/lit/ - Literature

I agree but the fact a utilitarian agrees with me makes me feel physically sick. Are there any animal rights books not written by depraved, spiritually dead anglo utilitarian retards?

Peter Singer? Never heard of her.

>>16479893
Sacrificing animals for the gods and society is rational in a way though

>>16479893
I was meat-free for four years, then I went to Japan with some mates and had yakiniku and never looked back. It should be the world standard.

>>16479893
Convenience? High nutritional content? Good taste?

There's 3 basedboi

>>16479893
I appreciate Singer's influence in contemporary discourse but his utilitarian animal 'rights' is sickly. Probably stems from being a longstanding proponent of moral anti-realism.

>>16479979
Non-contemporary:
Plutarch - On the Eating of Flesh (Moralia)
Porphyry - On the Abstinence from Animal Food
Anna Kingsford - Addresses and Essays on Vegetarianism

Contemporary:
Tom Regan - The Case for Animal Rights
Tom Regan - Defending Animal Rights
Christine Korsgaard - Fellow Creatures

For the Christian posters:
Andrew Linzey - Animal Theology
Andrew Linzey - Why Animal Suffering Matters

Also some good anthologies of Vegetarian writings/thought:
Howard Williams - The Ethics of Diet
K. Walters & L. Portmess (editors) - Ethical Vegetarianism

The anthologies are nice because they contain shorter writings from letters, essays or larger philosophical texts that focus on vegetarian thought (Seneca, Kafka, Shelly, Tolstoy, etc.)

And tentatively
John Howard Moore - Universal Kinship (it is more utilitarian but not the extent of Singer)

>>16479893
you don't know to enjoy life

>>16479893
Bull took my gf, so I'm going to eat his. Fuck Cattleniggers.

>>16479893
All Vegan moralfaggotry would be BTFO'd if we just unfucked our agriculture. Factory farming and the way we treat livestock is repulsive, that is correct, the solution isn't to eat onions paste and live in pods.

>>16480394
Why do you think vegetarian ethics necessitates your strange technological fantasies?

>>16480179
>Convenience
Basically the only convenience there is is that it is the habit of most people and also eating out will have mostly have animal based dishes. Still not a legitimate reason to fight for a turn to more a plant based diet in the future (good for the animals, the health of the people, and the environment), if you are a first worlder, or to not at least try to lower your animal product intake.
>High nutritional content
Nope. Not a reason. If anything it's detrimental to your health. There is no nutritional benefit. Don't try posting pseudoscience from mom blogs and weasely animal industry funded studies.
>Good taste
Large variety of non-animal based things to eat

obligatory

Please stop eating your animal frens

>>16480314
thanks bro

>>16480427
You sound delusional. Pretty much every restaurant in North America has a majority non-vegetarian menu. Good luck trying to get a vegetarian meal in most parts of rural America.

And yes, calorie-for-calorie meat is much more nutritionally dense than any substitute.

>Large variety of non-animal based things to eat
Non of which taste like meat.

>>16480459
Now there's a book I can get into

Compassion for animals is not rational. That is not to say it is bad, just that there is more rationality in not caring where your calories come from at all.

>>16480427
>Nope. Not a reason. If anything it's detrimental to your health. There is no nutritional benefit.
You are hilariously wrong. Why do you think every civilization that's ever existed decided to domesticate animals for meat? Did they just really fucking hate them and devote their precious resources to killing as many of them as possible for fun?
>Large variety of non-animal based things to eat
That doesn't contradict what he said, retard.

>>16480591

Seems perfectly rational to me if you have any sense of self awareness and thus empathy

>>16480430
>>>/trash/
>>>/d/

>>16480644
Empathy for things incapable of feeling anything towards you in return is not rational. Judging it as right or wrong is a different idea entirely, but to call it rational is retarded.

Every vegan alternative just doesnt compare. Some of its ok but meat tastes fucking kino. Still would be better if we largely didnt eat it but unless some authortarian shit happen people are going to eat it

>>16480677
>Empathy for things incapable of feeling anything towards you in return is not rational
Okay, why?

>>16480698
It's built entirely on emotional reaction, which is the opposite of what the word rational means. Do you just sling words around without thinking about them?

>>16480677

This is just a ridiculous sentiment
Of course it's got nothing to do with the cow feeling anything towards you
All it is is having the basic level of self awareness to understand what suffering is and then if you don't like it is perfectly logical and rational to not have the desire to inflict it on others

>>16480717
>It's built entirely on emotional reaction
So is empathy towards anything that can reciprocate? Empathy is an emotional response in both instances.

>what the word rational means
There are many different meanings to 'rationality'. If we are just speaking colloquially all it means is in accordance with reason - which means nothing here - it is merely dependent on assumptions you have already made (it is rational to do things for my own benefit, etc.).

>>16480550
>Restaurant
Sure I already said that. Still not a reason to try to at least eat less animal products. The usual health recommendation is no more than 2 meals a week.
>Calorie-for-calorie
And that is false. Meat is lacking in tons of nutrients and fiber, especially for the amount of calories you are getting out of it. You are better of eating lentils or something. Better for the animals, environment, your heart, and your bowels.
>Taste
Meat isn't that great. There are tons of nice things to eat. Also learn to cook. You're not child.
>>16480633
I'm not wrong. Any major health organization agrees with that (i.e. not your mom blogs, shills, and grifters).
You are not striving to survive you are in your mom's house lying in bed. We are living in different conditions so that is irrelevant. In this point in time we can go without meat.
Also most people of the past ate demonstrably less meat and more plants. It was only fat fuck aristocrats that ate and were able to afford meat heavy diets. Everyone is eating like an aristocrat today and look what has happened. Environmental destruction, holocaust, and everyone is sick and has issues with their health..

>>16479893
I will>thou shalt
Eat my ass, hippy

>>16480550
>And yes, calorie-for-calorie meat is much more nutritionally dense than any substitute.
This is your average meat-cuck.

>>16480591
I don't know what that's supposed to mean. We have feelings and animals also have feelings. Why is it irrational? The only reason you can think such a thing is because you are a modern urbanite/suburbanite totally detached from the whole process of animal agriculture today. All you see is the prepackaged meat that is in the aisle. People have built and still build bonds with animals all the time. Before factory farming people used to feel guilt in slaughtering their own animals.

>>16480774
Not shilling for keto but organ meat is so vitamin rich it can make you sick with vitamin toxicity if you eat too much of it and you don't really need fiber if you eat enough fat and moisture otherwise human babies wouldn't be able to grow on an exclusively milk diet.

Vegan totalitarianism when. Can't wait for the meat black markets

>>16480831
Shut the fuck up lmao my great grandma used to slaughter her pigs with an ice pick, you're just an effeminate hippy. Everyone wasnt some noble savage that shed a tear every time they hurt an animal

>>16480831
Because your feelings are based on sentimentality and a feeling of right and wrong rather than logic.

>>16480833
You are talking about vitamin A toxicity, sure. That won't happen with plants. Just eat your carrots. They are still deficient in tons of vitamins and are inflammatory.
And you definitely NEED fiber. They are anti-inflammatory and are essential essential essential for your bowels, heart health, and gut health. Eat your beans.

>>16479893
>Abstract ethics
>Rational
Animals are delicious, and my subsidizing their unfortunate torment does not cause me any direct harm.
To go further, if all people were to become vegan, the species would lose or weaken its ability to subsist on meats, reducing our capacity to survive famines, and great cultural achievements in the form of cuisine would be permanently lost.
I will continue to eat animals and sponsor the development of synthetic, vat-grown animal tissue, switching to it whenever possible. I do this for no particularly rational reason, but because I dislike unnecessary suffering.

>>16480851
rubbish

>>16480851
>t. r/atheism moderator
What human action is 'based on logic' without presupposing some type of telos? You are just assuming rationality = self-preservation/pleasure.

Just remind you that Peter Singer supports zoophilia

Where are my veggie eço-communists at?

>>16480903
You confuse big feelings with big thoughts

If you are not a vegan and a communist you are on the wrong side of history

>>16480931
Answer the question.

>>16480755
Nice response

>>16480903
I don't get what you are asking, you don't need a goal in order to do things.

>>16480908

I mean hey what's worse killing animals or just having sex with them?
I guess the fucked up part is many people would say the latter...

>>16480951
Everyone needs to eat, nobody needs to rape.

>>16480677
It's not about whether animals can feel it towards you, it's about their capacity for suffering. Whether they can engage in some social contract reciprocity shenanigans is irrelevant; the fact they can suffer and you cause them to unjustly suffer is morally wrong full stop

>>16480959

So you'd rather be killed than raped is what you're saying? and rapists should get harsher sentences than murderers?
Somehow I don't think the majority of people would agree with you

>>16480945
go back to r*ddit
>>16480949
Name a human action that is "based on logic" (making not doing the action illogical) and explain what makes it rational/logical.

>>16480972
Yes I unironically would.

>>16479893
Rhetoric isn't going to save you communists from what's coming any more than it saved you from WW2. We're going to kill millions of you for the constant war you've waged against us for a hundred years.

