/sci/ - Science & Math

If it's immoral to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?

Because some POOR POOR DEFENSELESS animal's life is taken
Your basic moralfag bullshit
If they could have their way we wouldn't have any predators
Say goodbye to the badass big cats, bears, crocs, and so forth

Why the fuck not? If you can feasibly eat it, it's A-OK.

The only argument I've heard in favor for vegetarianism was that it is more efficient in terms of nutrition per mass or cost per mass.

Or something. I don't live my life by it, so I don't bother doing the research.

For every animal you don't test on, I'm going to test 3.

>>3857277
That argument is bullshit considering insects are a better form of nutrition on several higher orders of magnitude, not to mention they provide a ton of protein. They're the largest form of biomass on the planet.

pic related, vegan logic revoked.

>>3857220

the argument is that for some reason it's unethical because animals have basic nervous systems capable of experiencing pain, which assume a model of modern western morality based upon mind rather that a descriptive model of western morality which basically tends toward tribalism on the scale of the entire human species.

they will then try to argue that somehow the former arbitrary morality is somehow superior to the latter arbitrary morality.

It's like this-

We test all kinds of shit on animals (shampoos, makeup, drugs, medical procedures) that cause those animals pain/discomfort/trauma.

Those tests often times help save human lives/bad reactions.

So, as long as you're able to accept the fact that we torment animals to prevent tormenting humans, then you fall into the camp of the majority of people.

If not, then you fall into the camp of vegans.

it might not be necessary to eat meat or all that much meat. it might be bad to kill an animal to eat its meat or to eat meat in general. given that this is what seems to be true; ethically, people should not eat meat unless they have to. if they have to it, should be meat that was obtained with the least amount of pain possible or/and is the best for them to eat for some other reason(s).

i don't think it's immoral, but i don't think it'd be immoral to eat human flesh either.

>>3857220
> why do some vegans and vegetarians insist that it is immoral to eat meat?

Because they are crazy. Anyone who goes through life not only omitting meat from their diet, but insisting that others avoid meat, is just fucking crazy. That's the simple answer and no other particular expansion on the answer is necessary.

>>3857359
Mah Niggah
There need to be restaurants that serve human
I'm dying to try it

In my experience I've found non-vegetarians to be much more disrespectful than vegetarians. And I'm a non-vegetarian.

moral is a social construct so who gives a shit

>>3857382

So I should be allowed to brutally torture your family, right?

>>3857382

partly true.

but there are also universal morals too.
what would be a good argument for eating meat other than it contains nutrients only found in meat?

>>3857368
Go to China

>>3857588
Meat is tastier than vegetables

if you did as much lsd as Paul McCartney, you wouldn't eat anything with a face either

>the question is not, can they reason? but, can they suffer?

Except the ability to reason is related to your ability to perceive pain.
Ants don't have isocortical tissue. They can't experience anything. Ever.

>Throwing rocks at ducks with in the river by the park with my friend
>Woman with hairy armpits, weird tits, man short hair and a whole lot of other things wrong with her comes to us
>"You guys better stop, how would you like it if some stronger being came by and threw rocks at you."
>I say "I probably wouldn't like it much, but that's not happening."
>throw handful of rocks at ducks
>She asks "What gives you the right to treat animals like this?"
>I tell her that the Lord gave man dominion over animals (not a Christfag, but just wanted to see where this would go)
>She says that's a crock of crap. All beings are equal in this universe.
>"No they're not, ducks can't even talk to each other. They're stupid."
>"Ducks can so talk to each other!"
>My friend asks "What about the duck that wanted you?"
>I say "Oh, yeah" and describe how one time I made quacking noises at a girl duck, and it came over and looked like it was checking me out.
>She says ducks don't communicate through quacking.
>"Then how do they communicate?
>"They communicate on a higher level of consciousness using the universe. All beings are connected by the soul"
>Friend and I look at each other
>our faces when
>She says her friend can communicate with all beings and rocks and dead people
>say more crap to her to see what she says, all of what she says being fucking retarded
>finish conversation, throw one last handful of rocks at ducks
>she seems upset
>we get the heck out of there

Animal rights people are weird.

