Socrates was vegetarian

[Anonymous No.9427597]

Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat? The only point I see those against vegetarianism bring up are that it is "natural" for humans to eat meat. But humans are rational animals, and what makes life worth living is our ability to overcome our base natural desires and instincts. Abominable acts like adultery, theft, and homosexuality are also "natural" from a pure biological perspective, but are traits totally eschewed by good men. Why is eating meat considered acceptable?

[Anonymous No.9427607]

There's literally nothing wrong with adultery, theft, homosexuality or eating meat.

[Anonymous No.9427616]

>>9427597
1: the redpill is true
2: redpill means masculinity is good and righteous
3: masculinity means not caring about inferior lifeforms like women and animals
4: masculinity means eating meat and farting¨
5: REAL men are redpilled
6: REAL men eat meat
therefore:
7: it's good to eat meat

Also, no one is arguing that eating meat is immoral. It's the killing and suffering of animals that seems to be the concern

5: eating meat is good

[Anonymous No.9427629]

>>9427597
You can't overcome your biology, mate. Well, actually, you can and we eventually will, but you should be a scientist or engineer if that's what you're wanting.

"Ethnics" works in a system, depends on what your ethnics are. From your system; I suggest the fact that a lot of people will starve to death, world economy would be damaged (cascading into instability, more death and destruction) and culture, art and cuisine would be culled. Might be unethical.

[Anonymous No.9427631]

We need the protein.

[Anonymous No.9427635]

>>9427629
>You can't overcome your biology, mate. Well, actually, you can and we eventually will
By this part, I didn't imply that you can't be healthy on proper vegetarian diet, I just meant exactly what I said with no other attachment. Also attaining a proper vegetarian diet is quite hard, meat is easier and more available. Not even including the sudden food shortage, there would be no where near the required amounts of particular kinds of food to feed even just 1 billion.

[Anonymous No.9427639]

Animals are my property.

[Anonymous No.9427644]

>>9427631
No, we don't. Humans are perfectly able to survive on a plant-based diet, and even vitamin B-12 can be obtained from bacteria in the soil.

> I suggest the fact that a lot of people will starve to death, world economy would be damaged (cascading into instability, more death and destruction
Actually, livestock production consumes far more energy, freshwater, and crops than it is worth. For example, it takes some 10+ pounds of feed to product a single pound of beef, and vast amounts of grazing land and water. Additionally, it is environmentally damaging

[Anonymous No.9427647]

>>9427597
Life feeds on life. The only line you can draw is "How similar to yourself are you willing to eat?"

I don't personally eat meat, but not because it's somehow more holy to get my proteins from factory farmed eggs and factory farmed milk, but because meat is really just unnecessary at this stage in western innovation and I like being slender as fuck.

[Anonymous No.9427650]

We have a food and cooking board.
Please take this nonsense to /ck/.

[Anonymous No.9427654]

>>9427644
We very well do need the protein, idiot. There are just plant sources of protein available for us. Learn to argue your own point properly.

[Anonymous No.9427658]

>>9427647
>tfw vegan
>tfw still 20lb overweight because I'm addicted to dark chocolate

[Anonymous No.9427659]

>>9427644
>>9427644
>it is environmentally damaging

[Anonymous No.9427670]

>>9427654
We don't need animal protein to survive. Protein deficiency is only an issue in diets with a severe calorie deficiency. We produce enough plant crops to provide enough protein for the world's population.

I don't know what retarded point you were trying to make, but you're wrong. Kindly do not post in my thread again.

[Anonymous No.9427672]

>>9427597
The fact that the middle Plato's mouthpiece argues in the Republic that eating luxury foods will make the soldiers indolent and decadent does not mean that the historical Socrates was a vegetarian.

[Anonymous No.9427676]

>>9427597
beimg vegan is a product of the radical expansion and corruption of egalitarian ideals brought upon by the movement of history. its historically contingent, to say the least

by the way, if youre a meat eater, you ought to thank the animal being eaten as well as god, if you believe in one, before you eat

[Anonymous No.9427684]

>>9427676
>if youre a meat eater, you ought to thank the animal being eaten
why??
talk about a radical expansion and corruption of egalitarian ideals!

