Veganism ethics

[Anonymous No.15930475]

Just read this book about the ethics of eating meat.

I'm convinced that eating meat or meat products is immoral. Meat-eaters invent excuses to cope with their cognitive dissonance, but deep down they know they are doing something bad - that's why they get angry at vegans.

Unlike those dumb, irrational carnivore defenders, I cannot justify my actions. They are wrong and I admit it. However, I will continue to eat meat, even though it is wrong.

Am I doing anything wrong by contradicting my views on ethics by committing actions which go against them?

[Anonymous No.15930504]

>>15930475
Morality is doing what leads to preferable experiences for the self. Veganism is therefore only justified when it makes you happy. Since I prefer to eat meat, it is right for me to eat meat. It’s totally subjective. Animal suffering through the meat industry is irrelevant unless it actually bothers me (it doesn’t). You don’t have an argument against this.

[Anonymous No.15930519]

You probably aren't truly convinced that it is wrong.

[Anonymous No.15930523]

oh shit WE are the eating animals, like we're animals who eat and we also eat animals so the book is called Eating Animals

Jews are so fuckin smart, they deserve to run things

[Anonymous No.15930527]

>>15930504
So it's moral for me to murder someone if I don't like that person for some petty reason and I can get away with it? It's 'totally subjective' and leads to a preferable experience. Man high IQ posters on this board lmao.

[Anonymous No.15930529]

>>15930475
Meat is essential to my health and i am in my own perception more important than animals so i will eat meat

[Anonymous No.15930543]

>>15930519
Ethical problems are hard problems, but this one isn't. I am as convinced that eating meat is immoral as I am convinced that murdering children if they misbehave is immoral.

[Anonymous No.15930547]

>>15930529
basado

[Anonymous No.15930549]

Don't philosophers do it all the time? They label themselves 'utilitarian' or 'deontologist' but their behaviour is indistinguishable from the average person.

[Anonymous No.15930553]

>>15930527
>kill a deer
>no guilt or fear of punishment
>kill human
>pray to God that I don’t go to jail and feel as if my life is about to be destroyed
and that’s even if you don’t get caught. This is why people don’t murder. The benefits simply don’t outweigh the harm

[Anonymous No.15930555]

>>15930543
And what is your reasoning for continuing to do it?

[Anonymous No.15930562]

>>15930475
>cognitive dissonance
is this vegan's favorite phrase? i swear, every time i have to talk to a vegan or vegetarian they'll spit this one out a few times.

i don't personally think there's anything immoral about the act of eating meat, i think the treatment of animals in factory farm situations in the countries that allow it are cruel, but if it could be corrected i wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Anonymous No.15930568]

>>15930475
Yeah, but vegans look so sick, like they are starved and fat at the same time... Their hair falls out, the men's T levels drop, their immune systems are delicate. The only vegans who look healthy are eating meat on the side and not admitting it! True fact: I know a guy who runs a vegan cafe/bakehouse, he looks pretty healthy but he secretly eats steak. He is actually frightened to mention it in public, afraid that his followers will find out about it! He is a local bigwig in the Green Party in the city I live in, and with every success in life he became more fragile. Now he hides at home to eat steak at night...
We have evolved to eat meat tens of thousands of years. It is intrinsic to human biology at this point. Evolution trumps "morality" (which in a post-modern, atheistic society is basically doing whatever makes you feel good).

[Anonymous No.15930576]

>>15930568
>Evolution trumps "morality"
they’re kinda the same

[Anonymous No.15930579]

>>15930553
>the only reason he doesn't kill people is for fear of retribution
ngmi

[Anonymous No.15930598]

>>15930579
all of our actions are based on good consequences vs. the bad. Murdering a human is not nearly justifiable as eating meat. There’s a reason we instinctually fear punishment after killing humans, but not animals.

[Anonymous No.15930614]

I eat big animals because they make more meat per death

[Anonymous No.15930622]

>>15930475
read this you fop. your moral problems with eating meat are historically contingent.

you litterally have to project your moral conundrum on others since you cannot seem to fathom a non autisticly material, utilitarian, and arbitrary view.

[Anonymous No.15930623]

>>15930475
1) Without an ontological (metaphysical) basis, morality is a relative, and/or normative
2) All metaphysic foundations are incomplete and refuttable
3) There is no metaphysical basis for morality, therefore morality is relative, and/or normative
4) The morality of eating meat is determined relatively and/or normatively (like everything else)
—
Corollaries
1) Faux-objective/materialist accounts of meat-eating morality are personally (relatively) constructed and are easily provable as such
2) When the above is pointed out one of two things is revealed by the moralists: 1) a metaphysical account of morality is presented as a revision of their original position (usually after having presented their position as “scientific” or “objective” prior to the rebuttal), 2) a normative appeal is made to the aporia of reason, or some viceral claim about human experience (“we all intuitively know what is moral”, etc).

Im fine if you’re a vegan, but it’s a personal belief much like kharma, heaven and hell, and enternal recurrence. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous No.15930625]

>>15930504
>Morality is doing what leads to preferable experiences for the self
false

[Anonymous No.15930629]

>>15930562
I don't think most vegans think meat eating is wrong in itself, it's about the suffering the animals have to go through in order for us to eat them. Most vegans seem to be down with lab grown meat, for example.
>but if it could be corrected i wouldn't have a problem with it
The issue is that that is a very big 'if'. And that people continue to support factory farming despite the horrible conditions.

[Anonymous No.15930637]

>>15930625
so you purposely choose the less preferable life? Absurd. How could you choose it if you did not prefer it?

[Anonymous No.15930641]

>>15930568
>Yeah, but vegans look so sick, like they are starved and fat at the same time... Their hair falls out, the men's T levels drop, their immune systems are delicate. The only vegans who look healthy are eating meat on the side and not admitting it!
you don't believe this, and it also isn't true

[Anonymous No.15930646]

>>15930637
Almost everyone will choose the morally correct thing to do even if it doesn't bring as much joy or pleasure,to them when weighed against some alternative, you do this as well. Stop making shit arguments and pretending that you're saying anything worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.15930649]

>>15930543
>I am as convinced that eating meat is immoral as I am convinced that murdering children if they misbehave is immoral.

So you're mentally ill? Imagine being such a weak human that you get all tied up at the thought of killing an animal and eating it.

[Anonymous No.15930652]

>>15930646
why be moral, then?

[Anonymous No.15930656]

>>15930649
>So you're mentally ill?
this is actually the problem. They suffer from an excess of empathy. They’re like psychopaths, but the opposite. And they pretend their ideology is totally rational when it’s based on emotional predispositions

[Anonymous No.15930658]

>>15930529
it isn't essential. you don't need meat. if anything it is actively harmful not to only yourself but the rest of the world. this really isn't a complex issue at all. meat is objectively bad and you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15930659]

>>15930652
You aren't entitled to your own life's joy, anon. You never were and you never will be.
You were never promised to have any such a life that you want, that is not what your existence is nor will it ever be. Your question is irrelevant entirely.

[Anonymous No.15930666]

>>15930649
Why does not wanting to harm an animal unnecessarily make you weak?

[Anonymous No.15930668]

>>15930646
>Almost everyone will choose the morally correct thing to do even if it doesn't bring as much joy or pleasure
if another action brings greater “joy” without raising any chances of harm then I will always make that decision. I do what I prefer to do. Why should I do anything else?

[Anonymous No.15930669]

>>15930646
>Almost everyone will choose the morally correct thing to do
CLOSE UP SHOP EVERYONE. Morality has been solved by this guy. No need for laws, cause according to anon “people will just be nice.”

[Anonymous No.15930679]

>>15930668
No you wont
>>15930669
Non sequitur strawman.

[Anonymous No.15930683]

>>15930679
>No you wont
then why do I eat meat, retard?

[Anonymous No.15930686]

>>15930658
This is the reality of the situation

[Anonymous No.15930689]

>>15930646
>Almost everyone will choose the morally correct thing to do even if it doesn't bring as much joy or pleasure,to them when weighed against some alternative, you do this as well.
You could’nt make a more falsified claim even if you deliberately tried

[Anonymous No.15930693]

>>15930629
>Most vegans seem to be down with lab grown meat, for example.
i don't know, whenever i find myself at a vegan dinner talking comfortably with someone i'll ask them the question "would you rather get your protein from lab-grown meat or from insect sources?"

first they get really defensive because everyone thinks all questions regarding their philosophies are gotcha questions designed to out them, but if they do eventually answer the question the overwhelming majority of them have said "insect sources" because they mostly have the same "natural chauvinism" that a lot of alternative-types do ("don't drink that, it has chemicals") so their skepticism of something grown in a lab is stronger than their commitment to not eating animals.

alternatively, one said he wouldn't consume lab-grown meat because the lab operates under a system of exploitation, so he can't be sure of the morality of the process.

it's interesting to me.

