DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
If we cannot kill or eat humans, as should be the case regarding social contracts, then the same principle must be applied to non-human sentient life in order to be objectively consistent.
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
@Shadowtongue I disagree as does our Creator who provided the meat of animals, fish, for our consumption. Even Jesus ate fish as an example (Luke 24:41-43).
"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The
fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on
all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground,
and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands.3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Genesis 9:1-3 (NIV)
@YeshuaBought If his justification for killing and eating animals is based upon his religious doctrine, then I must come to understand that his religion is valid in order for his claim to suffice as an argument for meat-eating.
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
@YeshuaBought If his justification for killing and eating animals is based upon his religious doctrine, then I must come to understand that his religion is valid in order for his claim to suffice as an argument for meat-eating.
He does not owe you an explaination, for his right to religious liberty.
@YeshuaBought How do I know that it is not true? On its face alone, I don't, but a belief can only be justified when the facts of reality back it up. He does not owe me an explanation? Is this not a debate forum?
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
@YeshuaBought How do I know that it is not true? On its face alone, I don't, but a belief can only be justified when the facts of reality back it up. He does not owe me an explanation? Is this not a debate forum?
People do not have to prove a right, to have a right. Rights are given by God, not government, so my statement stands.
@YeshuaBought You seem to not understand. I have no issue with his right to belief, for I wouldn't take that away from him. However, if you're debating an issue and use religion to try to fortify your position, you need to demonstrate in argumentation how the religion is true so as to give strength to your side of the debate.
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 92%     Substantial: 91%     Spelling & Grammar: 97%     Sentiment: Positive     Avg. Grade Level: 10.84     Sources: 0     Entity Sentiment Detection: side of the debate    religion   issue   position  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
@YeshuaBought You seem to not understand. I have no issue with his right to belief, for I wouldn't take that away from him. However, if you're debating an issue and use religion to try to fortify your position, you need to demonstrate in argumentation how the religion is true so as to give strength to your side of the debate.
@YeshuaBought I mean, it's true he's not bound by law to argue his position to me, but people voluntarily have joined this forum to debate their positions so it's only natural that if a voluntary member of this site willingly debates me, I will naturally put his positions to the test as I expect him to do back at me.
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 79%     Substantial: 74%     Spelling & Grammar: 98%     Sentiment: Positive     Avg. Grade Level: 12.76     Sources: 0     Entity Sentiment Detection: voluntary member of this site    position   law   positions  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
@Shadowtongue Twenty-seven-years-ago I was challenged concerning my faith and understanding of Scripture and God. I humbled myself and purchased a paraphrased copy of the Living Bible and began to read in the New Testament. That initial read convicted my heart and I pursued, with fervency, the Truth of Scripture in diligent study seeking the God of Scripture and my life was radically changed.
I pursued deeper understanding and I believed what I read, I could not deny that Jesus Christ-Yeshua is exactly who He says He is and upon my belief and confession that Jesus is Lord I received the indwelling Holy Spirit. My life and my eyes were opened to God's Truth, God's Plan for my life in Time and Eternity. Over the next 27-years I have walked intimately with my Lord and I have grown deeper and deeper in love with my God and God the Holy Spirit has been faithful to me, to teach and tutor me in the ways of God the Father and God the Son and explain to me the purpose for origin, meaning, morality, destiny. I simply cannot deny what I know to be Truth; that is, Jesus Christ entered into the World some 2019-yrs ago to save sinners and He saved me from death in sin and death in Hell and He gave me a new life of purpose, understanding, peace, joy, knowledge, assurance, LOVE.
@RickeyD So, how is it that you've ascertained that this scripture is true? After all, delusional people exist and people have the ability to write fiction.
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
@Shadowtongue I know it to be true because I have studied and there exists no alternative to the written word of God explaining origin, meaning, morality, destiny which directly
answers with logical consistency, empirical adequacy, experiential relevance.
There is ONE God and ONE Mediator for sin, Jesus Christ.
