/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6951767]

Are there any ethical works that argue against veganism?

I like meat but I can't justify eating it without going full edgy moral nihilist shrugging at rape and murder mode. The habitual killing of sentient being for your pleasure when it's not a necessity seems hard to defend otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6951792]

Most vegans/vegetarians get on a moral high horse, so any argument that you use will either get called a fallacy (which doesn't make it wrong btw), or get called an evil person. I just think that it doesn't mater what you eat.

[Anonymous No.6951802]

>>6951767
Not really, but there are softer forms of vegetarianism that argue against the more radical strands. Look up "The Human Prejudice" by Bernard Williams and "Eating Meat and Eating People" by Cora Diamond.

[Anonymous No.6951807]

If you can't find a decent moral justification for something you do, maybe you should reconsider doing it rather than just looking further until you find something that happens to agree with you.

[Anonymous No.6951844]

>>6951767
I eat meat because it is cheap and filling and useful for building muscle, and it is not morally reprehensible to me because I do not place animals on the same level of moral worth as humans.

[Anonymous No.6951845]

Maybe you should try to justify being a fucking faggot first lmao

[Anonymous No.6951875]

Even Singer says it's not bad in principle to eat meat, it's just that factory farming is the only way most people get it and that's undeniably cruel. He said that if an animal lived a good life and you killed it painlessly or as close to painless as possible it'd be totally morally acceptable. You could eat as much meat as you wanted if you, say, only stole it or ate roadkill or gave them sedatives until they fell asleep and overdosed or if they died of natural causes or if they were in a lot of pain and you killed them to put them out of their misery. All of these are morally acceptable things according to even the most severe utilitarians if they're being consistent.

[Anonymous No.6951914]

>>6951844
Translation: I've been conditioned to eat meat and I haven't had the time, nor the intellectual means, in order to observe and distinguish the underlying problems that meat-eating entails.

[Anonymous No.6951919]

>>6951845
this tbh

[Anonymous No.6951920]

>>6951914
>>6951914

[Anonymous No.6951928]

>>6951914
Are you a dualist? If you are a materialist then you believe that only material causes exist.
If causal, material forces are omnipotent, then I not only want to eat meat but I need to eat meat as I am eating meat right now.
Really, this is a foregone conclusion. Human laws in reality can only exist as a subset of material laws, because human beings are entirely material.

[Anonymous No.6951940]

>>6951928
>you can only ever be a dualist or a materialist
Read more

[Anonymous No.6951953]

>>6951940
you either believe that human beings are entirely material or not. I don't care about the number of unsubstantiated causal actors you believe in.

[Anonymous No.6951984]

>>6951928
Holy fuck what the fuck am I reading.

Proof-read your goddamn gobbledygook before you press the 'Post' button.

[Anonymous No.6951990]

>>6951953
Like I said, read more/

[Anonymous No.6952026]

>>6951792
>>6951845
>>6951919
>>6951920
So full edgy moral nihilist shrugging at rape and murder mode?

[Anonymous No.6952033]

>>6951802
Vegetarianism seems more silly than veganism to me. Keeping an animal in a box and harvesting its bodily fluids seems worse than shooting it.

[Anonymous No.6952044]

>>6951928
So you're saying that we can't act any other way than we do because materialist determinism and therefore ethical judgements are unwarranted because everything we do happens out of unchangeable necessity?

[Anonymous No.6952048]

>>6952026
Now that's just being silly. I eat meat because I want to; it's tasty etc and I don't pity the animals too much (I do try to buy freerange and the likes however). I don't like rape (for example some random bloke raping a teen girl) because I feel sorry for the victim. Basically it depends on muh feels.

[Anonymous No.6952055]

>>6951767
Define "sentient"

[Anonymous No.6952061]

>>6952033
Well it's not either/or. Most farm animals receive both of those things.

[Anonymous No.6952062]

There are a lot of things to be considered on this matter. I'm a vegetarian and when people ask me why I am a vegetarian they expect an answer that is either a moral one, a biological one (health), a political one (factory farming) or an aesthetic one (taste), when in fact it is all of the them, but, above all, the fact that I have questioned why I did eat meat with sincerity in the first place.

I believe it is of no use to work on a moral tone that seeks to determine what is right or wrong in terms of eating, to the point of an illusory universal statement. This is specially problematic because it merely seeks to bond a very particular practice (the way we treat our animals today and our diets) to other very particular ways to see the world that regulates our morality. That is, mainly, the thought that physical pain is measurable, that the scientific view of our biology is imperative, that our bodies have a way to function that is ideal, that animals have "rights", that there is a hierarchy going on, or even to taste being justifiable through objective reasoning. All of that has short legs, for both sides of the argument.

I have no doubts that morality is fluid, as much as our diet is fluid. There is nothing inherently wrong or right, only in relation to something else. Our culture dictates how we are going to understand human beings, animals and plants, what role they all must play in the game.

The capitalist society creates barriers between each one of those elements, separate them, agregate them somewhere else. It alocates animals into zoos ad slaughterhouses, poor people into prisons, rich people in this neighborhood, products in this sector of the supermarket. The fried piece of cow corpse that lies on someone's place makes it so that you have the minimum relationship with it, you wouldn't mind leaving a bite there on the plate. These barriers lead to an anesthetic view of the world and of others (people, animals, things, etc), we are insensitive to it.

I went vegetarian as a quick challenge to myself and an exercise on thinking why I eat meat. Turns out it was only then that I realized the enormous scope of problems involved in it, the ammount of meat produced and all the repercussions of the simple act of eating lunch. It was only then that I understood that eating is a political, cultural and social act of incredible importance and that leaves ripples in everything, in the economy, in art, in our quality of life and in the way we see ourselves. It's also much more than choosing between a vegetarian life or not, but a choice that is made on each given meal.

[Anonymous No.6952064]

>>6951767

just become a vegan, or a vegetarian. There are pretty much no means of defending eating meat (or attacking the opposite). To not even be able to make one of the most basic ethical decisions shows either incompetence, poor will, or evil.

[Anonymous No.6952079]

>>6952064
/thread

[Anonymous No.6952084]

>>6952064
evil doesn't exist though

[Anonymous No.6952086]

>>6952048
So you're an emotivist who considers moral statements not truth-apt and as a result of that not worth taking seriously beyond your own feelings?

[Anonymous No.6952089]

I don't eat meat but I realize that one person isn't going to make a difference

Most of my motivation is just egoistically easing my guilty conscience

[Anonymous No.6952091]

>>6952084
Sam Harris literally *proved* evil exists, just look at every country that isn't a liberal democracy

[Anonymous No.6952097]

>>6951767
Easy. A fully veganized world would entail the practical genocide of livestock, as these animals are unable to live in the wild. And in the case that they do survive, they still pose an ecological threat. The only humane course of action would be to sterilize all livestock en masse and let them die off.

There are also regional/cultural consideration, like the arctic-dwelling Native American tribes who can't survive without a heavily meat-based diet.

[Anonymous No.6952103]

Economic implications: you would fail to be a good consumer supporting hillfarmers with no other means of a living.

[Anonymous No.6952107]

>>6952086
I just do what I will (let's put determinism on the shelf for now). If one day I feel bad for eating meat, say I was convinced it was 'wrong', then I would stop. I was raised vegetarian so I know most of the reasons for it, I just don't feel bad. I wouldn't eat a dog though, I like dogs.

[Anonymous No.6952115]

>>6952089
If you eat healthy whole foods you're easing your body as well though. Meat eaters get that cancer.

[Anonymous No.6952117]

>>6951767
There is no real reason to value other animals more than other plants. Our existence as animals unfortunately necessitates predation, as we can't photosynthesize or leech materials/water from the ground. It's really just a matter of how you feel about eating one versus the other.

The obvious exceptions are humans, because they're your species and it'd probably be bad if they found out you ate your girlfriend's corpse.

Not trying to be LE EDGY, but, just look at nature. Not in a 'muh survival of the fittest only the strong' fedora-tipper sense, but in the reality that pretty much every animal needs to eat something else that is a living thing.

[Anonymous No.6952126]

>>6951767
I was thinking about this the other day. The way I see it is that veganism holds individuals responsible for environmental damages instead of holding industrial mass production responsible.
>>6951792
But it also stems from this

[Anonymous No.6952127]

>>6952117
I should add that even though I feel this way, I do also try to eat free-range as much as I can, because I find other conditions abhorrent, but sometimes it's just not possible for a variety of conditions (cost, accessibility, late capitalism, and so on).

[Anonymous No.6952129]

>>6952097
This is hilarious, I was waiting for this to appear.

>I eat meat because eskimos need them for their diet

I'm sure you're one of those idiots who throw garbage on the floor to "preserve the jobs of janitors"

Because, afterall, we are on the brink of a violent vegan revolution alright.

[Anonymous No.6952133]

>>6952117
If it's wrong to eat your species, isn't it also wrong to eat beings close to your species? Great apes are sapient on the level of some retarded people or more so, for example.

[Anonymous No.6952138]

>>6952126
This is another thing that bothers me. It's fine if you want to be vegan or vegetarian, but I don't see how the circumstances of Corn are materially more different than those of Cows. Both have been bred and penned and farmed for thousands of years, the only difference is one bleeds red and the other sort of just, leaks. On a certain level I'm sorry for the cow, but I don't know that the corn not (that we know of) being cognizant makes me killing it that much more ethical. It might even be more abhorrent, depending on how one looks at it.

[Anonymous No.6952141]

hissssss.........hisss

[Anonymous No.6952149]

>>6952133
Sure, I don't see that as too much of a leap. I mean on some level we value the lives of what we've domesticated over the lives of others, so valuing those that are also close to us on a genetic level makes as much sense as those close on an interactive level.

[Anonymous No.6952160]

>>6952129
Tumblr or not, the cultural imperialism narrative is still a legitimate argument against ideological veganism.

[Anonymous No.6952163]

Eating meat is objectively wrong. How can you justify being the destroyer of flesh? Devourer of bodies?

[Anonymous No.6952180]

>>6952138
If the biggest impact of eating meat is extinction of a species I think the same could be said about veganism. I had a Geography teacher that told us about how exportation of the banana and monopoly of Dole crippled the Dominican Republic and how genetic engineering was made a necessity. I don't mind it as a personal ethic but universally applied it falls apart. Also vegan diets can be really expensive depending on the area.