[Anonymous No.9427685]

>>9427597
it's not that it's natural, it's that nothing stands in opposition to it when considered outside the paradigms of philosophical antiquity.

[Anonymous No.9427693]

>>9427684
but i still eat it, though

[Anonymous No.9427697]

>>9427597
>Why is eating meat considered acceptable?

Gee, why do most humans consider what most humans consider acceptable, acceptable? Because eating food is a personal matter of taste not ethics and morality. I have sovereignty over my body and what goes into it. Even Siddhartha Buddha ate meat, even died of poisoned meat. If you really think meat or animals matter in this world of literally endless HUMAN daily slaughter and suffering you are suffering from a sickness in your head. Your fellow man is being brutally butchered by governments and criminal organizations, children starving and dying of every disease, and you take your time and mental focus to worry about the livestock. Western sickness of the mind is best displayed by vegetarianism. We haven't even freed humanity from the slaughter and you worry about chickens.

[Anonymous No.9427700]

Hmm. I guess the same could be said for fraud, criminal harassment, illegal finance activities, malpractice, and other crimes that are hard to prove. Eschewed by good men, that is.

[Anonymous No.9427702]

>>9427685
What about all of the objective benefits regarding the environment, energy and freshwater use, health, et cetera?

[Anonymous No.9427705]

>>9427597 There could be a natural right kind of theory - that it's a fundamental right that comes with being human (like, say, procreating).

I certainly think it's wrong in the case of intensive farming. Animals are given growth hormones, artificial insemination, never go outside or even have natural light, pigs scream and smash themselves against their narrow confines.

[Anonymous No.9427707]

>>9427697
>I have sovereignty over my body and what goes into it.
Do you really? Isn't this contradicted by the existence (and enforcement) of laws governing what you can do with your body and what goes into it?

[Anonymous No.9427709]

>>9427597
It mustn't be considered an argument! I cannot attend to those who in being solicit rules for conduct despite freedom lying before them. He is weak who falls prey to greater men's falsities; he is frail who cannot establish a method of his own. I'd urge you to transcend these ideas of ancient, to commence the creation of individual reconstruction.

[Anonymous No.9427722]

>>9427697
>Your fellow man is being brutally butchered by governments and criminal organizations, children starving and dying of every disease,
This only happens in nigger/Asian countries, and those people are no better than animals.

[Anonymous No.9427727]

>>9427697
>Eating meat is morally acceptable because there are much worse things going on in the world
>Raping people is morally acceptable because there are much worse things going on in the world
>Being brutally butchered by governments and criminal organisations is not morally acceptable because there aren't any worse things happening in the world

[Anonymous No.9427728]

i was vegan for 10 yrs until it gave me heartburn and now GERD.
doctor told me to switch to a paleo/keto diet or i would be on ppi's for the rest of my life

[Anonymous No.9427747]

>>9427702
>objective benefits
I fail to see their objectivity. Are we past the millennia old problem of human subjectivity? I must have been asleep when this occurred.
To some I imagine the benefits invoke a desired pleasure, both in political spirit, and in heath, but to assert these as objective is something of undeserved application. The fact we live does not include that we must endure. Nor does it entail rights beyond that of the states. Neither do animals, nor fellow humans, have to them a law promising their existence continuation. From this we can do and modify their existence as we please. Or not, perhaps... But that is a discussion of negation and authorization.

[Anonymous No.9427752]

>>9427728
Hey, I've been suffering from gerd. Has this paleo diet helped you?

[Anonymous No.9427770]

>>9427644

>For example, it takes some 10+ pounds of feed to product a single pound of beef,

But anon, feed is shit-tier nutritionally and completely inedible for humans.

[Anonymous No.9427781]

>>9427752
yeah it has. i can eat meals now instead of barely finshing a pea protein shake because of the pain
i still have to take shit like this https://www.amazon.com/AbsorbAid-Digestion-Stomach-Distress-Capsules/dp/B000VYXDIQ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
turmeric
before meals. tho

[Anonymous No.9427800]

>>9427728
>i was vegan for 10 yrs
Why would you ever do that?

