/lit/ - Literature

>tfw using normie reactions to hearing about philosophical positions as a compass for determining the merits of said positions
>tfw can instantly tell an idea is shit by a normie liking it
>tfw can instantly tell an idea is great if a normie hates it
>"Hey normie, I don't think you should experiment on animals"
>normie: UHHH DUHHHH DERRRRRR BUT I WANT TO...??? UMMM BUT WE ALWAYS DONE DID THAT, SO MUST BE GOOD???? UHHEHERURGHHH... IT AM CAUSE ME INCONVENIENCE... THEREFORE.. IT BAD!
>wtf i am an anti-vivisectionist now
>"Hey normie, nations should have sovereignty over their own borders y/n"
>normie: UHHHHHHH BUHHHH DUHHHH HHHHHHH BUT THAT AINT NO NICE NO HOW I NEVER DONE HEARD NO DARNED BORDERS TALK WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THEM NO BORDERS ROUND HERE NO HOW NO SIR
>wtf i am for the most rigid borders possible between nation states now
>"Hey normie, Hitler"
>normie: UHHHHHHHH HITLER HE BE IN DEM DER MOVIES I LIKE TO WATCH ON DANG OLD TV HITLER NO GOOD DERRRR WATCH RAP MUSIC INSTEAD HERE PUT THIS UP YOUR ASS THE TV TOLD ME WE'RE PUTTING THINGS IN OUR ASSES NOW
>wtf i love hitler, hate rap, hate gays, and distrust TV now

>>14253839
Based.

http://www.mourningtheancient.com/impeachment.pdf

This book from start to finish is normie repellent.

>>14253800
why was she larping as a pajeeta?

>>14254393
Snow niggers have no real culture besides getting ass fucked by kikes, so ofc this infernal, ugly race will try to LARP as superior cultures, whether that is Indian or Chinese. Either learn your place or go back to the steppes, you fucking savages.

>>14253839
I don't believe in nations and borders and Hitler was dumb as bricks.

>>14254431
low iq take overall

>>14254408
>snow niggers
>real culture
>kikes
>LARP

yawn, your type was cool back in 2016. haven't you read at least a few books since then?

>>14254434
I am literally right. Stop indulging in ideology.

>>14254455
Tongue my anus

Follow the wisdom of your forefathers and cease to eat the flesh of your fellow creatures...

>Plutarch - On Meat Eating
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/De_esu_carnium*/1.html

>Porphyry - On abstinence from animal food
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porphyry_abstinence_01_book1.htm

>>14254470
You're preaching to the Pope, based vegananon

Human beings are distinguished from other animals by their rational nature. We are a higher order species because we are capable to philosophizing or formulating ideas and either accepting or rejecting them. This nature is what affords us our right of stewardship over the lower order species. This conflation between the different ordering of species is pure sentimentality and is ironically far more cruel than even the worst slaughterhouse because it has always preceded the most despicable treatment of humans by other humans. If only we could go back in time and ask the "untouchables" what they thought of the enlightened Hindu view of animal rights as they lay dying in a ditch.

The majority of our modern medicine can trace itself to some sort of animal testing and it saves billions of lives every year and I wouldn't change that for the world. Enjoy your salad.

>>14254591
All human beings, including you, deserve to die. Thankfully, I, myself, am not a human being.

>>14254591
>This nature is what affords us our right of stewardship over the lower order species.\

the logic of a rapist. if I can, I should. a real king of nature doesn't eat his inferiors, he uplifts them. if only we could ask the cows whose bodies you eat what they think of this mystical privilege of being human as their throats are being slit for braindead burgers.

you're a faggot and this anon is right >>14254601.

>>14254591
>human beings
>rational nature

>>14254621
Let me know when the cow voices his opinion. I'll listen.

>>14254636
As a cow whisperer and superior non-human, he told me he doesn't like it. Your mind is defiled, hence why you lack the capacity to communicate with cows.

>>14254636
Language is not a precondition for suffering. You live in a cartoon written by anglos.

>>14254645
>cow
>he

>>14254656
Nobody said it did. I said I have the right to inflict suffering on other animals just as they have the right to inflict suffering on each other. No reasonable person would call a wolf evil for biting the neck of deer. They do it because that's the nature of the world. We do it ways we find most reasonable because rationality is our nature.

>>14254681
I thought you were a higher order species? Why are you comparing yourself to a wolf? A king is not a more efficient peasant, he is a king. He stands outside the peasant's order.

Just call yourself an alpha predator and spare us the cringy hymns to Reason.

>>14253800
>extreme moralfaggotry
pass

>>14254718
>americans dressing up their dopamine crashes in irrelevant 19th century philosophy

pass

>>14254709
Kings and peasants are both human even though one is higher than the other. Humans and wolves are both animals, yet one is higher than the other. What I don't understand is why you deny this hierarchy yet insist on holding humans to a different standard of morality, as if humans are somehow wrong to act like wolves.

