/ck/ - Food & Cooking

Spooks

i'm vegan

>>12848325
nigga ion care gimme the @ of the shordie on the right. she need a real nigga.

>>12848325
If you want to devolve, be vegan. Sub-human.

>>12848325
>no good ethical arguments for eating meat
There's no reason for there to be. Eating meat is natural and the cultural norm in most of the world. It's on you to provide a sound argument as to why the rest of us shouldn't eat meat, and I've yet to hear one.

I hope all libtards go vegan then you will be easier to kill off in death camps.

>>12848537
>Eating meat is natural and the cultural norm in most of the world.
Slavery is normal. Genital mutilation is normal. Stoning random people to death is normal. That's not a good argument.

> It's on you to provide a sound argument as to why the rest of us shouldn't eat meat, and I've yet to hear one.
That's not how it works bucko

>>12848325
goodness he is small

>>12848562
He is small but he fucks a new girl every week.

>>12848565
and he'll never know who you are.

>>12848566
I don't want to know him. It would be pretty easy to get to know him if I wanted to though discord is open and he debates anyone.

>>12848559
Slavery, female circumcision, and stoning are not at all normal outside of poor, repressed, usually highly religious countries with a generally ignorant population. Those are also injustices against humans and are completely different from eating meat in that regard.
>that's not how it works
No, actually the burden of proof is always on the one making the outlandish claim.

>>12848576
>Slavery, female circumcision, and stoning are not at all normal outside of poor, repressed, usually highly religious countries with a generally ignorant population.
A good percentage of the world. Slavery, segregation, lynching people is not that far in America's past. Something being the norm doesn't mean it's ethically justified.

>it's natural
Murdering and raping people is a natural thing too.

>No, actually the burden of proof is always on the one making the outlandish claim.
All I did was ask for good ethical justification. We have good ethical justifications for everything else we believe. Why not this one?

>>12848325
What is your ethical argument against eating meat?

>>12848589
The same ethical argument for not killing humans.

>>12848593
Well, let's be formal about this. What specifically about humans and animals warrants not killing them to eat?

>>12848325
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61g2-EVJ-mo

>>12848598
You don't know why we don't kill and eat each other?

>>12848604
I'm trying to drive this towards a formal logic semi-debate because I want to see what happens with the name that trait argument in certain circumstances.

>>12848588
>we have good ethical justifications for everything else we believe
Most of the things we do aren't "beliefs"; they're just things we do. Ethicality only becomes an issue when an argument is raised as to the unethicality of one of our practices. So once again, the burden is on you.

>>12848624
So you can't ethically justify it is what your saying.

>>12848325
Morals are a construct. Human dietary needs are not.

>>12848598
I don't want to be killed and eaten so we decide it's bad to do it.

>>12848630
I'm saying a common practice isn't even an ethical issue until an argument has been made against it, legitimately calling it into question and raising it to the level of demanding an ethical justification.

>>12848644
Killing an animal against it's will isn't an ethical issue?

But I don't have morals. Morality basically boils down to empathy. Even more basic- it boils down to what the majority deem acceptable. In some shithole country, killing and eating a dog is the norm. But in the majority of countries it is considered morally wrong to kill a dog. So should that country that has deep roots in eating dogs change because other countries that they have never even been to say it's immoral? Of course not. If a bunch of muslims come to America and suddenly start calling for a ban on pork, how do you think that will go?

Humans don't need morality. Despite the rise of so many weak humans, we are instinctual in nature as any other animal. Fight or flight. Caring for your young. The sense that you are being watched. It's all instinct. Get rid of morality and revert to your primal instincts and you will have a better life than your current fake life based off of what politicians want you to think and feel about certain things.

>>12848655
So I should be allowed to execute you on site is what you're saying?

>>12848325
i dont need ethical arguments to eat what i want. Have a good one.

>>12848659
Sure. Just know that I will fight back. The better predator will win and pass on their genes. Although I doubt someone like you would do much to anyone. You will bitch and complain and nothing will change because you are an animal lacking instinct. Your morality will stop you from doing anything.

>>12848659
stop being a brainlet, thanks to the law you cant and wont while i can keep buying corpses of porkies and cows at the store as i laugh with the butcher of the hippies on the news.

>>12848655
looks delish. does that need to be cookt?