When the Holy Spirit entered my Life, there was no denying the accuracy, veracity, beauty, perfection of the Word of God, prophecy, eschatology, the Life of Messiah-Yeshua! Because of the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit, I know that I know that I know...I cannot imagine life without knowing God and His love and faithfulness.
  Considerate: 93%     Substantial: 54%     Spelling & Grammar: 96%     Sentiment: Positive     Avg. Grade Level: 12.8     Sources: 2     Entity Sentiment Detection: Holy Spirit    Life of Messiah-Yeshua   written word of God   faithfulness of the Holy Spirit  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
@Shadowtongue The indwelling Holy Spirit is the One who "Seals" the deal. It is the indwelling Holy Spirit that provides the assurance, the knowledge, the wisdom, the understanding, the life-changing beauty that accompanies a relationship with God the Father by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. It is beyond words to know that your life is blessed and life in Eternity is assured as everything is good, right, beautiful, between yourself and the God of the Universe.
@Shadowtongue Explaining the power, joy, peace, love, of the indwelling Holy Spirit to someone who has not experienced Him is not possible...you must experience the Lord personally to know what I know. When God takes control of your life...well...it's like the time I was approximately half-way through my initial read of the Scriptures...I remember looking up from the text and asking, "Where has this been all my life?" Every question I've ever had about life and purpose and meaning...they were answered with beauty and clarity. I can tell you that the life subsequent to believing that Jesus is Lord is so radically different and superior to the life before having known my Lord that the comparison/contrast defies human language/explanation.
If you desire to know what I know, your best first-step is to select a very readable version of the English translations...I suggest the NASB or NKJV or ESV and carefully read through the "Gospel of John" in the New Testament. John's Gospel totals 21-Chapters and you can read one-chapter-a-day for three-weeks or however you so decide to read this wonderful Book. I highly recommend that you ask God to send you His Spirit to open your eyes, mind, soul, to the deeper Truths of what you're reading and that you carefully and diligently pay attention to the words on the page or on the screen. Intermittently stop at the more difficult passages and ask God what He wants you to know...
@RickeyD What I want to ask you at this juncture is how you reason that this feeling of 'the Lord overcoming you' is in fact a divine happening and not the result of the mind playing tricks on itself. I can infer that the best explanation out of all technically possible explanations is that you're having false thought processes because there is plenty of understanding that the fallible mind, in league with emotions and deeper psychological issues, can often cause one to misunderstand things and even potentially engage in mental gymnastics of sorts to conjure false divine, religious revelations.
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 91%     Substantial: 86%     Spelling & Grammar: 99%     Sentiment: Positive     Avg. Grade Level: 13.4     Sources: 0     Entity Sentiment Detection: best explanation    possible explanations   false thought processes   deeper psychological issues  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
The common defence of basic human rights is based on our consciousness, not sentience. Humans are the only conscious species we know, species that are not just aware of their emotions and feelings, but can actually process them intellectually and make sense of them. We do not just experience pain; we can think, "I am hurting, and that is bad". It is this negative aspect of pain that defines our stance on this matter; no other known species has this aspect, and while all species try to minimise the amount of pain, it is a purely mechanical reaction, a reflex. Humans experience pain on an entirely different level.
This does not make it okay to hurt animals, of course, but it does imply that humans and other animals do not necessarily have to be treated equally.
Regardless, the human rights principle says that we cannot kill humans, but it does not really say that we cannot eat human meat. In principle, it would be fine to eat meat of humans who are already dead, or who for some bizarre reason decide to willingly donate/sell their meat to others. Same goes with animals: killing animals may or may not be okay depending on your perspective, but eating them should be fine.
@Shadowtongue I know that what transpired in my life was initiated from the outside in. I spent 31-yrs as a police officer...I investigated, I pursued, some of my assignments necessitated intuition, wisdom, aforethought, discernment...I know and understand that the change that was wrought in my soul was not some form of self-deception, mysticism, but God. Never in my life had I experienced such peace and assurance and understanding then and now...like Jesus said, it is being "born again" by the Spirit of God.