>The issue is that that is a very big 'if'.
i agree, but it can be done. there are a handful of cattle countries (uruguay, new zealand for instance) that have outright banned the production of meat from non free roam grass fed sources and the EU is constantly working on upping standards for the housing and treatment of animals in european farms.

[Anonymous No.15930694]

>>15930683
Because you like it and it's legal.
You could also choose to, for example, not go to a family members funeral because you prefer to spend the day playing video games.
Both those behaviors are still immoral regardless of the pleasure or displeasure it may bring to you. Pleasure and morality aren't connected. Utilitarianism is low iq cope.

[Anonymous No.15930707]

>>15930689
>You could’nt make a more falsified claim even if you deliberately tried
False

[Anonymous No.15930708]

>>15930666
>Why does not wanting to harm an animal unnecessarily make you weak?

I didn't say anything about desiring it or it being unnecessary. I was speaking more to the unhealthiness of being queasy at even the idea of it. The reason we're able to sit here with the cognitive capacity to have an abstract conversation like is because our ancestors had no qualms about eating animals.

[Anonymous No.15930709]

>>15930658
>a home? A man doesn’t need a home, he just needs a shelter. Water, heat, electricity? No, no, none of that is ESSENTIAL? Food tasting good? No, you just need sustenance. Here drink this onions ehanced with all the nutrients you need to stay alive and be productive.

[Anonymous No.15930711]

>>15930693
vegans don't eat insects

[Anonymous No.15930719]

>>15930694
>Because you like it
as I said before, I do what I prefer. You’re only confirming my point here.
>Both those behaviors are still immoral regardless of the pleasure or displeasure it may bring to you.
if morality has nothing to do with my conscious experience then there’s reason to care about morality. If all experiences were somehow equally pleasurable to me, then it wouldn’t matter what I do. By the way, how do YOU determine what’s moral?

[Anonymous No.15930721]

>>15930709
>>a home? A man doesn’t need a home, he just needs a shelter. Water, heat, electricity? No, no, none of that is ESSENTIAL? Food tasting good? No, you just need sustenance. Here drink this onions ehanced with all the nutrients you need to stay alive and be productive.
nice strawman

[Anonymous No.15930726]

>>15930719
no reason*

[Anonymous No.15930729]

>>15930693
another strawman

[Anonymous No.15930730]

>>15930719
>as I said before, I do what I prefer. You’re only confirming my point here.
The point is that what you prefer doesn't matter because you don't own your own lifes pleasure
>if morality has nothing to do with my conscious experience then there’s reason to care about morality.
It doesn't matter if you care about it
> If all experiences were somehow equally pleasurable to me, then it wouldn’t matter what I do.
sure
>By the way, how do YOU determine what’s moral?
I'm smarter than you so I have the right to make laws and such to tell you what you're allowed and not allowed to do, regardless of how it feels for you.

[Anonymous No.15930747]

>>15930707
Im sorry, i guess all those people not wearing masks are being moral then. I suppose people looting and breaking shit are being moral. I suppose cops beating defenseless people are being moral. Or maybe all those Mackenzie types destroying middle america and concentrating wealth on the few are moral. And all those actors and billionaires living it up in lavish mansions and private islands while millions are homeless and hungry are doing the moral thing. Maybe all the people creating tons of waste everyday even when they’re informed about climate change are also doing the moral thing. What about all those gamg members? Religious extremists? Politicians?

[Anonymous No.15930751]

>>15930598
the reason is because not everyone is a psychopath and some people have compassion for the feeling of others lol. maybe you have autism.

[Anonymous No.15930752]

>>15930475
Same hilarious pretension projecting values as transcendental and not as arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.15930756]

>>15930730
>I'm smarter than you so I have the right to make laws and such to tell you what you're allowed and not allowed to do, regardless of how it feels for you.
doesn’t even answer my question. And I have no reason to listen to you when you don’t know what I prefer. That’s like telling a lion to eat a salad because you like salad.

There is the most preferable life for me, and I see no reason why I should choose any lesser life. Either morality is aligned with the most preferable life, OR morality is meaningless to me as I value my experience above all things. The only reason why I would forsake preference for morality is if I preferred to be moral, which reveals a contradiction, which means that what is moral was always what I preferred.

[Anonymous No.15930760]

>>15930623
Vegans btfo’d

[Anonymous No.15930761]

>>15930708
I'm assuming OP meant it in the context of living in the western world today, that is, in a situation where it is completely unnecessary to harm animals. He didn't mention anything about feeling queasy about it either.

[Anonymous No.15930769]

>>15930721
thats not even a strawman hes just pointing out how fucking stupid your argument is from the post he replied to

[Anonymous No.15930774]

Why is eating meat I hunt or domesticate in a humane manner an immoral act?

[Anonymous No.15930780]

>>15930711
>>15930729
i'm being 100% genuine and i don't see what's so offensive to you in my post. i'm aware that what i described in the first part of my post is entirely anecdotal.

the question framed was "if your only options for protein were lab-grown meats or insect sources, which one would you choose?" and so far no-one's said lab-grown meats.

none of these people eat insects as of now.

my reasoning is that the town i live in is big with american hippie expats and their descendants, so i'd attribute their "natural chauvinism" to their upbringing.

[Anonymous No.15930783]

>>15930751
compassion is designed for your survival. It’s a good thing when used properly. In any case you can’t blame me for following my preferences and I can’t blame you. Maybe I was born with less compassion, maybe you were born with too much. So what? I know how to avoid illegal activity and punishable behavior so I’m doing fine.

[Anonymous No.15930785]

>>15930543
>I am as convinced that eating meat is immoral
So why do you keep doing it? Is it immoral to eat a roadkilled animal, or one that you raised and slaughtered yourself?

[Anonymous No.15930788]

>>15930658
Objectively bad is meaningless. What, am I going to go to hell for eating meat? What do you even mean by objectively bad? If I can experience eating meat as good, then doesnt that refute that eating meat is objectively bad?

[Anonymous No.15930794]

>>15930756
>doesn’t even answer my question. And I have no reason to listen to you when you don’t know what I prefer.
I already told you, what you prefer doesn't matter, you do not have ownership over your life's joy.
>That’s like telling a lion to eat a salad because you like salad.
You're not a lion.
>There is the most preferable life for me, and I see no reason why I should choose any lesser life.
If you won't chose the moral position of your own accord, then you will be forced to. This is how it works.
>Either morality is aligned with the most preferable life, OR morality is meaningless to me as I value my experience above all things.
Thats fine, and irrelevant. Your preferences are irrelevant because the purpose of your existence is not to maximize your own pleasure, that's not what your life is for.

As we continue to develop more sophisticated AI and we continue to map all human behavior, your life will be more easily controlled and you will be made to live the life we decide for you regardless of your pleasure (that doesn't matter).

[Anonymous No.15930797]

>>15930693
You're either hanging around health vegans or lying. Ethical vegans are opposed to harming insects as well.
>i agree, but it can be done
I very much doubt it with the current level of demand for meat. Conditions for many EU animals are horrible still. And while people claim want it to get better, most continue to support it. It's so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.15930804]

>>15930623
>When the above is pointed out one of two things is revealed by the moralists: ... 2) a normative appeal is made to the aporia of reason, or some viceral claim about human experience (“we all intuitively know what is moral”, etc).
>>15930751
>correct thing to do even if it doesn't bring as much joy or pleasure,to them when weighed against some alternative, you do this as well.
>the reason is because not everyone is a psychopath and some people have compassion for the feeling of others lol. maybe you have autism.

Lol

[Anonymous No.15930816]

>>15930774
If you don't think that animals matter morally even a fraction of human value, then it's irrelevant whether you are doing it humanely or not. And if animal lives matter, then cruel murder is almost as bad as noncruel murder.

[Anonymous No.15930824]

>>15930785
>or one that you raised and slaughtered yourself?
Why should you raising/slaughtering it yourself even matter? If you will kill some human you raised, it would be a murder.

[Anonymous No.15930825]

>>15930794
even if I don’t “have ownership” of my joy, it’s still within my power to maximize it as best I can within whatever environment I find myself in. I’ll continue to do so until you control my body like a puppet

[Anonymous No.15930835]

>>15930816
>If you don't think that animals matter morally even a fraction of human value, then it's irrelevant whether you are doing it humanely or not.
Why?

[Anonymous No.15930837]

>>15930816
>If you don't think that animals matter morally
what does that even mean

[Anonymous No.15930843]

>>15930794
>If you won't chose the moral position of your own accord, then you will be forced to. This is how it works.
how can you define moral? i very much doubt there is an absolute moral. seems like you are taking a few points of what is moral for granted. id personally say that what is moral is what is aesthetically pleasing. in that cause it depends on your etymological fundements.

