/sci/ - Science & Math

any vegetarians here?

do you support imprisoning lions? spiders? seals?

>>3689932
vegan here

beat them all with a spiked club

Not really related to science nor math (goes under ethics), please return from whatever whole you came from.

There isn't a moral reason to not eat animals. However, we should minimize unnecessary suffering.

>one has a choice
>other doesn't

nice logical fallacies bro

>>3689935
> nice logical fallacies bro

nice dodge bro. great to see you are so intellectually consistent with yourself.

it doesn't matter if they have a choice. they are living creatures which live by killing several living creatures. should we permit this or not?

>>3689942
This. Raise happy cows, kill them painlessly, and make delicious steaks.

>>3689935

>implying choice exists.

>>3689942
>we should minimize unnecessary suffering.

Pain and pleasure have no value in of themselves.

Like all sensations and emotions they are only useful to reinforce desirable behaviors.

Kill them in the most efficient way, if they suffer big deal. The only reason you might want them not to suffer is so they don't trash about and fall of the meat hooks.

>>3690007
>Pain and pleasure have no value in of themselves.
Nothing has value in itself. All values are arbitrary.

HOWEVER, the basics of what humans want is pretty much determined by our biology. And valuing human happiness means we should minimize unnecessary suffering, even in animals.

Being cruel to animals does... undesirable things to us.

This sympathy to animals is an evolutionary byproduct.

Its stupid, vain and hypocritical as fuck.
Please grow up.

>>3690022
> sympathy to animals is an evolutionary byproduct.
> implying humans who didn't want to kill animals for food were more likely to survive.

you are very stupid. please leave /sci/.

brb cooking steak and eggs while wearing a fur coat

>>3690027
You dont really know how evolution actually works, do you?

>>3690007
And, good sir, what would an effecient killing would be? More meat using less cows? After all, the purpose of raising those cows would be to gather meat. Then again, one could say that efficiency shouldn't be about the meat/cow ratio but more on the time/meat ratio. Someone else could say it's about the person/meat ratio. Or one could say its the suffering/meat ratio.

There are always decision to be made about what should be seekth.

>>3690027
fullretard.png

Q: How can you recognise a vegetarian at a party?
A: Don't worry about it, they'll make sure to inform you.

I wonder what vegetarians will have to feel superior about in 50 years when in vitro meat has replaced livestock as our main source of meat.

>>3690040
> fullsamefag.jpg
> implying repeatedly asserting somebody is wrong with no argument will make it true

seriously though, leave /sci/, you tumour.

>>3689958
>permit this

Reductio ad absurdum, but I'll bite.

It's not feasible to control the behavior of animals on a large scale. But ideally, yes, if we could genetically engineer predatory animals to survive on grass, that would net the greatest moral benefit.

>inb4 hurr animals don't count as life (implying you're not an animal)
>inb4 hurr animals are not conscious and feel no pain (derp)
>inb4 hurr morals are stupid because they don't exist objectively (hurr - pic related)

>>3690027
No, not at all, i didn't implied that.
This is not how evolution works.

>>3690019
>valuing human happiness
There's you problem. I don't value it.

I only value survival, propagation, and the creation of an environment conductive to the previous two concerns.

Animals have no application to our society other than raw materials or very poor quality slaves, a function in which they are largely being replaced by machines.

Humans are to useful to fuck with, they can produce things I need and their lines and interbreed with my own, giving my offspring more options when selecting a reproductive partner.


Strip away you subjectivity. Caste aside the weak desires for happiness and fulfillment. Survive, protect you blood, create offspring, and manipulate your environment so that it supports those goals.

That's about as close to objective values that you can get. At least success in them can be measured.

>>3690047
I feel sorry for you.
Please go back and read some biology.

I'm not going to answer the OP but I will address the "don't let animals suffer" argument.

Watch National Geographic Wild channel when you get a chance. Lions are known for suffocating their prey before chowing down. Hyenas don't give a fuck. They eat their prey from behind while the wildebeest is still kicking and snorting and neighing. Shit's brutal.

Saw an episode where the buffalo was stuck in a small mud pit up to its torso and couldn't get out. Hyenas found it and literally ate off its entire ass before the buffalo bled to death. It was looking back at them the entire time like "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MY ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!"

Nature is brutal.

Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdCC-XEYt-Q

>>3690022
>This sympathy to animals is an evolutionary byproduct.
>Its stupid, vain and hypocritical as fuck.

