/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>6416728
Beef is delicious, veal too!

>>6416731
an advanced species comes to earth and calls human brain burgers delicious.

what now anon?

>>6416741
well sounds like we shouldnt just stand around and eat grass then

>>6416741
what if they are? we're not above the food chain. if we are no longer top dog then that is the way of nature

>>6416741
Well then I gotta run and hide or fight back? Still gonna eat dat tasty cow meat tho'

>>6416748
no, its a moral decision to eat a fellow feeling mammalian species

>>6416741
Pffft, Will Smith got that covered

>>6416741
As long as they treat us humanely before they slaughter us I'm fine with that

>>6416756
no its not
its delicious

>>6416741
I'll taste a brain burger before judging.

>>6416756
Well if nature didn't want us to eat a fellow feeling mammalian species, then why are they so tasty?

>>6416764
and why do they run so slow? we don't eat cheetahs and shit

>>6416764
nature does want us to eat them, but nature is evil

>>6416775
>im better than nature

>>6416741

>>6416775
ayyyy lmao

>>6416741
>implying human brain burgers aren't delicious

>>6416756
Who are you to enforce your version of morality on the rest of the world. Fuck you

>>6416728
>people still care about what other people eat
>people try to make people eat what they think everyone should eat because muh feelinz
>people resort to buzzwords to make themselves look just
>mfw

>>6416760
Nice double-speak you hypocrite. Have you even tried thinking for yourself or is the "politics" of the meat industry that firmly ingrained in your skull?

>>6416777
nice appeal to nature. That's a fallacy you know. I am better than nature because natures a made up concept and using it as your standing stone in an argument is functionally the same as argueing that something is "common-sense" ... and just as foolish.

>>6418511
Just because you use memes doesn't make your position the valid one. I hope for your own sake you realize that.

No amount of "memier-than-you" arrows can disguise your lack of self-awareness.

>>6418512
What the fuck are you talking about?

Why is me wanting to be treated well before I'm eaten upsetting you?

>>6416741
Hey man thats cool, Nice to know my ass is some tasty shit.

>>6418514
> I have the bullshit higher moral ground so my opinion is correct
Nigga I don't know what you want to hear but I know no matter what I'll tell you won't even care enough to not bitch on further.

>>6418514
Who are you or vegans/vegitarians to tell me or anyone on this Earth what they should or shouldn't eat. If you want to not eat animals that's cool, do that shit all you want it doesn't affect me, I don't care. If I feel like eating a burger I'll do it, it doesn't affect you why should you care? I don't go around telling people my Omnivoric diet is the way to go and that you should do it.

>>6416741
We are the top of the food chain.
If an alien species comes to the world and wishes to tackle us, we'll fight back

Nigger

>>6416741

It'll be War of The Worlds all over again. Humans enslaved and when all hope is lost all the ays die from Kuru.

>>6418515
treated well. I suppose that rape victims are fine with the rape as long as their rapist pulls out their chair for them. hmm?

>>6416741
I really want to have a sex with an alien. Do you think they'll use us as sex slaves too? Do you think that would become taboo in their culture? To have sex with their food and/or pets?

Hmm...

>>6418536
Why do vegans always bring up and try to equate rape/sexism/racism with eating animals?

>>6418541
This is also something on my mind. I was in a /x/ thread about Ayyliums and for some reason pictures of femal GrAyys with hair made my mind wander off about what could happen. But that's off topic.

>>6418536
I could care less what they do with my ass after I die.
> pic related. Some alien about to eat a tasty anon burger

Is it safe to eat cow?

>>6418577
not for the cow

>>6416741
What if every death was an advanced species killing us off in their own intricate way, so we don't know parts of us (we are unable to see or possibly comprehend) are being farmed and sold as delicacies to ethereal beings from other planes of existence.

>>6418686

>>6418854
>To Serve Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6dXsjKcA9I

>>6418512
>>6418513
>>6418514
samefagggggggg all up in hurrrrrrrrrr
christ even consecutive numbers
and not a single dub was had

>>6416728

>>6418918
>I don't know what samefag means
I'm not any of those posts, but that's not samefagging, even if it's the same person.

>>6416741

>Instead of death penalty, We take inmates and process them into brain burgers.
>Aid prison system in costing less money.
>Sell the brain burgers to the aliens for there Shwalabeckles.

You know, nature doesn't want us eating certain things like poisonous things, poo-poo, the brains of other humans (prions that give your kuru and give you brain damage, its kind of like a built in anti-same species canibalism measure), bushmeat (meaning apes ans simians, thats where aids originated from), bats (thats where ebola originated).

That being said, it means things like cattle, which have been domesticated since ancient times, are fine for us to eat, despite whatever "moral" objection you have to it.

Vegetarianism in Europe and America is really just conspicous consumption in an attempt to ease middle to upper class guilt, giving the individual a "moral" crutch to lean on as they declare that others should be much more "moral" like themselves

>>6419441
>using logic
>talking to a vegetarian
best of luck anon, we're all rooting for you

What's your game plan here OP, point out that meat eaters probably wouldn't want to be farmed, and therefore are hypocrites? So?

>>6416741
Then we sure as shit put up more of a fight than fucking cows do, and then depending on the results that's that.

>>6419441
>as they declare that others should be much more "moral" like themselves
I've never told anyone to alter their diet, my own family doesn't even know I'm a vegetarian.

I don't think anyone that participates in society has any moral high ground. My clothes are still made in sweat shops, slaves pic my bananas and chocolate and build my electronics. I still waste money that could keep some starving brown person alive.

Meat is just an easy thing to give up for me. If it was even slightly difficult I would give it up tomorrow, so I don't think of myself as a shining pillar of morality and I don't think anyone should give up animal products if they don't want to. OP is obviously a faggot

>>6416756
Oh man, Tiger here, you're just making me feel plum tuckin embarrassed for eating people and other animals

Deer eat meat, squirrels eat meat, therefore I eat meat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ccl3KFZverk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q91dUtDYkU

>BUH-BUH-BUHAMBI NOOOO
>YOUR SUPPOSED TO HAVE GREAT MORALS LIKE MEEEE

>>6416777
You're right, we're not better than nature, rape, cannibalism and violence is the way of the 'natural' world, we should only do whats 'natural'.

It must also be 'natural' for you to be fucking retarded.

>>6419648
true... lets all celebrate your diplomatic victory with an ice cold coca-cola X[)

>>6418918
Lol, I wasnt samefagging. Those are replies to different posts.

I understand its unpopular to read the entire thread but i prefer to immerse myself fully in it - reading from the start to the bottom and replying to any posts that pique my interest.

That may sound like a foriegn concept to someone who only replies to the bottom 3 most recent posts with absolutely no awareness of the context of the thread, but sorry, on slower boards such as this sometimes that means I leave a consequtive trail of posts.

If that offends you so much as to accuse me with your "memes" well thats your problem bud, because sticks and stones may break my bones but memes will never hurt me.

>>6419674

>>6419674
Jet fuel can't melt steel memes

>>6419674
>hecause sticks and stones may break my bones but memes will never hurt me
holy gay

>>6418549
They got raped by someone eating a burger, you're triggering them you shitlord!

>>6419666
His mom wont buy him any because it makes him too hyper and then he shits his pants while crying about animals eating other animals.

>>6418686
I chuckled sensibly.

On topic: beef is delicious. It's bad for you and the environment, but it is so tasty that I can't care.

>>6419873
http://www.wsj.com/articles/actually-raising-beef-is-good-for-the-planet-1419030738

>>6416741
if we fight them and lose they are within their right

>>6418906
:DDDD DDDDD FUG! FUG!

>>6419686
>>6419781
>>6419799
samefagggggggg all up in hurrrrrrrrrr
christ even consecutive numbers
and not a single dub was had

>>6420065

>>6420071
nice photoshop faggot

>>6418511
I am going to go to your house and eat your dog/cat/tame raccoon.

Problem?

>>6419666
you won't tempt me satan
instead I will drink a totally not demonic pepsi

>>6419936
I for one bow to our new alien overlords

>>6419923
"It’s that raising beef cattle, especially on grass"
feedlots do not help the vegetative state of any lot

" about 2% of U.S. greenhouse gases can be linked to cattle and that good management would diminish it further...certain nutritional supplements can cut methane from cattle by half. Things as intuitive as good pasture management and as obscure as robust dung beetle populations have all been shown to reduce methane... if cattle are raised primarily on grass and if good farming practices are followed, enough carbon could be sequestered to offset the methane emissions..."

and it goes on
The point of all of that is that poor management has had sever detrimental effects on the environmental impact of raising cattle.
A lot would have to change for raising beef will become ecologically sound


This has a few consequences primarily
The cost of beef will shoot through the roof. Ritzy places like Niman Ranch have the land and money to raise cows of pasture, but that is also why their beef is so expensive.

The future may hold specialty beef like that and beef like products for considerably cheaper.

>>6418949
Apply this to anything nobody thought was wrong in the past. If something is socially acceptable, that means you CAN do it. And the biggest concern is the protesting guy getting in your personal space and being annoying. But that doesn't give automatic morality points to either side.

In the not too distant future, we may look back and see the upset of animal rights activists as quite reasonable.

>>6420837
Although, the literal situation in the comic would be dumb, if you've never even met the person before and you're just saying stuff to say it. I figured it was a generalization about "persecution".

What if eventually, eating meat in public was like roughing up your kid in public, and it was normal to get up in somebody's face about it and shame them. Because obviously it's wrong, you guys. Obviously.

>>6420853
if the worst thing that happens is shaming then who are they to complain. The animals not being shamed; its being murdered.

So maybe they would like to trade places if a little shame is so inconvient for them?-

>>6416728
You are right, chicken tastes better.

>>6420274
Gook pls. If you felt like it go ahead, doesn't mean won't shoot/stab you when I see you trying to kill it, considering the animal is my property and you're trespassing on my land. Also why would you eat an animal that was domesticated for companionship and bearing little meat instead of a domesticated one that are meant to be food. Oh you silly vegans and your extremism.

>>6420913
You can't murder something that's not a human, they don't have souls!

>>6421333
cows are holy in hinduism

ignoring the valid property argument, different animals mean more or less to different people.
you really cant say a connection to a dog is more than a connection to a cow, based on culture

>>6416741
I ask for the recipe.

>>6421333
Cows were domesticated for milk. There's no excuse for murdering them and eating their flesh.

>>6421346
See >>6421339 but if you raise an animal for the purpose of using it to feed yourself which also includes eating it's meat is it murder?