[Anonymous No.6952198]

>>6952138
>>6952117
Just so you know, the animals eat plants.

You are not sparing plants by eating animals, you are eating animals that ate them. And because it is the animals that eat them, the agricultural processes involved are much more ridiculous than any other. They are eating low quality transgenic pesticide infested soy and corn rations on a great ammount to get big.

To not eat animals is to skip a link on the chain and getting your resources from the plants. The animals are used as machines to process those vegetables into meat and of course, energy is lost in the process as well.

There is also a lot of water involved in the process too.

[Anonymous No.6952209]

>>6952117
>There is no real reason to value other animals more than other plants. Our existence as animals unfortunately necessitates predation, as we can't photosynthesize or leech materials/water from the ground.
But of course there are real reasons for this. It is self-evident that some predations are less pain-inflicting than others, because of the relative, pain-relevant biological make-up of certain animals and plants.

[Anonymous No.6952215]

>>6951767
Why is that hard to defend?

[Anonymous No.6952227]

>>6952209
There are growing bodies of evidence that suggest plants do, in fact, feel pain.

>>6952198
If you're asserting a practical argument for veganism that's far more understandable. I agree, it's not energy efficient. More than we would like to admit, it would be better on a wide scale to get rid of meat production and turn that arable land into farmland.

[Anonymous No.6952236]

>>6951767
Yes, more or less the whole Aristotelian, Christian ethics, the only ethics that actually have a way to justify themselves.

[Anonymous No.6952238]

Are there any ethical arguments for staying alive?

[Anonymous No.6952254]

>>6951914
>I answer back to a post by dismissing it and questioning its author ability to think “properly”
>fortunately *I* had the intellectual means he lacks

[Anonymous No.6952261]

>>6952133
I don't eat gorilla's meat on a daily basis to be honest.

[Anonymous No.6952272]

>>6952227
>There are growing bodies of evidence that suggest plants do, in fact, feel pain.
There are also arguments of well-respected biologists or philosophers of biology (can't recall which of the two exactly) that argue that certain species of fish do not, in fact, feel pain. But that wasn't my point, was it. The key word of my objection was 'relative'---not that plants do not feel pain. Care to reread my post with that in mind?

[Anonymous No.6952281]

>>6952062
Thanks for taking the time to type this out. Great post.

[Anonymous No.6952284]

>>6952254
That's quite an observation (an accurate one, at that). But what's your point, darling? Why are you hand-waving so desperately?

[Anonymous No.6952289]

>>6952198
I don't want to live “efficently” and eat tasteless shit because its “water use/production ratio” or “chain production CO2 print” are optimal.

[Anonymous No.6952292]

The reality is that plants are lifeforms too

So you betas need to just accept that we must kill things to survive, dosent matter if you eat meat or not.

[Anonymous No.6952305]

>>6952289
>plants are tasteless

you're doing it wrong bruv

[Anonymous No.6952316]

>>6952062
Very cogent. But unless you are determined to put mammals on the same moral plane as humans (which you're really not obligated to do: you're a goddamn omnivore--look at your teeth) eating meat requires no justification in that sense. Damage to environment is a different matter, but that has more to do with the way we've allowed population and big business to explode than the mere fact of eating cows, pigs, and chickens. If we start down THAT ethical road, we'd have to toss our electronics pretty quickly too.

[Anonymous No.6952326]

>>6952062
>There is nothing inherently wrong or right, only in relation to something else
That's a self-refuting assertion; first you deny that there is something inherently wrong or right, and then you affirm that there is something wrong or right, but that it is "in relation to something else".

[Anonymous No.6952336]

>>6952316
>(which you're really not obligated to do: you're a goddamn omnivore--look at your teeth) eating meat requires no justification in that sense.

[Anonymous No.6952338]

>>6952227
I'm saying that certain arguments against vegetarianism make it seem like we are killing more plants or something. If the entire world went vegan we would actually be killing less plants than we do now.

Same with stuff like >>6952180. It does not address vegetarianism, it adresses a capitalist problem. You can be vegan and think of solutions for that sort of thing. It's not like meat eaters don't eat bananas as well.

>>6952289
When I was a kid I wanted to only eat icecream.

[Anonymous No.6952339]

>>6952305
I was just mocking the argument my tastes should be linked to any form of efficiency. It looks to me like those guys dismissing TV series or videogames because they don't have a “time spent/entertainment” ratio high enough.

[Anonymous No.6952343]

>>6952326
'in itself' and 'in relation to other things' are different and differing between them is not self-refuting.

not him btw

[Anonymous No.6952345]

The animals you're eating aren't quite so sentient as your imagination might be supposing. And they provide a lot more value for human beings than just your one meal. Nor is the complex nutritional benefit they give you strictly "pleasure".

Of course none of this quite excuses it. It is still morally imperfect behaviour. But not quite the sin vegans judge it to be. Each of us should strive to be vegans, but this is not our only imperfection, nor are vegans right to judge:

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

The majority of people are not saints, nor ever will be. They are not all therefore horrible. It is not our job to judge, or to be sanctimonious: for this approach is never good for ourselves, and seldom helpful to others.

But Crist, that of perfeccioun is welle,
Bad nat every wight sholde go selle
All that he hadde and yive it to the poore,
And in swich wise folwe hym and his foore.
He spak to hem that wolde lyve parfitly,
And, lordynges, by youre leve, that am nat I.

[Anonymous No.6952346]

>>6951767
Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Botany, by Matthew Hall

Plant Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life, by Michael Marder

[Anonymous No.6952348]

>>6952338
>when I was a kid I wanted to only eat icecream
Why shouldn't you do it because of someone else opinion?

[Anonymous No.6952353]

>>6952326
>>6952086
>>6951914
I don't understand why you people who actually know something about philosophy and meta-/ethics bother posting here, you aren't going to find worthy discussion.

Anyway, here is your answer:
>>6951875

[Anonymous No.6952355]

>>6951767
it's the natural order of things. You don't have the burden of proof to show that the last thousands of years were somehow contrary to human nature.

[Anonymous No.6952362]

>>6952272
I find inflicting suffering abhorrent whether there are or are not audiovisual sensations and stimuli on either their or my part. I do not consider animal suffering at point of death as being 'greater than' that of plant life, and I certainly don't think such a thing is self-evident. Both are abhorrent, one is just more visible.

[Anonymous No.6952370]

I eat meat because I like meat more than I care about the suffering of dumb animals. I don't place them on the same level as humans because they're unable to reciprocate and unable to reason. There are pragmatic reasons to give all humans equal moral standing, that's the nature of living in an economy, but we lose nothing from the subjugation of animals. Empathy might trouble us if were faced with the cruelty firsthand but we've no reason to follow it. It's not a diving rod to objective moral truth (kek). It exists because it facilitates cooperation as cooperation is competitively advantageous. Competitive advantage is the reason why it exists, why not use this more fundamental thing to judge what's good instead empathy? If you assert that we should follow empathy, why not use the more primal thing as our measure?

I just hate the idea that it is our obligation to minimize suffering. It leads to universal extinction. I hope the vegetarians regain their indifference.

[Anonymous No.6952389]

>>6952062
My thoughts exactly.

[Anonymous No.6952390]

>>6952346
Oh yeah. If you're alright delving into "New Age" territory, Stephen Buhner's 'Plant Intelligence' is a great book that contains dozens of great arguments against veganism. It covers the possibility of plants having a primitive type of nervous system, with the "brain" being found in the roots. It also speculates on the possibility of a hivemind-like intelligence shared between groves of trees & other plants via mycelial connections.

The book doesn't outright advocate for carnism, but just requests that the reader take humanity's inherent omnivore background into consideration. Buhner rails against industrial meat production (i.e feedlot farms & battery chicken sheds), as well as against industrial agriculture.

[Anonymous No.6952393]

To all the retards in this thread: you don't have to view animals as equal to humans in order to think it's wrong to eat meat.

[Anonymous No.6952406]

>>6952353
Wouldn't there still be the problem of bringing a creature into existence only to harvest its life?

[Anonymous No.6952453]

>>6952393
No, but you have to be a gay

[Anonymous No.6952478]

kek @ people having to convince themselves plants and animals aren't "sentient" to not feel bad

And all all "sentient" means is being able to feel and sense things, which plants and animals are very much capable of doing. You don't need big academic bibles to tell you this, just observe nature.

Just accept they are living things just like you, and that you have to eat them to live. Makes you appreciate things a little more.

[Anonymous No.6952484]

>>6952326
Inherently means it is permanent, in itself, to the thing itself. Like, as if a certain habit was evil here and for all eternity. I'm saying that's not the case. See >>6952343.

>>6952316
>you're a goddamn omnivore--look at your teeth
I am very much against that kind of argument, pro or against vegetarianism. This is what I was addressing in my post. A lot of people still believe there is an essence, there is an ideal to the way we are, justified by our biology or what not. If I ate only meat, I'd say I'm a carnivore, if I ate only plants, call be herbivore, my teeth has nothing to do with my habits. Our traits may invite us to act in a certain way, but we are not bound by it in any way, specially when we acknowledge its purposes and the possibilities. Of course, we are omnivore in the sense that we can eat a lot of things, but just because we can doesn't mean we ought to. My teeth could be star shaped for all I care, it wouldn't make a difference on our eating choices.

Same for the pain argument. Do plant feels pain? Do pigs feel pain? It doesn't matter the slightest to me. This line of thinking seeks to define, determine, divide. You put a wall between what should be considered and what shouldn't be considered. It also invite us to think that eating is a purely destructive act, when that is not the case. We are only borrowing our food, as much as we are only borrowing our body and our mind. Sorry if that sounds too hippie.

We also may fall for a trap that is to consider part of science that is ingrained with political motivation. Huge companies are moving things around to prove their chemicals are alright, advertising makes it seem everything is great. You can tell a lot of lies with selected truths. This needs to be put into question as well.