>>16480982

Well all I can say is that my dog tries to rape me and plenty of other things all the time and personally I think it's a lot better than him trying to kill me

>people itt believing in the reason/emotion binary
god this board is so retarded. this board really is just stemtards larping as philosophers. just goes to show autodidactism is a bad meme.

>>16480975
I'm dying of hunger and a see an innocent deer nibbling on a nearby pine tree, I shoot it, butcher it, and survive the winter because I didn't let my knowledge that the deer is a living, thinking, creature with a capacity for pain stop me.

>>16481015
it is sickly

>>16481019
Why is this rational and the alternative irrational? Why isn't it rational to just die? Like I said

>You are just assuming rationality = self-preservation/pleasure

You have presupposed a telos: self-preservation (or something similar) so action that leads to this end is now rational.

>>16481015
Whoah whoah whoah, you thing STEMTARDS are the ones pushing the reason vs. emotion false dichotomy? It literally exists to dismiss analytical types without argument. It's for fairy artists who can't do math to say "well you couldn't possibly understand why my unexamined feelings are more important than the truth because you're an autistic clown" Stemtards are the primary VICTIMS of reason/emotion binary, and if a significant number repeat it it's only because they've grown around the wound.

>>16481042
Dyng for a deer's sake is kind of stupid isn't it?

>>16481015
Why is it that whenever someone goes on a little rant like this they never actually say anything of value themselves. Clearly you have some idea in mind about reason and emotion but you aren't explaining it.

>>16481060
You are just rephrasing what you said like it is a universal truth.
>Dying for a deer's sake is kind of [illogical] isn't it?
Why is it illogical? Because >>16481042
>You have presupposed a telos: self-preservation (or something similar) so action that leads to this end is now rational.

>>16481042
>why isnt it rational to just die
Do vegans expect to convince people like thus

>>16479893
Pescetarianism is the best middle-way. Just like not all humans are the same, so too not all animals are the same. Fish lack metacognitive awareness.
Eating any mammals or birds outside of blacks and fish is bad.

>>16481088
OK let's say I want to shoot it for fun, and don't care if it suffers. What is the logical reason to not shoot it?

>>16481167
You're going to hell and reap more impurities. It's better to shoot black men than it is noble deer.

>>16481211
God supposedly promised Noah's descendants that all animals will live in dread of them, that doesn't sound like a promotion of veganism to me.

>>16481167
Perhaps you confuse me with the OP. I am merely addressing the autists that see a dichotomy between empathy/rationality or emotion/rationality as a means to avoid a confrontation with animal rights (the OP didn't really help in this respect).

To make sure it doesn't seem like I am just avoiding your question: the 'logical reason' would be based on the rights of the animal - the difference is I would be arguing that the animal has rights, not that up holding said rights is rational - that would follow if the rights of the animal was accepted/believed.

>>16481138
>Pescetarianism is the best middle-way.
Many species of fish are overfished though.

>>16481266
>animal rights
El oh el

>>16481266
>the autists that see a dichotomy between empathy/rationality or emotion/rationality as a means to avoid a confrontation
>Look, emotions are relevant to this matter,
>But mine are correct and real and empathic, whereas yours are incorrect and autistic
>No, of course there's no useful way to discuss this, I'm just right and you're just wrong and not agreeing just proves it.

>>16481266
OK, I think I am starting to get what you mean. There is a slight difference between logic and rationality that I'm going to look into.

>>16481380
>But mine are correct and real and empathic, whereas yours are incorrect and autistic
Yours are only autistic because you believe they exist in some nebulas of logic estranged from your self.
>No, of course there's no useful way to discuss this, I'm just right and you're just wrong and not agreeing just proves it
There are plenty of ways to discuss this without screaming "empathy is irrational" or trying to appeal to some tautological argument of 'logic'; keep that for your r/atheism posts. I recommended plenty of work in regards to the vindication of animal rights, though man should need no argument to abstain from the decay of flesh, only savages. >>16480314

as usual the vegans have a sophisticated awareness of what kind of world we live in and carnoids appeal uncritically to sky daddy evolutionary algorithms like the mincing slave caste they are.

mmmm death and violence, eat up faggot, then go bitch about your children getting fucked in the ass by your masters

>>16481580
Vegans put in their earplugs and repeat bogus talking points. I wouldnt matter if I put in effort proving humans evolved as omnivores, legumes are inferior to meat in multiple ways, and how there would be inefficiencies AND new pollution that would be created without animal agriculture because veganism is based on oversocialized white people with an intense craving for getting to the top of the moral crab bucket that is the internet.

>>16481645
>memes and americanized straw men

thanks for proving my point.

>>16480550
>And yes, calorie-for-calorie meat is much more nutritionally dense than any substitute.
>>16481645
>how there would be inefficiencies AND new pollution that would be created without animal agriculture
This is why you can't even make it to ethics with meatcucks.

>>16481679
What will you do with the thousands of tons of undergrown corn, old candy, expired bread, ugly fruit and vegatables, distillers grains, buffet scraps, cottonseed hulls, pressed out basedbean meal, apple cores, and other scraps? How would you fertilize organic crops?

>>16481736
>noooooo but won't someone think of the apple cores

retard

>>16481749
Do you know what blood and bone meal is used for?

>>16481765
dog you think discarded apple cores threaten ecological collapse, kill yourself

>>16481770
HOW DO YOU FERTILIZE ORGANIC CROPS?

>>16481785
an apple core just flew over my house

>>16481801
Jowls are good eating dude

There is absolutely no rational reason not to eat animal products.

>>16481813
good goy, now die for israel

>>16481827
Who is using Americanized strawman? Look to India's poor if you think karma is real or that veganism magically grants immunity to exploitation.

>>16481898
>who is using straw men?
>proceeds to use straw men

>>16481904
What did you mean by
>mmmm death and violence, eat up faggot, then go bitch about your children getting fucked in the ass by your masters
Then?

>>16481924
haven't met a single carnoid in threads like these who wasn't some tryhard hoorah faggot. you're free to buck that trend though

>>16481765
>How would you fertilize organic crops
Pivot from
>inefficiencies AND new pollution
So first, 1/3 of crops are already grown for feed - primarily onions of which 80% goes to animal, the other 20% for oil and human consumption.

As for your second point, 50% of crops are already fertilized with synthetic fertilizer and that number is only going to grow regardless of the existence of animal agriculture.
My first question would be why you have an aversion to synthetic fertilizers as a technological advancement but not current agriculture and CAFOs?

As for organic fertilizer there are different options: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/scimag/?q=10.1002%2Fjpln.200900321

We can maintain animal sanctuaries and utilize their manure (and bones) as fertilizer without commodifying them.

Also for many regions the requirement of fertilizer is not required, in fact, there are issues with over nutrient soils because of fertilizing.

>>16481939
I havent seen anyone come up as not a faggot in these threads either way.

>>16481960
What are the these 30% of crops composed of? How many people do you know that could stomach a bowl of alfalfa, clover, and flint corn silage?

Synthetic fertilizers need petroleum, which is supposedly destroying the planet. Who would pay for animal sanctuaries?

>>16482015
>What are the these 30% of crops composed of?
Various things, including non-edible plant material (that land can be re-appropriated for other crops or as natural reserves) but the most common crop is onions (I believe oats is second?) so mentioned it specifically.

>Synthetic fertilizers need petroleum, which is supposedly destroying the planet.
Are you an idiot? Do I really need to explain this to you or can you do the basic amount of research into the differences between petroleum as it relates to climate change and the petroleum that exists in fertilizer.

>Who would pay for animal sanctuaries
We can start with the yearly 10 billion dollars in subsidies that already goes to animal agriculture in the United States alone.

>>16482091
Beans are no where near the main crop. They are rotated out with corn because legumes fix nitrogen in the soil.

Are you ignoring the massive amount of energy needed to extract petroleum and the fossil fuels vented at oil rigs?

Also the cost of keeping animal sanctuaries would skyrocket if there weren't farmers paying for the infrastructure that keeps the cost of animal feed reasonible.

>>16482150
I know sbeans definitely aren't when it comes to feeding animals because I've never seen a feed that was more than 20% sbean and that would be pushing it.

I feel a bit guilty for eating animals when I see the calf's chasing each other around the paddocks. When you live a sheltered life your idea of cows is just a big beast who stands in a field eating grass all day, which is true later in life but when they're young they're so playful.

I think taking a moderate approach here is good, if you change slowly at least the animal farming corporations can have time to adjust. So having vegetarian food 2-3 times a day to is a better compromise then the extremist view of no animal products at all. All that does is create push back from billion dollar corporations.

That being said I don't even know where to start on a vegetarian diet, and I struggle enough with an animal product diet.

>>16482228
Just like eat more beans and tofu and stuff. More grains like quinoa. Also eat more nuts, seeds, fruits, and veggies. There are a lot of things to eat.
Another easy switch is taking out cow's milk for an alternative like soi.

