/sci/ - Science & Math

That dog was beaten, not tested on.

>>3029619
I just found it doing a google image search for "animal testing". But the picture isn't the point of discussion.

Vegetarianism is stupid. I don't care how animals are treated, good food and scientific progress is much more important. There should be no laws whatever.

>Where does /sci/ stand on vegetarianism?
Right on the head.

>And on such things such as keeping chickens in battery cages, keeping pigs in cages they can barely fit in for their whole life, including when they give birth?

Obviously not a good thing. Not even good for the meat.

>And more importantly, what are your opinions on animal testing?

Yes. Necessary.

>Not just testing for disease treatment, but cosmetics and such.

Don't know about that. Also necessary, I guess, if you want cosmetics.

>Additionally, do you think that humans are superior beings to other organisms?

Objectively? No. But I am a human and I value humans usually.

Is a retarded human with an IQ lower than an ape's, life, still more valuable than that of the ape?

I don't even think you can test nonhuman apes for IQ. Either way, I don't know how to answer that. It depends on too many things. Probably the human.

>I mean, I heard about an experiment where they injected oil into mice and observed their facial reactions so they could make a "pain scale". I mean, seriously?

Source? I am pretty sure mice do not have any sort of facial expression.

>Pic related, a dog that's been tested on. Not sure if it was for cosmetics or something else.

I don't think so. That looks like a dog from a dog fight or something like that.

>vegetarianism

If you want it to be meaningful, then go vegan. Any anything less makes it absolutely pointless, animal on dairy farms suffer no less than those in slaughterhouses.

Humas are superior, our genes are the finest on this planet.
It had to come to this the moments simple cells started forming billions years ago.

Morals are relative.

If you care about animals then join peta or animal liberation front.

>>3029625
Oh god you've come back
What's new?

>3029613
Pic related, a dog that's been tested on
>3029619
That dog was beaten, not tested on.
>3029622
I am retarded and I was wrong, I can't think for myself and I do not evaluate what I find.

In relation to thread, who the fuck cares? It's not like we feel any suffering, we just reap the benefits. Be moral about it if you want, animals don't know differently and they sure as hell don't have morals.

>>3029630
>If you want it to be meaningful, then go vegan.

Both are equally meaningless because it is impossible to feed the entire planet on a vegan diet. Work for better conditions for meat/dairy animals, or synthetic meat, or something. It is nearly impossible to be completely free from animal products.

>Humas are superior, our genes are the finest on this planet.

I don't even know where to begin with this. Humans are inferior in many respects compared to certain organisms. Our genes aren't very exceptional either. I'd say they are average genes.

>Morals are relative.

That is a whole other thread right there.

>If you care about animals then join peta or animal liberation front.

Probably not the best ideas.

>>3029636
If you click the number next to a post you can quote-link it.

Or use >>, not >.

>Both are equally meaningless because it is impossible to feed the entire planet on a vegan diet

It is more energy intensive to produce meat than vegetables. How would veganism make it harder to feed the world, when it would produce more food?

Vegetarianism is cool and seems to make people healthy, especially done right.

But people shouldnt feel a moral need to do it. But perhaps should do it out of a need for efficiency, health, and the well being of the world.

Dosr mi fealins

>>3029656

Thats me

>>3029652
I know. I was quoting. I deliberately removed > from their posts. I did this in order to create a more consistent, story like flow. Linking to their posts would not have been beneficial to the point I was making.

Why the fuck use a trip douchebag? Yes, I also deliberately saged again.

>>3029653
Humans require nutrient rich plants. Livestock can digest plants we cannot. (although we are feeding them corn mostly in the US which is pretty wasteful but cheap) Humans do not have a purely herbivorous digestive system and can't digest cellulose for example, whereas cattle can. Human edible crops need rich soil, and cattle can graze on grasses which don't need rich soil.

Some actual math would probably help out, but I don't have any. I'm obviously not an expert, here.

>>3029666
:V

>>3029636

>In relation to thread, who the fuck cares? It's not like we feel any suffering, we just reap the benefits. Be moral about it if you want, animals don't know differently and they sure as hell don't have morals.

By that logic, one could do anything because 'it's not like we feel any suffering and we reap the benefits'. I could kill millions of people, could I?

>>3029644

>Humans are inferior in many respects compared to certain organisms.

What? No they aren't, humans are terribly excellent in a great deal of skills compared to the vast majority of the animal kingdom.

If you mean, like "you can't run as fast as a cheetah", cheetahs are only good at that one thing. Their entire life cycle depends on it.

How many mammals that aren't whales go for long-distance swimming trips, again? How about marathon running? Human endurance is EXTREME, along with natural dexterity and reaction time. The structure of the human body allows tremendous power to be balanced with fine, focused movement, combined with a streamlined design for incredible adaption.

There's a reason why humans can survive goddamn near anywhere, and the EXTREMELY FRIGHTENING LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE only amplifies that.

>>3029695

Oh, and our eyes see an awesomely large range of the electromagnetic spectrum, if you're going to point out a dog's sharp nose or a cat's ability to see in low-light environments.

>>3029695
Fair enough. We are excellent generalists and great at adapting. I was thinking more on specifics, I guess, which isn't really what is important.

>>3029695
Certain forms of bacteria have been living on Earth for tens of millions of years. We've been here for a million, at best. What makes you say we're better than them?

>>3029721

What's to say older is better?

Where's the quantification of "better"?

I feared this thread might degrade into 'hurr humans are the best therefore we can do whatever we like'. Please, can we try and have an intelligent debate?

>Vegetarianism is stupid. I don't care how animals are treated, good food and scientific progress is much more important. There should be no laws whatever.

That's your opinion. You haven't provided any evidence to support it; have a nice day.

>Also necessary, I guess, if you want cosmetics.

If you want cosmetics: yes. If I want to eat human meat, killing someone is necessary, yes? Something being a necessary means to an end doesn't mean that this something should happen. Have a nice day.

>Source? I am pretty sure mice do not have any sort of facial expression.

Source? sure thing: http://www.news.com.au/technology/mice-injected-with-acid-mustard-oil-in-study-to-measure-facial-gri
mace/story-e6frfro0-1225864586173

Have a nice day.

>Humas are superior, our genes are the finest on this planet.

As I said before: certain forms of bacteria have been living on Earth for tens of millions of years. We've been here for a million, at best. What makes you say we're better than them?

>it is impossible to feed the entire planet on a vegan diet

Harvesting plants directly is more efficient than letting other animals eat them, then harvesting the animals. And as someone said before, most livestock are fed corn now anyway.

Just trying to get some debate going.

>>3029730
Very true, and I was going to say that; but I'm just going by the guy's implicit definition of 'better' which is surviving and conquering.

>Where does /sci/ stand on vegetarianism?

If it's a personal choice, go for it. Humans are not designed for living solely on plants, but can do it if you take the right precautions. I believe a big part of the reason for vegetarians being healthier is that they tend to be health focused, so they exercise as well. Causality is iffy. However, I do not think there is much of a moral component to vegetarianism.

>And on such things such as keeping chickens in battery cages, keeping pigs in cages they can barely fit in for their whole life, including when they give birth?

This one is touchy. I'm a graduate student in food science, so I've taken plenty of classes on food production and methods, although my focus is mainly microbiological. In any case, conditions in battery cages are absolutely horrible. That being said, we cannot produce the amount of eggs required to meet demand by going free range or organic. It's not possible. Think of how expensive the eggs are at a regular supermarket, then go to a farmer's market and get their free range eggs. Those free range eggs are either more expensive, or low in number relative to the amount necessary.

As far as pigs, well, it's not good for the meat if they are cramped and stressed. Again, it comes down to doing more with less as far as space. More space for pigs is more costly.

>And more importantly, what are your opinions on animal testing?

Animal testing is a great tool for learning and preventing very horrible things from happening. Without animal testing, most modern medical procedures would have had to go through a trial and error process that would have left some people dead. Better a dead animal than a dead human. That being said, most places do place limits on the number of tests that are performed on an animal, to prevent excess suffering. I believe my university has a three vivisections and you're out policy for the animals.

>>3029742
If you want a nice debate don't be so condescending and dismissive of others.