>>6421350
Not quite. If you kill any living being for any reason it's murder.

>>6421366
Really now, I thought the definition of murder meant "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." I guess you vegans know best after all. Lions murder deer, sharks murder fish, bees murder invading insects and animals.

>>6421372
and you are content to live as bees and lions do? *rolls eyes*

you nature appealists are the worst.

>>6419499
This is the thing. LITERALLY ALL animals will eat meat if given the opportunity. Ungulates, etc typically don't go out of their way for it because their bodies aren't built for hunting and it would be a waste of energy to try, but if there's an injured bird or something on the ground just asking for it? Fuck 'em. So-called "vegetarian" animals don't even bother to kill them first, they'll just chew them up alive.

>>6421411
>>/tumblr/

>>6421426
biologically, meat was much more calorie dense and that is why we craved it.

but, if we have the capability to eat and live without the suffering of another animal, should we do it?
That is more of a personal moral decision
I cant tell you to stop eating meat but I hope that you, and everyone, kills for their meat.

Killing a cow was something else. I felt way more connected to another mammal and therefore wanted all of the carcass that I produced to be used.
Delicious meat and its nice to know what happens so I can eat it

>>6421411
>*rolls eyes*
>nature appealists

First of all is that even a damn thing? If I was born a bee then that's my life, get nectar, make honey, sustain the hive as I can then die as a drone and nothing more. If I was born a lion then I'd do lion things because I'm not sentient enough to do anything else.

I imagined you as something like this, from your preachy pathos filed words.

I bet you'll call me some fedora wearing neck beard and then post a picture relating to that in hopes I'll be discouraged from replying to your bullshit.

>>6421437
no, because i dont get off on posting image macros. *rolls eyes*

come on dude, if thats your idea of putting effort into a debate then i think we're done here.

human beings are blessed with conscious thoughts and moral dignity. Part of being grateful for that gift is the realization that life is always better than death and therefore we shouldn't take the light of life from any creatures eyes, at least not lightly.

ideally we'd phase out animal slaughter slowly and come to actually humane meat alternatives, such as feces meat. That's a long way off though - I realize that for now meat is a necessary evil to sustain our population.

Make no mistake, Humans are at the top of the food chain and death is necessary sometimes to sustain the life of the more conscious of the sentient creatures... but when the science is there and a sustainable meat alternative is found it will be truly evil to continue to exploit the fruit of the live "trees'

>>6421451
i agree with you but holy shit stop being such a faggot

>>6421451
>light of life from any creatures eyes, at least not lightly
Why? Seriously asking. Either we're the apex predator (non obligate) that only has an obligation to our own individual survival or we're somehow above nature.

>>6421474
The fact that we're the blessed with the highest of consciousness dictates we are the sole creatures responsible for upholding the law of morality. We are above acting as "nature" wishes, and so even in matters of "nature" we are obligated to respect the sanctity of life over death even though our less conscious counterparts are content with nature.

morality is a strictly human concept for the most part - we ARE above nature because we have literally transcended it ever in terms of being able to decide the rules for ourselves.

The mere fact that we can side step natures blows and decide for ourselves whats right and wrong means nature has little hold on us as a species... with the exception of our own mortality of course, but perhaps even that can be escaped in time.

I'm not saying that animals are not in some regard conscious themselves - and believe me that is part of the reason why it is our moral obligation to escape our carnivoric tendencies individually if we have the means to and societally when we have technology to. But on the same token it is quite clear that no other species on earth shares our capacity for consciousness.

Where there is capability; There is responsibility,
God bless.

>>6416741
How many sentient/sapient species do westerners usually eat?

>>6419441
This
Being Vegetarian now is only trying to be a political statement and how loyal you are to that political system.
The truth is most vegetarians do like meat, they just want to prove to their family and peers how enlightened they are from their college English class poetry.

>>6422058
It has nothing to do with not liking meat lol, it's about whats morally right - and the future is one of animal-free meat, you better believe it.

>>6421346
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHRDh0TdTkE

I bet you are a peta lover.

>>6422086
lelfag your future sounds pretty shitty

>>6422086
You literally just proved my point

I'm not gonna lie. It feels pretty good to be morally superior to you carnists.

I know you need to rationalize it and everything and make up reasons why you think I'm vegan. But the real answer is I'm just a better person than you.

>>6422407
>literally proving everyone's point with a graphic demonstration of autistic showboat superiority

>>6422387
No because the goal isnt to BRAG about the moral superiority - it's to be morally supperior. If you dont understand the distinction you might of less than satisfactory mental fortitude X[D)

Okay, but listen dude - no hard feelings. I get that you feel guilty eating meat - and you should.

But if you absolutely cannot afford the alternative then do not beat yourself up ... as hypothetically moral as the vegan diet is, it is regrettably too expensive for everyone or even most of us to partake in. Survival of humans is foremost but bud, for this i tell you truly - when meat alternatives become readily available and at a cost that you can sustain yourself at, those who continue to eat genuine meat will be truly evil.

>>6422592
at what age were you first molested?

There is nothing really wrong with murder, cows are slow animals that only eat grass, killing them doesn't really do much.

>>6422592
>No because the goal isnt to BRAG about the moral superiority - it's to be morally supperior.
>I get that you feel guilty eating meat - and you should.

You are trying to apologize your stance, but you continually prove my point.

What if consuming flesh of another is a high act of kindness and generosity, in that you're taking them in, and they're becoming part of your essence and being, and thusly, living a better life? Isn't it a shame that we look at life in such simple black and white quantifiers?

Taking the life of another is obviously wrong by our collective standards, but maybe we do not collectively understand the extent of "life"?

>>6422592
Hey, you know what?
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you a simple question.
What proof do you have or how can you explain to me that eating meat is objectively immoral?

>>6422592

>as hypothetically moral as the vegan diet is, it is regrettably too expensive for everyone or even most of us to partake in.

The fuck? It's way cheaper

>>6423673
its not. At the end of the day the bliss of living comes from:

a) being conscious (which animals experience, albeit most likely on a lower level than humans)

You're trying to shoehorn everything else to fit into your predeveloped and illogical theory rather than simply accepting what the facts suggest:

Thinking is GOOD, as evidenced by our dominance over the natural order of things, essentially creating our own natural order simply for humans. Therefore, consciousness is GOOD. Therefore, living is GOOD.

Therefore anything that would cease thought or consciousness must be BAD.

Their thoughts may not be as developed or articulated as ours - but that doesnt make them any less self-evidently correct in the moral sense.

In your second point I'm not sure if you were trying to make a point that perhaps "plants" are technically "living" too. Well, perhaps, but they are also not conscious or aware so therefore they are obviously the more moral alternative.

Consumption is a fact of life after all - and there are some moral lowgrounds we must wade through .. and if it comes down to plants having to lay down their bounty to us, well, it's better than spilling the blood of true thought such as when it takes the form of cows and other such farmed animals.

>>6423697
Not true, a solely vegetarian diet that actually puts an emphasis on meeting all of your nutritional recommendation is incredibly expensive for a few reasons.

Mainly the amount you have to eat compared to meat to make up for how low calory a lot of the more healthy vegetables are. You practically have to graze all day.

>>6423739
No, thinking isn't good, cows don't think much, and their thoughts don't matter, I would argue that human thoughts probably don't matter that much either, ceasing consciousness and thought isn't a bad thing, they won't care in the end and their product that comes after they die is more important than their thoughts.

>>6423739
>consciousness is GOOD
>Therefore cease of consciousness is BAD

That's not a sound philosophical argument.
What part of consciousness makes it so that the cease of consciousness is bad.
You can't just prove it out of assumption.

>>6423743

Good thing vegetarians/vegans don't literally just eat vegetables. Grains, legumes, and potatoes are some of the cheapest and most nutritious (less so with potatoes) staple foods available.

>>6423758
whatever im done talking to tares. god bless.

>>6423769
You don't have to say bye, you can just close the tab.
It would certainly help you since you lost the argument instead of announcing it.

>>6416728
>another one of these threads

>>6423782
for someone who doesnt wish to say bye you sure are fond(ue) of it. perhaps you have something you want to say to me?

are you gay dude? no offence i have a cousin whos gay and im real liberal :) we shipped him off to the crazy farm months ago - maybe you'd like to join him?

>>6423684
The mere fact that alternatives exist that dont require the ending of a sentient creatures life is proof enough. Of course like I've said before obviously not everyone can switch over, or at least not overnight.

Trust me, the change is coming though - once the techniques behind feces-meat and other artificial proteins are perfected for mass production it will only be a matter of time before slaughter houses are reduced to "gourmet curiousities".

Price is the arbiter in capitalism after all, but a slow angel he is with an sword of ice not flame.

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/understanding-neocarnism/

>people thinking humans have a moral obligation to anyone besides humans
I mean hell, I don't want animals to suffer, but if animal death improve human life then so be it. I have an obligation to my species first.

>>6423899
>The mere fact that alternatives exist that dont require the ending of a sentient creatures life is proof enough.
Have you ever actually interacted with farm animals. Cows have essentially nothing going on up there. I'd be much more receptive if you were talking about pigs.

Even worse, chickens are next level stupid.

>>6423930
Of course but like I said there will be a day when there is a third option. Artificial protien is the future and then you will have no more excuses X[)

Lest you be labelled "Truly Evil"

>>6423933
Sure but you could say that about most people too X[) no but in all seriousness im not talking about intelligience just sentience like, you know, bearing some reasonable semblance of consciousness or awareness.

So like insects are fair game ... plants ... certain fish.. if we were going to do it species by species i'd be fine with having our entire slaughterhouseoreum driven by cow meat you know, like if it means other species begin to fade out of the publics mindset as "food", that'd be victory enough.

So sure, keep cow at the forefront and shuffle the rest of the FarmYard Crew left of center stage - they have to get into their 2nd change of outfit and the big musical number is coming up! I heard Jesus might even be in the audience :)

>>6423930
>people thinking humans have a moral obligation to anyone

fify

>morality is universal

fuck off

Actually there has been some research within the past few years, that shows a level of abstract thought that is basic but significant
This one is about a cows ability to learn when its with its social group than apart from
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090205..

This one is on a cows social connection to another. Not a paper but has quotes from the head scientist
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2011124/Cows-best-friends-stressed-separated.html

>>6423985
>morality is subjective

fuck off

>>6423999
It doesn't matter, there are both going to turn into hamburgers anyways.

>>6423999
First link is gone.

