/sci/ - Science & Math

Vegetarianism is one of those odd things where I think most people would become vegetarians if the cost of doing so was sufficiently low. It's like how most smokers want to stop smoking.

But it's a trade-off. Being a veggie is really hard if you want a balanced diet.

I think the advent of artificial meat will produce a shitload of vegetarians all of a sudden.

>Is vegetarianism inherently flawed despite humans being able to reach adequate nutrition without consuming meat?
Yes.
>I'm not a vegetarian, but I still feel a tad strange when I buy a pound of ham and consider that it used to be a pig.
You need to desensitize yourself more. Try buying live food animals such as poultry and fish, then kill and gut it yourself. You'll learn to appreciate what people done since the dawn of humanity.

>>2940221

>artificial meat

Do you mean meat substitutes or vat-grown replicated meat?

Because the latter, quite simply, sounds like horror science and I would not want to eat it even if it's perfectly identical to organically grown.

>>2940238
>I would not want to eat it even if it's perfectly identical to organically grown.
Why? How is that different from food with artificial colors and flavors?

Vegetarianism for something other than medical reasons is kind of wasteful, buy in a country with US's agricultural capacity, it's probably not harming anything.

>>2940238

That's not very /sci/entific of you. You know perfectly well that the essence of something is fully determined by its chemical composition, not where it came from.

In any case, I suspect you're just wrong. You would get used to it. We currently do all sorts of things that previous generations would have thought impossibly unnatural.

>>2940248
>>2940255

Chemicals don't GROW.

>despite humans being able to reach adequate nutrition without consuming meat?

Meat is a wonderfully dense source of energy and essential nutrition, but you don't necessarily have to eat it these days.

This wasn't always the case. Particularly with regards to vitamin B12 (cobalamin), which could only be obtained from animal products unless you were a species with a ruminant digestive system (cows) or could engage in corpophaegia without poisoning yourself (rabbits).

Adequate nutrition was an insurmountable hurdle to strict herbivorous diets before we had the technology to enrich foods and create dietary supplements. Now that we can, people can go ahead and cut animal products out of their diet without, y'know, suffering horrible brain damage and death.

>>2940275

What, never grown a crystal before?

>>2940275
Well, I have no idea how the technology would work. It's just a thought experiment. But however the technology works, if it produces something that is chemically identical to a piece of steak, what problem would you have with throwing it on the barbie?

>>2940275
the animal that GROWS is just a combination of chemicals

>>2940275

Sure they do. They do so in organized collections known as living organisms.

You ignore vitamin B12

>>2940348

See >>2940278.

>>2940348
You can buy artificially-produced B12 pills. They're really common.

>>2940360
aren't vegans against artificial food?

>>2940368
I don't think so. Most vegans I know are vegans because they don't like the idea of exploiting animals; they wouldn't care about abstract stuff like that.

But there are no doubt 500 different types of vegan.

>>2940368

Vegans and vegetarians are not the same.

The justifications behind vegetarianism are inherently flawed from what I've heard (exploitation of animals, perceived dangers in red/white meat, spiritual arguments etc) .

You discount being able to reach "adequate nutrition" as being the criteria on which the -ism is judged as being flawless.

What criteria are you judging them on then?

To be honest, I sometimes also get nauseous when I visualize meat as animal parts and try to imagine the skinning/bleeding/dismemberment that goes into preparing meat.

But today, I had delicious barbecue that consisted of 3 different animals made into stringy, sweet meat fibers.

Sentient beings, reduced to greasy meat fibers, and it was delicious.

I honestly don't know what to make of it.

I think that we were meant to be omnivores though, and to kill to survive is justified on some level.

Maybe I'm just a pussy.

I'll be going back for barbecue though.

>>2940436
TRANSLATION: "I understand the motivations behind vegetarianism, and they occur to me sometimes too. But because I'm too weak-willed to act on my ethical intuitions, I will denigrate people who do. Also I will throw in the naturalistic fallacy as if that has ever made any sense at all."

>>2940249

Not sure where you come up with vegetarianism being wasteful. With modern factory farming methods for meat, eating meat is a lot more wasteful.

If we went back to the style where the animals ate weeds and whatever we didn't need then not eating meat would be wasteful. But that only happens in developing countries these days.

>>2940436

>implying that I said anything about vegetarians as people
>implying that I made any defined ethical judgments.
>implying that an observation made of our digestion capability (alluding to the argument that we weren't "meant" to eat animals) comes close to the naturalistic fallacy.

Perhaps using the word "meant" was a mistake though.

=> "our bodies evolved to function with products that, until only recently, were only available from animal products"

but that was a mouthful.

Wait, are there actually people who believe that vegetarianism isn't a more ethical stance?

<span class="math">haha \ \sigma \hbar \ \omega \sigma \omega[/spoiler]

vegetarianism has been a dietary fad for a very long time--thousands of years--but it was only until a few decades ago that any science existed supporting it at all,,,, and it doesn't give you all the nutrients you need

(-also we note: there has never been a sustained culture [500+ years] anywhere on earth that remained vegetarian when meat was available to eat)

on the other hand, there have been multiple cultures that ate meat-only diets a majority of the time, for thousands of years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-carbohydrate_diet

,,,,,,,,,

anyway, at the lower levels of processes, killing an animal is no different than killing a plant. an animal just looks "more like you"

>>2940278
You still need to be careful with planning your diet though. Lots of incidences of people feeding their kids nothing but spinach and carrots then going "OMG WHY IS HE SICK THESE FOODS ARE ALL NATURAL"

>>2940221
It's not too hard if you eat eggs and/or milk, and if not you just need a few supplements. Getting all your amino acids is just about eating different types of vegetables

>>2940525

Are you kidding me? Vegetarianism is the devil's diet!

Can't you just hear all those poor carrots and soy beans screaming as you tear them from the soil, grind them up, and boil them?!

It's so unethical to kill and eat LIVING plants. They are LIFE. Even dead ones, that's just a lack of respect.

Way to go Hitler, eat another Jew why don't you.

>>2940533
Wow, were to start.

Firstly, vegetarianism is primarily an ethics-based dietary habit, so nutrition comes second. On the other hand, with supplements and such, any health effects that might stem from removing meat can be curtailed, if not eliminated.

On the other hand, the quality and quantity of meat eaten today in western nations ensures that most people will have poor nutrition. E.g. cows eating corn (instead of grass) and living in their own shit ensures that e-coli outbreaks will occur and re-occur. Don't pretend that older cultures eating essentially only meat had high life expectancies.

The nutrionally optimal diet would probably include a bit of meat in it, but the removal of that meat if ethical and not nutritionally detrimental.

>>2940554
Do vegetables have a nervous system? Can they suffer?

Think before you post.

>>2940571
>were

>>2940575

So if we kill the animals without making them suffer, it will alright?

Is that where the moral dilemma comes from?

Here I was, assuming vegetarians actually had a problem with destroying organized complexity, a rare phenomenon in our universe.

>>2940584
No, it wouldn't (although it would be better), for the same reasons that killing you in your sleep would be unethical.

Animals have volition, plants don't.

>>2940436
I'm not so much squeamish about the butchery as I am concerned about the killing itself. I'm a bit concerned about how slaughterhouses operate, and since I've heard about lots in my area breaking labour laws and OH&S regulations I don't trust them on animal welfare.
I'm a lot more comfortable with eating game, if it's sustainably managed. I eat Kangaroo, and if the proposed feral camel abbatoir is producing meat I'll probably try that too. After all shooting is probably among the better deaths for wild animals.

>>2940608

How "free will" of you. Animal behavior is simple, deterministic, stimulus-response. Nothing more.

The "affection" they show?

Reinforced behavior brought on by centuries of evolution to mimic our children so that we'll feed them.

Please, there is no "volition" involved. Their brains are regulators for their fat and protein deposits. You chop off the head and then harvest the fat, grotesque nutrient storage.

It is your silly tendency of ascribing them human characteristics that keeps us from enjoying burgers in peace.

Spay your filthy home animal, let it loose, and start caring about other humans FIRST.

When EVERY human child is fed and content, then we can start considering whether your dog wouldn't eat you the moment you drop dead, or whether a cow would "choose" to be on the range rather than on a bun.

>>2940596
Oh god I lol'd way harder than i should have.

>>2940645
>this is what omnivores actually believe.
Oh, and
>implying meat consumption isn't more energy inefficient, because animals have to be fed with the food that could have gone to humans.

