast majority of us. I don't know, pets is a bit of a separate debate that I have ot think about. On one hand, I can see how it's basically just slavery. On the other, you can argue that this is beneficial for the animal. It is interesting. Yes it can. If your requirement for necessity for not eating meat is that the world could sustain itself without meat, then I hope once it is proven to you that the world can be sustained without meat you will switch? Because otherwise we're sorta talking past one another. But you need to justify your morals. If your morals are that eating meat is ok then there is more to it. For example, you need to justify what separates every human and every other animal-- If you do not, this is just based on feeling which is silly because you can justify anything on that. 'I hate x people.' 'Why?' 'Well they are different/Well I just feel like I like them' or whatever. I don't think this is relevant or correct, but it's a separate discussion on the purpose of debate and that sort of thing. But you have to justify the morals in some way. I guess I shouldn't have worded it like tha,t my bad-- 'Meating eat is morally unjustifiable without taking large leaps.' Wowee i'll reply to others later, zzzz

1. I didn't mean to, if I did. I never tried to assume your belief. 2. I was talking about statutory rape laws being abolished- They wouldn't need to be. 3. In what way? 4. We do value their consent, they are just incapable of giving consent. 5. I think I gave it in the first post, didn't I? 'Main argument: Humans are on a level where eating meat is not necessary for surivval. Therefore, we should move off of it, to stop causing/support harm to animals. There lies no distinction between animals and humans that doesn't either include all humans and some animals or not all humans and some animals. Therefore, if you support treating humans well (not killing them, respecting their right to existence) you need to support that for animals.'

I have no idea what the relevance of this is to the vegan topic. Are you trying to argue about what is important? No, they wouldn't? Yes we take a certain level of freedom away from children, but if you are trying to compare this to taking freedom away from animals I think making kids go to school when they might not want to (which is beneficial in most circumstances) to enslavement and murder, they are obviously very different things. And we still do value consent. If a parent says that your 5 year old can have sex that's still illegal. We say 'at 18 a person is usually capable of giving consent.' At 5 they cannot.

It's not that we shouldn't every do anything that is natural, or we should always do unnatural things, but rather you need further justification. There are many things that are natural that we do not engage with because it would be harmful. If your view is that we should be able to do ANYTHING that is deemed 'natural' than sure dude I can't touch you but when someone steals from you you have nothing to say because, **** dude, survival of the fittest is natural.

This is completely besides the point. I am not arguing whether it was justified for certain societies to eat meat. We are talking about whether we can justify eating meat in current society. You need a better justification than 'this is what is normally done' because that can be applied to many different things i.e. stigmatizing sexual fetishes. I am using arbitrary properly, I believe; Not justified based on reason. The line between human and animal is arbitrary because there is no justification other than 'things look different.' A justification would be 'humans are capable of more complex thoughts' or something like that. I guess the axiom this relies on is that personal liberty is important. But a different way of justifying it I suppose: I was once a child -> I wouldn't want to be sexually assaulted -> Children shouldn't be sexually assaulted Where is the axiomatic belief there? I don't have the greatest understanding of philosophy and moral justifications, but that seems like a pretty common justification for why things shouldn't happen. Sorta the golden rule. And we don't treat children humans and adult humans different in this manner, in the first place. We value consent for both

I very intentionally speak in absolutes, because I A) Think it's better for a discussion if your points do not have much leeway and are as concrete as possible without being stubborn B) Genuinely believe that. I would respond that your beliefs are contrary. There is no justification that you can make for accepting the murder and enslavement of animals that don't also apply for literally anything else to an animal. If the situation was changed to a human, I think it can better show the absurdity. I am ok with enslaving and murdering a human but am not OK with beating them. I think it's pretty much fact that meat and cooking meat was an important part of human brain development. I never said that primitive societies should be vegan. If you went vegan and ate appropriately you would be healthier and not lose weight. Maybe if you did not adjust accordingly and you would lose weight, but overall it is a healthier option. I am not trying to shame people. We are debating what is the better choice ethically and morally. A toddler cannot consent to a sexual relationship like an adult can.

If it presented a severe health risk to go vegan, I would not support it pragmatically. But it doesn't seem to. And the human race would have to develop ways to deal with all these livestock. But that's sorta another debate-- The debate of whether it's possible to have an entirely vegan world. I would prefer this thread to be simply about whether you should be vegan or not.

Oh ok that is a more interesting way to think about it. But these same arguments were made to prevent the abolishment of slavery; 'the south will be destroyed economically.'

