>If you debate with me you lose by default because I am completely logically consistent with any position I take. But some people are not logically consistent and will ignore the contradictions of their arguments just to feel like they're right.
>Implying Psychology isn't bullshit Literally look at Stephen Hawking's level of confidence. Dunning-Kruger proven wrong.
sorry mate not taking any more bait
I'm not going to say I don't believe you, OP. But I feel that even if you are, you may be over estimating the effects of "logic". Logic isn't a synonym for "making sense and being smart". Logic is a formalised process of reason based on the syllogism. It has its limitations, and no comprehensive world view or value system can be entirely constructed from logic alone. This is pretty basic epistemology.
Is it wrong to eat meat? Is it wrong to have sex with a 14year old as a 20-something year old? Let's see your 100% logically sound arguments
Alright. Let's tussle buddy.
"Is it wrong" questions are bad for this, though, as the obvious "morals are subjective" route can be taken.
>Morals are subjective try telling that to the cops, sicko.
Just saying that they're subjective doesn't really work here since we live in a society.
Im not using it as an argument. I'm just saying that the subjective route could easily be taken unless you specified that it could not.
So to be clear, youre asking are those things wrong within the context of societies morals?
Furthermore are you implying that societies morals are correct simply because we live in it, or are you saying that I should argue from the basis of societies morals being correct?
Because if you are implying that societies morals are correct because we live inside of the society and therefore they are correct, then wouldn't there be no argument, as essentially youre saying society is correct because society is correct, so wouldn't that not just apply to societies morals but societies logic towards the wrongness of eating meat or fucking a 14 year old at 20?
Where is the line of where society stops being wrong because we live in it?
>So to be clear, youre asking are those things wrong within the context of societies morals? Yes >Furthermore are you implying that societies morals are correct simply because we live in it No >or are you saying that I should argue from the basis of societies morals being correct? Also no, I just want you to argue from the point on which laws in this regard would be most beneficial to society.
lol what a fucking brainlet cope
Gotcha. I'm going to argue the 14 year old one.
Beneficial to society... beneficial in what way? You probably and obviously mean in general. As in does it improve the happiness and such of its citizens. I'll assume that. Well let's see.
Is it wrong to fuck a 14 year old while being 20.
If the average 14 year old girls body can take the pounding that a 20 year old can give, then the question of "are their bodies developed enough to handle it" is answered.
I guess the next question of "is her brain developed enough to give consent in a mature, thought out way."
That's a science question that I do not know the answer to.
But if i assume that it is. Then that answers that question.
Also let us assume that she is mature enough to consent, just in general.
The final question is, is it wrong for a guy 6 years older than a girl to fuck that girl.
Since I have already eliminated all of the questions regarding the question of immaturity in relation to the girls, this question is purely about the number difference. Once again, not about whether she is too immature.
So the answer is no. It's not wrong for someone to fuck someone 6 years younger as it happens all the time. 26 year olds will fuck 20 year olds.
Once again, obviously there may be difference as there may be a difference in maturity of the body and mind between a 20 year old female and a 14 year old female. But if we assume that the average 14 year old girl is as mature or has relative closeness to the maturity of the body and mind of a 20 year old female who gets fucked by a 26 year old male, then there is no problem, and we can assume that societies problem with it is not logical and purely emotional.
So since some 14 year olds are mature enough to truly understand the implications and give consent to have sex you think it's alright if it should also be legal to fuck the majority that aren't? I mean if the question was for a case to case basis I'd say you're right but a society can hardly enforce such a law.
???? I used "the average 14 year old girl" several times?
I'm talking averages. Making the argument of "if some can handle it they all can" is a clear logical fallacy that I wouldn't make.
Do you know the science? Or psychology? I personally think a the average 14 year old can consent to sex.. may be not completely maturely but she's not a 4 year old who will nod her head to anything and be completely unaware of what's about to happen
"The implications", as you said, makes it sound more dramatic than what it is, I think. It's not as if once she has sex, a dragon will appear and breathe fire into her vag. She knows what sex is at that point. She's probably watched porn.
I used to think that way, but then I realized my emotions are gonna overtake anything I say so I gave into them instead.
Imagine actually respecting that brainlet hawking
hey op, care to argue veganism with me? are you a vegan, and if so, why not?
I'm not a vegan. actually the exact opposite. Zero carb diet.
I'm sure this was a typing mistake but "are you a vegan, and if so, why not" doesnt really make sense.
