/lit/ - Literature

I think it is, and I think it's actually backed up by sociological studies.

Now, you can be kind to animals and STILL be cruel to people, but I don't think the reverse is true.

>>4593594
It's subjective.

The only real rule in life I can see as being objective is, don't do things to anything you wouldn't want done to you.

That doesn't mean I live by that, it just means I acknowledge it.

>>4593611
>Now, you can be kind to animals and STILL be cruel to people

This is indeed true. In fact, Hitler had a fairly deep love of animals. There's the rather infamous story of him being shown a film of animals being killed, which he reacted to by covering his eyes and asking to be told when it was over. Strange, right?

>>4593617

Only if you believe in the Holocaust, really.

>>4593617
What are you getting at

>>4593621
Not at all. What part of the holocaust needs to be true for what he says to be true? Or are you trying to make a joke?

>>4593594
>>4593611
>>4593617
Mannnn. There is a shitstorm a brewin.

>>4593621
>>4593623
Fuck off, /pol/

>>4593618
>That doesn't mean I live by that

If it's a rule in life that you can see as being objective, why wouldn't you live by it? Wouldn't that make you...objectively stupid?

Just what metaphysical law determines the validity of this claim?

>>4593637
the law of non-contradiction, peon.

Sometimes animals are tools for humanity and can't be pet and fed treats and what have you. Hunting dogs get gored by prey. War horses were skewered with pikes. Livestock are slaughtered and eaten. Pests are exterminated. Stray cats are euthanized. None of these acts are compassionate but they aren't needlessly cruel. It's just the reality of the situation.

I guess this kinda comes down to your definition of compassion. Is compassion something that you have to actively pursue? Is it simply a lack of cruelty?

Aww, I love Schopenhauer. He's the only one who truly gets me. :)

>>4593617

This is a guy that actually genuinely believes that Hitler was a comic book super villain.

>>4593643
You misunderstand. What proof is there that a man's "character" is reflected by his treatment of animals? What is "character"? This is just like "The Essence of Spirit is Freedom"

>>4593634
No it just makes me a hypocrite. Do you know how hard it is to not be a hypocrite or to live your life by the golden rule? it's fucking hard.

>>4593651
I agree with this. I go out of my way to be nice to animals when I encounter them, but I'd still eat one, for example. I think needless and deliberate cruelty to animals is what's being referenced here. I think there's a difference between using an animal as a food source and going out of your way to beat it for fun.

Posting this topic as a quote from a famous philosopher is unwise. It makes me want to analyze the valid psychological aspect of this claim where it clearly has none, in a field that is already so hard to quantify. This is all just a matter of behavioral opinion.

>>4593657
What I think he's getting at is most would assume, someone allowing millions of human beings to be killed, wouldn't care about animals being killed either.

That's not to say it's true, that's just what you would assume.

>>4593664
What do you want me to conduct an experiment?

>>4593657
The story about him being turned off to the sight of animals being killed is true. He was an avid animal lover. In fact, he believed that hunting was one of "the last remnants of feudal society." That's a direct quote. He also banned animal testing in Germany, and in 1933 he signed the world's most comprehensive animal rights legislation. It's supposed to stand in stark contrast of the fact that he oversaw the deaths of millions of human beings with no real trepidation.

If you can't understand this, or handle it, kindly fuck off back to /pol/.

>>4593689
this.

>>4593617
nice, did you read that on cracked?

>>4593594
Some factory farming can be considered cruel to animals. I wouldn't think people who worked there to be universally bad.

Kids kill animals all the time, and we don't tend to think of them as bad people because of it.

>>4593810
Torturing animals during childhood is actually a characteristic of many budding serial killers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

>>4593689

It's kind of funny considering PETA's controversial 'Holocaust On Your Plate' campaign, wherein the slaughter of factory farmed animals is compared to images of concentration camp detainees.
People did not react well.

>>4593810

Kids kill or hurt animals out of ignorance, and as a means of exploring how it makes them feel and what consequences it has. It's the same reason kids do all kinds of shitty things, everything's new to them and they have to figure out how it all works and where the lines are drawn.

Kids killing and hurting animals after discovering the consequences, being educated, and/or feeling nothing for having done it, is generally a real red flag. Or just grew up on the farm and plan to eat the thing later.

