/lit/ - Literature

>>10628671
>Flawed premisses

>P1 - Humans are of moral value.
That isn't a premise. That is a conclusion that you have not supported.

Read Stirner. I eat meat because I want to, and it is within my power.

>>10628671
>P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
only if you are an empiricist. the human essence/form is something we know from reason not experience.

I eat animals because meat is easy to get without wasting my time preparing food. I haven't cooked in about a year, no fucks given.

>>10628671

I solely eat chicken, because I do not respect it as an organism and wish death upon it. There is absolutely no example of a human being, no matter how retarded and brain dead, that will make that human as worthless as a chicken. Even if it was possible, and a human was in anyway chicken-like, I would consider that human worthless.

>P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
How about the capacity for self-consciousnesses? I don't mind pulling the plug on some vegetable, and I don't think cows are conscious of the self either. They are like biological machines, and do not really experience anything.
And if you think that is irrelevant, and we shouldn't kill what can suffer, then there are plenty of animals who do not suffer, like fish.

don't tell me, it's another "op posts a shitty argument and never replies to the rebuttals" thread isn't it?

>>10628692
>only if you are an empiricist.
Wrong. If you're an empiricist that P is still false.
Go suck Aristotle's cock faggot.

>>10628671
>Can you be ethically consistent and eat animal products?
Sure, just change/disregard your premises.

>>10628680
>>10628682
Well that humans are of moral value is quite fundamental, if they weren't that would mean that we could rape, torture and kill those humans without it being immoral.

>>10628709
wtf are you talking about

>ethical consistency
What a joke.

>>10628717
So? You were asking about consistency.

>>10628717
Pro tip:
Illegal != Immoral

>>10628705
Could you define self-consciousness? How do you know you are self-conscious? How do you know that other humans are self-conscious? How do you know animals aren't self-conscious?

>>10628671
But animals have no morals?

>>10628671
>What are some good literature that go in depth about this?
None. Everything written on the subject is just virtue-signalling propaganda.

>>10628717
you don't understand philosophy. you're saying "x is fundamental because if we had no x then the things which x says are bad would not be deemed bad". that's like saying "dictatorships are fundamental because if we had no dictatorships then the things that dictatorships say are bad, such as a free press, would not be deemed bad" it's a non argument, its just a lot of words pointing out an obvious fact that if a normative system did not exist then that which normative systems oppose would not be opposed.

>>10628739
Are you saying that rape, torture and killing are moral?

>>10628754
no that is not what he is saying at all cathy newman

>>10628706
Don't worry
>>10628730
FTFY
>>10628735
Do you think that there are people lacking moral value?
>>10628739
So you consider killing, raping and torture not immoral?
>>10628745
We do
>>10628748
Why? Pythagoras was vegetarian, was he just a virtue signaling fag?

>>10628764
>So you consider killing, raping and torture not immoral?
op confirmed for complete retard.

>>10628764
it's kinda disingenuous to equate humans and animals
you can't tell a bear to stop eating you

>>10628750
Well if you argue that certain humans aren't of moral value then what is? And why do we cosider killing humans unnecessarily immoral?

>>10628779
>Well if you argue that certain humans aren't of moral value then what is?
that is not what I am arguing
> And why do we cosider killing humans unnecessarily immoral?
that is what I'm asking you. why do you think that humans are of moral value?

>>10628774
Well if you're arguing against human moral value you automatically imply that certain humans could just be treated as objects.
>>10628775
You can't tell geese to stop gang raping either, why would we consider things moral or immoral based on what animals do?

>>10628796
>Well if you're arguing against human moral value
was never arguing against that

>>10628790
Because they have a subjective experience system similar to mine and I know that certain actions hurt and damage which I wouldn't want happening to me so I don't consider it moral to do it to others. Golden rule basically.

>>10628764
Veganism as a global philosophy is anti natalism for the animals they supposedly want to protect.

>>10628799
Well I was never arguing about the legality of immoral actions.

If you can just contrive premises like that, then:

P1 - Humans are of higher moral value than animals
P2 - It is ethical for entities of higher moral value to consume entities of lower moral value
C - It is ethical for humans to consume animals

No, I'm not saying this is a useful or convincing argument for C, I'm saying it's *just as useful and convincing* as OP's line of reasoning.

>>10628808
>Because they have a subjective experience system similar to mine and I know that certain actions hurt and damage which I wouldn't want happening to me so I don't consider it moral to do it to others. Golden rule basically.
How do you make the jump from knowing that you and other humans evaluate experiences similarly to stating that humans have moral value? You are just listing off a state of affairs then somehow thinking that it means you have made a moral argument.

>>10628815
How? Seems like a pretty baseless comparison. I think anti natalism is retarded but veganism on the otherhand a logical lifestyle choice for three reasons: health, environment and ethics.

>>10628764
>Do you think that there are people lacking moral value?
I think moral value is something attributive, a value judgment, not an quality proper.

Your premises and subsequent questions are malformed nonsense to me, to be honest.

>>10628840
*a quality

>>10628754
>>10628764
Morals are not absolute. They're subjective and contextual.

Even in current Western society, it's generally acceptable to kill someone who is trying to hurt or kill you. When a rapist gets raped in prison, people call it "poetic justice". Torture is often seen as a necessary evil in the name of public safety.

>>10628825
Are all humans of the same moral value? Couldn't this turn into:

P1 - White humans are of higher moral value than niggers and kikes
P2 - It is ethical for entities of higher moral value to consume, gas and enslave entities of lower moral value
C - It is ethical for white humans to genocide the subhumans, race war now!

>>10628838
Because nobody is going to raise and take care of expensive farm animals if they aren't paid for it. Bovines will become as extinct as the auroch in short order. Also switching all agriculture to row cropping corn and soy to feed a vast vegan diet would create dust bowls all over the globe.

>>10628850
>Couldn't this turn into:
Well, yes, it could. Since no one here has provided a useful/universal means of establishing the "moral value" of anything, any kind of argument along those lines is valid as long as it's formally sound.

>>10628671
I am consistent by just remaining open to the idea of eating house pets and humans, and am making no claim of a moral reason for eating meat other than "I like it"

Vegans on the other hand are nearly never consistent, they are starting from the assumption that all life has value but then nearly always treating different forms of life differently. They don't even value their own lives that much.

>>10628705
>there are plenty of animals who do not suffer, like fish.
This myth has been debunked some 30 years ago.

>>10628832
Because I consider things that can experience feelings and emotions of moral value. I don't want to cause extreme discomfort to those entities like I don't want it happen to me, when such things happen I would consider it immoral.

>>10628853
Never thought of the parallels, really, but it is true that most outspoken anti-natalists are also vegans.

>>10628869
>Because I consider things that can experience feelings and emotions of moral value.
First of all, that is a different claim than you just made above. Second of all, stating that you "consider" certain things to have moral value does not explain to me your reasoning. I just asked you why you believe something and you said because you believe it. Same thing applies to the rest of your post.

>>10628840
Do you consider killing dogs unnecessarily moral?
>>10628849
Well in the context of animal agriculture, is it okay to kill those animals?
>>10628853
What about people that love animals, animal sanctuaries, petting zoos and reintroduction into the wild? To assume farm animals would go extinct when we stop eating them is quite ridiculous.
Also when everyone would go vegan there would be LESS soy and corn produced than there is now. You know that that is mostly animal feed, right?

>>10628815
>>10628853
>heh, I'm spending my entire life in a crowded cage being raised solely for the purpose of being slaughtered and consumed by a more powerful animal, but at least my species hasn't gone extinct, whatever the heck that means to my pig brain !!!!

My dude, I just ate half a chicken for dinner and even I think that's the most retarded of all pro-meat arguments.

>>10628862
Moral value are entities that have some sort of consciousness and feel stuff, I guess.

>>10628671
>Humans are of moral value.
No
>Animals deserve to not be eaten by virtue of having some semblance of sentience or ability other feel pain
I don't thinks it's immoral to inflict pain in itself, it think that is completely natural
>That's a naturalistic fallacy
But I want to be more in tune with nature, and nature doesn't have to time to care about what they eat if they biological programmed to eat it. I eat meat because it's convenient and tastes good. I spare whatever animals I favor. I'm fine with that.

>>10628867
Well I do consider certain forms of life lower than other forms of life yet don't kill them unnecessarily except parasitical entities like mosquitoes. I do value my life more than other life.
Where are you getting those assumptions from?
Also would you eat human flesh if it where legal in some country? Even if you know you would be supporting an industry that is raping, torturing and killing those humans against their will?

>>10628891
>Herd and flock animals are uncomfortable in crowds
Neck yourself you projecting, personifieing pseud.

>>10628908
>Also would you eat human flesh if it where legal in some country
Not him but yes, I want to be tolerant of that vibrant and beautiful country. In fact they should move to my country, we need more doctors, lawyers, and inventors here to stimulate the economy

>eat only kosher meat even though I'm an athiest, just because I know that they have to slaughter their animals in the most kvlt way possible

>>10628887
>Do you consider killing dogs unnecessarily moral?
"Unnecessarily moral"? Do you mean unnecessarily cruel/evil? If so, then it'd solely depend on the context. I don't like killing dogs for no reason, but I dislike leaving a dog to suffer even more, so killing would be preferable in some instances.

Not sure where you're going with this, though. I've now told you how I feel about things. That doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? There's no universality in my personal feelings.

>>10628924
They slit the throats of chickens and let them bleed out upside down. Not that I have a problem just thought I'd inform you.

>>10628916
>Heh I love being near my friends. This is so fun huh guys?! EXACTLY how we are supposed to live and EXACTLY how other herd and flock animals live in nature!!! There is no difference at ALL! If were humans we could even watch nature documentaries and what we would see would be wild hogs living EXACTLY like this!!

>>10628928
I know, it's awesome

>>10628876
Well it is difficult to express in words, maybe I'm just a brainlet but morality is something applied to things of moral value. What do we consider thing of moral value?
Things that can experience and feel, things that have some sort of subjectivity.
Simple things are hard to explain.

>>10628671
>Can you be ethically consistent and eat animal products?
I think yes. Animals aren't moral subjects and thus they can't have the same moral status (as moral objects) as humans.

>>10628930
They look happy t b h. Not sure what the range of emotions is for a pig, maybe it goes from aggressive to lazy buy I doubt it's having an existential crisis right now. It's probably thinking "when am I going to eat next"

>>10628908
Ah,so the not kill/kill line is drawn at the mosquito? My line just so happens to be drawn at animals of more biological complexity, so what?

I'd just choose to get the human meat from a company that asks humans if they want to be eaten first. This standard doesn't need to be applied to animals.

>>10628930
What's your point with that pic? That's a temporary holding pen. That's not where they're raised. Stop being such a suburbanite.

>>10628932
>Things that can experience and feel have moral value
>Tfw feel nothing but hatred and a mischievous sense of fun and therefore have moral value

>>10628904
I can't get how you could say that humans aren't based on moral value. That would cause you to deem certain humans on the same level as objects. Are you sure that you don't consider humans of moral value?
Also you're using an electronic device living inside a house shitposting on an internet forum, how is that natural? Do you hunt your meat or get it from the supermarket? Natural meat isn't convenient to get, plucking some fruits is way easier.

>>10628952
>I can't get how you could say that humans aren't based on moral value.
Don't take this the wrong way, but what's your fucking native langue?