You can't choose to turn off your biology. Humans have a natural affinity for animals, and cruelty to animals does bad things to us.

We should minimize suffering insofar as it does not increase human suffering significantly. The question of exactly how much cow suffering is justified to make your burgers slightly cheaper is a question that would be hard to quantify, but I think we currently err too far on the side of cheap.

>>3690051
Not him but
>inb4 hurr animals don't count as life (implying you're not an animal)
They are a life form, so theres one.
>inb4 hurr animals are not conscious and feel no pain (derp)
They are less conscious, but still conscious.
>inb4 hurr morals are stupid because they don't exist objectively (hurr - pic related)
Morals usually are based on practical reasons.

Still i will eat the shit out of an animal.
I dont see how you make the connection.
Poor logic is poor.

The moral justification for vegetarianism falls short. But the health reasons are a little more convincing though I'm still unsure on that one. vegetarians live longer in better health than every one else but that could well be to do with that fact that they are wealthier and not necessarily because of their vegetarianism at all.

>>3690071
>cruelty to animals does bad things to us.
May I ask for one example?

>>3690035
Efficiency is the amount maximizing the amount of salable product from the animal and minimizing processing time.

This also takes contamination into account, if the product doesn't meet the standards then it is not going to be worth much.


And I already said suffering is of no importance to our survival, so why even mention it when I already dismissed it?

>>3690071
Actually you can, to an extent.
Depending how you are raised, your family/society/etc.

Raising your children to be 'loving' to animals is ok, but to the extent of giving them almost same rights as us is just absurd.

This is the problem, the exaggerated part of it.
>hurr kill humans they hurt an animal

i seriously.

>>3690075
Yeah, the only reasons that could arise are health (debatable, Americans probably eat too much meat but that doesn't mean vegetarianism is optimal) or global food sustainability (not currently a crisis issue, but if it came down to picking between everyone having food or some having burgers while others starve, we'll need to cut back on the meat).

The nice part about that last scenario is that meat would get enormously expensive, and would be self-limiting to an extent.

>>3690051
holy shit, i have never seen so many ad hominems and so much pseudointellectualism (reductio ad absurdum? er... no, stay in school) in a single post.

to reply to the tiny amount of actual content you provided:

> It's not feasible to control the behavior of animals on a large scale.
not even worth responding to, any person without brain damage could work out why this is wrong. clue: we have to actively try NOT to make stuff go extinct because we have a propensity to do so. derp.

> But ideally, yes, if we could genetically engineer predatory animals to survive on grass, that would net the greatest moral benefit.

why on earth is it morally preferable to have a modified predator instead of just letting an existing herbivore eat the food?

>>3690080
Not him, but he was replying to me.
Obviously he meant that if you kick an animal they might counter act.
Kick a lion and you will be eaten.
Its simple really.

>Be a moral vegetarian
>Claim it's immoral to eat animals (living things)
>Have no problem with eating plants and fungus (living things)
I guess just because vegetables and fruits aren't as easy to anthropomorphize that makes it ok, huh?

>>3690093
Yeah that example is irrelevant to a discussion on the merits of vegetarianism.,

>>3690073
It wasn't a formal argument, asshat. Go ahead and eat your animals. Just enjoy your shit tier provincial human-only morality.

k thx bai

>>3690093
I'm that guy.

That's a valid point, but not the one I was making.

Being cruel to animals fucks us up mentally.

>>3690094
Exactly my point too.

Vegs are hypocrites.
They value animals more, because they are more interactive.
>hurr it can lick my hand, animals are better than human
>durr plants? they dont have DNA lul

>>3690094
That's what pisses me off about vegetarians. Maybe it's because I'm biased towards plant life rather than animal life.

It wouldn't be the first time I call a vegetarian a plant-murderer.

>>3690097
see
>>3690102

>>3690060
what's that, the fourth or fifth samefag?

seriously, explain why 'evolution doesn't work like that hur dur' or fuck off, moron.

>>3690102
No, people who are cruel to animals are already fucked up.
I eat animals but there is no point in beating them or w/e unless you have some issues.

>>3690110
If you dont understand that by yourself then me explaining you wont help.
Also you have the aggressive/decisive attitude, meaning that no matter how good i explain it you just wont really consider shit.
So yeah.
Have fun.

>>3690105
are you seriously this stupid?
animals have complex nervous systems. they have conscious percepts and so it's legitimate to feel empathy for them.
plants don't.