You intuitively resort to explaining the supernatural by humanistic/naturalistic verbiage because you do not know God and you have no clue relevant to the Spirit because you are spiritually dead and the things of God the Father and the Son and the Spirit seem as foolishness to you because you are a natural man, captured by the constraints of Time and you cannot see beyond your naturalism. The words I share are spiritual and unless you are willing to seek Truth in the Spirit, you will remain distanced from God and hope.
God is a gentleman, He will not coerce or force Himself upon you. Unless you're willing to gird yourself with courage and step outside the bounds of naturalism and purse God with your whole heart, He will remain an enigma to you and you will die in your sins and you will die a second death in Hell, body and soul, without hope (John 8:24).
**** If we cannot kill or eat humans, as should be the case regarding social contracts, then the same principle must be applied to non-human sentient life in order to be objectively consistent.
How should we treat animals? I think we will all acknowledge that most if not all are capable of experiencing extreme pain.
Should the suffering of animals be included in any moral assessment on how we should behave? If not why not?
Sure, we have a vastly more developed brain, but animals to
some degree still experience life, pain, pleasure, sadness, so on and so forth.
After all, this is why you deem it not okay to hurt animals, right? Also, how
come it’s okay for us to kill animals but not hurt? Is injury a worse
encroachment than death now? What about humans with brain damage and/or
deformities. Can we kill and eat them since they don’t have the same degree of
consciousness we normal people do?
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
How is it though that you know with certainty that this
change in your being wasn’t self-deception? You say it’s so but I need you to
show me how this is the case. For example, an ancient Roman would’ve professed
that he felt the divine presence of the Roman gods, but his word and feelings of
assuredness don’t make those claims automatically proven. They need to be
justified by reality.
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 88%     Substantial: 96%     Spelling & Grammar: 97%     Sentiment: Positive     Avg. Grade Level: 6.36     Sources: 0     Entity Sentiment Detection: ancient Roman    divine presence of the Roman gods   example   self-deception  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
The answer lies in my original statement. If we protect
human lives by order of social contract, which we definitely should, then there
exists no reason to treat non-human sentient life differently. Now, we can’t treat non-human animals on the same legal basis as humans on all fronts since nature isn’t governable,
but the original point still stands.
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
I do not think meat consumption is evil. As we are the dominant species on this planet, I believe that eating meat for our consumption if only for our survival, is OK. I think that for it to be justified, though, you have to eat all or most of the animal. Less than 1% of the sturgeon fish is eaten (the eggs). 99% is wasted. I consider that to be morally wrong.
I haven’t disputed your original point I was just putting forward a question or two to the forum in general in hope of some interesting debate on the topic
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 91%     Substantial: 37%     Spelling & Grammar: 97%     Sentiment: Neutral     Avg. Grade Level: 10.2     Sources: 0     Entity Sentiment Detection: original point    hope of some interesting debate   question   forum  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
@xlJ_dolphin_473 So if your argument is that if organism X is dominant, then it eating meat to survive is morally justifiable, then I am curious. If an aggressive alien race invaded our world and then became the new dominant life on Earth, is it morally justifiable for them to kill and eat us? How does dominance equate to moral justification? Additionally, how does eating more of something increase the morality of the killing? Would that mean that if a serial murderer eats almost all his victims he should get a lesser sentence than a serial murderer who didn't eat their victims?
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
From their point of view, yes, it could be justifiable to kill and eat us. Our morals are ours, and their morals are theirs.
Do you think it is moral to kill a wolf? You might say, "No, a wolf is a living being". But that wolf, in turn, has likely killed hundreds other animals throughout its life. And if you do not kill it now, it may kill dozens more.
****These are all complicated and subjective matters
Yes , that’s a fair comment the matter is deeply complicated. Humans get immense pleasure from eating meat so if we weigh that against animal suffering is it worth it do you think?