>have a nice day

Someone earlier made a good point about objectivity and subjectivity. Objectively, humans are no better than any other animal. To another human though, humans are much more important than any other animal, since they are of much more use. Subjectively, humans are much "better" than other animals.

Is a bear superior to a salmon? We are both omnivores and our only natural source of B12 comes from the ingestion of animal proteins. Without it, we would die. I am against vegetarianism because it's unnatural and any diet where you need to take supplements cannot be healthy.

>>3029746

Well then, as far as macroscopic lifeforms go, and since this thread is about animal treatment, it means humans are #1.

I'm pretty sure nobody is trying to advocate the treatment of any bacteria excepting algae and/or coral.

>>3029756
Define unnatural.

>As I said before: certain forms of bacteria have been living on Earth for tens of millions of years. We've been here for a million, at best. What makes you say we're better than them?
Single celled organisms without conciousness

>>3029758
Who are you to put arbitrary restrictions on what can be in the running for the "best" form of life?

>>3029760
Unnatural: Not natural.

I'm almost a vegetarian, I'm not I'm actually a piscetarian, but its not for any moral reasons, I'm just disgusted by the concept of meat as a manufactured commodity, so divorced for what it is as animal flesh, a thing that evolved over millions of years, filled ecological niches was hunted or co-evolved with man only to become some bizarre factor produced generic red protein slab wrapped in shrink wrap and sold in grocer bearing no resemblance to actually being an animal.

I'll eat meat, but not without a decent reason, like a really good meal at a nice restaurant or something, or tasty game meat, but none of this shitty manufactured meat.

I'm an aesthetic piscetarian.

>>3029769
Hurr. Define natural.

>>3029622

Okay, you just demonstrated willful ignorance and you don't understand why that's a problem in honest discussion?

>>3029756
Vegetarians can get B12 from dairy sources, only vegans can't

>>3029777
>not unnatural

>>3029777
Natural: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

To exist in a natural state, to diet as a vegetarian does, one would perish.

>Additionally, do you think that humans are superior beings to other organisms? If so, why? Is a retarded human with an IQ lower than an ape's, life, still more valuable than that of the ape?

Humans have value simply intrinsic to being human and on no other condition, we give them that value, its called human rights and its a good thing. Monkeys have no such things, and there's no reason to give them any. Human rights are pragmatic, monkey rights would be pointless.

>>3029779
>implying the image was in any way relevant to the discussion

Coming from a meat eater, I think veganism needs to be the future. If I were a dictator, i'd close down slaughter houses and put trees back on that land.
Alot of people make the argument that we're naturally meat eaters, and that it's healthy for us. But that's bullshit, with intelligence comes responsibility. Meat isn't a necessity, it's a nutritional shortcut. Learn to cook and you can get the same amount of protein, if not more, in a much less fattening meal
As far as animal testing goes, it's not a nice thought, but it's definitely needed, maybe not for trivial shit like cosmetics though. We should definitely have human volenteers for this shit though.

>>3029789
Humans rights are most certainly not pragmatic.

>On the topic of animal testing; most of you will disagree with me, but I think it's wrong. I mean, I heard about an experiment where they injected oil into mice and observed their facial reactions so they could make a "pain scale".

pain is simply an aversive stimulus, it has no intrinsic moral status. Only if we establish consciousness can pain have moral meaning as "suffering" wherein a creature is actually self-aware of its own pain. I refuse to believe rats are self-aware

>>3029795
I respect your opinion completely. I'll just say, though, that things that work on mice only work on humans as well 20% of the time. So animal testing helps, but it's not amazingly efficient or anything.

>>3029782
When I see bears manufacturing dairy products, I'll accept it as natural.

>>3029772
If you're disgusted by meat because of manufacturing, what about alcohol? We employ yeast cells simply to create ethanol and then the yeast dies in the process. Is that right, that we use yeast as a chemical reagent rather than a living organism? What about using E. coli to mass produce medicine? I'm just saying we exploit living organisms as factories all the the time, what's wrong with the exploitation of animal flesh?

>>3029797
They most certainly are. They come from projecting the self onto others and then valuing the other because we value the self, hence pragmatic.

>>3029799
Whether something has a concept of morals has nothing to do with if it can feel pain. Additionally, being self-aware has nothing to do with feeling pain. All the research is against you, mate. Stop making baseless statements.

>>3029806
I find it gross. I already said its not a moral issue, I just find it aesthetically displeasing. I have no such aesthetic sensibilities about yeast or fish or any other such thing.

>>3029804
20% is a lot in comparison to the alternatives.

>>3029811
Anything that has a nervous system can feel pain. Doesn't make it any more or less special than the next creature.

Vegetarians are idiots.

1: Their neo-cortex is miniscule, they're not alive.
2: Vitamin B12 and complex fats.
3: Animals eat each other all the time.
4: Most of the land in the world is not suited to horticulture. You will have to kindly ask 3rd world goat herders to starve to death because you don't want to hurt animals even though said goats will be torn apart by wolves once they are set free.

>>3029811
I know fucktard, I'm not saying they need it to feel pain, I'm saying they need it for me to care about their pain. Pain has no moral status without self-awareness. If they aren't aware of being in pain, then its just aversive stimulus, but not true "suffering" and I don't give a shit about it any more than most other sets of chemical processes.

>>3029812
You wouldn't buy butchered red meat but you'd buy butchered fish?

>>3029809
Nice circular argument. Human rights are important because they're pragmatic, they're pragmatic because of people thinking they're important -- and so on. Are animal rights also pragmatic, since I believe they're important?

>>3029817
Most vegitarians are fine with small farms killing animals for meat. It's just the large industrial slaughter houses that raise huge amounts of animals in terrible conditions for meat.
The actual death of the animal is only a small amount of the shit they go through.

>>3029820
Yeah.

>>3029824
Well i shouldn't say most...A fair few.

>>3029812
So you've chosen not to see the ugliness in the slaughter of marine creatures and bacteria to fuel your desire to consume these animals? Life isn't pretty. Fishing isn't pretty. Hunting isn't pretty. Sex isn't pretty. Birth isn't pretty.

Life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. See the beauty in the ugliness and abandon your preconceptions.

>>3029817

What are you in 3rd grade? I read that kind of shit in my little cousins assignments.

>>3029818

You are saying that you need to be self-aware to 'suffer'. 'Suffering' being what, exactly? Being in pain? You're getting muddled in your own arguments. We all agree that babies can suffer, as can retards: why can't animals?

>>3029822
that wasn't the argument at all do you know how to read? They're pragmatic because they stem from self-preservation of a social animal. Animal rights do not allow us to better preserver ourselves.

>>3029825
Just saying. It seems odd. Is it the color? Are you offput by the color red?

All meat eaters are either ignorant or selfish. It needed to be said.

>>3029824
What is the real issue here? The number of animals butchered or the conditions they are raised in?

We're moving into the morals and ethics portion which is subjective so if we could, let's keep away from that.

>>3029836
This guy is outsmarted by his 3rd grade cousin.

>>3029840
All vegetarians are either foolish or hysterical.

>>3029840
All non-meat eaters are delusional from vitamin B-12 deficiency.

>>3029817

>3: Animals eat each other all the time.

This is the thing about "green" people that bothers me the most.

"Animals live in harmony with nature, man!"
No, no they do not!
NATURE does not live in harmony with nature.
TREES WAGE WARS, FOR GOD'S SAKE. It's just much slower and hard to see. They strangle each other with roots over years and years, contesting for water supply.
Some species of tree even recruit ants to kill plants around it! NATURE HIRES MERCENARIES TO KILL FOR IT.

(That would be the Cecropia, which calls to Azteca ants with pheromones.)

This is unrelated to the thread, but still.

>>3029836
I already explained what I termed suffering, and I used quotes around it both times to indicate that it was an intentional specialized usage. I was distinguishing between simple stimulus response and the ability to be aware of pain, conscious of being in pain. To be conscious of pain, and to be self aware, is to be tortured by it, to "suffer" as I used the word, which I fucking already explained but you need shit spelled out for you.

SO, if an animal isn't self-aware then why should we care that its in pain? should I morally agonize over any old chemical reaction, should oxidation make me outraged? No. Unless there's something beyond simply, pain and avoidance, it doesn't matter.

>>3029824
So? As long as it's not unhygienic and doesn't adversely affect sapient beings there's nothing wrong with it.

>>3029842
The conditions are definitely the worst part of it. Because of the demand it's impossible to have living conditions for these animals where they don't suffer terribly. If anything the actual killing of the animal is sweet relief, as long as it goes right of course.

>>3029852
Nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

I love it.

>>3029852
I can top that. Vegans who argue that eating honey is cruel to the bees which made it.

>>3029837
Do you actually know what pragmatic means? Define 'ourselves'. By that do you mean us, the human race? Or just us as individuals? If we tested drugs on humans we'd have advanced much further in the medicine field. Human rights are FAR from pragmatic.

>>3029855
>unhygienic
Oh wow, is that really the worst you think it gets?
I wouldn't say there's NOTHING wrong with it, but if we did have decent living conditions for them it would at least be an improvement.

>>3029854
So you would say, then, that a baby cannot feel pain?

>>3029852
But humans are the only creatures on earth that can rationalise. We don't need to act like irrational animals just because all the others do. We have intelligence, we should use it.

>>3029858
Want to bring up a point that isn't morality driven? Form an argument that we can actually discuss. Your morality is placing the needs of livestock above those of humans.

Honestly, the best thing for the livestock would be to kill off all predators of it and set it free. Of course, that would ruin the ecosystem and kill many other organism in the process so maybe it's not the best after all.

>>3029865

Now we're upside down! Are humans better than animals, or not?!

>>3029863
According to jews and americans they can't.

>>3029861
I understand what pragmatic means, and just because one path is pragmatic doesn't mean there aren't other options with pragmatic value. Life isn't a true false test.

By ourselves I mean, we as humans project the same internal workings of our minds onto others, and we come together and say, lets all pretend we know for a fact that you are all equally sentient as I am, and lets all pretend that human life is sacred. And we do, because day to day we're better off. Sometimes it stops being pragmatic, then we do something else, but in the end either tacitly or explicitly we come back to that same social lie "human life is sacred".

>>3029868
No, answer my fucking question, cunt.

>>3029792

You made it relevant by demonstrating that you don't examine your sources.

What use is anything you put forward if you're so careless?

>>3029863
Anything with a nervous system can feel pain. Feeling pain has nothing to do with the morality of eating babies.

>>3029867
There is no 'better', that's subjective. If there were an objective 'better' there would have to be an overall point to life, so that we can scale this shit.

>>3029867
Humans are animals. None is better than the other. However, there are some that do not survive the day. Welcome to nature.

>>3029861
"Pragmatic" just means "goal-directed." I say that Human Rights have moral value, that their preservation is a goal in itself, so refraining from testing drugs on unwilling human participants is "pragmatic" for me, since it's obviously in accordance with the goal of maintaining Human Rights (which I would extend to rights of all sapient creatures). Testing drugs on unwilling humans is not pragmatic because it obviously violates the goal.

You may say that Human RIghts is not a good goal or that animals deserve equal consideration, but why should I change my priorities? It seems almost impossible to have any persuasive impact on this point, so I think it fair to say you will never change my mind.

>>3029838
I know its odd, I'm not trying to start a movement here. I'm just saying that's what I do. Its not about the color red, so much as it is about the artifice of it all. There's nothing recognizable of a cow in that grocery store steak. And of course fast food meat is just processed artifice, no point in eating that ever. So I just don't ever really have any desire to eat the stuff.

>>3029866
But we breed livestock to eat. A majority of the animals wouldn't be alive if we didn't plan on eating them. This whole argument is moral based.
We simply don't need to do it, we just want to do it.

>>3029870
You have a valid point. Some degree of human rights is necessary. But in the west we go beyond that point; should we?

It is not pragmatic for animals to have rights but that doesn't actually mean we shouldn't give them any.

>>3029883
There's nothing recognisable about a tuna in a grocery store can. There's nothing recognisable about wheat in a grocery store loaf of bread.

>>3029883
You must not be a biology major. Take one to the store with you next time and they'll point out what's "recognizable as a cow" about that steak. The only point you're making is that you're uneducated when it comes to the preparation of bovine products.

>>3029873
>he thinks it was a source
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

go back to school bro

>>3029881
Pragmatic doesn't mean goal oriented, its similar, but more concerned with usefulness, practicality, in so far as there is a goal in sight, then it would be goal oriented, but its just a little different. You can definitely be goal oriented without being pragmatic.

>>3029890
So? who cares?

>>3029886
I kind of went off track there...The last part is valid though.

>>3029886
No matter what, we need to consume adequate levels of Vitamin B-12 to survive. Whether we consume the flesh or byproducts, with the sheer number of humankind, there will be suffering of livestock.

Until we can just remove their nervous system so they can't feel pain.

>>3029894
And if I cared enough to get educated then I probably would be fine with eating meat, I'm not, so I don't. What's the big deal?

>>3029899
>>3029883 for one

>>3029903
Can you shut the fuck up about B-12? Your whole fucking argument is centred around B-12! It can probably by synthesized! Go to bed!

>>3029888
Sure, but just because we have human rights is not a reason to give animals rights in and of itself. We either need separate practical justification, which is hard for me to see, or some sort of moral justification, which is pretty unlikely too.

Why would we stop testing shit on animals?

Just because you feel a little sting in your heart when we do? You'll let a little pity and a tear in your eyes stop scientific progress?

Fuck off, you pussies.

>>3029894

I for one when eating steak love to tear it into tiny strips of muscle filament.

It's why I prefer steak to ground beef.

>>3029909
Yeah, that's me, I don't care. Seriously, its aesthetics not logic. I do it because that's simply what I want, not because I'm convinced its the one true path, I never tried to convince any of you. I do not give one half a shit about the production of fish.

>>3029903
Well actually the requirement for vitamine b-12 is really low, and there are foods other than meat that contains it.

>>3029907
I thought the phrase was ignorance is bliss, not aesthetics. Your whole choice is based off the fact that you don't know anything about the subject and because you're ignorant, action off of ignorance is the best choice.

Just that you understand that you're ignorant and somehow still rationalize that being ignorant is good and deductions drawn upon your ignorance is good, it's a feat that I find amazing! How do you practice such doublethink?

>>3029916
Unlikely in which way? I already said that we go beyond the level of human rights that is pragmatic, why shouldn't we do the same for animals? This is, really, a discussion about morals. For instance, if an extremely advanced alien race were to invade Earth, and treated us much the same as we treat animals, would you think that's "right"?

>>3029897
>Pragmatic doesn't mean goal oriented, its similar, but more concerned with usefulness,
Something is only "useful" insofar as it facilitates achievement of some goal, so that's a semantic distinction without a difference. My previous point would apply mutatis mutandis.

>practicality,
Practicality implies once again a goal-directed component, but also that the action is imminently feasible. It is imminently feasible not to test drugs on unwilling humans and otherwise to respect Human Rights because rights at least as I acknowledge them are defined negatively and it is always feasible not to act. Therefore, under the goals that I adopt, respect for human rights is fully practical because in each case where rights would be violated, you can choose to do nothing instead. Doing nothing always respects negative rights and it is always possible to do nothing. That's perfectly practical.

>in so far as there is a goal in sight, then it would be goal oriented, but its just a little different.

You haven't shown how.

>>3029918
>Why should we not test shit on humans?

>Just because you feel a little sting in your heart when we do? >You'll let a little pity and a tear in your eyes stop scientific progress?

>Fuck off, you pussies.

>>3029936
lol a literal sting in the heart

>>3029936

I never said we shouldn't test on humans.

But we need to pick our test subjects carefully. One that doesn't contribute to scientific progress or general society will do.

>>3029915
Which naturally occurring substances that are not animal byproducts contain Vitamin B-12?

>>3029915
Make the case for it's synthesis.

>>3029942
Shutup you fucking pussy. Just because you have "morals" and shit? I mean fuck, you're such a pussy, why aren't you testing on your mother right fucking now? Advance the human race pussy!

>>3029936
The family members of the animals you test on don't own guns.

>>3029942
>One that doesn't contribute to scientific progress or general society will do.

you mean like you?

>>3029949
>implying guns would stop the government testing on you

>>3029947
Good luck trying to figure out why "advancing the human race" seems so important to him but he ridicules the entire idea of morality.

Why should we advance the human race? All the same sort of attacks that people make against the "justification" for morality are equally applicable.

>>3029947
>if you like that you have to like this

>>3029950
Ad Hominum
>>3029947
Appeal to Spite

>>3029943
Red Star T-6635+, a nutritional yeast and also Fortified cereals and soy milks.
Or you could just go with vitamin suppliments. It's the future man.

>>3029951
>Implying that every revolutionary war did not occur.

>>3029931
I don't think the ignorance is good, I just honestly don't give a shit. Its not something I remotely care about, or even desire to care about.

>>3029957
What's the case for using those above other natural sources? We could synthesis many things but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

>>3029963
Beautiful! It's the perfect combination of ignorance and apathy. I'll have to write a scientific journal on this case.

>>3029964
Who cares about what's a good idea, we're the human race after hundreds of thousands of years fucking shit up, why start now? Let's just do whatever seems cool.

>>3029967
Go ahead, not everyone in the world is going to be interested in every fucking field, so yeah, I'm apathetic about bovine biology, sue me.

>>3029969
Don't say that.

...

No, really, it just makes you look like a miserable cretin.

>>3029964
Well in a society where people want to take nutritional shortcuts like vitamin suppliments and meat, i'd say laziness is the case.
However, if people were happy to put a little thought into what they eat rather than letting millions of animals suffer for it, Red Star T-6635+ would be the best option. B-12 really isn't that hard to find outside of meat.

>>3029967
>>3029972
Haha, man I have to collect your arguments, guys. There's some random guy pursuing you about this random off-hand comment you made. Good fucking on him I say.

>>3029977
Just check your cereal aisle.

>>3029984
This.

Where is this B-12 guy anyway? He has mysteriously slinked away.

>>3029977
The best path is often the simplest. If the energy requirements for creating/harvesting these substances can be of less cost than animal products or their byproducts and still render the same nutritional values, that would be a pretty darn good argument for that course of action.

>>3029986
Still here. I was just pressing the natural v. synthesized problem and right here: >>3029988 , made the best argument I could think of for the consumption of synthesized Vitamin B-12.

>>3029988
Well I have good news for you, it does cost less to harvest yeast than inprison animals.
Hooray!
I only mentioned vitamin b-12 suppliments, you CAN get it naturally.

>>3029997
Delicious yeast

>>3029977
Meat is not a nutritional shortcut when there's little but saturated fat and protein sans amino acids and is fried to the point of being difficult to digest.

No, there is little nutritional value in such foods, either caloric or content of anything essential. Proteins are someasily obtainable that it's not an asset.

Meat does not have to be so, but industrial production coupled with reluctance to eat anything but muscle and a pathologenic fear of bacteria will lead to that. My diet is currently mostly vegetarian for that reasons. Uncooked fruits and vegetables are less screwed than what I can otherwise get.

Protip: Lettuce isn't food.

>>3030003
I'll stick with eating animals, thanks.

>>3029997
Well then, if you can develop a low cost dietary plan that costs less than $216.90/mo. You'll have your first convert in me.

>> $216.90 source from: Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home (US Average, June 2008)

>Where does /sci/ stand on vegetarianism?
I'm normal, unbrainwashed by massmedia. I like meat and I prefer pork.

>And on such things such as keeping chickens in battery cages, keeping pigs in cages they can barely fit in for their whole life,
It's unnecessary nowadays, but you have to admitt that modern food production methods have rid us of famines.

>And more importantly, what are your opinions on animal testing?
Necessary if it is for medicines, totally sick and inhumane if it is to test new cosmetics.

>Additionally, do you think that humans are superior beings to other organisms?
[superior in what way?]
all in all I would say yes

>If so, why?
Because I am human.

>Is a retarded human with an IQ lower than an ape's, life, still more valuable than that of the ape?
yes

>>3030029
>yes

why?

>>3030012

Could you clarify how protein exists in meat "sans amino acids"?

Seems a little unlikely considering how proteins are constructed, right?

>>3030033
What why?

>>3030058
you said

>>Is a retarded human with an IQ lower than an ape's, life, still more valuable than that of the ape?

yes

>>3030059
Did I insult you?

I still don't understand your reason to ask me why I value the life of a human more than that of an ape. You honestly don't understand the difference between a human(your species) and an ape?

>>3030023
Well that would all depend on where you buy your food, how much you eat, etc etc. I can't really plan a set price diet because pricing is different worldwide.
But I definitely encourage you to look into it yourself, most people stick with meat because they're not willing to do this. Which is a shame that people turn a blind eye due to their own laziness.

vegfag here; I really believe that if most people were to reduce their consumption of meat from two meals every fucking day down to two or three meals a week, it would have enormous benefit for many facets of society and the environment.

I am still dumbfounded by the number of people who have an ingrained, unquestioning belief that a meal must contain meat - even those whom tend to actually make their own meals rather than buying from restaurants or takeaway.

Really, do you really need to eat meat at every fucking meal in a day (even breakfast)?

That said, most of the "meat" people tend to consume is by weight largely mechanically scavenged shit a grade above dogfood. Crumbed and deep fried it sells at a remarkable profit margin above the production cost - even after factoring in the cost of operating a large commercial storefront often in a prime commercial location.

Enjoy your slop whilst you help fund capitalism you stupid fucks.

>>3030072
However with that being said I still haven't gotten my diet plan perfect yet, since i've only given up meat somewhat recently. And i'm only starting to move into veganism which makes it a little harder. But i'm trying.

>>3030071
>You honestly don't understand the difference between a human(your species) and an ape?

There are differences, yes. But why is a Humans life more valuable than an apes?

>>3030071
I don't see why you have such difficulty explaining your reasoning, and why you're so offended when somebody questions it.

>>3030073
You do realise that animals won't stop breeding, just because some retards stop eating meat, do you?

Every living organism, just like a car produces CO2. You won't change anything. That's retarded teenager activism. It's just annoying, nothing else.

>>3030087
What in fucks name does being a vegetarian have to do with animals breeding? And CO2 from cars? What the fuck are you on?

>>3030073
>a meal must contain meat

Well i'm trying to cut back, but meat can be really fucking addictive. I only have meat for dinner, but if I don't I go on an eating binge for the rest of the night, i even eat when i'm full. It's fucked up.

>>3030087
Animals raised for food wouldn't breed nearly half as much if we didn't breed them to meet demand.

>>3030087

Oh yes, thank heavens for that, you see I was purely worried only about CO2 emissions. Absolutely nothing else regarding the impact of large-scale commercial farming and production of meat had me worried.

You know, if you killed yourself right now we would all be relieved about a tiny amount less of CO2 production. So much so that we could all environmentally afford to collectively sigh in relief.

Fuckwit.

>>3030082
>why is a Humans life more valuable than an apes?

That must be a decision you make at one point in your life.

I guess if you value the life of a human more than that of an animal, then you would have a problem with piloting a bomber and dropping napalm on villages full of women and children.

There is no other logical reason to value the life of a human more than that of an animal. Evolutionary, we are just very intelligent apes. We are just animals and naturally I value the life of a fellow human higher than that of every other animal.

>>3030113
So you're just keeping it in the family? Do you value your own race over others?
Why not just value all life equally? We're all equally as pointless.

>>3030113
>I guess if you value the life of a human more than that of an animal, then you would have a problem with piloting a bomber and dropping napalm on villages full of women and children.

Where did that come from and how is it relevant?

>I value the life of a fellow human higher than that of every other animal

Why? Humans are some of the most aggressive creatures on the planet. You got it right when you said there is no logical reason to value human life more than an animals.

I would never stop eating meat just because some retard pseudocultists try to invoke a a feeling of guilt in me.

Testing cosmetics is unnecessary, but blaming the general public won't help anyone.

>>3030135
>Humans are some of the most aggressive creatures on the planet

This. Infact the world would be a better place if it wasn't for humans and mosquitos.

>>3030138
"Pseudocultists"? Seriously? You just made that word up. You're missing the point entirely though. Why shouldn't you be guilty?

>>3030148
I dunno if guilt is the best angle to attack him. The need to get rid of mass produced meat goes beyond animals suffering. In the end, humans will be the ones suffering.

*ahem*

>>3030129
>Do you value your own race over others?
You need a demon/heretic/racist/nazi-beast to invoke hatred, don't you?
[that's what I mean when I talk about brainwashing teenagers. nothing good comes from it, they only become retarded/brainless drones. cannonfodder for the mighty]

My family is very mixed, race doesn't concern me. ;)

>Why not just value all life equally?
How do you value the life of the plant you kill to survive?

How do you see every single living cell you kill to digest it in your intestine?

>>3030160
>How do you value the life of the plant you kill to survive?

Well i figured you'd gather that I was refering to conscious life, but i'll be sure to be more specific next time.

>>3030158
So wait, you think those things ONLY come from cows?
Oh you.

>>3030158
And it will become even better once we start harvesting organs from pigs, helping humans to reach ages far, far and farther beyond 130.

I see a glorious future for mankind, regardless of what some religious lunatics from the Middle East say.

And I will help mankind to achieve these goals once I have finished university!

>>3030175
>farther beyond 130

Enjoy over population, and massive amounts of senior citizins doing fuck all.

>>3030059
Because you're asking a human, we are a part of the same species.
Our genes tell us to put ourselves above everything else.

That's just how it is. If it wasn't, there would be cannibals everywhere, but that works against the "interest" of the genome (i.e. replicate itself as much as possible.)

>dealwithit.jpg

1. It is not true that all creatures with a nervous system feel pain, only those with developed cerebral cortex (higher animals). The feeling of pain originates in cerebral cortex, so unless this part is developed, there is no feeling of pain. Also, feeling of pain and suffering are distinct phenomenons, and there are people that feel pain, consider it somehow unpleasant, but suffer very little and are not bothered by it. This feeling of suffering itself does arise in cerebral cortex, too.

2. Animals die and are eaten in nature, but there are also humans in third world that die and suffer routinely, and that is not a reason to legalize murder, is it? The moral question of "is it right or wrong?" is distinct from the question of "is it natural or not?", and these two have little in common.

>>3030167
>Well i figured you'd gather that I was refering to conscious life, but i'll be sure to be more specific next time.
Plants react to stress. Even protozoa can manage evade harmfull environment.

Where do you draw the line between conscious life and what you like to eat, do give you a feeling of ethical superiority to other people who don't even want to know that you exist?

>>3030190
>what you like to eat
I thought we were talking about monkies and retards...

>>3030175
>helping humans to reach ages far, far and farther beyond 130.

>And I will help mankind to achieve these goals once I have finished university!

And then you can start working on low-cost alternatives to phosphates, antibiotic resistant strains affecting both the immuno-depressed elderly and stressed livestock, hydro-engineering for waste-water recovery and low-cost, high density housing! Yay college!

>>3030197
Not that i don't enjoy the occasional retard

Your right its wrong, but the mice thing isn't really that bad, in fact its neccesary, because they test chemicals and shit on small mice so then it can be studied further for the human body, one would call it a sacrifice

>>3030205
I prefer ranch dressing, myself. It may not be all that healthy, but I find that a rich sauce goes well with the simple mind, making for a truly exquisite dish.

Except with Downs. For Downs I use vinegar and lemon.

Just finish your chicken son...

Animal testing is needed, the alternative would be human testing or selling drugs without testing :/

>>3030222
>Animal testing is needed
But not for cosmetics.

You don't have to put paint in your face or your hair.

TL;DR version: Stop liking what I don't like.

One day it will be more cost efficient to synthesize food than to raise crops and animals. When that happens, the vast majority will stop caring about crops and animals.

>>3030345
It's already WAY more cost-efficient to produce food with vegetation than it is with animals. And yet...

>>3030322

TL;DR version of your post: you are a retard unable to understand complexity or subtlety in debate. You feel the need to reduce every argument to polarised hyperbole so as to not feel alienated when you don't understand what's happening.

I bet you think you have asperger's.

Fuck off.

Albert Einstein became a vegetarian in the later years of his life. "t is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.
Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind.
Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - Albert Einstein.

I have heard such reiterated numerous times, but never with the scientific fact behind it. Would anyone care to enlighten me as to why a vegetarian diet would be beneficial for mankind?

>Where does /sci/ stand on vegetarianism?
i don't eat meat, but i''m not a douche about it.

>And on such things such as keeping chickens in battery cages, keeping pigs in cages they can barely fit in for their whole life, including when they give birth?
One of the reasons i don't eat meat, industrialized food processing does not a quality meal make.


>And more importantly, what are your opinions on animal testing?
bad.
which is precisely why we need to create a race of subhuman clones to be used for all testing purposes.


>Not just testing for disease treatment, but cosmetics and such.
subhuman meat clones, we could eat them too


>Additionally, do you think that humans are superior beings to other organisms?

nope. fuck people, we are the worst thing to happen to this planet

>I mean, I heard about an experiment where they injected oil into mice and observed their facial reactions so they could make a "pain scale". I mean, seriously?

there have been similar-ish studies with insects. we use the lie of "human superiority" to dissociate ourselves from animals

>>3030354
Yet meat is more delicious? You people won't be happy until there are 50 billion people on the world and they all have to eat rations of organic lentils and people starve to death when there is a drought instead of simply being less rich.

>>3030358

Haha, couldn't have put it better my self. Well fucking said. Shut the fuck down.

>>3030358
But it is a simple, mainly polarised issue that indeed boils down to preference.

I think you're just an emotionally-charged child. I bet you think you are really deep and meaningful.

>Cat Gets Crushed
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox5_FOWqEaU&feature=related

>>3030358

why has autism become such a reflexive insult?
did we finally outuse faggot?
just remember: asperger's today is a mentat tomorrow.

>>3030401
Every dumb angsty teenager thinks he has aspergers. It gives them a way to think they're smart and special when they're socially awkward and doing badly at school.

>>3030395
synthetic meat bro.
tastes better than the fast food shit that they burn down rain forests for, and that is the real issue. there is nothing inherently wrong (depending of your moral qualms) about eating meat. the problem is the industrial mechanism with which our "meat" is mass produced

sounds like a disguised troll thread to me

I can see this devolving into animals are mistreated because of cosmetic companies, therefore all science is bad. (whether op intends it to or not)

>>3030412
>ad hominem

Don't you know that ad hominem is an instant intellectual failure?
You can't emit judgement on people without adressing what parameters made them the way they are, and the other variables made the situations that made these people like this.

>>3030444
Indeed. The only thing ad hominem proves, is that the producer of this "argument" as ego issue.

>>3030400
>But it is a simple, mainly polarised issue that indeed boils down to preference.

Pointing out a traditional point of contention is polarising does not make you smart - it just makes others smile and nod politely and ponder if you really do have some condition, or is this just your first year of community college.

"PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DISAGREE BECAUSE NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE THE SAME"

Congratulations; what a fucking astute observation. You really are special sunshine.

>>3030401
I'm just calling a stone a stone.

>>3030401

He said anyone had aspergers. He said someone thought they had aspergers, which is a quite different thing.

Vegetarianism basically ignores the fact that life is murder and suffering. You'll never get beyond this fact without overhauling the entire system, which is something many animal rights people find vehement.

Vegetarians are usually motivated by what amounts to sentimentalism. They see a Lion hunting a Gazelle, and fail to realize that it's either the Lion's life or the Gazelle's. I can either murder animals and plants and live, or starve to death.

The real moral imperative in the near-future is the elimination of needless suffering of both animals and man, and the maintenance of human and animal dignity. We need to repair the damage that we've done to nature, so that other animals can kill and die with a speck of honor.

In the long term, our goal is to enact The Hedonistic Imperative.

>>3030521
>I can either murder animals and plants and live, or starve to death.

You can kill plants and live fine.

>Vegetarianism basically ignores the fact that life is murder and suffering

How do you define "life" anyway? We had someone in this thread who claimed only humans "suffer", also. Why is a human life more important than an animal's life? I don't really mind killing animals in a humane way if it's solely for food; that's how the world works. But I don't think you can logically say that humans are objectively better than animals. Having a basic human rights system _is_ pragmatic, but is that the only reason we do it? It isn't.

>>3030575
Sure you can argue that humans are objectively better than animals. Use standards based on intelligence and ability to survive. As someone stated earlier in this thread, this brings into question the rights of retarded people less capable than apes. Okay.

>>3030589
>Use standards based on intelligence and ability to survive

You've gone over the apes and retarded people argument, but I want you to consider bacterium. Certain types of bacteria have been on this Earth for 10s of millions of years. Much longer than humans. There is absolutely nothing in your argument.

>>3030601
Those bacteria sure are intelligent.

>>3030452
But at the moment that's the only issue being discussed. It would be different, for example, if everybody agreed that it was bad, and were discussing ways of stopping it; that is a complex issue.

>>3030607
So you must be both intelligent and able to survive and conquer? The intelligent bit there is just an arbitrary thing you've put on there to make sure only humans fit the bill. I can make it "able to breath underwater and survive and conquer" if I want. Faggot.

>>3030521

Summed up as
"If I cannot live forever, everything else must die"

I mentioned that cooked meat was lacking amino acids. I didn't actually know how that was connected so I was somewhat talking out my ass. What I do knoe is that taurine is destroyed during cooking. This is an essential amino acid for cats, not for humans. It was for me a logical assumption that cooking does not benefit humans either; a hypothesis that I have no reason to disregard at this time.

TLDR?
Cooking destroys taurine. Other amino acids are likely affected.

>>3030617
You could. Would have a hard time getting people to agree with you, but that's a valid stance.

>>3030621
I'onno man, but the first two lines of your post have me in hysterics. Probably should get some sleep.

>>3030621
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZzbREplf40
Yum.

>injected oil into mice and observed their facial reactions so they could make a "pain scale"

Six hours into the thread, so I'm not sure if this is still pertinent though it hasn't been brought up to the best of my knowledge.

What you described was the development of an animal pain model. Like it or not, we have to test all drugs in development for toxicity before they are authorised (by the EMA or FDA). Part of these toxicology studies involve dermal tests where pain may be measured. Or more likely when testing analgesic drugs, when pain studies are essential to showing proof of principle of a drug.

Developing new models of pain is equally important in in vivo sciences and something I have worked on in the past. In an attempt to further refine techniques, new techniques must be tested for their efficiency. If a new model is more sensitive/requires less animals/requires less time in a pain state then it is adopted.

Though it might seem barbaric to test on animals without direct result of drug development, this is, in the long run more ethical.

over 1.5 billion cows live today on earth. that makes them very succefull as a species. symbiosis pays out for them in the struggle of survival.

>>3030608
>But at the moment that's the only issue being discussed.

Huh? Of course vegetarianism is the only issue being discussed (it is the opening topic of the thread) inasmuch as you can somehow summarise the totality of the ethical, cultural, environmental, social and even religious spheres that this would encompass.

Tripcodes *are* for jerks, but they do provide a valuable service to others in providing a strong indicator of posts (and posters) to be avoided.

>>3030683
Thank you for your flesh, cow friends.

Once we perfect in vitro meat vegetarianism will be redundant.

And we'd better, otherwise mass starvation in poor countries as more land is used for inefficient grazing to feed China and India's new middle classes instead of staple crops.

>>3030694
>otherwise mass starvation in poor countries

This isn't a food problem as much as it is an overpopulation one.

By the way, do animals feel empathy?

>>3030703
I don't know, man. Why don't you go ask one?

>>3030694

Wa ha... a ha... a ha ha... smmmmmrkkk! wHHAAAAA HAHA HA HA HAHA HHA HA HAH AHA H AHAHHHAHAH!!

BECAUSE WE ARE SO CLOSE TO PERFECTING IN VITRIO MEAT PRODUCTION!!!!!1!!1!!!11!

IT WORKS ON SO MANY LEVELS!!!

>>3030650
It's quite difficult to get into. Have yet to find a compromise. So veggies.

>>Meat isn't a necessity, it's a nutritional shortcut. Learn to cook and you can get the same amount of protein, if not more, in a much less fattening meal

What the FUCK am I reading? This is so retarded that it's both rage-inducing and really funny at the same time.

Kudos.

>Where does /sci/ stand on vegetarianism
Vegetarian here. Anybody should be free to decide what to eat, at reasonable cost.
>And on such things such as keeping chickens in battery cages, keeping pigs in cages they can barely fit in for their whole life, including when they give birth?
Humans should raise feed animals on the sole purpose of eating them. I'd be fine if we would only eat animal from wich we consume milk or which are neede for farm labor when they're too old.
>And more importantly, what are your opinions on animal testing?
Sadly, it is needed. and for a while.
> Additionally, do you think that humans are superior beings to other organisms?
I don't suffer from anthropocentrism, no living beings are equal and all thrive to survive and pass their genes. Some manage to do it better than other.
> Is a retarded human with an IQ lower than an ape's, life, still more valuable than that of the ape?
An ape is an ape, a human being a human being. I stick with human beings.

Now this got to be said eating meat so oftn a week shouldn't be so widespread. Only a fourth of the grain produce on earth actually feeds all humanity. Almost everything else feed animals we're to kill to be eaten. At a time where a third of the population is malnurished, this is not only a shame, this is pure non-sense.
Going vegan is stupid, cause letting rot all this amount of food that are old farm animal is non-sense.
But protecting cats and dogs while advocating meat consumption is a moronistic point of view.

>>3030750
So you'd better learn to read again, because the guy is right.
Meat is not necessary.

My take?

Unnecessary suffering should be minimized. This applies to wild animals, pets, and animals bred for use in industry or research. But animals ARE less valuable than humans. This justifies the use of animals in medical research, with the strict adherence to rules for minimizing suffering (as we already have in place).

Eating meat is justified, IMO, but may (and should) become more expensive and less prevalent in the future for the sake of environmental conservation. We should protect the environment because it is good for humans, not because it is more important than humans.

My priority is the well-being of other people, but as humans are the only sentient species on Earth, and perhaps in the entire universe (I hope not), I feel as though it's our responsibility to preserve the biological diversity of this planet. There are more chickens than people, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over my Saturday morning omelet. I think that, in terms of animal rights, we should prioritize the protection of endangered species, and preventing other species from becoming endangered. Other than that... go nuts. Shoot a deer with your bubba'd assault rifle and put its head on your wall, for all I care.

>>3030991
>We should protect the environment because it is good for humans, not because it is more important than humans.
This. I hate how extremists turn this around.

>>3030977
I'm more for having less nignogs than getting rid of steaks.

I eat only organic free range chicken eggs. Not because of bacteria and ecoli... but they just taste so much better, and have a better texture.

That statement alone, should speak volumes for different kinds of meat, and other animal products.

I am a vegetarian and i like eggs.

That is all.

>>3030977
Here, let me spell it out for you.

>>in a much less fattening meal
>>Not using meat
>>Less fattening meal

If you are too retarded to get it at this point, there is nothing to discuss here.

Vegetarian here. Seems like a higher percentage of vegetarians on this bored. Science is about logic and eating meat is not very logical. A cow produces as much greenhouse gasses as a hummer. 50 pounds of shit and piss a day go unfiltered into waterways. It is also grossly inefficient. You need 22 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound of cow meat. The only reason it is so cheap is because it is subsidized by tax money. Very bad effects on the planet. We dont regulate the use of antibiotics with animals so they feed it to them like candy. It will probably be the meat industry that create a strain of bacteria immune to antibiotics. As far as animal awareness its all speculation but rationally you would think that they experience emotions as sharply as humans since it is a surviving mechanism. They only lack language and memory that the cerebral cortex gives us.

>>3031125
Science isn't about logic. Science uses logic, but the end goal of science if neither logic nor efficiency, science is a tool.

You dense, pseudovulcan motherfucker.

>Where does /sci/ stand on vegetarianism?
idiocy
>And on such things such as keeping chickens in battery cages, keeping pigs in cages they can barely fit in for their whole life, including when they give birth?
efficiency is more important than aesthetics especially if the role of the object is to be consumed
>And more importantly, what are your opinions on animal testing?
Inevitable, though tests are better and more productive if using humans as test subjects (criminals and lowlifes are best suited for it)
>Not just testing for disease treatment, but cosmetics and such.
see above, though I think it's a waste of human potential
>Additionally, do you think that humans are superior beings to other organisms?
NO, even if we surpass others intellectually, we lack some outstanding qualities other living organisms possess f.e. viruses though not completely organisms
>Is a retarded human with an IQ lower than an ape's, life, still more valuable than that of the ape?
a retarded person if is a dysfunctional / useless / a burden to the society is worthless despite IQ
>I mean, I heard about an experiment where they injected oil into mice and observed their facial reactions so they could make a "pain scale". I mean, seriously?
So? there are thousands cases of people that murder or make others suffer every minute, just for sick thrills and you're condemning a practice that actually can be beneficial and is done for a reason?
TL;DR let a few suffer now for the good of billions of generations to come.

Meat tastes good therefore I eat it, if you don't want to eat it because you think one person can make the slightest difference go for it. Just fuck off and leave me to my tasty meat. I have no problem with vegetarians but a big big problem with people who waste their time trying to convince others how "evil" eating meat is. However the argument of you wouldn't eat a person is brilliant...because I would.

>>3031159
This so much
Test on scum
Shoot the retards
etc.

>>3031159
ITT: Mengele

Its called empathy, you dense motherfucker.

>>3031153
Semantics. Clearly this is what you spend the bulk of your time arguing about on the internet. Hope you get loads of fulfillment out of life

>>3031125 fed per meat

the usa as an example produces more agriculture than it consumes. The government actually pays farmers not to produce prodyce as a way to stop prices from plummeting. If we were to limit feed needs, there would be many other social issues.

As for methane production. As a greenhouse effect, the methane has less of an impact than the co2 removed by the quick growing feed crops.

>>3031207
That is one way to look at it. Or you could trace interest groups to large corn and animal farming companies that hold positions of government that establish policy. We could feed the entire planet with the food we give to animals. Paying someone not to farm is borderline insane.

>>3031242
I dont know if the figure holds true today. But 15 years ago, the amount of food farmers were paid not to grow, could have fed the entire worlds population for 3 years. no need to cut down on meat, when there is plenty of production availlable.

>>3031187
contrary to what you may think I have empathy, not towards the subjects but towards the endless amount of ill and dying people that such methods will inevitably save.

on the topic of Mengel, do you have any idea how big of leap in medicine was made during WWI & WWII just because of such people? their methods were "unaesthetic", but they served as a platform for a countless amount of succeeding researches & discoveries, especially in spheres like neuropathology and brain surgery.

Personally, I think we should test on inmates and hobos instead of animals. That way we can get better results and do the necessary improvements that fit out anatomy.

I was not saying we could feed everyone with the food they don't produce. I was saying that we can feed the world with the food we give to animals. There is land not yet ruined but that does not mean animal production is a good idea. The profit is almost completely artificial. Tax payers pay to keep the wealthy families in business. If we had a real free market, or if we expected the same treatment of animal waste that he have for humans then we could see how feasible animal farming is. They are just cutting corners and expecting citizens to pick up the slack

>>3031302
I say we test on trolls

>>3031312
I like beef. Wether i pay 600 dollars a year on cow. Or 300 with 300 of my tax money, doesnt really matter to me.

>>3031346
well I like the constitution. As long as we are following it I am happy. But as long as your happy...

>>3031302
Basically, you're saying that human rights are only citizen's rights, and you can have your citizenship revoked for bad behavior or poor performance.

I don't think that's a great idea. I mean, at least set the bar higher on having your humanity revoked.

>>3029630
I'm a vegetarian and I can barely support myself with that, there's simply no way I could go vegan right now and nor would I want to. I would, however, buy cage-free eggs, or farm milk, when I am able. You do your thing, I'll do mine. We'll both be happy.

IN TERMS OF TESTING

Animal testing? For drugs and science, absolutely necessary.

For cosmetics? Slightly less necessary, but arguable.

We're humans, we value each other more. I'm not going to save a few apes and have a dozen astronauts and sick people die from drug testing and failed equipment.

>>3031490

However, if someone decided to instead chop up those apes into delicious ape burgers, I wouldn't eat him. It makes me happy to know that I did everything I could to not participate in that killing.

Whatever you guys do is up to you. Our actions are our own

Where does /sci/ stand on vegetarianism?
> Fucking love my meat, anybody want to take it away from s'gonna lose a finger or hand.
And on such things such as keeping chickens in battery cages, keeping pigs in cages they can barely fit in for their whole life, including when they give birth?
>And??
>BOOOHOOO!! Those poor wittle animals are kept in a cage their entire lives. Seems like most of humanity to me. Hell they got it easy. All they do is eat and shit, and when they reach their prime boom their dead. No middle age, no asshole grandkids.
And more importantly, what are your opinions on animal testing?
>More importantly, OP why are you such a faggot?
> No really...
I'm not actually a vegetarian, but I'd like to get /sci/'s opinions. Not just testing for disease treatment, but cosmetics and such.
>Look buddy its either the animals or you. If you want to take their place go the fuck ahead.
Additionally, do you think that humans are superior beings to other organisms?
>No... Viruses are fucking awesome.
If so, why?
>NO NO NO
Is a retarded human with an IQ lower than an ape's, life, still more valuable than that of the ape?
>Here OP Im gonna ask you the question again, why are you such a candyass? It seems to me the entire post is you simply being a giant fucking candyass. Cause here let me explain it to you the way I see it.

>>3031612
>Millions of children die everyday from starvation
>You probably own a pet or a dog
>To give everyone in the world a basic education and enough food it would cost less then the amount Americans spend on pet food on an annual basis.
>You care more about animals, than you do about humans.
> So tell me again OP Why are you such a fucking candyass?
>Your the reason the world is in such a fucking state. Remove you dumbass and everyone else who is a fucking candyass such as yourself.
Marx saw it you cunt
>A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

>>3029613
To every question.

Suffering is a necessary part of this universe, that doesn't mean we should seek it. We just wouldn't know pain from pleasure without it.

>>3031622
most rational way to look at things IMO

>>3031612

Can you put forward any argument that's center-point isn't 'boo hoo'? I think you should go back to arguing with mummy.

>>3033404

The central problem with this arguemnt is that it's beased on an objective moral standard. Just because you don't like the suffering of animals doesn't mean that it's wrong.

>vegetarian moral god tier reporting in

Brb while I get a sandwich and read this thread.

>>3033919
*without meat in it, just cheese sandwich

captcha: erverste Leydig

>>3029613

You're in the wrong board. You want /sp/

Let's clear something up. Livestock, I mean everything from cattle, chickens, sheep, pigs, do not produce the same amount of greenhouse gases as cars. The reason why it's believed that livestock contributes to roughly 14% of greenhouse emissions, it because 14% is a global average. A developing country doesn't have as large of a car problem as a developed country, so in developing countries, agriculture is the biggest emisson source. Also people completely ignore the production of the car. How do you think that car was made? Where did your oil come from and how did it get to where you are? The most damage done by livestock is the destruction of land to make farmland and taking a shit load of water.

>>3034121
bah, cars are so very clean nowadays. they output .01% of what a car did 40 years ago. also where are you getting 14%

livestock is closer to producing 50% of all greenhouse emissions.

>>3031490

>For cosmetics? Slightly less necessary, but arguable.

>We're humans, we value each other more. I'm not going to save a few apes and have a dozen astronauts and sick people die from drug testing and failed equipment.

What if I said: 'I'm not going to save a few retards and a dozen astronauts and sick people die from drug testing and failed equipment.'? Drugs that are effective on mice are only effective on humans as well 20% of the time, without modification. Why can't we just use the intellectually inferior? Why do you care about a few retards when thousands of people will be saved?

Because we have morals. Someone here has already said there's no logical reason to value a human life more than an animal's.

I give not a single fuck about animal testing and whatnot. I don't even care.
As long as the meat is still delicious and won't poison me, I have 0 care about how the animals are treated. The suffering of creatures does not magically bleed into the universe and cause misfortune. There are no "badness waves".
A humanely treated chicken still dies before it's eaten. There is little difference.

To be honest, I really only blame the meat industry for not being more wise about quality and such. A happy animal would probably produce better flesh.

>>3036184
You could apply the same logic to anything. You sound like an angry 15 year old.

>>3036186
But I'm not angry about anything.
The truth of the matter is that an animal dies in the end anyway. If you treat them like a princess beforehand or not isn't all that important, aside from some kind of self-adulatory moral masturbation. If that's peoples' "thing" it's fine, I guess, but... honestly, if you don't want cruelty to animals, become a vegan.
It turns out, killing an animal is pretty cruel automatically, regardless of conditions beforehand.

Nature requires you to harm to survive. I'm totally okay with this.

>>3036203
Are you dyslexic?

>The truth of the matter is that an animal dies in the end anyway. If you treat them like a princess beforehand or not isn't all that important

Why? You could say the same about people. Next time read the thread before posting as your "argument" has been said by a few people in this thread in various forms -- and once they've been responded to, they're never seen again.

>>3036232
How dare you imply I'm lysdexic!

Jokes aside, you could say the same about people... why don't you?
If you're going to kill a person, it's cruel. Exactly how doesn't really matter all that much, it's fucked up either way.
I don't really see your point, is what I'm saying.

>>3036239
>If you're going to kill a person, it's cruel. Exactly how doesn't really matter all that much, it's fucked up either way.

Why is it cruel to kill a person, but not to kill a different animal? It's all 'nature', right? And nature's cruel, right?

>>3036249
It is cruel to kill an animal.
I just don't care because they're delicious. A reason makes it a lot easier to handle.

>>3036272
Who says people aren't delicious too? And it's pragmatic to experiment on humans, too. What's not to like?

>>3036298
I'm okay with human experimentation. Not sure about human edibility, because... well, most people are kinda fuckin' gross. Still, if long pork is someone's thing, they're welcome to eat the dead people. As long as they're not chopping up people in the street, I wouldn't mind.
shit, it worked for the Aztecs.

>mfw I don't give a fuck about animals, not even cats
>mfw people "don't give a fuck about animals"
>mfw said people go cry their cunts out when some idiot tapes himself punching his cat
People aren't logical, are they?
Animals are supposed to feed us, entertain us, they lack intelligence, they don't "feel", they are simple organic machines, unlike us.

>>3036311
Okay, you're not being hypocritical. But how would you feel if you'd been chosen to be experimented on?

>>3036328
Read the thread and see your 'argument' demolished in front of your eyes. Not going to bother to do it again.

Oh, and drop all the >mfws. You didn't even have a picture of a face you fucking moron.

>>3036332
I'd be right pissed and try and kill everyone on my way to freedom, of course.
To be truly fair, I'll admit that I do believe people should be given a choice. I'm not so blind that I'd try and make up bullshit reasons--I'm perfectly willing to admit that it's my own human bias that makes me think that... but I don't consider that wrong either. It's normal for a species to be out for themselves, first... and honestly, I'd kill anyone who tried to experiment on MY dog... but that's because it's... y'know, MY dog. Part of my family unit.
I guess my overall point is that humans should be given a choice because... y'know, higher brain functions. Also, don't touch my dog--get someone else's. Something like that.

>>3036357
What do 'higher brain functions' have to do with anything? And what are they anyway? Do you mean being self-aware? You know that dogs, cats, mice, all mammals and even many sea-creatures can feel pain as we can; don't you?

>>3029613
/sci/'s opinion? Dunno. I can say concerning my moral position, which one might call secular humanist, aka what Sam Harris is for.

Depends on how stupid the animal is, and how capable of feeling pain it is. I suspect that ants simply do not feel pain and are not capable of thoughts that I would grant it rights. Pigs maybe, dogs maybe, and so on.

So, I'm potentially a hypocrite for eating meat. I'd need to see some good studies of how stupid cows are, and how capable of feeling pain they are.

As for animal testing, the harm is much less for much greater human benefit, so I think the bar is very different here.

>>3036374
>As for animal testing, the harm is much less for much greater human benefit

Why can't we just test on humans? It's much more effective.

>>3036362
liberal bleeding heart faggot detected, it doesn't matter in the slightest if animals can feel pain or not. They're uncapable of doing anything about it and we're supposed to take advantage of that. Now go enjoy your vegan sandwich faggot.

>>3036387
Shut the fuck up. There are many people who couldn't do anything about it if we chose to exploit them; why don't we then, faggot? Are you a bleeding heart then? And by the way: I eat meat, and I'm certainly not a liberal.

>>3036383
>Why can't we just test on humans? It's much more effective.

Ethical concerns, also the testing may involve grevious bodily harm, so if I can do nothing, or kill a human to save a million human lives, or kill a chimp to save a million human, I'll kill the chimp.

The only points I see being made are:

>Humans are 'better'

How so? We're certainly not objectively better. Certain forms of bacteria, and even worms have been on Earth a lot longer than us.

>Humans are more intelligent

Why does it matter? Mammals, at least, still feel pain the same as we do.

>Animal testing advances science

Yes, but human testing would advance science much more quickly. Why not test on humans?

>Human rights are pragmatic

some degree of human rights are, yes. but we certainly go beyond that degree in the west: why? why not extend that to animals? '

>hurr durr I eat meat you're all pussies

go to bed.

>you can't get enough vitamins from not-eating meat

that's just not true.

>eating meat is 'natural'

define natural

>>3036387
Hey you.
Stop being on my side.
You're illogical, you're a dick, and you don't realize that "uncapable" is poor grammar.
>mfw you're a dumbass.

>>3036362
Humans are a dominant species. I'm not the type to bandy around words like "supposed to," but I believe we are in a position to use other species to further ourselves. I think, from a truly naturalist perspective, not doing so would be idiotic. Parasites and viruses feed on others. Herbivores destroy generally defenseless plants, predators eat whichever animal is least able to resist... Well, we're predatory as a collective, now. We can prey on everything, so why not?
I'm not against conservation or nature, mind you. I just can't understand the sort of people who want to be involved with nature and still affect no change to it. It's sort of a one or the other thing--either become totally apart from nature and live behind high walls with our crystal spires and togas and shit, or do as animals do and use other creatures and our environment. It's fairly simple.

>>3036402
yeah but in reality it's more like

>kill a chimp to save 10 lives

>kill a human to save 5x more, in this case 50

>>3036414
>Why does it matter? Mammals, at least, still feel pain the same as we do.
Do they? I'm unsure of that.

>>3036422
Why are you? There are studies all over the place that say they do, and none that say they don't. Just because you refuse to believe something doesn't make it not-true.

>>3036422
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals

>>3036428
Because I haven't thoroughly researched the matter.

>>3036415
Great job at pointing your null argument fucktard. You must be one of those "stuck in the middle" hypocrite faggots.

>>3036446
>Admit to basic human bias and claim no moral authority
>Retards accuse you of having no argument
Shine on, you magnificently retarded, crazy diamond!

I'm tired of seeing this fucking thread.

Prepare for sagebomb.

bump

Heck I'll sagebomb with /sci/entific info.

2/6

3/6

4/6

5/6

6/6

1/4

2/4

3/4

>>3036522
Hey uh... dude?
You're the only person who still cares about this thread. It'll go away if you just stop bumping it.

>>3036482

Thanks for dumping these, interesting stuff.

4/4

>>3036415
>We can prey on everything, so why not?

because we're smart enough to have morals.

>>3036543

thanks for keeping the thread alive fuck tard

>>3036559

you're welcome faggot.

1/6

2/6

3/6

4/6

5/6

6/6

now get your shit thread outta here.

AND DON'T COME BACK!

>>3036559
Morals don't make sense. I don't think they serve much of a purpose. I'd call them a bad byproduct of humans' poor breeding habits, to be honest.

>>3036603
you're alive and well because people had morals

now fuck off

>>3036601

I created the thread, we got some good discussion and I'd like to continue it.

>>3036616

Too bad.

Apparently you've never heard of sagebombing

>>3036621
You bumping the thread? Thanks for doing my work for me.

>>3036633

Yeah buddy. Here's another bump!

>>3036642
Thanks.

>>3036646

Your welcome

>>3036657
Oh I am? Awesome.

>>3036646

>He doesn't understand autosage

>>3036673

Gotta make sure you stay on page zero :)

>>3036681
>>3036676
Enjoy typing in captchas. Brb while I go and do something interesting and mind-improving.

Enjoy being a monkey <3

>>3036693

DON'T SAGE ME BRO

DON'T SAGE ME