>>12848650
>killing an animal against it's will isn't an ethical issue
There are a lot of assumptions being made in you just throwing out the idea of an "animal's will", as though we even know what that means and you aren't just anthropomorphizing, despite the fact that there are half a dozen examples anyone could come up with where killing animals for various reasons is not at all treated the same as killing or doing harm to humans.

>>12848638
Okay, so what trait exists in both animals and humans such that this moral rule should still be upheld?

>>12848666
Pic related was already boiled, satan. From a coon hunt last year. Boiled then skinned. Then fat removed and cooked and put into a stew. Pretty greasy but not as bad as some other animals I have eaten.

>>12848663
Can i eat you then

>>12848669
>there are half a dozen examples anyone could come up with where killing animals for various reasons is not at all treated the same as killing or doing harm to humans.
Go on

>>12848325
>If you don't stay consistent with your morals there is no reason to have any morals.
Good.

>>12848664
but remember what hobbes said the little tiny nigga can get 10 guys to help him and then the one big dude is fucked and that my friend is the state of nature

>>12848679
>putting down a sick dog
>euthanizing dogs and cats because there simply aren't the resources at rescue shelters or enough people able to adopt them
>feeding smaller animals to other animals; not only pets, but sometimes one's that are endangered
>killing rabid animals
>killing rats, mice, cockroaches in your home
>killing an animal that is threatening to harm a person

>>12848684
Sure. And that happens. But the majority will be the alpha predator killing the weaker one. And in our current world where law presides due to scrawny politicians, I doubt you could get 10 people to go to prison over one person.

>>12848692
>putting down a sick dog
It's for their own benefit. We do the same thing for humans who can't consent.
>killing rabid animals
killing rabid humans is fine
>killing rats, mice, cockroaches in your home
They are breaking the social contract by entering my home. I would kill humans just the same.
>killing an animal that is threatening to harm a person
Same as above.

>>12848694
Who said anything about current world. I'm talking about a world without morals.

>>12848699
>We do the same thing for humans who can't consent
Dogs can't consent. Hence my entire point about "animal will".
>killing rabid humans is fine
No, it isn't.
>rats are breaking the social contract
Now you're just going full retard.
I'll give you that killing a human who is threatening another human is more of a grey area, but there's much more of an attempt to not have anyone harmed in that situation compared to say a bear attack, so I maintain that there's a categorical difference in how we treat each case ethically.

>>12848702
In world where instinct reins, why would 10 people follow a weak predator? If I were to ring up just a single friend and told him I need you to help me jump one person 2v1, he would immediately think of me as a lesser predator because I can't handle my own affairs.

>>12848705
>Dogs can't consent. Hence my entire point about "animal will".
We know though that dogs don't want to die. Just because they can't talk to us doesn't mean we get to murder them.
>No, it isn't.
Yes it is.
>Now you're just going full retard.
I think what I said stands. I don't want rat in my house. I tell it to leave. It doesn't leave. I get near it. It jumps at me. Eats through my headphones wires. I have the right to kill it.

>>12848711
Family? Friends?

>think of me as a lesser predator because I can't handle my own affairs.
You know we are still humans right? Even though we have instincts. If you told your friend there was a 250 pound buff guy at your door he wouldn't help you deal with him because you are lesser predator? You know that's how some animals in the wilderness get food right?

I'm sorry but it just looks good.

>>12848325
there are no good ethical arguments for soy induced castration

>>12848720
>we know though that dogs don't want to die
Animals instinctually avoid pain. Smarter animals like dogs understand when another dies, but they have no concept of their own mortality.
>doesn't mean we get to murder them
You said yourself putting down a sick dog isn't murder, but you also said that they don't want to die. You're getting confused.
>yes, it is
When do we ever put down humans because they've contracted rabies?
>i have the right to kill it
Of course you do. I also have the right to kill a pig that I've raised and butcher it and turn it into chops, bacon, and sausages.

>>12848325
invadervie is such disgusting trash.

>>12848325
woodberry girl on right

It is the way of things for animals to eat animals as it is nature and nature is not moral or amoral it just is.