[Anonymous No.15930844]

>>15930837
Someone, explain to him.

[Anonymous No.15930856]

veganism is the new abolitionism and I can't wait to wave at all you dumb faggots from the right side of history

[Anonymous No.15930864]

>>15930835
Because if animals are something completely inhuman like, say, plants or inanimate objects, then you just can't be cruel to them. You can't cut the tree cruelly or mine the iron humanely.

[Anonymous No.15930873]

>>15930864
i sometimes feel bad if I break a rock

[Anonymous No.15930874]

>>15930816
>And if animal lives matter
Not that anon, but here is where the logical jenga of veganism topples. Animal lives don’t matter. Unless you’re religious, our material understanding tells us that we’re animals. We can understand our own behavior no different than that of other animals. As part of the food chain of a meaningless world, eating and being eaten hold no objective moral value.
Morality is understood as a mere label to describe certain kinds of social behavior among humans. To expand this label to include animals other than humans is to misunderstand the function of it as a descriptor. Of course chopping pigs up to eat would be immoral, but morality was not meant to extend to animals. If you think morality refers to something other than a kind of social behavior it is up to you to rationally demonstrate its source and nature.

[Anonymous No.15930877]

>>15930864
you’re hopelessly lost in buzzwords

[Anonymous No.15930885]

>>15930788
you are putting yourself at risk for heart disease (among other things) an you are contributing to the destruction of the planet. so yes there are things that are objectively bad that you can measure and so it is not meaningless.

[Anonymous No.15930886]

>>15930864
Animals seem to me to be more than plants or trees. I still fail to understand why hunting them or domesticating them in a humane manner is immoral.

[Anonymous No.15930887]

>>15930864
>You can't cut the tree cruelly or mine the iron humanely.
Someone, give this guy a book on ecology

[Anonymous No.15930893]

>>15930769
it is a strawman. eating meat is not the equivalent of having a shelter or having water. you and him are both retarded.

[Anonymous No.15930898]

>I feel fine when killing animals
>I feel bad when torturing animals
>I feel bad when killing humans
>I feel awful when torturing humans
there’s no contradiction here. Animals aren’t the same as humans.

[Anonymous No.15930905]

>>15930898
>>I feel bad when killing humans
>>I feel awful when torturing humans
No I don't lol

[Anonymous No.15930906]

those who claim veganism is flawed because vegan foods also hurt the environment are using an incorrect definition of veganism and are falling for a number of fallacies, the biggest of which is the nirvana fallacy. Veganism isnt about the complete end to animal torture and murder, its about doing what is in ones power to mitigate the torture and murder of animals as well as mitigating the destruction of the environment. theres never a perfect solution but that doesnt mean we shouldnt strive for one.

[Anonymous No.15930907]

>>15930874
>Animal lives don’t matter
actually if you knew anything about ecology (you don't) they in fact do matter. you do not live an isolated independent existence. animals are a part of the planet just as much as you are.

[Anonymous No.15930913]

>>15930905
I didn’t say “you” I said “I”

[Anonymous No.15930916]

>>15930913
So did I

[Anonymous No.15930919]

If I have free range chickens that leave unfertilized eggs laying about my property, is it immoral to pick up and eat those eggs?

[Anonymous No.15930921]

>>15930893
>doesn't even know what a strawman is
embarrassing desu

[Anonymous No.15930925]

>>15930885
>an you are contributing to the destruction of the planet
Everything we do in modernity contributes to the destruction of the planet. If all the vegans that pretend this is a real cause for veganism were really that concern they would be rallying to exterminate the motorized vehicular transportation. Farm and manufacturing locally would do more for the planet than ending meat production. In fact, if you’re a vegan in the northeast, you likely do more harm to the environment than a meat eater who eats locally in the south by the sheer footprint of food logistics to the less fertile regions. Imagine the reduction of emissions if people simply didn’t live above Kentucky.

[Anonymous No.15930929]

>>15930893
>eating meat is not the equivalent of having a shelter
He never said it was. Now this is a strawman.

[Anonymous No.15930931]

>>15930874
ok i read the rest of your retarded post
>food chain
a concept that is the construction of ideology and what actually happens in nature is far more complex
>meaningless world
we have relations embedded with the world that are indeed meaningful

[Anonymous No.15930933]

>>15930893
>eating meat is not the equivalent of having a shelter or having water.
Good thing that’s not the comparison he made.

[Anonymous No.15930934]

>>15930916
then why did you say “no”

[Anonymous No.15930935]

>>15930885
How is heart disease objectively bad? And the destruction of the planet is objectively bad? What? I dont think you know what objective means, idiot. Stop using words you dont know the meaning to. A planet a million light years from earth with small lifeforms that can desire wouldn't give a shit if earth blew right the fuck up, or if we all died from heart disease (or are microwaves objectively bad, too, since they give us cancer? I think wood might be objectively bad too because it gives us splinters! Actually, now that I think about it, life is objectively bad, too, since it causes death).

[Anonymous No.15930936]

>>15930919
No, but I would argue that it is immoral to buy chickens that have been breed to lay eggs all the time for you to eat.

[Anonymous No.15930942]

>>15930907
actually if you knew anything about ecology (you don't) they in fact do not matter. you do not live an isolated independent existence. animals are a part of the planet just as much as you are so it doesnt matter in the least if arbitrary animal A (humans) do anything they want as their moral lense and thought in general are not outside of the closed system. all moral restrictions are arbitrary and fickle animal behavior. therefor non of it matters.

[Anonymous No.15930945]

>>15930936
...why?

[Anonymous No.15930951]

>>15930925
>Everything we do in modernity contributes to the destruction of the planet
And meat is THE BIGGEST CAUSE you fucking imbecile.
and nope vegans have the smallest footprint.

[Anonymous No.15930952]

>>15930658
Humans evolved to eat meat. You think people in Europe ate vegetables and fruit (this is before modern artificial plants) during the ice age? The answer is no. Raw meat is the easiest possible food to digest. Every animal knows this. Do you think animals give a shit about ethics when it comes to food? No. You must consume life to sustain life, and you're better off eating meat than eating plants which are toxic when eaten raw (which is why humans always cooked them).

The plant cope knows no limits. People will go to no end to prove they are "good" as if their self worth ever needed to be proven or justified. But they hate themselves, and this is how they convince their inner judge that they're actually worthwhile. Except it will never work in the end, will it? Excuse after excuse, cope after cope. The vegan road is a dark one, and ends in malnutrition.

[Anonymous No.15930953]

>>15930837
He doesnt give a single shit about animals.

[Anonymous No.15930959]

>>15930936
Why? The circumstances that led to their existence are beyond me, isn't my treatment of them what matters?

[Anonymous No.15930961]

>>15930933
whatever he said home it is still a stawman

[Anonymous No.15930969]

>>15930951
I would think asteroids would be the biggest cause... ir maybe the sun, since it will eventually explode. Those are, of course, objectively bad, too, and will be sent to hell when they disappear.

[Anonymous No.15930970]

>>15930945
Because it's a taxing and painful process. Same as to why it's wrong to buy dogs that have been breed to not be able to breathe properly.
>>15930959
If you buy them you support the creation of more of them.

[Anonymous No.15930976]

>y-you need meat to survive!
>meat caused coronavirus, mad cow disease, and trichinosis

[Anonymous No.15930981]

>>15930931
>a concept that is the construction of ideology and what actually happens in nature is far more complex
There is not a single implication that the nature is just food chain. The food chain is also not ideological since it simply describes objective relations among certain animals. Some eat others. This isn’t ideological. Humans and primates are eaten by other animals and eat other animals. What’s ideological about this?
>we have relations embedded with the world that are indeed meaningfu
>we
This is a normative claim that allows for both meat eating and veganism. It also implies that the world itself is devoid of meaning and that this “embedding” is subjective, hence relative.
What prevents meat eating from being embedded with moral meaning in this view? Nothing, you know this.

[Anonymous No.15930985]

So many seething meat eaters in this thread. I think the cognitive dissonance point has been proven. Why else would people get so mad about someone's diet.

[Anonymous No.15930986]

>>15930970
>Because it's a taxing and painful process.
alright, I’ll concede that it could be harmful. So what? Why conflate harm with immorality?

[Anonymous No.15930988]

>>15930658
Really? A dialectic of needs, now? This is just pathetic. Needs dont exist, NOTHING is ""essential"". Living isnt even essential.

[Anonymous No.15930992]

>>15930906
i like how none of the omnis replied to the best argument itt

[Anonymous No.15930995]

>>15930976
>chinese meat caused coronavirus, mad cow disease, and trichinosis
fixed that for you

[Anonymous No.15930998]

>>15930976
some plants are poisonous, retard. And you still have to eat some plant products while they’re fresh and clean

[Anonymous No.15930999]

>>15930976
I dont need meat to survive, I like eating meat.