>>10628932
>morality is something applied to things of moral value. What do we consider thing of moral value?
You are putting the cart before the horse. In order to "apply" morality to "things of moral value" one would first need to establish the truth of a moral principle that demonstrated there to be "things of moral value". The point I'm making is that you are skipping over trying to demonstrate that things have moral value.
>Things that can experience and feel, things that have some sort of subjectivity.
See, here you're reciting a list of things you consider to have moral value but you never made the case for that.

>>10628938
>>10628941
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_biting_in_pigs

>>10628952
Plucking some fruits from where? My apartment complex? And no, not all humans are of equal value. Some are best locked up in a pen, euthanized, or shot dead in the street.

>>10628952
>That would cause you to deem certain humans on the same level as objects. Are you sure that you don't consider humans of moral value?
Yup. Not everyone is equal end of story.
>You have technology isn't that unnatural
No, not really. It's made by forces of nature (us) although too much technological dependence can be a bad thing sure.
>It's way easier to pick fruit
That have to be harvested seasonally at the right time so they aren't too ripe, and then have to be stored for future consumption. Kind of like cattle , except in certain climates all you really have access to is meats.

Luckily we live in a golden age of technology so I can spend my days thinking about random shit and enjoying myself instead of worrying about starving in the winter.

>>10628917
This is just sarcasm, right?
>>10628924
Have you watched footage of kosher slaughter houses? They are disgusting.
>>10628926
I meant that if you killed the dog for no reason (unnecessarily) just to eat it, moral?
>>10628937
How are they not moral subjects, do you consider skinning a dog alive, moral?
>>10628939
Well for me the kill/no kill line is drawn at a central nervous system. Your standard is arbitrary and inconsistent.
>>10628945
You feel hatred, and probably also pain when I stab you. You're of moral value.

>>10628959
Typical vegan. Didn't even read the whole article. It's a totally preventable issue even in a factory farming environment.

>>10628982
>How are they not moral subjects
Because they don't have the capacity to act morally.

>>10628982
>Columbine shooters are if moral value
L O L

The strongest argument against carnism isn't moral but aesthetic.

Simply put, meat is disgusting to the point of cosmic horror; carnists can only avoid choking on it through a sort of mass sleepwalking.

To those less brainwashed to human herd sensibilities, even the mildest of meat has a vile animal must, reeks of blood, lymph, pheromones, and a touch of feces/urine. Naturally it's a breeding ground of bacteria and parasites. Anything not fresh out the abattoir is liable to be in some intermediate stage of decay.

Yet these most manifest sensual aspects are nothing compared to the libidinal aspect. Imagine an ample-bellied man smacking his lips as he scarfs down an Arby's sandwich, the dead stinky flesh folded out like an old whore's vagina vagina with syphilitic yellow cheese sauce oozing out; or, if you prefer, a cute-but-just-slightly-plump girl "mmm"ing in pleasure as a big fat phallus of a hotdog has its way with her.

If you asked such people if they loved animals, they would no doubt answer yes, unhesitatingly. Perhaps baby-talking with a dog or cat furnishes their nihilistic lives with some small happiness. But they've seen glimpses of the videos. Cowards, they hide their faces before the truth of what they are--the sunless mausoleums of soft, pink, feeling flesh, writhing and screaming to die; evil that would humble the holocaust, equal only to Lovecraftian horror. It is this foul secret that powers their brains, that makes its home in their thighs or bellies, that moves their lips as they say "I love you" to their lovers, meat on their breaths, before their mutual rape.

You disgusting faggots.

>>10628994
>He that is not being born is busy dying
Your discomfort with death and decay is childish.

>>10628994
2/10

>>10628984
You're missing the point. The fact that you can distract the pigs doesn't make it morally acceptable to force them through such a shit existence in the first place.
And I'm not a vegan or vegetarian. I just accept the fact that I contribute to the suffering of sentient beings instead of going through mental gymnastics to feel better about myself.

>>10629010
Learn to read 105 iq-let; I would be thrilled if all livestock suddenly died and rotted into the ground. It's life where the problem lies--wasteful, suffering animal life, and decadent, cruel human life.

>>10629019
It's just an abnormal condition though, it doesn't characterize the condition of ALL pigs. This is like saying that because urban environments cause some percentage of humans to have mental break downs that we ALL do and so we ALL must turn back to our natural hunter-gatherer state.

>>10629019
>shit existence in the first place.
They seem fine tho. It's you who seems to think they are having a bad time. Why?

>>10628955
Dutch
>>10628957
:/ isn't it self evident when we look at the world and what gets considered good and bad?
>>10628965
Grow some crops somewhere, you get my point.
Those humans you don't consider of moral value, why is that? Because of their actions? Maybe they raped and killed someone they didn't consider having moral value. What have farm animals done?
>>10628969
Which humans have no moral value and why? Also eating meat isn't more natural.
>>10628990
What about retarded humans or babies that have no clue what morality even means?

>>10629016
Nice try with the offhand dismissal, but it's obvious you're upset, or you wouldn't have bothered replying.

>>10628740
The knowledge of the self. I know that I am me, and I am, unlike for instance a dishwasher or bacteria, aware of my own actions and life. While it is true that I can never really know that other humans are self-conscious, I think it is fair to assume that since I am, and I am a human, they are too. It is also unlikely that humans would be able to express their inner experience if they did not have one.
I do not know that animals aren't self-conscious, but I cannot say that there is anything that makes it likely that they are. The burden of proof is on you.

>>10629030
You keep inserting all these subjective adjectives. They don't even make sense on a universal level. There are people who eat meat and are not living in decadence.

>>10629042
Farm animals only procreate by rape and eat on use of force. Morals are human constructs animals do not live with them.

>>10628982
>I meant that if you killed the dog for no reason (unnecessarily) just to eat it, moral?
I would *personally* say that it's immoral, but as I've said numerous times now, my *feelings* are no useful standard here. My feelings are wholly arbitrary, not the basis for any kind of universally applicable moral framework.

But yes, I do think killing dogs for fun or for food is immoral. That's my personal moral standard.

>>10629042
>Which humans have no moral value and why? Also eating meat isn't more natural.
The ones I don't like because they get in May why and behave in manners negative for society and thus me
>Eating meat isn't more natural
It's actually WAY more natural

>>10629034
>>10629036
Why are you guys hating on pigs? They are smarter than dogs.

>>10629046
Nice strawman my friend.Of course some people who eat meat aren't living in decadence. But you probably are. Do you mean to tell me you're i.e. an African subsistence farmer?

>>10629067
*e.g. whoops

>>10629060
So? Jews are smarter than humans too.

>>10629067
You're the one who started with the straw man. When I point out you're making gross generalization you accuse me of the straw man? Go burn yourself.

>>10629043
I'm upset by your wannabe magniloquent stupidity more than anything

>>10629060
I.q. maybe, but dogs have a higher emotional intelligence. Pigs don't give a fuck about anyone. They are the artists of livestock

>>10629081
Your reading comprehension seems to be a little low my friend. All of my claims are not general but in fact restricted to industrial animal agriculture, as is strongly implied by paragraph 4 of my original post.

Please try not to misdirect your anger at me; you have only yourself to blame for your depravity. But you can be free of these unpleasant thoughts if you just give up one simple group of foods :^)

>>10629044
How is the burden of proof on me, you're the one defining self-consciousness and your explanation is vague and of no use. Farm animals have a very similar central nervous system as us, I could argue that self-consciousness gets enabled by a central nervous system.
>>10629053
So? We are humans shouldn't we then leave those animals alone according to your logic?
>>10629058
I'm arguing on an individual level here because there are a lot of people that consider morality as subjective. But what differs between killing a dog and a farm animal that makes it okay?
>>10629059
>The ones I don't like because they get in May why and behave in manners negative for society and thus me
So you consider killing them would be a proper action against them. (Imagine not being in a country where this would be illegal)
>It's actually WAY more natural
How and why? Why can't our bodies handle cholesterol like natural meat eaters can?
>>10629071
>>10629088
That EQ argument is baseless assumption and please tell me how gassing Jews is moral again.

>>10629042
>retarded humans
as long as they conserve some form of rational capability they still have the capacity to act morally
>babies
They have the capacity to act morally teleologically. Not acting morally towards babies could possibly mean an infringment of their right to act morally in the future.

>>10629086
Yes, it was in fact meant to be upsetting, in order to pierce through your ironclad complacency and denial. Glad to see my rhetoric was effective.

>>10628808
>Because they have a subjective experience system similar to mine
>subjective experience system
can you explan this, please?.

>>10629112
What about the logic of animals being amoral implies they ought to be left alone? Everything on Earth is amoral except humans, but we can't just leave everything alone.

The eq argument is not a baseless assumption if you spent time with both species like I have.

>>10628704
Chickens BTFO

>>10629127
Op is saying he has the intelligence of a cow.

>>10629119
The only thing you pierced through was my decrepit scrotum

>>10628704
>was
Except for improper use of the subjunctive case, I agree with all of this.

>>10629036
>They seem fine tho
How are you able to tell? What would they have to look like for you to think otherwise?
Anyway, I can only relate to these animals from a human perspective because that's the only experience I know. My intuition tells me that living in overcrowded spaces with minimal stimulation and sometimes extremely restricted movements such as in >>10629112 is just not a pleasant existence. There was a study that showed that mice experience higher levels of stress when subjected to living in crowded cages. I know that rats and farm animals are not the same but it's not all unreasonable to suppose that this trait is conserved among mammals.

>>10629112
>>10629112
im sorry for you.
you want something subjective to become the subjective point of view of this time and era.
but you dont understand this and you want to uncover this by saying is Real Morality™.
i think is bad for vegan interests in this era this kind of appeal


in a posmodernist (and subjectivist) era your universalists and Ethics & Moral™ arguments can and should be mockery of anyone who get rid of good old morality long time ago because they can see the morality is not the self in itself etc etc...
basically the vegans are philosophically fucked in this time.
your only escape is try that leftists protect you and start to proclaim eating meat is a capitalist exploitation or something like that.

>>10628671
>trying to justify your silly belief system with pseudo-logic

>>10629116
Animals protect their young, don't go on needless kill sprees and have some capacity to rational. What if you had a retard that would behave that seems to have the same moral capacity as a cow?
>>10629127
My central nervous system
>>10629133
I have seen and spent time with pigs and I would cosider them having a EQ similar to dogs. If a retarded human can't conceptualize morality or atleast shows a level of morality similar to cows, would it be okay to kill them?
>>10629189
All I'm doing is bootstrapping basic human morals onto animals and showing that unless you can name a trait which differentiate between the two that makes it okay to exploit and kill them that you're logically inconsistent.

>>10629239
What's pseudo about the argument?

>>10629259
>"The Holocaust has damaged my brain beyond repair. I am literally incapable of saying anything that isn't in someway related to it. This is philosophy." - Theodor W. Adorno

>>10629265
Remember when everyone told you that your premises are arbitrary shit?

>>10629269
Damn. That's some honesty right there.

>>10629259
>I've spent time with pigs
Petting zoos don't count suburbanite.

>>10629259
>Animals protect their young, don't go on needless kill sprees and have some capacity to rational.
They do it because of instinct. The don't have the capacity to make a rational evaluation which is the basis of acting morally.
>What if you had a retard that would behave that seems to have the same moral capacity as a cow?
They get treated like they have moral capacity (I say "like" because it's difficult to truly know wheter they do or not). Retards as far as I know can still commit crimes, be sent to prison, be educated etc etc. Animals don't.