>>16482228
I'm not a vegetarian but lentils and brown rice are top tier foods, gets you I think almost all of the protein types. There is also a lot of stuff you can do with both in terms of cooking.

It is obviously a lot easier if you'll still consume dairy and eggs, which are incredibly nutritious, but if you want to forgo those as well then you can find things like nuts, beans, etc.

>>16482228
>>16482255
Making your own almond "milk" (its really more of a tea made by soaking crushed almonds in cold water) is better than storebought vegan "milks" if you have the money for it. Making it at home means you can control the sugar added and don't have to worry about additives. You can bake desserts with the leftover almond meal as a bonus but it would probably need eggs as a binder.

>>16482228
Native Americans are the lowest of the low

If it's wrong for animals to die for my pleasure, then shouldn't I commit suicide? Even if I wasn't in an industrialized society, my continued existence denies resources to other animals. Since I wish to continue living, I have to admit I'm willing for creatures to suffer and die so I can continue to enjoy my life. If that is acceptable, why wouldn't I eat meat?

>>16482150
Before we keep going address the first alternative I provided in research paper.

>Beans are no where near the main crop.
I wrote that poorly - onions takes up the most land/resources in terms of animal feed. Corn is the largest percentage of actual feed as it is low nutritional filler - less resource dependent per acre.

>Are you ignoring the massive amount of energy needed to extract petroleum and the fossil fuels vented at oil rigs?
You are actually retarded. Do you know how much petroleum is burned in animal agriculture via transportation of feed and livestock compared to that used in synthetic fertilizer?

>Also the cost of keeping animal sanctuaries would skyrocket if there weren't farmers paying for the infrastructure that keeps the cost of animal feed reasonible.
Lets assume 10-12 billion will be enough (in the United States), in conjunction with the other alternatives, to provide manure. Otherwise, feel free to provide and actually economic estimate of the cost.

>>16482293
You do what you can to minimize your footprint. It's pretty simple.

I read the Singer. I read Michael Huemer. I watched the documentaries. I became vegan for 9 months. My face broke out. I made little progress in the gym. The food tastes a lot worse without meat and cheese, I’ll admit it. And no, I wasn’t eating junk food. I was eating whole natural foods, the only processed things were tofu and peanut butter.

I agree, your consumption is more ethical. But what do you say to someone like me? It visibly made my life worse and I feel better eating meat.

>>16482293
harm mitigation i suppose. I personally think factory farms are evil but killing an animal to eat it is not. Animals die in the wild by predation or disease anyway, hunting or small scale farms I don't think are wrong. It's true that it's strictly not necessary so I can understand moral arguments against it, but I don't think an animal life is really denied most of its inherent meaning by being killed eventually.

>>16482303
>I stopped eating children's livers for 9 months. My face broke out. I made little progress in the gym. The food tastes a lot worse without children's livers, I’ll admit it. And no, I wasn’t eating junk food. I was eating whole natural foods, the only processed things were tofu and peanut butter.

>I agree, your consumption is more ethical. But what do you say to someone like me? It visibly made my life worse and I feel better eating children's livers.

Your anecdote doesn't mean anything, especially considering you aren't providing an actual nutritional breakdown of what you were eating. "Not eating junk food" doesn't mean anything - you could have been undereating, over eating particular foods, etc.

Meat doesn't cure your acne or give you a special steroid not found in plants for your gains. You not being able to cook good food is your own fault. Even still, you can always eat bivalves if you are that pathetic.

>>16482303
I went vegan cold turkey exactly a year ago and have experienced no side-effects, at all. I sympathize with the difficulty of making a change but it's clowns like you who muddy the waters with your inability to feed yourselves.

>>16482295
Sbeans are a rotational crop, they are used between other crops to restore the soil. The same with alfalfa, which people
don't eat except as sprouts. I don't know who told sbeans are resource intensive but I've always heard corn needs more babying.

Have you ever looked closely at an oil rig? Do you actually have the numbers on hand about what the actual costs are?

Most farms grow their own crops nearby and in the case of my local dairy they cut their corn and put it in anaerobic conditions and turn it into silage. There is far less fuel used doing that then say, drying it and shipping it to China. Also one of the "worst" greenhouse gasses is nitrous oxide with is created with the over application of fertilizer, synthetic or not but it is far easier to apply too much of a synthetic fertilizer than it is a natural one.

I doubt 10 billion would cover the hay for the glut of rescue horses.

Fuck come to think of it how would we keep dogs and cats fed?

>>16481280
We need to improve fish farming technologies and ban eating all mammals and birds. Anyone who disagrees should be executed.

>>16482347
>still not addressing the first alternative and research paper
Are you conceding this? If so I guess we have the solution you asked for and we can stop.

>>16482362
Sure, green manure is a time tested way to fertilize fields organically if you can get people to go through with it rather than just apply crap, and if the plant diseases don't spread from it.

Now tell me what I'm going to feed my cat.

>>16480873
>And you definitely NEED fiber.
No you don't idiot. It is literally indigestible. It's is even the definition
>Dietary fiber (British spelling fibre) or roughage is the portion of plant-derived food that cannot be completely broken down by human digestive enzymes.[1]
And I don't care what your crazy vegan propaganda studies say, I feel fucking bloated when I eat plant food. I feel the best when I eat raw animal products (not just meat). So I listen to my body, not to any authority.
And there is nothing wrong with killing animals to eat them. When you want to practice moralfaggotry stop taking away the only healthy food humans have and concentrate on useless animal experiments for the cosmetic and medical industry.

>>16482437
Domestic cat's shouldn't exist. We should stop forcibly breeding them for our own gain, subsequently destroying native ecosystems - cats are the greatest threat to native bird species and other small animals.

If you want the cosmo-vegan answer, unless you are feeding your cat a natural diet, commercial vegan cat food is going to be as shitty as normal commercial vegan cat food. Not like either one is healthy so who cares.

I've always gotten really depressed when I've tried to eat a vegan diet. I'm not sure if it's nutritional or just psychological. The last attempted I lasted a month and a half before I quit eating entirely for a couple of days and gave up.

>>16482468
Oh yeah abolish time tested vermin control and throw sodium fluoroacetate everywhere, like New Zealand is doing to "save" their environment

>>16482473
Maybe your brain needed chloresterol, or iron. I'm curious how many vegans cook with cast iron because that supposedly keeps your iron levels healthy.

>>16482440
>americoid goblin can't even eat fruits and vegetables without feeling bloated

soda ain't vegan retard

>>16482502
Yea, cats are doing a good job 'controlling' the vermin that is near extinction birds. You are right, environmental organizations are wrong about devastating ecological impact of cats just like climate change.

>>16482473
Probably not getting vitamin D. Happened to me on my first two tries. When I started paying more attention to vitamins I didn't get depressed.

>>16482522
I cooked on cast iron often as I made refried beans and stir fry quite a bit. Not sure if that's enough to keep your iron levels up. Not sure about the cholesterol thing though.
>>16482543
Took a multivitamin, vitamin D. Didn't supplement B12 but are lots of foods like nutritional yeast that were fortified with it.

>>16482522
I've never even understood how vegans can be low in iron. It is in many staples: beans, tofu, bread, potatoes, oats and many vegetables. What are these people vegans eating?

>>16482575
Did you not just get a blood test?

>>16482529
I'm not american, basedboy.

>>16479893
Damn Anon that's great but what can you tell us about the book?

>>16482592
>Did you not just get a blood test?
No, I only go to the doctor if I'm sick.

Peter Singer is such a fucking retard and ever since I read his argument about the drowning child I'm convinced he eats his own shit

>>16482602
I don't know if you are American and have some fucked up system but it takes 5 minutes and costs virtually nothing.

I'm irrational.

>>16483600
Checked.

>>16480591
>x lies outside of the domain of one of the human faculties when isolated
Okay

>>16481962
Based

>Animal rights
Refuted by Joseph de Maistre (pbuh), no being that contributes to the harsh conditions of natural state is deserving of my sympathy

>>16481814
/thread.

Shoudnt we have animals for seasons where crops dont do so well especially for the winter?

>>16481765
I use bones to make delicious and nutritious beef stock.

>>16480168
faggot

>>16479893
>all of my ancestors ate meat
>animals have been domesticated and are bred for sole purpose of eating meat
>meat in every supermarket
>i eat meat

Sorry, how exactly is any of this irrational?

>>16484179
>lots of people do it so it's rational

retard

>>16484847
Nice try fascist. Go back to the /pol/

hunting is a foundational element of the male psyche, if you have never killed a beast you are not a man

>>16484866
Wow your entire argument unraveled rather quickly didn't it?

>>16484866
>all of my friends believed in santa claus
>children have believed in santa clause for the sole purpose of getting presents
>santa claus everywhere during christmas time
>i believe in santa claus

Sorry, how exactly is any of this irrational?

>>16484915
It isn't. Hail Santa

>>16479893
i lift

>>16479893
Yes there is, they're the best foods for your health and taste better than anything else

meta question: what is the difference between a moral and immoral person? can all people potentially be talked or reasoned into being moral or are some people biologically incapable of voluntarily taking on moral duties? what if this describes most people? what would it mean for those of us who want to make serious and lasting moral progress?