Why is it immoral to eat other people?

I hate the word morality as much as one can hate a word, but I tried out vegetarianism for a very short period of time. Meat is an inefficient source of energy.

Of course it is.

We've been doing it for 10000000s years.

>>3858054
Sauce.

>>3857220

>why do some vegans and vegetarians insist that it is immoral to eat meat?
I'm not currently a vegetarian, i was for awhile, but i've semi decided that eating meat is okay as long as the animal was treated humanely.
However, eating meat is seen as immoral in the same way that eating a human is. It's not intrinsically immoral, it's just ethical consistency, it's certainly not nice to torture or kill other life forms (in most circumstances).

The argument that we evolved by eating meat is fallacious;
-Just because we evolved by doing it in the past does not permit it.
If you NEED to eat meat to survive, then obviously it isn't immoral, however you can be fully nourished without meat.

>>3857277

>The only argument I've heard in favor for vegetarianism....

It is more efficient to be a vegetarian, economically and energy efficiency.
It is elementary biology that the energy is lost up the food chain. If we simply ate only vegetables we can essentially cut out the middle man and be efficient.

>>3858031
Inefficient as a source of energy, but you can't get your nutrients (mostly microelements and essential fatty acids) as efficiently from plants as from meat.
Till we get cheap, high quality proteins, omega-3 fatty acids (no alpha-linoleic "durrhurr your body converts it" bullshit), B12 and saturated fats from plant sources, omnivorous diet is the way to go.
"Padded with carbohydrates, omega-6 fatty acids and/or phytoestrogens" counts as "low quality".

i perceive no objective morality... i abstain from eating meat due to abnormally high empathy. besides, it's needless for physical health.

>>3858031
>I hate the word morality as much as one can hate a word

Why? I hope it is not because you attribute morality to religious or dogmatic ideas.
Ethics is arguably one of if not the most important topics in society.

>>3858073
Supplements cover all that stuff bro.

Also, spirulina. It's what we will have with every meal by the end of the century (kinda, but not really, maybe)

>>3858083
Protein can be supplemented with whey (non-vegan), omega-3 with fish oil (non-vegetarian) and saturated fats with coconut oil (not cheap). If algae are available, one can obtain omega-3 from them, but otherwise plant sources are far worse.

>>3858076
Morality is a word people use to stop thinking. Why is action A bad? Why is action B good? People shut down and say "it's just the right thing to do" and call it morality. There are reasons for every action us humans take. Morality is the word we slap onto the actions we refuse to think any more deeply about.

>>3858076

Ethics is part of philosophy.

>philosophy
>important

pick one. either it's science or serving me my double shot espresso.

>>3858088
>"vegetarians can't get A, B, and C"
>Turns out they can.
>"Vegetarians can get A, B, and C; but they can't get the other stuff"
What other stuff?

Sorry, GTG.

>>3858089
>Morality is the word we slap onto the actions we refuse to think any more deeply about

Yeah, i thought you didn't understand the word.
Yes morality is often used by people who don't think, but these are silly people who fall into fallacious argument from authority (god) to explain their morality.

However, morality is fundamentally about questioning what is right and explaining why. Just because some nuts do it wrong doesn't mean i should be punished.

>>3858090
>pick one. either it's science or serving me my double shot espresso.

:/
Why are there so many children on /sci/ thesedays.
I must resist explaining how science falls under philosophy to troll......so hard

>>3858069
>It is more efficient to be a vegetarian, economically and energy efficiency.

That's basically bullshit.

Farming produces tons and tons of husks, empty kernels, and other crop byproduct that cannot be digested by human stomachs or efficiently burned for energy. Livestock can efficiently find and digest this shit. This also makes great fertilizer, further increasing crop yields.