>>10629269
>Holocaust:
>destruction or slaughter on a mass scale
Tell me how our animal eating habit isn't causing the biggest and longest holocaust ever

>>10629281
Do sanctuaries count?
>>10629289
Animals do have some rationale, crows can for example figure out how to raise water levels to reach a piece of food.
Farm animals don't break the law so why do we imprison and kill them?

>>10629259

>All I'm doing is bootstrapping basic human morals onto animals and showing that unless you can name a trait which differentiate between the two that makes it okay to exploit and kill them that you're logically inconsistent.

nobody (philosophycally) thinks you are your MORAL anymore. nobody give a fuck if they are morally inconsistent. this is what im trying to say. your appeal to morals is condemned to failure.
the margins of this society is full of not adjusted people who not know or cant understand the mechanism of society. the animals are a product of this too.
>a trait
can you tell me a trait that makes it okay to exploit whatever.
there is plenty of "traits" in the human-animal difference.


>My central nervous system
you think your subjective experience system is your central nervous system?.

>>10629291
I don't give a shit about your hyperbolic shrieking. I was just funnin' on good ol' Theodor -The Bulbous Blinkers of Buchenwald- Adorno.

>>10629303
>Do sanctuaries count?
Definitely not. Glorified petting zoos for political ideologues. Most of them mistreat their animals out of ignorance or flawed incentives.

>>10629312
>nobody (philosophycally) thinks you are your MORAL anymore. nobody give a fuck if they are morally inconsistent.
Broad generalization and I disagree, I am on /lit/ not on tumblr.
>can you tell me a trait that makes it okay to exploit whatever.
Central nervous system
>you think your subjective experience system is your central nervous system?.
It has all my nerves and conects to all my senses and muscles, all connected to the brain. I'm not trying to define consciousness just the mechanisms which allow you to receive input from the outer world.

>>10629323
Why not? Where did you spent time with pigs? Your anecdotal experience with pigs means as much as mine. It's a weak excuse.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sx4s79c#page-1
Pigs are cute, smart and loving.

>>10629339
the mechanism that allow you to recieve input from the outer world is the nervous system?

>>10628671
You should actually go vegan desu.

Cut dairy and red meat out after some prolonged digestive troubles, decided to go all the way and eat vegan for a month, never looked back.

Never been healthier, saving a ton of money on food. Pretty good desu

>>10629376
Yes

>>10629398
Yes, veganism is a red pill everyone should take. Not only is eating animal products morally unjustifiable it also is one of the biggest cause of environmental and health issues which I haven't even tackled in this thread.
I know one good book which is How Not To Die by Micheal Gregor.
And three documentaries about the subject:

HEALTH:
https://youtu.be/hJAKWQ6dDpQ
ENVIRONMENT:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2zuhks
ETHICS:
https://youtu.be/BrlBSuuy50Y

>>10629363
I raised pigs, goats, sheep, and mostly cattle my entire life. I've never lived in a house without a dog either. If you can't tell the difference between pigs and dogs you have autism.
>>10629447
>How not to die
Lol
Veganism would be terrible for the environment. DO NOT DESTROY RANGELAND DUMMY

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035014

>>10629538
Did you give your pigs love, or did you avoid forming an emotional bond because you knew in the back of your mind you were gonna kill him?
Also what you mean veganism is terrible for the environment? Are you retarded? Animal agriculture is one of the biggest causes of emissions BIGGER THAN THE ENTIRE TRANSPORT SECTOR COMBINED.
It occupies 1/3 of ALL THE EARTH'S ICE FREE LAND.
And is responsible for 91% OF AMAZON DESTRUCTION.

A person who follows a vegan diet produces the equivalent of 50% less carbon dioxide, uses 1/11th oil, 1/13th water, and 1/18th land compared to a meat-lover for their food.

>>10629398
You're dying of malnutrition without realising it. The body will eat itself for a couples of month after going vegan, once your reserves run out your health will detoriate. That's why long-time vegans look psychotic holocaust survivors.

>>10629756
>You're dying of malnutrition without realising it. The body will eat itself for a couples of month after going vegan, once your reserves run out your health will detoriate. That's why long-time vegans look psychotic holocaust survivors.
Stop spreading bullshit

>>10629725
Yeah i gave my piggies love. Top R8 feed, big pen with cement walls and a sturdy roof for shelter, walked them around the yard, etc. They were fine I guess, but still gluttonous assholes. Dogs have a sense of duty to the pack that a hog will never have that's why I say they have a higher eq. Dogs have the ability to value emotional bonds above even their own life, you won't get that in a hog.

Those numbers are all out of whack because they aren't taking into account the carbon and nitrogen offset that permanent rangeland has. It's a tower built on a flawed premise. Let's not talk about the Brazilian rainforest deal because there's a lot more to unpack there than just meat vs. non meat. It's mostly an economic development decision made by the syndicalist Brazilian government. There are other places in the world with natural rangeland to use. There is no reason we need to cut rainforest for cattle.

>>10629789
Go watch a vegan propaganda film to calm yourself down, bucko.

>>10629805
Stop hating pigs for no other reason than personal bias.
Also livestock operations on land have created more than 500 nitrogen flooded deadzones around the world in our oceans.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140804_deadzone.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ocean-dead-zones-are-getting-worse-globally-due-climate-change-180953282/
>>10629809
He was bullshitting like a retard

>>10628671
>P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
An immortal soul, heathen.

>>10628853
>>10628870
This stuff only matters at the limit, and this thread is about individual ethics now. If 95% of people were vegan maybe we'd start setting up sanctuaries and create a meat industry that operated within welfare limits off that. But that's not the issue.

>>10629953
I don't hate pigs, I feel nothing towards them. You are way too deep in your feels friend. It is unhealthy.

Your articles merely say that climate change is causing warm water and low oxygen. Which is bad, but what I'm telling you is that switching to an agricultural system based on more mono cropping of row crops will exacerbate climate issues because it will destroy carbon and nitrogen sequestering grasslands. Row cropping destroys living soil and relies on Petro-products to keep it on life support, to seed, to harvest etc. I realize that animal livestock, especially in the u.s. has it's draw backs, but it needs to be augmented not destroyed because destroying native grasslands is a proven recipe for disaster.

>>10630006
It can't be ethical if it won't work for the general population. Otherwise your "ethics" are just a luxury.

>>10628764
The image kinda bugs me. Clearly most of what we take out of animals is food. if we dropped meat (I think meat is healthy, even though we might be consuming it in levels far more than necessary), we could reduce the slaying of animals many times. Now someone might argue that there's no difference between killing a thousand or ten thousand cows and I think that's fair enough, I'm more worried about the pollution than any ethical concerns.

Veganism is correct but the movement badly needs to be reformed. Obviously every dietary thing is full of KETO CURES CANCER types but veganism's hippy heritage make us the cream of the crazies.

For example, >>10629447 is linking what the health, which is full of fucking insane hippies / insincere ideologues who are happy to lie to people to get more vegans.

The only problem is this creates a movement of incredibly weak epistemic hygiene, and eventually unhealthy people.

>>10628671
being a moral fag

>announces impenetrable fortress of rock solid argumentanium
>farts moral platitudes
Never change, vegans.

>>10630035
If it walks and talks like a duck anon...

>>10630019
Sure ethics need to scale, but my point is ethics don't remain the same. Saying "if everyone did that the world would break!" isn't legitimate, because if more people did "that", the world would change, and so the correct ethical action would change.

In this case, if we were on the verge of extincting certain breeds we could create sanctuaries or something like that. However, it doesn't exactly look like we're getting to 95% vegans tomorrow - not 5% even - so we don't need to think about it right now!

It's like belitting someone giving to a famine relief charity by saying that if everyone did it the area would be swamped by funding and piles of food would go to waste. Is that actually going to happen anytime soon?

Agitating for ethical change happens on the margin!

>>10630050
Skeptic vegans exist, and I'm confident they'll have their day soon.

>>10629986
How do you know that?
>>10630010
>an agricultural system based on more mono cropping of row crops will exacerbate climate issues
If everyone went vegan there would be less mono culture.
You wouldn't need to destroy grasslands if everyone went vegan, we would have more available land. Seriously your environmental argument makes zero sense.
>>10630027
Eat less meat and dairy my friend
>>10630035
What The Health didn't have that many hippies, what are you talking about? It had many nutritional experts and their claims were all rooted in scientific evidence.

>>10628671

Sometimes, the question isn't is it possible to be ethical if I do this? The question is instead: can I realistically survive if I do this?

Survival comes first for many people.

For example, because of allergy or intolerance, I cannot eat anything from pic related. (I should not personally procreate.)

>>10630119
Holy fuck.... that's a long list.

>>10630089
>Eat less meat and dairy my friend
Stop sounding like a creepy cultist, my brethren.

>>10630089
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skIGCoopR-g&feature=youtu.be
https://www.vegan.com/posts/vegan-dietitian-review-what-the-health/

Your default stance toward ANY nutritional expert should be doubt. The field is awash with grifters, pseudoscience and semi-cults. There's a reason why there are a million diet plans, thousands of "superfoods", why newspapers think everything both causes and cures cancer - nutrition is not a solved science. Because of this you should be very careful with any nutritional claim, and check it rigorously.

I can tell you as a fellow vegan who's gone deep into nutrition (though I encourage you to do the same to confirm) - veganism isn't the most healthy diet. There are obviously huge benefits to eating a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes, but including a small amount of lean meat, low-fat dairy and fish is healthier than veganism. It sucks but it's true.

The real airtight argument for veganism is ethics bro. Don't tie yourself to arguing that "meat is as carcinogenic as cigarettes". It isn't actually good for veganism, because people WILL find out the truth and will then mistrust the whole movement. You convince people by being right.

>>10630149
Actually that YT link is kind of just a guy crowing, read the second thing.

>>10630133
I know. I live off rice, whole wheat, lamb, A2 milk product, broccoli, and certain seasonal fruits and vegetables when they're available, and have to take multivitamins every day or risk going blind from malnutrition. Good times.

>>10630133
Though actually, sometimes I am just like: "Fuck it, I want pizza," and push through the OAS while I'm eating it, then the nausea and bloating immediately after, then the diarrhoea the entire next day. Worth it.

>>10630163
>>10630181
You don't have PKU, do you?

I am homeless so I eat whatever they serve at the shelter, which includes meat. Then, since I am already eating meat, I don't preclude myself from eating meat elsewhere.

>>10630068
Okay but we're at a fork in the road and I'm saying that veganism as a goal takes society down an awful road. It's a step in the wrong direction and so it really isn't helping anyone. Why can't someone who cares about the lifestyle of animals support a small, ethical family farm right now? How does withholding money from people raising animals ethically create any tangible change at all? Like you said we aren't about to become a vegan society so your abstinence actually leads more cows to the feed lot than if you would buy more 100% grass fed meat.

Veganism is fundamentally flawed because on several points it refuses to deal with reality as it is and opts instead expound a variety of oughts.

>>10630089
How do you figure that switching everyone's diet to row crops will mean less row crops?