What do you want to debate? If eating meat is wrong?
yeah, the ethics of eating meat
i think you're a hypocrite if you eat meat, because its unethical by your standards of behavior
sorry i took so long to respond, ill be much more attentive, i thought you were dodging me
but yeah, my main arguement is that you are a massive rat hypocrite when you eat meat, because you wouldn't want to be enslaved or killed for some one else's amusement, which is basically what eating meat is
for example, if you were a nigger im sure you'd be against white people owning you as slaves, and im sure you're against being owned as a slave against your will by some superior human race, so by your own standards of behavior its unethical for you to eat animal products
basically you're a massive hypocrite piece of shit
You used it for the average body of a 14 year old, not the average 14 year girl as a whole because you just assumed that: >Also let us assume that she is mature enough to consent, just in general. Which I think isn't the case for a majority of 14 year old girls ands boys. In this stage the brain hasn't fully devolped yet and still undergoes rapid changes and a bad experience might have drastic implications for their development which you So when you say >may be not completely maturely You admit that their brain hasn't fully developed yet and they're still in a stage where they can easily be coerced into doing things they don't actually want by pushy adults.
>"The implications", as you said, makes it sound more dramatic than what it is, I think. It's not as if once she has sex, a dragon will appear and breathe fire into her vag. She knows what sex is at that point. She's probably watched porn. Just because you watched porn doesn't mean you're suddenly mature enough to give mature consent, just like if you play a shooter doesn't mean the kids who want to join the army then really understand the full implications of what they think they want.
If an alien race invaded and decided we tasted good and decided to eat us like we eat cows, I would understand. The problem is that youre assuming what my beliefs are.
> I would understand so you wouldn't protest or be against it? if a superior race of humans were to enslave you and kill you for their pleasure, you wouldn't be against it?
>The problem is that youre assuming what my beliefs are. k so what are your beliefs? please explain to me your thoughts on murder and slavery
im EAGERLY waiting, oh intelligent one
>you used it for the average body
Wrong. Pic related. Body AND mind.
You either misread or are being intellectually dishonest.
It's a waste of my time to go back and forth with someone who is not going to read or is intellectually honest
I missread that part but my argument about why a 14 year old isn't mature enough to consent is still intact.
If they were so advanced in the way we are advanced in comparison to cows and chicken then there would be no way to protest. Can chicken protest us in a way that would stop us from eating them? No. It would be the same thing if an alien race was so far above us that they could easily eat us.
I said I didn't know the science in my post. I was simply assuming that everything was fine, maturity wise. If you know the science and they are not mature enough, then you are obviously correct. But it doesn't make me logically wrong, but simply factually inaccurate.
And I never said that watching porn makes you mature enough to consent. I was simply saying that watching porn shows the the implications of having sex. Unless you meant something else by implications.
They usually go hand in hand.
>If they were so advanced in the way we are advanced in comparison to cows and chicken then there would be no way to protest
wow so many logical errors there. humans are exceptional advanced, and we have the power to abuse weaker races, but through diplomacy and human rights we fought back against slavery
the point was you wouldn't want to be treated that way yourself, which makes it hypocritical of you to treat others in the same way
you just casually dodged around my point of you being a hypocrite and dodged all my questions LOL and you claim to be a INTELEKSHUAL my dude lell
>Can chicken protest us in a way that would stop us from eating them? No just because a chicken cant protest and fight back doesnt mean its ethical to do so you fucking brainlet. a dog cant protest and fight back if you kick it around for fun and kill it. niggers back when slavery was legal couldn't protest and fight back, there had to be a civil war that ended slavery. just because the victim is weak doesnt ethically justify the behavior you fucking brainlet
slaves did protest and won though.
OMFG dodge the question harder. niggers did not protest and won, it was other white people who freed them
and just because a victim cant protest doesnt make it ethical you fucking dodging nigger. if i kidnap and torture and kick around a dog for fun, it will be helpless. does that make it okay to do?
>slaves did not protest yes, they did.
Stop conflating slavery and eating animals.
Chattel slavery, where people work for nothing is not the same as fattening up animals, killing, and eating them.
You don't really need science to understand that alot of 14 year olds do stupid shit to make their parents mad and generally still defer to adults and since for example teen pregnancy and STD's are generally not favourable for society, it is fair to outlaw it on this principle.