>>16485176
Nietzsche has something to say about that.

How much lentils do you have to eat to be about the same protein as one chicken breast?

>>16485238
a LOT. Excessive gas as a bonus

>>16484915
Nice false equivalence and strawman, anon!

The truth is, animals are inferior beings and some of them are tasty af.

OP is being a reductionist retard by denouncing the irrationality, and seeking an argument from first principles, of something that is fully justified by certain moral standards and is socially and historically normative.

Sure, you can make the case that it's wrong, immoral, etc., but it's a joke to try and play it off as logically indefensible like some kind of vegan fedora-tipping new-atheist.

For me to be convinced that animals are deserving (or possess) incontrovertible rights, I'd need to be persuaded that animals were in any way moral or empathetic. You will have a hard time doing so, because animals, even domesticated ones, by and large, don't give a flying fuck about you, your feelings, or your rights. Scavengers in particular, like pigs, dogs, etc. will generally eat their owners (whether other food is available or not) should they pass away (or even become comatose/go into a seizure) in front of them. Predators, like cats, would either eat their owners or run away and hunt if they could. At best, herbivorous animals like cows or chickens literally wouldn't give a shit about a human body lying around, except for perhaps feeling a slight unease being near it. Emotional intelligence is a practically singular occurrence in nature, and all other animals, however gifted they are at solving contrived puzzles, however highly socialised they may be, are inherently and profoundly inferior.

This is in no way a justification for animal abuse (which is a testament to an individual's degenerate sadism). But there is a massive gulf between the kind of respectful stewardship that we have over nature that I believe we have won, versus the kind of ecological communist idea that animals have inalienable rights (inalienable in the sense that OP is literally arguing from the logos: it is illogical, irrational, and unjustifiable to eat meat). Total horseshit.

>>16485380
>But there is a massive gulf between the kind of respectful stewardship that we have over nature that I believe we have won

lol. the power of burger brain, folks

>Agricucks
Cringe
>Hunter-Chaderers
Based

>>16485380
With all of that said, I agree completely with the localisation, de-internationalisation, and de-industrialisation of farming, as well as a serious reconsideration of various practices, like the forced rapes inflicted on hormone-doped cows, the mass slaughter of baby chicks by either shredding or suffocation, etc. The industry is rotten... but man has won the right to take the lives of animals for sport or subsidy.

>>16485425
>

>>16485443
>The industry is rotten... but man has won the right to take the lives of animals for sport or subsidy.

that's because you're a nigger brained chimp who only respects power and force

>>16485456
>um excuse me sir its irrational to feel compassion for this infant because they can't reciprocate your feelings

retard

>>16485456
>respectful
>stewardship

you post jaks, I post data. kill yourself

>>16485458
>nigger brained chimp
There is a special kind of irony in the fact that you're using chimp as an insult, given what you believe.
>who only respects power and force
The only point you've made, besides the two insults, and.... it's a misrepresentation... gj, retard.

>>16485467
Do you think hamsters have rights? What about rats? Should we avoid using them to the detriment of medical research, and the betterment of our own lives? Do mosquitoes have rights? What should be the legal consequence of some murderous, power hungry cunt that takes a poor mosquitoes life in to their own hands? Prison? Do bacteria lives matter? Should we ban soap?

>um excuse me sir its irrational to feel compassion for this infant because they can't reciprocate your feelings

It's a little more complicated than that.

>>16485519
I emphasize animal welfare, not rights, because rights is like a pseud bat-signal for all you bug people to come in and play your language games.

I do not kill what I can avoid killing. I will not kill a mosquito if I don't have to. You will, though, and you will call it "stewardship" like the slave of Saklas that you are.

>>16485484
I consider extinction an ecological failure and dereliction of our responsibilities.

>>16485555
We have no responsibility to animals except letting them be. Stop playing god. Wild animals don't need a chaperone.

>>16479979
>depraved, spiritually dead anglo utilitarian retards?
>>16480314
>a longstanding proponent of moral anti-realism
what should "Utilitarianism" have been called so that folksy anons could have understood what it means? I think their idea of it is literally inverted because of the name it has.

>>16482607
huh

>>16485573
>except letting them be
>stop playing god
why and why?

>>16485587
Why not? Do you think the normative force of human societies trumps millions of years of adaptation?

>>16485600
>normative force of human societies
>normative force of millions of years of adaptation
???
where are you getting this? what is a "normative force"? is that like a tractor beam?

>>16485600
Yes, quite successfully; see>>16485484

>>16485547
>I do not kill what I can avoid killing. I will not kill a mosquito if I don't have to. You will, though
Why are you being such a presumption prick, what the fuck is wrong with you? I can't remember the last time I killed anything. I live 3 stories up and just today I spotted a little 2mm-long red velvet mite on kitchen counter, which I dutifully captured, took down stairs, and placed outside. Yesterday, I did the same thing, as I do every time, with an isopod that ended up in my flat somehow, as several of them have over the years. The day before, I happened to notice a jumping spider hanging from the ceiling, which although wouldn't bother me, I took outside as I knew it would thrive better, being predatory. I have worked to convince family members who are terrified of spiders not to kill them, even the giant house spiders we get in Britain. I was even mocked for being overly-sensitive one day at work for insisting on capturing a wasp in a glass and letting it out the window, rather than killing it like the MD was trying to.
You don't know me at all, and you're making wild assumptions to slander and smear your political opponent. Oh, you eat meat? You must like subordinating animals and reveling in their murders like some bloodthirsty sadist then...

>>16485623
>uhh duhh societies do things a lot in a certain way so we should do them all the time and everywhere because we are Lords of Creation

cringe

>>16485637
all humans can do is maim and destroy lol. b-but what about these trees we planted? fucking demonic virus

>>16479893
Tastes good, it's efficient enough, tastes good with the superior vegetable: the potato, and it's frankly a better alternative than eating insects, its also arguably not that morally reprehensible (Excluding factory farming, among others) in my opinion because animals aren't in any way equal to humans, (Bar certain exceptions, but we aren't eating dolphins and monkeys), so yeah still eating some delicious meat, fish tastes like shit.

>>16485649
That's great, why eat meat then? It doesn't jive with your compassion for insects. I take them outside, too, and I feel bad if I accidentally kill them. I ain't crying over a fucking spider, but why snuff the life out of a thing that has no quarrel with me? This thoughtless culture of violence disgusts, and it is very much comorbid with the consumption of torture meat tendies

Does anyone feel it’s sort of hopeless? I try and minimise my meat intake, only have it on special occasions, but in the grand scheme of the billions of animals that are slaughtered and kept in unimaginable conditions, I just feel despair. If I could press a button that would make everyone stop eating meat, I would, but me taking individual action myself just seems so pointless
Being a vegetarian is the ultimate blackpill

>>16485573
Please can you remind the fox of the hare's right to dignity. The poor thing just wants a quiet life in the country and doesn't deserve being terrorised, especially after having lost so many children to criminal foxes.

>>16485651
>all humans can do is maim and destroy
yeah, sort of like how you misinterpreted my post >>16485623

>>16485670
Yeah it would be a good idea for us to genetically modify predators to not need to kill prey to survive (maybe make everything a herbivore). First we have to solve our own problems though obviously.

>>16485670
another cringe reductio ad absurdum. for people who don't give a fuck about animals, you sure look to them as models for your own cruelty

>>16485700
hey eco-nazi (don't mean it in a bad way) reply to me >>16485687 I want to see your reaction to the idea in it

>>16485718
We can modify predators to be herbivores when we stop looking to natural mechanisms to base technological innovations on, ie when we've achieved true mastery and not vulgar, nigger-brained force-based """mastery"""

>>16485651
What moral obligation we have to animals or trees? I don't believe that we should base our morality on suffering, because mortality of all beings makes it obsolete. If Man can stand alone, why he shouldn't do it?

>>16485741
>stop looking to
did you mean "start looking to"?
you seem like such an adorable /pol/tard I want to have comfy sex with you

>>16485745
He doesn't stand alone, he's as much a passenger on this rock as everything else. you acknowledge your brotherhood with all dead and dying things and stop pretending because a thai bistro just opened down the street you've been ontologically extracted from nature and now waft in the perfumed depths of the Pleroma or something. so cringe.

>>16485745
> I don't believe that we should base our morality on suffering, because mortality of all beings makes it obsolete.
care to explain what you mean by this? lmao. it's been a while since I've heard an entirely novel reason for rejecting hedonic consequentialism

>>16485769
/pol/ is a den of spiritlet subhumans

no, stop looking to it. when we can demonstrate our understanding of the millions if not billions of ecological variables we'd have to take into account to remove carnivores from the picture, then we can do it. until then, cucks are going to study butterfly wings for iphones or some gay shit.