Wolves kill according to their instinctual nature, and humans kill according to what seems most reasonable to them which is according to their nature.

>>14254681
There is zero rationality for eating meat other than that it is cultural. There is no reason to eat meat other than flimsy made up ideology. We can live without meat. It would be better for our health to cut it out. It would be better for our relationship to animals, each other, nature. It would be better for the environment. What you also don't seem to understand is the scale.

>>14254732
because if the hierarchy isn't based on morality, it is based on force, which makes humans the thugs of nature. what a low opinion you have of your own humanity.

>>14254732
Wolves are ‘rational’ creatures too—they plan, they scout, etc. When Aquinas says humans have rational souls he is talking about their ability to comprehend metaphysics and spiritual matters, not that animals don’t have cognition.

>>14254744
It's useful and it's cost effective. That's reason enough. We don't have a personal relationship with animals that could be improved because they're not persons. They'll do as we will them.

>>14254759
You're equivocating the term rational. I explicitly defined it as a the ability to philosophize, or formulate ideas and either accept of reject them. Wolves are not capable of this.

>>14254758
Why is it wrong for humans to kill animals if we're the same as all other animals and it isn't wrong for animals to kill animals?

>>14254779
>Why is it wrong for humans to kill animals if we're the same as all other animals and it isn't wrong for animals to kill animals?

Is rationality a difference in kind, or degree? If kind, then you have no grounds to appeal to what wolves do. If degree, then you have no grounds to appeal to rationality, and so you might as well admit you're just a hyper-efficient predator.

>>14254770
>It's useful and cost effective
It's ruining our environment and it is cheaper and more resourceful to not eat meat so that is wrong.
>We will do as we will with them
Very short sighted of you. You don't seem to understand the implications. Our attempt to dominate nature has only resulted in it lashing back and has also lead to the creation of toxic ecological relationships with not just animals but also ourselves.

>>14254779
These are the fruits of your exalted rationality and cost efficiency. Read it and weep.

>>14254793
I never denied that humans were predators. We act as rational predators would by industrializing our killing because that is our nature. Are you going to answer my question now?

>>14254800
You recoil as if you're not trying to impose your own will on people and animals.

>>14253839
>>tfw can instantly tell an idea is shit by a normie liking it
>>tfw can instantly tell an idea is great if a normie hates it
normies hate israel
what do you think about that

>>14254820
>I never denied that humans were predators. We act as rational predators would by industrializing our killing because that is our nature. Are you going to answer my question now?

You're not a higher order being, you're a higher order predator, one that uses his reason to serve the same needs an ape or a wolf would. Again, what a pitiful conception of humanity you have.

>>14254770
>It's useful and cost effective
It's ruining our environment and it is cheaper and more resourceful to not eat meat so that is wrong.

Very short sighted of you. You don't seem to understand the implications. Our attempt to dominate nature has only resulted in it lashing back and has also lead to the creation of toxic ecological relationships with not just animals but also ourselves.
>They'll do as we will them
No they won't, animals have their own way of experiencing the world, they are not just automata. It is shown that we are putting them against their will. Watch any of their reactions they all show resistance when they are locked in cages, have their children taken away, injured, etc.

>>14254831
What is the difference between a higher order being and a higher order predator?

>>14254657
He asked the cows pronouns while he was at it.

>>14254832
>all these vegan faggots trying to convert people into their cult
i will be a meat eater until the day i die
if you try to convert me by force i will shoot you dead and then extra resources will have to be spent on your pointless funeral process
whoops maybe it was better to not bother me in the first place huh

>>14254852
based pathetic freak

>>14254852
>no arguments
you're a child

>>14254835
The higher order predator uses his reason to optimize the gratification of his appetites, the higher order being does all he can to mitigate his participation in the economy of consumption because he recognizes his unity doesn't lie with humanity but the principle of life itself.


The fact you have to ask says it all

>>14254863
>>14254867
>he thinks i was the guy he was originally talking to
the grammar and punctuation isn't even the same you retards

>>14253800
vegans are honestly gayer than actual homos

>>14254868
Here you go again, treating humans as if they're not just another animal. What is this principle of life and why should an animal minimize their "participation in the economy of consumption?" Surely you wouldn't say it's wrong for a wolf to eat whatever he wants, and to his heart content so why do you say it's wrong for a human to act just the same?

We go back to the original question which you failed to answer.

>>14253800
>woman has stupid opinion
Astonishing

>>14254892
You can't follow the steps of my argument, and it isn't even that difficult. "durr why shouldn't a human being gorge himself like a child?" Good night.