If we reduced livestock numbers by 60-80%, and continued eating cows, we'd be at optimal energy efficiency.

Why has no one mentioned that meat is delicious? Thats agood enough reason for me to eat it

>>3858113
>human beings die every day because of drug trade
>people still do drugs

You get it, man. You get it.

>>3858108
I didn't say anything about authority. You assumed that is what I was going to talk about and you tried to fit my actual post into that assumption.

All actions boil down to the attainment of goals (other than instinctual stuff) including "moral" issues like whether or not to murder. If one explains why one refuses to murder as the end result of several goals then it isn't a moral code conduct

>>3858111
>That's basically bullshit.

Maybe you don't understand 21st century farming, but the majority of our meat is fed food we can digest. The majority of cows do not feed on grass anymore for example.
But EVEN IF the food we fed animals could not be eaten by us, we can simply use the ariable land for products that do, and still cut out the middleman.

It isn't even hard to understand...

>>3858113
It is an unspoken truth that we all implicitly agreed upon.

>>3858122
We give cows feed because it's currently cheaper than grass+other byproducts. Reduce the overall number of cows, and grass/other byproduct become viable as the sole source of feed for cows.

>>3857243
this

>>3858131
>I didn't say anything about authority.
I know? But you hate the word because of fallacious nutters, i'm simply pointing out that isn't reasonable.

>All actions boil down to the attainment of goals
That's one theory, a consequentialist like theory, but it's certainly not the whole study of ethics (even if i agree with you).
>If one explains why one refuses to murder as the end result of several goals then it isn't a moral code conduct

What...
Maybe you shoud look up what morality is, silly new tripfagg

>>3858132
Land used for cattle feed can be used to grow crops for human consumption.

One simply cannot argue that the ability of humanity to feed itself would not be greatly improved by greatly reducing meat consumption.

All food is a form of life you should all remember. Even plants have feelings. Though, I prefer to eat plants instead... because they do not scream when you kill them.

>>3858155
>Even plants have feelings

May be true, but what about fruit and nuts?
They are evolutionary designed to be eaten.

Vegetarians are dumbfucks.
Fuckin first-nations eat meat and they believe
that fucking rocks have spirits.
Fuck herbavores.

>>3858146

That's another point. We're not discussing eating less meat, but not eating meat at all. That's irrational.

We need cows for dairy. Unfortunately, the sex ratio in cattle is roughly 50%. What do we do with the excess boys? Feed them, care for them, not eat them? Kill them and not eat them? Throw out tractors and use them for labour?

Seems silly. They're begging to be a hamburger.

>>3858132
>growing food on pasture
>sustainable

>>3858140
>Maybe you shoud look up what morality is, silly new tripfagg
I'd love to discuss this topic with you, but it isn't worth my time if you are the type of poster that hides behind condescension and general asshattery. I mean, who posts in forums to discuss stuff, right? It's all about winning threads by scaring off everyone else with many practiced variations of "ur stupid".

Goodnight. Don't let the tardigrades bite.

>>3858163
>>3858163

Maybe you don't know what "arable" means
Laugh at him for spelling it wrong, but laugh at yourself for being stupid.

>>3858146
>Land used for cattle feed can be used to grow crops for human consumption.

You are a fucking retard.
"Growing crops for human consumption" won't magically prevent these crops from producing cellulosic byproducts that cannot be digested by human stomachs. All crop production results in byproduct that cannot be digested by humans.

Cows have four chambered stomachs with special fucking bacteria. They can digest food that we cannot digest. How can you not get this? I hope you're trolling, for christ's sakes.

>>3858168
>but it isn't worth my time

No, it isn't worth my time arguing with you when you get the definition wrong. If you think me calling you "silly" is bad, you need to chill the fuck out.

>Goodnight. Don't let the tardigrades bite.
>tardigrades
Maybe i don't think you are a twat after all.

>>3858160
>We need cows for dairy.
We need cows for dairy, but - thought it pains me to say it - we don't need dairy.