[Anonymous No.15931002]

>>15930976
Coronavirus was invented in a laboratory and mad cow was manufactured to prevent people from buying cow brain (which is extremely nutritous). Like all plant copers you are the perfect slave for the elite and buy all their narratives.

[Anonymous No.15931012]

>>15930985
people get mad when vegans try to instill their subjective beliefs into others and pretend that veganism is objectively moral. I don’t care if you’re vegan. More meat for me

[Anonymous No.15931016]

>>15930995
mcd was from the uk

[Anonymous No.15931020]

>>15930649
>>15930656
I would shoot a child if it annoyed me and I could get away with it. I also eat meat. (I might be a psychopath.) But if we're talking about ethics, in a strict philosophical discussion, then eating meat is immoral in the same way murdering children is immoral.

[Anonymous No.15931022]

>>15930986
If we don't then factory farming is just as moral, is it not? I thought we were arguing from a standpoint of wanting to not harm animals.

[Anonymous No.15931024]

>>15930970
>If you buy them you support the creation of more of them
That's like claiming it's wrong to pay rent to landlord who buys meat with the money you give him. Or buying a vegan meal from a restaurant that buys meat with their food.

[Anonymous No.15931025]

>>15930970
>If you buy them you support the creation of more of them.
So I am supporting their continued existence, and I am treating them humanely. Where is the issue?

[Anonymous No.15931026]

>>15931012
>here are my opinions
nobody cares idiot

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430215618253
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24727102/

[Anonymous No.15931036]

>>15931026
>idiot
why do vegans get so mad? Guess you’re wrong haha

[Anonymous No.15931039]

>>15930992
>Human beings malnourished is the perfect solution

Veganism is child abuse. If you are vegan and have kids somehow that are fed vegan they will grow up weak with fucked up teeth and mental problems. Anyone knowingly engaging in this torture is going to be sent straight to Hell.

[Anonymous No.15931049]

>>15930985
>says particular basic moral framework is objectively correct despite relying on subjective and contingent criterion and poor attention to epistemology.
>people disagree
“So many seething meat eaters in this thread.”

[Anonymous No.15931050]

>>15930877
Nice concession of defeat.

[Anonymous No.15931053]

>>15930907
>animal lives matter... because without them the planet wouldn’t be as good for YOU(human)
This is what your post says. It seems that they don’t matter without some kind of justification for my own life. What if we could sythentize all organic processes in the world and could objectively not need a single living thing to sustain it? Would they matter then?

[Anonymous No.15931057]

>>15930992
>those who claim veganism is flawed because vegan foods also hurt the environment
I don't care about this line of reasoning, so why would I continue to read the post?

[Anonymous No.15931058]

>>15931012
im a vegan and i dont believe in morals. i also dont push my vegan beliefs on others. im an egoist and feel that veganism has improved my body and mind. i also avoid processed vegan foods which are full of garbage.

[Anonymous No.15931061]

>>15930873

[Anonymous No.15931070]

>>15930623
THIS KILLS THE VEGAY

[Anonymous No.15931072]

>what's objectively bad about heart disease?
>what's objectively bad the destruction of the planet?
here we go everyone this is the meat eater. it is amazing how people on this site complain on and on about degeneracy but when veganism is brought up and they are told that eating meat has various detrimental and catastrophic effects to their health, to the forests, oceans, world, other beings and that there is no reason to eat it they all go through mental gymnastics only to lead to nihilism and unenlightened hedonism just to justify their laziness to just quit their habit. can't even be honest with themselves they have to be bad faith actors.

[Anonymous No.15931075]

>>15931054
Heart disease is bad because it hurts, ecologists are worse than veganists.

[Anonymous No.15931076]

>>15931054
>>what's objectively bad the destruction of the planet?
Inhumane industrial animal farming is immoral. It treats the animals cruelly, is bad for the environment, and produces a worse product that is likely detrimental to human health for the sake of profit.

[Anonymous No.15931080]

>>15931058
Start eating raw meat. You are only starving yourself (probably why you are feeling good, because your body is consuming its own fat) and going to be fucked up later down the line. Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.15931086]

>>15930898
You can't prove any sort of random jumble by using the "aren't the same" qualifier.

[Anonymous No.15931091]

>>15931024
If you could rent from a vegan landlord that would obviously be preferable. And I'd argue that buying vegan meals contribute to more vegan food being produced, which is good.

>So I am supporting their continued existence
No, by buying chickens you are supporting more of them being created, even though it would be better for them to not be born. See the comparison with dogs again.

[Anonymous No.15931096]

>>15930475
Meat threads are worse than any amount of /pol/ threads, never is it in good faith that anons discuss it. Jannies need to do their job.

[Anonymous No.15931097]

>>15930961
This, anon is a perfect example of why arguing online is a waste. He’s obviously doesn’t know what a “strawman” is (by definition) yet he will continue to pollute this thread and our bandwidth. Irl he wpuld be ridiculed and forced to concede his stupidity in front of others.

[Anonymous No.15931099]

>>15930887
You should also spend your money wisely, but it's not cruel to money to waste it (or to hoard it).

[Anonymous No.15931100]

>>15931072
Veganism literally degenerates the human body. Try again faggot.

[Anonymous No.15931109]

>>15931091
Shit forgot to reply to >>15931025

[Anonymous No.15931110]

>>15930886
Because murder will not became a non-murder if you will do it in a "humane manner".

[Anonymous No.15931112]

>>15930961
This* anon is a perfect example of why arguing online is a waste. He’s obviously doesn’t know what a “strawman” is (by definition) yet he will continue to pollute this thread and our bandwidth. Irl he would* be ridiculed and forced to concede his stupidity in front of others.

[Anonymous No.15931125]

>>15931097
IRL the ridicule will depend on whether your faction has a majority.

[Anonymous No.15931126]

>>15931097 ok you imbecile let's look at his post >>15930709
i bring up that you don't need to eat meat and he equates that to having a home, water, shelter, and electricity. he also says food tasting good even though there are plenty of tasteful things to eat on a vegan diet.

[Anonymous No.15931128]

>>15931110
The literal definition of murder only applies to people.

[Anonymous No.15931130]

Why are a bunch of posts being deleted?

[Anonymous No.15931135]

>>15931112
>>15931126

[Anonymous No.15931138]

>>15931128
True, that's because animals, plants or rocks are not considered human and don't have human rights.

[Anonymous No.15931140]

>>15930637
because it makes me happy, so it's morally correct :^)

[Anonymous No.15931144]

>>15930709
Drinking onions sounds pretty bitter.

[Anonymous No.15931154]

>>15931091
>>15931109
>No, by buying chickens you are supporting more of them being created, even though it would be better for them to not be born
I disagree. It is better for life to be born, and if being treated humanely, I see no issue with domestication of life.
>>15931110
Is it unjust for a coyote to hunt a squirrel?

[Anonymous No.15931155]

>>15931080
nah, i eat about 180 grams of protein every day with clean, unprocessed, non-mest foods (onions, chickpeas, sprouts, legumes). i dont need to go back to eating meat. i also find my method to be cheaper.

[Anonymous No.15931156]

>>15931072
no, its just that vegans have no concept of epistemological framing. the whole course of your thoughtline predicates meat eating and its correlatory effects as a concrete evil instead of an abstracted particular. your movement thrives on bad faith contigent arguements. its about your inability to reframe your perspective. and instead consider it an absolute. same thing as any other post-modernist “problem” like racism or whatnot.
>>15931076
all that is abstracted statements.

[Anonymous No.15931164]

>>15931154
If you think that coyote is able-minded and both coyote and squirrel have human rights, then probably yes, especially if coyote has other means of survival.

[Anonymous No.15931169]

>>15931138
that’s because they’re not humans

[Anonymous No.15931174]

>>15931164
>If you think [animals] have human rights
They don't. They are more than plants, but less than men.

[Anonymous No.15931179]

>>15931154
>It is better for life to be born
How far would you be willing to take this? Would it be okay to breed an animal in a way that resulted in it being in constant pain?

[Anonymous No.15931186]

>>15931164
Human rights. Lol. Oh yes, human rights! Jean baudrillard called human rights the zero point of ideology, the most pathetic manifestation of ideology to ever exist.

[Anonymous No.15931187]

>>15931169
>>15931174
That's a very wise and valuable conclusion, but you should read a few preceding posts too.

[Anonymous No.15931201]

>>15931179
>Would it be okay to breed an animal in a way that resulted in it being in constant pain?
I don't think so, that is why I am against those giant industrial businesses that mistreat animals.

[Anonymous No.15931204]

>mfw this thread

Holy fuck I hate vegans and vegetarians. I wish you guys would just shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.15931211]

>>15931154
>It is better for life to be born
If someone will make a child just harvest it for organs a bit later, should that someone be prosecuted?