Nothing has free will, not even humans. We speak of volition w.r.t. humans, regardless of this. Animals shouldn't be exempt

>>2940645

Having said that, and on the (very large) chance that our understanding of animal cognition is wrong or incomplete, please do not cause suffering where it can be avoided. No need to crush chicken limbs under foot or cut off dog tongues to measure how long it takes for them to run out of saliva.

Unfortunately, we can't correctly answer questions like "Is it morally justified to kill one to save a thousand", but these situations happen and decisions must be made.

Great advances have been made because of immoral decisions and practices.

All I'm saying is you should remember that.

And don't kick your dog, or kick a chicken.

no more flawed than any diet that restricts what types of food you eat. And I use the term diet in the sense of what you eat based on cultural identity, region, beliefs and the like.

I'll just leave this here.

>>2940675
Except vegetarianism saves both human and animal lives. And needless suffering is still going on, you can't ignore it and continue supporting the meat industry (suffering of both animals and workers).

>>2940667

Please tell then where the cut off is for volition. Which animal has it and which doesn't.

Does a jellyfish have volition? How about a starfish? Do worms? How about barnacles?

Spiders? Ants? Sea Anemones?

What constitutes choice? Do sunflowers choose to face the sun? Do certain plants avoid heat? Does a dog choose to sit after getting a treat? Where does stimulus response turn into volition?

I'd be careful before delegating plant life into "dont cares" on your truth table Mr. Morality.

I'm not a vegetarian, nor a vegan.

I do know the world would be better off if humans ate less beef. Overgrazing, factory farms, excess methane emission, high water requirement, all make the case that cattle ranching is a poor calorie-to-environmental cost efficiency.
Go Hindu. Save the world.

And stop eating all the fish in the sea, humans. That sucks, man.

>>2940684
>disregards all the animals killed in the harvesting of consumable plants, as well as all the illegal immigrants that get payed $.50 an hour to conduct said harvesting, and all the greenhouse gasses emitted by the machinery used to harvest, and transport said foodstuffs

>>2940701

Don't forget about all the valuable manufacturing resources that come from ground-up animal products. These items are in many of your consumer electronics, furniture, transportation systems, etc.

It's not all about food. Once you start talking about efficiency (on the scale of resource appropriation) you have to take these into account.

>>2940700
Where the cutoff for the capacity of suffering is, is unknown. However, we can very clearly see that certain organism fall on one side or the other. For instance, plants don't have nerves. Therefore, they are on one side of the cutoff. On the other hand, cows clearly have the capacity to suffer, so they are on the other side.

There's a large gray area. For instance, a lot of research has been done on the question of whether lobsters have the capacity to suffer, and apparently the majority (though by no means all, and the lobster industry certainly has done its fair share of influencing) is that they don't have this capacity. Presumably, then, lower level fish don't have as well. So perhaps an argument could be made that it is ethical to eat certain types of fish. More research would be needed, but it's a moot point anyways because fish catching kills sharks, dolphins, etc., so I won't eat fish either.

Meat is just muscle tissue. If one day we ever figure out how to create artificially grown meat not only would we be able to use it as food, but we could use it as high efficiency robot motors! Artificially grown meat robots! Also could be used for motorized prosthetic that don't require external power source.

Please tell me we got people working on this.

>>2940706
It sucks that animals have to die, but
1) obviously the toll on animal life is much greater with a meat diet.
2) greenhouse emissions are far worse with raising animals.
3) immigrants get treated worse by the likes of Tyson. But I am against anti-immigration laws, and I try to fight for the unionization of all workers so such exploitation does not occur.

>>2940725

I was talking about volition, not suffering.

Suffering is a moot point, because you can make death quick and painless.

(and what is pain but stimulus/response? When does it become psychological suffering and not pain reaction? Do animals really "like" things? Do they "dislike" them? Can they really "suffer"? Does what makes us suffer make them suffer?)

I was arguing with a person who said that even if you made it so the animals lived in bliss and were killed without pain, the fact that they have "volition" made it morally wrong to kill them.

Lobsters would be defined then to have volition, but be immune to suffering.

What does that even mean?

Immune to suffering.

How is a lobster different than a dog or a cow or a dolphin?

Why do you think animals "prefer" living in the open rather than cages?

Do you cry when the ASPCA airs those "arms of the angel" commercials because the animals look sad? Can we even reliably judge animal emotion from facial features?

>>2940725

Also, plants obviously exhibit stimulus/response behavior with their equivalent of nerves. From your loose reasoning, it would appear that they *enjoy* being in direct sunlight and *dislike* being denied certain environmental conditions.

Look! They become droopy and unhealthy when you put them in cold cages away from the sun! They must be suffering!

How is this different from an animal?

>>2940645
Go back to dead, Descartes.
Humans aren't sui generis neurologically. Our brains have similar plans to other vertebrates so it seems plausible that where subjective experience is generated by some brain activity other animals experience similar things insofar as that aspect of their brain activity is similar. I know not to anthropomorphise animals, but it is in fact the case that they are in fact similar to us. So, thinking all non-humans lack consciousness looks a lot like dualism to me.

>>2940726

I was kinda hoping there was only one of these things.

>>2940759
Dude, just what ARE you smoking?

It makes as much sense to ascribe volition to an animal as it does to a human, to the extent that they are self-aware, capable of suffering, etc. (presumably, they are connected). Humans and cows obviously possess this volition; plants obviously do not. Who knows about lobsters. I use volition in rather vague terms, because it's not well understood -- or at least, I don't understand the subtleties very well.

>>2940775
Well put.

>>2940219
Can I get a source to OP?

>>2940775
>Go back to dead, Descartes.

This is a good line and you're awesome for writing it.

>>2940775

Obviously (the loosely defined terms) consciousness and awareness work by degree and are not simple on/off traits.

To what degree of consciousness do we ascribe rights and emotions, because to say that similar design implies similar capabilities and aptitudes is all well and good, but the decisions of treatment must be made.

In summary, it's a question of degree and not of have/have-not. Where does pain-stimulus become emotion?

Hey meat eaters, da vinci, tesla, and einstein all were veterinarians, and they are some of the smartest people in the world.

where is your god now?

>>2940783
>plants obviously do not
Where's the proof?

>>2941183
Plants lack brains, or any system analogous to the one that we know creates a mind.

It's a rather weak argument - I admit. Who's to say what physical processes create minds, and which don't? Still, it seems to be more likely that plants do not have minds.

>>2941189
>Still, it seems to be more likely that plants do not have minds.
So, you're just assuming. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. At any rate, the fact remains that vegans are EXPLOITING and KILLING other lifeforms to sustain their own lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

>>2941200
Assuming - no. Using an incredibly weak inductive argument - yes.

We know that the human brain creates minds. We know a little about the mechanisms involved. A plant doesn't have a brain or anything at all sufficiently similar, so the evidence is that it doesn't have a mind. Again, an incredibly weak inductive argument, but that's what we have.

>>2941205
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimosa_pudica

This plant reacts to touch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_%28physiology%29

Maize plants have less crop yield if they are shaken.

>>2941216
And that relates to my (bad inductive) argument how?

If you poke a rock, it might fall down a hill. Is that evidence for intelligent falling? No. The plant reacting to touch is likely reacting in the same way that a rock does when it falls down a hill when pushed. It's simple physical processes without a mind.

>>2941225
>And that relates to my (bad inductive) argument how?
Plants can feel pain like animals, though they react to it differently. Jellyfish lack brains, but vegans avoid eating them. Why can't the same standard be applied to plants?

>It's simple physical processes without a mind.

Aren't minds physical processes at a fundamental level? Vegans simply make arbitrary differences between between lifeforms they want to eat and those they can't.

>>2941243
>Plants can feel pain like animals, though they react to it differently.
I have seen no justification for this. I think that you are implying that plants have minds, in fact I have (rather weak) evidence against.

I hope you're not advocating the silly position that you can have pain without a mind.

>Jellyfish lack brains, but vegans avoid eating them.
Indeed.

>Why can't the same standard be applied to plants?
Because I disagree with their standard. You're doing some wonderful contortion of the English language and various moral by the way. Take that as a compliment if you're actively trolling. You see, vegans don't eat jellyfish because they don't eat anything in the "kingdom" or whatever of animals. They do eat plants. Perhaps they have some justification for that - maybe they do - but that's their basic moral stance. A mind doesn't come into it.

Then, you suggest that we apply the same standard to plants. What standard? The vegan standard is don't eat animals, not "don't eat something that had a mind", as clearly evidenced by your observation that vegans don't eat jellyfish, and jellyfish don't have a mind.