[Anonymous No.9427870]

>>9427654
>post is literally incoherent
>Learn to argue your own point properly

[Anonymous No.9427890]

>>9427870
Well, the post isn't literally incoherent, since it just states that there are plant-based sources of those same essential proteins, but some fundamental miscommunication is clearly happening.

[Anonymous No.9427897]

>>9427597
>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?
Tastes good

[Anonymous No.9427917]

>>9427597
Better to first ask yourself why eating meat is bad. I don't see any arguments provided by you against it. But you are implying that animal life is somehow more valuable, or is valued more, than plant life, which seems unconsidered. Why would an animal, such as a chicken or cow, be less deserving human consumption than the fruit of a tree or the roots of a plant? To eat is to kill, in some manner, and it seems trite to distinguish one life from another.

[Anonymous No.9427925]

>Human
>All other species of animal

Trying to create a moral and ethical equivalency between animals and humanity is dangerous and foolish. Telling people that they have the same rights as thier food is not going to convince many people that thier food is a person. All that really happens is you drag down the dignity and sanctity of human life to the level of livestock. We already have enough wide spread killing of humans on earth. Why are you trying to push human life down to the level of a farm animal? Humans will not stop slaughtering animals for food, and they will not likely stop killing each other. All you are doing is devaluing human life.

[Anonymous No.9427926]

>>9427897
Raping women feels good too

[Anonymous No.9427934]

>>9427926
>wah wah everything I don't like is rape

Go back to the tumblr hellhole, cunt.

[Anonymous No.9427940]

>just eat this tasteless gruel and you can get *most* of your dietary needs!

[Anonymous No.9427946]

OP asked:
>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?

The closest answer he received was from this anon: >>9427705

[Anonymous No.9427954]

>>9427934
>wah wah I don't understand analogies!
go back to facebook

[Anonymous No.9427957]

>>9427926
I concur, where is the argument?

[Anonymous No.9427966]

...is nobody going to bring up the OP's gayshaming in his post?

[Anonymous No.9427967]

>>9427954
The part that feels good about rape is the sex, not the rape itself, you forgot that.

[Anonymous No.9427970]

>>9427917
>Better to first ask yourself why eating meat is bad
Because sensient life has value.

>But you are implying that animal life is somehow more valuable, or is valued more, than plant life
That's because they don't have senscience.

[Anonymous No.9427973]

>>9427658
I've never met a vegan who wasn't fat.

[Anonymous No.9427977]

>>9427966
No because we are not on reddit.

[Anonymous No.9427978]

>>9427967
your point being?

[Anonymous No.9427981]

>>9427978
Your analogy stinks.

[Anonymous No.9427987]

>>9427981
>eating meat is ethical because it feels good
>raping women is ethical because it feels good
?

[Anonymous No.9427992]

>>9427987
Having sex with women feels good, the rape is accidental.

[Anonymous No.9427999]

>>9427992
Rape presupposes sex. Also
>eating things tate taste like meat feels good, killing the animal is accidental
??

[Anonymous No.9428006]

>>9427999
You are just baiting at this point, no one can be this dumb. I have better things to do.

[Anonymous No.9428015]

>>9428006
ok dude then go away and learn how to make a point
you're embarrassing yourself and don't even realise it lol

[Anonymous No.9428023]

>>9427970
What do you mean by "sentient"? It seems your understanding of the word is somewhat narrow. Plants are sentient, in a sense. For example, grass is capable of rudimentary communication through the release of chemicals when cut.

I guess the question is more about how much a nervous system adds to the value of life.

Why would sentient life have value? Where would that value come from?

[Anonymous No.9428026]

Wrong board.
>>9427616
>4: masculinity means eating meat and farting¨
See pic related.

[Anonymous No.9428046]

>>9428023
This anon gets it. Vegetarians are drawing arbitrary lines based on poor understandings of science.

[Anonymous No.9428068]

>>9428023
>Why would sentient life have value? Where would that value come from?

Maybe they have value as nutrition for other sentient animals?

[Anonymous No.9428070]

>>9428046
Okay, I'll grant you that all life, plant or animal, is sentient and is therefore valuable. As rational humans, then, we should seek to, as much as possible, reduce the suffering we inflict upon other sentient creatures.