As for the second, yeah animals get stressed but it's less of an emotional or social reaction and more of an instinctual one. Without other animals of it's kind around, it can't breed and may die and will have little to do with specific animals, other than maybe scent related which is a very very low form of social understanding.

Not even trying to justify eating cows, just stating some facts. I eat octopus and they're as smart as children.

>>6424008
but don't you know anon, there's no such thing as objectivity

all cultures are equal
all opinions are equal
all ideas are equal
all people are equal, in every way, if you say otherwise, you're a bigot

welcome to your new liberal society where there are no objective truths

>>6424015
can you cite this: >but it's less of an emotional or social reaction and more of an instinctual one

instincts is pretty much a naturalist meme. I think you'd find that most humans function near solely on an instinctual level too.

>>6424041
welcome to the post-modernist society. enjoy your stay... you're here "Forever"TM

>uhm.... Actually i'll have you know that forever is a subjective concept and i would know as im a cultural marxist X{)

god bless the future because its gonna be darker than the medieval era - only with the neon lights of the post-80s providing a nice neon skyline for all to admire as we're engulfed in the cultural plague of our own design.

still up for me

>"Calves were initially trained to discriminate two colours (black and white) until they reached a learning criterion of 80% correct over three consecutive sessions. Training stimuli were then reversed (i.e. the previously rewarded colour was now unrewarded, and vice-versa). Calves from the two treatments showed similar rates of learning in the initial discrimination task, but the individually housed calves showed poorer performance in the reversal task."

As for the second one
I recognize that it may be a scent thing but its still significant of basic emotion, which is special.

Why are vegetarians so insufferable?

>>6418511
Spot on

People get this upset with vegans because deep down they know it's the correct position, but don't want to accept it because they enjoy meat. Otherwise vegans would simply be ignored. Even if you quietly decide not to eat the meat offered to you, politely settling for the bland salad that is available, somebody will rant at you about how you have to eat meat. It's their shame talking, not their superior position.

>>6423795
>we shipped him off to the crazy farm months ago

You should've gone on the same bus if you knew you were gonna make this post.

>are you gay dude?
>fond(ue)

Oh the bitter irony

>>6424411
Whether or not vegans are morally "correct" is a moot point--they're disliked because a lot of them are as militant as religious fundamentalists.

I mean, fucking look at PETA, and durianrider

>>6424411
>>6425023
I agree with you in that people will heckle you if you don't eat meat, and that's fucking annoying as shit, but I well and truly prefer my omnivorous diet.

>>6423899
>The mere fact that alternatives exist that dont require the ending of a sentient creatures life is proof enough.

No it's not
It's been that way for all of human existence, yet we still like the taste and get several nutrients from it.
What you say is true that being vegetarian is not as cheap as eating meat, but this is still aside from the fact that we are still going to do it.
If being vegetarian were luxurious, then you would see more rich people being vegetarian.
But the hard cold truth that you must face after your English poetry classes is that we are a species that is designed to eat the meat of other animals.
No documentary is going to change that, and yes, I know it may seem sad, but there is a difference between what you "Feel" and brutal reality.

>>6425023

>they're disliked because a lot of them are as militant as religious fundamentalists.

what is that even supposed to mean? they have a different opinion than you. you're just as extreme to them as they are to you. hell, you fucking slay animals, cut them apart, and eat them. doesn't that sound militant?

>>6425029
I have no problem with people eating meat, i do every so often.

I would like for everyone to slaughter and butcher for thenselves at least once.
not to deter someone from eating meat necessarily but give them an idea of the process and hopefully make them think of meat as the privledge it is rather than the right we treat it to be

>>6425054
I don't completely shit on people because of what they eat. Also, vegetarian farming practices destroy the habitat of trillions of smaller sentient beings (e.g., insects). That's not militant?

>>6425055
I once had a friend that refused to cook because they hated the sight of raw meat; it made them gag. I have nothing but contempt because while they'll never look at it raw, they'll eat it prepared.

>>6425054
>>6425059
Militant is more, mm, caring hugely what other people eat and shoving your dietary stuff in their face. It's just as bad to go "Y U NO EAT MEAT FAG" as it is to go "Y U EAT MEAT FAG". Militant in the context of this discussion means self-righteous AND not minding your own business.

>>6425055
>I would like for everyone to slaughter and butcher for thenselves at least once.
>not to deter someone from eating meat necessarily but give them an idea of the process and hopefully make them think of meat as the privledge it is rather than the right we treat it to be

Please shut the fuck up
No one here is going to fall for your pseudo-intellectualism concerning the noticing of privilege.
Everyone knows it's there, they don't have to go on a hippie adventure to find out that they're blessed with consuming domesticated animals.

>>6425059

>vegetarian farming practices destroy the habitat of trillions of smaller sentient beings (e.g., insects). That's not militant?

way to dodge the question, but some kind of farming is necessary to feed people. collateral damage can't be avoided, but since we grow so many crops purely to feed farm animals, not eating farm animals would also lower the amount of insects you kill while also not purposely killing billions of farm animals. you don't actually give a shit about that though because

>mmmm bacon xDDDD

>>6425061

atleast militant vegans have a reason to be militant. militant meat eating is just being an asshole and not listening to criticism.

>hey, stop throwing trash on the ground
>stop forcing your anti-litter beliefs on me! I can do what I want! it's my right! preachy asshole! for every wrapper you put in the trash, I'll throw 3 in a public park!

>>6425067
>way to dodge the question, but some kind of farming is necessary to feed people. collateral damage can't be avoided

He wasn't dodging the question, he just used another question in rebuttal.
I don't think even you expected a yes or no from that question.
You are right, collateral damage can not be avoided, but you really dislike it when it's done in a different practice.
If you care about all creatures having life, then why are you excluding others as just "Collateral damage?"
Again I state that mother nature is a cruel bitch and she's fucking with your head.

>>6425081
It's not as simple as 'meat eating' in my eyes, but that's probably because of the long amounts of time I've spent in alaska, where sustenance hunting is huge. If you're worried about CO2 and environmental impact only, surely we could find a middle ground where people can eat what they like and we figure out a cleaner way to make that happen? Basically, the only argument I don't have sympathy for is "But they're a living thing!". Everything else - cruelty, environmental concerns, antibiotics/pathogen growth concerns - that's all valid stuff, in degrees.

>>6425081
>comparing eating meat to littering
And you wonder why non-vegans hate you.

>>6425081
>atleast militant vegans have a reason to be militant.

Everyone in their own religion thinks that they have a legitimate reason to be militant and everyone else doesn't.
Being militant just means that no one is going to like you when you state these things in such a black and white contrast with good or bad because no one is actually that stupid.

>>6425087

>I don't think even you expected a yes or no from that question.

just a response would have been nice

>If you care about all creatures having life, then why are you excluding others as just "Collateral damage?"

because at that scale, it's unavoidable and unintentional. this is in contrast to animal farming which is intentionally raising animals in order to kill them. it's the difference between accidentally hitting a kid in your truck while driving to work, versus driving through a playground slaughtering children in a truck specificially designed for child-killing. because we can't save every animal, insect, bacteria, or fungus in every situation doesn't mean it's valid to go the opposite route and cause as much harm as we can

>>6425092

Technically, eating meat is a lot worse than literring

>>6425090
It's hard to convince people that only arctic people can eat meat but the rest of us shouldn't.

>>6425065

Im talking about privledge in a more economic sense
our ability to eat as much meat for as cheap as we want is directly related to our countries wealth.
one doesnt have to look far to see that eat consumption per capita changes directly with gdp
But thats a minor point

the point is that im not advocating some "hippie adventure". But a look into the process. Everyone knows the meat is on the shelf but a small amount know how it got there. Knowledge is never a bad thing

it doesnt have to be some emotional experience breh

>>6425092

Is it not comparible? Meat eating seems a lot worse than littering

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

>>6425108
technically, you're a faggot

>>6425105
>because at that scale, it's unavoidable and unintentional. this is in contrast to animal farming which is intentionally raising animals in order to kill them.

If intent is your main focal point in the issue, then you are a very evil person.
What you gathered right now is that farming with destroy the habitats of several creatures.
Of course you say this is unavoidable and unintentional, but you already know that this will increase if you do it.
As for the truck and child reference, it's not a matter if it was an accident or not, it's a matter if it could be prevented.
In this case, the truck driver knew that he would hit the child if he went to work at that time, but he still did it anyway.
You can get away with alot of things if everything was based on intent. You just say it was unintentional. Easy.

>>6423920

>>everyone ignores this article

>When eating animals is not a necessity for survival, it is a choice, and choices always stem from beliefs. Therefore, it is not only vegans and vegetarians who bring their beliefs to the dinner table.

>The primary defense of carnism is denial; if we deny there is a problem in the first place then we don’t have to do anything about it. Denial is expressed through invisibility; the victims of the system are kept out of sight and therefore conveniently out of public consciousness. And the victims of carnism include not only the animals and the environment, but also human meat consumers whose physical and psychological wellbeing may be compromised by enabling the gratuitous violence that marks carnism. Thanks to the advent of the Internet and the success of vegan advocates, carnistic invisibility has been sufficiently weakened. Therefore, the system has begun to rely more heavily on its secondary defense: justification. There are many carnistic justifications but they all fall under the Three Ns of Justification: eating animals is normal, natural, and necessary. Part of the carnistic backlash, then, can be understood as the system shifting the burden of defending itself from denial to justification. Most people can no longer deny the truth about animal agriculture, so the meat, egg, and dairy industries now must provide consumers with reasons to continue eating animals despite such a truth.

>>6425131
I am an advocate for a more plant based diet and i think that article is faggy.
those hippy websites give us a bad rep

>>6425131
Maybe because it's bullshit.

>>6425129

alright, let me put it this way

we exist. we don't exist in a vacuum. everything we do affects other things. in order to continue existing, we need to make movements and perform actions. all of these movements and actions have the potential to harm the trillions of other living things all around us. no matter what we do, it's impossible to not cause some kind of harm by accident. this is why intent is a big deal, because you can choose to avoid harm when you don't need to do it. in the case of harvesting crops, we have to secure food, and while insects and critters will find their way into the area and may go under the harvesters, this is the least harmful path we can realistically take. for the truck and child reference, it's more like the truck driver knows that it's possible that a child might find their way onto the road, but they still have to drive the truck. if this causes 6 accidental deaths per year rather than 8,000,000,000 intentional deaths by people driving child murder trucks, then obviously that's a better deal.