>Aren't minds physical processes at a fundamental level?
I did indeed make that assertion.

>Vegans simply make arbitrary differences between between lifeforms they want to eat and those they can't.
Correct.

>>2941243

Because then we'd only be able to get by with nuts, regrowable fruits, and berries.

If at some point you must make a concession, at least try to do as little damage as you can?

Meat is tasty.

Plants need to be tastier.

We don't need meat anymore. It tastes good because hunting and eating meat was obligatory for our evolutional developement.
Nowadays humans eating meat means that we 1) waste huge amounts of grain and nutrinents on getting animals bigger 2) exhilarate global warming 3) in some cases inflict animal suffering.
I still eat meat because I just don't care enough, but world would certainly be a better place if we cut at least 80% of our meat production.

You need nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium to grow plants. You need to fertilize your soil with these three bitches, and they come only from dead animals. Without dead animals, plants will not grow. It's the cycle of life; for something to live, it must consume other living things. Animals eat plants, plants eat animals. It's kinda awesome in a way.

Stop being faggots and ignoring reality. If you want to live, you have to kill. That's how the universe fucking works. If you can't live with this, then don't.

>>2941750

>APATHY OVERWHELMING

>>2941771
So not from urine and feces? Harsh.
Anyway, there are such things as nitrogen fixing bacteria

>>2941771

>you have to kill

Excuse me, things will die whether you kill them or not.

And if your reasoning is "if it will die anyway, why not kill it", that is sociopathy.

>>2940238
>Because the latter, quite simply, sounds like horror science and I would not want to eat it even if it's perfectly identical to organically grown.

I hate you. I hate people like you so much.

>>2941775
>So not from urine and feces? Harsh.

So, how do you suggest we collect that without enslaving the poor creatures?

>>2941777
>Excuse me, things will die whether you kill them or not.

And if your reasoning is "if it will die anyway, why not kill it", that is sociopathy.

If you don't actively partake in the killing, you're going to fucking die, you stupid fuck. If you want to live, you have to eat. There are three ways you can go about this:

1. Hunting
2. Farming plants
3. Farming animals

All of these three options require that you kill animals. Hunting is self-explanatory, so is animal farming. Plant farming requires fertilizer, which can only be obtained from animal sources, so you're going to have to farm animals to farm plants. And in the process of farming plants, you're going to have to directly kill animals when you're clearing land to farm, etcetcetc

Anyway you go about getting your food, you're going to have to kill something. The only question remains:

Kill to eat plants?
Kill to eat flesh?

Shitty nutrition and bland taste vs perfect nutrition and orgasmic deliciousness. Take your pick.

>>2941798
>fertilizer, which can only be obtained from animal sources, so you're going to have to farm animals to farm plants

you've obviously never heard of compost

also
>mfw no one brings up gathering as a means of sustenance

sure, not exactly practical in this day and age, but once the bombs fall, the population will be small enough

>>2941809
>>2941809
>mfw no one brings up gathering as a means of sustenance

You can't fucking sustain yourself from gathering. Native HUNTER/Gatherer tribes get ATLEAST 50% of their calories from animals. It's impossible to survive on plants that you find in the wild. It cannot be done.

>>2940436
>The justifications behind vegetarianism are inherently flawed from what I've heard (exploitation of animals, perceived dangers in red/white meat, spiritual arguments etc) .

Almost Vegetarian here (I eat clams and would probably eat other animals that are tasty and don't really have a brain).

First of all I don't see why I have to justify the way I like to feed myself at all. I don't like the thought of eating something that formerly was a sentient creature just bugs me so I don't do it.

I guess what you mean is the argument why all the other people shouldn't eat meat?
If for example you only eat meat from a species-appropriate husbandry and that are killed in a humane way then I am not bothered by that (although it is not my cup of tea).

But this is simply not possible if as many people eat meat as much meat as they do now.

Also: We could feed more people in the world if we wouldn't use so much plant food on meat production.

So I would say there is a strong case to be made that people shouldn't eat A LOT of meat (as many do now).

>>2941822
>First of all I don't see why I have to justify the way I like to feed myself at all

And that is why I eat meat.

Mark Rippetoe on the ethics of meat eating:

Okay, have you ever been around chickens? They are stupid, uncooperative, inconvenient, ill-tempered creatures. They get what they deserve. Fuck chickens.

>>2941822
>I don't like the thought of eating something that formerly was a sentient creature just bugs me so I don't do it
Then dont eat humans

>>2941798
>Plant farming requires fertilizer, which can only be obtained from animal sources, so you're going to have to farm animals to farm plants. And in the process of farming plants, you're going to have to directly kill animals when you're clearing land to farm, etcetcetc

Not the guy you responded to but I simply have to point out that you are really making a dumb argument here.

Are you suggesting that plants do not grow without forcing animals into bad living conditions and killing them?

The various plants in my fucking vegetable garden don't seem to agree.

Besides. Killing is not the main issue for me anyway. Factory farming is.

>>2941826

You got me there.

But just as I should not be obliged to justify why I left the lights on although I was not at home we can all agree that in principle there are behaviors that, if done by enough of people, are beneficial.

That's what I am saying about a responsible meat consumption. Humans and animals would benefit from it.

>>2941829
Mark Rippetoe?
Doctor Mark Rippetoe?
Professor Mark Rippetoe?
Rocket Scientist Mark Rippetoe?

>>2941829

This, this, this.

Has any of you ever actually slaughtered an animal? I decapitated lots of chickens as a kid when visiting my granddad who lived on a farm. It was kinda cool, the chicken would run around without its head, blood spurting everywhere. Good times. Animals are fucking retarded. They don't "deserve" to live. They are very, very stupid. In my experience, vegetarians are stupid faggots who's never left their big city, never actually witnessed the slaughter of a defenseless animal all in the name of delicious meat. They have this romanticized picture in their heads about what animals are like. In reality, animals are noisy, smelly, annoying and extremely sadistic creatures. I've seen plenty of times what animals do to "lesser" creatures, for no apparent reason other than amusement. Animals are cruel.

Stop living in a fairytale and eat your fucking steak.

>>2941829

Let's start eating MR people too!

>>2941841
Bodybuilder. I'm not sure if he has any formal training, but his methods for becoming stronger do seem to work well.

>>2941848
>Animals are retarded.
>Animals are cruel.

Pick one.

Either animals are smart enough to contemplate the harm their doing, in which case they are cruel.

Or they are too dumb to contemplate it in which case they are just retarded.

By your own logic you are cruel you are cruel btw. because you harm the lesser being.

But personally I think you are just retarded and a troll.

>>2941854

He's not a bodybuilder. He's a weightlifting coach.

Big difference.

>>2941860

Taking pleasure in someone elses suffering = Cruel

Whether or not you're retarded is fucking irrelevant. By your logic, sadistic psychopath serial killers aren't actually cruel, because they have a mental disorder(Psychopathy) that inhibits feelings of empathy and sympathy, and therefor they cannot fully understand the impact of what they're doing.

Animals are retarded and cruel. Eat them.

Doesn't matter if they are intelligent or not. The only important thing is if they can suffer.

We should not produce suffering. Let them have a good life and then kill them painlessly.

>>2941872
>We should not produce suffering. Let them have a good life and then kill them painlessly.

I don't think anyone here is advocating factory farming and the torture of animals.

>>2941869

If they are mentally so far evolved that they can understand comprehend the suffering of another creature (which they have to in order to be pleasured by it) then they are fucking smart enough.

Do you eat serial killers? No. Should you kill them? Nope.

Now fuck off.

>>2941877

I don't think you advocate it but what I am saying is that in order to get rid of it we have to change the amount of our meat consumption.

>>2941878

Do want. Where get?

>>2941848
Dude, this is /sci/. You think we've never killed animals either? I'm not so much worried about killing as the manner of death. I trust our shooters much more than our slaughterhouse workers, so I eat (well managed native, or feral pest) game instead.
To misquote Hamlet, use every man after his desert and we'd have a lot more Soylent Green

I eat meat for one simple reason: It's needed for optimal health. For me, it's a question of what I value the most. The life of animals vs my own health and fitness. There is no reasonable vegan substitute for organic flesh, organ meats and fish and seafood.

>>2941864
Ah right. I do know the difference, but I haven't known for long enough that I use them correctly if I'm not thinking about it.

>>2941878
Reminds me of an episode from Better off Ted.

