Malaclypse the Younger

Sorry. The other thread became a free-for-all, and I didn't examine it as carefully as I should have. Remember, as noted in that thread, I was out of touch for about 48 hours.

However, it is clear that Automaton accepted the challenge first, and accepted it unequivocally.

I sincerely apologize for the inconveniece. When my debate with Automaton is completed, I will accept a debate from you.

Malaclypse the Younger

Automaton

This resolution contains a subtle ambiguity; in order to disagree, I need a little more precision.

In the sense that it means, "I believe that other people killing animals for meat is morally wrong" I don't disagree. Interpreted in this way, it is a statement about your own beliefs, which I must accept on your own authority.

Agreed. You may decide which of us goes first.

Malaclypse the Younger

This is a good suggestion, albeit somewhat ambiguous: It is unclear under what facts you intend as context and precisely what you mean by "justification".

And it is up to Automaton, as the challenged, to decide upon a resolution.

As the OP, I would politely request that you restrict your comments here to the challenge itself, and keep a substantive discussion of the underlying issues to other threads. Keeping a thread on topic is considered by the community to be an important point of ettiquette.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

emphryio

Yes, that's fine Malaclypse. I'm over my disappointment. I'll be watching your debate.

Malaclypse the Younger

Again, my sincere apologies. I erred in that I didn't immediately link to this thread in the other.

Bokonon

Is this debate assuming from the get-go that Suffering is objectively (or at least under normal circumstances) immoral? Otherwise, I don't see how either side will manage to make any ground.

The human rights angle arguing against factory farming could still be used, but again, that's assuming Suffering is immoral. And of course the Environmental argument, but that's assuming destroying nature is immoral. Thus is the result of subjectivity.

FTR, I'm an ethical (though health most certainly plays a role) vegan. But I'll be mostly a lurker for a few days till I can catch up on all the threads and get a general feel of the board. I've been a regular reader of Infidels for quite some time.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]</p>

99Percent

The advantage of debating in an atheist site is that we can set aside the issue of God, religion and all other theistic factors in the discussion. This allows for a much more productive discussion, IMO.

spin

PB's attempted tit-for-tat (referring to the restaurant at the end of the universe):
---------------------------------------
It was a reference to Douglas Adams. I fear you are culturally deprived.
---------------------------------------

Jumping the gun once again, PB. tronvillain showed no understanding of the abuse comment by asking about it. I showed nothing either way. You merely assumed and assumed wrongly, so your fear is unfounded. Would you like to buy a copy of the original radio-play? Can you tell me who the actor playing the Book was? or what TV series Adams worked on before doing the radio play? or how Trillian was dragooned into the plot?

tronvillain

spin:
No, I recall the sketch now that you mention it, but you apparently thought it was relevant so my questions remain.

spin

Whatever your questions were, the abuse comment came from the argument comment and was word association football goalposts. OK?