>>6425131
>The primary defense of carnism is denial

FALSE
What kind of problem is there to deny?
Humans have a affinity for eating meat, we have incisors, we have stomachs that can process the materials, yet the only denial that is going on is from the vegans.
You fail to prove that eating meat is immoral
You fail to prove that it is worse for the environment than mass farming
You fail to prove how this can be healthier or increase the quality of life for everyone
Now where is the denial coming from again?

>everyone ignores this article
>Includes the word neo-carnism in the link

I wonder if it's because it sounds like some stupid tumblr shit someone just shit out from their pseudo intellectual acid highs.

>>6425136
>>6425138

Where is it wrong?

>The process of the neocarnisms can be seen through their purpose: the purpose of each argument is not to engage with the issue of veganism but to defend against it. The arguments do not reflect openness to further exploration of the issue or a desire to seek alternatives to killing. They do not serve to invite dialogue but rather to shut down the conversation by invalidating veganism as abnormal, unnatural, and unnecessary. The process reflects a black-and-white, rigid reactiveness rather than a nuanced and flexible responsiveness—a healthy process encourages true examination of one’s own assumptions as well as witnessing and validation of different perspectives.

>>6425146
Those last two things have been pretty widely recognized. at least for red meat

this thread is so gay

>>6425148
This kind of rhetoric has little place in a debate. It really serves to alienate us from the meat eaters and prevents any kind of agreement or progress

>>6425152

So you don't find anything wrong with it?

>>6425149
>Muh bovine farts

I seriously hope you didn't imply that

>>6425152
>It really serves to alienate us from the meat eaters and prevents any kind of agreement or progress

I thought that was your whole point? To be your own special little club that was better than everyone else?

>>6425152

> It really serves to alienate us from the meat eaters and prevents any kind of agreement or progress

yeah, if there's anything we know about meat eaters, it's that they're open-minded and willing to change their beliefs as long as you just discuss the issue with them

>>6425146

>humans have an affinity for eating meat
>heart disease kills half of all men and women in the US and is rising throughout the world as meat becomes more widespread and available

>>6425154
I think its literature for people who already believe it and doesnt do much good.

>>6425156
Fuck off
Im taking a very reasonable stance.
youre doing the same kind of thing that those people who wrote that shitty article are doing.

>>6425159
>yeah, if there's anything we know about meat eaters, it's that they're open-minded and willing to change their beliefs as long as you just discuss the issue with them

Well who the fuck else is going to fall for your religious propaganda shown on televisions all over the world?
Other vegans?

>>6425164
>humans live longer than they ever have RIGHT NOW
try again jizzy mcfuckface

>>6425159
>>6425156

You two would be great friends.
Youre just as condescending and conceited as the other

>>6425172

>veganism is a religion!
>>so why do you eat meat?
>because I was raised that way and I never questioned it and when anyone tries to discuss anything about not eating meat I tell them to fuck off!

>>6425164
>The main factor of heart disease is meat

>>6425177

These are the same people who say "atheism is a religion."

>>6425177
>because I was raised that way and I never questioned it and when anyone tries to discuss anything about not eating meat I tell them to fuck off!

No, it's because they don't eat meat to prove a point
They don't pass out literature and have seminars from masturbating how better they are then other people
Abstinence from a religion is not a religion you fucking retard

>>6425167
>Im taking a very reasonable stance.

I don't think you are at all.

Your claim seems to be that we should give up a pleasure (meat) because meat is apparently bad for the enviornment. Let's assume that's true for a moment. So the basic premise is that enviornmental protection is the more important of the two.

How then can you justify your posting on this forum at all? All the electronic devices and computers involved--everything from your PC and smartphone through all the routers, servers, etc, which make up the internet all contain electronic parts made with rare-earth elements. In addition to the slave-labor conditions used to mine those elements, there is a massive amount of environmental damage from the mining process itself as well as the chemicals used--all so you can text silly pictures to your "BFF". What do you think about that? I'm curious to see your analysis of the situation.

>>6425183
it is the way some people treat it, ironically enough

The people who read richard dawkins, preach to others on why there is no god,.1..

>>6425184

>Abstinence from a religion is not a religion

Wouldn't that be veganism? Abstaining from eating meat? That's the default. Choosing to eat meat then becomes a belief of its own.

>>6425185
Whoa im going to stop at the beginning.
That is not what i said at all
my stance was that strong rhetoric like the stuff in that article has no place in a debate

>>6425192
>Wouldn't that be veganism? Abstaining from eating meat? That's the default. Choosing to eat meat then becomes a belief of its own.

Okay, now you're literally shitposting
Which is what all vegans do in the end of a day of getting spanked in the ass

>>6425131
>the Three Ns of Justification: eating animals is normal, natural, and necessary

They forgot "nice". As for ignoring it, what is there to reply to anyway, the whole article is just "carnists suck amirite?"

>>6425195

Oh, I agree with all that. I mistook you for someone else in the thread.

>>6425198

I think this is what the guy was getting at when he joked about open-mindedness, and this article >>6425131 hits on it

When eating meat isn't a necessity, it's a choice. Choices stem from beliefs. They may not be your own beliefs that you formed yourself, you were likely taught to believe that eating meat is fine, but that's still a belief that you hold and it shouldn't be seen as an objective truth that nothing can question. That's religious thinking.

>>6425201

>what is there to reply to anyway, the whole article is just "carnists suck amirite?"

Just thought it was important to bring up the point that what people take as an inherent truth about their habits is really just a belief. Harvard psychologist Melanie Joy breaks down the basics of what she calls "carnism," which is an ideology that allows people to justify eating certain animals even when the same person would be opposed to harming a cat or a dog. The idea of abstaining altogether from meat is immediately shot down as a non-option with no further consideration, and "neocarnisms" attempt to rationalize eating meat with rhetorical alternatives to the now well recognized ethical, environmental, and health implications that come with eating meat

>>6425192
there are classy ways to admit defeat
and then there is shitposting

>>6425214
>that's still a belief that you hold and it shouldn't be seen as an objective truth that nothing can question. That's religious thinking.

But that's why I do this
I have already proven myself that eating meat is fine, but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to believe that I have explored every sector of the argument.
I debate to try and find the one argument that will make me understand why these people think this way or maybe even change myself, who knows?

>>6425214
The whole neocarnism thing seems like a very long winded way to realise that most people justify their beliefs post hoc, and then get really defensive about them.

>>6416741
I can't believe that you guys still fall for this shit.
Every fucking time.

...and I now have reason to not come back to /ck/ for a while, now that the faggots are arguing ethics.

>>6418536
Goalposts=moved

>>6423765
Just pointing out that to most people all of those things are vegetables.

Also isn't the correct term for legumes pulses?

>>6425065
To be honest being around a butchery isn't so bad. There's a slew of traditions, particularly in the Europe which is connected with a slaughter feast.

Those traditions don't seem to be too common in the US though.

In part, those things are interesting since you see stuff that's not completely common in stores, as the meat, blood and stuff often have to be used relatively quickly.

>>6421451
Life /=/ self-awareness fagtron, there is no evidence that I have seen that cow's are self aware.

>>6425412
me commenting on your rebuttal is not "shifting goalposts". Do you even know what that means?

>>6425198
When you don't have a valid rebuttal - just accuse your debate opponent of trolling.

Discrediting your opponent sure is a lot easier than thinking X[)

>>6425581
It would probably be better to actually seem like you were trolling because if you're implying that you didn't troll, then the only option left is that you're literally mentally handicapped.
To each their own I guess

>>6425183
religion is just a stance on morality and spirituality - which atheism is... Even if no god is involved.

Just because you lack the lateral thinking skills to recognize anything as something other than its face value doesnt make you "intellectual"... it makes you blind as a bat dude - and the birds beating you to the worm of true awareness. Better stop hanging around all day dude the bat tribes not gonna wait around for you all day, they're too busy evolving their state of mind and hunterial instincts.

>>6425177
X[) holy shit epic.

screencapped for posterity ... someone please screencap this for posterity

>>6425172
hmm... when it comes to religions which would you rather be apart of?

The religion that preaches good will and mercy for all creatures ... or a satanic blood cult that "honors" nature with barbaric feasts and blood orgies.

No, no, eating meat is completely the morally correct way of living - don't bother straining your head to even consider that you could be wrong. :)

>>6425608
>The religion that preaches good will and mercy for all creatures ... or a satanic blood cult that "honors" nature with barbaric feasts and blood orgies.

Ah, the old "Strawman Fallacy."
That's a classic.
When you absolutely need to keep posting even though you know you lost, accept no substitute.

>>6425136
Lol, he brags about his self-hatred. You fucking cuck.

Everyone - vegans and meateaters, let's all join together and laugh at this retard for trying to have the best of both worlds. Here's a hint for you bud, neither of us wants you. So keep on being stuck in the middle... how "mature" of you to not bother to actually develop your own beliefs.

Being neutral sure is cool :)

>>6425615
>Everyone - vegans and meateaters, let's all join together and laugh at this retard for trying to have the best of both worlds. Here's a hint for you bud, neither of us wants you. So keep on being stuck in the middle... how "mature" of you to not bother to actually develop your own beliefs.

Attention everyone: this is the sure-fire way to tell everyone you are the faggot sub-species of a vegan.

>:)

This is the primary indicator of a 4chan poster being an actual faggot shitposter

>>6425608
The blood cult sounds more fun, and would eventually destroy or absorb the one that's all sunshine and bunnies.

>>6425090
You're a retard dude. "They're a living thing" is about the only valid concern.

"Cruelty" is a buzzword to lessen guilt by meateaters, what could be more cruel than ending a life? It's doublespeak plain and simple and only retards take the bait.

Environmental concerns are again bullshit spewed by vegans and their supporters to try and skew the issue to convert meat eaters into having some stake in the anti-industrial meat issue... even if there is some truth in it there are much more immediate dangers to the environment than reducing methane production in cows by a few .~%'s

antibiotics are literally not an issue at all... and the fact that you'd bring it up shows you do not know what goes into raising meat at all and that you only want to appear as "level-headed" or "intellectual".

>>6425615
Extremes are never good, you unbelievable shit-bird.

>>6425639
I'm more interested in a good old fashioned blood orgy myself. Too bad deer season is six months away.

>>6425059
>taking things personally when met with moral critique.

15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

>>6425640
>"They're a living thing" is about the only valid concern.

There was already a discussion about this earlier in the thread, but you know what?
Maybe you have some new untapped information.

How can you explain the killing of animals as objectively immoral?