>>16485783
i hope you blush all the time and like playing with your butt. loving animals more than humans and saying nigger and getting angry on /lit/ makes you such a cute anon. (sorry I can't help it)

>>16485807
>meat eater is a disgusting faggot

pottery

>>16485667
Vegetarianism, veganism, and attempts to reduce meat-intake for purely rational moral motives has been increasing over the last 150 years, increased a lot in the last 50 years, and is still rising now at a faster rate than ever before. I'm not sure why this is, what underlies it, whether it will keep going or whether it will plateau or reverse in the future, but by trying your best to abstain now you are part of a large and still growing global moral movement. At the very least I think our chances of one day becoming the cultural and moral norm is non-zero.

>>16485651
The proof we aren't demons is simple and is on your very post. You care about the fucking animals even over humans, that's not the attitude of a virus, that's the attitude of a mammal, a retarded one but a mammal nonetheless

>>16485860
>that's the attitude of a mammal, a retarded one but a mammal nonetheless
Yes! Yes! Yes!
>pic related: how I imagine econazi anon

Singer! Hilarious!

The distinction you make between plant life and animal life is completely arbitrary and made up. It only comes from your projection of your human experience, onto the life of the animal. You see yourself in the animal. Once you realize the distinction between plant and animal life is made-up, you can see that life survives off of life and killing life is necessary for organisms to survive. It’s the only way, and you force your ideological morals onto nature because you have to feed this identity you were given calling ‘being a good person’. In reality, the animals are just something you can use to feel superior over others and you made this post in an attempt to control others so that you can feel more secure in your identity :)

>>16485940
>Once you realize the distinction between plant and animal life is made-up
The distinction between sentient and not-sentient is made up? :)

>>16485661
Sorry for delayed response, was just eating food (juicy steak btw).

>why eat meat then?
See >>16485380

The problem I'm seeing with this principled eco-fascism, is that you think you are virtuous for abstaining from eating meat, and that eating mean is morally indefensible precisely because slaughtering animals amounts to murder. You see us as being apart from the earth, rather than a part of it. You would insist that animals have an inalienable right to dignity and freedom, without recognising that rights are *earned* and necessitate some kind of reciprocity. But, as I said, except for perhaps some primates, no other animals on this planet have any regard for your emotional disposition, not do they have any notion of their own dignity or yours. That is, they have no respect for our "rights" and have no respect for the "rights" we endow them with.
You think that it is wrong because in principle killing is wrong, but you completely ignore that we are animals and that animals kill, and that predation is natural and a part of life. When a venus fly trap slowly excretes digestive fluids over it captive, it isn't a sadism... it is eating; when constrictor snakes literally squeeze the life out of their victims, they are securing a meal, not torturing it; when wolves chase at the slowest and sickest, nipping at their heels and wrangling their prey to the ground before tearing into their organs of their still-living prey... they are feeding their family.
It is contradictory and ridiculous to be, at once, against the principle of killing animals and in favour of some "natural order" of things. But, supposing our problem with modern meat-eating is that it is very far from natural. As I said, I by and large agree with you. But, we are too developed, and have such a vast domain, that there is little nature left... there is no way for us to live "naturally". Perhaps the only way a modern human could do so, is by patrolling country roads for roadkill and picking at the offal with their hands... Like I said, there is so little nature around, that there wouldn't be enough to go around, there being so few natural predators, and so little game. And, besides, we have long since developed tools to hunt, so that we don't have to chance upon the scraps of some larger predators, and long since domesticated animals so that we don't have to out hunting for meat. You may see these conveniences as artificial, but the principle of it is the same: an animal dies, an animal eats.

>>16479893
Agreed. You can be an 'animal lover' and at the same time eat animals.

>>16485964
>You think that it is wrong because in principle killing is wrong, but you completely ignore that we are animals and that animals kill, and that predation is natural and a part of life.
econazi anon hasn't admitted that the only rational moral framework for his ideology is some sort of utilitarianism. btw, utilitarianism tends to see animals as vastly more important than humans since animals vastly outnumber humans--it's already close to being an eco-fascist ideology as it is.

>>16485962
yes, as I said it is a projection of your own self-conscious experience, something that animals do not have as they make no distinction between themselves and others. animals do not experience like we experience. i am not saying that eating animals is right or wrong, just that there is no difference between eating animals and eating plants. you are projecting your experience onto the animals, so that you can feed your identity, feel superior to others, and control the actions of others? can you accept that?

>>16485940
>deriving an ought from the is of nature
>le narcissistic moralist meme
>i'm a cheap egoist you must be too

every time.

>>16485964
all of my assumptions proceed from a gnostic devaluation of nature. it's because an animal feeding its family also means the miserable death of another animal that nature is demoniacal in principle. but for all that, humans compound its irrationality by "rationally" optimizing it. most can't be trusted to rule over themselves, miss me with that rulers of nature shit.

i refuse to participate in this cycle of violence any more than i have to.

>>16479893
modern society exists because of concentrated protein intake helps to develop intelligence

>>16486034
then we should be seeing an iq explosion now that people are eating more meat than ever

>>16486010
>just that there is no difference between eating animals and eating plants
animals can suffer and don't want to be hurt. plants can't feel anything, and have no preferences. this isn't projection, these are just facts about animals and plants.
are you still going to say "there's no difference"? it seems like there *is* a difference.

>>16485991
no you can't

>>16486010
>omg what? you are telling me I can't fuck children? you are just trying to be morally superior to me and control me!
you are literally a child

>>16486014
you are the only one deriving an ought, you are saying people should NOT eat meat. i simply explained there is no escape from killing life in order to survive. you cannot accept this so you make up values such as plant life is worth less than animal life so we should eat plants and not animals. why do you think you have accepted this thing? it’s because you have to be able to tell yourself that you are a good person and to do this you have to make up something. animal life is worth more than plant life is the belief you have accepted to help feed your identity. but if it isn’t this belief, it would be something else. now let me hear you tell me that you are a better person than me because your beliefs are superior to mine. i doubt you or any of the vegetarians in this thread are religious, but i wonder if any of you guys notice the similarity. these beliefs came from religion, they aren’t anything new. of course the rational will always change for why you accept the diet, at first it’s the “soul” now its “sentience”, but past the facade it’s exactly the same:)

>>16486044
I'm pretty sure you are still unwillingly ending life, so it's still murder, you could even equate murdering many plants to murdering a braindead perpetually comatose adult.

>>16479893
By eating meat I am putting an animal out of its misery in the factory farm. Capitalism and factory farming is absolutely fucked but other than me feeling better about something (I went vegetarian for three years and then after returning abstained from beef or pork for quite a while afterwards until recently) it doesn't change it. Animals were still being slaughtered for their meat. I just felt better by not partaking, but still I ate dairy and all that. So, what did I stop? Nothing. What would I have stopped not using that stuff at all? Nothing. It was fruitless. I'm also allergic to soi so alternatives to these things are very few for me, which also added a bit of mental shittiness.

I don't know. If I were a factory farmed pig I'd rather be killed than live in the only conditions I've known. It's shitty.

>>16486081
>I'm pretty sure you are still unwillingly ending life
do you mean, by killing plants? nope, I'm not.
>you could even equate murdering many plants to murdering a braindead perpetually comatose adult
yeah, those "people" are called vegetated for a reason. it might be illegal to kill them, but there's no logical reason why killing a human "vegetable" is worse than killing a plant vegetable.
any other arguments? I want to see you try to use relativism.

>>16486071
the only reason you want to control the actions of other people is to feed the identity you were given about who you are. without that identity you are lost. if i saw somebody taking advantage of a child, i would feel inclined to stop them. am i going to use the idea of child rape to feel morally superior to others in a 4chan thread? not a chance!

>>16486044
Life is programmed to survive, and nothing more. What you call pain is a human experience that you PROJECT onto the life of the animal for your own reasons. You ASSUME that animals which are not self-conscious have the same experiences that you do when they do not. Animals are only “worth more” than plants in your head and nowhere else. You cannot accept this because you, unlike animals, have an identity that has to be fed. Why don’t omnivore animals face this dilemma that you have created? Because they haven’t been brainwashed. It’s as simple as that. They are concerned with survival. You, and me, and everyone else is concerned with our identity primarily.

>>16486077
are you the guy calling me a twink and shit? i was hoping for something more substantive than "you're just trying to feel s-superior!"

no, my ought is self-standing, I derive it from myself, not from daddy nature or daddy evolution or daddy capitalist teleology

>i doubt you or any of the vegetarians in this thread are religious

i just told you i'm proceeding from a gnostic devaluation of nature you utter cretin

>>16486086
>factory farms release animals from the misery they breed them in, therefore factory farms are good

the fuck even is this shit anymore

>>16486135
>it is my god-given right to dictate the lives of billions of miserable animals
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO NOOO

shut the fuck up

>>16486136
>no, my ought is self-standing, I derive it from myself
Your beliefs, just like everyone else’s, were given to you. Derive it from myself? Is that a joke? If you were born 200 years ago, you would believe something else about animals because you would have been fed different ideas. And all moral beliefs are about superiority. You need to tell yourself you are different and better than others, everyone does it. Nothing to be ashamed about. Even the religious idea of telling yourself you are inferior to others comes from the same idea.