>>3690112
Don't misunderstand me. I'm
>>3690019
>>3689942

Eating animal protein isn't wrong. But causing unnecessary suffering does more than harm the animal - it harms you too.

>>3690119
clearly you are unable to explain. tumour status confirmed.

Vegetarians do more damage to the climate then people who eat meat.

To grow crops you need to cultivate the land, fields of one crop are not natural.
To have fruit all year round those apples and oranges have to travel great distances.
To grow enough crops to feed a population removes animal habitats.
The 'cute' animals are pests to crop farmers, rabbits don't eat cattle but they do like veg.
And then not to mention all the fertilisers and pesticides.

Save the environment, eat local battery farmed chicken.

>>3690127
So eating animals harms me?
Studies showed that vegs are not moral in any way(except the animal thing) than non vegs.
Psychologist and sociologists explain it as a form of fanaticism.
All fanatics believe what are they doing is absolutely good and correct.

>>3690128
Whatever makes you sleep better.

>>3690137
> implying livestock don't eat crops

somebody please terminate /sci/.

>>3689935
Bears have a choice. They still eat other animals.

>>3690141
>So eating animals harms me?
I'm not saying you should be a vegetarian. I'm talking about unnecessary suffering, i.e., animal cruelty. We can raise animals for food without unnecessary suffering.
>>3690019
>>3689942

>>3690084
So, if we could have 100 kilos of quality meat under 10 seconds while loosing a billions of dollars, you would say that it's more efficien than having 99 kilos of quality meat under 10 seconds while loosing 10 dollars?

Efficiency isn't always just about quantity/time. You could take in account the suffering. On all same parameters, would you go on killing with suffering or without it? I guess without. Why is that if there's nothing of value in avoiding suffering?

>>3690071
Humans have a natural affinity for animals,
>Interesting that only those who have little contact with animals seem to hold this opinion at least from my experience.

If you grow up on a farm or hunting, in close proximity with animals all the time most people develop a pragmatic view of animals. They are slaves, prey, or pests. Slaves are to used and if need be used up. Prey are to be hunted. Pests are to be eliminated. There are of course organisms outside your control that are beneficial, like certain undomesticated pollinators. These are simply ignored or given small incentives to live where you want them.


>and cruelty to animals does bad things to us.
I am cruel to animals, their pain means nothing to me. I don't like it or dislike it, it is a non-factor in my eyes. Yet I am vicious in my protection of humans, they are too valuable to cast aside arbitrarily.

Complete disregard for and cruelty towards animals can cause some people to be even more protective and doting toward humans.

I'm not anthropocentric, I'm a human supremacist.

>>3690137
Post is full of derp.

Don't worry OP, in 50 years people won't even be able to farm animals for eating, because it won't be realistic option to feed the animals we are trying to eat.

I wonder if vegetarians will care if people eat man-made meat.

>>3690152
>Complete disregard for and cruelty towards animals can cause some people to be even more protective and doting toward humans.
Bullshit. There's a very strong link between cruelty to animals and a reduction in empathy for human suffering.

>>3690145
absolutely pathetic. state stupid opinion, samefag the fuck out of it, deny basic evolution, go into troll mode.

i not mad at you lil' virgin; i just sad at you.

>>3690165
(cont)
And again, I'm not saying you should be a vegetarian. I'm saying you shouldn't be cruel, because it fucks you up.

If you need the food, sure, shoot a deer or something.

But cruelty? No.

>>3690146
Thing is livestock eat the chaff and hulls.

For example more corn feed to cattle is actually corn meal that is a waste product of making corn syrup.

70% of our agricultural production is feed to animals, but what animal rights faggots forget to mention is that 67% of our agricultural production is either chaff, byproducts from processing, contaminated and unfit for human consumption, or was coarse grain an grasses that were grown on marginal land specifically as feed.

Question: Why do otherwise intelligent people lose all rationality when it comes to the meat-eating issue?

Case in point: People who counter vegetarianism by saying something like, "What about plants and fungus? They're life and you're eating them." One problem: Plants have no nervous system or intelligence of any sort. Another case is where someone counters vegetarianism by setting up an extremist strawmen. Or, most entertainingly, they say things like, "Vegetarianism will use up more crop land." Seriously, if you're going to argue, please get your facts straight.

Hey vegs.
I hope you aren't too scared to answer this:

Dont you feel sorry for plants?

>>3690152
>I'm not anthropocentric, I'm a human supremacist.
So am I. It's for that very reason that I don't want people to be cruel to animals. It creates cruel people.

No, I'm not talking about working in a slaughterhouse. These things can be done pretty much painlessly for the animals.

>>3690180
So if i neutralize the nervous system, anesthetize, and all that about the pain issue.
Will it be ok?

>>3690187
different guy than you're responding to, but how would you feel if no one had to tend to these animals and deal with the messed-up treatment they receive? What if it were done with robotics? Would you still demand the process be changed, or would it not matter since no humans are being affected by it?

not on either side of this vegetarianism argument, just asking some q's

>mfw I'm a vegetarian but don't give a fuck about animals
I'm a vegetarian to troll my father. He mad that I can be vegetarian and way healthier than him and his 'paleo' diet.

>>3690165
Then why am I and so many other people that grew up in a rural environment dismissive of animals but so protective of humans?

Someone who likes pain will inflict it if they can. Torturing an animal does not cause interest in torturing humans, it just may indicate that the individual likes torture.

And though I hate art in general, personally I see little difference between torturing an animal and painting. But are done for aesthetic reasons, if no human is damaged then there is no loss to myself or society. Someone could love tearing animals apart but have no interest in doing so to humans.

>>3690212
That would mitigate but not eliminate the negative effect, because you can't "un-know" that the system you have created causes unnecessary suffering. It just distances you from it. I hate to Godwin things, but the guards at Nazi concentration camps would have been less fucked up by their experience and actions if the camps were fully automated and they never saw the prisoners. But they still know what's happening, and it still fucks them up, even if we disregard the moral value of the prisoners (as we are currently disregarding the moral value of animals for the sake of argument).

It's better to just raise happy, healthy animals and kill them painlessly.

>>3690221
>Someone who likes pain will inflict it if they can. Torturing an animal does not cause interest in torturing humans, it just may indicate that the individual likes torture.
I understand the correlation/causation problem, but then you assume you know there isn't causation.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing when we talk about torture. I'm not talking about trapping rabbits or shooting deer. I'm talking about skinning the rabbit alive because you like the sounds it makes.

You say that the person was fucked up to begin with. I say it sure as hell doesn't help matters. And in agriculture, if cruelty is made a part of the job, it will affect you negatively.

But again, you'll probably just say that skinning rabbits alive, even when you could break their necks first but choose not to, doesn't affect your relationship with humans. I say bullshit.

>>3690165
Because its the same thing.
Its empathy.

>>3690198
In that case, it would be significantly more acceptable to eat meat, in my opinion.

But there will be nothing like "in-vitro" meat that will likely be developed in the coming century.

Humans are just animals usualy with high intelligence when older. He who does not value animal life has little reason to value human life, too.

>Case in point: People who counter vegetarianism by saying something like, "What about plants and fungus? They're life and you're eating them." One problem: Plants have no nervous system or intelligence of any sort.
Nervous system? No.
Intelligence? Yes.

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

>> animals which also eat animals
come to think of it I don't think I've eaten one predator... this must be rectified

>>3690183
they're ALL scared as shit

>>3690257
>but again, you'll probably just say that skinning rabbits alive, even when you could break their necks first but choose not to, doesn't affect your relationship with humans. I say bullshit.

That's exactly what I am saying. I would break the rabbits neck just to it doesn't struggle. But if you gave a five dollars and said, "skin that bunny alive" I would do it with hesitation. I have no interest in their pain. Other people I know are the same way. Now most of them do have empathy, and just don't care about the animals. I however have no empathy at all, I think empathy is a weakness. Humans are precious to me, but I do not value their pleasure or pain. It is only that being tortured can sometimes fuck up weak willed humans. So I can't recommend it.

This is the problem with our society, we have come to value feelings over substance.

>>3690423
>Humans are precious to me, but I do not value their pleasure or pain.
This seems contradictory. In what sense do you value humans, if you care nothing for human suffering?

>>3690590
herp

I don't see the problem here.

Animals die pretty shitty and painful deaths. Then rot on the ground.

We give them a less painful death and put the meat to use.

>>3690180
It's called confirmation bias.
It's not worth trying to convince them.
People here don't care about morals in the first place and they've been culturally brainwashed all their life, "hurr durr so alpha".
It's like arguing for atheism in a church.
Anyway I don't give a fuck if people are retarded, they can do whatever they want. Feels good man.