>>6424395
you know insufferable is a buzzword too you hypocrite.

>>6425645
Sounds like a way to get hepatitis, though. Can't we have a nice, hygienic orgy? That way someone's floors don't get ruined, we stay free of blood-born diseases, and the tenets of this nebulously satanic 'cult' are still upheld.

>>6425017
How would I know I was going to make that post? Wow you really are crazy.

>>6425652
>insufferable is a buzzword

>>6425660
I don't know, early signs of abuse I guess.
I said "IF" you knew, it's never to late to get on that bus.

>>6425651
KILLING.

Are you really that daft to consider that killing could ever be morally correct?

Forgivable depending on the circumstance... sure, but morally correct?

If you ABSOLUTELY cannot sustain yourself on a vegetarian lifestyle due to monetary concerns, your location, or some other reason. Obviously you living is more important than ideological positions.

But ideally we would all eat plants... you cannot deny that.

>>6425663

>oh those INSUFFERABLE VEGETARIANS, Im not going to partake in this debate!!!

I would consider buzzwords as: one word replies, any excuse to not participate in a debate honestly , memes, or greentext.

Maybe lazy debating would fit better than buzzwords though, but you see my point surely...

>dont call me shirley.

>>6425674
Ideally I would be eating a facsimile of meat created by nanites rearranging shit on the atomic level or at the very least be eating a cloned animal that never had any brain matter grown except for a brain stem to keep the autonomous functions going. Your 'ideals' are fucking limited, you atavist.

>>6425674
>Are you really that daft to consider that killing could ever be morally correct?

I'm asking for proof

Tell me in terms of objective morality that killing a cow to sustain myself is bad.
No, "Muh feels" is not proof

>But ideally we would all eat plants... you cannot deny that.

Yes I can, the mere fact that we don't do that is enough.
Let alone the fact that we have some of the same characteristics as carnivores.

>>6425683
ideally we would all live off of photosynthesis, but we're not algae, are we?

>>6425641
Neither is being so neutral to the point that nothing happens and everyone suffers for it, you retard faggot fuck dyke-truck.

Compromise is what you do when you want to make things worse for everyone.

>>6425683
>I would consider buzzwords as: one word replies, any excuse to not participate in a debate honestly , memes, or greentext.

He didn't want to partake in debate, he was just making a comment.
Obviously your definition of a "Buzzword" does not go hand in hand with ol' Webster.

>>6425641
No, being neutral is just a way for someone to be egotistical about never being wrong so that they can simply hop on the victors side after the victories over.

Its a very lazy way to live... think for yourself instead of thinking you're above having opinions.

>>6425694
>Compromise is what you do when you want to make things worse for everyone.

I thought you people went to college

>>6425625
Nice smiley face dorkizoid.... i bet you didnt even intend for it to be green, lurk more.

The "memier-than" arrows are what causes it to be green you realize. If you want to type your gay flirty angry smiley face DO IT AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE!!!

>>6425704
Another one lost in the void of shitposting.
Or is it the same one? No one truly knows.

>>6425614
You mean like you're doing now? And like I'm doing now? And like you'll do again in the reply to this post?

Anyway, it's not a strawman fallacy - all meat eaters are complacent to an industry which is directly responsible in the murder and killing of animals. If you dont think your hand is there behind the scenes driving the motorized stake into each cows brain, nor your boot walking along the blood filled floors as it drains perpetually into the circular drain - you are.

Sure, in the prior post I was exaggerating a bit for comedic/dramatic effect, but dont think for a minute you are not complacent, friend.

>>6425694
>>6425699
Or I just think either side is stupid for going vegan or eating nothing but meat on grounds any greater than "It's what I like." I side strongly with the people why think that a mix of both plant and animal matter is a necessary part of our diet, both for physical and mental health. Compromise is not the same as having a man fuck your wife, it's realizing that you aren't fucking married and she has more than one fucking hole.

>>6425714
>The religion that preaches good will and mercy for all creatures ... or a satanic blood cult that "honors" nature with barbaric feasts and blood orgies.

Just for the record, are you confirming that you do not think this is a strawman?
I'm not accepting that you did it under the guise of parody, I'm not into that Steven Colbert shit.

>>6425724
I'm still all for that satanic blood cult. My dad was in one of those, and he had a great time.

>>6425700
Listen as I say there was a man and another and one more were on a trail between San Francisco and Los Angelos. They had been walking for awhile and now they thirsted, but their canteens were not but half filled.

The man said to the other, "I should get the last drop as I am the weakest."

The other said to him, "..But I am the most deserving - I'm carrying more than you."

The one more pulled them aside, "I have a solution," and he took the canteen from them and poured it to the trail.

This is the poisonous nature of compromise.

>>6425697
webster is not the end-all of human existence. I am a freethinker not like you would know the "definition" of that.

>>6425736
>This is the poisonous nature of compromise.

You have a very strange and cynical view of compromise
What you described is not compromise, it's the exact opposite
Look up this and see that this was the best example of compromise is.

http://henryclay.org/?page_id=3
http://www.history.com/topics/henry-clay

Meet the man that kept the union together for several years using compromises that both parties were fine with.

>>6425744
webster is not the end-all of human existence

I never said it was

>I am a freethinker

That's very nice honey

>>6425688
The reason we dont is the institutions that are in place who would prefer we didn't. Tons of people eat an entirely vegan diet so its not like its impossible.

The only barrier is a cultural and economic one; and that barrier will not fall until people like you stop trying to justify your own immorality.

>Tell me in terms of objective morality that killing a cow to sustain myself is bad.
Because there are alternatives that do not require you to kill a cow. Did you not read my post to its conclusion.

Eating meat in modern america has nothing to do with sustaining yourself... you're just too hedonistic to go through the trouble of living the morally correct way.

If it truly had to do with sustenance as in you had no other choice obviously that is forgivable ... I've already said this - how about you actually attempt to read the opponents side instead of just skimming it for material in your next lazy "rebuttal"?

As an exercise in thinking I challenge you: Why is it immoral to kill a human?

>>6425685
I've already talked about alternative meats in an earlier post. I said "ideally we'd eat plants" as a way of mixing it up, but obviously i'm also in favor of "feces" meat and other alternative proteins such as what you've suggested.

How about you read more than just the most recent post when you get involved in a discussion, newfag?

>>6425750
That's called pandering.

Here's the thing dude, compromise has a place in the day to day lives of people - sure I'm not arguing that.

But when it comes to ideologies and politics absolutely are compromises the most poisonous solution to any problem.

All compromise leads to is muddled and broken systems that benefit noone and potentially hurt everyone.

>>6425759
>The only barrier is a cultural and economic one; and that barrier will not fall until people like you stop trying to justify your own immorality.

Again, not explaining why it's immoral

>Because there are alternatives that do not require you to kill a cow. Did you not read my post to its conclusion.

There can be alternatives that do not require eating anything but meat.
What does this prove? Probably fucking nothing.

>As an exercise in thinking I challenge you: Why is it immoral to kill a human?

It's not
There is no invisible rule book that says you shouldn't do anything because you'll get punished by something invisible
The entire point is that morality is subjective, depends on the culture or region you live in.
Once you get down to the bare bones, you will notice that you can do whatever you want if you can get away with it.
It might be right in some regions, it might wrong in others, but it will never be the same everywhere.

>>6425766
>But when it comes to ideologies and politics absolutely are compromises the most poisonous solution to any problem.

You know what? I'm up for it.
Tell me a non-anecdotal compromise that ended up exactly how you said it would.
Let's discuss this.

>>6425768
>There is no invisible rule book that says you shouldn't do anything because you'll get punished by something invisible
The entire point is that morality is subjective, depends on the culture or region you live in.
Once you get down to the bare bones, you will notice that you can do whatever you want if you can get away with it.
It might be right in some regions, it might wrong in others, but it will never be the same everywhere.

Firstly, I'm talking about morality - not religion. Do you not understand the distinction?

Secondly you've just made it very clear it's not worth debating you - any fool who believes in subjective morality belongs in the trash. I can't convince you otherwise so I'll end the debate here.

If you don't believe objective morality at least exists on the "killing" level, then I can't continue this debate. I wish you the best and I hope you turn from your pagan indulgence.

>>6425771
The Missouri comprise

>>6425771
Just look at how bloated any piece of legislation is. I'll come back to you with a real example in a few hours, I have to go. But I look forward to continuing this discourse with all of you when i get back.

>>6425784
>If you don't believe objective morality at least exists on the "killing" level, then I can't continue this debate. I wish you the best and I hope you turn from your pagan indulgence.

Yet another man who can face reality.
Another man who instead of admitting defeat says he's "Ending the debate"
We'll miss you unknown keyboard warrior. God bless.

>>6425790
Now what would've happened if the U.S. government took sides?
Would that have made the civil war avoidable?

>>6416728

>getting upset over other peoples choices

I'd agree with the vegan in this thread on some points, if only they didn't sound like such a nut job. Like literally dude, I've heard self pralines prophets standing on boxes who sounded more grounded than you.

But personally, I god damn love meat, and I have and will kill an animal to take what I need. At the same time, the very moment scientists can produce an alternative that tastes, smells, feels, provides the same nutrition (or better), and for cheaper than meat, I'll sign on in a heart beat.

>>6416728
You're right.
Eating cow is gross.
I prefer eating horse.

>>6419271
>shwalabeckles

Iaughed like a fucking retard for some reason

>>6426141
holy shit shes got booty

>>6426141

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

>>6425988
>not getting upset at other peoples choices
Are you a sociopath or something? Its not like choices are free of consequences.

Damn right you should be upset.

>>6425797
Unknown? Not at all - the clues all lie in wait for those to search out. Yes. Perhaps it is my ego or perhaps it is my message but I cannot help but hide the hints to my true identity within my words.

And although I say the debate is ended do not fear, I was more making a point than actually abandoning the soapbox.

But listen, for this is the story of truth and perhaps you can apply it to thread and see what truely is going on.

A man sits at a table at a local eatery with himself and a friend. The friend pulls apart the sandwich to reveal it is covered in red ketchup. Yet the friend claims that it is blue.

The man sees red, and denies it, even asking the server and fellow patrons what color they see. All see red - and all challenge and debate with the friend who claims to see blue.

No amount of debate will make a man see red who wishes to see blue. And if we can't at least agree on the absolute fundamentals - what hope is there for him to see any side other than his own as correct?

>>6426148
>holy shit shes got the ASS OF A HORSE

fixd.