And I don't think eating meat requires justification, but not because it is "standard" (there is no standard), but because I don't think this is a quest for the righteous diet, or that we should be talking in terms of guilt or innocence, but whether we are seeing the big picture of this small-big habit of eating and that we are constantly being pushed not to think about or to disregard it as a given, as if there was no other way or no choice. Every meal is a chance to eat meat or not to eat meat. It may be so that there are other things to be concerned when talking of the environment, but meat eating is one of them.

It may be so that we have to toss our eletronics, I don't know, why rule that out as something so absurd too? This is precisely the point, that we take certain life changes to be so absurd. I'm not saying we should take that route, but let's consider them without this imediate prejudice.

[Anonymous No.6952497]

>>6952348
Because it's not due to someone else's opinion. Eat only icecream for three days and see how you'll feel. I'm saying that person is a child who can't think of food besides what tastes better.

[Anonymous No.6952503]

>>6952393
you think there is something wrong with eating a burger.
you're the retard and probably an un-American commie too.

[Anonymous No.6952513]

>>6952497
This is irrelevant. Eat only meat (why “only”? Where I said that?) for three days and see how absolutely nothing happens.

[Anonymous No.6952515]

>>6952326
Not that person. I think every moral proposition relies on a fundamental statement like "suffering is bad" that is neither true or false until we assert it to be. We don't need an inherent wrong or right to be able to assert some fundamental wrongs and rights and derive some other statements from them.

I'm philosophically unsophisticated but here's what I think we're doing when we say "X is bad." We're really saying, "X happening would not satisfy my preferences." "You ought not to do X" Some people delude themselves into thinking that their preferences are universal, that somewhere the universe is saying, "X is bad, you all ought not to do it.", but the preferences are just assertions, like "chocolate is good, vanilla is bad". "Murder is bad" is the same as "vanilla is bad", it's just that we're not really harmed if people decide to eat vanilla instead of chocolate, unlike how we're harmed if people decide to go on killing sprees.

That we agree on statements like "murder is bad" is explained by evolution.

People say, "If its just disagreement in preferences how do you preserve moral discourse?" Well, there isn't just one preference. There are a multitude of contradictory preferences each with different weights in any given psychology. What we're doing when we're arguing ethics is showing contradictions in preferences. We show that the action someone calls good is violating one of the preferences they value more or that it doesn't actually satisfy the preference they think it does because they are mistaken about the consequences of the action and making an error in description.

These preferences aren't like axioms in math because they're mostly unstated. Few bother to even delineate them, they're just implicit.

What current metaethical theory do you think I'd be most sympathetic too?

[Anonymous No.6952520]

>>6952478
>Behaviour is an inerrant indicator for mental activity
You mother fucking NORMAL FAG REEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.6952525]

>>6952478
It's so cowardly when people attack the idea that animals can suffer. They should be attacking the idea that we ought to care about their suffering.

[Anonymous No.6952545]

>>6952520
>Flytrap-kun senses something touching its mouth
>bites down on that shit

>Ivy-chan wants sunlight
>climbs up until she reaches it

[Anonymous No.6952550]

>>6952513
You are missing the point.

[Anonymous No.6952560]

>>6952520

He didn't say mental, only sensorial.

>>6952545

These are not accomplished because of a developed nervous system, but rather because of really basic sensory-based reflex.

[Anonymous No.6952573]

>>6952560
I think it's a huge mistake to think just because a plants biology functions differently than ours means its underdeveloped in any way. It's merely doing what it's supposed to do.

The fact is the plant is aware enough to sense sunlight and even prey implies the essential definition of sentience.

[Anonymous No.6952582]

>>6952370

>I just hate the idea that it is our obligation to minimize suffering. It leads to universal extinction.

Ethics doesn't have anything to do with minimising suffering, because you can't envisage not taking it to extremes?

[Anonymous No.6952617]

>>6952406
Well, from a utilitarian standpoint, no.

>>6952370
>Competitive advantage is the reason why it exists, why not use this more fundamental thing to judge what's good instead empathy?

Jesus Christ. I eat meat too, but if you can't see the fault in this line of reasoning and the things it justifies when pursued, then you have no hope.

[Anonymous No.6952766]

>>6952573

It is underdeveloped because it branched off much earlier in the evolutionary ladder.

Being more or less developed doesn't mean it is better or worse, mind you. But to say that a plant's sensory system is as developed (meaning evolved, intrincate) as our nervous system is just misunderstanding biology.

[Anonymous No.6952797]

>>6952370

Well, I'd argue that our hability to be empathic is much more important to our condition as living, sentient beings than our hability to juggle words in our heads.

[Prince DEVITT !!H88HZm8bUlF No.6952803]

one common misconception about veganism is that there even needs to be a moral argument.

a vegan diet is just healthy for someone with a weak immune system. meats take much more energy to digest, and that energy could be used to strengthen your immune system or any other weak parts of your body.

[Anonymous No.6952823]

>>6952803
Prince Devitt? More like gay wannabe quentin poovitt

[Anonymous No.6952861]

>>6951875
Shame Peter Singer doesn't realise that the reason we have factory farming (with its unethical practices) is due to Capitalist production line. He supports Capitalism while not realising it is the root cause of animal suffering, another bourgeois liberal hippie.

>>6952484
Sorry I would like to keep the divide between the Anthropocene and the animal, there are clear differences such as ability for meta-cognition and our behaviour in sexuality. To even posit that there is no difference between man and animal is an anthropocentric act (you cannot do this from the standpoint of the animal, you can only do this from MAN to ANIMAL).

New Age Hippie crap, I bet you like deep ecology

[Prince DEVITT !!H88HZm8bUlF No.6952868]

>>6952823
like i said in the last thread, this is quite ironic.

[Anonymous No.6952906]

>>6952861
Deep ecology actually has quite a bit of beef with veganism, especially considering how much of the world's remaining rainforests are getting destroyed to make way for soy plantations used in tofu production.

[Anonymous No.6952908]

>>6952091
>not sure if trolling or serious

[Anonymous No.6952919]

>>6952803
>a vegan diet is just healthy for someone with a weak immune system

As a med-student, I can confidently say a strictly vegan diet is detrimental to our health.

Ovo-lacto-vegetarianism with sparse meat ingestion (1-3 times a week) is what I've found to be closer to biological perfection, according the best papers and studies on the subject.

[Prince DEVITT !!H88HZm8bUlF No.6952925]

>>6952919
>As a med-student

[Anonymous No.6952931]

>>6952617
>Well, from a utilitarian standpoint, no.
What about negative utilitarianism in the sense of antinatalists and such?

[Anonymous No.6952934]

>>6952906
I think those are used for fodder (not human) mostly. Only when the glorious world socialist revolution takes over and we have centralised agriculture shall we be truly efficient in our use of potential pastoral, arable and wild land.

[Anonymous No.6952935]

>>6952861
>To even posit that there is no difference between man and animal
I did not do that. There is no denial of any of those differences on my part, just that they entail this or that moral position on their own.

[Anonymous No.6952936]

>>6952389
is that flower the holy spirit?

[Anonymous No.6952941]

>>6952861

You can keep capitalism and still have regulations which inhibit factory farming.

>>6952906
Lots of crops are just fed to animals. The inefficiency is worse for the rainforests than making the world vegetarian. Lots of rainforest is cleared for cattle too. The root causes of rainforest destruction come from forcing people off their land in brazil, leaving them with no option but to clear the forests.

[Anonymous No.6952947]

>>6952906
You don't know that most of that soy is used to feed animals? Humans directly eating soy would be much less destructive than feeding it to animals that we eat.

[Anonymous No.6952949]

>>6952935 here
My sentence might be ambiguous.

I mean I deny that the differences entail any given moral position on their own.

[Anonymous No.6952953]

>>6952931
Oh then perhaps, but their issue would be just "bringing animals into existence" without the consideration of being used as a means for food. Meaning it'd be another topic entirely.

[Anonymous No.6952959]

>>6952925

Well, I will most certainly be as happy as that when Im earning good money in a ethical and intellectual way.

btw, nice answer to being completly btfo friendo.

[Anonymous No.6952965]

>>6952953
Well not entirely, just encompassing a larger matter. I think breeding pets is also immoral.

[Anonymous No.6952979]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oX2xFo7JA4

watch and learn friends

[Anonymous No.6952996]

>>6951767
>you're a goddamn omnivore--look at you're teeth

Wrong

http://www.powered-by-produce.com/2010/06/09/carnivore-omnivore-or-herbivore/

[Anonymous No.6952997]

>>6952965
What I mean to say is because of the considerations already taken in that post to satisfy the standard utilitarian objections to consuming meat today, there is no additional suffering to the animal, so it doesn't affect the negative utilitarian's position on how we ought not to breed at all, animals and humans.

[Anonymous No.6953011]

>>6952996
Whoops, meant to link to
>>6952316

[Anonymous No.6953015]

>>6952997
I don't follow. How is deliberately bringing beings into life not affecting a wider antinatalist perspective?

[Anonymous No.6953019]

>>6952941
Brazillian here, the situation here is atrocious and it has been this way for a long time.

The natives are either killed or forced to move (to cities where they have nothing to do but beg, families disrupted, etc), the law rarely ever gets to those places because the farmers own the police and they all hate the natives. The farmers are huge and the destruction of the rainforest is constant. The high quality meat produced here is sold elsewhere (while Brazil mostly imports low quality to eat). The chamber of deputies favours the farmers so much there is a nickname for the radical right-wing folks there called the BBB - Bullet, Bible, Bull (cattle). So no law can harm them, the activitists are impotent. They are constantly expanding and making more money.

[Anonymous No.6953025]

The Buddha says it is okay to eat meat if
a) You don't kill the animal yourself.
b) You don't know the animal was killed specifically for you (i.e. you don't go to a pasture, point at a cow, and say "It looks tasty. Kill it.")

[Anonymous No.6953032]

To illustrate thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxAWuUc-u7Y

[Anonymous No.6953037]

>>6951792
But nothing here is an argument

[Anonymous No.6953041]

Cynicism, it's more natural and self sufficient to hunt and eat your own food than it is to develop agriculture/buy food.

[Anonymous No.6953050]

>>6953032
Just made me want to eat a burger. That chicken thing looked cool as fuck tho

[Anonymous No.6953055]

>>6953019
It's only a matter of time before something like Ebola or AIDS comes out of that damn jungle. From what I've heard, more than a third of the Amazon has already been logged since the 50s.