(But also, kids don't generally go around murdering animals willy nilly anyway, where the hell are you from?)

>>4593873

I used to place a single large black ant near a colony of red ants to see which one would win.

The red ants would all group up on the black ant, surrounding it and climbing onto it and biting it while the black ant struggled frantically.

The fights lasted so long I usually was called to come inside before they were over. I never saw the end result of one.

Yes. It is a lot true.

>>4593617
he probably would have done that to the images of humans beingkilled as well

which makes him the stereo pica coward

>>4593618

That rule only works if literally everyone follows it, and literally everyone wants the same basic things.
If someone's going on some sort of violent rampage, by following this rule, you would therefore be unable to stop them by force. The act of stopping them demonstrates that you don't want to be assaulted, and you would be forced to assault them to stop it. So have fun getting punched in the dick.
Secondly, by way of a personal anecdote; I have a friend who is a social butterfly. She likes to know about everything that's going on, to be invited, and to be talked into doing things she might not have previously been in the mood for. I, on the other hand, am none of those things. In following this rule, she would be obligated to cajole me incessantly to do things I don't want to do, while I would be forced to accept her every polite decline without further prompting.
And let's not even get into the problems that would be caused by BDSM enthusiasts, self-loathers, and fitness junkies who enjoy being pelted with cupcakes and abuse during a workout.

>>4593936
Damn anon. You made four points and I see all of them as bad/wrong.

Your first point doesn't work. No, it doesn't have to be everyone. It would just be a lot easier if everyone were trying to attain that goal.

Second Point. If you don't want to be punched, don't punch others. Defending yourself against someone on a rampage has no confliction with the golden rule. You could try and make the point that in a situation where you yourself are on a rampage, you wouldn't want to be stopped by someone but you're doing things to others that you don't want done to yourself. Going on a rampage conflicts with the golden rule.

Third point. You're taking the golden rule way too far. It's mainly about harming others. Loving getting blowjobs from your girlfriend doesn't mean you have to give her them too or you're breaking the golden rule.

Your fourth point doesn't work because as you said, they enjoy it. There are mental health exceptions I'd think.

>>4594577

So you might as well rephrase the whole things to "dont harm others".

Yeah, I'd say it's true, OP.

Note: That doesn't mean I'm opposed to eating meat in general, but factory farming is some fucked up shit.

>>4593671
>just a matter of behavioral opinion
So... just a matter of what people ITT believe regarding ethics?

>>4593618
do you even CI?

>>4594577
>Defending yourself against someone on a rampage has no confliction with the golden rule.
It's still punching others.

>Going on a rampage conflicts with the golden rule.
The golden rule doesn't specify 'unless they're not following the golden rule'.

It's not a golden rule if you make arbitrary additions and exceptions willy nilly.

>they enjoy it
Exactly, and by the golden rule, they should do the same unto others. And no one should do it unto them unless they themselves would also enjoy it.

>>4594728
Not that anon, but what if you treat it like you would, at present, like to be treated if you were doing what they're doing?

For instance, if I were suddenly going on a rampage, I hope someone would stop me, even if at that time I wouldn't. So right now, it's morally right for me to stop someone who is going on a rampage.

>>4593594
nah i am a huge asshole i hate people and im rude but i love my cats more than i do my own family

>>4594767

Let's say I've just had a giant meal at a restaurant and am knee deep in I-never-want-to-eat-again-mode. On my way out, I pass a starving homeless man on the street. If I'm adhering to the golden rule, I mustn't do anything that would ease this man's hunger, because at this moment I'd explode from another morsel only wafer thin.

(Or furthermore, what if you simply WOULDN'T want someone to stop you from going on a rampage?)

>>4594810
For the first part, you can still think, "if I were starving to death, I would want food," even if you're full.

(That's a better problem to raise, but in that case, it's probable that you aren't thinking about the Golden Rule anyway.)

I'm mostly discussing the idea to discuss it. It has very little to do with my own views on ethics.

>>4594815
>For the first part, you can still think, "if I were starving to death, I would want food," even if you're full.
But this is in response to the correction of 'at this moment, what would I want?' since 'if I were on a rampage, I wouldn't want to be stopped' is a problem.

>>4593594
Yes.

>Schopenhauer fans

>Is this true?