>>6426347
>The man sees red, and denies it, even asking the server and fellow patrons what color they see. All see red - and all challenge and debate with the friend who claims to see blue.

I agree, and I do see the struggle since I am one who sees red.

>>6425131
This type of mindset seeks to label anything that is not part of the belief a pathology. This is a very common tactic which the majority of people use. Instead of legitimate debate, a belief is instead held as obvious fact and anything else is obviously wrong. To be against it "proves the point".

As soon as cows stop being delicious, I'll stop eating them.

Why is it that in nearly every vegan / vegetarians vs meat eater argument, thread, conversation, no one brings up neu5gc? Ever? Never. And I mean never, absolutely, never. It's me or it doesn't happen at all.

Trying to highlights people's fallacious reasoning, cognitive heuristics, faulty viewpoints, etc, or argue on moral grounds, is always a worthless endeavor that hits a brick wall or fizzles out into the ether unless you have a physical presence to push it every step of the way or grab the dumb motherfucker and pound them into a broken heap. It's a waste of time, stop doing it.

Neu5gc and actual data on ecological impact is the only worthwhile conversation. It's terrible. It's disgusting. It's unfortunate, but it's true. People don't change and only immutable facts that have a demonstrable root in reality matter. You can bludgeon the side of their skull in with those.

I want to escape. Does anyone know of any drug that brings about true oblivion? Can't kill myself.

>>6426647
Cool until you mentioned drugs so now i'm going to hide your post so listen dude you should start using a trip, here i'll help you: DRUGADDICT593

>>6426653
Good. If it ends before it begins I won't fool myself into wasting calories talking to you, so go right ahead, you're doin' us both a huge favor.

>>6426647
who cares, basically everything gives you cancer, even sunblock has carcinogens in it

>>6426675
Because we made sunblock, and obviously did a pretty lazy shit job at it. You cite sunblock like it's inescapable and naturally occurring an inescapable, I don't even get it.

Let's put it this way. There are two broad categories you can separate carcinogens into, cancer promoters, and actual substances or physical processes that are mutagenic. The former inhibits innate anti-cancer mechanisms or promotes innate pro-cancer mechanisms. The latter obviously damages cell structures and genetic material directly.

Most things are a balance and can't be meaningfully viewed as a collection of parts and must be weighed as an intertwined whole relative to another system (in this case the body and any processes it's subjected to before entering it). Take coffee for example. Break it down, it contains numerous known carcinogens, yet you look at populations that chronically consume coffee bean and see no statistically significant elevation in the rates of any expected cancers. It's because it also contains anti-oxidants, some of these cancer causing compounds are bound up elsewhere or damaged by heat, etc.

Neu5gc and (red) meat is a similar matter but much more clear cut. It is carcinogenic, there's a steadily growing mountain of evidence connecting it to various diseases and bodily maladies, and we're simply unable to process it properly. I don't give half a fuck if people eat meat, but one thing I demand is that they have an honest perspective and admit the actual nature of their actions. Anything else is pathetic and unacceptable. You are taking part in a destructive industry. You are eating a thinking feeling being. You do not have to eat meat. You are predisposing yourself to various diseases. This is what the evidence about the nature of our existence and our reality tells us. Argue with something real, not bullshit you tell yourself to feel like you want to feel.

>>6426675
>sunblock has carcinogens in it
Source? Are all sunblocks made with the same recipe?

>>6426698
>You cite sunblock like it's inescapable
I'm an extremely pale person that lives in florida
>You are
none of those things are true about me, I've been a vegetarian for 8 years. I just have a completely defeatist attitude about cancer because it seems like everything gives you cancer in an industrialized society

I didn't know about neu5gc though, it does seem much worse than a lot of other things that lead to cancer. I appreciate you bringing it up. But I pretty much assume I'm going to get some kind of cancer no matter what I do.

>>6426701
No they aren't all made the same, higher quality ones don't contain a lot of the carcinogenic stuff. But most of them are made as cheap as possible and do have carcinogens. This is not to say that you are better off without them, they still prevent some of the damage the sun can do.

google carcinogenic sunscreen and you can read about the bad ones

I actually found out about it because I thought it would be funny if sunscreen causes cancer so I looked it up and it turned out that it can.

>>6426718
I'm somewhat pale myself, but only really in that I don't tan and tend to just burn instead. Live in the north east.

>I just have a completely defeatist attitude about cancer because it seems like everything gives you cancer in an industrialized society
Everything is about risk assessment and taking steps to intelligently decide how you want to live. Want to smoke, understand the risks, and truly accept it because it's how you want your reality to be? Go for it. Want to eat meat? Same thing. There's nothing to be defeatist about. You do what you do, you do what you want, you play your odds and you get a result that roughly reflects that. You live blindly or stupidly doing whatever, likewise, you get an erratic (and probably shitty) result that follows.

Don't be lazy anon. The lay down and "oh everything is cancerous" attitude might seem valid on the surface, but it's just takin' the easy way.

I'm a bit enraged right now, take it personally or don't, I've decided to view it as not my problem and not remotely my concern. But yes, neu5gc is novel as far as "Stuff that fucks with us" goes. It has a very unique part it plays in our history and our physiology. There's a bit of... poetic beauty in it all. As though simply for rising to what we have, and being what we are, we are set apart and subtlely punished for growing fat, stupid, lazy, and systematically feasting on our fellow creatures.

>>6426731
>I looked it up and it turned out that it can.
>it
I object to your generalizations. 'Some' may or may not have the potential to contain whatever you're saying that they contain, but not all do (unless you subscribe to the theory that everything gives you cancer).
I just think it's poor form and incredibly misleading to say that a type of product can give you cancer when that product you mention is an umbrella term for a wide range of products.
Like saying that drinking my milk is unethical.

>>6426751
>my milk
*milk. Just milk. I don't know how that 'my' got in there. But you're free to try a mouthful of man milk if you really want to.

>>6426751
the entire point of the post of mine that you are quoting was me attempting to clarify

some of them have bad stuff in them, some of them don't

it can, it is possible. it's not misleading. like saying an egg *can* give you salmonella

>>6426766
What if the universe is an egg, and we're just part of that egg experiencing itself growing?

>>6426741
if the delusional anti-GMO leftists stopped going full retard, we'd have cows without it by now

>>6426786
No. Don't shift the blame where it doesn't belong, there is absolutely no incentive to engineer it out to begin with. People being against GMOs won't and doesn't stop much of anything.

In the case of humans, we just have a stop codon inserted in the middle of the gene coding for an enzyme that converts neu5ac to neu5gc, it's an irreversible mutation. We've tested doing similar things in mice and it does produce viable organisms, albeit with screwed up immune systems, erratic neurological function, and poor wound healing. In the case of cows it might be a far more involved process, it might not be readily do-able at all even if ethics and whatnot wasn't a thing. They might not be able to survive, might not grow properly, might not even develop in the womb. Likewise, extensive testing would need to be done to evaluate if disabling this genetic pathway didn't care far reaching and worse implications for the health of people eating it.

Fuck all that. Most commonly used GMOs are pathetic as far as I'm concerned. As long as there is a profit angle, they're going to be an irresponsible joke. Garbage. "Oh wow, look at me, I made a plant that can handle my proprietary glyphosate better! Buy now, it's comparatively non-toxic!!!!"
What
The
Fuck.

I'm waiting for synthetic meat. If it can be pulled off and done properly, it could wipe out the market for "traditionally grown" animals. That's the only way it;s going to stop, by being economically prohibitive or non-viable in comparison.

>>6426501

The point of the article is that everything is a belief. What that specific quote is saying is that there are now arguments made for meat eating that can be taken as a response to pressures brought up by vegan advocates.

One example is that since animal rights groups have exposed slaughterhouse practices and shown people videos of what killing animals for food is like, people have considered the ethics of the system and deemed it immoral. But, rather than give up meat, they now try to support the idea of "humane meat," which is supposed to be killing animals in a nice way.

Decades of science that suggests meat isn't the healthiest food for you is also considered, and the solution given is "grain-fed mass-produced meat is bad but all-natural grass-fed meat is really good for you."

The article isn't really "we're right and you're wrong," it's just making a point that the new arguments people make for consuming meat (happy meat, sustainable meat, healthy meat) come from meat eaters examining vegan arguments, basically agreeing with them, but still trying to continue the meat eating with any excuse rather than just embrace a new diet. The author argues that the arguments aren't there to provide real answers but just to defend against veganism and allow people to think there are better alternatives that let them continue behaving the same way, even if there isn't

What the fudge did you just fudging say about me, you little biscuit? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Cooking School, and I've been involved in numerous secret pantry-raids on Guy Fieri, and I have over 300 confirmed dishes. I am trained in garnish placement and I'm the top fryer in the entire US line-cook union. You are nothing to me but another turnip. I will whisk you the fudge out with peppercorn the likes of which has never been tasted before on this continent, mark my fudging words. You think you can get away with sprinkling that salt on me over the Icebox? Think again, fudger. As we eat I am contacting my secret union of chefs across the USA and your peas are being traced right now so you better prepare for the stromboli, maggot. The stromboli that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your lasagna. You're fudging spoiled, kimchi. I can be any table, any shift, and I can grill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with propane. Not only am I extensively trained in unwrapping cheese, but I have access to the entire spice cabinet of the United States Cooking Academy and I will use it to its full extent to flavor your miserable asparagus off the menu, you little grain of table salt. If only you could have known what unripened raspberry your little "clever" side-dish was about to bring down upon your plate, maybe you would have held your fudging pork tongue. But you couldn't. you didn't, and now you're paying market price, you goddamn idiot. I will spice curry all over you and you will drown in it. You're fudging dead, kimchi-o.

>>6426347
Maybe he is colorblind, or maybe his vision is fine, but everyone else in the world is colorblind.

>>6416728
Dude...they're dumb ass animals.

>>6419499
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQOQdBLHrLk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWi1bgV4P8
s a v a g e

>>6426852
Dude...you're a dumb ass animal.
lulululululululul
lul
LEL!! XDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>6426863
Great argument pal. But regretfully, a cow cannot, and will never be able to add, subtract, or operate motor vehicles.

>>6426647
>neu5gc

Is there any direct empirical evidence on humans or quantitative comparison with the thousands of other xenobiotics we're routinely exposed to? Most of it seems to be speculation from animal models and cell cultures. Even then, there's conflicting data with some papers reporting immunosuppression and inhibition of tumor growth.

>>6426866
As if those are meaningful metrics of intelligence. Again, you provide further evidence of your myopia and why you're only able to be considered a dumbass animal yourself.