[Anonymous No.6953057]

>>6953032
Samsara is such a great movie, thank for reminding

[Anonymous No.6953065]

>>6953032
Good stuff. Almost tops Koyaanisqatsi at certain parts.

[Anonymous No.6953068]

>>6953025
Source.

Now we can all simply ignore the means of production of that which we consume, so convenient.

Also,
>he says it so it's okay

>appeal to authority
>buddhism
pick 1

[Anonymous No.6953076]

>>6953025

>b) You don't know the animal was killed specifically for you

Buddha said it was OK to eat meat if it was offered to you by others, but I really don't remember any passage of the Pali Cannon saying something along those lines.

If Buddha knew a brahmin held a feast in his name and offered him meat, he would not decline, even if he knew that the meat was killed just because of him.

What a manner meditator that fatty was.

[Anonymous No.6953083]

>>6951767
Morality is an expression of human emotion
The more you're able to empathise with an organism, the more pain you'll feel when it is in pain and the worse the moral action in effect

kill animals where you can't see them and you won't feel bad

[Anonymous No.6953090]

>>6953041
underrated ideology

[Anonymous No.6953094]

Fucks sake lads I want a cheeseburger now

[Anonymous No.6953097]

>>6953083
>Morality is an expression of human emotion

Most of the time, yeah. I don't think it's merely based on feelings though.

[Anonymous No.6953103]

>>6953055
>It's only a matter of time before something like Ebola or AIDS comes out of that damn jungle
I never thought about something like that, seems unlikely, you shouldn't worry about that. The Amazon forest is incredibly rich and every year something new comes out of it in terms of pharmacals. I'd be more concerned that given the political situation, this diversity is at the hands of few big pharmacal companies(not even Brazillian ones) that could just use this for more political power. Seriously, if there was real interest, a lot of illness would have been fixed due to what you can find in the rainforest.

The destruction of the forest is also taking its toll on the weather here(and probably, to some extent, the whole world.)

[Anonymous No.6953107]

>>6952026
Sure, I hope vegans have fun looking back on life without enjoying it. Vegetarians are chill though.

[Anonymous No.6953126]

>>6953107
Vegetarians are the worst. Posturing without commitment.

Literally the weed smokers of the dietary world.

[Anonymous No.6953136]

>>6953107
Life isn't based exclusively on enjoying yourself you autistic fuck, you have to think about the future, your children and your childrens children, selfish fuck

[Anonymous No.6953142]

>>6953097
What else is it based on?

[Anonymous No.6953143]

>>6953090
Much too difficult to be popular, Stoicism is a good answer to it though, for a more liveable lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.6953150]

>>6953126
>mfw I'm a vegetarian stoner so I'm not offended

dude, it's better to reduce meat than doing nothing

[Anonymous No.6953152]

Veganism is a hard sell, so is strict vegetarianism, on moral grounds; not practical grounds.

There is literally no justification for eating factory raised meat though, for any reason; and seeing as how that is where all of the meat consumed in restaurants or from the grocery store in the West comes from, there is no defensible reason to not be mostly vegetarian.

Anyway, everyone should read Singer and most of the bullshit thought in this thread would disappear, including:
>sentience as a mark of moral worth rather than capacity for pain/pleasure
>the fictitious idea that meat provides nutrition otherwise not attainable
>the idea that eating plants makes vegetarianism null

[Anonymous No.6953154]

>>6953142
dunno. don't think you can say that morality is purely heterarchical. i don't think hate is equal to love and i don't think you can say that their is no correct answer to a moral question.

[Anonymous No.6953158]

>>6952062
>>6952062
>I have no doubts that morality is fluid, as much as our diet is fluid. There is nothing inherently wrong or right
Kek. Why are you so sure? Are you aware the majority of academic philosophers are moral objectivists?

[Anonymous No.6953160]

>>6953068
>appeal to authority
Back to Reddit you go.

[Anonymous No.6953164]

>>6953143
stoicism is ideologically kind of infuriating compared to the honesty of based diogenes and crates though. you're a good lad for posting crates, he gets slept on. while he was sort of a jesus diogenes, very nice and reconciliatory and happy.

[Anonymous No.6953172]

>>6951953
> insists in dualism in that you can only be a materialist or a dualist

[Anonymous No.6953174]

>>6953158
They are? Sources please?

[Anonymous No.6953176]

>>6953152
Where does Singer prove that capacity for pain and pleasure is the mark of moral worth?

[Anonymous No.6953180]

>>6953150
dairy will literally kill you and torture cows. just eat fish they're not cute

[Anonymous No.6953186]

>>6953164
Cynicism is such a pure lifestyle, Stoicism is really just forcing yourself to do the best with what you have. Cynicism is the correct choice, just not the one most are willing to take.

[Anonymous No.6953189]

>>6953174
Sure
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

[Anonymous No.6953190]

Just so you know:

>ovo-lacto-vegetarian
Does not meat, but eat dairy and other things of animal origin

>vegetarian
Does not eat or dairy or eggs or anything that comes from animals

>vegan
Political stance that seeks to abolish the use of animals by man. This includes tests in animals, animal skin fashion products, zoos and circus that imprison animals, and also, eating them and their stuff.

Not eating things from animals is not vegan, it is vegetarian. Vegans are vegetarians, but not all vegetarians are vegan.

[Anonymous No.6953193]

>>6953015
Of course it does. I said "for the purposes of harvesting its life" doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6953194]

>>6953158
I saw that poll. Something like 70% of philosophers are moral realists. It's absurd. Moral realism is god for grown ups. Why the hell do people still believe in it?

[Anonymous No.6953196]

>>6953186
stoicism is bourgeois cynicism tbh. but even the stoics realised the cynics were 'the shortcut to virtue' and superior.

i like epictetus the best of the stoics. near cynic tier.

[Anonymous No.6953206]

>>6953194
Surely because they find its arguments compelling? Even as an anti-realist, the 'normative web' argument is pretty good.

[Anonymous No.6953213]

>>6953176
Well, in Animal Liberation, he presents his moral argument against a general sort of Utilitarianism ie interests, pleasure/pain, etc.

Basically, to appeal to sentience or intelligence as the basis for moral consideration leads to some places that may prove difficult such as: it is okay to perform torturous experimentation on human infants, the mentally handicapped, or the otherwise not-very-smart, but not smarter people. To then have to declare a moral dividing line between a human with intelligence below that of a chimpanzee and a chimpanzee solely on the basis that they are a human is bullshit.

The reason to not inflict pain is rather that the creature can feel pain, or has an interest in not feeling pain, which is evidenced by a variety of things.

Is it a rigid mathematical proof? No, because I'm sure there are people who have no problem with hurting the less-intelligent (likely the self-declared intelligent ones). Does it work for most, honestly, most people, and enough to convince them that supporting factory farming just for pleasure isn't defensible? Ya.

It's a good book, read it

[Anonymous No.6953217]

>>6953154
I'm a materialist so I don't believe in right and wrong, only that different interests exist

A correct answer to a moral question attempts to address the interests of all parties and satisfy them as best as possible

[Anonymous No.6953225]

>>6953158
cool, I guess I should just say fuck it and be a moral objectivist because a bunch of douchebags you didn't cite supposedly are

fuck outta here with this shit

>>6952062
Just wanted to real quick say thanks for putting in the effort, this was a great post
>>6952254
>>6952091
top kek

>>6952115
quit fooling yourself, life is cancerous, it's just a question of when

[Anonymous No.6953228]

>>6953152
>There is literally no justification for eating factory raised meat though, for any reason
well fucking spooked

[Anonymous No.6953231]

>>6953189
Thanks, do you think you could recommend me some literature in favour of moral objectivisim?

[Anonymous No.6953239]

>>6953217
Materialists don't believe in right and wrong? What? I thought it would be the opposite

[Anonymous No.6953243]

>>6953196
I've heard many say "The strange homeless person" is the closest thing we have to modern Cynicism, do you think there are or could be any modern Cynics

[Anonymous No.6953246]

>>6953228
Vegetarianism is about making choices within your own life that affects other creatures; not meaningless abstractions you can spout in a meme image and then do nothing. Stirner is a dead-end non-thinker when it comes to actually making changes in your life.

[Anonymous No.6953250]

>>6952515
read some Charles Peirce or Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, tbh, you'd probably enjoy them

[Anonymous No.6953254]

>>6953239
He clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

>>6953231
Landau - Moral Realism: A Defence
Enoch - Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism

But honestly, you'd be just as fine reading the SEP page on moral realism or even browsing through the archives of, say, /r/askphilosophy. The arguments don't require an entire book IMO.

[Anonymous No.6953262]

>>6953254
The majority of people here and the majority of people I have spoken to support moral subjectivism. I thought that was the most popular view on ethics. Thank you for the recommendations.

[Anonymous No.6953264]

>>6953246
Vegetarianism is about making cosmetic non-changes in your life in order to feel good about yourself for being human and to alleviate the suffering of dumb animals that you'll never meet. Stirnerposting is about dedicating yourself 200% to making real changes in your life that continually ruins the day of thousands of sapient imageboard posters.

[Anonymous No.6953266]

>>6951767
While there’s nothing wrong with seeing it as simply a moral issue, there is something incredibly obnoxious and self-aggrandizing about puffing out your chest, believing your diet will change the world. While the number of vegetarians and vegans has grown into sizeable minority, you would think that meat consumption would’ve shown a slight decline. But the opposite is true. Total meat consumption has increased. With food costs rising, meat has become more practical (in terms of calorie intake) and affordable. There is absolutely no substance to the claim that going vegan saves any animals. Capitalism does not plan production based on a one to one correspondence of a supply demand. In fact, its key feature is overproduction. A general lowering of demand will then likely mean two things: 1) animals not consumed will just be wasted 2) the price of meat becomes cheaper, increasing total consumption.

[Anonymous No.6953268]

>>6953262
That has more to do with people here and otherwise being philosophically uneducated. And I say this as an anti-realist/moral subjectivist. People here use the poorest arguments for it.

[Anonymous No.6953270]

>>6953186
>>6953164
>>6953143
>>6953041

How do I into the cynics?

