[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 69 KB, 502x516, slaughterhouse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4395894 No.4395894[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Give me one convincing argument as to why I should give up being vegan.

>> No.4395896

>please argue with me

because we don't already have several vegan threads

>> No.4395900

>>4395894

Because you are just a moralfag.
Meat is good for you. And tasty.

>> No.4395899

meat tastes good

>> No.4395906

come on, we have enough of these threads already

>> No.4395904

Malnutrition.

Its unavoidable.

>> No.4395910

>>4395908
forgot to sage

>> No.4395908

Why would I try to change your views on life

>> No.4395907

I don't give a fuck what you do as long as you stop shitposting here

>> No.4395911

There is none.

But please stop shitting up /ck/.

>> No.4395918

Once you go grass fed you will never go back. Pastured meat tastes better, is better for you, and is more ethically sound both humanely and environmentally. Eat it sparingly if you wish.

>> No.4395924

Oh great this thread again!


Fifty bucks on 200 replies in 4 days!

>> No.4395940

Don't. Keep eating tofu until you make yourself infertile. More meat for me.

>> No.4395946

>>4395894
we dont care you worthless attention whore

>> No.4395948

This place is so fucking shitty.

>> No.4395950

You shouldnt. If being vegan makes you happy, keep being vegan. If you want to change, then change. Its all good. Do what brings you joy in life, anon, and dont look to others for validation on your choices. And for the love of fuck, stop trying to devalue others choices just because they arent yours. Just makes you look like a pretentious basket of cunts and achieves nothing.

>> No.4395958

Every ecosystem needs herbivores to feed carnivores and omnivores, lest we start eating other carnivores/omnivores. You want to keep grazing, go for it.

>> No.4395964

You shouldn't its good for you/world.

>> No.4395959

>>4395904
This isn't even remotely true.

>> No.4395982

>>4395894
meat tastes good

>> No.4396057

Try some motha fucking veal piccata! Your mouth will orgasm

>> No.4396068
File: 923 KB, 1284x2553, 1354432231182.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4396068

>>4395894

As long as you know how to combine partial protein sources together so you will create a complete protein source you're good to go. Most people who go vegan or vegetarian have NO nutritional education and don't even know their bodies require certain amino acids from certain kinds of food. You see this with a lot of fat women who "go vegan" and start livomg off of cake and candy. They brag about how they are saving bambi... but they are sooo damn unhealthy because they don't get what their bodies require. All they shovel in their system is poison processed carbs.

>> No.4396074

Its easier not to be

>> No.4396084

Oysters probably aren't capable of suffering, so they're fine.

>> No.4396087

Bacon

Really the only reason to be vegan is because current industrial meat production is unsustainable.It isn't any better for you, but it is better for the Earth.

>> No.4396093

because I as a vegetarian couldn't give two fucks how other people eat. As long as I can eat what I like to at a price that is alright, I am fine and couldn't care less what others eat.

>> No.4396098

>>4396093
does it embarrass you that the majority of your people are so preachy?

>> No.4396100

>>4395904

What do you mean?

>> No.4396101

continue being vegan so us meat eaters can extend the amount of time we can eat meat before meat eating is limited and diet restrictions are mandatory.

>> No.4396104

>>4396098
>majority are preachy
>confirmation bias
>also, dismissing ideas because of how their presented

>> No.4396109

>>4396104
>>also, dismissing ideas because of how their presented
Oh, thats not why I dismiss the idea, thats just why I usually don't like the people dumb enough to subscribe to the idea

>> No.4396112
File: 35 KB, 500x624, veganismftw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4396112

i can't

>> No.4396119

>>4396109
Let's hear some reasons for your positions.

>> No.4396125

>>4396119
Meat is delicious and nutritious, what more needs to be said?

>> No.4396128

>>4396098
it does, the most annoying part is that people act just as preachy back. When finding out, friends either go "no way i never noticed" or, "I BET YOU'RE NOT! FISH IS MEAT TOO"(no fucking shit, you must be a genius to figure this out)

Many people I know don't know I am, even people that I've lived with took over 6 months to notice, and that's totally fine. I don't care if people know or care. It's like what your fetishes are, who gives a shit if someone has different fetishes than you do?

>> No.4396132

>>4396101
If we got rid of corn/soy subsidies and rancher went back to grass grazing with proper land maintenance things would be better for the environment and the meat consumer.

properly managed native grasses for grazing abosorbs CO2, it makes the cow taste better, gives monsanto the finger, no antibiotics required, less pollution,.

>> No.4396135

>>4396128
Well to be fair, I normally make fun of friends that do stupid things too

>> No.4396142

>>4396125
The question is whether or not it's ethical to pleasure your taste buds at the expense of certain creatures' lives/suffering. You're simply ignoring the issue.

>> No.4396147
File: 1.76 MB, 1920x1080, HFY_Avatar.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4396147

>>4395894

>> No.4396155

>>4396142
its more efficient eat meat. A pork chop has the same nutrient/calorie content as a couple cubic feet of grass.