>>14254915
Once again you refuse to answer the question and resort to sentimentality. Your position is contradictory and you know it.

>>14253839
>>tfw can instantly tell an idea is shit by a normie liking it
>>tfw can instantly tell an idea is great if a normie hates it
Pure, unbridled confirmism

>>14254932
You can't argue that animals are higher than humans and then appeal to animals as models for why humans shouldn't distinguish themselves from animals. You can't even follow the steps of your own argument.

>>14254953
humans are higher than animals*

>>14254953
Humans are animals. What I'm saying is that we have a distinguishing nature and we act according to it. Having this nature doesn't mean we don't have a shared nature with every other animal and I never even came close to arguing otherwise. You're not even listening to what I'm saying.

It's the vegan that needs to explain why humans are wrong to act as animals do. They're the ones unintentionally arguing that we don't share a nature with other animals.

>>14254984
No you fucking retard, people like Devi argue that abstaining from the consumption of animal products is the fulfillment of the moral potential innate in humans

>>14255000
Why don't other animals have moral potential? Humans must have a different nature, right?

>>14255008
I don't know faggot, you're the one dismissing an animal's right to suffer because it can't write poems about it, you tell me.

>>14255025
I see you have no qualms with trying to hurt my feelings and inflict suffering on me. What a hypocrite you are. Your position is contradictory and this is why you're unable to answer me.

>>14255050
weak

>>14255072
What happened to the moral facade?

>vegan on lit
Based and, dare I say it, greenpilled as fuck

>>14254984 see
>>14254832
It's not "wrong" (moral standards don't exist) it's "bad" (in the sense of ethics/aesthetics/ecology) which is self evident when you look into our ecological relationships.

>>14255105
Parallel to the distinction between "animal rights" and "animal welfare". Former is the province of urbanite scum who need to politicize the pre-political as badly as they need to breath, latter is the province of those who haven't been dripfed the kool-aid since birth

>>14255105
It's clearly not self evident if the majority of the world eat meat. If moral standards don't exist and it's not truly bad to eat meat, then what the hell are you bothering me for? You can decide to abstain from meat and I'll decide to continue eating it. You have no right to interfere with me because there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong.

>>14255105
Oh and to add this is not in response to "acting as animals do." There are to things you misunderstand. 1. The problem of scale and 2. Humans have their own experience and "nature" of living i.e. in the sense of multilateralism that is different from other animals (and animals all differ from each other as well it is not like they are all the same).

>>14255121
For
>>14254984

>>14255120
You seem to misunderstand the implications of my post. This is a matter of ethics which is based on ecology, our interrelationships with nature and other beings.

>>14255120
How could you miss the point of his post this badly? He wasn't appealing to morality, but causality.

>>14255121
You're not actually saying anything interesting. You say humans have their own nature and experience. Okay then say what the hell that is. Stop with all this vaguery.

>>14255121
Multinaturalism*
Woops
>>14254984

>>14255139
What do you mean by this, it's only wrong to eat animals if they go extinct? Be specific.

>>14255143
the difference between human and animal consciousness is reciprocal and unilaterial, ie hierarchical.

>>14254591
Explain rationally why a murderer on death row should be put to sleep and undergo vivisection which could benefit science light years beyond animal vivisection.

>>14255105
>moral standards don't exist
>proceeds to make a moral claim
is this the power of veganism?

>DAE HUMANS AND ANIMALS THE SAME AND SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS
die

>>14255171
I didnt make a moral claim. Read Spinoza.

>>14255171
If someone eats only fast food, they will die. This is not a moral claim.

>>14255154
Why would I even need to answer that? It doesn't matter what reason I or anyone else comes up with to say it's wrong to test other humans. It doesn't even have to be wrong to test other humans. None of this has any bearing on the argument.

>>14255153
Do you have any more unfinished thoughts? Just get them all out of the way now.

>>14255178
Not an argument
>>14255181
sure
but "It is better to do things that prolong your life" is a moral claim

>>14255186
>just respond to my arguments, and I won't respond to yours

>>14255192
>but "It is better to do things that prolong your life" is a moral claim

so is "animals deserve to be exploited for human appetites/longevity"

>>14255308
I made no claim about animals "deserving" to be eaten.
You can eat or not eat animals, whichever suits your fancy. I'm not saying one 'ought' to eat animals, just that there's no intrinsic reason not to. If that is your desire, where desire necessarily precedes any moral character, then do that.
It does not require an appeal to any higher ethics to say "you can take one choice or the other" it's merely a statement of what is.

>>14255348
>Human beings are distinguished from other animals by their rational nature. We are a higher order species because we are capable to philosophizing or formulating ideas and either accepting or rejecting them. This nature is what affords us our right of stewardship over the lower order species.

>>14255364
that wasn't me