Also animals are killed in farming vegetables. Be it though clearing of their habitat to create farm land, to the mincing them up in harvesters when harvesting the crops, and all the many ways in between. If your basis for vegetarianism is an ethical one then you better go live off the land in the forest, but just being a part of civilization you are killing many many animals.

>>2941879
>If they are mentally so far evolved that they can understand comprehend the suffering of another creature (which they have to in order to be pleasured by it) then they are fucking smart enough.

Are you retarded? Have you ever seen a cat play with a mouse? It is obviously deriving immense pleasure from toying with it and killing it slowly. Dolphins kill the young offspring of other sea creatures for no reason at all. And psychopathic serial killers cannot comprehend the suffering of another human, that was my fucking point. They are suffering from psychopathy; the inability to empathize and sumpathize with other beings. They are literally not capable of viewing another person as a being just like themselves.

>>2941903
And Bentham is rolling over in his glass display case. l2 moral calculus.

>>2941906
What, you think cats are more interested in getting mice than a piece of string, marble, or laser pointer dot?

Didn't read entire thread so no idea if somebody brought this up.

What I do not understand: Why do we have to so much meat from animals that are relatively smart and capable of emotions? Cows and pigs are no different from dogs or cats in that department and I guess chickens aren't far away either.

Insects, clams and lot of other shellfish, molluscs and many other animals on the other hand are no where near as intelligent or capable of complex emotions as mammals and birds.

So why the fuck don't we mainly eat them? Clams and insects probably wouldn't fucking care if you factory farm them.

Don't they taste as good? Yes they do!

>>2941914

I know that for a fact. You should spend some more time around animals. You have a lot to learn.

>>2941903

You have to create farm land one way or the other.

Once you did the question is: Is it morally better to use the food you harvest there to feed more humans directly or do you use it to breed a lot of animals in bad living conditions first and then kill them to feed not as many humans with meat.

>>2941921

Anecdotal evidence,
anecdotal evidence everywhere.

Nobody cares about what you think you know to be a fact because of some shitty personal experiences you made. This is /sci/ and a lot of scientists have studied animal behavior. I trust them more than I trust some random moron on an anonymous imageboard.

>>2941930

What about organic farming? Do you have anything against that?

It's a fact that humans need animal products in their diet if they want to reap the benefits of optimal health.

>>2941940

Show me some of those studies.

inb4 you don't reply

>>2941941
>organic farming

I am not sure what you mean. Isn't that farming without fertilizers or pesticides? What does that have anything to do with what I said?

I have nothing against it but I think you can just use fertilizers and pesticides - it helps and doesn't really harm people when it is done moderately.

>perfect health

Sure I don't know you personally but I often think this is an insincere argument.

As I said the only meat I eat are clams and I don't eat them often either. I don't feel any worse then when I ate meat.

But it made a lot of difference when I stopped smoking. And I feel a lot healthier when I am routinely go swimming.

Many people smoke and don't do sports or eat too much in general and get fat or consume too much alcohol etc. - all these things actually make a huge difference. When you stop eating meat it is not even noticeable.

>>2941951

Which studies? The ones where animals are shown to be intelligent or what? What exactly do you want?

You are the one who made the claim that all animals are a bunch of cruel retarded fucktards.

You are the one who needs to offer evidence.

>>2941930
yes, because feeding the world only on corn is going to solve world hunger, lets just forget nutrition exists right now. That aside, my point was on the ethical reasoning, not the production. My point was you cannot claim to have a moral high ground when you only remove only your direct killing and not your indirect killing. Yes it is a reduction in killing but you still support many actions that lead to killing.

That being said, I couldn't give a shit if an animal dies in the name of food. What does it matter if they do? When it comes to food I am very much teleological.

>>2941979

>My point was you cannot claim to have a moral high ground when you only remove only your direct killing and not your indirect killing

But you can when it's less OVERALL killing. Which it is.

>>2941979

What moral system are we talking about here?

First of all:

The reason I mentioned that you have to produce farm land no matter what (otherwise humans would starve) was to show that you tried to push me into a moral paradox.

But if you CAN NOT do something then you can also not be expected to do it - thus nobody can say you SHOULD do it either.

So if your hands are tied and you simply can not safe the drowning child in the lake nobody can say that you should have saved it.

In the same way nobody can be condemned for tolerating unavoidable casualties - but people can be condemned for tolerating unnecessary casualties.

Second

>nutrition

As I said here >>2941963 I think people totally overestimate this. But lets say they don't - they can still eat meat, just not as much. All through history in many civilizations eating meat was a relatively rare occurrence. Once a week max. So that should be enough.

>>2941979

Forget something:

>That being said, I couldn't give a shit if an animal dies in the name of food. What does it matter if they do?

If we agree on the premise that animals are sentient beings that are capable of happiness and suffering and that suffering should be avoided while the maximum possible happiness should be pursuit then we should also agree that we should try to reduce animal suffering as much as possible and enable as many as possible to be happy.

>>2941987
So you condone killing then? If your justification for being a vego is because your don't agree with the killing then you should stop all killing, not just stop what is convenient to you. If you actually cared then you would stop doing any action that would inevitable harm animals, but you don't. It is a weak justification for your actions. I have nothing against vegos, but they hardly have a moral high ground, as much as some of them would like to think they do.

>>2942053

Your morality seems to be awfully simplistic. I guess you are not an Utilitarian then but rather subscribe to deontological ethics?

The problem with the latter is that it is so damn hard to adhere to that basically everybody is immoral.

How about this: If you are a complete pacifist then you are forced to evil happen unopposed. If you are too brutal and start using violence without any restrictions then you are probably evil yourself. Right? Both extremes are not desirable. You need to use violence moderately and only when it is absolutely necessary.

You do however agree that you are morally superior to people who just go around punching everybody in the face, right?

>>2942077

Same guy. No I did not want to imply that deontological ethics is simplistic. Rather that either his morality is simplistic or deontological.

>>2942077
My morality is more a case of deontological principals on individual actions, and teleological on social aspects (in other words I act in a way that I think is morally right as an individual, but I believe that on bigger issues we should be aiming for greater happiness, probably closer to rule-utilitarian). My morals are far from simple, and I highly doubt you will find anyone whos morals are. It is just in the case of vegetarianism I do not subscribe to the moral case for it. The supposed feelings of the animals do not matter very highly to me, sure I do not condone torture of animals, but it hardly means we should stop eating them.

>Is vegetarianism inherently flawed despite humans being able to reach adequate nutrition without consuming meat?
Define adequate. Sure you'll be able to survive as a vegetarian, but I'd much rather thrive with a dense source of quality protein and healthy fats as opposed to the incomplete, often toxic proteins and inflamatory fats of plant foods.

>>2942122
>in the case of vegetarianism I do not subscribe to the moral case for it.

What exactly do you mean? That the case made is flawed or that you simply are not interested one way or the other?

In the latter case: that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about what the moral ideal would be or as OP stated it, if "vegetarianism is inherently flawed."

I was arguing that vegetarianism isn't flawed and that in fact a pretty good case could be made for either eating less meat or stop eating meat.

What our personal feelings are is irrelevant as I can see. I must admit that I really don't have an immediate emotional response when I contemplate the fact that every second some human is suffering somewhere. They are strangers that are far away so I must admit I am not really affected by it - yet I must admit that from a moral standpoint suffering should be avoided as much as possible. Why can't we agree that there is a rational and consistent argument that eating less/no meat will reduce suffering?

Where is our dissent exactly?

what the fuck is going on in here...

...plant-murderers! speciesists!

>>2942184

At this point, we question whether genocide is better than wanton murder.

>>2942157
I was stating that the claim of moral high ground that vegos claim to have was flawed to me, and I am yet to see it explained in such a way that changes that. I guess I am not really focusing that point as much as I should be, because you keep going into the other parts of my comments and not what I intended to be the central point.

That being said, this argument is endless, because morality is a personal and social construct, so we will never really agree.

>>2942184
Oh shit Supox!

>>2942207

Your point was that animals die when farm land for growing food is made. Thus vegos are responsible for the deaths of animals too.

I addressed this here >>2942003
and another dude here >>2941987

>>2942214
That is the flaw to me. They claim to condemn killing yet continue to support practice that results in it.

>>2942243

Ah. But then you are attacking a position that isn't mine.

I do not condemn killing categorically.

Just as I don't condemn all categorically as I explained here: >>2942077

>If you are a complete pacifist then you are forced to let evil happen unopposed. If you are too brutal and start using violence without any restrictions then you are probably evil yourself. Right? Both extremes are not desirable. You need to use violence moderately and only when it is absolutely necessary.