[Anonymous No.15931217]

>>15931211
A human child is not equal to a lamb.

[Anonymous No.15931223]

>>15931201
I didn't say anything about mistreatment, the animal would be taken care of as humanely as possible once born. Or do you think breeding such an animal is mistreatment in itself? If that is the case I don't think you're far from my position that breeding our modern egg laying hen is immoral.

[Anonymous No.15931224]

>>15931211
>>15931217
I will say though, that I would lean more toward domesticating animals for unfertilized eggs and milk, and hunting for meat.

[Anonymous No.15931225]

>>15931217
That's true, but that's not an answer to the question.

[Anonymous No.15931231]

>>15931126
>i bring up that you don't need to eat meat and he equates that to having a home, water, shelter, and electricity.
It was equated it with having a “home”, which would imply having such things as water, heat and electricity (utilities).
You don’t need to eat meat to live. You just need some kind of sustenance. You also don’t need a house with space or comfort, or utilities. All you need is a tent or a rock to protect you from the elements.
>he also says food tasting good even though there are plenty of tasteful things to eat on a vegan diet.
Completely relative. Meat is a central part of almost all world cuisines and there are entirely cultural elements based around meat eating across the world. Meat tends to be the more expensive and highlighted elements in dishes and cooking.
The whole point of the post is that arguing that something isn’t structly essential is stupid and completely misunderstands human life. There’s a qualitative difference between a shelter and a home. From the essential to the inessential. Life would be terrible if we only had what was strictly essential. So terrible we’ve dedicated all of civilization to the cultivation of inessentials... like moral philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15931240]

>>15931204
why, is your conscience starting to bother you? :)

[Anonymous No.15931241]

>>15931223
>the animal would be taken care of as humanely as possible once born
Then I see no reason to believe the animal would be in constant pain, and don't oppose it's domesticated life.

[Anonymous No.15931249]

>>15930783
Veganism for all Not in Our Lifetime. Ngmi

[Anonymous No.15931251]

>>15931225
It is.

[Anonymous No.15931257]

>>15931241
>Then I see no reason to believe the animal would be in constant pain
But it would, it has been bred that way.

[Anonymous No.15931267]

>hate humanity
>love animals
therefore im vegan easy as that

[Anonymous No.15931268]

>>15931251
No, it is not the answer to the question
>If someone will make a child just harvest it for organs a bit later, should that someone be prosecuted?

[Anonymous No.15931270]

>>15931257
I reject your axiom.

[Anonymous No.15931274]

>>15931270
Why?

[Anonymous No.15931275]

>>15931231
It has to do with the fact that eating meat is not only unnecessary but detrimental as I have stated through out the thread you moron. Having a house is not going to give you heart disease or have the vast environmental impacts that the meat industry has.

[Anonymous No.15931289]

>>15931275
Fairly sure that modern construction industry needs vast resources which can impact the ecology too.

[Anonymous No.15931299]

>>15931231
tldr I'm not arguing to live to the minimum essentials that is not the argument at all so it is a strawman

[Anonymous No.15931301]

>>15931274
I don't believe an animal can suffer perpetual pain if being treated humanely by it's master.

[Anonymous No.15931311]

>>15931275
>Having a house is not going to give you heart disease or have the vast environmental impacts that the meat industry has.
1) The most empirically healthy diet is the Mediterranean diet which includes animal protein.
2) All industries are part for the environment. Meat industry’s large inpact is due to its size. Reduction of meat consumption would be beneficial for the planet but its eradiction isn’t necessary. We dont need $1 hamburgers, I agree with that

[Anonymous No.15931313]

>>15930475

>>This world is a corpse-eater. All the things eaten in it themselves die also. Truth is a life-eater. Therefore no one nourished by truth will die. It was from that place that Jesus came and brought food. To those who so desired, he gave life, that they might not die.

[Anonymous No.15931316]

>>15931289
And it is entirely miniscule compared to the animal industry, the biggest harm by far. So stop going through mental gymnasitics to justify you being a lazy shit.

[Anonymous No.15931321]

>>15931299
Then what reasoning is there for “meat isn’t essential” as an argument. If you’re not arguing for living to the essentials, why would it matter if meat isn’t essential?

[Anonymous No.15931322]

>>15931311
And eradicating it is even more beneficial. Eliminating the animal products would make it more healthier.

[Anonymous No.15931324]

>>15931301
Just give it some wonky bone structure that causes chronic pain or perpetual shortness of breath or something.

[Anonymous No.15931327]

>>15931321
because not only is it not essential it is detrimental, so take it out of your habits.

[Anonymous No.15931334]

>>15931316
Pretty unconvincing.

[Anonymous No.15931336]

>>15930475
I think that animals are evil and they should suffer and die out when technology will allow us to entirely replace them. I also belive that destruction of the planet will result in better, stronger mankind or well deserved extinction if man won't adapt. Your move faggots.

[Anonymous No.15931344]

>>15931324
I'm pretty sure mutations like that would be a result of mistreatment, but if entirely random I suppose the humane thing to do would be to put it out of it's misery.

[Anonymous No.15931359]

>>15931336
>Meat eaters are nihilists
surprise surprise

[Anonymous No.15931369]

>>15931322
If the meat industry was ended, there would then be another industry which would be the “biggest”. That is determined by demand. If everyone was vegetarian, plant agriculture (especially certain crops like onions) would be the biggest detriment. Meat being the largest has nothing to do with meat itself but mere demand for it. The only reason its so large is because of demand for cheap meat everywhere.
>>15931327
It’s not. Again, the most empirically healthy diet includes animal protein, just not an excess of it.

[Anonymous No.15931370]

Excuse me gentlemen I'm merely passing through

[Anonymous No.15931377]

>>15931359
>vegans are religious cultists
Surprise surprise

[Anonymous No.15931381]

>>15931344
No no, it's just a result of acquiring some other desirable trait, like being really cute or producing more food for us.
My point is that it is immoral to breed animals in ways that lower their quality of life.

[Anonymous No.15931396]

>>15931369
It does have to do with the animals themselves actually cows produce methane for example. If everyone went plant based the agricultural industry would cause less damage (a lot of the grains we produce today are fed to livestock so that would reduce as well).

[Anonymous No.15931397]

>>15930824
Animals aren't people, this is obvious to everyone

[Anonymous No.15931403]

>>15931381
>My point is that it is immoral to breed animals in ways that lower their quality of life.
I agree.

[Anonymous No.15931419]

>>15931240
No. The idea of having higher moral fiber because you refuse to eat animals is the highest form of self-wank. I’d pity those who don’t indulge in meat if they weren’t so goddamn annoying about their retarded system of ethics.

I hope someone eats you instead.

[Anonymous No.15931426]

>>15931396
Meat is high-impact and ridiculous high-demand. If less people wanted meat, it wouldn’t be the biggest impacter on raw stats, even if it were proportionally the worst (which im sure it isnt, but that’s hard to determine, im certain motorized transportations is worst for the planet than meat).

[Anonymous No.15931437]

>>15931426
Raising animals for food requires massive amounts of land, food, energy, and water and animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all the world's transportation systems combined.

[Anonymous No.15931446]

>>15931419
you're welcome to eat my ass anytime you'd like

[Anonymous No.15931459]

>>15931437
>animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all the world's transportation systems combined.
Is it necessary to lie?
In the US transportation and residential is already more than both agriculture and industry combined. This includes all agriculture and all industry.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[Anonymous No.15931482]

200 replies and eating meat still hasn't been proven to be immoral.

[Anonymous No.15931491]

>>15931482
you can't prove anything to be immoral desu

[Anonymous No.15931517]

>>15931482
morality doesnt exist to begin with. health, physique, appearance, the environment, and the ecosystem exist however.

[Anonymous No.15931519]

>eating meat is immoral because it is wasteful
ok, so quitting smoking too would be necessary because tobacco is also energy intensive and it literally does nothing except harm you
>eating meat is immoral because it's harmful
So drugs are immediately banned then and we base our morality on what is the healthiest process for human beings
>eating meat is bad because the animal suffers
ok but what about insects and fish and crustaceans, their capacity for suffering is likely negligeable
>eating meat is bad because killing an animal is tantamount to killing a person
Ok but depending on your defintion, are bacteria and such not animals? Is using desinfectant immoral?

>eating meat is bad because <3 macroscopic life i can project human emotions and proceses unto
Oh ok cool

[Anonymous No.15931527]

>>15931459
About a little less than half of transportation is product movement (still more than all of agriculture). This graph demonstrates my earlier claim that eating locally and banning living above Kentucky would be better for the environment than banning meat. More green houses gases occur from transpoting product that from producing it.