Due to energy loss as food moves up the chain, it is far more inefficient to survive by eating animals than it is by plants. To have as little an impact as possible on other life, we should therefore have a plant based diet, although it is still morally wrong.

[Anonymous No.9428073]

>>9427926
yeah but eating meat doesn't come with a risk of prison/being killed in self defense etc

[Anonymous No.9428075]

>>9427597
>praises greek figures
>denounces homosexuality in the same paragraph

[Anonymous No.9428084]

>>9428070
>we should

With what kind of authority do you say we should do anything differently to what takes place today?

[Anonymous No.9428085]

Why is cannibalism wrong?

[Anonymous No.9428088]

>>9428070
>As rational humans, then, we should seek to, as much as possible, reduce the suffering we inflict upon other sentient creatures
literally why?

Seriously though this logic is pretty poor. See the utility monster thought experiment and other criticisms of utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.9428090]

>>9428085
Muh feels.

[Anonymous No.9428092]

>>9428073
So nothing is inherently wrong unless it comes with the risk of being punished? Fuck off, Glaucon

[Anonymous No.9428096]

>>9428070
>As spooked humans
Fixed.

[Anonymous No.9428099]

>>9428023
>What do you mean by "sentient"?
It just means that animals are capable of perceiving the world around them. I don't know about your example of grass, but I'm pretty sure that grass doesn't have a biological system able to realise the cuts, for example. The grass makes chemical reactions, but it's not different from a rock.

>Why would sentient life have value? Where would that value come from?
To give a proper answer we would have to discuss metaethics, which would make the discussion way harder. But I'd say that most people presuppose that human life has value because humans can perceive the world around them. And the same applies to most animals. Obviously it's hard to determine when a species can perceive the world, but in most cases it's not so hard.

[Anonymous No.9428103]

>>9428092
>Fuck off
lmao nice argument. Next you'll tell me how "obvious" it is

[Anonymous No.9428107]

>>9428096
really, not even ultra-religious people are that oblivious to reality.

[Anonymous No.9428112]

>>9427629
>a lot of people will starve to death
producing meat actually uses a lot more resources than producing plant based food that has the same nutritional values. there would be more food to go around if people ate less meat

[Anonymous No.9428124]

>>9428046
>Vegetarians are drawing arbitrary lines based on poor understandings of science.
But a line must be drawed. How does your scientific understanding leads you to the conclusion that killing animals is not wrong but killing humans is? How is your line less arbitrary than mine?

[Anonymous No.9428126]

>>9427616
This logic also can be applied to eating women, and cannibalism is negative

[Anonymous No.9428135]

>>9428112
so this anon >>9427728
going to survive if meat stopped being produced?

[Anonymous No.9428138]

>>9427616
>complete ideology is true
... Is not a fucking starter premise, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9428145]

>>9427917
I never get this argument.
You argue that there is no clear distinction between the life of a pig and the life of a blade of grass.
Fine, let's assume that they're the exact same thing: this makes eating pigs even more unethical, since farming a pig implies a large expenditure of vegetal life.
Even in this case the most ethicla thing you could do is avoid eating meat while boycotting thhe dairy industry.

[Anonymous No.9428157]

/lit/ is truly dead.

[Anonymous No.9428158]

>>9428090
That's the only argument I've heard. There's something upsetting about it, for me at least.

[Anonymous No.9428160]

>>9428157
At least it isn't eating meat.

[Anonymous No.9428169]

>>9427597
>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?
No, there really isn't. It is ESPECIALLY unethical to eat mammals

It's astonishing how much power the animal agricultural lobby wields, and how they've been able to brainwash the public over the last century, especially in North America. Most people have no idea

see pic

[Anonymous No.9428167]

look if you can afford to eat meatless without having health issues go do it

not everyone has that privilege

[Anonymous No.9428172]

The answer is that nobody cares. I don't care. Nobody cares about the ethics or the arguments. Meat tastes good.

[Anonymous No.9428173]

>>9427644
What exactly separates plants and animals in you mind?

Both seek to survive. Both can suffer trauma. why is bacteria less deserving of life than a cow? When you mow your lawn, that fresh cut smell is is the plant applying a defensive mechanism and applying first aid to itself.