>>12848576
>appeal to nature fallacies for me but not for thee

I'm sure you've actually heard plenty of sound and reasonable arguments for not eating meat, you're just too stubborn/stupid to admit it or see the other side's point in good faith. And yes all of those behaviours are "normal." They occur in human society at a scale large enough to be prevalent in a culture, hence they are normal. What you're doing is shifting the goal posts.

>>12848723
>Family? Friends?
All would instinctually view me as weak. If I weren't weak, why would I need their help?
>You know we are still humans right?
And humans are the apex predator of our planet.
> If you told your friend there was a 250 pound buff guy at your door he wouldn't help you deal with him because you are lesser predator?
If we are going off a world without morals, then I would just shoot him through my door. If guns are non-existent? I would use a melee weapon that gives me an advantage over him. If I lose? Then he kills me. And he will pass on his genes and the human race will grow stronger.
>You know that's how some animals in the wilderness get food right?
It's incredibly rare for a pack of alpha predators to attack another pack of alpha predators. Pack animals work as a pack to kill "food" animals. A pack of lions will take on a gazelle. But a pack of lions (in the vast majority) will not go after another pack of lions. They have their territories. The weak lions are driven out and die making room for more lively alphas.

>>12848325

Carnivore here - what's wrong with eating meat?

>>12848576
Forgot to mention that until recently slavery was practiced as a matter of course and merely a part of the old world. People's mentality changed, but I suspect it was more to do with slavery not being as economically viable as simply paying someone a living wage post industrial revolution rather than morals.

>>12848588
>Something being the norm doesn't mean it's ethically justified.

If veganism becomes the norm we cannot necessarily call it ethically justified either?

>>12848743
You don't even seem to understand what you're talking about when you use words like "nature". I'm not moving goal posts, just pointing out how you're continually contradicting yourself.

Destiny is an absolutely revolting little bug man with repulsive proportions holy fuck

>>12848325
>There are no good ethical arguments for eating meat.

Cows will go extinct if humans don't take care of them. They can't survive in the wild. Also, they are all islamic terrorists.

>>12848735
>Animals instinctually avoid pain. Smarter animals like dogs understand when another dies, but they have no concept of their own mortality.
Neither does a baby so it's morally permissible to kill them until they learn the concept?
>You're getting confused.
Again. We are doing something we know is benefiting them. If someone caught on fire right now and we knew they were gonna die we shouldn't end his misery early even though he can't consent? We should leave him screaming and burning until he dies?
>When do we ever put down humans because they've contracted rabies?
We don't but we should unless it's for testing purposes. Just my opinion.
>I also have the right to kill a pig that I've raised and butcher it and turn it into chops, bacon, and sausages.
Then I get to say the same for my 4 year old (hypothetical) daughter.

>>12848752
Ethically justified means you can give a good argument for it.

>>12848766
>Neither does a baby so it's morally permissible to kill them until they learn the concept?
Infants in critical condition (and abortions) are obviously a grey area, but only crazy rich people put their dogs on life support.
>>12848766
>if someone caught on fire right now and we knew they were gonna die
People pretty much everywhere try to save them and get them to a hospital in the chance that they'll live.
>just my opinion
Obviously. I think people shouldn't be allowed to have more than 2 kids but that has no bearing on the ethicality of eating meat (I mean, it does, but that's not what we're talking about).
>>12848766
>then I get to say the same for my 4 year old (hypothetical) daughter
No, you don't, because that's a human life and not livestock, however much you may have dreamt of raising her in a barn and feasting on her hypothetical flesh.

>>12848325
If you support abortion you have no ethical ground to oppose eating meat.

>>12848800
>Infants in critical condition (and abortions) are obviously a grey area, but only crazy rich people put their dogs on life support.
The point of the argument was not knowing the concept of death isn't an argument for saying someone doesn't deserve rights.
>People pretty much everywhere try to save them and get them to a hospital in the chance that they'll live.
Let's say we knew for whatever reason he was gonna die. He was burning for 4 minutes while we were in the jungle. Should we end his misery or keep him screaming?
>No, you don't, because that's a human life and not livestock,
What's the difference that allows me to kill livestock and not my hypothetical daughter?

>>12848808
The baby is breaking the social contract by entering the woman's body and feeding off her resources so the woman has the right to remove the intruder. Animals don't do this.

>>12848822
The woman put the baby in her body.
The baby didn't have a choice.