>> No.4396161

>>4396142
Thats just a silly question to ask. Of course ti is ethical, why the shit wouldn't it be?

>> No.4396163

>>4396125
The question is whether or not it's ethical to pleasure your taste buds at the expense of certain creatures' lives/suffering. You're simply ignoring the issue.

>> No.4396166

>>4396161
Inflicting unnecessary suffering.

Sorry for the accidental repost.

>> No.4396171

>>4396166
animals don't suffer as you understand it. Having a primitive pain reflex is not the same thing.

Plants have analogous reflexes but no one gives a shit about eating them

>> No.4396174

Because they can grow meat in a jar now. No brain, no pain. Also oysters get you laid, faggot.

>> No.4396178

>>4396171
I'm sorry, can you please describe your methodology in how you came to the conclusion that animals definitively do not suffer?

Why haven't you published this in Nature or Science?

>> No.4396180

>>4396147
Oh were doing quotes now?

"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire

>> No.4396182

>>4396171
That's because plants do only have primitive reflexes. Many animals (animals is a broad category; you could possibly discount oysters, insects, etc.) have complex enough nervous systems with enough similarities to humans that the burden of proof is really on you to show that isn't real suffering. There's a continuum and there are gray areas, but you're simply ignoring our understanding of biology if you think you can write off mammals' suffering as analogous to plant reflexes.

>> No.4396188

>>4396182
>the burden of proof is really on you to show that isn't real suffering.
Thats some weak logic. The burden of proof is on the edgy people who want to change what all normal people do

>> No.4396193

Even if animals do have some primitive form of suffering, so what?

You don't need to torture animals in order to eat them, animals certainly do not have any concept of quality of life either

>> No.4396196

>>4395894

Because you want to. If you don't want to, then don't give it up. Who am I, your mom? I don't give a shit what you do. Be a vegan or don't. /thread

>> No.4396198

>>4396182
If oysters can't suffer, that's enough to rule out veganism, since oysters aren't vegan.

>> No.4396197

>>4396188
>The burden of proof is on the edgy people who want to change what all normal people do
>most people do it/think it, therefore it's right/we can take it for granted

>> No.4396199

>>4396193
You don't need to, but in practice, people do.
Generally, if people are keeping and raising animals for the sole purpose of making a profit, they're going to end up being treated brutally.

>> No.4396200

Still waiting for an answer to this
>>4396178

>> No.4396204

>>4396199
>You don't need to, but in practice, people do.
then why don't you whine about that instead of eating meat in general?

>> No.4396207

>>4396200

> definitively prove a negative
> science

Pick one.

>> No.4396210

>>4396200
No one answered you because your question was nonsense and unverifiable

>> No.4396211

>>4396198
Peter Singer agrees that oysters are okay. It's sort of like being against torture except in ticking bomb scenarios; one outlier doesn't change your whole position.
If you're vegan out of concern for the suffering of animals, and a small number of very simple animals such as oysters can't suffer, then eating oysters and none others is still accomplishing to goal of removing yourself from the unnecessary suffering of animals.

>> No.4396212

>>4396180
"I desperately need the D." - OP

>> No.4396214

>>4396204
Killing animals when you don't need to, even if done with as little cruelty as possible, still doesn't seem defensible to me.
But even so, tell you what. You stop eating meat except in those very, very rare cases you can find reasonably humanely treated animals, and I'll tip my hat to you and take my arguments elsewhere.

>> No.4396224

>>4396211
Vegans aren't logical like Peter Singer. They are against eating honey even if the bees are kept in good conditions.

BEES for Christ's sake!

>> No.4396225

>>4396214
>Killing animals when you don't need to, even if done with as little cruelty as possible, still doesn't seem defensible to me.
Thats because you have odd opinions.

Do you also have a problem with swatting mosquitoes? or killing plants?

>> No.4396236

>>4396224
So you're not arguing against the ideas, just certain individuals that follow similar diets to logical ethical veganism, without it being as well thought out?

>>4396225
We're talking about animals with complex nervous systems. I thought we'd already dealt with that.

What would you give as your reasons that killing a human is unethical, but killing a non-human animal isn't? Assuming you agree with the former.

>> No.4396237

>>4396225

Or killing microfauna on your body every time you move/breathe?

I mean, you could always admit that, ethically, sometimes killing is necessary and unavoidable because you're alive and it happens without your knowledge, consent, or intention, but then you'd be in the same grey area as everyone else about where to draw the line about being an agent of another creature's demise.

>> No.4396246

>>4396237
I'll repeat, we're talking about animals with complex nervous systems, a good amount of sentience, not plants or microfauna.

Also, it doesn't follow that because a certain amount of something is necessary that it's automatically fine and you shouldn't do what you can to minimize it.

>> No.4396248

>>4396236
Veganism is abstaining from eating animal products including honey, eggs and dairy. I don't know what "logical ethical veganism" is but apparently it's not the same as regular veganism. The OP didn't specify "logical ethical veganism" so I am arguing against the common definition.