>>10630134
Sorry...
>>10630149
>first video of a "real doctor" named..... ZDOGG?
Seriously.... you don't take him seriously, right? BTW, it's been totally debunked by a real real doctor:
https://youtu.be/M7b4kBTuHF0
I will read the second post.
What I don't get is that you say:
>but including a small amount of lean meat, low-fat dairy and fish is healthier than veganism.
How is that the case if we are talking about a strictly whole food plant based diet? You'd be increasing your risk of diabetes and other diseases.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3985239
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21983060
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21983060
We see a stepwise drop in the rates of diabetes as one ate more and more plant-based, down to a 78% lower prevalence among those eating strictly plant-based. Protection building incrementally as one moved from eating meat daily, to eating meat weekly, to just fish, to no meat, and then to no eggs and dairy either. Followed over time, vegetarian diets were associated with a substantially lower incidence of diabetes.

>>10630220
>Okay but we're at a fork in the road and I'm saying that veganism as a goal takes society down an awful road. It's a step in the wrong direction and so it really isn't helping anyone.
>Veganism is fundamentally flawed because on several points it refuses to deal with reality as it is and opts instead expound a variety of oughts.
How? What are it's flaws?

>>10630231
Because most crops are used as animal feed, using the calories directly would be way more efficient.

>>10630283
Cohort diet studies are the least empirical studies out there. What are the diets compared to? How many subjects paid attention to diet pre study? What method was used to track their eating, self reporting? Did they use journals? What was the completion rate of the journals, did everyone do every day exactly when they should or was there filling in of blank spots at the end of the week based on memory? How many cheat days for special events like birthdays went unreported? Etc.

>>10630312
Yeah okay fine, but what are you basing your statement that
>including a small amount of lean meat, low-fat dairy and fish is healthier than veganism.
on?

>>10630220

OK firstly I apologise because I haven't read the whole thread and might be misunderstanding something about your argument.

However that doesn't really make sense to me. Ethical local farms are better than factory farms, but they're still separating cows from calves after 4 hours, rubbing their nipples so raw they bleed constantly then sending them to slaughterhouses where they can smell death in the air, twisting chicken's necks etc. Genuinely ethical farms are really really rare - I'd just about take eggs from a friend who keeps pet chickens but that's it. I think the way to reduce demand for meat is just to in an economic sense reduce demand for meat by ceasing to be a demander.

>>10630283

Fair enough my first link was very shitty. Here is a far superior vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paQtMnrV6oM

On my health claims - an example is saturated fats & omegas acids (especially long chains like omega-3 which are much more bioavailable in animal product form and appear to be v important for brain health.

Also that other guy is not me but he's right. If you compare vegetarians to the average omni, veggies win because the average omni is a fatass who eats red meat every 2 days - but that doesn't mean it's the healthiest option for an informed person.

>>10630297
Right here
>>10630301
Really, you think you're more efficient at utilizing vegetation than herbivores?

Do you even know that 80% of all beef raised in the United States spends 80% of it's life raised on natural rangeland? Do you even realize that vast acreage of that rangeland is unsuitable for row cropping due to thin top soil, insufficient water, or broken terrain? Do you know anything about soil diversity? About micro organism life in healthy soil? Or do you just spout some stuff you saw on YouTube delivered by people with a woefully shallow understanding of the complexity of modern agriculture and how it is the bedrock of society? Let me break this down for you
>Livestock have digestive systems designed to make the most out of vegetation, and this has been enhanced by thousands of years of genetic manipulation
>Not all acreage is created equal and shifting numbers around on a spreadsheet does not account for this reality
>Natural rangeland is an important, living ecosystem that sequesters a large amount of carbon AND nitrogen
>Corn, soy, and all plants except legumes are carbon extractors
>Tilling soil destroys the root networks that sequester the carbon
>Corn and soy extract a vast amount of nutrients from soil. There is a limited number of plantings you can do without severe damage being done to the soil.
>To counterbalance this you will have to rely more and more on Petro fertilizers and herbicides and pesticides
>Herbicides and pesticides kill everything except the desired crop because the desired crop has been spliced with a special gene.
>No bugs, no worms, no rodents, no microorganisms
>Dead soil, dead land
>Barren soil with no roots to hold it down
>One drought
>Dust bowl
The Chinese just did this not that long ago. Google Chinese dust bowl, American too. Farming is much more than production of food it's stewardship of land and resources and animals are an integral part of a healthy land. You want a shift towards more ethical treatment, great me too, now go buy a product from someone actually doing it and stop wishing death wasn't a part of the process.

>>10630396
Practices vary. I work on a farm and the calf is left on for about 3 days for access to colostrum. But you HAVE to separate a modern dairy cow from a calf. Thousands of years of genetic selection has made it to where even the lowest production possible is going to be around 4 gallons per head per day. A calf ought to drink about a half gallon a day. If it drinks more, and they do often because they don't get a "full" sensation it gets sick. If too much milk is left in the udder the cow gets mastitis which can lead to death. Dairy breeds without farmers are guaranteed extinction.

Beef cows produce much less milk and their calves are rarely removed from the general herd. The nipples thing is entirely related to cold, dry weather like chapped lips, not rubbing. It would happen in the wild too except I wouldn't be there to apply Udder Balm ointment.

>>10630396
>video from unnatural vegan
Why is this a better video? Just because she's vegan....? There have been many counters to this by the vegan community:
https://youtu.be/IRLpW7tTrkg
https://youtu.be/W3Te-thAAT8 (I like this one the best)
https://youtu.be/7t6_HDQkWms
>saturated fats
Less is better, what's god about saturated fats?
>Long chain Omega 3's
Your body can make long chain omega 3's from short omega 3's and there are supplements made from algae (the source where fish get their omega 3's from)
Seriously how can you say that meat is healthier? You might get some Omega's but it's packaged in something which also contains cholesterol, saturated fats (which is bad) and hormones. How does that make it healthier if you just went for the plant alternatives? Seriously animal products are essentially just self harm when eating a whole-food plant based diet.

>>10630481
There is no causation link between dietary cholesterol and saturated fat.

There is a causation link between cholesterol and saturated fat production in the body from excessive ingestion of plant based carbohydrates.

>>10630431

This is very interesting and I didn't know much of it, but it doesn't seem that incompatible with a vegan world.

On greenhouse gas, we can achieve sequestration in much cheaper ways if that's our primary goal. It sounds like a side benefit which should be noted but isn't a reason to keep the system around. If it's necessary for an ecosystem to have large numbers of grazing livestock, it seems reasonable that areas could be set aside to rewild with some cattle variant bred to survive without humans. I guess what I'm saying here is the stuff you're talking about seem like fundamentally side-benefits which might be achieved in much more efficient ways if they were actually the goal. Eco-stability does seem like a more central problem than the climate thing tho, you got a link where I could read more about this sort of stability issues?

>>10630466

More stuff I didn't know, thanks! I guess you're a farmer so necessarily know this stuff, but is there a book, documentary or discussion group you'd recommend to learn about it? I want to be correct.

My personal view on the extinction issue is that some things probably should be extinct because they basically exist as suffering machines. Factory-farmed chickens
you'd probably agree with me on, but I've always thought the life of a dairy cow sounded net-negative too. What's your opinion on this?

>>10630431
>>10630431
>Do you even know that 80% of all beef raised in the United States spends 80% of it's life raised on natural rangeland?
Where are you getting those numbers from?
The fact is that 1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food.
1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of beef.
http://demandware.edgesuite.net/bbbw_prd/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-JSSSharedLibrary/default/dw2a706e5e/assets/information/vegetables-direct-seeded-crop-seed-quantity-yield-chart.pdf
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1722&context=ans_air
Also if you want a book check out:
>Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work
>by Dr. Richard Oppenlander

Land required to feed 1 person for 1 year:
Vegan: 1/6th acre
Vegetarian: 3x as much as a vegan
Meat Eater: 18x as much as a vegan
http://www.earthsave.org/pdf/ofof2006.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996.full
Check out the book:
>Diet for a New America
>by John Robbins

We're currently already growing enough food to feed 10 billion people. We could end world hunger if everyone went vegan and we would have a giant food surplus.

Your argument makes no sense.
Yes we do have land that is hard to farm on but we aren't farming on that land.

>>10630499
You said you went deep in nutrition, I guess not:
>saturated fat
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
>dietary cholesterol
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1534437

We could also end all wars and social inequalities if we all went communist. I don't get why more people won't understand this.

>>10630588
Stupid analogy.

>>10630481

I tend to trust unvegan so would genuinely love to hear why you dislike her generally. Watching the Mukbang vid now. To the claims,

Even healthy vegans are super deficient in longchain omegas, because there's way less EPA/DHA in algae supplements than fish oil. Also ALA to EPA/DHA conversion is ultra-shitty, something like 5% rate if I recall correctly. The tech might get there eventually but it's really hard to get enough right now - and it's super important for brain health so people should care about it as it plausibly effects IQ as well as the nearly-proven alzheimers protectiveness.

Saturated fats has a weaker evidence base, and I take a controversial paleo stance so happy to stop talking about it. I will observe that the consensus has been moving in it's favour hardcore the last couple years though.

>>10630584

Dude that also isn't me, there are like 5 people commenting probably.

This is a pretty high-quality discussion. Are there any boards that tend to do vegan threads well, /sci/ or something?

>>10630613
Don't spread this shit. Keep it to this containment board.

>>10630629
Do you not want to

think about ethics = achieve virtue = flourish as a human

?

>>10630520
The issue is money. Is the government going to pay for vast tracts of land to be set aside for herds? Right now the consumption of a portion of the herd by humans pays for that.

I had a link about sequestering up
>>10629538 Here.

There was a video I was trying to find of a guy that explains this for about 40 minutes. He has slides with stats on how vegans move data around in their models without deference to topography and ecosystems, also good stuff about water management that rangeland helps with because a strong root stock holds water in the soil causing less evaporation and promoting more matriculation to ground water reservoirs. The United States did a big study on this during the dust bowl and their research concluded much the same things. You can Google that.

There was a couple of TED talks on it but I don't have links.

As for books on farming I don't really know outside of like text books. I invite you to visit a local farm with an open mind with their permission. As for dairy cows it depends on the dairy. My dairy they spend all day on pasture just chilling so not much suffering there all other things being equal. No antibiotics, but proper medication if they're sick and usually that's as simple as an i.v. of calcium gluconate. Hoof trimmer comes around and fixes their feet for them once in a while. Overall my cows live longer, happier, safer lives than nature could ever provide. I'm not saying that there isn't dairies with worse conditions, but I am saying that if you care about the lives of cows you ought to buy products from people who do right by them. It's expensive to do business the way I do, I leave money and yield on the table every day, but I think it's right and I'd like to be able to have me and others like me afford to do it.

>>10630600
>I tend to trust unvegan
I don't like her because she acts like she is more "realistic" and shits on veganism with weak arguments whenever she has the chance. Not all her videos are shit but I also don't like her vibe, she feels so depressing and cynical.
>there's way less EPA/DHA in algae supplements than fish oil
So? You can take more, what's the problem? You won't be getting all the pollutants found in fish oil, great!
>Saturated fats has a weaker evidence base, and I take a controversial paleo stance so happy to stop talking about it. I will observe that the consensus has been moving in it's favour hardcore the last couple years though.
What do you mean, because of the misleading studies coming from the meat dairy and egg industry?

>>10630613
/fit/ has regular vegan threads, sometimes I make vegan threads on /pol/, it pisses them off.