Seals can perform reasonably complex mathematical calculations, for fuck's sake. You don't even have a decent base you're building your opinion on and probably throw together whatever stupid shit you need to in order to support the conclusion you want. Give me anything, and I'll poke it full of holes. Just like someone oughta' poke you until you're full of holes.

>>6416728
>brooks blog
I'm still confused by the image, but not enough to give the site one more hint of Google's interest.
The image looks kinda peaceful though.
Does the thought of people eating cow make you feel comfy and relaxed, in a crappily made clay profile with what I assume is the thought of their self watching a seed germinate sort of way?

>>6426872
Show me their computers. Show me their satellites in space. Let's see their military capabilities. Even if those metrics aren't meaningful, animals still can't do nearly anything as complex as humans.

>>6426872
It doesn't matter if animals are dumb or smart, what matters is their taste, maybe even smart animals taste better.

>>6426867
>direct empirical evidence
I'm not sure what you're asking for in this sense. Most more recent papers are "empirical", as in they aren't projections or in the realm of theoretical possibilities. They're more a response to observations and trying to figure underlying mechanisms, and they're quantified as a result. So I guess I'd say yes, there is a good deal of empirically derived and verified evidence, but that might not be the right lens to be looking through.

We know the mechanisms whereby it causes chronic inflammation, why, and many reasons we're significantly less able to tolerate it. Viewing it as "xeno" is part of what skews things because it ignores history.

Either way, there isn't much conflict in most of the data I've seen. Here's a few papers in the interest of time.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026345/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3928833/
http://jem.rupress.org/content/207/8/1637.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25548184
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586336/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596253/

>>6426876
Again, myopia.

Skip the high level abstract shit, it's a waste of time and doesn't highlight much on its own. Trace that down to its basic roots, on an elementary level, and evaluate your definition of intelligence. That's what makes it all not a meaningful metric.

Show me your ability to migrate to a specific place every year, without external assistance. Show me your ability to read magnetic fields via some shit your body moved into your beak that interfaces with your brain. Show me your ability to track massive numbers of other members of your pod and convey information using small vibrations through water. Show me your ability to hunt, lead a target, and coordinate with the rest of your pack to reliably kill birds ad not starve to death.

Oh, you can't? Gosh that's too bad. What a dumbass animal, you humans really do suck. Try to get more than three people together without a rigidly defined hierarchical control structure and it all just breaks down? LOL, WHAT A JOKE. XD. WHAT IDIOTS. SO UNFIT FOR THE DEMANDS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE ECOLOGIES RELATIVE TO THEIR PHYSIOLOGY.

>>6426895
Don't need to know how to do any of that shit because other people have already figured out how to make my life easier. Your argument has no basis beyond "dats meen and it horts dem animulz feelins." Let me ask you this, lets start by assuming cow meat tastes good. If I give it up, what do I gain? And don't give me some bullshit regarding my health which I'm not terribly interested in.

>>6426901
>Don't need to know how to do any of that shit because other people have already figured out how to make my life easier.
How frail. The moment the affordances of your environment even slightly shift, you're done. You can't survive on your own without the assistance of technology. Which isn't novel, many species are interdependent with some other organism, aspect of their ecology, or other members of their species. But that sense of individual fitness and "intelligence" is a very finite spectrum.

Outside a very small number of cases, you're just dead and that's the end of it. That's the limit of your functional intelligence. You can clearly lack higher intelligence because you don't realize that fact, and don't understand how your world really works. Intelligence is relative, you can't be intelligent wthout anything to be intelligent about. Therein you can derive a spectrum of "intelligences" a species can display relative to tasks, challenges, or stimuli. Humans are limited in their own ways.

>lets start by assuming cow meat tastes good.
Okay, we'll accept that as an axiom.

>If I give it up, what do I gain?
First, let's turn that on its head. If you "give it up", what do you actually lose? Really, and don't try to tell me some line, I don't want to hear it and frankly I don't really care about your answer. Answer it for yourself, what do you truly lose?

You gain better health, whether at this stage of your life that's meaningful or not. I wouldn't be shocked to see you bitching about your joints and shit when you hit your 50's, and reality hits you. Beyond that, maybe a longer lifespan, less tendency towards various cancers and cardiovascular issues. Less tendency towards arthritis in old(er) age. Not taking part in a destructive industry. Potentially staving off a global ecological collapse and widespread environmental changes via somewhat less methane / CO2 production.

Maybe not being a parasite that only makes the world more shit

>>6426918
Great so now you're speculating that "the habbening" is gonna happen and I'm going to starve. And I lose some great tasting meat. Again, I said I'm not interested in health shit because I really doubt that eating it in small amounts will have any serious bearing on me. As for the environment, I don't give a shit because I'll be dead long before that changes enough to affect humans. The world's shitty enough and there's enough parasitic people doing far worse things. Why not go bitch at them about something that actually matters?

>>6426922
>Great so now you're speculating that "the habbening" is gonna happen and I'm going to starve.
But that's wrong, you moron. Why don't you start by not being such a fucker and investing some legitimate thought before responding, eh? You're so blatantly narrow minded, I just can't stand the thought of going through these motions. I mentioned someone pokin' you full of holes, I'm loaded full of theobromine and shit ain't tickin quite right, if we were in person I might be the guy to do it. Shape up and stop being such a shithead.

Everything you do is funneled based on your knowledge of how and what you can survive and what you know you do or do not have to do. Without certain things in place, this doesn't happen. Your own intrinsic intelligence and capabilities are almost entirely worthless in most conditions. Humans only survive because of iteration, trial and error based knowledge we pass on, and modern day, technology. How smart are you yourself, really? Or are you just so routinely exposed to conditions that are favorable to you in an engineered ecology, that you wrongfully perceive a greater fitness and intelligence than you actually possess.

Really. Look around. What can you actually even do? I'd gamble on a simple answer. "Not much." Other animals survive and even thrive just fine in conditions that you couldn't manage in. Your scrawny flimsy dumb ass couldn't even fill your own ancestor's shoes half the time. It's all relative.

RELATIVE. RELATIVE. RELATIVE. RELATIVE. RELATIVE. RELATIVE.
(relative)

The rest of your post is just you being a typical human. Lazy, shortsighted, childish shithead. Grow up. You're like a little kid, and that's coming from someone who just ALL CAPS'd the word "RELATIVE" multiple times to make sure you saw it and got the picture properly. I won't bother to engage you in any meaningful way, sorry man.

>>6426941
It's the 21st century, idiot. I don't need to know how to survive because odds are I'm not at risk of waking up in the middle of some nuclear holocaust fantasyland zombie survival game. Now go to bed and quit being angry that I'm not wasting my life worrying about shit that doesn't matter.

>>6426946
You're obviously from a warmer climate and have never had to survive in the cold. Oh well, you'd be surprised how easy you can be pushed into conditions where it'd be easy to die in the 21st century, with or without disaster. You keep thinking big, I keep calling you myopic, but you're somehow missing the basics and don't get it.

Start small and take a good look around you at the everyday ordinary things. I don't want to believe you don't possess the brains to figure it out. I refuse to believe you're incapable of expanding your mind without being forced by direct experience.

There was this tortoise, his shell was covered with jewels and had been since time began. He knew the world and all its histories, and the universe and its mysteries. One day it came across a man. The two were talkin', it offered to tell him the future and how the universe ran.

Oh, the man killed the tortoise, took his shell and with a song on his lips, walked off again.

>>6426961
Eh, cold winters hot summers. The suburbs aren't exactly prone to SHTF. Cool metaphor, regretfully animals can't offer me much more than food, potential profit, and amusing videos. Besides, apparently the tortoise didn't know about human behavior. Nor did he know self defense.

>>6426967
Unfortunately you don't realize what the tortoise is. This is what we've done to ourselves.

Not a surprise you're from a suburb. Enjoy the rest of your life and submerging yourself into the madness of having your sense of value only revolve around what other things can do for you in a material sense.

This is my last response. Anything else is probably just a waste that pushes the thread closer to its bump limit, which isn't in line with my own perception of value.

>>6426886
Thanks for the reply. This is what I'm asking:

-Is there a causal connection to known human disease (something with an ICD-10 code)? By causal I mean in the same or very similar sense that we know caffeine causes psychostimulant effects in humans.
-How much 'chronic inflammation' is there? How does it compare in magnitude with other common environmentally encountered pro-inflammatory stimuli?
-Has it been established whether or not endogenous human immune response to neu5gc (e.g., production of anti-neu5gc antibodies) stimulates or suppresses human tumor growth (in humans), as this seems to depend on many factors in the models (such as strength of immune response, type and amount of antibody, cell type)?

>>6426918
>Growing vegan food of our desire doesn't hurt the planet in any way
Really anon? Half of the negative things about eating meat (if not more than half) would be the production which harms the environment more than just producing vegan food however creating fields and fields able to sustain plants of our choosing destroys the ecosystem and the pesticide plus fertilizer of different kinds ruin it even more.
So tell me, up there from your high horse, why would I support one ruination of our environment instead of the other?

>>6427836
>creating fields and fields able to sustain plants of our choosing destroys the ecosystem and the pesticide plus fertilizer of different kinds ruin it even more.
Definitely. And what you described is what we're already doing to support livestock. Most crops grown don't even go to feeding humans, they go towards livestock, which themselves comparatively are far less efficient and yield less food relative to the space they require. Not even getting into comparing hard ecological impacts, in which livestock are certainly worse as well.

Pesticides is an issue I won't even go into. In my probably arrogant opinion, I can envision a few ways to maintain sustainable and necessary yields without need of pesticides, increased labor, or poorly produced fertilizer that contaminates soil. The latter most would be a function of not growing crops like soybean that are preferred for their very orderly growth and harvest cycle (as well as being GMO and large firms like monsanto lobbying for massive subsidies making it dirt cheap and increasing demand as a result), but they ravage and rape the soil. Other crops either lack or have this issue to a much less extreme extent.

You can probably tell by looking at the post times I'm pretty tired right now. But as a last point since you had to throw in that "high horse" jab, jokes on you, I eat meat. I'm just not a delusional fool who can't accept the nature of their actions. Unlike most meat eaters, I actually don't have much of a choice. The only meat I eat is turkey, multiple attempts to phase it out have ended in non-viability. I'm so boxed in by food sensitivities and allergies I really don't have any other real option. I'm still looking for a source of energy that works, but I just don't have it yet. Any other "choice" is choosing between a different forms of hell.

