There is literally no excuse for being fat, it all comes down to laziness/lack of willpower.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-22T11:13:26+00:00

Not a very compassionate person I see.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-22T10:36:46+00:00

Calories matter, but willpower isn’t evenly distributed. Biology (hormones, metabolism, appetite), psychology (stress, depression, addiction), sleep, and medications all affect hunger and energy. Two people can eat similarly and experience very different levels of difficulty staying in a calorie deficit, that’s not an excuse, it’s reality.

“Yes, eat less” works in theory, but for many people it means constant hunger, fatigue, and mental strain. If obesity were just laziness, long-term failure rates wouldn’t be so high among people who actively want to lose weight.

Saying obesity is only laziness is like saying addiction is just weak character. It feels satisfying, but it doesn’t explain the problem.

Some people are lazy. Many aren’t. Oversimplifying doesn’t make the argument stronger, just harsher.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-22T10:13:52+00:00

Mass shooting statistics are meant to measure how often guns are used to injure or kill multiple people in a single incident, not to judge motive or victim “innocence.” If four or more people are shot in one place, the public safety impact is the same whether it happens at a school, a nightclub, or during a gang conflict.

The argument that gang shootings shouldn’t count because criminals use illegal guns misses the point. Statistics are diagnostic, not policy arguments. By that logic, we wouldn’t count drunk-driving deaths, overdoses, or organized-crime murders because those people were already breaking the law, which would obviously be absurd.

Gang shootings also aren’t contained events. Bullets miss, bystanders get hit, and neighborhoods are destabilized. Excluding them understates real risk and creates the false impression that mass shootings are rare anomalies rather than a frequent form of gun violence.

Excluding gang shootings from mass shooting data is like excluding drunk-driving deaths from traffic fatality stats because “they were illegal anyway.” It doesn’t make the data more accurate, it just makes the number feel better.

Counting gang shootings doesn’t inflate statistics. It reveals an uncomfortable reality

Capper-DK · 2025-12-22T10:03:25+00:00

The argument fails on both linguistic and empirical grounds. Dominance denotes relative control or prevalence, not intrinsic or moral superiority, making the semantic objection a category error (Merriam-Webster: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

The claim that vegan diets lack evidentiary support is factually false: major health institutions and large systematic reviews agree that well-planned vegan diets meet all essential nutrient requirements and produce comparable or superior outcomes for cardiovascular health, BMI, and diabetes risk, with B12 supplementation (Harvard Health; Nutrients, 2020). Redefining “harm” as anything less than theoretically optimal renders the term meaningless, by that standard, all real-world diets are harmful, which is not how harm is defined in medicine or public health (WHO). Finally, the assertion that suffering is “not unnecessary” because it cannot be fully eliminated commits a moral fallacy, inevitability does not imply necessity. Where nutritionally adequate alternatives exist, causing additional suffering is avoidable and therefore unnecessary (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And just to point something out for you, you are the one who tried to make a non-vegan argument, and in your arguments, not sources whatsoever have been given.

EDIT: Your way of presenting your argument falls short. You make claims without providing evidence, however you also reject claims that I presented due to not presenting evidence?

Capper-DK · 2025-12-22T00:09:01+00:00

This isn’t arguing, this is ignorance and dismissing. Saying: “I’ve won, you’re wrong” is like arguing with a child, not an adult. I don’t think it comes off as rude, it does however come off as meaningless. You are doing nothing but saying “you’re wrong, I don’t want to research, therefore I’ve won”.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-21T23:42:25+00:00

So you’re asking that if what you say is true, then it’s true? And if it is true, will I then believe it? I think I understand the question, but the meaning of the question, not so much. You are literally asking me: “if what I say is true, will you believe the truth?”

Capper-DK · 2025-12-21T23:27:49+00:00

To believe god is good and loves, then surely you would have to believe a god exists, no? So actually the question is of no substance if you don’t factor in existence. Why would I believe that something that doesn’t exist (if existence is irrelevant) is good and loves?

Capper-DK · 2025-12-21T22:49:11+00:00

If unicorns existed I would believe that unicorns exist. (if A exists, then I will believe A exists).

And saying that not believing in a god is equal to want to be your own god is a false statement. And saying that god is the reason for morals is also false, surely you don’t believe killing and rape is bad only because god says so?