@xlJ_dolphin_473 So if your argument is that if organism X is dominant, then it eating meat to survive is morally justifiable, then I am curious. If an aggressive alien race invaded our world and then became the new dominant life on Earth, is it morally justifiable for them to kill and eat us? How does dominance equate to moral justification? Additionally, how does eating more of something increase the morality of the killing? Would that mean that if a serial murderer eats almost all his victims he should get a lesser sentence than a serial murderer who didn't eat their victims?
I think that if an aggressive alien race invaded Planet Earth and they came to dominate over the current dominant life form (humans), then yes, I think it would be morally justified for them to kill and eat us. About your second point, I think that if a murderer kills and eats their victims, then they should get a lesser sentence than a murderer who didn't eat their victims, because they were killing them for a reason: to eat them. I strongly believe that purposeful killing is more justified than gratuitous killing. That concludes my argument.
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 68%     Substantial: 90%     Spelling & Grammar: 97%     Sentiment: Negative     Avg. Grade Level: 12.5     Sources: 0     Entity Sentiment Detection: aggressive alien race    second point   new dominant life   current dominant life form  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
I personally do not think that pleasure from eating meat really justifies killing animals or raising them on farms - however, meat is virtually necessary for humanity at this point. In the future, synthetic meat will likely replace animal meat and the problem will be solved, but as of now... We could in principle get rid of all meat, but in order to maintain healthy nutrition, we would need some sort of replacement. As far as I know, the only viable alternative to meat (aside from various artificial supplements that have their own issues) is mushrooms, and those are very-very hard to grow in an organised manner.
I do not think we should ignore the problem, but right now farming and, to a smaller extent, hunting are necessary. It could be different 20-30 years down the road, and then this topic will likely become very popular.
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 88%     Substantial: 100%     Spelling & Grammar: 97%     Sentiment: Negative     Avg. Grade Level: 12.5     Sources: 0     Entity Sentiment Detection: only viable alternative    various artificial supplements   own issues   organised manner  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
Humanity tends to value its own species much more than any other. We give protections of the law usually only to our own species and think of our own desires first and foremost. That tends to be why there isn't many countries abolishing meat consumption.
We also tend to use animals as tools/resources/pets already, so it makes sense for humanity to use them as a food source as well. It is natural regarding the food chain and having such an intellectually dominant species where other animals can't compete.
@MayCaesar Morality can be subjective depending on what it's predicated upon, but you do recognize that the principles of experiencing life, pain, pleasure, et cetera are principles found in all forms of sentient life and so the nature of killing and eating is the same across all sentient life and thus should be treated with consistent regard, right? If we are to avoid death and strive for prosperity in the forging of a social contract, then, in order to be objective, we should strive to make sure to avoid the killing and eating of non-human life as well.
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 92%     Substantial: 96%     Spelling & Grammar: 98%     Sentiment: Negative     Avg. Grade Level: 13.2     Sources: 0     Entity Sentiment Detection: forging of a social contract    et cetera   forms of sentient life   Morality  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
@MayCaesar Non-sentient life is the only exception to this because, while it reacts, it doesn't have an active cognitive system in order to experience anything. It's just living matter.
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
@RickeyD You know because you know? In order to know something, the knowledge has to be predicated upon information which allowed the knowledge to arise in the first place. So, what information do you have that what you experienced is truly divine in nature?
My goal is to interview you and subsequently challenge you on your ideas and positions so as to produce critical thought and introspection.
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.76  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
And how do you justify your religion?
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 23%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religion         
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 55%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Religious liberty    human right   religion   government dictatorship  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
What I'm asking is how he knows his religion is true, not questioning his right to belief.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religion    belief   nbsp   right  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 77%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religion    business   belief   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religion    belief   nbsp   Shadowtongue  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
If his justification for killing and eating animals is based upon his religious doctrine, then I must come to understand that his religion is valid in order for his claim to suffice as an argument for meat-eating.
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious doctrine    justification   animals   religion  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious doctrine    religious liberty   justification   animals  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
How do I know that it is not true? On its face alone, I don't, but a belief can only be justified when the facts of reality back it up.
