Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

354

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

The NAP is an ethical stance that aggression is inherently wrong. "Aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.

So, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists will say that the NAP applies to humans.

Does it apply to animals?

If not, name the trait.

If so, go vegan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle The NAP is an ethical stance that aggression is inherently wrong. "Aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. So, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists will say that the NAP applies to humans. Does it apply to animals? If not, name the trait. If so, go vegan.

(post is archived)

[–] • 6 pts

What I eat is none of your goddamn business. Now, am I being detained, or am I free to go?

[–] • 0 pt

"Who I rape is none of your goddamn business."

Why it's my business:

1) Veganism is an obligation: https://poal.co/s/DebateAVegan/12659

2) If you're like 99% of people, you agree that animal abuse is wrong.

[–] • 1 pt

My morality is between me, and whoever it effects. Unless it affects you, my morality is none of your damn business. What I eat doesn't affect you one bit. That you anthropomorphize animals, and then empathize with them is your problem to deal with, not mine. That you're willing to use your overactive empathy to aggressively push your emotions on other people whether they like it or not IS a violation of the NAP, and should you get too obnoxious about it, a community is fully justified in throwing you out. Should you come back and continue, harsher measures may be used.

Rape effects a lot of people. It effects the person raped, and the people around them. All of these people are now justified in bringing justice upon the rapist, and returning the peace in any way they deem fit, since the rapist broke the NAP. That you're equating rape with eating meat, however, is again, a sign of overactive emotions on your part, which is again, your problem to sort out, not mine.

aka None of your damn business.

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt
[–] • 3 pts

For every post on this sub I am going to shoot one squirrel . I don’t want to do it please don’t make me.

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts (edited )

How do you reconcile animals eating other animals? A croc eating a dog? A bird eating a worm? A hawk eating a squirrel? Apolar bear eating a salmon, etc.?

Edit: typos

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Animals don't comprehend morality, so I don't judge the morality of their actions.

If a retarded human didn't comprehend morality, I wouldn't judge the morality of his actions. Say a retard hits me, but he didn't comprehend that hitting people isn't good, can I justifiably be mad at him?

Edit: I don't know if "animals don't comprehend morality" is true. https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

So, for sake of argument, say they do. Vegans are against needless killing. These animals aren't needlessly killing.

[–] • 3 pts

Looks like a trait to me.

Does not eating things that comprehend morality sound good?

[–] • 0 pt

What about creatures that don't comprehend morality? Say a retard doesn't comprehend morality, can I eat the retard?

[–] • 1 pt

Animals don't comprehend morality, so I don't judge the morality of their actions.

And there's the problem. You can't have a pact with something that does not understand what a pact is. If they are not going to hold up their end, even if it is because they are simply cannot, I have no obligation to pretend there is a pact.

Altruism is not self-interest.

[–] • 0 pt

If a retard can't enter this pact, does the NAP not apply to the retard?

[–] • 2 pts

Why would the NAP apply to non-humans?

[–] • 0 pt

Because there's no trait in animals that if applied to a human would make it okay to deny the NAP to the human.

Rephrased: If the NAP applies to humans, but not to animals, there must be some difference between the two that enabled you to make this distinction. Name this difference.

[–] • 1 pt

Humans are human. Animals are not. What do I win?

[–] • 0 pt

So, the difference is species? Say blacks and asians were different species. Can blacks deny the NAP to asians?

[–] • 1 pt

The NAP is about aggression... eating an animal has nothing to do with aggression. Slaughtering a cow has nothing to do with aggression. If you are aggressive to the cow you have issues.

Your argument could be made against modern industrial meat industries but not against the entire principal of eating meat.

[–] • 0 pt

Eating meat per se isn't wrong, it's needlessly killing animals is wrong.

"Aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.

Initiating any forcible interference with an individual

Slaughtering an animal is forcible interference.

[–] • 0 pt

Most cows could not live in the wild... they are a fully domesticated. On a traditional farm setting we give them a full life that is largely free of stress and absent the dangers of the wild. All things must come to an end and when they do eating what remains is not a sin. There is an ethical and moral way to raise, slaughter and eat livestock. Sadly this way is not the norm in America anymore. Industrial agriculture is full of ethical transgressions but this does not make the entire practice of eating meat an ethical transgression.

[–] • 0 pt

It’s a good thing libertarians are cucks compared even to Republicans

[–] • 0 pt

It doesn't apply to non-human animals because the entire concept of NAP depends upon the existence of a social contract. Are animals capable of entering a social contract with humans?

I suppose an argument could be made that some animals, like dogs, have done exactly that when their ancestors chose cooperation with humans over aggression. Which would be why we don't eat dogs and there's moral outrage when they are neglected or beat...and if a dog violates that NAP agreement by attacking a human, we don't kill them like any other animal, we humanely "put them down".

[–] • 0 pt

If a human can't/doesn't form a social contract with the rest of society, does the NAP not apply?

Say a retard can't enter the social contract, does the NAP not apply?

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

It doesn't matter if a retard, or anyone, can't form or willfully enter a social contract because most are born into one and so all a person has to do is not reject the contract already in place. Additionally, it's been my experience that retards understand the basic concept of "don't hurt others" and that doing so brings consequences...including a trip to the psych ward.

And to go back to my dog example...most domesticated dogs are born into the same contract as us. They can either accept the contract or reject it and face the consequences...just like the rest of us.

[–] • 0 pt

If I'm not born into your social contract, is it okay to murder me?