>Stop conflating slavery and eating animals. LOLLLLLLLLLLL so fucking stupid. animals are ENSLAVED you fucking dumb brianlet. they are born into slavery. we rape cows to get them pregnant and keep them in cages their entire life for our amusement. this is SLAVERY you fucking dumb retard LOL hHAHAHAHAH ur actually a brainlet LOL and you have the nerve to call yourself intelligent lelll
>where people work for nothing is not the same as fattening up animals, killing, and eating them.
animals are sentient and concoius. they can feel emotions and pain and dont want to die. virtually all mammals have a complex emotions like envy, pride, love, hate, fear, grieving, lust, curiosity, jealousy. these animals dont want to die, and its unethical to kill them
what makes it okay for us to kill pigs for our amusement, but not kill dogs for our amusement
LOL fucking retard dont call yourself intelligent my dude ur a moron LEL
>not knowing what slavery means >50% of his word salad is just insults >doesn't understand basic ethics yikes
pigs and cows are PERSONS. they have a unique subjective experience. they are sentient and conscious. they have a mind of their own
hahahahahahahahha op is a joke and so are you and so is anyone who debates against veganism
You were talking about if the brain is developed or not, not whether they do stupid shit to make their parents mad. And that's why I mentioned that I don't know the science. Because you were talking about the brain not being fully developed.
And then you suddenly switch up to not talking about biology but just general behavior. Sure brain may determines behavior but you didn't even mention the development of the brain in this post which screams intellectual dishonesty.
>guy can't understand the difference between a pig and a human, calls anyone a joke why aren't you having conversations with a pig then? there is ethical treatment of farm animals, if you can't accept this then you simply have no argument.
like hoenstly dude you are arguing SEMANTICS HERE
"duuuuurrrrrr its not slavery when we do it to animals because you need to be a human to be a slave!"
if we use your shit logic then we can never hurt animals. if i kick a dog and hurt it i can say "its not kicking and hurting a dog when i do it because you need to be a human to be kicked and hurt intentionally for my amusement"
Not going back and forth with you anymore. It's just sperging. Go ahead and debate with other anons ITT.
>why aren't you having conversations with a pig then? just because they arent intelligent enough to use language doesnt mean they dont have a subjective experience and arent conscious. dogs cant use language either, are you going to tell me they arent conscious or sentient?
> there is ethical treatment of farm animals how do you ethically kill animals?
why are you talking about kicking dogs? are you autistic? >aren't intelligent enough to use language oh, so you do understand there is a difference? wow, interesting. going backwards, huh. come back when you have any argument.
>posts "lol" >is actually screaming like a little child because he can't argue for a lame diet fad
>They usually go hand in hand. Not necessarily. You could be logically consistent but have the wrong information. You could be logically consistent but have failed to consider or not be aware of additional points of view that provide a more complete understanding. There are all sorts of ways you could be logically consistent but wrong.
Absolutely seething. Holy shit LOL. Get help, Jesus Christ. Now I see where the crazy vegan stereotype comes from.
>And then you suddenly switch up to not talking about biology but just general behavior. Because our behaviour is directly determined by our brain which is why you're not able to consent while drunk for example because it's a neurotoxin that interfers with our brain and thus our behaviour.
just dont call yourself intelligent please, thanks
it's usually laws about consent while incapacitated. you can consent while drunk pretty easily. if a cop pulls you over for drunk driving for example.
Notice how i said "sure brain may determine behavior".
If the brain determines our behavior, then it's fair to say that since I dont know the science of a brain of a 14 year old girl, that I am not necessarily wrong. Maybe factually inaccurate but not necessarily wrong. I was simply assuming all of the stuff in the post.
why do the voice thing if you're just a stuttering angry mess? all you're doing is the sensationalist shit. vegans literally torture and kill plants. it's hypocritical.
A person who is 100% logically consistent is probably going to be pretty logically sound. Of course it doesnt happen all the time but not an unfounded assumption to make.
Holy fuck S E E T H I N G
Once again chattel slavery is not the same as farming animals to eat.
what makes it okay to enslave and kill pigs and cows but not to enslave niggers?
do you think its ethical for us to start treating labradors and golden retrievers like we do pigs? would that be unethical?
How is farming animals to eat, slavery? Answer that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
You realize the end goal with farming animals isn't to make them work for free, right? We farm them to eat them. With chattel slavery the end goal wasn't to eat the blacks. It was to work them.
It's almost like youre using a heavy buzzword in an attempt to further your point
like, what is it about the human that makes them have moral value and what is it about the pigs that make them not have moral value?
like, why do some animals like dogs have moral value but not others like pigs? is it logically consistent for us to care for dogs but not care for pigs if they both can suffer and feel pain?
You can't consent while under mind altering drugs since your actions and decision might not align with what you'd do while sober.
>Notice how i said "sure brain may determine behavior". I explained my position again because you called me intellectually dishonest even though you clearly understood where I was coming from with my argument.