He does not owe me an explanation? Is this not a debate forum?
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: face    facts of reality   debate forum   belief  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: facts of reality    face   debate forum   People  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 71%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.42  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
You seem to not understand. I have no issue with his right to belief, for I wouldn't take that away from him. However, if you're debating an issue and use religion to try to fortify your position, you need to demonstrate in argumentation how the religion is true so as to give strength to your side of the debate.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: side of the debate    religion   issue   position  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Okay, so how have you come to understand that what you serve is real?
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 30%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Okay         
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: side of the debate    religion   issue   position  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
If people don't have to present their case for their arguments then why join a debate website? What have you come here for?
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: people    debate website   case   arguments  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
I mean, it's true he's not bound by law to argue his position to me, but people voluntarily have joined this forum to debate their positions so it's only natural that if a voluntary member of this site willingly debates me, I will naturally put his positions to the test as I expect him to do back at me.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: voluntary member of this site    position   law   positions  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.4  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: deeper understanding    initial read   Jesus Christ-Yeshua   understanding of Scripture  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, how is it that you've ascertained that this scripture is true? After all, delusional people exist and people have the ability to write fiction.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 49%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: delusional people    people   ability   scripture  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Holy Spirit    Life of Messiah-Yeshua   written word of God   faithfulness of the Holy Spirit  
  Relevant (Beta): 43%  
  Learn More About Debra
What is said in this scripture that grants it such validity to you? I need specific proofs for you to demonstrate to me.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: specific proofs    scripture   such validity    
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.54  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 32%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 24%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: wife    nbsp   supper   TTYL  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
And how have you come to understand this holy spirit which is spoken of is true in reality?
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: holy spirit    reality      
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Reply whenever you want.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Reply         
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.36  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
What I want to ask you at this juncture is how you reason that this feeling of 'the Lord overcoming you' is in fact a divine happening and not the result of the mind playing tricks on itself. I can infer that the best explanation out of all technically possible explanations is that you're having false thought processes because there is plenty of understanding that the fallible mind, in league with emotions and deeper psychological issues, can often cause one to misunderstand things and even potentially engage in mental gymnastics of sorts to conjure false divine, religious revelations.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: best explanation    possible explanations   false thought processes   deeper psychological issues  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
This does not make it okay to hurt animals, of course, but it does imply that humans and other animals do not necessarily have to be treated equally.
Regardless, the human rights principle says that we cannot kill humans, but it does not really say that we cannot eat human meat. In principle, it would be fine to eat meat of humans who are already dead, or who for some bizarre reason decide to willingly donate/sell their meat to others. Same goes with animals: killing animals may or may not be okay depending on your perspective, but eating them should be fine.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.98  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 46%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 8%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 0%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
How should we treat animals? I think we will all acknowledge that most if not all are capable of experiencing extreme pain.
Should the suffering of animals be included in any moral assessment on how we should behave? If not why not?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: social contracts    non-human sentient life   extreme pain.Should   humans  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
Sure, we have a vastly more developed brain, but animals to some degree still experience life, pain, pleasure, sadness, so on and so forth. After all, this is why you deem it not okay to hurt animals, right? Also, how come it’s okay for us to kill animals but not hurt? Is injury a worse encroachment than death now? What about humans with brain damage and/or deformities. Can we kill and eat them since they don’t have the same degree of consciousness we normal people do?