Really, the only thing that seems to distinguish the 2 in a vegetarian's mind is that an animal can express its pain in a manner that is easier for humans to relate to.

In short, if you are determined to minimize the suffering you cause in this world, a change in diet isn't the answer. What you really need is a rope and a chair.

[Anonymous No.9428174]

>>9428172
This.

[Anonymous No.9428176]

>>9428099
What I can't accept is the assumption that perception/consciousness = value. That doesn't sound too convincing as an infallible truth. But I'm curious how mathematics plays into the question of value, where would you be basing your method in?

[Anonymous No.9428181]

>>9427597
>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?

Tell us anon on what grounds do you think ethics are based on?

>But humans are rational animals,

Reason doesnt allow you to derive an ought from and is anon.

[Anonymous No.9428222]

>>9427926
To be perfectly desu, I don't think it would feel good actually. Sex is great but I imagine rape would (outside of fantasy) be a pretty grim ordeal on both ends of the stick.

[Anonymous No.9428237]

>>9428124
>arbitrary

Because humanity is the class that we belong to. Its not an arbitrary line its just every human placing the highest value and protection on every other human. When talking about what humans eat, there is automatically a logical line drawn between "humans" and everything else in the possible category "food" Moving animals into the human category doesn't protect them, it just moves humans into the food category devaluing the human life. If we were making real progress towards ending human genocide and suffering than it would be different. But as it is, with the whole sale slaughter of humans unabated and not even really opposed in any significant way its hard to see vegetarian logic as just another attempt to devalue human life. Suffering and being eaten is the natural fate of animals in the wild. There is nothing immoral about any animal eating any other animal in nature. Its just the natural biological process, ethics have no place in it. Humans are not somehow exempt from that process, we eat animals, and can be eaten by them. Being human does not somehow add a moral or ethical weight to the natural biology of eating and digestion. Humans eating meat is not any more immoral than lions or bears eating meat. It is part of the reality of living organisms. Ethics and morality have no place in discussions of what humans eat while other humans are being slaughtered daily. Its a grotesque perversion of ethics and morality to extend them to animals when we don't even extend them to our fellow humans.

[Anonymous No.9428244]

>>9428145
Or you block headed idiot is to show that a pig is not any more morally or ethically significant than the blade of grass and this both valid as food. The point was not that nothing can ever be eaten.

[Anonymous No.9428250]

>>9428222
>I don't think it would feel good actually
it does in a way
imaging being really mad at somebody and going thru with hitting them.

[Anonymous No.9428256]

The purpose of all known life is the spread of its genes, without us domestic animals would die and go extinct. What we're basically doing is allowing some species of animal to keep fulfilling their instinctual life goals while also getting some benefit from it. What's not to like?

[Anonymous No.9428269]

>>9428173
Anon gets it again. Reducing pain in the universe is not some moral imperative inherent to the process of being alive and eating food. Such a moral imperative does not exist in nature, and humans are not somehow more morally burdened by the ethics of eating than any other creature. Life is a messy, dirty, violent process at all levels. If you want to pretend to be some kind of enlightened being who causes no harm you can pretend to do that, but the reality is you are still causing huge macro levels of death at many scales of existence in the biological spectrum no matter what you do. Besides the fact that you still pay taxes that buy bombs that get dropped on people. Vegetarianism is just egotism and false perspectives of reality.

[Anonymous No.9428284]

>>9428250
That's a very different sensation, I think, though I take your point. Although, if the pleasure is more sadistic than sexual, that is a very different approach than the "tastes good" argument about valuing pleasure. I think even most hedonists would draw the line at everyone being able to indulgs in sadistic pleasure for its own sake.

[Anonymous No.9428368]

>>9428244
I don't see how can you adopt such a rigid system while demanding from it only answers that are based on reason, recognize that there is no difference between a blade of grass and a pig and still end up believing that there is a difference between a pig and a man.

Now I have to ask you: is it unethical to kill a man? If it is: what are your arguments for it? (when answering please keep in mind the philosophical framework you hinted at earlier on)

[Anonymous No.9428397]

>>9427597
>Socrates was vegetarian
And? That's why you're a vegetarian? Socrates also committed suicide, you should follow his examples consistently.
>Abominable acts like adultery, theft, and homosexuality
Jesus fuck.