>>12848677
??? what dumb comparison are you doing? fucking hippie. By law you CANT, and if you ty ill defend myself and with much pleasue will fuck you up.

>>12848325
That's the dumbest non sequitur non-argument I read all year. Moron.

>>12848825
The woman put the baby the same way she puts a virus in her body by walking in the dirt.

>>12848833
By having unprotected sex with the dirt?

>>12848811
>point of the argument was not knowing the concept of death
And I said it was a grey area with infants/foetuses, but obviously people try to save the lives of sick infants because they will typically grow into real humans, which a dog never will, whatever you and it may think.
>let's assume this hypothetical situation that almost nobody will ever have to face and nobody ever thinks about as though it's relevant
>what's the difference
One is a human. Even the most hardcore vegan will admit that humans aren't the same as animals. It's even one of the core arguments of theirs that we've reached a point of self-reflection, rationality, and technological self-sufficiency that we no longer have any need to consume other animals and so if we have any sense of empathy with other living creatures we shouldn't. (Not that vegans ever have a logically coherent set of beliefs.)

>>12848839
Why put your foot in the dirt if you didn't want a virus?

>>12848840
> because they will typically grow into real humans, which a dog never will, whatever you and it may think.
What does this have to with then making the claim it's okay to murder and eat animals that are fine?
>>let's assume this hypothetical situation that almost nobody will ever have to face and nobody ever thinks about as though it's relevant
Have you heard of Philosophy. That's all it is.
>Even the most hardcore vegan will admit that humans aren't the same as animals.
Sure but not all humans are the same either. What's the ethical justification for killing animals and not humans? We are smarter which means we get to live and they don't?

>>12848840
>>let's assume this hypothetical situation that almost nobody will ever have to face and nobody ever thinks about as though it's relevant
What about that game of thrones episode where Jon kills that dude who is about to be executed by fire by shooting him in the heart and saving him from the pain. That wasn't morally correct because the dude didn't consent before he shot him in the heart.

>>12848325
You can grow meat some places where you can't grow human edible crops. Look at iceland or faroes history.
You could also make the argument that not feeding humans meat lowers their quality of life because meat is delicious and we are happier with more variety. A chicken is unlikely to have as much meaning in their entire existence as we find when we take a bite of them, because their brains are incredibly basic.

>>12848869
You know they say human meat tastes really delicious. We could pick like downs kids or something that don't have much aspirations.

>>12848871
Downs kids are still self aware. Chickens are no more aware than a robot. I avoid eating pigs when I can because they're a bit of a gray area

>>12848883
So then brain dead kids or babies.Those we can kill and eat.

>>12848889
Brain dead I might consider. Theres a big potential for disease though, and using them for organ harvest would be better.

imagine if vegans cared about making the world a better place for fellow human beings

>>12848858
>Have you heard of Philosophy
I actually have a graduate degree in philosophy and wrote quite a bit on the over-reliance of "telling stories" as a challenge to the accepted idea in the analytic tradition that any hypothetical, however outlandish, is sufficient to challenge particular necessary and sufficient conditions simply by the fact that it's possible. I think you sometimes need to change the narrative because people get too caught up on stupid bullshit and forget what they're even talking about.

>>12848894
Wow imagine if people could care about more things than one

>>12848901
So no on that ethical justification then.

>>12848902
name 10 vegans who try to better the world without calling for the death of meat eaters.

>>12848912
i dont know one vegan let alone 10

>>12848325
Those animals that were killed would go to waste if I didn't eat them.
You wouldn't let an animal's sacrifice go to waste would you?

>>12848906
I've heard every argument for not eating meat, but honestly believe that 99% of the time it requires some kind of an experiential turning, where someone just comes to feel that it's wrong. There are many good reasons to cut down on meat consumption, but I've never heard any real argument as to why it's unethical to kill and eat animals; the arguments are there, but they're used as an afterthought once someone has already decided, "in their heart", that it's wrong. Then again, virtually nobody acts on anything resembling a fully coherent rational world-view.

>>12848926
Why can't you use the same arguments we use for not killing humans? Other than the fact that they aren't humans but you still have to give a justification as to what part of being an animal and not a human allows us to have the right to kill them.

>>12848939
Why aren't you using the argument not to throw out a thermometer, it can sense temperature changes so it must be sentient.