[Anonymous No.6953274]

>>6953243
I think there could, but I don't think many contemporary homeless lads fit the description.

Some well read NEETs though, maybe. Keep your hand out for the state, have a studio urn to crash in. Bit of beans, bit of rice, bit of books.

[Anonymous No.6953277]

>>6953270
Glad you ask m8:

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/zp2ppnxjwj28c//Cynicism

[Anonymous No.6953278]

>>6953270
Read all of the stories about Diogenes, do what a dog would do.

[Anonymous No.6953282]

>>6953225
>cool, I guess I should just say fuck it and be a moral objectivist because a bunch of douchebags you didn't cite supposedly are
See:
>>6953189

[Anonymous No.6953285]

>>6953264
>Stirnerposting is about dedicating yourself 200% to making real changes in your life that continually ruins the day of thousands of sapient imageboard posters.
well glad that's in the open tbh

[Anonymous No.6953291]

>>6953285
Ayy

[Anonymous No.6953338]

>>6953268
Okay, thank you again for the book recommendations.

[Anonymous No.6953356]

>>6953338
Hah, you're welcome.

[Anonymous No.6953359]

>>6953277

wow thanks a very much bunch anon

[Anonymous No.6953399]

>>6953213
The edge case arguments.

We can say infants have moral status because they'll be sapient in the future. This might seem to make abortion immoral but we can get out of that by saying the bodily autonomy of the already sapient woman is greater than the right to life only yet-to-be sapient fetus. But then this leaves us with test-tube babies and other edge cases. Perhaps it's best to say they have rights by proxy of their caregiver.

I'm not sure I even want babies to have moral standing equal to grown humans. Torture is senseless and I'd prefer it prohibited, even when done to just animals, but killing infants with severe disability makes sense to me. Retards are a burden on the family and society. The experience they have of the world is so incomplete, they're a mockery of man. There's no reason to force someone into a world so incomplete when it's not necessary. There's no reason to let infants with severe disability reproduce and pass it on.

I think extending morality to those not able to reciprocate like chimpanzees misses the point. It's a mistake to see the continually widening circle of empathy within the human species and think it means that total universal empathy is objectively good. The circle is only widening because it is in the interest of most to cooperate. It's not in our interest to cooperate with chimps as equals.

I might read it. The only thing related to this I've read is The Human Prejudice by Bernard Williams.

Moral philosophy seems like fun but I don't feel a need to develop a fully coherent ethical system. I'm interested in justifying the things I want done to others not looking for sanction somewhere outside.

[Anonymous No.6953490]

I struggle greatly to consume a caloric intake that keeps my weight at healthy levels. If I switched to vegan, I would become drastically less healthy as I lost more and more weight. Additionally, I humanely raise rabbits for meat and chickens for eggs to mitigate the ethical issues of factory farming.

[Anonymous No.6953505]

>>6953490
I thought the same thing. I was challenged by a friend to stay a month without meat and I expected to faint or eat three times as much to compensate, but none of that happened, I felt very well and decided to stay vegetarian.

[Anonymous No.6953518]

>>6953505
OK, but the truth is that I struggle daily to eat enough to maintain my weight with a diet that has no limitations. If I started cutting options, I would lose weight. That's undeniable.

[Anonymous No.6953542]

Why are we talking about an bourgeois liberal and Analytic Philosopher? What happened?

[Anonymous No.6953573]

>>6952996
Did--did you actually take the trouble to change that to the wrong "you're" in your greentext?

[Anonymous No.6953610]

>>6953573
No, it's a pain in the ass to copy and paste on my phone so I was typing it out and made a mistake as I was multitasking and not paying attention.

Now do you want to respond to the content of my post, i.e. how your point was inaccurate?

[Anonymous No.6953624]

>>6951767
Animals dont have rights, nor they should have them

[Anonymous No.6953633]

>>6953399
Are you insinuating that those with disabilities have no rights, or deserve to have their rights stripped from them on the basis of having an "incomplete experience of the world" and being a "mockery of man?" Who are you to decide that their lives are not fulfilling? Just because someone is born with a disability doesn't absolutely necessitate a bad life experience.

[Anonymous No.6953639]

>>6953624
People are animals dumbshit

[Anonymous No.6953646]

>>6953639
you know what i meant, but since your autism is very high.

Non-rational animals dont have rights, nor they should have them

[Anonymous No.6953659]

>>6953610
Good Lord, no. Your link is a site called "powered by produce," for Christ's sake, and a glance was enough for me. I worked in health stores for many years and I've heard all that crap many many times. I especially love the breathless meaningless facts: "we're the only species that drinks another mammal's milk!" that are supposed to impress us. We ARE omnivores--the vast majority of the billions of us on this planet--and it's worked out very well for us, so any other argument is silly. This is a thread where people are quoting Peter Singer. I'm not about to take it seriously. My point was entirely accurate: we have the teeth and digestion that allow us to eat meat, despite all the bullshit vegans say. When you google for facts, note that the sites claiming our teeth aren't for meat are named shit like "vegaprocity" and "free from harm," etc.

[Anonymous No.6953680]

>>6953633
Only infants, freshly born. There are some grown now who find some measure of enjoyment but it's disgraceful that we even let it get there. We've got to have standards. It's theoretical anyway. We can now detect a lot of disabilities in the womb.

Google "harlequin babies". You want to push those through infancy by force using every medical tool? They should be allowed to succumb.

[Anonymous No.6953686]

>>6953659
>we're the only species that drinks another mammal's milk!
Race, not species. Europeans, Central Asians, and a tiny few African tribes are lactose tolerant. The overwhelmingly vast majority of humanity is not.

[Anonymous No.6953706]

>>6953686
As I just said, heard it all for many many years. I'm sure you're 20-something and it's very exciting still, but I'm off to bed. I used to at least get paid to hear that stuff all day.

[Anonymous No.6953740]

Might makes right
Animals aren't sapient
The way resources are diverted from animals to grow crops for vegan diets kills animals too
Art is above morals and ethics so the culinary arts are too

[Anonymous No.6953745]

Ok. Are these sources free of bias enough for you to actually look at and respond to the content? I would genuinely like to hear actual counterarguments. For the record, I am not really vegan or vegetarian myself, but I do eat very little that isn't plant-based.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/214390
http://www.ecologos.org/mcardle.htm
Also check out the chart referenced in this article:
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

[Anonymous No.6953756]

>>6953745
>>6953659
Man I am fucking up tonight.

[Anonymous No.6953764]

>>6953706
You're like the little kid with his fingers in his ears going "la la la la la I can't hear you!" How about actually saying something of value you pretentious, self-righteous cunt?

[Anonymous No.6953790]

>>6953740
This has been addressed before here. Most crops are there just to feed the animals. Animal eating kills more plants (and more animals because of how the crops are handled). That's no argument.

[Anonymous No.6953818]

>>6953646
Got anything more nuanced to your position? I'm not really convinced.

[Anonymous No.6953821]

>>6953745
>free of bias
Free of bias? These people are genuine freaks who make their livings pushing vegan ideologies and who have ZERO formal training in any relevant field.
Michael Bluejay, a vegan who lived in co-ops and makes a living writing about how bad consumer culture is, Kathy Freston, self-help New York Times bestselling author of vegan books who didn't finish high school, and this Laurie Forti character! Holy Fuck, anon, read their bios:

1. "I was born into a mind-control cult called Aesthetic Realism..."
"I went to college on and off but dropped out because I didn't like it"
http://michaelbluejay.com/michael/

2. "a BS and MS in Chemical Engineering and half an MS in Electrical Engineering...I started waking up in 1969. That was the year that I dropped out of the dominant, omni-destructive, cultural paradigm..."
http://www.ecologos.org/book.htm

3. "Freston grew up in the Atlanta area. She began modeling at age 16. She did not continue her education past the secondary level."
http://www.kathyfreston.com/kathy_freston_about_kathy.html

[Anonymous No.6953826]

>>6953790
Okay
There are still 3 others left

[Anonymous No.6953828]

>>6953740
>Might makes right
no
>Animals aren't sapient
arguably no
>Art is above morals and ethics so the culinary arts are too
Factory farmed meat served to you in a package in Wal-Mart or over the counter at a burger place is of deserving of the term "art" as the words on a cereal box. Defend that if you want.

[Anonymous No.6953832]

>>6953828
>all meat is Factory farmed meat served to you in a package in Wal-Mart or over the counter at a burger place
Whatever you say
I'm glad I don't live in your world

[Anonymous No.6953839]

>>6953832
The majority of meat you consume is a result of factory farms if you live in the Western world, whether served to you in a restaurant or bought at a grocery store. The amount that is "free-range" or "organic" is minimal, particularly when you do not buy it yourself and have no control over where it comes from. And let's not even mention the fact that maybe you shouldn't believe "organic" means ethical.

Enjoy being naive I guess.

[Anonymous No.6953848]

>>6953839
>majority
But not all; get fucked.

[Anonymous No.6953850]

>>6953764
Certainly, since you asked nicely. We should, for practical reasons (fuck ethics), greatly reduce our meat consumption, stop the wholesale destruction of small farms that is making each country horribly dependent on the rest of the globe for its food, diversify our diets, outlaw patenting of seeds, and be much stricter about the size and condition of livestock farms. Then we should kill off roughly 90% of the world's humans, bringing us back to about WWI level, and go from there.

[Anonymous No.6953858]

Morals are objective and are all rooted in survival of societies.
We need to eat meat to survive at the optimal level.

[Anonymous No.6953864]

>>6953821
Ok, so no, we're not gonna get any real point out of you tonight. Awesome. You don't even look at their source material. The Michael Bluejay article, for example, I only included for the chart, which comes from an anatomy textbook. You really are just an arrogant cunt. GIVE ME AN ACTUAL COUNTERARGUMENT TO SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION THAT HUMANS ARE TRUE OMNIVORES BASED ON OUR ANATOMY OR ELSE FUCK OFF. THANK YOU.

[Anonymous No.6953879]

>>6953680
You didn't answer my questions. Those infants, freshly born will eventually grow into adults (provided their maladies do not deprive them of the opportunity) who could very well live meaningful lives. I ask again: Who are you to decide that their lives are not worth living? Who sets the standard of a meaningful life?