>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?
Kant. Vegetarianism follows logically from the utilitarianism/hedonism that we are taught in the modern society, and it seems that you still haven't realized that you were indoctrinated. Consequently, you don't even try to argue for vegetarianism, it just seems so obvious. Read Singer to see your way of thinking taken to its logical and retarded conclusion.

[Anonymous No.9428402]

>>9428256

[Anonymous No.9428498]

>>9427654
Wait, what? You actually believe we need protein from meat to survive? He's right. You must be American, they convince you to eat snickers bars because they contain protein.

[Anonymous No.9428506]

>>9428256

We as a species are slaves to the domesticated animals genes, not the other way around. We have to pour so many resources into things like feed, genetic engineering, antibiotics, and transportation in order to meet the demand for nicely presented, ready to consume, familiar, supposedly safe meat. Vegetarianism is unnecessary, but it's probably better than being a supermarket carnivore.

[Anonymous No.9429875]

Hitler was a vegetarian.

/thread

[Anonymous No.9429899]

Because animals are not part of the social contract and their welfare is no concern of ours.

It kind of bothers me though, that with this argument I'm admitting technologically advanced aliens would be justified in farming us.

[Anonymous No.9429914]

>>9427597
>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?

Sure. Assuming that one accepts the axiom that humans are more valuable than animals, eating them isn't a problem is it?

[Anonymous No.9429931]

>>9427597
>is a vegetarian
>sacrifices a cock to Asclepius

[Anonymous No.9429947]

>>9429899

But what about children, and those who are obviously mentally retarded, such as Peter Singer?

[Anonymous No.9429958]

>>9429947
Children grow to be adults. Retards amuse me. Peter Singer can go to the ovens.

[Anonymous No.9429966]

>>9427597
Why would Socrates owe a rooster to Asclepius if he was a vegetarian? Socrates was a man, and had a man's hungers.

[Anonymous No.9430212]

>>9427616
>It's the killing and suffering of animals that seems to be the concern

Despite the fact that I disagree with the rest of your post this is an important distinction.

[Anonymous No.9430214]

>>9427607

> adultery
Breaking a promise/agreement/contract

> theft
Causing loss to another

> homosexuality
Agreed

> eating meat
No, but farming and killing animals is wrong.

[Anonymous No.9430221]

>>9427631
Why do we need animal protein?

[Anonymous No.9430224]

>>9427597
> Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?

Other than moral relativism I've yet to see one.

[Anonymous No.9430231]

>>9430214

By eating meat you're financing these industries you hate so much in the only way that is meaningful in this capitalist system (basically you're giving them money), hence eating meat (or at least, eating the meat you can buy), while not being as unethical as the actual animal farming, is still inherently unethical.

[Anonymous No.9430238]

>>9430231
Assuming you're buying your meat, yes, it's unethical. Eating a deer that's been hit by a truck isn't unethical.

[Anonymous No.9430240]

>>9430238
Agreed.

[Anonymous No.9430249]

>>9430221
To get big.

Aesthetics are the font of all truth and justice.

[Anonymous No.9430289]

>>9430238

Yes it is, in supporting the pro-truck movement. Trucks burn fossile fuel and are hence evil. Consider the consequences beyond prima facie anon.

[Anonymous No.9430457]

>>9427597
You cannot argue ethics or morals or even take the scientific standpoint to persuade people away from meat, or any other thing an individual derives great pleasure from. This is the underlying cause of the reluctance: addiction (in a sense). Try arguing away an obese person's potato chips, or a nymphomaniac's sex. See what I mean? You could give people any sort of evidence or ethical argument and there will always be resistance. Meat plays an important role in Western culture as well, so people may be reluctant, either consciously or unconsciously, to give it up.

[Anonymous No.9430464]

Yeah he was and he killed himself.
What about that?

[Anonymous No.9430470]

>>9427607
Standard fuckparty.mp4

[Anonymous No.9430495]

>>9427616
1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Nonsense, man is to garden the world. Women are to be made submissive, animals are to be subdued and removed from the {threat} category. Pets are nice, so is meat.
4. Masculinity is about having tough skin. This means certain freedom from norms that are there and which limit and bound lesser lifeforms and roles. Soldiers don't fart or make fools of themselves, for example. Men can do either if they wish.
5. Agreed.
6. Real men can choose. They can even choose whether or not they will eat meat based on how annoying the vegetarians have been recently. It's up to me, really.
7. It is.