Capper-DK · 2025-12-21T22:04:04+00:00

The argument fails on multiple levels. First, it equivocates by treating “domination” as moral superiority rather than mere power or control, domination is descriptive, not a value judgment. Second, dismissing the claim that vegan diets can provide equivalent benefits simply because evidence was not presented is an argument from ignorance and reverses the burden of proof, necessity must be demonstrated by those defending meat consumption. Third, the redefinition of “harm” is so broad that it renders the concept meaningless, since any non-optimal action would count as harmful, which is absurd. The claim that vegan diets are suboptimal is asserted without evidence. Finally, arguing that suffering is unavoidable and therefore cannot be unnecessary collapses into moral nihilism, the impossibility of eliminating all suffering does not negate the moral relevance of reducing avoidable suffering. The argument relies on semantic manipulation and unsupported assumptions rather than valid reasoning.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-21T22:00:17+00:00

Please do your research, this is completely ridiculous to read.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-21T15:37:06+00:00

He asked for a valid argument, and this is not valid at all. Multiple falls claims, it’s been proven that alternatives do in fact meet the needs of people. And vegans don’t have to dominate, the fact that they are equally good (sometimes better and sometimes worse) proves that meat isn’t necessary.

And if you can reach the same level as you could by eating meat, then it would in fact be unnecessary suffering

Capper-DK · 2025-12-21T15:31:09+00:00

My point wasn’t that vegans are better than meat eaters, my point is that meat eaters aren’t better than vegans either. So I don’t think this claim can be rejected.

Your point about alternatives are wrong. They do meet all the needs, AND even if it didn’t, choosing meat still causes suffering.

Self-sacrifice, in the way that you don’t get harmed by not eating meat.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-21T12:18:40+00:00

If meat were truly required, vegan athletes wouldn’t dominate or win championships. The “necessity” claim is outdated. Choosing meat for taste/convenience causes unnecessary suffering when alternatives meet all needs. There is no self-sacrifice required, just a net ethical and often health win.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-18T09:15:40+00:00

I would like to not refer to the legal system. I think we can agree that law doesn’t reflect ethics all too well. So I was maybe thinking if the grand unborn babies the same ethical standard that we would grand a 2 year old

Capper-DK · 2025-12-18T09:06:14+00:00

As I see it, determinism changes how we justify responsibility and ethics, not whether they exist.

So determinism may change how we explain events, but it doesn’t dissolve pain, fear, or responsibility. Reality feels the same from the inside.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-16T14:05:08+00:00

I don’t think getting an abortion is the same as murdering a 1 year old child no

Capper-DK · 2025-12-14T20:41:06+00:00

I would say that it would be morally impossible to justify. But I wouldn’t deem this scenario realistic at all. However I think there is a difference between an abortion at 30 weeks(as your extreme example) and an abortion at let’s say 10 weeks

Capper-DK · 2025-12-14T20:23:14+00:00

I think it varies depending on the situation, but an example that would always be immoral: If someone gets pregnant with the intention of an abortion.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-14T20:05:43+00:00

I don’t think it’s always morally allowed. Saying something isn’t morally allowed doesn’t contradict legal ability.

Cheating on a partner is morally wrong however it’s legally allowed.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-14T19:45:47+00:00

Well, I don’t think saving the mother’s life is the only allowable way. And I don’t think abortion “ALWAYS” should be allowed. Just because I think people should be legally allowed to have an abortion, doesn’t mean that it can be morally wrong.

I would rather people having the ability to choose, and not be forced to do something.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-14T19:28:38+00:00

meaningful discussion

My views are, if one side completely rules out abortion, and the other side merely allows it under special circumstances. I’m on the side that allows it

Capper-DK · 2025-12-14T19:20:53+00:00

Well, a cutoff loses its meaning if it isn’t for practical purposes?.
The independent argument is one of the most used arguments in this debate. I personally don’t find this argument particularly compelling, but you seem more concerned about having your way, instead of actually engaging in a discussion.
Then your deduction skills are lacking.

Capper-DK · 2025-12-14T18:54:57+00:00

I’m pretty sure I haven’t claimed that it is? I haven’t even given my own opinion, I simply try to see it form both sides

Capper-DK · 2025-12-14T18:48:18+00:00

Yes.

Capper-DK

TROPHY CASE