>>10630584
Lol old data. Says right in the abstract that it is not a causational link. The new studies have already been published in peer reviewed articles, but the government is going to be a couple years behind. They are the last ones to publish science. Nothing wrong with that because they wait for science to cross examine things that are published, but they are not "facts" and they are not up to date especially when lacking a causational link.

>>10630678
>Says right in the abstract that it is not a causational link
Which study?

>>10630613
There are also tons of youtube videos which argue about veganism, if you want purely ethics then check out the channel Ask Yourself

>>10630644
I'd expect once we neared 30% veganism or something people would begin thinking seriously about this, and non-profits and government would mobalise to prevent it. Maybe not instantly but certainly once some country or region develops a dust bowl other areas would react to prevent that. That seems common-sense to me. I know there are certain large-scale problems of the commons where this doesn't work, but I can't imagine widespread veganism happening in anything but a very slow way, no tipping point apparent. If ecosystem collapse was demonstrably on the cards, I do think people would move toward to some solution.

One of my best friends is a farmer but frankly I try to avoid talking about veganism around him because it seems to make him unhappy and defensive, I never prosecute it around the guy or anything but the general atmosphere of the concept probably seems accusatory. I've never actually requested a tour though, might do.

>>10630652

I think any movement needs critical figures. Having a tradition of criticism is important, because your truth standards determine whether you are doing the right thing and how well you beat your opponets. Dialectics dawg, depressing or not.

I mean to on pure conversion basis to get the correct EPA/DHL levels on 5% conversion requires insane ALA, like impossible to eat that much. On top of that, total conversion is limited. So you need to supplement algae, which is much much more expensive than fish oil.

>>10630696
Both. Neither explicitly claim a causational link and if you knew how to read scientific apa format articles you would that that means neither is claiming a causational link. All they say is we took some people had them eat x,y,z for x amount of time and this is our data. Any evidence gained from this type of study is known as correlative evidence. It's not bad or useless, but it's open to interpretation and is primarily used to get more money for studies to find that all important cause because right now those articles are begging the question of "how does the fat and cholesterol we eat actually get in our heart?" And they looked into this (after all it's been 21 and 25 years since those studies were published) and I first they posited that it was seeping into the bloodstream through the stomach lining but nope wasn't that and they looked other places too but there has never once been a physical mechanism found in the body that puts the fat we eat directly into our blood. Most of this work was done by cardiologists btw so they were very blood centric thinkers

Enter endocrinologists. By studying various hormone production organs and what those hormones signal to the body they were able to discover that EXCESSIVE key word (hey I eat bread don't call me a keto fag) consumption of sugars (carbohydrates) not only leads to fat gain but also DOES NOT trigger the hormones which control satiation AND trigger hormones which cause the pancreas to produce ldl (bad) cholesterol which it then sends into the blood stream up to the heart and all over the body.

>>10630805
Thing about dust bowls is that we rarely see them coming. Partly because they're caused by snap droughts and people by nature ignore the worst possible scenario (there's a name for this law in economics) it's a principle of shorting markets.

>>10630825
But surely the most likely scenario is california or somewhere goes 100% vegan while other areas are 70-90%, then a cali orangefarming region goes dusty and the rest of the world learns from the problem and solves it? It seems unlikely that even one whole country would all suffer said ecological collapse at once.

I feel there's a big status quo bias going on here. If we were to design a system to avoid dust bowls from scratch, it would not be industrial cattle farming.

It's always disappointing that any debate about verifiable data is

a) people pretending to win by info-dumping so much no-one could ever read it
b) people critiquing with trite shite like "correlation =/= causation" or "that's old!!"

Why don't we teach people to interpret papers in school? Scientific literacy is fucked.

>>10630643
>join us... join us...

>>10630856
Yeah if you're a trust fund baby who is looking to fatten the trust and you've got a taste for risk go buy all the water rights in California you can get your hands on and then short the almond, rice, and walnut industries. We've pretty much switched to cropping just almonds and walnuts and the water intensity used to sustain permanent orchards and exacerbation from recent droughts has already caused aquifer collapse in parts of the San Joaquin valley. Merced county has experienced subsidence (where the ground sinks) due to collapsing underground caverns that we're once filled with water. And here's the kicker no amount of rain will bring this back, it took hundreds of thousands of years and ancient river flows both above and below ground to build up these underground lakes. Basically farmers in California are cashing in on their water insurance policy right now and in the following generation a valley which is technically a desert will rely solely on rainfall and snow pack for irrigation.

>>10630813
Why do people who follow a high-carb low-fat diet (most vegans) are the ONLY diet group with a healthy BMI and have BETTER and HEALTHY cholesterol levels?
I get what you're saying but unless you have studies to back your claim up, it's worthless.
>>10630866
True
>>10630888
Veganism isn't a cult.

>>10630696
>>10630866
Same fag who could not handle being btfo here
>>10630813

>>10630908
>Veganism isn't a cult.
I'm not saying it's a cult, I'm saying babble like this
>think about ethics = achieve virtue = flourish as a human
sounds cartoonishly cultish.

>>10630908
Bmi is a formula designed for calculation of whether or not nation sized population are malnourished. Not an indicator of health.

Why does every blue zone except one eat meat and dairy if being vegan is the only way to grow old?

>>10630936
We all know how to use Photoshop, my /pol/ friend.

>>10630926
I (ethics / virtue / flourishing) was just making the general point that you should care (and post) about ethics. What you consume is an important side of that..

>>10630936
Well fuck. You're still wrong though. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the scientifically accepted limitations of correlative evidence especially when there are more recent studies with causational links.

>>10628671
i don’t care about what you think and think morality is a spook so fuck yourself and reported for not lit

>>10630905
OK I'll take a more circumspect view then. I'm still surprised that if mass-scale veganism is completely unsustainable there isn't a famous book or video that puts the thesis in a specific and falsifiable way.

>>10630951
Wasn't really addressing you desu more people just posting studies without explanation.

>>10630969
I think it's cuz like you said the vegan population is at less than 5% and I forget the percentage but it's like super high end up only being vegan temporarily. There is very little interest from agricultural departments across the United States to synthesize this into a report or study when they are currently more interested in maximizing efficiency. It would also inadvertently cast a light on the issues of factory livestock farming something they don't want to do.

P1: Living life, even if for a short time, is better than never having been born
P2: If we didn't breed and keep animals like cows and chickens for our own gain, most of them would never have been born.
C: Keeping animals for human consumption is in the interest of animals, as they would otherwise never have been born.

This argument could be refuted in two ways: A) antinatalism, which is supported by few, or B) if the animals currently living in captivity would be able to survive and reproduce in the wild without impacting local ecosystems, which they probably can't.

>>10631013
Nicely done sir, but unironically.

morality is not rational, the only real morality is humanism and you know it.

>>10631013
>P1: Living life, even if for a short time, is better than never having been born
lol

>>10630924
No wasn't samefagging
>>10630939
You where talking about food making you fat, BMI is a good metric for that. Every blue zone is eating almost no meat.
>>10631013
> Living life, even if for a short time, is better than never having been born
Not true though, are you aware of the thought experiment where there are two planets, one with an enormous population of humans but the living conditions were shit and everyone's happiness was low but combined higher then the second planet which contains fewer humans but with higher happiness and living conditions but the combined happiness is lower than the first planet. Which planet is preferable? The second of course, quality of life is more important than population and I would argue that a life in captivity and exploitation without freedom, is not worth living. Your argument doesn't hold.

>>10631025
>>10631013

Antinatalism for animals is fairly widely supported desu. Do the VR factory chicken thing and tell me the world is better that those things live.

>>10631042
(Somewhat) this. Humans have many antinatal intuitions.

>>10631042
Bmi is a horrible metric for measuring fat. According to bmi every football player about to play in the Superbowl is obese outside of like 3 or 4 total. My point with the blue zones was that consuming meat and dairy doesn't make you unhealthy. Consuming excess does and that goes for everything water, plant based carbs, everything.

>GRR WAR, RAPE, RACISM, SEXISM, PEDO, RELIGION, etc.
>meat consumption isn’t moral ;)
>I AM AMORAL OVERMAN... WE ARE THE KINGS OF FOOD CHAIN, THIS IS NATURE... YUMMY MY PLEASURE SUSTAINED BY ANIMAL HEHE ;) DEAL WITH IT
So this is the power of moralists....

>>10631050
>Widely
I think you're embellishing a bit.

>>10628994
Good post

>>10629805
>alien species comes along and puts you in habitat with your family and friends
>nice enough
>but every now and then they come and take one or two of you and kill you
>WHYYY ARENTT THEYY LOYYYAALLLLLL :’(
Also dogs are man’s best friend through selection. If people never lived with them in that capacity they’d have never become the animals they are now.

>>10631042 >>10631050

But isn't that rather a problem with the treatment of animals? If all animals lived under decent conditions, wouldn't that life be better than no life at all?

The solution is not veganism, as that would be to deny these creatures of life. The solution is rather to advocate for animals' rights and to practice ethical consumption by only buying that free-range shit where the animals actually live decent lives.

>>10631050
>VR chicken factory
You're such a pseud projecting your humanity on birds
>Be me bird chilling with the other birds
>Super cool I feel safe in numbers I love flocks
>Damn, it's like the perfect temperature in here all the time, did someone like scientifically set this up for me (oh wait I'm a bird I don't know about science, bit the answer is yes)
>There is always plenty of food to eat. Like I could eat whenever I want, awesome!
>>10631119
I mean I raised them from piglet and never took anything from them. Dogs are descended from natural pack animals. In fact, with enough patience you can still train a wolf to be as loyal as a dog. My father-in-law did it.

>>10631151
>If all animals lived under decent conditions, wouldn't that life be better than no life at all?
Read a fucking book.

>>10631063
It's unnecessary, harmful and unhealthy compared to a full plant-based whole-foods diet. Also BMI is fine for 90% of the population to measure obesity. It's true that BMI doesn't take in account the difference between muscle mass and body fat but this is only a problem for bodybuilders.
>>10631151
You are delusional if you think we can supply the demand or even a fraction of the demand of grass grazing animals. We simply don't have the space on earth to do that. Also taking away a life unnecessarily is inhumane in every angle you look at it. You can never justify it. Why not slowly reduce the population and let them reproduce and live out their lives fully without us killing them. Also don't let the free range label confuse you, the standards are incredibly low and don't match up with the mental picture you probably have.

>>10631189
How is eating meat unhealthy if I eat a little bit and live into my 90s? Remember no causation has ever been linked to meat, we've already talked about this. Death comes for us all bud may as well eat meat.. And more of the population has a healthy body composition that's considered overweight than 10%.

>>10631189
>Killing is immoral
That's a subjective opinion that most of the world doesn't agree with you on.

>>10631153
Moral valuations of species’ lifestyles and their utility to us are a rather cruel and chauvinistic way to determine whether or not or how much real suffering they should be allowed to experience. Now of course this is completely arbitrary. But however irrational, I have a human longing for consistency and understanding the world as best as possible and acting in accordance with it. I can be a real moral skeptic, and even profit from it, but if I were exposed to the Holocaust and could do something and didn’t, it would take a severe, probably irreparable toll on my conscience.

Don’t take this as trying to invalidate your personal experience, though it is only that, your own: but pigs are recognised as one of the most intelligent of domesticated animals, as smart as or smarter than dogs. Their use as food as one thing, but the moral myopia surrounding them in comparison to other comparatively intelligent animals like chimps or dogs or dolphins is incredible. A species of minds, consigned to certain suffering, by incident, mockery and casual indifference.