> It's the killing and suffering of animals that seems to be the concern
Killing is fine, torture is not. This is why we should ban Halal and Kosher, for example.

[Anonymous No.9430503]

>>9427727
>>Raping people is morally acceptable because there are much worse things going on in the world
Indeed, feminism seems to be a wrong that balances itself with rapine.

[Anonymous No.9430510]

>>9427616
1. Define the redpill
2. See above
3. Why?
4. Why?
5&6. I am quite positive the only requirements for being a real man are a) existing in reality and b) having an X chromosome and a Y chromosome.

[Anonymous No.9430516]

>>9430510
>I am quite positive the only requirements for being a real man are a) existing in reality and b) having an X chromosome and a Y chromosome.
It's the virtues, lat. Virtus, man. Biology is about whether or not you can achieve them or not.

[Anonymous No.9430536]

>>9430516
Well there's a difference between being a good man and a real man. Not being virtuous does not make you any less real.

Additionally we must decide whether "manhood" is a state of biology, or a state of character. If the latter is the case then it is theoretically possible for women to be men.

[Anonymous No.9430544]

>>9430536
>Well there's a difference between being a good man and a real man.
Real is a magic word that invokes No True Scotsman, and tells nothing about anything, ever.

[Anonymous No.9430561]

>>9430544
It's not.

For instance the computer I'm writing this on is very real, and its reality is confirmed by the fact that this post is here for you to read. This is what I mean by real.

However it is true that a lot of people co-opt "real" as a qualifier for whatever arbitrary standards they want to set. This is largely what I'm arguing against. Even if the most feminine man on the planet is still a real man by virtue of his existence and his biology, his behaviour does not make him any less real or any less male.

[Anonymous No.9430583]

>>9430561
>For instance the computer I'm writing this on is very real, and its reality is confirmed by the fact that this post is here for you to read.
I just get the message. I can only assume the source. 'Of use' isn't enough to qualify as 'real'. People have made real choices based on false information and succeeded.
I'd go as far as to classify 'real' as the goal and the relevant factors. I've had a nihilistic past, so I've had to struggle with this for years.

Is perception real?

[Anonymous No.9430587]

>>9430583
Perception is not just real, perception is reality itself.

In truth reality is not in front of your eyes, it is between your ears. There is the fountain of all understanding and experience.

[Anonymous No.9430617]

>>9430214
>homosexuality
It's disordered love because it loves the same, the own and not the different. It's not selfless, it's autoerotic. Read Scruton!

[Anonymous No.9430624]

>>9430214
Kill yourself faggot

[Anonymous No.9430628]

>>9430617
>>9430624
The love between two men is the purest of them all.

[Anonymous No.9430630]

>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?

Other than accelerationism, no.

[Anonymous No.9430636]

>>9430628
It's called friendship, faggot.

[Anonymous No.9430638]

>>9430636
Romantic love between two men is an even more ascended form of friendship.

[Anonymous No.9430658]

>>9430638
Nah. It can't even carry a world.

[Anonymous No.9430693]

>>9430658
It doesn't need to. It is a love that is entirely self-sustaining and self-explanatory.


There is nothing more pure than that. It is truth in physical form.

[Anonymous No.9430745]

>>9430617
So then I guess bestiality is the best, most selfless form of love, because you love a completely different species

[Anonymous No.9430840]

I'm a vegetarian but just because I can easily go without meat. I eat eggs and dairy products, fish every month and a little meat when I don't really have a choice. Don't give a shit about animals being killed. Give a shit about the wasteful industry of meat, it's way more economical and ecological to not produce as much meat as we do today and I give a shit about how it has become an everyday habit to eat meat. We are spoiled with the abundance of good food. For everything else about meat that is wrong, blame consumerism. To any anon out there, it's pretty easy to not eat meat, so why not deny yourself some pleasure and try to eat less meat, it doesn't cost anything. Just an advice