I am saying that there is animal killing/suffering that is unnecessary and the amount of meat that is consumed by many is highly impractical in regards to providing food to people as a whole.

>>2942281
>Just as I don't condemn all VIOLENCE categorically

fixed it myself

>>2942281
If that position isn't yours, then why did you respond to my comment? My original comment was a standalone point based off my own position to the question posed by OP, not an attack on any one in particular, and my further comments where just responses to people responding to me.

You state that there must be some suffering that is unavoidable (so there is food to eat), my point was that if your value really is to reduce killing how come you do not source your food from animal friendly farming methods?

>>2942329
>how come you do not source your food from animal friendly farming methods?

I should do that. If I don't I am in the wrong.

You did attack me however because I happen to be a vegetarian and you pretty much said: "This is what vagos believe and it is flawed because of this reason"

My response intended to show that there are vegetarian positions that are not flawed in the way you described.

Maybe now we have settled the issue.

Organisms feed on organisms, doesn't matter if it's fauna or flora. There's nothing particularly bad about it, because that's just the way it is. You can break it down even more, but I'm a bit lazy at the moment.

>>2942148
>incomplete
Complete protein consumption is a myth. You do realise that vegetarians eat multiple types of food to get a good variety of amino acids?
>toxic
citation needed
>inflammatory
citation needed

>>2942357

Not everything that is natural is therefore good, dimwit.

Nature as it is now is incredibly cruel and should be replaced by a better living environment.

If you do not agree then stop using eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning immediately because these things sure as hell aren't natural.

You also should start believe in some kind of supernatural nonsense or just follow your primitive intuitions because these are "just the way it used to be".

>>2942346
Actually I said if your basis for being a vego is an ethical one based off the ethics of killing animals, then I believe your basis is flawed. That isn't aimed at all vegos, so you are prob reading more into my comment than is actually there.

>>2942375
Why don't you calm down? Have I even remotely provoked you in any way? I don't think so.

You don't really get my point, though. And as of now, I've got only a bit of a ridiculous example to get my point across.

You consider the way we consume flawed, because of your ethical standards and morals -- and that's fine, too. If you don't want to eat meat, don't. It's just that you refer to our situation as "cruel", which isn't a natural fact, yet solely your way of thinking. You wouldn't conisder a black hole "cruel". You wouldn't consider bacteria "cruel", not even a virus.

You can argue about a lot of things in this world, but sometimes I'm quite sure, that there's no real right or wrong, black or white, and so on. There's never just one way to do something. The same goes for consuming.

It'd be highly idiotic if you actually considered your way of thinking to be the only relevant, or true.

A runaway trolley is heading for 5 double downs, but if you pull a switch it will be diverted to the other track with a chicken on it. The chicken is owned by a farmer who will, if he loses the chicken, get drunk and wake up in hospital with his organs being used to keep a world famous artist, who has a 10% chance of being Hitler, alive. The double downs are owned by a very fat man, who if he eats them will walk to a bridge overlooking a trolley track which may have a runaway trolley, and if not will use a machine to teleport to Mars, whose inhabitants believe everything humans find moral is immoral and vice versa. Do you pull the switch? What if the veil of ignorance is in effect?

I went from eating only meat one day, to being a strict vegetarian the next day. I enjoy my new diet far more, and would never go back. There are a multitude of reasons why one can decide to be a vegetarian but for me it boils down to i don't really care about people any more, but i have always liked animals. These days i'd rather eat a person and if i was starving to death in the wild and all i had was an animal i would rather die than eat it. My co workers think that is a bit extreme.

>>2942422
Godwin's Law in practice

>>2941829
should we also eat republicans?

Eating meat is my right as the top predator in the system.
I find meat to be tasty so i will eat it.
It's my hands that deside the life and death of other living things.
I personally divide animals in groups according to their intelligence.
I won't eat monkeys but i will eat cows.
I won't kill a cow because it annoys me but i will kill an ant.

>>2941829

Let's see..

Women are:

Stupid - check
Uncooperative - check
Inconvenient - check
ill-tempered creatures - check

cool we can eat women

>>2941940
>trust sci but don´t trust anonymous imageboard

>>2942410

How come that on any other issue, like stealing, murder or whatever we all agree that is morally wrong for the obvious reasons.

But when it is about eating animals then suddenly people start with moral relativism stuff and claim that there are no moral truths etc.?

Seems like a double standard to me.

>>2942486
>implying he said that instead of "this is /sci/ so people here will trust scientists more than random strangers"

>>2942490
do you know that you condemn whole colonies of bacteria to death each time you shit?

you... murderous monster!

>fact ctsolf

Animals are not people.

Animals don't have rights. (Neither do people but that is a different discussion).

Eat shit you faggot pussies.

>>2942500

Bacteria can not suffer and even if they could there is no way I could prevent that.

>>2942506
Animals can't suffer.

Has an animal ever objected to being slaughtered?

>>2942512

oh you. a few posts back I had the feeling we were actually getting anywhere, that we furthered our understanding of each others positions.

Now the insensitive trolls are back *sigh*

>>2942490
>we all agree that is morally wrong for the obvious reasons.
Who is "we", and how come you actually believe, that they agree?
Honestly, pull your head out of your ass.

"We" only agree on certain morals and ethics to be able to exist at least somewhat peacefully and I wouldn't have it any other way. Then again, there are some things that we don't have to agree on. It's as easy as that.

>>2942373
>Complete protein consumption is a myth. You do realise that vegetarians eat multiple types of food to get a good variety of amino acids?
Yeah enjoy trying to complete your low density legume protein with even less dense grains.

>toxic
Granted, not all vegetarian sources, but wheat for one (gluten) has been shown to cause negative immune responses in up to 50% of people.

>inflamitory
Omega 6 : Omega 3 ratio. Read up on it. Essentially the ideal is somewhere around 1:1. The more you have O6 the more prone the body is to inflamation. Shit like corn oil has a ratio of something like 50:1. Most other legume and grain fats aren't much better.

God damn when /sci/ discussed nutrition the result is almost as embarrasing as when you guys discuss economics.

>>2942516

>>2942516
Also I'm 99% sure you're either a weaboo, furry, or both.

Or female although this is unlikely.

slaughterhouses should be outlawed. you people disgust me.

>>2942519

I am saying that somebody who subscribes to moral relativism should do so on all topics and not sometimes claim that something is moral or immoral while when they come to other issues morality suddenly is a deep mystery and nobody can claim to have a clue what is right and wrong.

Some consistency please.

Now suddenly "peaceful existence" is on top of the value hierarchy? Why? What are your axioms so that you come to this conclusion?

Pretty much everything that can be valued in human existence can to some extend be found in many animals. But people keep bending over backwards in order to make some kind of absolute distinction.

When I notice that people come up with strange,
convoluted reasons why animals are morally irrelevant then I think that such people are just playing their agenda instead of having an honest intellectual debate.

And that makes me mad.

technological advancement is not something that should be strived for as we never know what kind of unforseen effects it could have on nerve having creatures; but we know what is more likely to happen to them with our previous state of technology and it probably isn't too bad.

>>2942525
I do! After all you need your OATZ to do your SQUATZ

>>2942538
>herp derp strawman
>makes the same, tired argument as a ten year-old child
Confirmed for 1/10

Morality is based on compassion. Compassion is the only incentive people have to wonder if their actions are right or wrong.

Compassion is the ability to understand other living beings so well that you share their experience to some extend (hence you don't want others to suffer and want them to be happy instead).

That qualitative experiences exist in the world is an objective fact. These experiences can be understood correctly, wrongly or not at all.

Those who understand them correctly and what causes them can be considered to be objectively morally right.

Those who understand them and their causes incorrectly as objectively wrong.

And those who don't do it at all are moral nihilists.

There: Objective morality without lol God.

Atheists: Graham's number
Theists: negative infinity

I may be wrong but all I know about many animals causes me to have empathy for them. This empathy is all the justification I need for not wanting to eat them.

>>2942548
>I am saying that somebody who subscribes to moral relativism
>moral relativism
What's wrong with that? Seriously, what the hell is even wrong with that? I prefer relativism over mindcuffs. Have you ever considered to reconsider something? Have you ever found out that you were right, when you were wrong, or the other way around?
You always need the option to consider something else.

>should do
Well, yeah. No. It doesn't matter what you think what anyone should do according to your standards.