>>16486173
no, there were people who abstained from animal products in the past. and your beliefs about the moral status of animals were also given (by the meat industry).

>>16485772
>stop pretending because a thai bistro just opened down the street you've been ontologically extracted from nature and now waft in the perfumed depths of the Pleroma or something
Yes, quite cringe
> you acknowledge your brotherhood with all dead and dying things
Why would I?
>>16486195
>no, there were people who abstained from animal products in the past.
And there were people who didn't and would be really happy to be able to have chicken on the dinner every day, long before any kind of industry.

>>16486240
Why wouldn't you? Are you too cool to recognize your kinship with the dead and dying? Are you one of those niggers whose too cool to say "thank you" when you hold the door for them because he thinks he's above the niceties of social contact?

>>16486135
>You ASSUME that animals which are not self-conscious have the same experiences that you do when they do not.
you realize you're expressing a fringe pseudo-scientific view, right? there's a consensus that even "not self-conscious" animals (not 100% sure what you mean though) can still experience pain, fear, and pleasure in the same way as us.
>They are concerned with survival. You, and me, and everyone else is concerned with our identity primarily.
so, let's see, among other things your argument here can also be "used" to refute mathematics, since only human mathematicians do mathematics whereas other animals aren't aware of it. but did you consider that, maybe, humans are aware of things that non-human animals aren't aware of?
>Why don’t omnivore animals face this dilemma that you have created?
you might have also used human cannibals in your example, btw (though it still would have been wrong).
but you're aware of how the pseudo-argument you're trying to use will also work against just about everything, including religion, science, aesthetics, etc.. you cool with that bro? just checking.

>>16486258
I am alive and living. They are not. Do all dead things recognize kinship with me? I don't think so. But we might be arguing about semantics. I do recognize my own mortality and mortality of others, I would never use words like kinship or brotherhood to describe it, because you need to really overextend definition of these words, essentially removing original meaning.

>>16486136
I am aware how stupid it is but it's my pic related.

>>16486345
I keep the dead in my thoughts so the meat grinder of history doesn't turn them into bone meal to feed the factory engines of the archons. well, that's already happened, but at least by keeping in mind their suffering (which I cannot trivialize, and people who do are sociopaths and deserve death), I'm not so hoodwinked by the spectacle and the gravity of living a "normal" life. that's a lie and an illusion. you know society is a bull of phalaris right? and animals, plants, are the most invisible and passive of its sufferers.

>>16486382
Only thing I like about gnosticism is the idea that everhungry God of Reality used mankind to BTFO uncaring and unfeeling Gods of Philosophers

>>16486115
Plants aren't alive? Plants can't consent to be killed and killing is ending a things life, and assuming you did tell me comatose
vegetables and plants aren't alive you are equating them to a rock or the furniture you are most certainly sitting on, if that is so, then you are wrong.

>>16486411
only the vulgar mass of mankind. and the pleroma is not the God of the philosophers, you're wrong on this point.

the elect will be rescued from this Sewer, while the flesh-eating flesh will expire with their slave god. or if there's no pleroma, at least I'll go down scratching and never give into my boomer soul

>>16486472
>and assuming you did tell me comatose
vegetables and plants aren't alive
what? they are alive.
>Plants can't consent to be killed
Snowmen can't consent to be melted, either.
>and killing is ending a things life
Whenever you wipe your eyes you're killing thousands of cells, too. There isn't anything wrong with "ending life" in that case, because nothing is being harmed.
You seem to have trouble making a distinction between "alive" and "sentient", as well as between "kill" and "murder".

>>16486501
>pleroma is not the God of the philosophers
Then why no one else cares about it? What's up with all these hylic demiurge worshipers? Why they don't care about pleroma? Living and existing is inherently vulgar. Generally, this entire philosophy seems like cope from bullied nerds.

>>16486564
ugh, meant to quote the first two lines.
>>and assuming you did tell me comatose
>>vegetables and plants aren't alive

>>16486574
>this entire philosophy seems like [american teen movie trope]

it's all so excruciatingly tiresome

>>16486592
bitter, proud intellectuals, dissatisfied with lack of pleasures they can easily imagine and no way to get them. Also believing they would be able to make better world, if someone put them in charge of Creation or even not make it at all.
Better?

>>16486645
nah, study the traditions on a real level instead of resorting to voegelin's JRPG-tier stereotypes of gnosticism

>>16486564
I doubt an animal or at least the ones we eat is sentient, not how I define it at least. An animal doesn't have a conscience, I doubt it even has a concept of self or even the capability to plan moderately far ahead, thus not really sentient, but if by sentient you mean feeling pain or fear, eating fish, killing rodents(and also killing bugs if you by the former path of reasoning) is completely and utterly immoral and thus should be murder, which though morally consistent would entail problems to this theoretical vegan society.

>>16486676
Okay, I might do it

>>16479893
I want to eat humans instead

>>16486014
>all of my assumptions proceed from a gnostic devaluation of nature
Pls unpack that for me, anon.
>it's because an animal feeding its family also means the miserable death of another animal that nature is demoniacal in principle.
You're ascribing value to suffering... nature does what it wants and cares not one bit for your ethical principles. Who are you to weigh the suffering of one thing over another? And you're refusing to see the inherent good and necessity in it: the animals feeding live and thrive, and they do so in a kind of harmony with their prey. When the weather is good and the grass is flourishing, elk follow in abundance and wolves eat well: as the elk diminish, so do the wolves. The symbiosis runs so deep elk have inherited a rote behaviour by which they dupe and confuse, affecting a proud gallop and loud calls for the wolves who're looking for the weakest. This process going back hundreds of millions of years, is the very process that bore us. You take away the wolf, and you take away a part of the elk. In complete security, over long stretches of time, the elk will become nothing more than lumbering, chewing, breeding machines. That is, if they will be allowed to have sex by your principles? Animals know nothing of consent, and *must* breed by some unadulterated necessity, by right and dominance.
>but for all that, humans compound its irrationality by "rationally" optimizing it. most can't be trusted to rule over themselves, miss me with that rulers of nature shit
The natural world is not "irrational" and nothing you said came close to justifying such a spurious, ridiculous statement. I think the problem here is that YOU can't rationalise something that even monged-out potheads watching nature documentaries can: nature is at once brutal and beautiful.
I don't know what you mean by '"rationally" optimizing it'. Many thousands of years ago, we developed tools to kill our predators and hunt our prey instead of scavenging for rotting leftovers. Technological progress is in some way lamentable, but I don't see how this is an argument against eating meat. If anything, it stands to our credit: name any predator, literally any, that preys on large animals and which kills them as humanely, and consciously, as humans do. Any documentary will show you that animals don't care one iota for morality, dignity, or rights: crocodiles latch on to prey and drag them in to shallow waters to suffocate, killer whales bludgeon penguins to death, hyenas, coyotes, even lions some times, will often tear into the guts of live prey, and always prey on the oldest and weakest. Seems to me you have an idealistic view of nature whereby the most ecologically compassionate thing you can to is to destroy nature itself, ending all suffering therein. Real cartoon villain kind of motives right there.
>i refuse to participate in this cycle of violence any more than i have to
That would be fine, if you weren't such a moralising fascist about it.

>>16486676
No, wait "real level", huh? Nice try hylic.

>>16486750
>An animal doesn't have a conscience
why would this have anything to do with feeling pain, or pleasure, or fear? do you really deny that e.g. rodents can have these experiences? again, there's a scientific consensus that they do based on the fact that there isn't any neurological difference between how humans process these forms and stimuli and how animals process them.
>>16486750
>not really sentient, but if by sentient you mean feeling pain or fear
that's what it does mean. outside of philosophy, some people misuse it to mean 'sapient' though, which is something else
>would entail problems to this theoretical vegan society.
okay. I'm not sure what is implied here, but I'll take it if you're willing to concede that there's a difference between hurting a plant and hurting an animal: a plant doesn't have any preferences and cannot suffer, but an animal does and can suffer.

>>16481785
Actual agronomist coming through:
Agriculture is FINE without animal farming, in fact, manure and other subproducts are often a source of polution, not a sought after resource.
How you fertilize organic crops?
>Green manure
>Planting trees so they absorb nutrients from deeper layers and shed organic matter on top soil
>Using fungus and other bacteria that make nutrients bio available and capture nitorgen from the atmosphere
Don't be fucking stupid, animals actually STRAIN the whole agricultural system.
Now is it wrong to eat animals? No
The real sin here is the fact that there are too many fucking humans on the planet, easy as.

>>16480427
The convenience is that a small dose of meat has as much nutritional value as a large dose of vegetables.

>If anything it's detrimental to your health.
Processed food is bad for your health.

>mom blogs
>animal industry funded studies
How about Harvard Medical school: https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/red-meat-avoid-the-processed-stuff

>>16482282
Almond milk is an environmental disaster. Gallon per gallon, almond milk takes 20 times more water than dairy and the overwhelming majority of almonds are being grown in California which is being sucked dry and turned into a wasteland.