You can get vegan protein powder/protein from other food that is vegan. Plants do not display the characteristics that animals do to make me deem them deserving of protection. Animals have complex nervous systems/brains and display wide ranges of emotions and some form of sentience or self awareness, where the largest you get from plants is reacting to stimuli i.e. retracting flowers or closing a 'cage.' That is comparable to humans having their 'reflexes' i.e. if you put your hand on a hot stove you do not have to have that sensation go to your brain to decide to move off, the impulses only need to travel to the spine. We don't say that arms have sentience. Also, I think this is a bit of a disingenuous point that people bring up for some type of 'gotchya'-- 99% of people already have decided there is a difference between a plant and an animal, because you don't give a **** about cutting a tree down but I'm sure you'd give a **** about cutting an animal in half. You already have some sort of decision as to why plants and animals are different. Unless you think that animals are the same as plants and not deserving of any protection, which is a more interesting avenue to go down and something I can understand better. Maybe a better way to word it would be 'based on the morals of most of society eating meat is wrong.' Most slaves are born to be slaves, and they do slavery good. You can have balanced yet vegan diets-- Many people do. There are many benefits, too, but I don't really think talking about benefits is worthwhile because there's lots of things people can do that are beneficial that we don't push. We value other things. Many very healthy people have found ways to be that healthy while eating vegan. That would be the ideal You are worse than most of these people, because you've thought about it yet still support the exploitation of animals :^) Not considered arbitrary, actually arbitrary. You need to justify the boundary. I can justify boundaries between a toddler and an adult. If you want to justify a boundary between human and other animal, by all means do, but the only way to do that that I've seen is some sort of moral axiom. I don't advocate for destroying farms of eco-terrorism. That would be silly. I think that moving to a vegan based society would be better though, for many reasons. We can achieve all these benefits by eating vegan diets. Atleast, for the average person-- Maybe professional athletes cannot, but none of us are at that level. We can all live in an equal way to how we live today, which is more ethical and morally justifiable, yet choose not to. Seems silly!! And idk what you're going on about these progress memes seems like some dumb **** reply if you want to actually get deeper into that 1. Sex feels good, sexual assault is justified because it feels good 2. Any sort of enslavement and murder is unacceptable 3. Vegan alternatives 4. Beans, lentils, soya, tofu, are all things that have protein that are vegan yeah no actually this is the one that convinced me guys debate over Your argument is that we do not have enough farms to feed everyone with them, yet we have enough farms to sustain a society dependent on meat? You don't see that as pretty absurd statement to make? If we can afford to feed everyone with lots of meat, we can afford to feed people with plants. If you believe this, are you ok with me skinning a dog alive? Your argument is basically one that nothing matters but humans (which you need to justify), which would mean that anything we do to an animal is ok, right? Right by might justifies many things I'm sure you are uncomfortable with, like... Murder, genocide, thievery, etc. And I don't claim to know the best way to 'fix' the situation if everyone went vegan. That's definitely an interesting conversation though. I went away and forgot about this thread so yay

or you have to accept many things that modern society do not accept to justify eating meat Of course some assumptions to fit the 'morally wrong' part. You do not think murder is good, you think that being morally good is important, etc. Main argument: Humans are on a level where eating meat is not necessary for surivval. Therefore, we should move off of it, to stop causing/support harm to animals. There lies no distinction between animals and humans that doesn't either include all humans and some animals or not all humans and some animals. Therefore, if you support treating humans well (not killing them, respecting their right to existence) you need to support that for animals. For example, if the line you draw between other animals and humans is 'humans are most intelligent:' There are animals that are more intelligent than the least intelligent humans (i.e. someone with severe mental disorder). Unless you are ok with enslaving and murdering and torturing those humans, you cannot be ok with the treatment of animals. Common counter-arguments: It is natural - Lots of things are natural that we reject, you need something more i.e. murder. They are a different species and therefore it is alright - This is sorta an appeal to nature. For example, most people would not support killing people who look different, but you are using the same arbitrary boundary. It tastes good - Just because something feels good does not mean we should engage in it. Many things that feel good shouldn't be engaged in, for other reasons. oh and just to get EVERYONE triggered if you eat meat you cannot advocate for 'humane' treatment of animals because you support enslaving and murdering these same animals, which is worse than literally anything.

They still have Raqqa so Daesh isn't gone. Plus, there will be insurgency just like after the Iraq war. The extra-judicial killings and sectarian violence that the Iraq Army and PMF have engaged in is just going to perpetuate this. FeelsBadMan

don't transition until next summer rp doesn't change much between maps

OuO