Also, there is no need to feed male cattle. We could just slaughter them when they are cute and scrawny.

Also also, perhaps we could choose the genders of implanted embryos?

>>3858182
Coming from >>3858132

I disagree with you there
I agree that being vegetarian is more efficient, i don't agree that all animal products should be discarded (as that would mean losing some efficiency).

This guy does raise the point >>3858173
The byproducts that we can't eat should be fed to animals to maximise efficiency.

If anyone here knows the philosophy Peter Singer, i think he has some solid views on animal treatment, a utilitarian view.

>>3858173
So give the left overs to cattle for producing meat and dairy products. That doesn't justify using land solely for cattle feed. It's a waste of the sunlight.

>>3858182

>we don't need dairy.
Oh, so you're a vegan fuckhead? There goes your argument for it being economically affordable.

>Also, there is no need to feed male cattle. We could just slaughter them when they are cute and scrawny.
And turn them into Beef McNuggets? Since we're killing them anyway.

>Also also, perhaps we could choose the genders of implanted embryos?
Yeah, let's artificially implant every cow, choosing the gender of the baby. That's cost efficient.

if i was worried about the suffering of the animals in my sandwich, this would imply that i should be concerned about the billions of animals that suffer-to-death in the wild.

i'm not concerned with the latter though. recognizing animals are worthy of moral consideration puts impossible demands on humans.

>need meat.
no
>want meat:
yes

long story short i'll enjoy my meat and i don't give a fuck if the animals suffer it.

>>3858190
>i don't agree that all animal products should be discarded (as that would mean losing some efficiency).
I never said we wouldn't eat the scrawny devils once we slaughter them. By not letting them grow into adulthood we still get a least some meat and we don't waste any farmland.

And like I said, we don't NEED dairy products. Our species would benefit from curbing their consumption.

>>3858197
>long story short i'll enjoy my meat
>tastes even better if the animals suffer

saw a typo, bro

>>3858195
Hey fuckhead, do you know what fucking sucks fucking donkey dick? Your fucking dick slurping posting style, that's fucking what.

Neither of us gain anything from you acting like this thread is a deathmatch. A little advice from me to you for the next thread you decide to post in, a little civility goes a long way.

To all who argue who argue that meat is even remotely efficient compared to plants, don't go there. Vegans will eat you alive on this point (pun intended). Every time.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/end-cheap-oil/
(Non vegan here, btw.)

>>3857220

What does it matter what philosophers think? Morals are just opinions.

>(pun intended)
fuck you and everything you have ever known or cared about

An uneducated opinion:

Meat is a pretty good way of getting some nutrients outside of energy. I don't think anyone disagrees there.

Supplements, along with some basic dietary planning, can make up some or all of those nutrients easily found in certain meats. This does mean popping a pill (or similar equivalent) along with a meal, though, under current technology.

I may be wrong on this bit, but I believe I read somewhere that nutrients from supplements are not absorbed in the same fashion as nutrients from foods; furthermore, they are absorbed less efficiently.

So some nutrients found in certain meats are more efficiently absorbed in their bloody form than sanitary pill form. The way the current market for foods is operating in the US makes getting these meats a fairly easy process, at the very least as easily attainable as the supplements.

To me, I don't see an objective sequence of reasoning for completely abandoning meat in favor of supplements. Which basically leaves it to preference.

I think meat wins (overall) in the preference category.

Also, cheeseburgers.

>>3857287
>2nd law of thermodynamics isn;t real guise

It's a cuddly way of vegans making other vegans feel superior.

>>3857287
I though fungi were the largest biomass?
>inb4tyranids

I believe that eating meat is wrong when I have the ability to choose my food and not sustain myself on the misery of animals.

I believe that it is absolutely immoral to breed animals to only let them live in cages until the moment they are to die for food.

I have this feeling, a fundamental feeling in the pit of my stomache that eating meat is absolutely "wrong".