>>16486938
>Now is it wrong to eat animals? No
huh, never heard agronomists studied ethics.

>>16487194
>Being such a weasel that you need to dig up something from 2010
Me using the same site but grabbing something recent:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-beef-with-red-meat

Red meat is awful for you. Also the thing you linked stated saturated fat is neutral LMAO it is universally recognized as being a detriment to heart health.
>>16487231
Almond milk uses a lot of water but it is certainly not as awful as dairy. Plant based wins at everything.

>>16487372
Comparing water usage is pointless because cattle drink usually drink well water and plants get it from rain or surface water. The plus side to plants is they could be given shittier water and survive it.

>>16487372
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-about-fats-bad-and-good
>For that reason, most nutrition experts recommend limiting saturated fat to under 10% of calories a day.
Doesn't seem that dangerous.

The fact that pastoralists (Mongolians, Tibetans, Massai) have great health despite having animal-protein-based diets suggest that it is the industrial proccesses we have but they don't that make our food less healthy.

>>16487372
>Dairy Milk
Truly white man's drink. Not only only he can drink it, it also helps combat overpopulation by diverting resources from niggers. Based Milk.

>>16482282
>>16487231
>>16487372
>>16487415
The thing about almonds is that they are grown almost exclusivelly in a place where water is scarce and becomming scarcer every year. There isn't anywhere near enough rainfall in California to support the extensive almond production.

>>16487452
There are whole black peoples with cattle-based diets: Massai, Nuer, Himba.

>>16487449
None of those people have great health where did you get that bullshit from?

>Cutting out meat and eating a whole food plant based diet would be great for everyone's health, the environment, and the animals that are currently experiencing a holocaust
Not sure what everyone's problem is. There really are no arguments for not cutting out meat. It would be a net positive for basically everything. It has been shown that plant based diet are not only possible to live on and get all your nutrients but just plain better as well. What is ridiculous as well is when carnists try to point out third worlders and tribal people with worse health than everyone that eat more meat as an example to eat more meat. Like what? This is the greatest example of ideology.

>>16487484
Yes, I remember the map, good for them,. But they are exception, and produce food in a way that isn't very efficient. Maybe if Massai lifestyle was more common, Bill Gates wouldn't need to send so much condoms there.
>>16487541
Remember the six gorillion.

>>16480314
Based and moralpilled

>>16487498
They have low rates for cancer and cardiovascular disease, despite having animal-protein-based diets, very high in fat. This sugggests that higher rates for those diseases in western societies are related to things westerns have that those peoples don't (our food proccessing techniques and over-eating).

>>16479893
>>There is absolutely no rational reason to eat animal products if you live in a modern society.

They tasty tho

>>16487611
No they don't. All those people also have shit health compared to Western countries. Maybe instead of coping and looking at what third worlders and tribal people with shit health are eating you should instead pay attention to proven best diet which is a whole food plant based diet.

I read Animal Liberation a couple of years ago and it still makes me feel sad. I can't forget it.

>>16487677
Watch Earthlings, Lucent, and Dominion.

I have no interest in malnutrition for me or my children and non-meat eaters are pathetic in terms of will to power, body and mind.
People who do it long-term always sets off my "get away from this disease carrier" instincts after some moderate socializing, particularly the ones who talk about how healthy it is while they look like absolute shit.
I don't know what's wrong with them but I trust myself enough to know something is.

>>16485579
>t. utilitarian psychopath

>>16487698
>will to power

another nietzchelet that reproduced larping as the Blonde Beast because he orders extra bacon. full-body, epileptic cringe.

>>16487707
Not even nietzchean term-aside, just referring to having something akin to an ambition beyond incalculated anthropomorphic projection on animals and pacifistic idolatry as the height of human achievement.
I wish we could just pack all these people on a plane and send them to live in China for a couple of years to get them to live around reality for a bit. Even casual animal cruelty aside, if these people had to live in a place where they'd get to see human roadkill every couple of weeks it'd do them some good towards becoming full humans.

>>16487764
Yeah, anthropomorphic projection, we're just babies and you're an Adult (tm). It couldn't be that abstaining from animal products is a reaction to the cruelty of nature, no it's just a denial of it, right? Because Adults like you with Real Jobs and Bills To Pay have no illusions about anything, that's why you passively condone violence, reproduce, and then bitch about your masters eating your young. Cretin

>>16487784
>cruelty of nature
There's nothing particularly cruel about it.
Animals and humans go through most of the same shit, except one has a few sickening individuals who live vicariously through the other in order to avoid being decent to other of it's kind.

>>16487821
You can be kind to both animals and human beings. You sound like a spiritlet so that's why you submit empathy to this normoid utilitarian calculus. Fuck your cringe bleating about muh human beings. All that god-given intellect and you still eat, shit, fuck, and die like the rest.

>>16487837
>You can be kind to both animals and human beings.
And yet not one of your kind has ever managed it.
Rosseau talked about length of your type.
>submit empathy
Soccermom spirituality places a huge emphasis on mindless empathy. Thankfully real religion tend to balk at idolatry of animals since it's just a stand-in for whatever shit you project on them in the end.
>All that god-given intellect and you still eat, shit, fuck, and die like the rest.
Yeah, just like animals. Thankfully animals have not yet degenerated to the point where they live vicariously through humans in order to avoid dealing with animals.

>>16487866
Dudebro philosophy and its penchant for linking empathy with the refusal of some adult responsibility or obligation to Real Human Beans is just as trite and sterile, I hope you know.

You have no concept of mature compassion and empathy because you are a spiritual child.

Real religion lol. Like Mani, Buddhism, the Jains, Orphics, and Pythagoreans and Cathars you utter goon?

>>16487866
>Rosseau
>"One of the proofs that the taste of flesh is not natural to man is the indifference which children exhibit for that sort of meat, and the preference they all give to vegetable foods, such as porridge, pastry, fruits, etc. It is of the last importance not to denaturalise them of this primitive taste (de ne pas dénaturer ce goût primitif), and not to render them carnivorous, if not for health reasons, at least for the sake of their character. For, however the experience may be explained, it is certain that great eaters of flesh are, in general, more cruel and ferocious than other men. This observation is true of all places and of all times."

>>16487900
bro no offense but >>16487866 just btfo'd you into next year

To what degree do you guys think the issue of how we treat animals is a problem of scale? The ridiculous overpopulation of humans at the top of the food chain is what is forcing us to develop increasingly efficient and vulgar ways of producing meat with factory farming.

Would the ethical issue of how we treat animals subside if humans were a more appropriate percentage of life on earth? Other predators can't exist in populations too large for their natural food sources, but we have found a way to cheat at it.

These ideas are not very well developed but that's kind of where my mind goes when reading about this stuff. If there's any related material that you would recommend for me to read I would appreciate suggestions.

>>16487900
Not quoted but
>Real religion lol. Like Mani, Buddhism, the Jains, Orphics, and Pythagoreans and Cathars
Memes and buddhism where meat eating has tons of exceptions.
>>16487912
True. Hitler was unironically such a radiant kindly soul bless his heart.

>>16487934
it would subside if everyone stopped eating meat

>>16487955
>nooo these religions don't qualify because I said so

cretinous slime

>tfw everyone stops eating meat and we start killing nigs again to get more prime soil to grow grains on
Would be worth it so long as we sequester all the ideological vegans off on an island somewhere.

Bambi vs The Lion King
The Thread

What is it with vegans and being hostile to the point of retardation?
I mean even /pol/fags can put forward their case for racial holy war without pure bile oozing out of every letter they type.

>>16487955
>quotes Rousseau because he thinks he agrees with him
you should read your philosopher daddies more thoroughly anon

>>16487986
Noooooo you can't get mad on the internet about the demon tier horror we inflict on animals. You sound like one of those faggots who gets triggered by Ted K using violence to fight his oppressors, but condones violence so long as its a drone strike ordered by some cunt in Washington. Lick the boot faggot, it's leather.

>>16487986
This.
Any guilt felt over meat-eating can be cured in 2 minutes interacting with a vegan.

>>16488009
Ted K unironically pegged animal rights activists as oversocialized and driven by feelings of inferiority in his essay anon.

>>16487956
I feel like that is at best an equally impractical solution that accomplishes less.

>>16488023
I'm not an animal rights activist, universal compassion is not the sole province of your really tired, really tedious leftist stereotypes.

>>16488009
>Lick the boot faggot, it's leather.
Even in your insults you yourself as a leftist.

>>16488039
>I'm not an animal rights activist
Sure you aren't.
That's why your thread is arguing based on the original utilitarian animal rights activist Singer like the disingeneous faggot that you are.

>>16488039
Different guy here, but how far does your "universal compassion" extend?

A lot of these ideas about being compassionate to all living things have a cut-off point somewhere or other for the sake of practicality if nothing else. I'm curious about your take on that.

To be clear I'm not trying to go down the road of saying that because someone is willing to kill bacteria there's no reason not to kill large animals.

>>16488068
Never mentioned Singer once. I didn't post this thread. My views derive from my studies in philosophy. Is it possible for you to communicate without memes? Is it?