>so on all topics and not sometimes claim that something is moral or immoral while when they come to other issues morality suddenly is a deep mystery and nobody can claim to have a clue what is right and wrong.
What...

>Now suddenly "peaceful existence" is on top of the value hierarchy?
No? I offered an explanation.

>Why? What are your axioms so that you come to this conclusion?
Oh, you know a big word!

>Pretty much everything that can be valued in human existence can to some extend be found in many animals. But people keep bending over backwards in order to make some kind of absolute distinction.
What about animals, who eat animals? And don't even try to reason that we should be better than animals morally and ethically, because... well, that'd disprove anything you just said.

>When I notice that people come up with strange,
convoluted reasons why animals are morally irrelevant then I think that such people are just playing their agenda instead of having an honest intellectual debate.
Animals aren't morally irrelevant. It's still okay to eat them. They'd eat us, too, if they could. And they probably wouldn't think much about it.
We've just got enough time on our hands and money in our pockets to consider eating something "morally" wrong.

>And that makes me mad.
I'm not mad. I'm amused. You shouldn't be mad, either.

>>2942573
that's said because oats are an easy way to get carbs, not protein

>>2942586
They fucking earned it?
Humans had to degrade and domesticate animals over thousands of years for them to become edible, and even then we need to use cutting/killing/cooking tools.
Eating animals is natural.
The way humans do it is called "passive eugenics" and is fucking bullshit.

>>2942597

Natural and done over thousands of years =/= inherently good or inherently beneficial in the modern era

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3NOhQlPGAU

>>2942586
>animals eat other animals and EVEN would eat you if they had the chance!
>dun dun dun
>therefore it is ok to eat animals

Murderers kill people therefore it is ok for me to kill them which in turn means that I can be killed etc.

Never knew it was this simple to justify capital punishment.

>>2941750
no, meat tastes good because it provides a large quantity of the substances we need, like amino acids and fatty acids. oh fuck yes the amino acids and fatty acids...

anything which is not meat can still be tasty on the those
grounds.

-by the way, what is it with vegetarian women and having bad skin? apparently, not eating animals makes one look like an octogenarian.

>>2942698
that might be sarcasm i'm detecting, but i honestly don't see what's wrong with this pov. there is no ultimate moral compass -unless you believe in god, in which case i must remind you; he created meat that's tasty and nutritious, and made just for you to eat-, therefore ultimately it's our wishes that determine if something is wrong or right.

What vegetarians want to do is there business if they want to be weird thats fine, its only a problem if they start trying to get people who eat meat to not eat it although that would never happen.

Meat is absolutely delicious.

>>2942843
>by the way, what is it with vegetarian women and having bad skin? apparently, not eating animals makes one look like an octogenarian.

Pointless slandering based on personal observations on a science board? You cerial? Come on dude - either show some objective evidence that not eating meat destroys your skin or keep it to yourself.

- btw. what's up with meat eaters all being total dicks all the time? Guess eating meat stimulates the primitive parts of our brains more.

>I do what I want unless god hurr

No I don't believe in god, nor do I think that his existence or non existence is relevant for morality at all.

When I think about morality then I think about the questions concerning the correct treatment of other sentient creatures. If morality means something different to you, I am not interested.

I am actually am close to this: >>2942578

BUT since you are subscribing to moral relativism let us assume it is true. Even if morality is dependent on the person in question basic logic teaches us that you still need to be consistent. Your personal morality can not be self-refuting even if it is subjective.

Therefore you would need to come up with something that makes humans so special that you can draw a distinctive line between them and all other animals. I always find the reasons people come up with in order to do this ridiculous but lets see what you got.

I on the other hand think that everything that is valuable about human existence can to some degree be found in many other animals as well - like first and foremost for me: emotions.

>Objective morality
No such thing shithead. Morality is always subjective. Compassion is crutch for the weak. Morality is the last bastion of the coward.

And I am a theist.

Why none gives a shit about animals.

Preface. Subjectivity vs Objectivity

Since giving rights animal is a legal issue, its validity should be determined on completely objective and materialistic grounds. I believe that this is the only acceptable approach to assessing this issue because emotional attachment to animals, the religious/spiritual significance of animals, and the importance of the pleasure/pain experienced by animals vary from person to person. Since arguments based on these criteria are subjective, they are not reproducible or universal and cannot be used to formulate laws that would be universal in nature.
Since the happiness of any human is also subjective, arguments based on utility will refer to the ability of the article in question to improve the physical well being of a human.

>>2942980
1. Why Humans Have Intrinsic Value to Other Humans.
From a completely objective and selfish perspective, each human is almost infinitely valuable to any other human because of two criteria, intelligence and utility. Since utility is derived from the creation of a physical/intellectual product though the use of intelligence, intelligence is also the controlling factor in determining utility. Any human might use their intelligence to invent a valuable tool (ratcheting box wrench, computer software, scientific method etc.), social construct (capitalism, socialism, democracy, religion etc.), or entertainment product (book, film, music etc.) that can improve the physical well being of another human. Our laws are designed to protect this value. For example stealing from or killing another human is unlawful and foolish because you impede them from possibly making a contribution to our society in the form mentioned above. Even if only one in one million humans invents something that drastically improves your own life, it is foolish to take the one in a million chance of destroying that contribution by in anyway interfering with any other human. Therefore it is always in our own best interest not to interfere with other humans, even if they get in the way of our own goals. Our laws are designed protect the rights of humans and were based on subjective criteria(emotionality, religion etc.) when they were originally composed, but most serve the objective function of giving each human the chance to make some infinitely valuable contribution to society that will improve the lives of many humans.

>>2942983
A. Special Case #1
Self defense acceptable from an objective perspective because a human attempting to murder another human not only has infinite negative value from the perspective of the human being murdered; they also are destroying the possibly infinite value that the human being killed has from the perspective of other humans. Although the future contributions of the attacking human may be lost if they are killed, the future contributions of the victim will definitely be lost if the attacker is allowed to continue. This creates a zero sum situation in which it is objectively acceptable to kill the attacking human.
B. Special Case #2
Humans who are currently incapable of creating a contribution to society due to mental or physical deficiency are suffering from a medical condition. Like any medical condition, it is possible that the damage or intrinsic deficiency can be repaired or mitigated at some future date. Therefore individual humans which are incapable of creating a contribution are given rights to protect the utility they may have in the future when they are capable of making a product that other humans can use.
C. Special Case #3
Young children are incapable of making a contribution to society; however they will be able to do so once they have matured. Therefore human children are not given rights based on their current utility, but because of the utility they will have in the future.

>>2942843
Also, it says right in the Bible that Jesus ate fish.

>>2942987
2. Why Animals Have no Intrinsic Value to Humans.
Unlike humans animals are incapable of creating an intellectual or physical artifact which has value to any human society. The most intelligent animals cannot create an invention that has a utility to our society or offer new insight into any problem of physical significance to our society. Since they are incapable of offering an intellectual contribution (any physical invention or idea); the value animals’ is proportional to the value of their physical components, activities, and scientific insight derived from the observation of its behavior.
A, Special Cases in Comparison with animals
Infants, and invalid adults, and animals are not sapient and cannot make an intellectual contribution to our society. The functional difference between them is their potential to make contributions. Infants will grow and become sapient, the handicapped can be repaired and gain the sapience that they were denied, but animals are as intelligent as they can ever be and they are still not intelligent enough to make a contribution.

>>2942994
3. Pleasure and Pain are Insignificant.
Pain is simply a physical stimulus that initiates an avoidance behavior. Pain itself is not important. Instead it is the presence of physical damage indicated by pain that is significant. Pain can coerce humans only because it implies that physical damage is being done and humans have and instinctual fear of physical damage. Inflicting pain on humans is not acceptable only because it can damage the mental health of some humans and reduce their physical utility to society. Since it has already been argued that animals have no intellectual utility to society, the pain of animal has no intrinsic value. However pain can be an indicator of inefficiency. For example, if an animal feels pain for a lengthy period of time during slaughter it would indicate that the killing process is slow and therefore inefficient. The process of killing should be sped up as much as is possible, to increase the number of animals killed. This would also prevent the animal from thrashing about and disrupting the processing of its physical components.