And sometimes I feel a bit bad, because I will never, ever stop eating meat.

I dont even consider a meal to be legit if there is no meat in it. Give me a veggie meal, thanks. I'll grab something to eat on my way home.

My personal comfort trumps everything, including my own morality and opinions.

I accept that. I am a hypocrite, I know it. But come dinner time, I really dont give a fuck.

I have helped slaughter a calf and felt absolute and instant regret. But a few minutes later I still cut sirloin from its body and ate it raw just to see how it tasted.

Really good is how it tastes. Try this. Cleanest juciest meat you will ever have, not trolling. Except maybe for top sirloin but we were saving that so I didnt touch it.

>>3857220
>why do some vegans and vegetarians insist that it is immoral to eat meat?

What? because they are self righteous retards thats why, i dont know if you realise but humanity has this trend of large ignorant groups of stupids.

We're omnivores not herbivores, that is the fact that makes a diet of meat AND vegetables the most healthy for us, the reason our fucking digestive system is designed to digest both.

its fucking dumb having to take supplements as a regular thing in your diet.

>>3858489

Stop commiting the natural fallacy, just because it is in our nature doesn't make it right!
If a trait such as pedophillia was biological, would you just let him touch your kids because its natural?

>>3858277
>What does it matter what philosophers think? Morals are just opinions.

Yes it is just an opinion that murder is wrong, it is just an opinion that stealing is wrong. It is just your opinion when you feel pain/disgust when some criminal punches you in the face.
In order to productively live in society you need a form of social cohesion. It may just be a fucking opinion, but if it motherfucking works who cares.

Do you honestly believe ethics aren't important?

No matter how many times I see the same cliche'd arguments play out every time a quasi-vegetarian thread appears on /sci/, I still find it cute that a greater percentage of the posters put forth the arguments that meat is essential for a healthy diet.

The cute part is when you realise that the greater majority of the fuckwits posting this soundbite are malnourished desk-jockeys trying to justify the greasy piece of shit hamburger made from the ground remains of sick animals that they huffed down on the drive home from work.

I also find it cute that most of /sci/ seems to shit all over any mention of most practical medical science talk in favor of "pure science" yet is beyond reproach when waxing lyrical about dietary requirements.

You can live healthily enough without what most westerners would consider "meat". You can certainly live on far less than you probably consume and doing so would not only be healthier, but also be far more efficient in terms of production and distribution.

Make sure you pop your head into the next thread about thorium being more efficient than fossil fuels for wide-scale energy production you hypocritical cunts.

>>3858506

>Yes it is just an opinion that murder is wrong,

Yes.

>it is just an opinion that stealing is wrong.

Yes.

>It is just your opinion when you feel pain/disgust when some criminal punches you in the face.

No, that's an emotion.

>Do you honestly believe ethics aren't important?

No, and I can see where I've said that. I'm not saying we should not use morals, I'm saying we should not have them ruled by philosophers.

Because
http://www.earthlings.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KRD8e20fBo
I can think.
I also dont have time to look for more videos. They are there, though.

>>3858574
>No, that's an emotion.
I don't see the difference between that and an opinion, especially coming from a David Hume moral sense perspective.
Your personal taste for pleasure/pain/desires seem like opinions to me.

>I'm not saying we should not use morals, I'm saying we should not have them ruled by philosophers.

What is this primitive hate with philosophers?
Philosophy is "the love of wisdom" as oposed to the scientific "love of knowledge". Philosophy by definition is applying knowledge, so if applying knowledge to morality isn't the job for philosophy.....well i don't know what is.

Are lions immoral because they eat meat?

I hate meat for 2 reasons.

First is environmental. Meat production, especially of large livestock and fish, at the present scale is so harmful to the environment it's gobsmacking. Either you'll believe me or you won't, so I won't bother elaborating. In my highly unscientific opinion I think it's easily up there with mining, but unlike mining isn't necessary for society as we know it to function. I despise so-called "environmentalists" who think it's okay to eat meat, which is most of them, in my experience.