>> No.4396254

>>4396248
Peter Singer's ideas and arguments are a good base to go with.

So your big disagreement with veganism is nitpicking at little cases like honey? Would you concede that the most pressing, cruelty-filled cases, such as the treatment of cows, pigs, etc. (I don't know how you dismiss eggs and dairy as comparable to honey; chickens and dairy cows are generally treated extremely brutally) are indefensible?

>> No.4396255

>>4396236
Humans have by far the most advanced nervous systems.

Also vegans refuse to eat any animal product including fucking honey, and cheese which doesn't require any sort of death to the animal, so you can't just move the goalposts now and make it suddenly about only the most advanced of animals

>> No.4396256

>>4396246
>a good amount of sentience
Please define this extremely vague qualification

>> No.4396261

>>4396255
>Humans have by far the most advanced nervous systems
But why do you draw the cutoff there? What are your criteria for determining whether or not something should receive ethical consideration?

>> No.4396262

>>4396254
Yeah I'd concede that. I know eating animals is unethical and I do it anyways. Call the cops I don't give a fuck.

>> No.4396263

>>4396254
>dairy cows are generally treated extremely brutally
no they fucking aren't

Don't believe every bit of propaganda you see on youtube. I grew up in Wisconsin around many dairy farms, and they are treated just fine

>> No.4396267

>>4396261
>What are your criteria for determining whether or not something should receive ethical consideration
Whether they are human

>> No.4396269

>>4396263

This. They even have brush posts for scratching their asses.

We still have to use our hands.

>> No.4396270

>>4396263
I'm sure you had very pleasant personal experiences with some little farms, but if you think most cows in the dairy industry are treated just fine, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

>> No.4396275

>>4396270
Wait so are you conceding that dairy cows can be treated fine? And you also think honey is ok. If so what's the point of even calling yourself vegan?

>> No.4396273

>>4396267
Why? You have to give some actual criteria, not "they happen to be a member of homo sapiens."

>> No.4396277

>>4396275

He wants to tell everyone he's a faggot and this is the easiest way to do it other than actually coming out. Stop replying.

>> No.4396278

>>4396270
Remember that vegans are against all meat and animal product usage, not just those treated "cruelly"

Dairy cows are treated fine, you just have a crazy idea of what cruelty is

>> No.4396283

>>4396275
I'd eat dairy products if I thought they were treated fine, but those are very rare, special cases; nothing you'll get at the grocery store.

I'm not tied to a label. You can say I'm not vegan if you want; which is technically true, I think it's fine to eat animal products if nothing is killed or mistreated for them. But in practice, I'm almost the same as a dictionary definition vegan, since the differences are rare cases.

>> No.4396285

>>4396283
>but those are very rare
Why do you believe this?

>> No.4396287

>>4396283
>nothing you'll get at the grocery store.
That is bullshit. You are just delusional

>> No.4396288

>>4396285
Because he's cray cray.

>> No.4396291

>>4396283
Ah I'm glad we have shown you the Light and gotten you to renounce veganism.

Thread over guys, we won!

>> No.4396292

>>4395894
Why would we even care? Seriously, eat what you want, I don't care. I'm going to keep eating meat but I have nothing against people who don't want to as long as they aren't trying to shove their beliefs on others.

>> No.4396293

>>4396273
Not original poster but this: if the animal displays any sort of social behaviour beyond pack mentality, then we must assume it has evolved empathic capabilities that are invariably affected by what is generically referred to as cruel treatment.

Elephants, dolphins, and dogs display these sort of empathic traits. Cows do not. Chickens do not. Porcine do, but bacon is delicious, so who gives an honest fuck?

>> No.4396301

I must sleep. The only arguments I've seen this boil down to seem to be claims that animals aren't actually treated badly. You either have very low standards for humane treatment or simply don't know much about the industries you buy food from.

Regardless, I have a suspicion these are just justifications come up with after the fact to rationalize not wanting to give up meat; I doubt you all avoid animal products from huge factory farms where no one could argue that there's humane treatment, where your arguments don't apply. I'd be very pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong about that.

>> No.4396303

If you aren't being cruel to the animal yourself, why would you feel bad about it? Are you an illogical women or something

>> No.4396306

>>4396301
Humane is a bullshit concept. Unless they people are torturing the animals intentionally on a large scale, it doesn't matter at all.

I can't be bothered about something as trivial as them having less living space than some random hippie thinks they should have

>> No.4396309

>>4396303
>If you aren't being cruel to the animal yourself, why would you feel bad about it? Are you an illogical women or something
Come on, even most sensible omnivores wouldn't argue that it's acceptable to simply have someone else do it for you.

>> No.4396311

>>4396306
>Unless they people are torturing the animals intentionally on a large scale, it doesn't matter at all.
Thinking the cruelty in the food industry is just >something as trivial as them having less living space than some random hippie thinks they should have

Well there you go. I'm out.