[Anonymous No.6953890]

>>6953864
Didn't see your post two above this last one of mine, sorry. I can actually get behind what you have to say there. Now can you speak as to why you believe we are true omnivores? I mean look at the chart I mentioned earlier, our physiology would indicate that we are much more similar to herbivores than omnivores.

[Anonymous No.6953906]

>>6953740
>Might makes right
Can you defend this proposition?
>Animals aren't sapient
Neither are babies or the intellectually disabled. Is it okay to eat them?
>The way resources are diverted from animals to grow crops for vegan diets kills animals too
What do you think animals eat?
>Art is above morals and ethics so the culinary arts are too
Okay, If an artist murdered you and created a great work of art from your remains you'd be okay with it because, y'know, "Art is above morals and ethics"?

[Anonymous No.6953923]

>>6953864
Calm down. You're asking for something so obvious it doesn't need or deserve an argument, and I already pointed that out. We are omnivores, most of us, and the fact that it's by preference is irrelevant, since we can choose our nutrients now, at least in developed nations. We eat meat, in ever-increasing amounts, and we're living longer than ever. All the bad stuff meat does to our bodies in excess is beside the point, since this thread was supposed to be about ethical decisions.
Anyway, I like actual peer-reviewed science and academics, not shysters and nutballs, so here: both of these studies looked at the role of diet in evolution. They aren't a commentary on whether modern-day eating habits, carnivorous or not, are healthy. The point is that our omnivorous ways have played a crucial role in our evolution and dominance of the planet, and are therefore as "natural" to us as any other human behaviour.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/18/7008.abstract
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032452

[Anonymous No.6953928]

>>6951928
what the flying fuck is this i can't stop laughing

[Anonymous No.6953948]

>>6953890
"True omnivores," no (and I did read the articles and charts you linked to, but the authors irked me). We are preferential omnivores, or however it's usually said, but our bodies handle it well overall. I don't buy the argument that we have a moral obligation to go vegan because we can, but it would be a good practical goal from a socio-economic or environmental standpoint. Sorry if I've been a prick: it took me a while to realize you actually wanted to discuss this sincerely. That's rare here--and I have to head to bed anyway.

[Anonymous No.6953955]

Because man is the most conscious animal, and therefore suffers the deepest, not eating meat is a denial of the righteous revenge all healthy men must partake in by the slaughter and consumption of beasts. By eating meat, man removes a envy of beast which would otherwise cloud the mind and destroy the soul.

[Anonymous No.6953961]

>>6953879
I set my standard. There's no universal standard. I don't need sanction from some heavenly power.

[Anonymous No.6953985]

>>6953955
I'm picturing you eating a Baconator in front of a pig while taunting it and jerking off.

[Anonymous No.6953989]

>>6953961
Obviously I can't know beforehand for certain that a down syndrome victim won't live "meaningful" life. I do know they'll live a life less satisfying and dignifying than I think any human should, not to mention the burden on their family. That's enough for me to support abortion or infant euthanasia.

[Anonymous No.6954009]

>>6953848
Not that anon, but if you don't consciously go towards organic meat, you have probably only ate from factory farms your entire life, save perhaps that one other time. That's how much.

[Anonymous No.6954021]

>>6953906
>Okay, If an artist murdered you and created a great work of art from your remains you'd be okay with it because, y'know, "Art is above morals and ethics"?
If it was good art, then of course.

[Anonymous No.6954023]

>>6954009
How does that change anything?

[Anonymous No.6954030]

>>6953948
You're cool, anon, I was being a bit of a prick myself, and yeah, it's understandable that you would initially assume I wasn't being sincere given the nature of /lit/. With your last couple posts, I think our lines of thought really are quite similar, but probably have some significant divergences as well. Would've been nice to delve deeper into thia with you. Oh, well. Have a good night.

[Anonymous No.6954036]

>>6953985
Pigs are the most despicable of all the beasts, for they wallow in pleasure idly without the guilt that would wrack a human spirit. The pig feels no remorse for partaking in the pleasures that would worry a conscious man into pain. But, their meat is delicious above all for this specific reason- that man loves to assert his superiority above such a grotesque animal.

[Anonymous No.6954040]

>>6953955
>man is the most conscious animal, and therefore suffers the deepest
Nice unsupported claim preceding a brash, illogically formed conclusion based on said claim, m8

[Anonymous No.6954060]

>>6953955
>Because man is the most conscious animal, and therefore suffers the deepest, not eating meat is a denial of the righteous revenge all healthy men must partake in by the slaughter and consumption of beasts. By eating meat, man removes a envy of beast which would otherwise cloud the mind and destroy the soul.

you people are taking this scholasticism obsession too far

[Anonymous No.6954063]

>>6953923
I also do prefer peer-reviewed papers, but my mobile is shit, so I have to take what I can get when it comes to linking to things on here.

As to your contention that we are living longer than ever:
(1) source that a diet higher in meat is responsible for this, as opposed to advances in medicine, etc.?
(2) source that our potential lifespan has actually increased by a statistically significant amount over time? Even if average lifespan has increased, that doesn't mean anything. People were living to be octogenarians and older thousands of years ago. Average life span increases would, as far as I know, have more to do with decreased rates of death in infancy, less people dying in earlier adulthood due to war, etc.

[Anonymous No.6954069]

>>6954060
Pleb

[Anonymous No.6954080]

>>6952284
you're on the wrong website muchacho

[Anonymous No.6954088]

>>6951767
(i know im coming late)

>I like meat but I can't justify eating it without going full edgy moral nihilist shrugging at rape and murder mode
you can´t justify those snickers if you see a starving afican child
you cant justify your toilet to hundred of people waiting in a stinking pit to recollect water
you can´t justify your watered lawn to poor villages of peru
it´s just a good marketing mode what veganism do, i mean, it´s a serious question but i think we not are a very fraternal and cool race yet. that´s the true. just for that i see slightly hypocritical thing (veganism) to makes you feel good, kind and honest to yourself. i mean, pratically every work of this society tends to make you a moral nihilist in order to justify your actions. im just wishing the moment when the people starts to push moralizing the government, the lawyers, the academia, the farms, the factorys, the religions and military in that black or white level.
>The habitual killing of sentient being for your pleasure when it's not a necessity
what is a necessity?. you donate all the money it´s not strictely necesary?.
so to resppond to your question. it´s bad to kill animals?, yes. it´s bad to industrialize the killing of animals?, yes. it´s bad to educate children in mass?, yes. it´s bad the tv?, yes.
the veganism should state against al kind of industrialization, if not, they are a broken sack. so the deal it´s with industrialization not with it´s bad to kill animals meh, you know?.
we kill the dogs that anybody want, and that would happened to every animal we feel it´s threaten our cities, and the people don´t go to stop making cities, we don´t are fully establish anywhere even tough it´s hard to realize.

[Anonymous No.6954094]

>>6954040
In the world of men, it can be observed that those who act in a beastly fashion are less conscious of themselves and of the world in proportion quite nearly to their beastliness. It then follows that animals, being lower than even than the beastliest of men, have little to no consciousness.

[Anonymous No.6954095]

>>6954021
>If it was good art, then of course.
I just don't plain believe that.
Really? you wouldn't mind? You don't think there are other ways the artist could produce art that does not entail killing someone? At this point, It's pretty obvious you didn't anticipate the implications of your views and are just grasping at straws. Maybe, in the future, you shouldn't form such strong opinions about topics you haven't read or thought much about.

[Anonymous No.6954105]

Francione is worth reading, if you're interested in Veganism. He's debated Singer and Robert Garner several times and appears on CNN occasionally, IIRC.

[Anonymous No.6954110]

>>6954069
>>6954094
Buddy.
It's 2015.
No one takes this Aristotelian shit seriously.
Give it a rest

[Anonymous No.6954123]

The poor cannot afford your stupid vegan diet. Classist fucks. Its hilarious that so many vegans claim to also be socialists, then look down upon those who eat meat - the working class they claim to represent.

[Anonymous No.6954130]

>>6953818
Animals dont have rights(protection so that they realize their own goods) because they arent rational, and because they arent rational, they cant recognize what their own goods are.

>inb4 babbys and OPs
no, these too are still rational by virtue of being human, they just dont express their rationality because of several reasons(immaturity or defect). To say otherwise would be to say something tantamount to saying rubber balls arent rubber balls until they roll or bounce.

[Anonymous No.6954140]

>>6954095
>You don't think there are other ways the artist could produce art that does not entail killing someone?
Yes, but why limit the artist?
>At this point, It's pretty obvious you didn't anticipate the implications of your views
Yes I did, stop with the fucking strawman.
I would gladly give my life to become a worm of art because I'm not a worthless fucking pleb like you.
If you're not an aestheticist then you need to fuck off from /lit/

[Anonymous No.6954143]

>>6954123
The poor cannot afford non-meant products because large corporations control food distribution, production, and legislation to the point where a luxury item in most countries becomes a chemical-ridden piece of crap salable on a $1 menu. All of the land and resources put towards factory farming would be more efficiently put towards non-meat food which would more adequately feed people and cost less. For example, the large swathes of land used to grow crops which then feed creatures who produce less nutrients than the food they consume.

If you cannot afford fresh fruit and vegetables, you are not to be blamed for eating meat: factory farming is. If you can afford fresh fruit and vegetables and you frequently eat meat, you are to blame.

[Anonymous No.6954148]

>>6954123
That hasn't been my experience, or the experience of any vegan I know.

[Anonymous No.6954150]

>>6954110
P L E B

[Anonymous No.6954183]

>>6954148

[Anonymous No.6954186]

Well, the transcendent argument is that it's no less ethical to eat plants alone because those, too are living things that you're killing and eating for sustenance, and it's illogical to value any one type of life over another.

You could make the argument that sentience is where you can draw a distinction between life that matters and life that doesn't, but you can't prove that plants aren't sentient. In fact, science is rapidly proving the opposite.

So there's that

[Anonymous No.6954195]

>>6954186
>but you can't prove that plants aren't sentient.
>In fact, science is rapidly proving the opposite.
contradictory much?

[Anonymous No.6954197]

>>6954186
Or you can discard this sentience nonsense and instead consider pain/pleasure as the basis for ethical treatment.