No, it's not, and it's one of the most annoying things people love to say.

I've had people who eat meat consider that butchers must be immoral because they couldn't do it. This to me is such bullshit that I don't even bother to argue with it. Animals are delicious and good for sustenance, we eat them. Tough shit. Personally i love dogs.

>>4594827
The idea is you maintain your psychological state but everything else changes.

So you say, "if my body was on a rampage but my brain was as it is now, would I want to be stopped?" The answer is probably yes.

"If I was psychologically as I am now, but my body were experiencing near-starvation, would I want to be fed?" Again, yes.

>>4594839
Pic related is a more apt depiction of what Schopenhauerianism looks like.

>>4594848
I think you're conflating necessary harm with outright cruelty.

If you want meat, it's necessary to kill an animal. What Schopes is talking about is having no consideration for the animal whatsoever.

>The hen doesn't lay eggs anymore, so I killed her for her meat.
vs.
>The hen doesn't lay eggs anymore, so I plucked her feathers and burned her alive for my own personal entertainment.

See the difference?

>>4594857
Yes, obviously we should take consideration and minimize their suffering. My problem is this compassion for animals is a slippery slope that often leads to arrogant vegans justifying their moral superiority because of their dietary choice.

>>4594851

Then it still completely varies with your psychological state.
And how do you even define that? My psychological state is "fuck food, no more, ever."

And what happens when it is you on the rampage and your psychological state is nothing but maniacal laughter? How does the 'rule' factor in then?
What if your psychological state is hoping you get hit by a bus on the way home?

The rule is fucking retarded when put under the least bit of scrutiny. The only rule needed is simply "be considerate."

>>4593594
Yes, one that is cruel to animals is necessarily not bending to the good, but it should be added that one with compassion for animals can still bend to the bad.

>>4594864
Vegans are very fond of huge harvesting machines that shred uncountable cute little birds so they have no right to speak.

>>4594867
Yeah, I was just playing devil's advocate, anon.

>be considerate
I'd say it's more complicated than that, but I'm not a big fan of deontological, "rules-based" ethics anyway.

>>4594885
Please stop.

>>4594890

Well tell the devil that I demand his golden fiddle as a token of my victory.

>>4594885
Not to mention they show no ethical consideration to bugs or plants.

>>4594907
Nope. You didn't bet your soul against it ahead of time. Listen to the song again.

I have another question: Are people who consider treatment of animals more important than treatment of humans psychopathic in some way? I know people who literally said they consider other animals more worthy to protect than humans. I don't know if it's just edginess or whatever, but I cannot comprehend this view.

>>4594950

Damnit! Should have known satan would hire a good lawyer.

>>4594971

It's because humans have much more capacity to protect themselves in human society than animals do.

>>4594900
Truth hurts doesn't it soyboi

>>4593667
I hope your pic is unrelated. This is very unhealthy meat. You might catch a prion or two.

>>4594971
I have this view, but it's not something I have adopted rationally. It probably has to do with some half concious notion of innocence of animals and responsibility of humans or something. I'm also very compassionate towards young children but I absolutely hate older children. There's some sort of fall from grace that happens along the way that transforms them from worth dying for to worth killing.

No, it's not true. Hitler loved animals and was even a vegetarian. He would tell people at the dinner table stories of slaughterhouses as a means to get them to stop eating meat (aiding the death of animals).

It is certainly not "intimately connected with goodness of character".

>>4595012
This is a child's view on the world.

>>4594971
I definitely consider it psychopathic. I had an aunt who was like this - I don't think I've ever encountered a more disgusting personality trait.

>>4595021
it's actually hitler's.

>>4594971
It's misanthropy, which is a fairly justifiable sentiment.

>>4595040
In teenage years, maybe.

The whole quote falls flat on its face because the definitions of good and bad vary from person to person.

Therefore, cruel to animals or not, it all depends on how the person interprets good and evil and how he views himself.

Example: Hitler was not a bad man in his own mind, he believed he was doing a good thing. Therefore, he was kind to animals. But we deem him to be bad and therefore his love of animals presents us with astonishment and surprise.

The quote would hold more weight if it mentioned how a person perceives himself and that perception would later translate into his treatment of animals, which is correct. In a way.

>>4595061
I have yet to meet a misanthropic teenager (goth kids aren't).
You need cooled passions for that, which usually only comes at a much later age.

Every living thing has a different perception of the world. Every world is created by all the living things.

>>4595061
It actually becomes more justifiable with age, which is why people feel increasingly threatened by it.

>>4593873
>things that everyone already knows

>>4595095
The more abstracted from yourself you become, the more you hate yourself. You see yourself in other humans around you, so you hate them too.

>>4595099
>a very pointless post

think what he meant is if you're nice to animals you may or may not be a cunt
if you're mean to animals you're definitely a cunt

>talking with girl about animal rights(through text)
>knows her shit in that regard
>get talking about ethics in general
>genuinely asks me why we dont just print money to help people
>my fucking face
Shes smart and sweet otherwise, reads plenty, well cultured and all. I dont even know what to say.

>>4595101
I don't think most misanthrope are hateful. Most of them seem to feel something milder, between annoyance and disgust.

>>4595120
If you truly see yourself as inhuman, as in separate from the mass majority, then you are not only a misanthrope, you are deluded.

>>4595117
Maybe it was a joke

>>4595138
No, she explicitly said that she is being sincere and asked me not laugh at/about her.

>>4595148
Doesn't know shit about economics. Explain it to her.

>not helping your fellow human beings improve themselves

>>4595117
>tell her this is why men should manage finances and women the household
>she gets girly confused mad
>starts rubbing vagine on you
>???
>profit

>>4595156
I will explain it to her, obviously, and wont be a dick about it either, I was just dumbfounded.

>>4593657
>stop thinking there are interesting people in history

That definitely reeks of Cracked and reddit TIL, but it bothers me when people are given shit for being excited about history.

>>4595104
>equally pointless reply
I can do this all day

>>4595101
people aren't cunts, it was me all along. not liking things is for losers. thanks sigmund!

>>4595168
you got it
Let go of your ego and you'll discover that we're all in the same boat.

>>4595162
>comic book supervillains are interesting
Oh come on, I like cape comics but character complexity is not their strong suit

>>4595173
How would that make one less of a misanthrope? Are you sure you know what misanthropy entails?

>>4593873

I tortured animals during my childhood and am not a serial killer, I now like animals.

I don't agree with OP, however. It would mean all butchers and pretty much all non city people are awfully evil people because they kill animals.

Schopenhauer was a city rat as well, so it's understandable if he doesn't understand rural living.

I'd say it's basically unverifiable. Schoppy's just telling us how he feels, as he always is. He's not a philosopher, you know.

>>4593930
That must be why he was rewarded medals for bravery during world war 1. Hitler was a fearless cunt m9

>>4593594
I think it is pretty complicated overall, and not uniformly consistent. I, while still a teen, overall was pretty moral and good towards people, while during that time I severely abused a few animals. After some moments of "mystical" transcendence I became a better man and I naturally do not do anything cruel. So there is a relationship between the two, but one isn't intrinsically good or bad. Some people have sociopathic tendencies that can be grown out of, learning to cultivate and radiate genuine compassion.

>>4595181
Except Schopenhauer wasn't talking about killing animals for pragmatic reasons like eating them at all, which you would know if your country ass would read a book.

The few people I know that treat animals cruelly or even with a sort of cold indifference (pet negligence and such) are manipulative, compulsive liars and narcissistic.

>>4595186
All Schopenhauer's claims are well explained and documented in his works.

>>4593594
What does it mean when people are indifferent to animals? i.e. they don't like them much and don't want them into their lives? Without being cruel or something.
It's the same kind of people who avoid children too, and do some humanitarian or social help work instead in their free time.

>>4595199
Forgot to add that one of them recently had a child and she treats her baby in a sort of cold, distanced way as well. The father of her child already had a family and she made him leave them for her.

>>4595181
>I tortured animals during my childhood and am not a serial killer
Those are mutually exclusive.

Seriously though, you're a sociopath.

>>4595117
>he thinks the money commodity has any kind of objective meaning within it

lol

>>4595215
Does she do humanitarian stuff too?
It's striking to see how many of these "humanitarian volunteers" are childless (or hate children) and avoid animals too.

>>4595212
Real animal lovers are never animal owners anyway.

>>4595224
No, she's generally content to spread venereal disease and destroy people.

>>4593617
:3

>>4595217
>Sociopath
>a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

>Society
>an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

So yeah, nope. I'm more than likely more socially adjusted than yourself and I always liked people, I grew up watching my family hunt and such, and I thought that was normal. and for most of humanity's history, animal cruelty has been more often than not, a constant.

I knew a guy that was the nicest person you'd ever meet, helped you with anything you needed and was always in a pretty good mood, yet treated his dogs like shit and hated cats.

My aunt treats everyone around her like shit and hates everyone, yet she treats her cat like a princess.

Generalizations are always retarded as fuck.

>>4595244
>torturer of animals
>socially adjusted

>>4595177
Hey I've never read a comic book. I just thought we were talking about supervillians in general.

>>4595255
>have a good job
>have gf who I love
>have many friends

Yes, socially adjusted.

>>4595259
But aren't many psychopaths "socially adjusted?"

They're masters of manipulation; I doubt one could be a psychopath without being well adjusted. Not that I'm accusing you, I'm not even the same anon.

In what way were you "cruel" to animals? Did you derive pleasure/release from this cruelty? When and why did you stop?

>>4593617
>not realizing he was acting so he could continue to have the men he was leading believe he was a good man.

seriously /lit/ keeps passing themselves off as some high brow intelligent board and all I ever see on here is retarded hipsters.

>>4595288
Yeah, they are "socially adjusted".

I'm socially adjusted. As I said, I like people and never felt ill against any of them. A sociopath doesn't give a fuck about people but pretends he does.

I used to hit them constantly, lock them in closets, etc., usually followed by a rush of guilt of doing so, but I did derive pleasure from it.
I stopped at about 13 when I no longer felt pleasure for it. It was basically a sort of control thing, combined with jealousy, my mom would usually treat the pets a bit better than us, since she liked animals more, and I lashed out when I was alone with them.

>>4595372
>I used to hit them constantly, lock them in closets, etc., usually followed by a rush of guilt of doing so, but I did derive pleasure from it

I wonder whether this is more like sadism as opposed to sociopathy proper.

I sometimes find animals "cute" and "funny" like any other person but have also engaged in some ritualistic-style shit. What do I make of this?

>>4595325
You obviously know nothing about Hitler's psychology and the values of nazi intelligentsia.
Thinking that Hitler was "acting" with a wily mind and some kind of hidden agenda is utterly ridiculous. The man was pretty upfront.

>>4595416
The Nazis have been demonized so thoroughly people actually think they were a bunch of crazies who liked killing people. I wonder what we should then think of the emperors a century prior.

>>4595430
It's funny, because that kind of dehuminization of the Nazis is exactly why another state run genocide is so plausible. No one seriously thinks any of the major nations would do that today, because none of them see batshit supervillian insane like they think the Nazis were.

>>4593651
We're in a position where we no longer need hunting dogs or war horses... People who do these things when they're not necessary or vital are, in my eyes, psychopathic and evil.

>>4593651
Where I come from we spay/neuter strays, because, while they are themselves pests, they still serve the useful function of eating mice and dirtbirds.

>>4595982
>people who don't agree with me are, in my eyes, psychopathic and evil

Liberals, everybody.

>>4594810
Jesus man. Really? Cmon. Think before you write.

You would feed him because IN HIS SITUATION YOU WOULD WANT TO BE FED BY SOMEONE ELSE.

If you were a bum, it's not in your exact moment when you're full as fuck.

>>4594912
bugs or plants, especially plants, don't feel any pain...

>>4594971
They say that but they havn't been put in a situation where it would give them a choice. You would have to have a human and an animal about to be killed infront of them and they have the power to stop one death, to see what they really would choose.

>>4595020
I used to be a vegan and I hate people that do this. The funny thing was people always say vegans are so opinionated but I found meat eaters are easily the most opinionated once they find out you're vegan/vegetarian.

One of my friends would tell others in our company I was a vegan and I'd get bombarded by questions and accusations "what about plants!" yet I never did the same to any meat eaters and felt uncomfortable talking about it, purely because it's annoying as fuck and just causes fights.

>>4597231
confirmed for beta vegan

>>4597235
ex beta vegan. If I were the opposite, you would say I was an arsehole vegan, that I should have kept my opinions to myself, why did I try and ruin other peoples times etc etc. Can't win in these kinds of situations.

>>4594885

Except that going by utilitarian standards, the amount of resources to produce an equal amount of calories in beans, grains, nuts, etc. would be less than the apparatuses used to manage livestock.

And those cute little birds aren't forced from birth to death in heartbreakingly cruel environments. There is a difference between mere survival and actually living.

>>4594885
As another anon said. We would need less huge harvesting machines because just feeding livestock is extremely unpractical. "Meat eaters" eat everything the harvesting machines are used for too.

You will hit wildlife while driving your car, nobody enjoys driving because of that though.

>>4594971
I consider the treatment of the human first and foremost, but I tend to pity the animal more because the animal cannot comprehend the source of its suffering.

Is there not some correlation between psychopaths and their deep connection with animals?

>>4593594
>The sociopath exhibits greater sympathy for animals than for adult persons.

Schopenhauer was a misanthropic curmudgeon.

This is patent nonsense. Animals are nothing more than unintelligent, non-sapient self-replicating machines, no difference than tools or robots.

Those who would argue with this and have any kind of moral consistency, would have to be vegans who refrain from all products made from dead animals.

I mean whats the logic in saying that someone who makes chicken fight for amusement is a monster, but someone who raises that chicken, force feeds it, and then skins it and kills it and cooks it and devours its body, isn't?

You can't say "We have moral duties to animals" and "We can totally raise them in hellish conditions for the sole purpose of being devoured" in the same sentence.

>>4597253
Going by utilitarian standards there isn't much to justify except antinatalism.

>>4597315
Far from it.

>>4597295
>the animal cannot comprehend the source of its suffering.
In some situations and some not, right?

A dog is biting another dog's leg, the dog being bitten knows the source of it's suffering.

Or do you mean the animal doesn't comprehend the reason pain is being imposed on it?

>>4597302
By certain definitions, humans are animals. Where does the buck really stop?

>>4597330
>Where does the buck really stop?
>the buck
Nice

>>4597329
Well, yeah. I was thinking of homeless dudes' dogs when I said that. The dog doesn't know why its master is always dejected, it doesn't know why it's always hungry.

>>4597343
In that situation I know exactly what you mean. BUT ignorance is bliss. Not knowing that shit is better than knowing it, the bum being plagued by his own thoughts and knowledge.

>>4597343
Bum dogs generally eat very well.

>>4594971
I'm no psychologist but I would say its more of a dissociative problem.
My theory is since communication with animals is limited it is easier to form an emotional bond with and to project ones self onto them. Sort of a comfortable objectification or comfortable intellectual distance. Humans have more complex needs with a larger variance of dispositions. For someone who has not developed the ability to properly handle individual conflict with other humans they might find their own kind alienating. You wind up with people who devalue other people because they cannot project their own specific personality onto them.

I think this simplification and objectification of character also applies to the enjoyment of animation, pulp fiction and furries. Not that I have anything against furries. I don't think there is anything wrong with finding companionship with animals as long as it is healthy and doesn't harm ones appreciation for other forms of life.

Then again this is just my theory.

>>4595325
>hitler wasnt really a nice person he was just acting
>jews arent really greedy they are just acting

>>4593594
Nope. Vegans are a-holes to non vegans. Some carnivores are also dog-lovers.

Nietzsche's response to Schopenhauer was that a love of animals actually reveals your intense, repressed hatred of your own kind.

>>4600558
nietzsche strikes me as the kind of man who was scared to death by dogs though. imagine him on one of his scholarly zarathustra walks in switzerland and coming across a shepherd and his sheep and dogs and one of the dogs is like 'fuck is this walrus looking nigga doing' and barks at yung fred and nietzsche goes "oh he-he nice doggy h-hello shepherd sir herr could you please he-he the dog-gy.." and the shepherd looks at the frail, pale, scared little professor and gives a reluctant whistle, the dog dashing off happily back to the herd and nietzsche straightening himself as well as his jacket and continuing on his walk, trying to think lofty zarathustra thoughts but being unable to stop himself from looking over his shoulder a few times if the dog wouldn't perhaps be returning, the shepherd catching him glancing, and nietzsche akwardly waving to hide his fearful intentions, which makes him stumble and makes it all even worse, rendering him unable to think ubermenschliche sachen for the rest of the morning and hoping he won't encounter the shepherd in the village later on when he's going to lunch

>>4600620
10/10

>>4600339
Yeah, I think pretty much the same thing. Definitely not psychopathy.

>>4600524
somehow i don't think schopenhauer considered eating meat being cruel to animals

>>4600558

Did he think it impossible to love both?

>>4600620

>>4600524
For an experiment. Pretend to be a vegan for a week. In the company of others, don't outright say you are, just don't buy food with meat and they will notice and ask.

You soon will find it's actually very much the other way around. Meat eaters will instantly feel very threatened by non meat eaters. I've observed this very many times. They will either outright ask you very insensitive questions of act strangely around you.

Sure there are vegan a-holes, just like lit a-holes and astronaut a-holes.

This is coming from a meat eater.

No, his opinion could change also, whether it's hard to swallow

This quote means nothing without knowing his definition of a good man.

>>4597222
But a hive is a singular being, so of course the cells that make it up don't feel pain.

>>4595101
That sentence alone sums up my early twenties.

>>4593594
>cannot
Welp that's wrong. He may be able to make a case for likelihood though.

The entire environment that would engender this sort of thinking is hilarious; some animals we eat. others we spare and others we live with and love while continuing to call ourselves good men. Absolute bullshit.

I saw this painting tbis weekend and it made me buy it. I felt like it had been reaching out to me. as someone who works in the food industry, as a person I felt hurt

It is a painting of a cow, so simple, yet breath taking. the look in the cows eyes gives you such a feeling as if it is human just like you, alive, deserving of so much better. I felt as though this were so different. Cows when I've seen them before don't look at you, or keep to their own business, but this cow, I could never eat him or is species again.

This painting helped me decide to finally push myself to cut out beef and im going to try to push closer towards being a vegetarian

>>4601736
Goodluck anon.

>>4601736
Please, vegetarian and not vegan

Vegan are assholes.

Yes, it's basically true. The important thing to consider is what >>4593611 says (you can be kind to animals and STILL be cruel to people, but I don't think the reverse is true).

All these posters pointing out that humans eat meat and other irrelevant nonsense...Eating meat from moral sources does not refute this quote in any way.

>>4595372
What the fuck man, just what the fuck.

I'm simultaneously repulsed and wishing I could belt you in the mouth.

>>4601776
>Vegan are assholes.

How so?

>>4593618
>Everything is subjective
>Sits in the sandbox at the park with laptop all day

>>4601776
Generalization. I've met lots of nice vegans.

>>4601829
What?

>>4601855
>Generalization. I've met lots of nice vaginas.

>>4593594

This quote hits me so hard. Lived with a guy for 3 years, always pissed me off when people said how nice he was and funny and shit. Only I knew he was a fucking egotistical brute. One time we were on our way to a party and he dropped our bottle of vodka (hence we were sober) got pissed and kicked a cat, like full on Cristiano Ronaldo freekick style. Then he goes on to post a cute picture of a dog on facebook couple months later and people are all like "aww that dog is so sweet like you".

>mfw

>>4601874
>kicked a cat
So you then kicked him, correct?

>>4601860
Are you trying to imply something?

>>4601874
Have you noticed loads of guys are completely different on facebook? I have loads of acquaintances that post all "cute" things on facebook. Talk about their feelings and ask for inboxes and rates and stupid shit like that. Yet in person they are all manly, about being tough etc. It always boggles my mind how that works.

>>4601903
At first I wasn't, but looking back at it suggests that I think vegans = women.

>>4601908
>FAKEbook

>>4601883
I didn't. But he was all like "OK I'm sorry" after he saw that it disturbed me.

>>4601913
Good point. I think it has something to with facebook allows people to feel more comfortable than they would in person.

Like on /lit/. If we all met up in person, none of us would talk disrespectfully to each other and would most likely have much better conversations.

Move out of your cozy white countries and you'll see how lovable stray dogs and snakes are.

>>4601911
Holy fuck anon. I literally did not even notice you had said vaginas. I guess I assumed you had just reposted what I wrote, so I saw what I assumed.

You don't really believe that, that's ridiculous, way too many generalizations.

>>4601925
Most of the times I've been with people that have killed a snake they didn't really need to. I guess in their mind they thought the snake might come closer to the house/them. I can see their thinking "it's either me or it"

>>4601928
No I don't really believe that, I was simply being absurd for the sake of it.

>>4601934
It was very clever.

>>4601930
Only reasonable time to kill is snake is if it's a venomous, aggressive one who's been staying on a road, path, bathing area, etc.

People are just afraid of snakes, so they kill them. It's pretty ridiculous because they're not even pests, and in whatever presumably not that terrible because he has the time and means to post on 4chan country this guy's from >>4601925 they would probably benefit from leaving a few snakes around to get rid of disease carrying rodents. Pic related, a prime example of a healthy human/snake relationship.

Stray dogs definitely fuck shit up, but compassion doesn't mean absolute unconditional mercy; I'm sure Shopenhauer had no problem with hunting or livestock.

>>4601925
There's nothing cruel about killing animals though. There's nothing inherently cruel about killing a person either.

>>4593594

How is this absurd assertion even verifiable? Oh wait, it isn't. It's a generally agreeable aphorism and a prime instance of the issue with continental philosophy.

>observe people who are cruel to animals
>100% of them are cunts no exceptions
>???
>verified.

>>4593594
Schope was way ahead of his time.

>>4601961
From the many times I've seen killed snakes it was at my grandperants farm. The snakes would be close to the house or up near where we parked our cars. It's also in Australia. Would you consider them in the "right" for killing them?

>>4602001
Would someone killing you, in a torturous way not be cruel? It not being cruel that they have also ended your life against your will and caused pain to your family, would that not be cruel?

>>4601930
Who do the fuck would care about snakes, they slowly devour they prey in a way that should make you guys disgusted or something. But guess what, nature is cruel.

>>4602052
>It's also in Australia
It's justified to kill anything and everything. It's a matter of life and death.

Most of the people I've met who sentimentalised animals were sociopaths who just preferred the company of beings who couldn't prick their bubbles of delusion.

>>4602052
Yeah, I'm not against the killing of animals for legitimate reasons, and extremely venomous snakes near a family home is a totally legitimate reason to kill them. Relocation would be preferable but I'll admit that's a lot of trouble especially with more dangerous ones.

The trouble I have is the irrational fear people have of snakes that leads to them being exterminated. I've lived in Appalachia in the US, and people indiscriminately kill every snake they find, most of them totally harmless.

Some things it's easier to explain to a dog. We had a dog I hated at one point, and when the other family members would go out, it used to anatagonise me. One day I opened my flies and brandished my erect penis threateningly at it. It crawled under the furniture and hid after that. It knew.

>>4602054
Torture is cruel. Killing in itself, the ending of a life, is not cruel. Taking someone's family away is cruel, but again, it's not the killing itself.

If there is an animal or a person with no one that cares about them and you swiftly execute them there is no suffering caused. You could even argue that suffering is relieved and prevented.

>>4601874

The only thing that feels better than kicking a dog is punching a woman's fucken eye.

>>4593651
Compassion is behaving in a way that minimises cruelty.

>>4601874
Kicking a cat does mean he can't feel compassion for animals.

As much as I hate to admit it, when I was a kid trying to train my dog I kicked her a few times out of anger and frustration. She was strong and did whatever the fuck she wanted and it pissed me off to the point where I kicked her.

I still loved that animal as family and never wanted for it to feel pain. Anger can lead to rash, cruel decisions, but kicking a cat isn't the same as dissecting a living frog or something. Even then I've known kids who have done similar things, and been fascinated at the time, but later felt terrible about it. I just don't think it's as simple as that quote puts it.

But I'm sure if someone regularly tortures and abuses animals and feel no regret that is a sign of some kind of serious problem.

>>4602149
*DOESN'T mean he can't feel compassion

>>4601908
yeah that shit's weird

I don't get it at all

>>4602149
>Kicked her a few times out of anger

I believe the discussion here is about calculated and excessive harm towards animals, not isolated acts of passion.

>>4602153
It's a smokescreen that allows them to appear cute and sweet to girls. Behind the wall of the internet, they feel no insecurity, whereas when around their mates, they become assholes because they need to show how stronk and manly and brave they are.
tl;dr, peer pressure

>>4602161

No, in truth, online they're bullshitting. Among men, they're honest. The real animal emerges. Vain, sweet, pungent. The male animal, the six foot cock.