Second is personal. I find it disgusting, and I can't give a proper reason why. To me it's no different to asking why I don't eat raw sewage - I couldn't give a proper explaination, I just fucking wouldn't do it because it's repulsive.

When I first stopped eating meat at about 13 years old it was for moral reasons. These days I don't give a shit, I hate farm animals.

as far as I know the first thing humans ate carnivorously after insects was eggs and fish

interestingly enough, a diet of fruits, veggies, eggs and fish is probably the most healthy diet possible and fish/egg production is also extremely efficient in acreage/energy use

if nobody can contradict me please tell me how fucking genius I am

>We don't eat animals
>We just let them run around wildly
>Population of herbivores increases
>Predators eat them, breed more
>More rabid, wild, untamed animals rush the landscape, hunting everything that dares come

>>3858173
You realize that not having fiber will fuck you up right? Stop harping about non-digestible plant matter that our body needs to function.

Efficiency in this case isn't referring to the ability to digest but the amount of energy needed to produce a food sourced compared with how much needs to be consumed.

Vegetarian diets:
- do less damage to the environment (animals are inherently wasteful of resources)
- are typically healthier
- do less harm to sentient organisms capable of suffering


Once you have come to understand these facts, it doesn't seem like such a stretch of the imagination that vegetarian diets are more moral. The common arguments against this position barely qualify as laughable.

- Durr, wild animals eat meat, therefore it's okay. (Making rape, cannibalism, etc. okay too)
- Durr, we're SUPPOSED to eat meat (According to your fake god, maybe)
- Durr, it's healthier to eat meat (That must be why vegetarians typically live longer and score higher on IQ tests)
- Durr, it's okay to eat meat because animals are inferior (That's your dumbass opinion, and you're welcome to it)
- Durr, I eat meat 'cause I'm HARDCORE and don't care what's moral, yeah baby, I'm badass as hell! Fake-nihilism rules!! (...K)

>implying meat/fish is unhealthy

citation where

There's always the "if you were dropped in the savannah, the animals wouldn't care about you"-argument, and I like that one.

The only thing I do have an issue with is the unbelievable torture some of these animals go through just to become food for us. It's sickening.

But all in all, I eat meat and I don't feel bad about it.

>>3858787
>placing the "environment" over the happiness and health of humans


That may be moral (you indoctrinated captain planet faggot), but it's not rational for humans anyway.

>>3858787
Morality is a social construct and differs from person to person. Just because you think it's not moral to eat meat doesn't make it so.

> (That must be why vegetarians typically live longer and score higher on IQ tests)

good one anon

>>3857220

Morals are subjective.

Yes, it's morally OK, because:
A) My body is evolved to eat meat.
B) My brain is evolved to not treat potential meals it would if they were human.
C) Giving a livestock animal a good life by keeping it on a farm for a long time until it's time to butcher the animal gives the animal an overall better quality of life than if they were wild animals.
D) The animals don't give a flying fuck until they feel pain.

>>3858799
The OP was asking what was moral, not rational, homo. And why is it not rational? Please elaborate.

>>3858803
It only took you two sentences to contradict yourself, nice. Seriously, think on that one some.

>>3858809
Enjoy it, because I won't google for you a second time:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/benefits-of-vegetarianism_n_112431.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm

>>3858830

Do you have any scientific links? The ones I've seen say there is no link between meat and heart disease (excluding processed meats with nitrates and stuff)

also
>implying correlation implies causation

>>3858830
LOL
>HE THINKS THAT CORRELATION IMPLIES CAUSATION. I FUCKING LOL'D.

>>3858845
>LOL, HE THINKS IT DOESN'T

>>3858799
Different anon

A clean and healthy environment is of direct to benefit to humans, so your black and white worldview makes less sense than his.

If you disagree then I encourage you to go role around in industrial waste.