Chimps are violent niggers and I would never want to spend much time around one, but I respect their existence, have distant affection for them and would never do harm to them if I could help it. Just because an animal doesn’t do much for me personally doesn’t really make me resent it or care so little about it to the point where I don’t care for it’s well-being at all.

>>10631189
"You are delusional if you think we can supply the demand or even a fraction of the demand of grass grazing animals."

I'd love to see a source on that. I also never claimed that we shouldn't cut back on meat consumption for environmental reasons, but to go completely vegan because of bad conditions for animals is like killing all poor people to end poverty.

"Also taking away a life unnecessarily is inhumane in every angle you look at it. You can never justify it. "

First of all, it's not unnecessary as we use animals for meat. Second of all, what is the alternative? Either we never let them live at all or we kill them when they've lived for a while. Either way, we are denying them life, but in the latter case we are only denying them part of it.

Imagine a person. You have the choice between either A) killing the person when they turn 30, without them feeling any pain or realising what is happening, or B) making it so that they never existed at all. What do you think the person would prefer?

>>10631153
wtf does pseud mean in this context
>be me bird, uninterrupted chilling for 2 years straight in a cage too small to extend my wings
>beak clipped so cannot socialise with the 5 other birds in my cage, unable to forage, take a dust bath, nest, etc
>damn, I've so engineered I cannot physically stand and have severe respiratory problems from the birdshit I'm 24/7 lying in
I'll give you that they don't let them starve, wow.

>>10631250
I hope you are doing your part by impregnating as many random women from all walks of life as possible, anon
tu quoque?

>>10631267
>Cage
Lol where do you retards get this shit from?

>>10631236
>It's just like the Holocaust amirite guys
>There's no difference between human conscious and animal conscious amirite?

>>10631273
>implying anyone on 4chinz isn't a virgin NEET or gay

Just like how there's no ethical consumption in a capitalist system, there's no vegan consumption in an omnivore system.

>>10631218
Boi meat is unhealthy because 100% of people who have eaten meat die sooner or later. That's like vegan statistics 101.

>>10631277
Did you try googling "chicken cage" e.g. http://www.internationalegg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Economics-Report-StatsReportSept14_web.pdf

"Worldwide, more than 90 per cent of all eggs continue to be laid by hens in cages, and the vast majority of those (85 per cent) are conventional, aka, ‘battery’ cages (Windhorst, 2014; Farming UK, 2015)."

>>10631281
Not the point I was making. was hoping no one would latch on to MUH EQUIVALENCE

>>10631296
Eh they're still just birds and you were throwing in the conditions of layers and broilers together. I mean really they are birds. Like they're so renowned for their tiny brains and lack of processing power that calling someone bird brained is a slur.

>>10631309
Then how about you stop using hyperbolic false equivalency fallacies in your arguments. This is /lit/ not /fit/ or /ck/ if you can't make an argument without appeals to emotions based on hyperbolic b.s. we will call you on it.

God, why are you fuckers even still bothering with this shit? Just say "I'm not gonna grant you that premise" and be done with it.

>>10631323
Depends whether you think suffering requires a complex brain, I guess.

>>10631334
My point about the Holocaust is that, even if I recognise the truth of amoralism, moral skepticism or moral relativism, there are events so noxious to me and a great many people, that it’s impossible to think about in purely egoistic, rational terms, and that to try and do so would be psychically destructive. Of course, it’s subjective. But we’re helpless confronted with horrors, reduced to shame and futile conscience and nausea

>>10631218
Why would you eat body parts of an animal when you could eat something else?
>>10631225
Unnecessary killing is immoral, give me a single argument that justifies the morality of unnecessary killing.
>>10631250
>I'd love to see a source on that.
Organic agriculture occupies only 1% of global agricultural land and requires more land use than other more cruel farming techniques and livestock already covers 45% of the earth’s total land.
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/10601/IssueBrief3.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf
Cutting back on meat is great and I definitely not suspect everyone to go vegan but since I'm mainly arguing from an ethical perspective I would say that going vegan is morally superior and eating a small piece of meat is the equivalent of just raping a few women.
>it's not unnecessary as we use animals for meat.
Yes it is, meat is unnecessary in our diets.
>>10631250
>A) killing the person when they turn 30, without them feeling any pain
Animals often feel pain when killed and often realize what's gonna happen and panic. You clearly have not watched slaughterhouse footage like I did. But anyway let's assume that it's okay
>or realising what is happening, or B) making it so that they never existed at all. What do you think the person would prefer?
So basically I'm in a Holocaust camp and you're asking if I'm okay having a son there knowing he will never have freedom and gets killed prematurely? I would choose B, simply because I know my son will be exploited for this sick species that choose to eat his corpse while they could've eaten plants.

>>10631368
>Unnecessary killing is immoral, give me a single argument that justifies the morality of unnecessary killing.
Let's say you prove moral realism first.

>>10631323
>Eh they're still just birds, ay lmao killing them and eating them is fine
https://youtu.be/uSUrLbgXiHo

>>10631368
>give me a single argument that justifies the morality of unnecessary killing.
P1 - Whatever Paul says is moral
P2 - Paul says, unnecessary killing is moral
C - Unnecessary killing is moral

Such is life in sophistry.

>>10631412
All that seems plausible except
>are multi-lingual
what did they mean by this
>mfw chickens are smarter than translationfags

>>10631412
Kek. Thanks bro I needed that laugh

>>10631337
You can't, try it. Tell me what group of humans are not of moral value and why? Veganism has a very solid moral argument, combine it with health and environment it's impossible to argue against it.
>>10631409
I don't have to, I just bootstrap moral value onto animals using logic.

The premises you start off with make a whole lot of assumptions. It would be akin to

P1 The Koran is the uncorrupted word of God
P2 fallible human beings perceive corruption in the Koran
C- Without establishing humans are infallible it is illogical to hold there are corruptions in the Koran

>>10631364
Depends on your definition of suffering. We all experience pain but where does one draw the line to suffering?
>>10631365
Literally less than 1% of the world is horrified by the killing of animals.
>>10631368
This whole post is a mess of things I've already disproven
>>10630431
You can follow the rest of the conversation from there. That was a nice open minded anon.

>>10631447
>I don't have to I just make a logical fallacy
Lol you're embarrassing yourself

>>10631432
This
>>10631433
https://youtu.be/25RcDO2RdZQ
They have different types of vocalizations for different preditors. Perhaps they also can communicate differently in different groups.
>>10631478
The only premise is human moral value, how do humans don't have moral value?>>10631479
>This whole post is a mess of things I've already disproven
How? You haven't disproven anything.

>>10631489
How? I have no need to prove moral realism for the argument.

>>10631496
Woah dude animals=people

>>10631496
A variety vocalisations is quite different from "multi-lingual". Multi-lingual implies not only one language, but several.

>>10631501
Cartoon made me hungry for morcilla desu

If you bootstrap moral value on to animals you're moving the goal post because you've changed the subject that moral value had in it's original premise.

Seriously get off /lit/ this board isn't for you. Go play your sophist tricks on a dumber board.

>>10631496
>The only premise is human moral value, how do humans don't have moral value?
Look at the problems in my argument and apply them here. In my one it assumes the existence of a very complicated and difficult to resolve being - God. Likewise your point has a vauge and complicated factor - moral value.

What is moral value and what grounds are there for it to extending to all humans - going down this line will lead you to a lot of problems with subjectivity and once you give legitimacy for moral value being subjective it makes equal amounts of sense to apply it to apply it to individuals and animals arbitrarily.

>>10631496
>>10630431
>Not uh
The post

>>10628671
>ethics

>>10631496
>This
I'm really not getting this "This".

>>10631236
>>10631281
>>10631334
>>10631368
>>10631409
>>10631432
>>10631433
>>10631447
>>10631478
>>10631489
>>10631501
>>10631501
>>10631510
>>10631528
>>10631539
>>10631540
Jesus Christ this vegan fag is getting absofuckinlutely BTFO

>>10628671
>anal autism
>ethical monism
Fuck off, retard.

>>10631496
>The only premise is human moral value, how do humans don't have moral value?
YOU DENSE PIECE OF SHIT, THIS HAS BEEN YELLED AT YOUR DUMB FACE FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS: YOU CAN'T JUST ASSERT "MORAL VALUE" AND BE DONE WITH IT. PROVE YOUR SHIT. GIVE US UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE, OR AT THE VERY LEAST SOMEWHAT AGREEABLE MEANS BY WHICH TO ESTABLISH THE "MORAL VALUE" OF SOMETHING.

PLEASE
DON'T
FUCKING
IGNORE
THIS
POST
AGAIN

Seriously, I don't want to hate you vegans, but, damn...

gotta get those meat cummies

>>10631574
He's such a braindead vegan he doesn't understand that you were pointing out his sophistry with an ironic example. He probably doesn't even know what sophistry means.

>>10631447
You have no value either friend. And I would gladly eat you if I needed to. Were the two of us on a boat like Life of Pi I would strangle you and then eat your organ meat. And you would die because you have poor strength because of your iron deficiency that comes with vegan diet.

>>10631594
Ah, that'd make sense.

>>10631592
This
>>10628680
Fpbp

>>10628671
I reject your unwarranted premises.

>>10629259
>comparing innocent chickens to the jews

Adolf 'animal rights' Hitler would object.

>>10628671

>>10631504
Never said that
>>10631510
True, can't find anything to back up the claim in the picture, but I found an interesting study which also covers communication and other things.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5306232/
>>10631528
>you've changed the subject that moral value had in it's original premise.
I didn't
>>10631539
>What is moral value and what grounds are there for it to extending to all humans
You can either accept or reject that humans are of moral value, if you reject it your worldview disregards the belief that unnecessary suffering and violence inflicted on a human/group of humans cannot be deemed as unethical/immoral.
>>10631574
It was a good example of sophistry, I thought you where mocking people in this thread. I don't see how my argument is sophistry.
>>10631579
Nope
>>10631592
You can either accept it or reject the premise.

>>10631585
>>10631592
>>10631594
>>10631599
>>10631601
>>10631610
>>10631611
>>10631615
>>10631636
Hahahahaha op abandoned the thread

COME BACK AND TELL US MORE ABOUT HOW YOUR SUBJECTIVE MORALS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL SPECIES AND SITUATIONS!!!!

>>10631655
>>10631666
Oh shit he's back with more not uhs. Way to fight back op.

>>10631666
I'm not a subjectivist, I'm a perspectivist, you alt-right subhuman

>>10631675
>Losing the fight
>Cue the ad-hominems
Lol dude this is one of the saddest displays of rhetoric I've seen on /lit/ in a long time. That's honestly saying something. When 95% of the population is not vegan why even accuse me of being part of a relatively narrow political group? Did you think that would rustle my jimboys or something?
>Kek just SAD
>See what I did there?

>>10631697
Stop trolling, retard.

>>10631599
That's a hypothetical survival situation, I would eat you first.

>>10631585
>>10631592
>>10631594
>>10631599
>>10631601
>>10631610
>>10631611
>>10631615
>>10631636
Okay I improved the argument for you fags:

(P1)There exists a trait, such that, if an individual is a human then the individual has moral value if and only if they possess the trait

>humans who possess a certain trait have moral value (this may or may not include all humans)

(P2)If humans have moral value if and only if they possess a certain trait, then all beings have moral value if an only if they possess the certain trait.