>>16488080
My cut off point is young plants and animal products, bees included, anything else I'll eat but not with relish. Once I get out of this shit pit and move to another country I'll transition to fruitarian, or at least try.

>>16488096
Is there an underlying reason why you have that as a cutoff point, or is it merely intuition?

I but hope some retarded third college vegans try this and get fucked by all the rats that will fuck shit up for any farm that doesn't kill them.

>>16488099
Plants don't scream, but they are also living things. I notice Instagram vegans are as glib about their "inner life" as carnoids are about the suffering of animals themselves. I always say a prayer over my food and visualize what it took to get to my plate. I respect plants as noble beings. They don't bother anyone but we do everything to them, and then some. Tolkien had a very mature view about it. If I could do without eating plants, I'd do so in a heartbeat.

Basically intuition.

>>16488119
Do feel anything about eating rocks e.g. salt?

>>16488122
There is no such thing as ethical consumption, whether I kill a plant or a pig to feed my body I am killing either way. Even rocks have an integrality that I am dissolving for my own benefit. So I refuse to impose myself on beings with nerves like my own. And I regret having to impose myself on the rest.

>>16488119
>and visualize what it took to get to my plate.
That's cute.
Now go out and actually get your meal for yourself you faggy armchair schizoid.

>>16488096
>Once I
Mein sides.
Can't even get off his ass and act now.

>>16488144
You first.

>>16488150
Is this supposed to sting? I already made a step you can't make.

Gnosticism is the faggiest thing to come out of Christianity since the French Revolution and I applaud every single Catholic who put those anti-natalist shitheels to the sword.

>>16488173
>gnosticism originated with christianity

No one cares about your unread pseud opinion.

>>16488119
Let's pretend that you actually care about plants ( you don't) and that you are being honest (you are not). About 40% of the plants we grow goes to feed the BILLIONS of livestock. So guess what. If we abolish animal culture less plants have to die as well. Isn't that great anon? :)

>>16488194
I'm in support of this.

>>16488179
>i-it's not yet another breakaway from christianity at all! my self-denial asceticism and inversion of jewish & christian sectarian beliefs that spawned out of christian groupings is totally original you guys!
>my reading of perennialists who were raised in extremely christian societies unlike any still existant is totally unrelated to christian beliefs
Doesn't get more tiresome than your lot.

>>16488173
Based

>>16488217
I know for a fact I've read more on the topic than you, judging by your midwit belief that not only there's a scholarly consensus on the origin of gnosticism, but that it didn't have its antecedents in Alexandrian philosophy or even Orphic myth (see the infant Dionysus being devoured by the Titans vs. the Manichaean creation myth).

>>16488212
yeah mb didn't read the thread thought you were one of those carnists that jokingly say they only eat animals because they care about plants.

>>16488239
I was confused why you posted that, too. It's all good.

>>16488233
>I've read more
Telling that you think this is in your favor.
Feel free to hold up your extensive gender studies dives while you're at it.

>>16488268
Yeah it is when it comes to actually knowing what the fuck I'm talking about. G-gender studies! Gnosticism! Leftists! Anti-natalism! Cultural Marxism! Life denial!

get some thoughts I can't train an algorithm to predict

>>16488284
>Gnosticism isn't about life-denial and anti-natalism at all!
>he says in a thread where he's already whined about humanity, humans not upholding animals to the same level as humans, human population growth, how shitty the world is and how he wants to be "rescued from this Sewer".
You're a walking stereotype.
All you could add to it is assmad over a christian upbringing and endless sperging out over Guenon, Schuon and Sufi mysticism.

>>16488322
The Mandaeans are the last gnostic surviving gnostic sect and they are pro-natalist, as were the Cathars iirc. Gnosticism isn't a homogenous "tradition" but you'd know that if you weren't a shit-talking pseud

>>16488284
Its pretty funny that Cathar and Puritan mean roughly the same thing and that our miserable modern university culture was shat out of the Ivy Legaue Schools that the Puritans founded before they were replaced by European immigrants.

>>16488373
>puritan mean the same thing
lol the views on women alone would disqualify that.

>>16488373
What? Leftist university culture is in continuity with gnostic tradition? Is that what you're saying?

>>16488353
>The Mandaeans are the last gnostic surviving gnostic sect
Reminder that this non-Christian religion calls itself the Nazarenes, it's religious leaders Rabbis, it's place of worship the Tabernacle and has a syncretic adoration of Biblical figures.
And the Cathars were anti-natalist according to primary sources.
>inb4 Catholic sources aren't primary despite every other allegation they've ever made against a group having turned out true right down to the sacrifical basins

>>16488392
>>16488402
Cathari means "pure ones"

>>16488433
So? Do you think leftism today is in continuity with gnostic thought?

I advocate for a pseduo-veganism where you reject any sort of store brand bought meat and only consume meat through hunting and fishing.

Savitri Deva - The Impeachment of Man

>>16488421
>no bro they were actually Jews even if "manda" literally means knowledge

>>16488444
It crosses a lot of the same wires but I believe it more bad tendacies that keep popping back up rather than a unbroken line of organizations.

>>16488468
lol modern leftism has nothing to do with Gnosticism. Voegelin was a fucking mistake.

>>16488444
Gnosticism believes in an afterlife.
“Leftism” is about freedom in this material world. An antithesis to religion in some ways

>>16488023
Ted K isn't a animal rights activist but I'm sure he is definitely not for farm factory assembly lines full of pigs that are constantly pumped full of female hormones to get nice and fat.

>>16488453
>calls themselves Nazarenes, use jewish and christian terms for their objects of faith and adore biblical figures
>but the religion is named "knowledge" which means none of that matters
Cope harder.
It's syncretistic jewish-christian inspired.
Same as the shit gypsies believe about being an elect allowed to steal by Christ.

>>16488475
>Butterfly thinks he's "free", even though about half his life is over as he continues to waste time to spread pseudo-intellectual narcissistic drivel all over /lit/

>>16488476
I'm pretty sure he isn't the type to give a damn beyond it's effect on humans.
He actually theorized that his brief sympathy for caged animals came down to projecting his own terrified hospital stay on them.

>>16488479
>they aren't what they self-identity as bro, let me tell you why

yawn cringe seethe cope dilate.

>>16488501
Except they self-identify as "Nazarenes", use jewish terminology, claim they originate from Jerusalem around the time of Christ and call John the Baptist their chief prophet.
Nothing to do with Christianity though nooo.

>>16488473
Would the Cathars have been opposed to veganism, women's lib, and zero population growth?

>>16488495
>I'm pretty sure he isn't the type to give a damn beyond it's effect on humans.
The fact over 90% of Americans are consuming estrogen filled pig meat is cause to attention alone.

>>16488536
I dont know, would they? I don't go around projecting America's faggot culture war on dead religions.

>>16488529
A Christian sect that rejects Christ. Now I've heard everything.

>>16488536
No, they were pretty onboard with all of that.
Of course our resident vegan faux-gnostic is aware of how cringe leftism is but adheres to all it's philosophical beliefs.

>>16488541
>A Christian sect that rejects Christ. Now I've heard everything.
Sounds like every single Christian breakoff, from Mormons to Marxists.

>>16488542
>it was the joos I mean cathars

Lmfao. You don't know the first thing about gnostic beliefs.

>>16488548
There was no orthodox Christianity to break off from you fucking retard

>>16488556
You going to pretend the Cathars weren't:
Opposed to eating meat.
Prone to placing women in positions of power.
Strongly against reproduction.

How much meat abstinence does it take to become such a disingeneous faggot I wonder?
Does the spine fall out after the first year?

>>16488581
Hitler was opposed to eating meat, Hitler was a neo-cathars and proto-cultural marxist lol

>>16488568
Sure Christian groups weren't around from before Christ's crucifiction much less a hundred years after it when they claim to have been in Jerusalem.
Nazarene is incidentally also the oldest term used for Christians, naming themselves after Christ's birthplace.

>>16488609
Hitler ate meat until 1942 incidentally when he started being less stable and lost himself the war.

>>16488629
>Cathars rejected the world but uh they're also the seedbed for immanentized cultural Marxism bro
>bro veganism lost Hitler the war bro

lol

>>16488652
Literally no one but you mentioned "cultural marxism" like a deflective faggot.
But yes, Hitler's instability helped lose him the war and i'd consider his veganism a sign of his loss of good judgement up there with letting Bormann organize his staff affairs.

>>16488671
I don't really care about your WW2 fan fiction

>>16488681
Of course you don't. That's why you started focusing on WW2 the second your Cathar lies were called out.
Now go over to leftypol to sperg out about the evil meat-eaters and how they dared to call your precious gnostics another trite christian offshoot among many.

>>16488556
Do you lack reading comprehension? >>16488468

Extinctionism is the most logical utilitarian position.

As long as animals are allowed to breed they will perpetuate the cylce of suffering.

Sterelizing all animals, specially the wild ones which are being the scope of animal welfare systems we design, is the most utilitarian course of action.

>>16488851
*beyond the scope