In which case, plants, lacking a central nervous system and incapable of exhibiting fear or aversion to pain or pleasure in any rigorously proven capacity, are okay to eat. And animals are not.

[Anonymous No.6954204]

>>6954197
you can eat buddhists!!!

[Anonymous No.6954208]

>>6954197
that's entirely arbritary and it faces severe problems on its own.

If we shouldnt cause pain, why do we perform surgery/give vaccines to animals? such actions are good

if pleasure is good and we shouldnt avoid it, why arent you masturbating animals? it gives them pleasure so it's good, and you shouldnt avoid pleasure

[Anonymous No.6954227]

>>6953246
>Choices within your life
>affects other creatures
Lmfao are you serious? Pick up an economic textbook, learn how supermarkets and slaughterhouses operate economically, then come back and apologize for being a fool.
If you want to stop slaughterhouses then we need to have large armed protests nation-wide. Personal lifestyle choices only affect your own bloated ego. Its arrogance. Its symptomatic of the laziness and cowardice of first world people, much like the Millennial kids farther upthread using anti-pain & suffering philosophies to justify their unrealistic gain-with-no-pain worldview.

[Anonymous No.6954234]

>>6954140
>Yes, but why limit the artist?
Because it causes unnecessary suffering. I mean, have you read anything on ethics ever?
>I would gladly give my life to become a worm of art because I'm not a worthless fucking pleb like you
Really? You value your live so little that you'd unnecessarily give it up? And I'm the pleb?
>If you're not an aestheticist then you need to fuck off from /lit/
Being an aestheticist and believing that you shouldn't unnecessarily case harm are not mutually exclusive positions. Try reading something some time.

[Anonymous No.6954235]

>>6954208
You misunderstand. Creatures capable of feeling pain also have an interest in avoiding pain, due to the nature of pain. It is not the base feeling of pain that is considered, it is the interest in avoiding pain. Thus, not only are plants incapable of feeling pain, lacking a nervous system, but do not exhibit an interest in avoiding pain - fear, cowering, etc. The same thing applies inversely to pleasure. There is nothing moral about the feelings of pain or pleasure, as they are only sensations, but there is a moral consideration in a creature's interest in either.

>If we shouldnt cause pain, why do we perform surgery/give vaccines to animals? such actions are good
The same reason we do so to humans; because the interest in avoiding pain is subsumed by the interest in gaining whatever benefit there is from the surgery. Though an animal does not understand a surgery will save it's life, though it can only understand the aversion to pain and the seeking of pleasure, an action that will help it and be in its best interests of avoiding pain is one that is good.

>why arent you masturbating animals? it gives them pleasure so it's good
what?

The interest in pleasure is of less importance for the matter at hand anyway. The issue isn't that animals are having TOO MUCH DAMN FUN in their lives.

[Anonymous No.6954245]

>>6954227
>If you want to stop slaughterhouses then we need to have large armed protests nation-wide.

What was that about unrealistic worldviews?

You too are desperately naive if you think that anything approaching this will happen and if you think that any stopgap attempts at change less than this are futile. Though it is obvious the entire problem is wrapped up in larger economic and ideological issues, resenting an all-or-nothing worldview like this is simply cowardice. The result of one person not eating meat is slim but better than nothing, and it's simple math to figure out that more people not eating meat means less incentive for those selling meat.

[Anonymous No.6954249]

>>6953906
>Okay, If an artist murdered you and created a great work of art from your remains you'd be okay with it because, y'know, "Art is above morals and ethics"?
Absolutely

Also, I'd be dead. Not like I could care either way.

>>6954095
>You don't think there are other ways the artist could produce art that does not entail killing someone?
Sure there are. But just because there are other options doesn't mean the chosen one should be dropped. Art is above morality. It'd suck for me to be killed, but I'd rather my death goes towards something beautiful, or artfully grotesque, than nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.6954257]

>>6954235
what? animals dont have an "interest" in avoiding pain, interests imply rationality, which is something animals lack.

>fear, cowering, etc.
these are REACTIONS to pain, not interests. If you push an ball it will roll, does it mean it has an interest to roll? should we avoid the ball's non rolling?

you would object that it isnt a fair example since a ball isnt a living thing, but i disagree, since the example works since both animals and balls lack rationality, and therefore have no interests.

But we could do the same with plants, since several plants manifest an "interest" in seeking sunshine, shouldnt we respect this "interest"?

> The issue isn't that animals are having TOO MUCH DAMN FUN in their lives.
perhaps theyre not having fun, so we ought to give them a "good time", no?

[Anonymous No.6954264]

>>6954245
> The result of one person not eating meat is slim but better than nothing, and it's simple math to figure out that more people not eating meat means less incentive for those selling meat.
one person it´s not necessarily more people. one person is mathematically intranscendent.

[Anonymous No.6954265]

>>6954234
>You don't think there are other ways the artist could produce art that does not entail killing someone?
Art is above ethics.
>You value your live so little
Art has infinitely greater value over life.
>Being an aestheticist and believing that you shouldn't unnecessarily case harm are not mutually exclusive positions.
They are in the context of this reply chain.

[Anonymous No.6954282]

>>6954249
>Sure there are. But just because there are other options doesn't mean the chosen one should be dropped.
That's exactly what I'm contending, though. If the chosen option causes unnecessary harm it should be dropped.
> It'd suck for me to be killed, but I'd rather my death goes towards something beautiful, or artfully grotesque, than nothing at all.
If you die unnecessarily your death would be for nothing, would it not?. Given the options of dying unnecessarily and not dying unnecessarily wouldn't you prefer to keep living because, as you've said "It'd suck for me to be killed"?

[Anonymous No.6954297]

>>6954282
>If you die unnecessarily your death would be for nothing, would it not?
Art is unnecessary and worthless, but that's because it's above life.
If you're going to say that art is shit then fuck off from the art board, retard

[Anonymous No.6954304]

>>6954282
>That's exactly what I'm contending, though. If the chosen option causes unnecessary harm it should be dropped.
Because I don't believe that harm is something that is avoidable. Suffering, in uncountable ways, is part of life. Following this, I don't think that harm is something that has to be avoided at all costs - if it leads to something "worth it" (a subjective opinion, really) then the ends justify the means. "Unnecessary" is pretty subjective anyway.

>If you die unnecessarily your death would be for nothing, would it not?. Given the options of dying unnecessarily and not dying unnecessarily wouldn't you prefer to keep living because, as you've said "It'd suck for me to be killed"?
Again, the quality of "necessary" here is subjective. It's generally within a creatures best interest to stay alive, but people have chosen to die for too many reasons to ever count.

[Anonymous No.6954315]

>>6954257
"Interest" only implies rationality insofar as you consider your conception of your own interests. You can rationally explain why you are not interested in undergoing pain, but preceding that is the aversion to pain. Before you understand why you do not like pain, you do not like the pain and attempt to avoid it. The latter is what is meant by interest, not the former. Pain precedes rationality, as does the interest in avoiding it; thus, if the question is of the avoidance of pain, rationality is inconsequential.

>these are REACTIONS to pain, not interests
They are evidence that a creature seeks to avoid pain and thus feels pain. They differ from ordinary cause and effect because they are comparable to that which we can reason; a person can cower and run away from a branding iron and then express to us that it hurt and they wished to avoid it. Because an animal cannot reason and express this to us, reactions to pain in comparison to reactions which are fully understandable to humans are the reason we can assert that an animal feels pain and attempts to escape it.

[Anonymous No.6954328]

>>6954257
>since several plants manifest an "interest" in seeking sunshine, shouldnt we respect this "interest"?
Debatable. It must be first asserted they are capable of feeling pleasure and thus having an interest in it. More analogously to pain in animals, if a plant avoids pain then their interest must be considered. But seeing as how it is quiet widely agreed by scientists that plants are incapable of feeling pain, then the reaction is not evidence of pain, but more akin to pushing a rock - simple cause and effect.

If you want to assert some implicit sanctity to all life, even that which cannot feel pain or pleasure and thus falls out of this system, feel free to do so.

[Anonymous No.6954344]

>>6954148
So you dont have much experience with people that aren't bourgeois? Good to know

[Anonymous No.6954359]

Factory farming clashes with our modern morality quite clearly. I do eat meat obtained this way. I don't know why I don't feel bad about eating it, but I don't. I guess it's the fact that I've never seen the animals killed up close.

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with eating meat from animals that were allowed to reach to an old age. A kind of free range system might be a net-benefit for the species provided it was stipulated that the animals be allowed to reach a certain age before they were killed. It would have conservation benefits too if we extended it to endangered species.

[Anonymous No.6954368]

>>6954245
See
>>6953266
Also, saying that its unrealistic that working in groups to fix the disease is unrealistic, while an individual thinking his "lifestyle" will fix the symptoms is? Are you fucking high?

Why dont you look up how much more efficient third world fights against such injustices are than your pathetic moral highground posturing? Crawl back to Portland from whence you came, worm.

[Anonymous No.6954501]

There is none. Anyone who has done any research knows this. If you decide to eat meat, know that you are being violent and immoral. Meat eaters who pretend that what they do isn't abusive are absolutely delusional.

http://www.godfist.com/vegansidekick//guide/

It's also the number one cause of global warming (by far, doubling many times the contribution of car polution even) and most certainly will pretty much singlehandedly lead to species exctinction if population keeps growing at this pace and people stay in a state of denial regarding animal explotaiton.

[Anonymous No.6954511]

>>6954123
The "first world people problem" is the worst argument of all. I live in a small town in a third world country. No tofurky, no vegannaise, no vegan nothing. Fruits and vegetables are the cheapest food in the planet. If you can't afford them, you either can't afford anything at all or your priorities are screwed.

[Anonymous No.6954516]

>vegans gets BTFO all thread
>their response is to grab the goalposts and run for the horizon

Glorious. I claim this thread for omnivores and those who understand scientific facts and economic realities

[Anonymous No.6954521]

>>6954511
This might blow your mind but some things are more expensive in the first world, especially America. It costs me 5$ for two tiny slices of salmon.