[Anonymous No.15931530]

>>15931446
Great, I’m sure it’ll taste like green beans and corn.

[Anonymous No.15931545]

>>15931527
>banning living above Kentucky
This is retarded, everyone in America eats food that is not produced locally and location has little to do with it

[Anonymous No.15931578]

>>15931545
It just an exaggerated way to say to simply love somewhere where it isnt unfertile for over half the year like in the Great Lakes region. How do you eat locally somehwere where crops don't grow like 6-8 months of the year? I dont think people in Ann Arbor or Detroit are drying their summer fruits and salting their trout for the winter months.

[Anonymous No.15931597]

>>15930622
so what? most moral views are. pointing this out isn't evidence for anything

[Anonymous No.15931628]

>>15931519
strawman arguments

[Anonymous No.15931681]

>>15931578
>I dont think people in Ann Arbor or Detroit are drying their summer fruits and salting their trout for the winter months
They could, and in the past they did. Ultimately I don't disagree with you, people need to strive for local self-suffiency. But you can do that anywhere, people have lived in far more inhospitable places than Michigan with far less in the way of technology and knowledge. Every neighborhood could and should have a huge greenhouse.

[Anonymous No.15931834]

>>15931628
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Anonymous No.15931897]

>>15930553
Read Crime and Punishment.

[Anonymous No.15931942]

Meat eaters who have been exposed to the reality of factory farming and continue to meat, typically with relish, are irredeemable demonoids and should be gassed.

[Anonymous No.15931986]

>>15931942
Many people have no choice.

[Anonymous No.15931997]

vegans are gay i can't wait to force them into cannibalism as things get worse

[Anonymous No.15932898]

>>15931942
>Not the heckin animalerinos!

[Anonymous No.15932911]

>>15931986
Nah most people do there really are no excuses anymore for not being vegan other than laziness

[Anonymous No.15932912]

>>15932898
>nooo not my tendierinos
As you get older posts like this say less and less, until you realize they never said anything at all

[Anonymous No.15933060]

>>15932911
There is no reason to be vegan. Access to enough resources to buy expensive humanely sourced meat or being able to go hunting is not available to everyone.

[Anonymous No.15933122]

>>15933060
Except for the moral reason.

[Anonymous No.15933128]

>>15933122
There is no moral reason to not eat meat.

[Anonymous No.15933263]

>>15933128
I can think of a few.

[Anonymous No.15933278]

>>15933263
You can't articulate one.

[Anonymous No.15933300]

>>15930623
>not a single vegan itt has tried engaging with this
Based anon, cutting the bullshit

[Anonymous No.15933341]

>>15933278
I don't want to cause pain to a living creature for nourishment.

[Anonymous No.15933354]

>>15933300
more like dollar store moral relativism with above average formatting, kill yourself. sooner or later anon you'll understand why language games will never matter as much as what you put into your body

[Anonymous No.15933377]

>>15933354
>or some viceral claim about human experience
You have been caught in the trap of the dollar store moral relativism. I guess that would make you a free samples moral retardationism.

[Anonymous No.15933391]

veganism is a product of weak people growing up in easy times.

[Anonymous No.15933405]

>>15933377
Hahaha nooo stop physicalizing me I'm a monadic godling indifferent to corporeal existence but I can't stop eating these tendies lmao

[Anonymous No.15933418]

>>15933391
The Manichaean inner circle were all vegan and persecuted globally

[Anonymous No.15933424]

Animals aren't receptacles for human morality the same way dirt and plants aren't. And if you insist they do have moral status, you have to prove their life is wort as much or more than a human's. Animal life is worth less than human. Animals are made to serve humans.

>but if ur okay with killing animals by the millions u must be okay with killing humans millions rite

no i'm not, and its a false equivalent and false dilemma.

[Anonymous No.15933443]

>>15930475
I want to be vegan, and contribute to a more vegan lifestyle, but i also want to travel and see the world and taste other cultures, and a lot of that means trying meat/seafood, how can one rectify this?

[Anonymous No.15933444]

>>15933424
I guarantee you your standards for "worth" and "value" are anthropocentrically-derived, neck yourself you fucking midwit rat

[Anonymous No.15933445]

>>15933354
>sooner or later anon you'll understand why language games will never matter as much as what you put into your body
So you can’t rationally communicate your beliefs? People have been eating meat for hundred of thousands of years. The majority of people eat meat and lots of it. It seems empirically you’re the one “bound” to realize some bodily truth than any carnie.

[Anonymous No.15933462]

Meta is tasty , therefore meat is Nice and good

Now fuck off

[Anonymous No.15933474]

>>15933444

All values are anthropocentrically derived because, I assume, we are all humans here. Out of curiosity would meat eating hypothetically be fine if it was a non- anthropocentrically derived value?

[Anonymous No.15933477]

>>15933445
What the majority of people do shouldn't limit my horizon of possibilities, and if you think it should you're a cuck.

[Anonymous No.15933479]

>>15933405
How do you think you’re any different than a religious fanatic when you’re reaction to the irrationality of your position is to essentially hold on to it on the basis of some mystical (uncommunicable) experience? Why is it so hard for you to make the simple concession that your moral beliefs are conditioned by your life experiences and relative to your person? Especially when the whole of human history and culture so obviously does not support you’re particular relation to the subject.

[Anonymous No.15933491]

>>15933474
>yes my beliefs are circular and self-justifying, how could you tell
Thinking in human terms is too limiting, wisdom encompasses a larger view

>>15933479
Yes zoomer, i remember my first summer out of high school too. Get out there and drink the sunshine, this won't be so profound to you in a few years

[Anonymous No.15933496]

>>15933444

Bruh if you want to talk about worth and value I can comfortably say that animals that are bred and slaughtered for the express purpose of food have no value beyond that.

[Anonymous No.15933500]

>Thinking in human terms is too limiting

[Anonymous No.15933509]

>>15933491
>wisdom encompasses a larger view

Wisdom is an anthropocentrically derived value, sorry try again :)

[Anonymous No.15933511]

>>15933496
Based on... criteria of value imposed on them by a faceless economic machine?

[Anonymous No.15933522]

>>15933509
No, because it isn't anthropocentric.

[Anonymous No.15933529]

>>15933354
>more like dollar store moral relativism
Ad hominem with no content
>kill yourself.
Lashing out emotionally like a child
>sooner or later anon you'll understand why language games will never matter as much as what you put into your body
some viceral claim about human experience

>>15933491
>Yes zoomer,
ad hominem
>i remember my first summer out of high school too.
literal textbook projection
>Get out there and drink the sunshine, this won't be so profound to you in a few years
some viceral claim about human experience

[Anonymous No.15933539]

>>15933491
>wisdom encompasses a larger view
You listen to the river, huh? Maybe you should get yourself to a psych ward.

[Anonymous No.15933541]

>>15933511

Pray tell whats the difference between a 'faceless economic machine' and a few hundred local farmers keeping livestock to slaughter?

Hint: there isn't

[Anonymous No.15933545]

>>15933522

please describe some non-anthropocentric wisdom for me there and how it might benefit humans

[Anonymous No.15933563]

>>15933491

You still haven't proven animals have a moral status.

[Anonymous No.15933582]

>>15933529
That's right, language will never qualify the male taste of reality away, discursivity is a literal shadow realm and I hope one day you understand how engineering generation after generation to question their intuitive sense of right and wrong like this is one of the greatest sociological crimes of the past few centuries

>>15933541
The difference is contextual, the faceless economic machine is the aggregate of all your poor little farmer Joe caricatures just tryna make a livin'

[Anonymous No.15933587]

>>15933477
>What the majority of people do shouldn't limit my horizon of possibilities, and if you think it should you're a cuck.
I hope you understand how ironic this whole post is.
>I dont care about what the Other thinks and if you do you’re a total loser as defined by the Other!

[Anonymous No.15933592]

Non-vegans, post your chin, right fucking now.

[Anonymous No.15933598]

>>15933545
The belief that humans are the greatest enemies of life on this planet precisely because of their intellect, and not in spite of it. See Manichaean anthropogony, Nietzsche through Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.15933614]

>>15933582
>to question their intuitive sense of right and wrong like this is one of the greatest sociological crimes of the past few centuries

>hey, guys, eating Meat is WRONG!
>wtf i dont think it’s wrong. My whole family eats meat, my whole country does! Pig in a stick is our national dish! God put animals on earth for us to eat.
>Well, it is wrong, even though near everybody does, just THINK about...
>wait wtf, you telling me to question my intuitive sense of right and wrong? Police, I would like to report a sociological crime!

[Anonymous No.15933615]

>>15933587
I mean, yeah? You're an agent propagating the false memeplex that is normality = morality. You already admit what is moral to the Aztecs is what is repugnant to us, why can't I adopt the outsider's perspective on your own culture?