>If the brain determines our behavior, then it's fair to say that since I dont know the science of a brain of a 14 year old girl, that I am not necessarily wrong. Maybe factually inaccurate but not necessarily wrong. I was simply assuming all of the stuff in the post. You lost when I specified that we would argue about the benefit of society but you didn't bring any arguments why fucking a 14 year old girl would benefit society. Take this L and be a little more humble in the future.
You can consent though. The language is fairly clear. You will still get punished for most things you do under the influence.
>How is farming animals to eat, slavery? because they are literally are in cages. they dont have freedom. they are castrated, raped and killed against their kill. animals dont want to live in a cage their entire life, animals dont want to live in a enclosed fence their entire life, but we force them to, we enslave them. you're telling me this isnt slavery?
if we treated dogs like we do pigs, would it be slavery then? how about chimps?
is it ethical of me to breed chimps in small cages and kill them and eat them, just like how you kill and eat pigs?
You are suggesting that all farm animals are treated cruelly and all pets are treated like people. You need to start with a point of view that is rational instead of saying random bullshit. Animal cruelty can exist with dogs or with pigs, but farming pigs can be ethical because we raise them for food. It's a collective agreement on which animals are raised for food. Your idea of slavery, torture or whatever simply doesn't apply anywhere in the argument. It's like saying eating is bad because people can be fat.
tell me, is it ethical to kill and eat and enslave and castrate monkeys?
they arent human, so that makes it okay?
how about dogs? is it okay to treat dogs like how we treat pigs?
op is truly the most brilliant person to ever post in r9k, im jealous of his DEEP INTELLECTUAL MIND
Not bringing any arguments to why fucking a 14 year old girl does not benefit society does not make me logically inconsistent or logically unsound. I just forgot. I was moreso arguing if it's wrong or not, to. In which I was not logically inconsistent or incorrect. Keep trying to le pwn me, though. Lol.
No, you are just saying that having any pets is slavery. Just sounding off the retard alert.
how can utilitarianism be a logical ethical system if your """judgement""" about what will provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people is based soley on your own take of the situation, unable to be quantified, or provide any formal logical reasoning?
having pets IS slavery you fucking retard. they are bred into existence, castrated for our AMUSEMENT. we dont need pets, but they are fun so we breed them into existence for our amusement
it literally is slavery you fucking retard
ahhhh, arguing with meat eaters is like speaking to mentally disabled people
>now he thinks pets is slavery lol get help
Smoking weed IS slavery!
It doesn't mean you're logically inconsistent or logically unsound but you lost the debate if you're not arguing for what we agreed in the first place and you also claimed you'd instantly win any debate, which you obviously can't win if you don't even argue for what we agreed upon debating.
>All study and authority on the subject disagrees. You're wrong about that since your consent isn't recognized before the law if you're under mind altering drugs.
It is recognized that's why I said it's recognized
killing and burning plants against their will is indeed unethical and you are a hypocrite.
>I'm interested in pure logical debate of ideas. the only thing you're interested in is dodging vegans because you have shit tier responses you fucking brainlet rat hypocrite, lel
consistent =\= sound consistent arguements can be formed with false premises. >hitler is black >jews do not like black >therefore, jews do not like hitler although the logic is consistent the arguement is not "sound" (a formal term in logic pls educate yourself) sound arguements contain true premises that form a valid conclusion. >Opie claims to be logical but has yet to prove anything using Logic >Opie fancies himself smart >therefore Opie is brainlet a valid argument that has true premises guerentees the conclusion to be true--a sound arguement.
plants dont have moral agency. and going vegan saves on the amount of plants killed because a vegan diet kills less plants than a diet with meat
literally it takes 20 kilo of dried corn to make 1 kilo of a cow including stuff like bones and skin
and even if i was a hypocrite, how does that matter? if i was a serial killer who killed people, does that make it okay for you to do that too? how do my sins justify yours? do 2 wrongs make a right?
hey op tell me, is killing rhinos for sport ethical?
I used the word PROBABLY. Meaning MIGHT or MIGHT NOT.
But you're right in terms of what the OP says. I fucked up there. I actually read that back after posting it and hoped no one caught it lol. Yep I was wrong there. Minor mistake, barely happens.
plants dont have moral value you fucking BRIANLET RETARD. do bacteria have moral value?
am i unethical if i use an alcohol wipe to kill bacteria on my hand, if those bacteria had the will to live?
Vegans kill plants but are they truely suffering? it must be proven first that plants have consciousness capable of suffering in any meaningful way before the suffering of plants and animals can be treated symetrically from an ethical lens
yes, you are unethical and a hypocrite.
>barely happens. LOL dude you are dodging my vegan questions like fat people dodge salad. like neo in the matrix dodging bullets. the only thing you can do is dodge vegans lel