>rejection of double standards

(P3)If an individual is a sentient nonhuman animal, then there is no trait absent in the individual, which if absent in a human, would cause the human to not have moral value.

or equivalently

(P3)If an individual is a sentient nonhuman animal, then the trait that grants humans moral value is present in the individual.

>sentient nonhuman animals possess this certain trait

Therefore

(C)Sentient nonhuman animals have moral value

>we are morally required to go vegan

Now tell me what's wrong with the argument fags!

>>10631711
I get ad-hominems thrown at me by a pseud and I'm the troll? In what world? Not my fault OP can't handle a discussion I never called him any names. I made fun of his position, perhaps he should think harder about his positions in the future.
>>10631729
Define your trait. Make sure it includes a reason why we MUST apply it to animals. Why would or wouldn't you apply it to all humans? You don't define your trait in your opening premise but by (p3) you have identified sentience to being prerequisite to your trait. This whole elastic use of trait is really tripping up your whole argument. It's a bit like the problem with the ontological proof.

>>10629106
>>10628994
Via this logic, meat is an aesthetic that is equally pleasing to enjoy in the form of cultural traditions. To indulge in burgers, meat lovers pizza, turkey for thanksgiving, and ham for Easter, I am performing the deepest remembrance of my society's emergence from sustenance-driven atavism and becoming a oneness with the lard of society. Being this lard is enjoying the surfeit of others' sufferings, my ancestors' suffering to be explicit, it is why so many before us toiled so hard, to deny that lard and rotting corpse is to deny the sacrifice progenated from the past's struggles.

Aesthetics and morals are a like continental philosophers, it only works as far as you are eloquent, as your eloquence fails your reasoning does too.

>>10631770
>p1
>Define your trait.
it is not necessary to specify which trait. But examples may include example sentience, capacity for sentience, moral agency etc. Furthermore all humans may or may not possess this trait.
>you have identified sentience to being prerequisite to your trait.
All humans are sentient and I think that sentience is necessary to grant moral value to an animal.

Do you accept the premises?

>>10628671
haha they don't have my favorite argument on the bingo!
>Hitler was a vegetarian

>>10628994
>To those less brainwashed to human herd sensibilities, even the mildest of meat has a vile animal must, reeks of blood, lymph, pheromones, and a touch of feces/urine. Naturally it's a breeding ground of bacteria and parasites. Anything not fresh out the abattoir is liable to be in some intermediate stage of decay.
>Implying phenomenological experiencing and depth of sensual perceptions is hung up in human trialectics, and the emmersion from these cess-pools of human herds is equivalent to increased sensual perception
Your argument is that smart people are immune to herd ideology and therefore above it, and this air-haute (I'm feeling devilish today) manifests itself in sensual depth, that's just silly. Also, meat's shelf life is dependence on slaughtering conditions, packaging, and preservatives. Meat, when dealt with properly, can last 3 weeks post-slaughter, without the usage of preservatives. Dry-aged steak can be indefinitely preserved, years on end, and not decay, similarly with smoked meats. Your evaluation, similar to your judgment of the carnists, is contextual.
>Yet these most manifest sensual aspects are nothing compared to the libidinal aspect. Imagine an ample-bellied man smacking his lips as he scarfs down an Arby's sandwich, the dead stinky flesh folded out like an old whore's vagina vagina with syphilitic yellow cheese sauce oozing out; or, if you prefer, a cute-but-just-slightly-plump girl "mmm"ing in pleasure as a big fat phallus of a hotdog has its way with her.
>I'm better than brainwashed people because they don't accept my aesthetic.
>People that listen to pop-music are trite amoebic simulacra of my matinal defecations, and their cogitations are a membrane of mediocrity that has the depth of the stamp that created those very same thoughts.
Chill bro, you're on the same spectrum, but just see a tad farther.

>>10631729
>morally requires
anal autism, everybody

>>10631831
No because your "trait" is still abstract and your list of examples are mutually exclusive. Having sentience does not imply moral agency. Animals do not have moral agency because they have no morals and are driven by natural urges exclusively.

>>10628671
>Can you be ethically consistent and eat animal products?
Yes, there's nothing illegal about eating meat and there's nothing in the bible forbidding eating meat. Jesus duplicated fish for the masses.
There's also nothing self-evidently immoral about eating meat.
If you have to make up contrived arguments about "torturing" animals, then you've lost the point. Hunting animals for food is not "torture" nor cruel.

>>10631891
>If you have to make up contrived arguments about "torturing" animals, then you've lost the point. Hunting animals for food is not "torture" nor cruel.
A contrived argument in itself. Who said anything about hunting? Plainly, the torture refers to industrial meat industry.

>>10631655
>You can either accept or reject that humans are of moral value,
How can one do that if moral value is undefined as are the conditions of when it is attached to something?

>if you reject it your worldview disregards the belief that unnecessary suffering and violence inflicted on a human/group of humans cannot be deemed as unethical/immoral.
Not at all, if you hold that ethical or moral value stem from subjective value judgements then you can make those kind of descriptions about any event or action from cutting in line at the bus stop to wearing a short dress.

>>10631729
I'm 6'2 and 210lbs, how fucked are you in our boat situation?

>>10628671
I cannot wait to get home and make an image of this thread for /lit/ humor and laugh at pleb/pseuds threads. I think I'll title it
>Vegan visits /lit/

>>10631918
muh subjectivity
*ties you up and tickles you for ten years*
yum yum yum. i'm gonna tickle you. tickle tickle. nothing yo ucan do about it. i'm gonna torture you until you recognise you're worse than the spooky objective moralists... the moralist without a cause... the self-rightoues hypocrite who admits his hypocrisy but nevertheless endorses it unironically... i'm just going to punish you for your treason by your own subjective merits...

>>10631729
>There exists a trait, such that, if an individual is a human then the individual has moral value if and only if they possess the trait
What if that trait is something subjective?

>(P2)If humans have moral value if and only if they possess a certain trait, then all beings have moral value if an only if they possess the certain trait.
Firstly the problem of subjectivity comes into play and secondly it does not hold that a certain trait in humans by necessity has the same consequence or value in non humans.

What you are doing here is making and assumption of equivalency. Its not a double standard when the conditions are different.

>(P3)If an individual is a sentient nonhuman animal, then the trait that grants humans moral value is present in the individual.
This point ignores your previous ones and without any justification labels this trait as sentience and that humans and non humans are equivalent so long as this trait is present. In other words it requires two conclusions which you have provided no premises for.

>we are morally required to go vegan
No, even if it were correct it would only demonstrate there being moral value in animals, not equal moral value or indeed prescribe any positive set of actions.

A nice thought experiment for you - if you believe animals have moral value should animals be jailed and punished for harming or violating other animals?

>>10631964
Just simple logical consistency anon, tickle away to your hearts content.

>>10631980
Very well put. It's becoming painfully obvious that op has never studied rhetoric or debate in a serious way.

>>10631870
Just logic.
>>10631874
Well it's your job to name the trait, that's the whole point. If you say it's moral agency and accept p1 and p2 that means you would say that it's okay to slaughter humans who lack moral agency. Do you think that's not immoral?
>>10631891
Can you name a trait present or absent in animals that justifies treating them the way we do?
>>10631918
>How can one do that if moral value is undefined as are the conditions of when it is attached to something?
See the new argument here >>10631729 you can replace moral value with the right to equal consideration of interests or something similar.
>>10631980
>moral subjectivity
If you can justify something by saying that morality is subjective then I could rape and murder because "lol it's subjective"
>>10631980
>if you believe animals have moral value should animals be jailed and punished for harming or violating other animals?
No because they lack moral agency

>>10632055
>It's up to me to define the trait
Op you made the thread you made the premise you define your terms. Stop being so sophist.

>>10632055
jus lawwawwwwjikkkkkkk
Yup, you're philosophically illiterate.

>>10632060
Well I accept that I can't name the trait and thus am vegan, I think you don't understand the trait is something that gives the human it's moral value, I recognize that animals have moral value. Unless you can point out why they don't have moral value you can't say unnecessarily killing an animal is a amoral act.

>>10632076
Please point out where I'm wrong

>>10632102
>muuuuh lawwwwwwjiikkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
I don't deal with Platonists, sorry.

>>10632120
Can you name a trait present or absent in animals that justifies treating them the way we do?

>>10632087
What is moral value? How does a being without morals derive value from them? Why are you talking in sophist circles?

>>10632055
>See the new argument here >>10631729 you can replace moral value with the right to equal consideration of interests or something similar.
That runs into the problems then which I outlined in >>10631980

>If you can justify something by saying that morality is subjective then I could rape and murder because "lol it's subjective"
Do you understand that morality being subjective does not = a tolerance and equal treatment of all moral systems?

You could justify it to yourself perhaps, but if you could not justify it to others than you would face the consequences of their disapproval just as it would be under an objective morality.

Have you not noticed that in all your posts despite relying on it you have demonstrated there being an objective morality?

Ive attached a picture that might interest you.

>No because they lack moral agency
How do you come to that conclusion when it comes to animals such as chimps, dolphins and pig?

>>10632146
Moral value is something that gives a being moral status, I believe it's the capacity to experience well-being, happiness, and suffering (sentience) that gives a being moral status

>>10632131
I don't deal with Platonists, sorry.

>>10632158
Why would any of those things imply moral value? And why would any of those things be held equally? And how do you define any of those abstract descriptors? Happiness is not universal what makes me happy doesn't make you happy etc. Well-being, what makes my being well does not make a vulture's being well. Suffering, what I suffer from others may not. Is pain suffering? Or temporary discomfort? Is death suffering if it is absent of pain? Is living through excruciating pain but living still suffering?

>>10632150
>That runs into the problems then which I outlined in >>10631980
What? The problems which he outlines aren't problems. He's saying morality is subjective thus your argument doesn't count. That allows the justification of criminal acts like rape and murder.
>Do you understand that morality being subjective does not = a tolerance and equal treatment of all moral systems?
Yes but that's exactly why "morality is subjective" is not an argument.
>you have demonstrated there being an objective morality
Never have I done that.
>How do you come to that conclusion when it comes to animals such as chimps, dolphins and pig?
If there are animals have harmed humans then killing or jailing is perhaps right, for example Harambe. But we can't make animals accountable for their actions because they lack the intelligence and communication skills.

>>10632204
>he's saying morality is subjective thus your argument doesn't count.
Where does he say or imply that in >>10631729?

>That allows the justification of criminal acts like rape and murder.
And I explained how that doesn't make rape and murder permitted.

>Yes but that's exactly why "morality is subjective" is not an argument.
Its a hurdle when your claims for veganism rest on an objective morality.

>Never have I done that.
I misstyped and left out a "not"

>If there are animals have harmed humans then killing or jailing is perhaps right, for example Harambe
But wouldn't that be denying the consequences of sentience?

>But we can't make animals accountable for their actions because they lack the intelligence and communication skills.
We have no issue doing that with humans who lack intelligence and communication skills, or do you think that mental hospitals should be allowed to detain or curtail the freedom of the mentally ill?