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: experience life    normal people   brain damage   developed brain  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
How is it though that you know with certainty that this change in your being wasn’t self-deception? You say it’s so but I need you to show me how this is the case. For example, an ancient Roman would’ve professed that he felt the divine presence of the Roman gods, but his word and feelings of assuredness don’t make those claims automatically proven. They need to be justified by reality.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ancient Roman    divine presence of the Roman gods   example   self-deception  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The answer lies in my original statement. If we protect human lives by order of social contract, which we definitely should, then there exists no reason to treat non-human sentient life differently. Now, we can’t treat non-human animals on the same legal basis as humans on all fronts since nature isn’t governable, but the original point still stands.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: legal basis    non-human animals   human lives   non-human sentient life  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: dominant species    meat consumption   sturgeon fish   planet  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
I haven’t disputed your original point I was just putting forward a question or two to the forum in general in hope of some interesting debate on the topic
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: original point    hope of some interesting debate   question   forum  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
I understand now. Was originally confused.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
It’s all good , it’s an excellent debate topic
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: excellent debate topic    nbsp      
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
So if your argument is that if organism X is dominant, then it eating meat to survive is morally justifiable, then I am curious. If an aggressive alien race invaded our world and then became the new dominant life on Earth, is it morally justifiable for them to kill and eat us? How does dominance equate to moral justification? Additionally, how does eating more of something increase the morality of the killing? Would that mean that if a serial murderer eats almost all his victims he should get a lesser sentence than a serial murderer who didn't eat their victims?
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: aggressive alien race    serial murderer   new dominant life   lesser sentence  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
From their point of view, yes, it could be justifiable to kill and eat us. Our morals are ours, and their morals are theirs.
Do you think it is moral to kill a wolf? You might say, "No, a wolf is a living being". But that wolf, in turn, has likely killed hundreds other animals throughout its life. And if you do not kill it now, it may kill dozens more.
These are all complicated and subjective matters.
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
****These are all complicated and subjective matters
Yes , that’s a fair comment the matter is deeply complicated. Humans get immense pleasure from eating meat so if we weigh that against animal suffering is it worth it do you think?
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: subjective mattersYes    fair comment   Humans   immense pleasure  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think that if an aggressive alien race invaded Planet Earth and they came to dominate over the current dominant life form (humans), then yes, I think it would be morally justified for them to kill and eat us. About your second point, I think that if a murderer kills and eats their victims, then they should get a lesser sentence than a murderer who didn't eat their victims, because they were killing them for a reason: to eat them. I strongly believe that purposeful killing is more justified than gratuitous killing. That concludes my argument.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: aggressive alien race    second point   new dominant life   current dominant life form  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
I personally do not think that pleasure from eating meat really justifies killing animals or raising them on farms - however, meat is virtually necessary for humanity at this point. In the future, synthetic meat will likely replace animal meat and the problem will be solved, but as of now... We could in principle get rid of all meat, but in order to maintain healthy nutrition, we would need some sort of replacement. As far as I know, the only viable alternative to meat (aside from various artificial supplements that have their own issues) is mushrooms, and those are very-very hard to grow in an organised manner.
I do not think we should ignore the problem, but right now farming and, to a smaller extent, hunting are necessary. It could be different 20-30 years down the road, and then this topic will likely become very popular.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: only viable alternative    various artificial supplements   own issues   organised manner  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: people    Shadowtongue   debate website   case  
  Relevant (Beta): 54%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 29%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.14  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Spirit lives    Way   God   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: meat consumption.We    food source   food chain   dominant species  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: meat consumption    case   animals   people  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Morality can be subjective depending on what it's predicated upon, but you do recognize that the principles of experiencing life, pain, pleasure, et cetera are principles found in all forms of sentient life and so the nature of killing and eating is the same across all sentient life and thus should be treated with consistent regard, right? If we are to avoid death and strive for prosperity in the forging of a social contract, then, in order to be objective, we should strive to make sure to avoid the killing and eating of non-human life as well.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: forging of a social contract    et cetera   forms of sentient life   Morality  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
What right did I say had to be proven to a government?
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 32%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: government         
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Non-sentient life is the only exception to this because, while it reacts, it doesn't have an active cognitive system in order to experience anything. It's just living matter.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sentient life    only exception   order   matter  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
You know because you know? In order to know something, the knowledge has to be predicated upon information which allowed the knowledge to arise in the first place. So, what information do you have that what you experienced is truly divine in nature?
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: first place    knowledge   order   information  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra