/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15739555]

Eating meat is immoral.

[Anonymous No.15739559]

>>15739555
according to which book?

[Anonymous No.15739570]

>>15739555
Dangerously based

[Anonymous No.15739572]

>>15739555
Not even singer thinks that you pleb

[Anonymous No.15739577]

>>15739555
Eating is immoral.

[Anonymous No.15739589]

No it's not.

[Anonymous No.15739596]

>>15739555
shut the fuck up anglo

[Anonymous No.15739609]

>>15739555
ah shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiet
we gotta make lions extinct now

[Anonymous No.15739614]

>>15739555
Why?

[Anonymous No.15739673]

>>15739555
animals will die anyway. Why not eat them?

[Anonymous No.15739836]

>>15739555
Trips of half truth. I've always approached this issue as such: Chinese people are the only ethical meat eaters because they use no hypocrisy, they eat or enslave everything that moves, whereas the cowardly Westerner gives special rights to some animals (eg: dogs and cats) but eats others. Eating meat is acceptable as long as you hunt it yourself, not in the sense that it's more fair like that, but that the brutality of factory farming is indefensible and hunting is the only way to ensure animals have a free life and a humane death.

[Anonymous No.15739869]

>>15739555
Not if I close my eyes while eating it

[Anonymous No.15739871]

>>15739836
>Chinese people are the only ethical meat eaters because they use no hypocrisy, they eat or enslave everything that moves, whereas the cowardly Westerner gives special rights to some animals (eg: dogs and cats) but eats others.
maybe because dogs and cats are more valuable as companions and their meat doesn’t taste as good. Also,
>coronavirus

[Anonymous No.15739876]

>>15739836
>animal
>humane
OK

[Anonymous No.15739878]

>>15739555
Immorality is strength.

[Anonymous No.15739879]

Imbecile

[Anonymous No.15739905]

>>15739836
why is recognizing that different animals serve different roles "hypocrisy"?

[Anonymous No.15739950]

>>15739836
I could care less about cats, but dogs are working animals: The reason we don't kill dogs is the same reason we wouldn't kill a hen (inb4 stupid fucking frenchies eat hens).

Also since I don't think this deserves a thread but have been thinking about it for a while:
Would it be ethical to either genetically modify or breed out stress receptors/cognative thought in a specific breed of animal that would in turn be factory farmed?
Etc.?

[Anonymous No.15739956]

>>15739871
What a companion is in modern times is totally arbitrary, the vast majority of Western pets are nothing but aesthetics, very few pets fulfill an important role, and any mammal can provide the same amount of emotional support one may desire in a companion. Also dog meat is really good, lived in China for a decade before I became vegetarian.
>>15739905
See above, animals having "roles" is a spook based on a long gone era.

[Anonymous No.15739969]

>>15739570
Yes, vegan /lit/ get in here

[Anonymous No.15739971]

>>15739956
My dog kills the gophers and mice and rats that the feral cats we keep don't get to. Without the cats and dog rats would eat all of our garden's produce and our chickens' food.

[Anonymous No.15739990]

>>15739956
do not be a naive empiricist, imbecile... dogs have many known -- and many unknown -- psychological benefits

[Anonymous No.15739992]

>>15739555
Cows and pigs, sure. Fish and chicken can go fuck themselves.

[Anonymous No.15739993]

>>15739836
>Chinese people are the only ethical meat eaters because they use no hypocrisy, they eat or enslave everything that moves, whereas the cowardly Westerner gives special rights to some animals (eg: dogs and cats) but eats others.
Holy based

[Anonymous No.15740008]

>>15739956
>all animals are the same and provide the same value to humans

[Anonymous No.15740019]

>>15739836
yeah but with the chinks they don't eat humans so you can play name the trait which usually trips them up

[Anonymous No.15740026]

Ok And

[Anonymous No.15740050]

Ok but what do we lose from being immoral

[Anonymous No.15740063]

>>15739836
Did /pol/ tell you that?

[Anonymous No.15740066]

>>15739555
Existence is always at the expense of something else's existence, so I'm ok with meat.

[Anonymous No.15740072]

>>15739950
It would be about as ethical as modern psychiatry is. I would not wish the same done to me and that's really the crux of it, there's no difference in the basic brain structure of mammals so I fully believe chickens and pigs are just as capable of conscious thought as we are. Why do we regard lobotomy as unethical now? It's effective in many cases, but it isn't what life's all about, which is a bit of a shallow romanticisation, but it is generally accepted that it isn't right or desirable to limit the mental capacity of others. At the point at which you don't need to do that to animals because going vegetarian is an equally healthy option to eating meat, I would say it isn't ethical. If other sources of vitamin B12 didn't exist, I would say it would be ethical.
>>15739971
That doesn't mean you can't eat some other dog on the side. The Chinese still have you beat.
>>15740008
For the rational Chinaman, yes. To you, the irrational Westerner, no.
>>15739990
Appreciation of dogs is a conditioned trait, you could raise someone to get the same companionship benefits from a grasshopper.

[Anonymous No.15740082]

>>15740072
>Appreciation of dogs is a conditioned trait, you could raise someone to get the same companionship benefits from a grasshopper.
again with the naïve empiricism... we coëvolved with dogs, imbecile

[Anonymous No.15740085]

>>15739956
>>15739836
everything said here is correct, the way we regard other species is all spookery, we could've easily bred dogs to be fattier and more tasty. Chicken could be mans best friend.

[Anonymous No.15740087]

>capitalism is shit and farm animals bred for a purpose are losing said purpose
>ergo, to defend capitalism, we must eradicate all non-human animals
god you fags are insufferable.

[Anonymous No.15740088]

>>15739555
Veganism ir a privilege

[Anonymous No.15740108]

>>15739555
If eating meat is immoral, then vegan are hypocrites by that logic..

[Anonymous No.15740117]

>>15739555
Might makes right

[Anonymous No.15740147]

>>15740087
>we must eradicate all non-human animals
Yes
https://alicorn.elcenia.com/stories/dogs.shtml

[Anonymous No.15740149]

>>15739555
>Eating meat is immoral.
And this is bad why?

[Anonymous No.15740153]

>>15740085
Well it's because we see positive attributes of ourselves in other species; we see dogs as loyal and playful, cats as childish, etc.

So yes, you could choose to view them as simply animals if you were completely divorced yourself from any sense of empathy.

[Anonymous No.15740164]

>>15740149
Agreed. Your existence inherently already causes pain and deprives those around you.

Morality is a luxury and there is no perfectly moral life.

[Anonymous No.15740172]

>>15739555
being moral is immoral

[Anonymous No.15740175]

>>15740050
Acceptance from soibois and cunts.

[Anonymous No.15740180]

the absolute state of basedboys

[Anonymous No.15740183]

>>15739555
Its not, if you recognize the suffering you cause with it and consciously accept it.

[Anonymous No.15740185]

Living is immoral.

[Anonymous No.15740231]

>>15740050
Technically, you lose nothing. Moral behavior is a generosity to others. However, laws and social norms exist and actions tend to be reciprocated.

[Anonymous No.15740261]

>>15740153
That has nothing to do with empathy. The recognition of animal roles being a spook doesn't imply a lack of appreciation for the traits we project onto animals, rather it demonstrates a rational understanding that the traits we project on animals do not correspond to actual ability at various roles. So any emotional/companion roles are pure projection, physical traits are the only absolutes which may be used to determine relevant roles, but the use of the physical force of animals has largely been rendered unnecessary by the advent of engines. A case could certaintly be made against my original point on those grounds of physical power being a clear distinguishing factor for roles, but it's a largely irrelevant point in the Western world where farming is modernised.
>>15740063
What's /pol/ to it anon? I have much respect for the Chinese.

[Anonymous No.15740263]

>>15739555
It’s not immoral, but the modern abattoir is one of the most vile inventions man has ever used against another living creature. I agree with the other anon, there’s a difference between going out and shooting deer and cooping up livestock in close, confined spaces, waiting for the slaughter, purely so we can feed the ever-growing population of braindead proles.

Having said that, pescatarianism is the most /lit/ diet

[Anonymous No.15740290]

>>15739570
>>15739969
Based, the only vegans I meet in real life are hippies. I need to meet my fellow ethicist vegans

[Anonymous No.15740316]

You just KNOW

[Anonymous No.15740374]

>>15740261
>So any emotional/companion roles are pure projection, physical traits are the only absolutes

Expand your line of thinking towards humans and think about how you sound.

[Anonymous No.15740475]

>treats animals like people
>treats people like animals
libtard logic

[Anonymous No.15740491]

>>15740374
Like a phrenologist? By physical traits I think it was very clear I was referring to musculature and size, which in both humans and animals is a clear indicator of ability in physical roles such as pulling a plough for a horse, or working in a forge for a strong human. Lets not be autistic about words anon.

[Anonymous No.15740520]

For anybody interested in this topic from a rights-perspective (rather than Singer's utilitarianism), I would recommend Tom Regan's The Case for Animal Rights. It reads a lot like Kant, which I appreciated.

[Anonymous No.15740547]

>you can't say different animals have different roles... this "roles" thinking is just a spook
>we must be consistent in how we treat animals... or else we would be "immoral"!
>no, "immorality", that's not a spook, why do you ask...?

[Anonymous No.15740591]

Whatever. Vegans can enjoy their fad while the practice of mass animal slaughter continues because people love meat and there is tons of demand for it. I would avoid arguing with vegans. They don't matter. Pic related.

[jesus No.15740610]

>>15739555
immoral is good

[Anonymous No.15740629]

>>15740610

kill me goddess

[Anonymous No.15740637]

>>15740019
>the chinks they don't eat humans
anon...

[Anonymous No.15740683]

>>15739559
This one.

>>15739878
>>15740117
Fuck off Nietzsche.

>>15740108
Practical literally just means that if your starving to death or need medicine to live that contains animal products you probably shouldn’t kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.15740689]

>>15739956
... do you not see the irony in using “spook” and talking about morals? anyways, you seem to be an autistic reductionist with little ability to self reflect. i do not eat dog because of custom, if it were different, i likely would.

[Anonymous No.15740707]

>>15739555
So is being a utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.15740738]

>>15740547
That's a good point but in a world in which most people acknowledge a difference between right and wrong I don't think debating the importance of being moral/immoral is very relavant to this issue, there's no necessity to adopt a full egoist attitude in pointing out that animal roles are largely constructs with little grounding in the actual trairs of animals.
>>15740689
See above. It's in much the same way you don't have to agree the soul is stored in the pineal gland if you use the Cartesian coordinate system. Colour me surprised meat eaters are resorting to name calling.

[Anonymous No.15740746]

>>15739555
True, but Perfection is not eating anything at all (plants are life too).

[jesus No.15740766]

>>15740629
desire of body is desire of church. God is within, within me is I.

[Anonymous No.15740794]

>>15740689
>i do not eat dog because of custom, if it were different, i likely would.
In other words you base your morality on what 99% of the other idiots around you are doing, and rather than thinking critically about ethics and morality and you just consume everything through cultural osmosis.

>pic related
I hate to post cringe, but meat eating is a literal NPC diet. Anyone with a strong sense of moral courage and the ability to think critically should be Vegan.

There’s literally no argument to the contrary. If you believe that A: animals are sentient B: it’s wrong to cause harm to sentient creatures, and C: murder, exploitation and cruelty cause harm to sentient beings, as 99% of people do, Veganism must logically follow. The only reason 99% of people aren’t Vegan is because their literal NPC’s like you who will perpetuate a global holocaust of murder and brutality solely of the basis of “bacon, lol” and as previously stated “muh cultural osmosis”.

There’s literally no good argument to not go Vegan. Those that don’t are uncritical, and/or moral cowards.

Billions of sentient beings are tortured physiological and physically in horrific ways that you couldn’t even imagine because retards like you are to stupid to realise that McDonald’s is bad for, or your just too cowardly to make the change.

[Anonymous No.15740869]

>>15739555
>be me
>hold the whole world in contempt
>find jesus and go vegan simultaneously
>have hypnagogic experiences of a presence more living than any "real" entity

[Anonymous No.15740900]

I don't care, it tastes good.

[Anonymous No.15741005]

>>15740869
Brain vitamin deficiencies often manifest as psychological disorders.

[Anonymous No.15741006]

>>15740683
All vegans accept the killing and exploitation of animals for the production of their food. Saying you kill "less" doesn't suddenly make you moral. It makes you a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.15741020]

>>15741006
>muh all or nothing

[Anonymous No.15741057]

>>15739836
Raising carnivores as food-stock is inefficient and therefore bad. Raising dumbass undulates and swine as foodstock is quite efficient, and therefore good.

I prefer being friends with cats and dogs :^3

[Anonymous No.15741080]

>>15741020
>I only beat my wife once per week

[Anonymous No.15741082]

>>15741057
So you will have no qualms taking the efficiency argument to it's natural conclusion, eating the crop directly is much more efficient instead of letting animals process it to extract 1% of the biomass. Eating animals of any sort is incredibly inefficient.

[Anonymous No.15741087]

>>15739555
eating animal meat is beyond good and evil

[Anonymous No.15741096]

>>15739555
Do you have an objective moral standard to base that on?

[Anonymous No.15741095]

>>15739555
It's completely moral by any variable I can think of.

[Anonymous No.15741100]

>>15741082
Why don't you just directly get your sustenance from the sun? Fuck it, just start fusing atomic nuclei within your mitochondria, bro.

[Anonymous No.15741110]

>>15741082
By the way, monocropping is terrible for the environment. Soya plants can't graze on grass.

[Anonymous No.15741145]

>>15739555
true but it's tasty so i'll just keep eating it until lab grown meat gets good

[Anonymous No.15741166]

>>15740683
>Fuck off Nietzsche.
Not an argument. Savitri Devi had no argument for why nigger and Jew lives weren’t sacred

[Anonymous No.15741205]

it's true tho, it's like saying I like to eat humans. People who are raised to eat meat and don't question it are the same ones that will eat human meat if it's from a "lesser" human than them

[Anonymous No.15741208]

>I sure do love eating bright red organic strawberries!
I'm all for reducing harm, but veganism isn't the way to do that. Factory farming sucks, but there is nothing wrong with killing and eating deer in a place where there are too many. On the other hand many Peruvians can't afford quinoa anymore because of trendy vegans.

[Anonymous No.15741216]

>>15741100
Because you can't. You can survive eating plants tho and probably won't die from a hearth attack as well

[Anonymous No.15741231]

>>15741145
You probably taste good too. Imagine if your parents bred you just to kill you after puberty

[Anonymous No.15741242]

>>15741096
You don't have to and it causes harm to the animals and the planet. What more do you need?

[Anonymous No.15741263]

>>15739577
Based

[Anonymous No.15741341]

>>15739555
eating meat is only immoral to entitled rich people