[Anonymous No.15933632]

>>15933614
Kek, now go take your kids to see how the sausage is made and maybe it'll hit you

[Anonymous No.15933633]

>>15933598

Yes. And?

Humans come first at the expense of all other life if need be. The only thing that's real is what we want. Did you skip over will to power?

[Anonymous No.15933648]

>>15933582

>Eating meat is fine in certain contexts

aight

[Anonymous No.15933664]

>>15933615
Because all you’re doing is proving me right by showing how you’re only way to “support” your position is to appeal to an account of normality. It is “intuitive” to emphasize with animals that’s why it is moral not to eat them. If you do what others do (like eat meat) you’re [insert ad hominem here], in an attenpt to shame. But shame only works through the power of socialization. In other words your attemtps to reject the Other from your morality reveals it’s central role in it.

[Anonymous No.15933667]

>>15933632
This is one of the up and coming yt channels now
https://youtu.be/zvf3cHxkIRo
Get bent

[Anonymous No.15933680]

>>15933664
No, you can't imagine acknowledging the Other without being possessed by it. In this regard, I can.

[Anonymous No.15933691]

>>15933667
I meant the actual slaughter of the animals you're eating you fat fucking goon.

[Anonymous No.15933726]

>>15933680
You’re entirely possessed by it. All moralists, revolutionaries and fanatics are. Where else does the need to enter into dialogue with others when you ‘supposedly’ don’t believe in discursive reason come from? The narcissist cannot live without the imagined gazed of the Other.

[Anonymous No.15933746]

>>15933726
Cringe, yes in withdrawal I presuppose that which is withdrawn from, any other truth bombs you got me poindexter

[Anonymous No.15933754]

>>15933691
Also, I’ve made my own. Factory meat is a discussion logically separate from meat eating itself.

[Anonymous No.15933763]

>>15933754
Which implies a difference in kind between killing an animal in the wild and "humane" slaughter, which is absurd. There isn't one.

[Anonymous No.15933784]

>>15933746
Yeah, you’re just play acting. “Hey look at me guys, Im so above you I dont need to engage, reason is for cucks, im so above you yet im here for shits and giggles, but im serious, dont eat meat? Why? Why would you ask, cuck?” You’re in an ideal position, and non position. The only wisdom you have is that you know you cant defend yourself discursively, so wisely you retreat from the domain from where you can be shown to be wrong. How can you be wrong when such a possibility isn’t possible where you are? But you agree with all this, so hopefully, to me at least, other anons now are aware and wont make the mistake to engage with you, sonce you have made explicit that it will be to no avail.

[Anonymous No.15933789]

>>15933763
Never said that. There is no “humane” killing of animals, there need not be. Halal meat is slaughtered pretty brutally yet in that part of the world it is the “moral” way. I choose my meat in terms of quality.

[Anonymous No.15933819]

>>15933784
Most anti-vegan arguments aren't very compelling. Why should humans eat meat if it is patently immoral in an advanced civilization?

[Anonymous No.15933848]

>>15933060
there are the environmental, health, and ethical reasons. veganism is the future. like i said there really are no excuses despite all the mental gymnastics people try to do other than laziness. vegans win in every argument.

[Anonymous No.15933855]

>>15933819
>Most anti-vegan arguments aren't very compelling.
To who? And which ones? >>15930623
Is not an anti-vegan argument, it is a limit to vegan moralizing. It is simple and yet remains unrefuttable (so far itt and in every other in which I have presented it). In a materialist view of the world, morality describes social behaviors and nothing else. It is empirically understood and demonstratable that people accept moralities on the basis of social conidtioning, pressures and customs and not on the existence of immutable moral laws.
>Why should humans eat meat if it is patently immoral in an advanced civilization?
This statement is moot without a moral ontology, which is itself the problem at hand.
As mentioned, as you have shown, you’re defense is an appeal to apporia or viceral experience no different than relgious claims.

[Anonymous No.15933873]

>>15933855
Yes, your statements carry no commitment to a moral ontology lol. You have built an axiological fortress I have to dig my way out of with a tooth pick and a candy cane. Your type ceased to be interesting in these types of discussions years ago.

[Anonymous No.15933884]

>>15933848
so what's going to happen to all the animals when we stop eating them? they just die off? become extinct? How will you ever convince those brick headed people driven by pure, natural intuition who live off meat and sex that their way of life must be stopped?

[Anonymous No.15933901]

>>15933884
we have forcefully bred them in order to keep up with the demand. if in the scenario everyone stops eating them most of them will be liquidated and the cycle will end.

[Anonymous No.15933956]

>>15933873
They’re not axioms, not by definition. They’re argument easily understood by people, following a simply line of reasoning that doesnt assume anything is given a priori, nothing except the capacity to reason and communicate. The same capcity that allows us to speak, conduct science and hold interpersonal relations. Your problem is that you don’t have this capacity well developed (or are too lazy to cultivate it). You have a sentiment you want everyone to think to agree with, but little means to achieve it. Which explains why you rely on so much attitudinal comments like:
>Your type ceased to be interesting in these types of discussions years ago.
This adds nothing and is another attempt at socialization through shaming.

It is to everyone’s best interest to not accept anything without convincing reason less they be led astray like those poor people who get swept by cults and emotions to kill themselves. Reason is our way to stay grounded to the world. It is a fortress, the best way to keep us safe from ideologies and delusions. If you cant reason your position, then there is no reason to accept what you say. It doesn’t mean you are wrong, it just means there’s no way to know you are. Faith is part of human life, but it is also the most dangerous. Since it is the part we can least justify impassionately, it requires the most amount of passion behind it to sustain it. As a vegan you might know this as “cognitive dissonance” which is exactly what you demonstrate here by not believing discursive reason yet... engaging in discourse.

[Anonymous No.15933968]

>>15933956
lest*

[Anonymous No.15933986]

>>15933956
Yawn. Eating corpses is for corpses. There is a light and it starts with changing your attitude to yourself and the living things around you and letting go of their images - the most prominent being fast food's supernormalization of animal flesh. He who has ears to hear nigger.

[Anonymous No.15934017]

>>15933986
So you’re a vegan but a racist?

[Anonymous No.15934059]

I think that vegetarianism or veganism are valid positions if you have the education and/or money to get yourself a good, balanced diet. As for animal suffering, it isn't as clear cut as PETA fellas would like you to believe. My main conflict with industrial farming it is not the animal suffering (although I think it is an issue, but that the way this animals are raised, could have bad effects on human health).

t. former vegetarian.

[Anonymous No.15934679]

>>15930523
I think that's your own angle friend

[Anonymous No.15934760]

>>15931397
Some animals are people, yes.

>>15930475
To OP, the intellectual argument is easy to accept and, like all intellectual arguments, very distant from action, in this case, not eating meat.

I'm not suggesting that you *want* to be vegan. But supposing you did, really you'd have to emotionally not want to eat meat, and the only way that might happen is if you watch a vegan documentary (e.g. "Dominion"). In other words, you have been convinced aesthetically.

Images are foundational to morality - 2 hours of images of slaughterhouse footage will sober you up, and you will start to approach the world with a greater seriousness and purpose rather than rollicking nihilism.

Fascism (using the term in the broadest sense, but also from without any particular system of morality [i.e. not pejoratively, but, I promise, analytically] - to mean the swan-song of the power) depends on denialism precisely because images of the oppressed, of the filth and horror of acts of cruelty in the viscera of the sufferer and suffering, always emotionally trump the glory of the oppressor and his dream. His dream, in its glory, is a repression of the filth of existence - understandably, for nor is it desirable to live amongst that filth - but romanticism collapses when we are talking about real instances of brutal violence which, once shown in their full image, are invariably clumsy and pathetic.

[Anonymous No.15934768]

>>15934059
Yeah you sound like a vegetarian lol. For the uninitiated (i.e. the non-vegans) vegetarians are considered ridiculous for being totally principally incoherent trendymen.

[Anonymous No.15934786]

>>15934760
Based Dominion poster. Great post.

[Anonymous No.15935686]

>>15933341
Your diet requires the wage slavery of everyone in your Natural Market (tm)

[Anonymous No.15935757]

>>15935686
>much "no ethical consumption under capitalism"

Clearly there exists a difference between funding diamond mines and buying a potato, no? So extend the principle to the situation of a slaughtered animal + feed (harvested plants) + the labour of that process vs. harvested plants + labour. If you sincerely cared about suffering-in-the-world and not just manipulating quips and acerbic wit to impress Twitter Marxists this wouldn't be terribly obvious

[jesus No.15935780]

reminder: morality is for slaves and faggots.

[Anonymous No.15935802]

>>15930475
I am unironically in the same boat. Eating meat is wrong but I don't care. The capacity for this cognitive dissonances is baked in and I am grateful for that.