>>3858859
>sage
>running away holding back tears from the utter buttdevastation that just took place

Argument:
> animals are not a lesser species than humans
> it's not okay to eat them

Okay, let's roll with that for a moment.
> hawk = cow = rat = human

That's right. Okay cool. We're all equal.

So why is it okay for the hawk to eat the rat but not the human to eat the cow?

> huffpost

>>3858812
>C) Giving a livestock animal a good life by keeping it on a farm for a long time until it's time to butcher the animal gives the animal an overall better quality of life than if they were wild animals.

This isn't even true, none of it and I'm not even siding with the vegans.

DOMINANT SPECIES MIXING INFERIOR SPECIES IN A POT ... TO EAT !

>>3858860
Please explain what problems livestock causes in particular.

It seems that vegans actually think anyone gives a shit about how many fish are in the rivers or whether we use fertilizer or whatever they complain about.

>>3858863
>>3858863
>>3858863

>>3858861
Come back after you've taken a statistics course, underage ban. Oh wait, correlation doesn't imply causation, so all of statistics is a pointless exercise. Why did all of these people get sick after they ate this tainted food? WE CAN NEVER KNOW, BECAUSE CORRELATIONS ARE IRRELEVANT

>>3858863
What does the behavior of animals have to do with the behavior of people? Why should we hold animal-behavior up as the goal for our morality? My dog eats shit, I don't intend to mimic him.

Animals are dumb as fuck and getting dumber due to living in pens doing nothing all day. They are biological machines artificially selected to make delicious food for us.

>>3858883
>you


> the point

>>3858883
Well are we greater, equal to, or less than animals?

>>3858872
>I don't have an argument, but I'm sure mad!

why isn't it moral to kill children or eat meat? because of the same reason. You wouldn't want to unnecessarily hurt/kill other beings if you truly were a conscient being.

>>3858892
In terms of what? The word you just used are subjective and relative, and also besides the point...

If we're "greater" than animals, why are we trying to mimic them, shouldn't we rise above them?

>>3858883
You obviously aren't very good at statistics.... You're supposed at least TRY to control for other variables. Shitty vegan cult articles like that would not pass in a (hard science) journal.

It's fucking obvious that vegan cultists feel it is their duty to dissuade others from eating meat by spreading whatever health nonsense they can. Therefore every faggot yuppie in America is going to think meat is unhealthy and therefore skew the statistics by eating less meat while being richer and eating more vegetables than poor people. The same thing goes on with every health craze.

>>3858901
You've done everything you can to NOT answer >>3858863

>>3858877
http://www.epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html

tldr highly concentrated animal waste polluting rivers and drinking water sources mainly

>It seems that vegans actually think anyone gives a shit

I for one am glad that you can't 'not give a shit' your way out of poor health.

>>3858874
>implying a cow on a farm doesn't have a better chance at life than a cow in the middle of no where.

>>3858911
>drinking water from the ground
>2011

>>3858905
Holy shit, man, I answered it twice. It's IRRELEVANT, and doesn't even make sense. You just didn't want to hear the answer...

>>3858922
So... we shouldn't eat the cow because your dog eats shit.

Shit is inanimate and morals don't come into it.

The rat is living and would never consent to being eaten.

>>3858911

>implying the fertilizers and pesticides used for mass production of fruits and vegetables don't have a very similar impact on water quality

>>3858928
>Implying that they are at all harmful to mammals by that time.

>>3858920
>>3858928


In conclusion, being the rational ubermensch that I am, I will continue eating meat because I enjoy it, it has lots of protein for dem muscles, and it poses no health problems to me.

>>3858919
>How long can cows life
>about 20 years
>What age do they get slaughtered at
>about 2 years
>claim farm cows live longer

You were clearly thinking of dairy cows.

>>3858935
Who the fuck wants cows running around wild? That would ruin the environment.

>>3858920
>implying tap water doesn't come from reservoirs

Let's also ignore that it's potentially a massive breeding ground for a human communicable disease.