>>10632159
You don't believe in morality or what?
>>10632198
>Why would any of those things imply moral value?
Tell me what trait implies moral value then, I shared you my personal believe. If you share yours we can see how it holds up.
>And why would any of those things be held equally?
Never said that
>>10632198
>And how do you define any of those abstract descriptors?
Neurological patterns and behavior.
>Happiness is not universal what makes me happy doesn't make you happy etc. Well-being, what makes my being well does not make a vulture's being well. Suffering, what I suffer from others may not. Is pain suffering? Or temporary discomfort? Is death suffering if it is absent of pain? Is living through excruciating pain but living still suffering?
I said:
>the capacity to experience ....

>>10632241
>Where does he say or imply that
He said
>What if that trait is something subjective?
Thus saying he can subjectively decide that humans are of moral value or not thus that would imply someone could just rape someone because of that.
>And I explained how that doesn't make rape and murder permitted.
Yes but only if people understand that "morals are subjective" is not an argument to justify an act as moral
>Its a hurdle when your claims for veganism rest on an objective morality.
It doesn't rest on an objective morality, why are you assuming that?
>But wouldn't that be denying the consequences of sentience?
No, how?
>We have no issue doing that with humans who lack intelligence and communication skills, or do you think that mental hospitals should be allowed to detain or curtail the freedom of the mentally ill?
Do we hold children accountable? No. Do we give the same punishment to mentally ill people as to normal people when done a criminal act? No.

>>10632271
>He said
That was me not the OP I was responding to >>10631729 where the OP had outlined his improved argument.

>Yes but only if people understand that "morals are subjective" is not an argument to justify an act as moral
Not at all, hence why the world functions despite the plethora of "objective" systems of morality. Indeed its why there is so much conflict over defining and creating laws in large and diverse societies. One doesnt need to understand economics to participate in an economy just as one doesnt need to understand philosophy to participate in the administration of justice.

>It doesn't rest on an objective morality, why are you assuming that?
It does look at P1 and P2 both holding moral value to stem from a trait found in them.

>No, how?
Since you hold these animals to be intelligent enough that when they kill humans they can be jailed its hypocritical to then say that this intelligence has no relevance when they harm each other.

>Do we hold children accountable? No
So are we to pretend youth and juvenile dentition centers do not exist? Different types of accountability does not equal no accountability.

>Do we give the same punishment to mentally ill people as to normal people when done a criminal act? No.
Much harsher actually, the mental ill can be held indefinitely with much less procedure and chance of appeal. Likewise they have vastly less autonomy over their own bodies and property. Again different punishment does not equal no punishment.

>>10628994
You've never lifted anything heavier than a computer mouse in your life. Exercise regularly like your grandparents did and a steak will morph into the most delicious thing that you will lust after.

>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to consider anything short of non-exploitation to be an adequate expression of respect for human moral value.

''Real'' conscience? A will? Self-reflection? Ability to reflect on pain? Anything really.

>He isn't a meat-eating moral realist

Kekking all the way over here

>>10630663
>I make vegan threads on /pol/, it pisses them off.
>them
>posts on /pol/
you are them faggot leave

>>10631929
Not him but I could take you. You are but a twink compared to my greater height compounded with my deadly bloat.

>>10632496
>he doesn't go on /pol/ to entertain himself with the flesh puppets...
common trash..

Vegans that claim higher moral status than vegetarians are hypocrites to the highest degree.

Even the most BLIND vegan cultist will admit that there is no physical way for people in 3rd world countries to live vegan lives and have the total amount of good in the world increase.

But they won't admit that there is ANY cost of utility in being vegan. The cognitive dissonance is incredible.

If the utility of not being vegan outweighs the utility of being vegan, there can be no moral stance but to not be vegan.

If you want to be a Vegan, pick two:

>inexpensive food
>have a healthy, productive life

Vegans think that just because they are in a position that makes it easy to be vegan, it must be easy for everyone to be vegan, right? Not if you have to eat the opposite of all the food you have access to.

If a man took all the time and energy he was going to put towards being vegan, and instead put that effort towards establishing a vegan/vegetarian foundation, he would be behaving more ethically as a meat eater than a vegan. This is by the vegans' own definition of reducing animal suffering,

Vegans say that vegetarians just arbitrarily draw a line between what is moral and not. This line is not arbitrary, it depends on the utility benefit and utility cost. Which hypocritically, is exactly what vegans do. Vegans are not 100% vegan, and many insects, mice and small animals get murdered in order to grow plant food. Vegans can prevent this "senseless murder" by simply eating out of the trash can and eating road kill. If it is already dead and wasted, there's nothing you can do at that point to get it back, so dumpster diving is the only true veganism. Vegans will "arbitrarily" (as the call vegetarians) decide that some animals can be killed while others shouldn't. And the justification they use? Utility. They claim the utility cost of being 100% vegan outweighs the benefit. By that same arrangement, it can be morally imperative to be a vegetarian if it results in more utility than you being vegan. This is the one gap in Vegan logic that cannot be filled.

Not to say that Veganism is not the aim. Eventually we will get there, we will have wide vegan options that will prevent vegans from always eating the same 4 foods all the time and becoming incredibly unhealthy. We will have artificial meat that supplies us with valuable carnosine and other nutrients only found in meat.

The Vegan cultists worship the ritual of not eating meat. The Level-headed vegetarians recognize that the only thing that matters is increase utility.

>>10631845
>Your argument is that smart people are immune to herd ideology
Nope, never said or even implied it came down to intelligence. I don't know why some people are more or less resistant to the pull of the herd. There's plenty of high IQ meat eaters (though, incidentally, vegans are higher IQ on average). And it's not "sensual depth" that allows people to be disgusted at meat; it's just normal perception broken free of familiarity.

>Dry-aged steak can be indefinitely preserved, years on end, and not decay, similarly with smoked meats. Your evaluation, similar to your judgment of the carnists, is contextual.

The point you're making is only tangential to my argument. Preserved meats are disgusting in their own special way, and in any case they probably don't make up that much of your diet.

>I'm better than brainwashed people because they don't accept my aesthetic
Aesthetics aren't just a matter of whim--that idea is postmodernist tripe. Meat eating isn't ugly "because I said so." It's ugly because it's callous and requires and aversion to truth (or, in other words, sentimentality). I dare you to deny this.

>>10631811
No, that's not it at all. Aesthetics aren't just clothes you can try on and take off when you please. An aesthetic is only as good as the truth it reveals.

Your aesthetic is garbage, because it desperately diverts attention from the truth of its own cruelty with cries of "muh ancestors." You pervert history into something static--"what's good for great-grandpa is good for me too." But you don't live in "sustenance-driven atavism," which means you can afford more civilized behavior.

We don't have to reject the entire history of meat consumption to admit that it's fucked up to eat it now. The best way to honor your ancestors is to revel in your freedom from meat, which they never could have even dreamed of.

>>10632351
>lust after

You're only proving my point. Good luck with your sublimated bestiality fetish.

>>10632916
>muh utility

Also, nobody is making a retarded Kantian universal prohibition with no exceptions whatsoever. But the fact of the matter is, it's very easy and inexpensive for most Westerners to eat a vegan or mostly vegan diet.

I'm vegan, but there is nothing wrong with eating simple sessile animals like oysters and mussels, just to put that out there.

>>10632988
>nobody is making a retarded Kantian universal prohibition with no exceptions whatsoever

Dude you didn't understand the point of the post. The fact that vegans DO make exceptions for themselves, and yet say vegetarianism is wrong because it makes exceptions makes them hypocrites.

> it's very easy and inexpensive for most Westerners to eat a vegan or mostly vegan diet

I guess this is just where I disagree. It's easy just eating vegan, what's easier than eating french fries all day, but actually being healthy while vegan? I see a huge cost impact in constantly straining yourself to get the variety of nutrients you need because the most available food around you has exactly what you need but the addition of one animal product makes it a deal breaker.

I think there is a LOT of things that you can accomplish with all that effort. It would be different if society was more oriented towards vegetarian options, and the effort to seek out healthy vegans foods was less.

>>10628671
>Can you be ethically consistent and eat animal products?
Yes. Fuck off Vegan

>>10628930
Thats temporary. They're raised outside in fields. Maybe 10x10 field with a small hut

>>10631496
Animals are painlessly killed by stunning. It is muslims who slit their throats to make their meat halal, and they don't give a shit.

>>10633026
Nigga I'm a vegan in Japan, probably the least vegan friendly country in the first world, and it's not even hard. I spend no more time preparing or shopping for food than I used to. You're talking out your ass.

>The fact that vegans DO make exceptions for themselves, and yet say vegetarianism is wrong because it makes exceptions makes them hypocrites

Wow it's almost as if not all exceptions are equivalent. Eating a trace amount of a tertiary milk derivative is the same thing as eating a three egg omelette is the same thing as taking the day off and going to Korean barbecue because they're all exceptions. Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

>>10633098
Lad I hope you're taking your bs, omegas & creatine

Even if you believe that there's nothing wrong with killing animals, if you watch some of the videos captured at dairy farms I think you'll find it hard to justify the unnecessary torture they inflict on helpless animals. And this happens long before they're slaughtered: using cows as punching bags, prodding and beating them with pitchforks, metal pipes, etc. It's sickening.

Then there's the scientific argument. There's absolutely no reason for humans to continue drinking milk. We get enough from our mothers as infants, and we aren't calves that will eventually grow to weigh two tons. People like to claim that soy will affect one's testosterone levels because of the phytoestrogen in it, but milk and cheese are loaded with way more hormones than soy.

Now meat is difficult to argue because it turns into a shit-flinging contest usually. Nevertheless, the protein one gets from animals is acidic, which prompts the body to take calcium phosphate out of the blood. The phosphate is used to neutralize the acid and the calcium leaves through your urine, hence the widespread presence of things like osteoporosis. Also, heart disease is the number one killer in America, and it's not because of vegetables. But as with everything there are pros and cons, I'm pretty sure I was b12 deficient for awhile, but a lot of vegans like to say that you don't need any supplements. Unfortunately those are the dogmatic ones. I mainly do it for health reasons.

>>10630006
>maybe we'd start setting up sanctuaries and create a meat industry that operated within welfare limits off that. But that's not the issue

I love how tyranny us such a natural position for you

>>10631042
>The second of course, quality of life is more important than population and I would argue that a life in captivity and exploitation without freedom, is not worth living

The trouble is that by that argument, the best course of action is to kill everyone (painlessly) except one person who really REALLY wants to be alone. Thus achieving peak average utility for the world

I consider it immoral but I can't stop eating meat because all the alternatives are shit for me
if there was reasonably priced (more expensive than natural, but not rich-people expensive) vat-meat available I'd switch in a heartbeat

>>10633368
I don't mean necessarily the state doing it lol, it could happen through markets or philanthropy if that works.

>>10633438
Utility monsters don't exist, all preferences are weak

>>10631729
>(P1)There exists a trait, such that, if an individual is a human then the individual has moral value
I reject the premise again!

>>10632243
Morality doesn't exist. Stop baiting, subhuman STEMsperg.

>>10632959
Truth doesn't exist. Go back to plebbit
>muh ancestors
Actually, just kys

>>10632988
>if you can do it easily, you should
Then wherever I go, I must rape.
>>10633330
>muh science
kys

>>10633330
Kek I could punch a cow all day and to her it's like if a 4 year old tried to wrestle me. Dairy cows are not hurt or tortured otherwise they won't drop their milk. And each one is worth 3 grand so they aren't going to cause injury to them (you'd get fired quickly if you're just a ranch hand). Point is stop taking 30 second clips of propaganda for evidence of routine activity.