>>2942995
Pain is also subjective by its very nature. Masochists damage themselves in order to feel pain because they find it aesthetically pleasing. Although I may think this a waste of time I can see no objective reason to discourage this practice, so long as they do no permanent damage to themselves that reduces their utility. In fact if they think the damage increases their utility I have no right to object to the practice even if my own objective assessment is not in agreement. Sadists damage others in order to observe behaviors associated with pain because they find them aesthetically pleasing. Although I may find this decedent and a waste of time since it is not creating any product that I value, that is a subjective assessment because others may find the product aesthetically or intellectually pleasing. So long as sadism is not carried out on an unwilling human, that would likely reduce their utility, I see no objective reason to discourage the practice.
Likewise pleasure is not important because it is subjective and does not always correspond to an increase in physical well being or utility.
Disregard for pain essentially invalidates the primary argument for animal rights, which is based on utilitarianism.

>>2942903
Scientists are increasingly regarding plants as sentient. Just on a longer time scale. What will you eat then?

>>2942969
>And I am a theist.
Not a very good one.

>>2942698
Actually, animals eating other animals isn't "murder", as you put it. Don't compare oranges to airplanes.

>>2942969

1. Negative and positive qualitative states exist in sentient beings.

2. Morality is the pursue of the positive states and the avoidance of the negative states.

3. There are many subjective opinions about what ultimately produces the desired outcome described in 2 but in the end there actually and objectively are things that work and that doesn't.

4. People might not care about morality all together (like you apparently) and therefore subscribe to a laissez-faire world view but that doesn't that no moral truths exist.

>>2943008

So? Are you implying that murder is better?

>>2942980
That's not how it works. Laws for human rights, or anything else, are not based on anything materialistic, but on the subjective spiritual and moral feelings of those making the laws. That's how it works.

>>2942983

Stopped right there because you can prove anything when you start with a false premise.

>intelligence and utility = value

Therefore it is ok to torture, kill and eat retarded and handicapped (or both) people and infants and little kids.

>>2942994

You don't seem to understand what "intrinsic" means.

>>2943019
Are you implying, that I am implying, that murder is better? You're either retarded, or wouldn't know how to discuss, if someone slapped you around with a rulebook for a while.

I am implying that murder is a concept based on the human perception of the value of life, which I've got no relevant problem with.
You were the one comparing animals killing and eating other animals to murder and the righteousness of it, which -- basically -- isn't that much different, but it's still just ignorant to compare one to the other.

If you want to apply the same mindset, morals and ethics to everything ever, then go ahead. Have fun.

>>2943044

Yeah I don't understand how to argue while you seemingly completely missed the point.

The guy I responded to said that it is ok to kill animals because they kill other animals too (or even humans).

WAIT! Why do I need to repeat that? It was in the greentext of my post. Did you miss that? Do you even read entire posts?

All I am saying is:

If killing animals/humans means that it is ok to kill the agent who does the killing in turn then this implies the consequence I mentioned in my post.

>I am implying that murder is a concept based on the human perception of the value of life, which I've got no relevant problem with.

wat

>If you want to apply the same mindset, morals and ethics to everything ever, then go ahead. Have fun.

Consistency dude. You can not have your cake and eat it too.

If you pick out the act of "x holding a green lantern" as a justification for "shoving a unicorn up x's ass" then according to you it is ok to shove a unicorn up anybodies ass who is holding a green lantern. If holding a green lantern is not a sufficient justification then it a flawed or incomplete justification! That was what I was pointing out! I WASN'T MAKING A COMPARISON! I WAS MAKING A LOGICAL EQUIVALENT CASE!

Now get off my lawn and lrn2logic. srlsy...

If we had the proper enzymes to break down cellulose...

>>2943081
Are you insane? Seriously, are you?

What you're telling me is, that murder doesn't justify another murder, and so on. Basically.
Technically, that's true, according to a specific set of morals, etc.

But while you're bright enough to come up with that statement, you simply refuse to understand that this isn't even REMOTELY applicable within my example of animals killing other animals for food.
It's just what they do. Do you want to blame them?
Would you ever consider them cruel for what they do?
You can't compare it to murder, fucktard.

Taking into consideration that we evolved from "mere animals" to "something else" not too long ago...

I want to see you taking herbs and other shit over some delicious mammoth steak, back then. You only have the luxury to consider yourself morally superior, you gigantic asshole.

We ask people to die to serve society. For example, we ask soldiers to die. We go to war, knowing that soldiers will die. Death is not the worst thing that can happen. It's art of life. It happens to everyone. We ask animals to die to serve society as well. With animals, it's even more appropriate, as they were bred specifically to feed us.

>>2943139

I can't for the life of me see what point you are making.

Is it:

Animals are not to blame for killing for food therefore humans should not be blamed for killing for food?

If so:

1. The reason I don't blame animals is because they probably do not contemplate the suffering they cause. (You could make the case that some great apes do to some extend - well then they are cruel and blameworthy to that extend).

2. Most animals can not survive on a vegetarian diet.

None of these excuses apply to a human who can easily afford to just eat plants.

All I did anyway was that the reason you stated, which was nothing more than

>What about animals, who eat animals?

which on its own is totally insufficient. If it WOULD be sufficient then we could also eat cannibals.

Becasue: What about humans who eat other humans?

Now you get it, Dum-dum? Your reasoning was either incomplete or wrong. No way around it.

Vegetarianism is mostly a stance based on morals. Morals are a subjective concept, so obviously there will be no complete consensus.

Anyway, I'll start caring about animal cruelty when all the humans in the world are free of pain and suffering.

...I cant even tell what being argued anymore.

>"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants."
love that line.

>>2943169
>I can't for the life of me see what point you are making.
Not a surprise.

>You could make the case that some great apes do to some extend - well then they are cruel and blameworthy to that extend.
Seriously? You'd be all up in a monkey's business for killing another monkey? Are you sure you don't have a superiority/narcissistic complex?

>None of these excuses apply to a human who can easily afford to just eat plants.
No. Not everyone can actually afford it, as not everyone is able to spend money on artificial vitamins, etc. We need meat in our diet, for health reasons, or at least the nutritiens that meat provide.

Just look at your fucking teeth, you are meant to eat meat. You are allowed to decide not to. Just don't shit on anyone who refuses to refuse.

>What about animals, who eat animals?
which on its own is totally insufficient. If it WOULD be sufficient then we could also eat cannibals.
>we could also eat cannibals
The fuck are you talking about?

Honestly, does anyone get what that dude's talking about? And if they do, how does it make any sense, at all?

>Becasue: What about humans who eat other humans?

Oh, shut the fuck up.

These threads always depress me because they always go something like this:

Suffering of animals (capable of suffering) is bad.

>Dude nobody here is promoting torturing animals.

Animals suffer in factory farming and animal testing

>Yeah but meat is tasty and testing is important to make our cosmetic products safe

So petty human needs are more important than the tremendous suffering of other sentient beigns?

>Yeah. Stop being a pussy and eat a steak.

What about the fact that we could also feed more humans by reducing the meat production?

>Meat is tasty. Didn't you listen? Also all morals are subjective and don't exist and killing for food is natural and animals are worthless pieces of shit anyway. Only human wellbeing matters.

I am depressed.

>>2943254

Did or did you not state in the post I first responded to you:

>What about animals, who eat other animals?

Now we have to clarify what you meant by that.

For the third time: I thought you were citing this as an argument for eating animals. That you are saying that because animals kill/eat other animals that therefore it is ok to kill/eat them as well.

Is that what you are saying?

IF...I repeat..IF that is what you are saying then you are stating that if somebody is killing somebody then therefore it is ok to kill this person in return. Which I addressed with the reductio ad absurdum argument in my first post I responded to you (with the murderer).

IF this is NOT what you were saying then I greatly apologize but please say what your point is already.

Baaawing that I made some kind of unfair comparison however IF you actually were saying this^^ is ridiculous. The scenario I mentioned was in every way identical then yours, just that I swapped the agent.

If JUST killing isn't enough to be killed in return (which it obviously isn't) then you need to add subsequent conditions to your justification - something you so far have been unable to do.

To the other stuff:

>baww many people can't afford to...

Then I don't blame them for eating meat.

>look at your teeth! it's natural! dumb teleological argument

Being natural or whatever has nothing to do with morality. Otherwise we should follow every fucking natural impulse we have and be a bunch of brutal savages.

Anyone that puts the life of an animal over the health of a human is a psychopath.

>>2943303

Anybody who thinks you can not live a healthy life without eating meat is ill-informed.

>>2943303

What about the fact that we could feed more humans if meat production is reduced and the plant food is used to feed humans directly?

Isn't that putting the gluttony of the few over the needs of the many?

And eating the amount of meat many westerners do is actually pretty unhealthy.