One of my friends grew up from the age 10 as a vegan. He told me that he tried steak once and got very sick afterwards.

I don't really know maybe you geniuses could shed some light on this.

>>3858931

>Implying they don't cause shit like algal blooms and other plant blooms that kill off most other shit living in the water and clog up water treatment plants

Fertilizers do bad shit in the environment bro. And if you live in a place where you drink surface water, you know when there is an algal bloom at your reservoir. It is either over chlorinated to fuck all or tastes absolutely awful.

Im not arguing either side of the thread, I am just pointing out that all types of farming (livestock vs plants) produce lots of nasty shit in the water.

>>3858941
>the environment will ruin the environment

Please stop, I'm not sure I can take the stupid.

>>3858950
Are you serious? Have you never heard of the damage introduced species cause on the environment? Heard of quarantine before?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're trolling and not clinically retarded.

>>3858950
>implying cows are part of the environment, when they are obviously domesticated animals like cats and dogs.

>>3858944
Adaptive behavior?

Supposedly people who eat extremely spicy food get acclimated to it and stop feeling the burn. Similar case hear probably, though in reverse.

>>3858944
try thinking for five seconds...

You feel like shit digesting something you haven't eaten before. When I eat healthier, fast food will make me shit all over the place and vice versa.

>>3858944
His gut wasn't ready for it. Happens to everyone.

>>3858961
>>3858962
But if you haven't eaten any vegetables you don't get the same effect?

>>3858944

If you suddenly eat something radically different from what you normally eat, it will make you sick. Probably also something about the bacteria in your gut that work to process it.

I know several vegetarians who have tried meat but can't really eat it because it upsets the fuck out of their stomach. I also know a former vegetarian who said that the first time he ate meat after like 5 years of a vegetarian diet, he thew up alot. But he kept eating it, and he now eats a fairly average amount of meat for an american without getting sick.

>>3858958
>Wild animals aren't part of the environment
>implying there are not wild dogs

>>3858972
See >>3858955

Stop being deliberately stupid.

>>3858972
>implying dogs isn't dog domesticus


hey dudes what if we bred women as livestock like in my Japanese adult videos?

>>3858975
>attempt to move the goal posts
>get mad when I ignore you

I enjoy eating meat.
I am aware that my enjoyment comes at the expense of another being's discomfort and eventual demise. I am also aware that said being was born to fulfill my desire.
I accept these facts, acknowledge the life that had been sacrificed for my pleasure, and enjoy my meal.

The only morality is the one that flows from the barrel of a smoking gun. Might makes right.

If another being would try to consume me (even in non-literal sense), I would fight it to the best of my ability. Triumphant or not, I shan't harbor malice for a being that exercised it's right (I.E. 'might').

>>3859013
>If another being would try to consume me (even in non-literal sense), I would fight it to the best of my ability.

So you don't have a job?

>>3858899
YOU might not, but you're a gigantic faggot. This sounds a lot like the people who heard bin Laden died, saw everybody was happy about it, and then posted statuses on facebook such as "seriously? celebrating a death?"

This isn't to say animals are at all radical Islamist terrorist leaders, but I think everybody who thinks that way should be dead. It makes me pretty mad. People always seem to want to find a way to out-fag each other whilst claiming superiority for it.

>>3859028
Nope, still a university student.
Also, you're a Marxist.

>>3859042
Marxism doesn't make you bad, dude. It just makes you a homo.

i wouldn't say that eating animals is immoral
but i think it shows a dark side of humanity how we treat the animals we eat, chicken/pig/cow factories are pretty terrible places imo

i think a society would be better if it were nonviolent in every way

so to my point i feel that once we have technologies to grow tasty meat in the lab at competitive prices to livestock, we should stop killing animals for food.

painfree woolly mammoth burgers anyone? the russians are working on it

If animals don't want to be eaten, they can get off of their lazy asses and evolve like we did.

it isn't. it's the same bullshit liberals pull out of their asses to justify taxes, or conservatives use to justify war.