>>12848939
Animals don't have rights. You can bring up how certain groups didn't have certain or any rights at different times in the past or even in certain places today, but the very concept of rights doesn't apply to creatures that can't even potentially comprehend nor exercise those "rights".

>>12848939
Food chain, baby. Animals don't cry and moralize when they eat other animals. Humans are just superior animals.

>>12848967
>that can't even potentially comprehend nor exercise those "rights".
So if this is what is needed for something to have rights you know the next question. What about humans that can't do these. Can't ever comprehend or exercise those rights. They still get rights.

>>12848977
Any human can potentially comprehend. Of course there are exceptions; parents have terminally ill babies all the time and choose to take them off life support, same as with people in comas.

>>12848325
No, it depends on many factors. I grew up in Sweden and in the 70s there were like 7 wild wolves left in the country because of us shooting them to protect livestock. The result of that was that the populations of moose and deer skyrocketed. The nation needed to create a controlling system of that type of population control. Hunting had always been a part of the culture, we always used as much from the animal as possible. Hunting is well regulated to keep populations at a very stable state. Wolves have also increased their numbers.

I grew up eating wild meats, especially moose and capercaillie. When growing up like that it made a noticable difference in flavor with store bought meats, not just that it's a different animal, but the life of the animal makes a huge difference in flavor.

The animal lives a natural life out in the wild, they're not raised on shit factory farms like in the states. The meat tasted better, they'll die anyways and why not use the animal after death? The hunting seasons in Sweden are strict and other nations should do that as well, I don't know about that shit, but it should be scheduled to allow the animals to have a mating, birthing, and growing period.

Also, most importantly, being vegitarian is pretty cool. Being vegan is pretty gay.

>>12848979
I know you don't like hypotheticals but if we find a group of people. Old tribes men or whoever who aren't able to comprehend or exercise anything we tell them then it's justified in killing them? If we take it deeper. Why does comprehension even matter? Not comprehending the idea of rights means it's okay to slaughter a living creature. Is empathy for living creatures not an important factor?

I don't give a fuck about animals. I don't care, and I don't need to care, capiche? I like eating meat and some faggot on the internet won't stop me.

>>12848979
Also like to add. Do you believe torturing animals alive is morally wrong?

Im entirely consistent in my morals.

>>12848991
I'm less against hypotheticals than about trying to pin down tight necessary and sufficient conditions for what constitutes ethical action. I'm by no means an out and out cultural relativist, as I believe in rationality and rational ethical discussion, but I consider myself more of a Wittgensteinian. Of course empathy matters, but I believe there are good reasons why we don't consider it okay to eat dogs but find it okay (most of us) to eat pigs, they just aren't entirely rational reasons. I think there may be a time in the future when vegetarianism is the norm, but I think that's more of a political change and not a matter of arriving at some universal truths about our relationship to other animals.

Human lives>animal lives

>>12848996
Sounds like you agree with OP's statement 100%

>>12849022
In a way i do. Do you have any idea the cruelty humans do to other humans? They can also be kind to other humans. Humans can also be kind to animals. Some humans will be kind and some will not. I'm not kind.

>>12849029
edgy

>>12849032
Probably, i'll wakeup and cringe. have a goodnight anon

>>12849038
>have a goodnight anon
thanks you too. sounds like you are one of the kind ones

>>12848325
/ckv/ containment board when?

>>12848325
Genesis 1:21
>So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 9:2-3
>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.

>Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

God said it was cool nigga stop being a little bitch

>>12848325
Who said I wanted to be ethical. Fuck animals. I hope they all get turned into meat in the most inhumane way.

>>12848325
>ethics
>morals

>>12848747
what cut of meat is this?

>>12849158
The "Fred Flintstone"

>>12848325
>ethics
Implying I need an ethical reason to kill an inferior creature for food.

>>12849185
That was stated, not implied, as can be clearly seen in the second sentence.

>>12848325
I don't have any though so ????

>>12848549
>I was a wimp before Anchor arms. Now, I'm a jerk and everybody loves me!

>>12848325
>he has never heard of utilitarianism
Look at this faggot and laugh.

>>12848588
>We have good ethical justifications for everything else we believe
So why aren't you killing infidels in the middle-east?

>>12849071
Unironically this.