[Anonymous No.15935817]

>>15935757
Yes, the fact that you don’t grow your own potatoes is inexcusable.

[Anonymous No.15935828]

>>15930475
You aren't doing chickens or cows any favors by not eating them. Instead you should make an effort to only eat ethically farmed free range meat. A lot of the supposed ethical problems with eating meat are actually problems with factory farming, which isn't a fundamental feature of meat eating.

As for the remaining ethical concerns, understand that if all humans were vegan, cows and chickens as we know them would not exist. You're literally campaigning for their extinction. Perhaps there's a middle ground that allows for humans to have our dietary needs met, as well as for our animal friends to flourish?

[Anonymous No.15935881]

iktf OP. Also I am staunch antinatalist and yet compromising my views on that having children? I could never justify that (I had a vasectomy at 22 anyway). I've thought a lot about this, because I have copped a lot of flack in internet antinatalist communities for not being a strict vegan, or even vegetarian.

I think at the end of the day, I'm just a speciesist. And I'm not even really ashamed of it. At the end of the day, they're animals. They may feel pain, they may even suffer, but I just think they have nowhere anywhere the capacity to suffer like humans. actually "Capacity" is not even the right word here, human and animal suffering are of a totally different kind. A human has personhood, we pre-theoretically inhabit a body within an external world. we understand the publicity of the space around us, we understand out capacity to hurt, and be hurt by others. I could go on. my point is that animal suffering in my estimation is purely present. they have no real existential concerns, no concern of past of future. they basically just respond to the world around them, and if we bolt gun them in the head and eat them so we don't get sick and die, well fuck it?

I watched so many documentaries on third world countries, where the people's livlihoods and health is directly dependent upon animal husbandry, and it only hardens my speciecism. if 10,000 chickens have to die for 1 human child to survive and be healthy, so be it.

also all that shit about animal products being unhealthy is vegan lies. maybe tyson pork and chicken is unhealthy but that's how it's raised. humans need cholesterol, fat soluble vitamins and minerals. we are all only alive because of the saturated animal fat that came from out mothers breast milk (mammalian milk).

[Anonymous No.15936001]

>>15930475
I wrote my MA thesis about liberal/romantic humanism vs antihumanism and (post)structuralism. I am thinking about taking it further by writing about links between (post/trans-)humanism and vegetarianism/environmentalism. Would you recommend this book?

[Anonymous No.15936213]

>>15935828
>As for the remaining ethical concerns, understand that if all humans were vegan, cows and chickens as we know them would not exist. You're literally campaigning for their extinction.
Literally why is this a problem?

[Anonymous No.15936239]

>>15930475
What is immoral about eating meat?

What is moral about eating plants?

Why is it better to eat plants?

[Anonymous No.15936365]

>>15930475
I justify a similar line of thought (eating animals is immoral but i do it anyway) on practical grounds.
Meat eating was immoral. In principle, I would support a ban. (I may have to rethink depending on the practical effects - if it would lead to mass starvation, say.) But nobody is seriously proposing a ban, most emphasis is put on reducing individual consumption. My individual consumption has no more effect than random noise and although it is trivially true that "if everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow, they'd stop producing it", the way to resolve problems of that nature is with a ban. Much in the same fashion as we have seatbelt laws, restrictions on smoking in public places, etc. these would all be unnecessary if people voluntarily "did the right thing", but they don't and any serious proposal to change things must account for that. people generally take the path of least resistance.

ultimately i have no concern for my own morality, only for the overall level of morality in society: i'd rather be the only meat eater in the world to being the only vegan in the world. i might be tainted by immorality as a result, but the reduction in animal suffering more than makes up for it. (i would generalize this too - if you don't care for animal suffering etc. i still maintain that the best approach is the one that improves the overall situation, not just your personal standing. i would rather be the only man in hell with everyone else in heaven than be the only man in heaven with everyone else condemned to hell.)

[Anonymous No.15936640]

>>15930504
This is completely correct, I am a vegan and hold exactly the same position with the minor difference that it does bother me.

[Anonymous No.15936696]

>>15936239
Animals contain nervous systems and are capable of feeling. Plants do not. Also animal agriculture is unsustainable

[Anonymous No.15936768]

>>15936696
>Plants do not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLTcVNyOhUc

[Anonymous No.15936779]

>>15930475
is it moral to be anonymous? to hide?

[Anonymous No.15936789]

>>15936768
that's not a nervous system you dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.15936803]

>>15936789
So what? I can also say that non-human animals are not homo sapiens, but that will not be very informative, you vegtard.

[Anonymous No.15936927]

>>15936239
Aside from the pain argument, eating meat requires more plants than eating plants, since the meat has to be fed. So eating plants causes less killing of living beings. That’s the idea anyway.

[Anonymous No.15937004]

>>15930475
There's no justification for participating in the industrial meat industry outside of "buuut it tastes good"

What happens in those factories is outright evil. You don't even need to know the grimy details to come to that conclusion. It's just true.

[Anonymous No.15937064]

>>15937004
>buuut it tastes good
Sounds pretty convincing.

[Anonymous No.15937067]

>>15933341
Plants don't want to be eaten either. You must always take life to sustain life. The vegan cope doesn't acknowledge this of course because they want to be "good" and not go to Hell. They reject their animal nature and pretend they are nice, little angels. Ironically self-hate like this is the fastest way down to Hell, along with supporting such an anti-human diet for others.

[Anonymous No.15937124]

>>15937067
It's true that you have to take life to sustain life. So just eat plants. Why escalate? Eating more complex forms of life (especially when farmed through the industrial meat complex), is fucking NUTS when you consider the pain and environmental consequence.

Have fun eating your chicken nuggets tubby. Mommy will come by later to pick you up after she's done getting fucked 4 ca$h.

[Anonymous No.15937129]

libtards do not have ethics. they do whatever they feel like doing. ethics are just things they say at other people to try and control their behaviour.

>cognitive dissonance

you mean like being Caucasophobic but claiming you are against racism. prove me wrong and say you love loud and proud Caucasians.

[Anonymous No.15937143]

>>15937004
>What happens in those orc riots is outright evil. You don't even need to know the grimy details to come to that conclusion. It's just true.

fixed it for you

[Anonymous No.15937165]

>>15936213
> has no problem with extinction
> wonders why people dont take his 'ethics' seriously

[Anonymous No.15937204]

>>15937124
It's not more complex because plants are harder to digest and results in malnourishment while raw meat is the easiest to digest and has everything a human body needs. It is a diversion away from our true diet. Why would we need plants in the first place? It makes absolutely no sense. Your diet is just an anti-human morality cope like I said. You have to consider your self before others or else it's just sickness. There's nothing good about starving yourself and your children.

All vegans have mental health problems, which is why you insulted me in such a needless and weird way at the end of your message. I hope you realize what you're doing to your body is wrong and practice self care. God is not going to hate you for eating meat.

[Anonymous No.15937237]

Vegans are deficient in B12:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16219987
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/784788

Vegans have weaker bones due to lower calcium intake and vitamin D3 levels:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486478
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092700

Vegans have a worse memory compared to non vegans due to creatine deficiency in vegans:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118604
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14561278

Vegans have less gains compared to non vegans:
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/6/1032.full

Vegans are deficient in omega 3s:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087975
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16188209
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12323090

Vegans are deficit in carnitine:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21753065
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1628441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11043928

Vegans are deficient in iodine:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12748410
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21613354

Vegans are deficient in iron due to the fact that iron from plant sources is less bioavailable than iron from meat sources:
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269606

Vegans are deficient in vitamin A:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19103647
http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/137/11/2346.full
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091118072051.htm
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/betacarotene.htm
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1545.full

[Anonymous No.15937260]

>>15937237
King

[Anonymous No.15937973]

>>15937165
Literally what is the issue with some animal that can’t survive in nature going extinct? Why do you feel the need for it to exist?

[Anonymous No.15938136]

>>15937973
> animal that can’t survive in nature
Sounds like human.

[Anonymous No.15938205]

>>15937204
>eating plants is anti-human
Neck yourself retard

[Anonymous No.15938212]

>>15938205
Vegan btfo.

[Anonymous No.15938296]

>>15937204

Honey child. Plant leaves are less complex and easier for our system to digest than the flesh of an animal. Full stop.

I'm not saying you should stop eating meat. I'm saying it's an objective wrong and only fucking idiots would continue. Which you will.

[Anonymous No.15938347]

>>15937204

>Why would we need plants in the first place?

Also re-read this sentence to yourself.

[Anonymous No.15938359]

>>15938296
Go eat a tree then.

[Anonymous No.15938392]

>>15938296
>that spacing

[Anonymous No.15938417]

>>15938392
If you know Reddit in such a detail, you should fuck off to it yourself.

[Anonymous No.15938527]

>>15938417
no u