>>6427836
lol as if the type of vegetables that "vegans" support are the ones using harmful pesticides. They're more like food chain solutions, like introducing lady bugs or other bugs to combat more harmful species.

Not to mention that raising animals, it's an endless cycle of violence or methane production if thats the "facts" you want to look at. Whereas with farmland, sure, initially you have to destroy the environment just like with creating animal farms, but once thats done you can produce food on that same farm land to infinity as long proper care is taken and the crops are swapped out every few seasons.

Perpetual sacrifice with animal slaughter or a one time sacrifice with crop farms... what's better? The land is going to be "destroyed" regardless so why not support the more sustainable option: farming.

>>6428010
>Perpetual sacrifice with animal slaughter or a one time sacrifice with crop farms

>Implying animals can't produce more animals
>Implying you don't have to harvest crops at least annually

>>6416741
>Earth will actually be united completely
>UN will finally be useful
>Mass conscription, nuclear weapon production reinstated
>If we lose, Every nuke will be fired to leave earth a wasteland for future life
>If we win, beginning of space colonization with war being a constant drive toward expansion and tech progress
Aliens would probably just abduct a couple of humans, take them back home, and start breeding programs. It probably already happened in he 1950s.

>>6428043
Earth won't be united completely simply because we collectively have a common enemy. If you look back on history you can see that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not how we tend to work in large scale conflicts, you still how covert setting up certain leverage over other groups. You still have squabbling. You still have petty arguing and disagreements. We simply don't work this way, we are pitiful at coordinating in large groups, we are very distrustful, and we are very greedy.

We do not get along. Envisioning the scenario of mankind being united against a common foe that drastically overpowers us either with numbers, a technological advantage, or both, even temporarily, is just a dream. We're a childish and shortsighted race and kind of deserve to die on that basis alone, I'd be very interested to see my idea put to the test, but to be honest I'd go as far as to claim near certainty about what I just said.

In the aftermath even if we won, the groups that made out the best would continue to rapidly reverse engineer the enemy's technology while annexing and mopping up any other group that took more heavy damage and isn't equipped to fight back. Don't just kick em' while they're down, take em for all they're worth too.

>>6428010
Even if the vegans buy ecologicaly or locally produced food the transportation actually surpases the "normally" produced foods CO2 and Nox emissions. You also forgot that usually the lands which have been made into farmland are abused aswell with different fertilizers, pesticide etc.

>>6428009
Didn't notice the tired part, you make some good points which made me think over my own views on the subject, which also is a very interesting one.

>>6428086
Sure, we'd fight afterwards but remember when the US and the Soviets used to be best buddies to kick Hitler and Tojo off the planet?

>We're a childish and shortsighted race and kind of deserve to die on that basis alone
Keep sharpening that edge, kiddo.

>>6428128
>Keep sharpening that edge, kiddo.
Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I'm coming down at this point. It's real curious to know when I go to bed, I'll wake up someone quite different. But it's all me.

Thanks for the feedback kiddo. Real ironically childish statement to tack on, hope you got a bit of a rise out of it.

>>6428149
>I'm coming down at this point
Apologies, it is often hard to differentiate between the ramblings of a self important manchild who professes to believe in the worthlessness of humanity to feel important and the ramblings of an intoxicated mind.

>>6428167
I never said humanity was worthless or lacked value. I just implied we don't have to continue, and in many ways, I think if we were to be cleanly wiped from the planet with little collateral damage, it would be a net positive. Potentially giving another species the chance to rise and do a better job, a chance we'll rob them of.

So no, I don't think we're worth it in that sense. Unfortunate that this is seemingly our nature, is it too bad in many ways? Yeah, sure. Does everyone deserve to die? Probably not. As a whole are we very broken? Definitely. A terrible unacceptable loss? Not really. The world would be a better place. One needs to either be delusional to think otherwise, or have a very different framework of value internally that simply won't relate with my own.

>>6428193
If you believe that humanity, as a whole, would be better off wiped out then you are either ignorant or of a mindset where anything I say is pointless to communicate. Evidently, you have the entire Internet at your disposal, I would suggest you make better use of it but that's likely a futile suggestion as well.

>>6428231
Your post is more or less entirely an excuse to not post anything of substance yourself, but don't worry, I understand the feeling. It's a waste of energy, and you're probably right, attempting to communicate would be worthless and yield little of value for either of us and almost certainly in return for yourself.

Ya developed these heuristics for a reason, might as well use em. Anything else would be an exercise in madness. And you'd be at it almost constantly.

>>6416756
>implying repitles/birds can't have feels
Check your hair privilege, shitlord.

>>6426860

>>6428238
Perhaps a condensed version then. I would point out that humanity has devoted great efforts to understand and wield power over the universe in a way that, as far as we know, was unseen on this planet prior to our arrival. We applied this knowledge to help other humans and even other species (to some extent). Certainly, we consume resources, there is no progress without material but what good are those resources if not exploited?

>>6428193
lol, you'd rather evolution start from scratch? you're a retard dude. Its a game of odds dude, there are those among the scientific elite that claim all odds become certain given infinite amount of time - but we dont have infinite time ... earth doesnt have infinite time, and who even knows if the universe has infinite time where the envioronment to sustain life can even exist, much less at the level where it evolves to be as conscious as us.

humanity is the best thing to ever happen to this universe and if we go it certainly isnt guaranteed that anything resembling our level of intelligence will ever rise again.

>>6428193
Lol once again the naturist reveals his true misandry.

>>6428264
Good is part of our perception and I don't think things really need to be much of anything, they just are on their own. I don't think our use of resources and perception of value has had a positive impact on the greater whole. For all of our knowledge and supposed ability to discern truths and weigh information, we more often tend to believe what we want to believe, and we very rarely simply do the right thing that we knew was right all along the first, second, or even nth time around. We tend to get hung up on artificial highly abstract barriers that have no tangible basis in reality, most of which are deliberately engineered self created constraints, and we are very fond of tricking ourselves and each other/ Reality is definitely an ambiguous haze, but certain things are fairly blatant, it is difficult to argue we don't ignore this.

Either way, I think it tends to come down to something pretty simple. I don't believe humanity is capable of meaningful change, I think we're very likely broken intrinsically. You could arbitrarily kill off certain members of our species, and we'd regrow the same faulty things. You can splinter off whatever you want, but the malady remains, and it's not because it's among us, it's because it is us.

In my view we're more often barreling down a winding road of madness and false progress. The scenery never really changes much. But we rarely stop and take an honest look around before deciding to continue.

>>6428297
If you hate humanity so much why dont you start with killing yourself? you subjective moralists, naturists, post-modernists ... whatever you identify as - the truth is plain and simple: You're a bunch of misandrists parading around as intellectuals: no ones buying into your double-speak dude, just thought you should know.

>>6428293
How is humanity being gone having organism's evolution "start from scratch"?

>>6428296
I'm not sure how you can misandry out of this. I can only guess you actually meant misanthropy.

>>6428297
>I don't believe humanity is capable of meaningful change
What would you give as an example of "meaningful change"? We have torn down the barriers errected by nature and, in doing so, enriched, enhanced and even made possible the lives of billions.

>>6428305
>why dont you start with killing yourself?
Like most organisms, I possess an irrational will to survive even if my ideas and desires don't reflect that on a higher level. There is a split sense of self experience.

Naturally the irrational basis has reasoned and developed ideas and understanding about oneself layered around it to remain functional and pursue other things. Some of which potentially experiencing beauty in the world and even other people. I never claimed to be whole.

>identify
I don't really bother to identify and try to avoid isms and ists internally. They're convenient for communication though. I'm probably a lot of things at a lot of times, some even contradictory. As are you. Are you trying to fool me or you?

>>6428315
Meaningful change is significantly altering our conscious and how we function through a means other than technological affordance.

We've potentially net increased quality of life, but we've made billions that are worse simply because they exist to experience it and weren't give a choice who they were born as. We cannot fix it. We've relentlessly resolved the laws of nature to a point where we can effectively engineer and manipulate matter but we've grown overweight as a species and ravaged our environment pushing many species to extinction or worse. We've tried to expand but we're lazy and don't care about anything long term, so we destroy first and hope it comes together later. We're broken, we talking out one side of our mouth, and with our hands doing something else while in the same breath saying something completely different out of the other. We are capable of realizing this but instead of pursuing reconciliation, we uphold a disjointed mess, and it's been this way since our goddamn history began. This goes back to the forums of the ancients greeks and probably even to australopithecus roaming the rift valley with no idea what lay within themselves.

For all of our capacities, we don't do a single thing right. It's all dualistic, and everything our hands touch we simple sully. Everywhere our feet walk, we ruin it eventually. And that's just what we are. Broken.

>>6428334
As you said, "good is part of our perception". However, achievements that are entirely "good" are a fantasy and to suppose that any potential future alternative species could perform any better is equally fantastical.

If humanity is indeed as broken and lacking in ability as you claim then you are, by your own logic, wasting your time in arguing the point. However, it seems to me to be a rather weak excuse to avoid the effort involved in personal betterment and attempting to spread your ideals about the world to others to effect change.

>>6428352
The idea of a ripple effect is elegant, and has a sense of beauty, but it's discovered to be non-valid and come with many prohibitive limitations and issues when you begin to actually exhaustively test the affordances of your environment and plot out ways to not just feel like you're doing things, but actually get it done, and keep it done. When you begin to see patterns, you also also begin to unearth principles that tend to make things tick.

Either way. I'll chip away at personal betterment as I see fit, and you really have no idea what that actually connects with. But it ends with me. And I've gotten to know myself with honesty to know that not only can my ideals not legitimately spread in a way that matters, I have no desire to make them do so. It runs counter to what I am, what I'm comfortable with, and what I'd even want.

So I choose avoidance except for when some directly pushes me or gets in my way. The rest of the world can piss off with its madness while I live my life grasping t my sanity, and just watch and wait as my miserable life drags on and eventually fizzles out. I was born in ruins. I learned some things from them. Tried to dig a bit, found it gets less clear the deeper you go, harvested what I could. I'm building my own as I speak, and when I'm gone, someone, or something, will learn from mine as well and that's just how it goes. What else can ya do? Have my own (delusions) of grandeur, but I won't fool myself into thinking my role is or shou;d be more than it is.

>>6428390

My god, I can smell the fedora oozing out of your pores.

>4chan intellectuals

>>6428308
No misandry fits too idiot.

>>6428390
lol faggot
>check these dubz