[Anonymous No.6954528]

>>6954501
Read the fucking thread

[Anonymous No.6954536]

>>6954501
Lmao spooky muhfucker read the thread yung bucker

[Anonymous No.6954542]

>>6954516
I'm saving this thread to my favorites so when a vegan fucktard posts I can just show him this thread

[Anonymous No.6954546]

Fuck off back to /leftypol/
From all the posts ITT it's obvious this is a raid

[Anonymous No.6954549]

>>6954511
In many parts of America, generally urban, eating fast food containing meat is often the cheapest short-term way of eating for those near to or in poverty.

[Anonymous No.6954563]

>>6954542
>>6954516
where was that again?

[Anonymous No.6954567]

>>6954521
Now campare that to a small bag of those little Clementine oranges. 15$
Vegan diets as recommend here are expensive. Living under foreign economic circumstances gives you LESS room to talk.

[Anonymous No.6954577]

>>6954563
Literally the whole thread

[Anonymous No.6954584]

>>6954577
just seeing ad hominem "vegans r stuckup fags", people getting into 1v1 spats that fizzle out, and some dudes talkin bout stoicism tbh

[Anonymous No.6954586]

>>6954563
Keep in mind those phrases
>economic reality & scientific fact
Now scroll through the thread with those terms in mind and you'll find the posts. Quoting half a thread is /v/ tier shitposting that im not gonna do. Im not gonna hold your hand either, fag

[Anonymous No.6954592]

>>6954584
Those aren't the posts I was talking about lol

[Anonymous No.6954594]

ITT: https://youtu.be/X-xoXbhnFHY

[Anonymous No.6954601]

>>6954586
>ctrl+f "econ"
>ctrl+f "scien"
>one well-thought out post, from a vegetarian
we see what we wanna see I guess lmao

[Anonymous No.6954627]

>>6954601
You wish

[Anonymous No.6954655]

I don't understand how calling animals "sentient" makes it not OK to eat them. Should we treat animals as our equals just because they use similar mechanisms to what we use to interact with the world? Call me when it's determined that they have sapience.

[Anonymous No.6954665]

>>6954655
Because it's objectively wrong?

[Anonymous No.6954679]

>>6954655
>I don't understand how calling animals "sentient" makes it not OK to eat them.

good for you buddy

[Anonymous No.6954692]

>>6954586
who cares about your opinions on what is 'scientific facts' faggot, you probably have 0 reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.6954694]

>>6954679
Some rebuttal you munter. Plants also feel btw, quess you'll be sticking to delicious algae :)

[Anonymous No.6954704]

>>6954692
Is this bait?

[Anonymous No.6954754]

>>6954694
what the fuck are you talking about? plants? who gives a shit

[Anonymous No.6954766]

>>6952803
you're definitely the most retarded tripfriend

[Anonymous No.6954839]

>>6952292
Grass doesn't feel stressed/pain though does it? There's such a clear distinction that you must be stupid as fuck to not understand it.

[Anonymous No.6954903]

>>6953136
Why? Why do I care about them? Why should I care about anything outside my self?

[Anonymous No.6954906]

>>6954903
because you objectively should, carnist.

[Anonymous No.6954913]

>>6953136
>you have to think about the future, your children and your childrens children, selfish fuck
>he says on /lit/ where most of the philosophers we talk about were against bringing people into life
You can't rope-a-dope the Schope, you filthy newfaggot

[Anonymous No.6954915]

>>6952292
how is this an argument against veganism lmao

[Anonymous No.6954918]

>>6954906
dumb veganposter

[Anonymous No.6954928]

>>6951792
This is bullshit. Meat-eaters in general take the act of not eating meat as a direct attack on their lifestyle and so perceive vegans/vegetarians as aggressive. I personally go out of my way to avoid mentioning that I am vegetarian. Only when I'm offered some meat so I have to politely decline and say "No thanks, I don't eat meat."

To which people will reply "Oh, so you're vegetarian?" and will proceed to challenge you on your diet even though you haven't challenged them. One person who I refused to argue with said to asked me"So you think animal lives are more important than human lives?!" because his family owned a farm. I had said nothing to bring up this debate and yet he insisted on it and got really quite angry as if I'd insulted his parent's livelihood by choosing not to eat meat.

Not eating meat is objectively the most beneficial thing to do, if for no other reason that the meat industry is one of the largest contributors to global warming. Not that I'd mention that anywhere but 4chan, else I'd get shouted down by meat eaters calling me "elitist".

[Anonymous No.6954933]

>>6954928
you better not eat any soy then fella

[Anonymous No.6954936]

>>6954933
Almond milk my nigga

[Anonymous No.6954989]

>>6952947
>>6952941

Humans eat a wider variety of crops than animals fed in farms or factories.

The bigger the variety, the more animals you have to kill to protect the crops, and the more trees you need to raze to make space.

[Anonymous No.6954996]

>>6954928
Why shouldn't meat eaters view many vegans as aggressive towards them? No one is calling veggies murderers. That claim is pretty one-sided and you know which side it's coming from.

Think about it, if you claim that killing animals for food is as bad as killing people (yes veggies do make that claim in order to tap into people's emotions more), then the gap left to justify severely punishing someone for eating animals or killing them for that purpose becomes much less wider.

[Anonymous No.6955001]

>>6951767
There is no such thing as ethical consumption in capitalism.

There is no such thing as a vegan.

Blood is a major component of most fertilizers, so most vegetables are not vegan. animal parts are used in all aspects of society.

Even if you, yourself, stop eating and consuming meat, there will be no impact. Something like 40% of all food produces is thrown away. Wallmart has to look well stocked.

I like Singer, but as an individual you have no power here.

[Anonymous No.6955007]

>>6953136
>lecturing about morality
>is for procreation
My sides.

[Anonymous No.6955008]

>>6954996
>That claim is pretty one-sided and you know which side it's coming from.

Well there's no denying that it's true. If you buy and eat meat then you're contributing to an industry based on mistreating animals. This isn't anything that a meat-eater would disagree with; it's a natural conclusion to the principles of morality they already subscribe to. But being aware of someone who is acknowledging that meat consumption is cruel, they themselves are being forced to face it too. This, I think, is where the anger comes from.

[Anonymous No.6955049]

>>6954592

>VEGETARIANS BTFO IN THIS THREAD HAHAHA

>But anon, what posts did this happen in?

>LITERALLY THE WHOLE THREAD DUDE LMAO

>Was it the posts about X, or about Y or about Z?

>THOSE AREN'T THE POSTS I WAS TALKING ABOUT LOL


BTFO indeed, wise meathead.

[Anonymous No.6955076]

>>6953399
>This might seem to make abortion immoral but we can get out of that by saying the bodily autonomy of the already sapient woman is greater than the right to life only yet-to-be sapient fetus.

It also makes all forms of birth control immoral

[Anonymous No.6955087]

>>6954516

[Anonymous No.6955095]

>>6955001
>There is no such thing as ethical consumption in capitalism.

That depends on what "ethical" means

>There is no such thing as a vegan.
>Blood is a major component of most fertilizers, so most vegetables are not vegan. animal parts are used in all aspects of society.

That's the field mouse argument, different ethical theories deal with the incident/accident divide different ways, but most would agree that killing one animal is better than killing one hundred animals.

>Even if you, yourself, stop eating and consuming meat, there will be no impact. Something like 40% of all food produces is thrown away. Wallmart has to look well stocked.

This strikes me as silly, would you apply this logic to any other morally impermissible act.

You also ignore the ecological effects of omnivorism

[Anonymous No.6955102]

>>6955095
>That's the field mouse argument, different ethical theories deal with the incident/accident divide different ways, but most would agree that killing one animal is better than killing one hundred animals.
but thats the principal behind veganism vs vegetarianism.

Vegans wont use a glue that includes animal parts, but will eat vegetables grown with them. Its a meaningless distinction in practical terms.

[Anonymous No.6955202]

My main concern with veganism is that it's just as much of a self-indulgent act as eating meat. You are entirely aware that your ethical choice not to eat meat or meat products will contribute in no way towards the prevention of animal cruelty, as there's always another consumer ready and available to eat the meat product you've just passed up on. Your ethics haven't actually produced any truly moral effects, all that happens is you've appeased your own guilt instead of doing something truly beneficial towards the animals who experience the cruelty of the industry on a daily basis.

I stopped eating meat over a year ago when I was informed that it aggravates the symptoms of my rheumatoid arthritis, but I can't say I'm particularly concerned about animal cruelty - does that make me just as ethical as someone who refuses to eat meat for more moral reasons? Or am I somehow less moral because even though the act of non-participation is the same, I don't feel the plight of the animals as much as the next vegetarian?

Also I'm absolutely certain that there are vegetarians out there who will wear clothes made by children in sweatshops, drive cars which are extremely unfriendly to the environment, and support food retailers who's biggest export is meat, even if what they buy has no meat content in it whatsoever. It's impossible to be consistently ethical with your purchases, so why be so arbitrarily selective about it?

[Anonymous No.6955240]

>>6955202
Jesus, read a fucking book

[Anonymous No.6955244]

>>6955240
qualit post

[Anonymous No.6955278]

>>6955202
I guess it's about supply and demand. Sure, one individual's choice to not eat meat is insignificant, but you could say the same thing about voting.

As for vegetarians who do those other unethical things, they are unethical, but those are separate issues. It's impossible to be an entirely ethical consumer, especially when we don't have enough information about where out products come from, but meat is a fairly clear-cut issue. The only thing I do on that list is buying products from stores that also sell meat. I figure that I'm not contributing to the demand for meat products from them though.

[Anonymous No.6955300]

>>6954315
no, interest implies rationality insofar as it is an intentional state.

the rest of your post is pure handwaving
>>6954328
there isnt any evidence that animals feel "pain" or "pleasure", both terms just apply to positive or negative stimulus. Since plants grow towards sunshine then sunshine must give them some form of positive stimulus.

[Anonymous No.6955625]

>>6953136
Newfag vegan raid confirmed

[Anonymous No.6955629]

>>6955049
Asspained vegancunt detected

[Anonymous No.6955636]

>>6955087
Vegans are the ultimate fedoras
Self-righteous confrontational idiots

[Anonymous No.6955656]

>>6954123
>the poor can not afford grains and beans
>literally what the poor have been eating for the last ten thousand years.

[Anonymous No.6956253]

>>6952062
Good post anon