>>2943302
I'm saying that organisms feed on organisms, in one way or another, and that's just the way it's been, and will be. It's basically just a matter of swapping energy.
It'd be ignorant to state that it's okay to feed on plants, but not on animals. Basically, it's not up to you to decide which organism is "holier" than the other.
Animals eat animals. Animals eat plants. Plants eat animals. Plants eat plants (decomposed, but what the hell, still counts). And so on. There's more complexity to it, granted, but I'm not opening that can of worms.

I'm just telling you how it is, not how it should be. Hell, I don't even LIKE to eat meat. I prefer veggies. I'm just able to think controversial, you should try it sometimes.

>>2943328
I'm okay with what this guy/gal is saying, because they state a reason to not eat as much meat that hasn't been mentioned before, and is actually sensical.

>>2943383
>I'm just telling you how it is, not how it should be.

So you were not making an argument at all?

Un-fucking-believable.

But thank you so much because I actually didn't know that animals eat animals. I always thought cheetahs are just running after gazelles for fun!

Ok what facts of the world can I share with you...uhmm....people are starving and have been all throughout history, diseases are natural too as well as natural disasters and...uhmmm oh yeah! People rape kids - it happens - and cars hit cats and sometimes you waste your time on a guy on the Internet who had NO FUCKING POINT!

>>2943388

I am this said gal and I actually mentioned it several times in this thread.

>>2943328
To a certain degree, this is true. However meat still has a place in a society that seeks to maximize its food output, because there are certain types of soil that will not sustain any crops that are edible to humanity, and even human-edible crops have byproducts that are inedible for humans.

These products can be fed to, for instance, pigs to maximize yield.

>>2943328
But protein intake as a percentage of diet has gone down over the last 50 years. How can you say we are eating too much meat, when there is a corrolation between this and increased rates of obesity?

>>2943407
I was making an argument.
Being, that it's bull-fucking-shit and borderline pseudo-moralist, try-hard-altruistic crap that you're spouting.

You are trying to tell me, that it's wrong to eat meat. I'm telling you, that there are no morals or ethics behind eating meat.

Stop being ridiculous.

>>2943409
Now you're being cranky, and I don't like you anymore.

>>2943424

I guess so. What has to be abolished is the high level of meat production we have now and I just wonder:

You were saying that we could feed inedible stuff to animals who in turn we can eat again. The biggest part of the problem for me is the kind of animals we eat (pigs, cows, chickens) which are all capable of complex emotions. Couldn't we instead use our resources to increase the breeding of other animals? Like insects, clams and lot of other shellfish, molluscs etc.?

From what I have heard insects are pretty rich in nutrients?

This way we could increase food production because we would breed animals that mostly don't share our diet anyway and we would not have to worry about animals suffering as much either.

>>2943427
>But protein intake as a percentage of diet has gone down over the last 50 years.

Last 50 years in western society. Who cares? Throughout history most human cultures ate a lot less meat.

The reason I am saying that "we" are eating too much meat is because health services here in germany state that. Don't know about your particular country though.

Veganism has no scientific basis, as some posters admit. Therefore, it's not a scientific discussion. This thread belongs in >>>/b/

>>2943427
Protein isn't found exclusively in meat, and in fact it isn't found in high degrees in meat at all. Protein consumption isn't a good indicator of meant consumption. Meat consumption has gone up in the last 50 years.

>>2943464
>The reason I am saying that "we" are eating too much meat is because health services here in germany state that.
Germany's fucked up views can't be applied to the rest of the world.
>Last 50 years in western society. Who cares? Throughout history most human cultures ate a lot less meat.
Human cultures ate less meat because it was a scarce resource available mostly to the rich and wealthy. It had nothing to do with health.

>>2943261
y'know, i think i'm beginning to get the vegetarian perspective.

i had to filter my thinking through observed tendencies of christian morals.

if you're a christian, you believe that to live moralistically is to try to only create good in the world, particularly when it comes to how you behave toward others.

you're not behaving in a particularly good fashion to others by eating them.

therefore, to some, perhaps this discussion is not about right and wrong, which are subjective and situational, but rather if we are doing something good or bad to something else through our actions.

...am i getting close?

certainly, eating an animal is detrimental to that thing, even as the action benefits us. therefore, we are not doing good to that animal if we are eating it. in fact we are probably doing it a great disservice by destroying any happy future it possibly had in mind.

...is the mind the thing to consider when it comes to morals then? is it the desires of that thing?

would there be any moral conundrum to eating a thing that desired to be eaten? i mean, you would be destroying its future, but you would also be granting it its version of happiness. is there anything morally wrong with that (aside from having to create such a being)?

verification: difficult ciffir

>>2943487

I don't get this exaggeration of the health issue at all.

As I already stated here: >>2941963

I never noticed my quality of living to be impacted by it at all. I know this is anecdotal evidence but as far as I can see it is pretty easy to be a vegetarian and still get all the stuff you need when you are not some poor dude in a third world country.

On the other hand eating too much meat makes you sick according to all the stuff I read about it.

>>2943513
i just realized what an ass i'm being by setting up an impossible situation; that there would be some thing that desired to be eaten, that we did not create...

but then again, is that so impossible; lets say a plane crashes someplace where there is no food. rescue is coming but they will arrive far too late to save the passengers onboard, unless some of them start eating each other. lets say some of these people allow themselves to be eaten, so long as the people who eat them will live according to values the person about to be eaten agrees with.

i find no moral conundrum here; i feel no inate disgust. so is intention the thing then? it is morally wrong to eat animals because it goes against their intent?

>>2943513

Not sure if troll...

>moralistically

pretty sure now that it's a troll...

but would he write so much just to troll?

hmmm

>would there be any moral conundrum to eating a thing that desired to be eaten?

Depends on the morals. I also am in favor of euthanasia so I see no problem in doing to a creature what it wants you to do to it - even if this causes it's death.

Nor do I see a problem with eating any animal (or human) although I am a vegetarian. The problem is the suffering which is caused by the consumption. If all animals would have a nice life and then die painlessly and then they are eaten i am fine with that.You can eat my corpse too if you want.

Actually: Why don't we eat the meat of humans who volunteer?

>>2943530
>it is morally wrong to eat animals because it goes against their intent?

For me intentions are not the relevant thing but their capacity to suffer and be happy.

I don't think vegetarianism is inherently flawed but agricultural and nutritional sciences still need a bit more time before it's mass-viable.

vegetarianism isn't meant for human. we are fucking meat eaters that can eat some green stuff to. Our acestors grew up on meat and as their decendants we are meat eaters to.

>>2943541
kobe cows have it pretty good. Daily masages and beer

>>2944011
i doubt cows can get any pleasure from beer...

I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm against eating anything that did not live and die as painlessly as possible. Fish, pigs, cows, chickens, all of them can feel pain. It doesn't matter if they're intelligent or sentient or whatever, the defining this for me is that a morally good person chooses to inflict as little needless and purposeless pain as possible. Plants don't feel pain, and that's a fact. I go out and hunt, and I make sure that I kill the animal as quickly as possible, and I think that's fine.

But when you have slaughterhouses that routinely maim the animals, who throw out live animals to starve, that fill the animal's final hours with terror and panic, that's unethical and wrong. There's no reason for it. And if my choice is between being complicit with what is, let's face it, animal torture, or not eating meat, I'll choose to not eat meat. At the end of the day "because I like the flavor" or "it's what people before me did" are rather frivolous reasons for maiming something and filling it's final hours or minutes with pain, confusion, and unimaginable terror.

Also, I'm looking for the citation, but recent research shows pigs can feel hope and hopelessness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/6345289.stm

To be fair, the whole "We can feed more people by allocating land to growing wheat" arguement doesn't hold water.

This is not because that fact is not true, but because the lack of universal food distribution to all humanity is a social and economic issue, not a moral one. Even assuming that the land was put aside for such a use, you need to solve the underlying distribution problem before you can feed everybody.

We can feed everybody NOW, with the plants and animals we harvest today, it it was only distributed right.

I'm a meat-eater and I've looked at most of the arguments against meat-eating/arguments in favor of veganism/vegetarianism and I must say that I haven't really been able to come up with any good responses or counterexamples to justify meat-eating.

The only objection that I can conjure up is this:
In a nutshell, until we are willing extend the same rights and responsibilities that we extend to human beings to animals, consuming animals (regardless of their sentience/intelligence/etc) as food should not be looked down upon.

That's pretty much the only objection I can bring to the table.