/sci/ - Science & Math

human nature
>nothing ethical about it

Because it tastes good.

Also nature does fucked up shit urrday.

normal, becasue almost everyone does it
ethical, what is ethical? its an arbitrary definition, so its ethical becasue we define it to be ethical.

>>4823894
> implying objective morality exists.

>>4823907
This
OP is a fag

/sci/, why do we eat meat and pretend that animal research isn't normal and ethical?

I used to kill a lot of rodents for my research. I felt a little bad about it at first, but honestly, I've killed way more chickens for lunch than I've killed rodents for research, and research is way more noble than lunch. Or least, my lunch. I tend to have rather shitty lunches, not noble at all.

>>4823894
You can't escape your biology, just like every other biological entity.

Now the way that those living things we consume for nourishment spend their days is an ethical question and one we are doing a pretty bad job at (industrial farms).

>>4823917
>Now the way that those living things we consume for nourishment spend their days is an ethical question and one we are doing a pretty bad job at (industrial farms).

Agreed. Every animal dies. Typically they die horribly at the hands of disease or in the jaws of a predator. The fact that we kill and eat them is pretty consistent with the standards of all animal life. But the fact that we stick them in tiny cells and cut off their beaks and so on is pretty macabre.

>hurrr what is a loaded question for shitty troll op

>>4823894
Every fucking day this bugs me.
The only two answers I can come up with is either most humans just don't care about animals or they justify it by saying "It's like nature".

Well you know what? nature fucking sucks and I refuse to subscribe to such a primitive method as survival of the fittest when I have the rationality to choose another option.

Not trolling and not OP.

>>4823894

Because morality is relative, and what is considered "moral" is what everyone else considers moral. Humans are easily persuadable. Well, not always to believe what you want them to. What I mean is humans will believe almost anything given the right circumstances. Slavery was considered ethical 200 years ago, racism 100 years ago, waterboarding (by many) today, eating meat today, the list is endless.

I'm not saying eating meat is bad. I'm just saying don't be surprised when the whole world disagrees with you, and you think your view is "obvious."

>>4823907

pretty much this.

>>4823894
OP, first of all, look at history. Cows have been used as a food source forever. They contribute nothing to society except food. They were bred for this purpose. Unless your in the field of science, Paulus Potter or eating them, what purpose do they have?
>I'm 13. Debate me.

>>4823924
yep

The human make up is designed to digest meat and not so much fruits and vegetables.

Our digestive system is fitted to the extraction and utilization of nutrients from meat. Meat is the desired food for humans brings because meat has the vital ingredients and molecules to keep us living and thriving in our environment.

Remember, we are animals. Animals eat animals. It's nature, ethics holds no contribution to this process.

>>4823894
It is normal. You just don't know the meaning of the word. Ethical on the other hand is subjective. You come off as as Dick so the point OS moot anyways.

>>4823894

Because meat is fucking delicious....

And it's good for you....

and because I don't want to be another little skrawny pussy faggot....

How ethical is a pig eating a baby?

The fact that you even think about this shows how degenerate evolutionarily speaking humanity is. You have sensibilities which are abnormal in the natural realm.

>>4823917
This is not true. People have been living perfectly healthy lives with vegetarian diets for hundreds of years. For the majority of history, meat was a rare and luxurious commodity.

>>4824081
Cows were used for farm work, for transportation, for symbols of wealth and currency, and for food that does not have to do with slaughter.

The fact is while ethics are not a part of animal nature, they are a part of a subset of animal nature called human nature. We have the ability to empathize with other creatures, and the line drawn as to where that empathy should stop is changeable. We have a choice of whether to eat meat or not and I see little argument against saying to not is more ethical than to do so, because it takes into account a greater number of sentient beings and avoidance of their suffering.

>>4824142
>People have been living perfectly healthy lives with vegetarian diets for hundreds of years. For the majority of history, meat was a rare and luxurious commodity.
[Citation needed.]

> We have the ability to empathize with other creatures, and the line drawn as to where that empathy should stop is changeable.
No. Human empathy is for similar beings, and not even then unconditional. Human empathy for pigs is misplaced feeling, just like looking at a squirrel in the park and saying "Oooh, what a cute little squirrel" when the squirrel is only looking at you to see if there's any food opportunity.

The truth is no other animal understands what we do and feel and they dont empathise with their prey. You're asking to have empathy for animals that don't care about each others' "sufference". You don't understand that subjective sufference is much different than animal sufference.

Because meat tastes good. If something positively affects someone, what reason do they have to justify it as "ethical" besides the fact that it gives pleasure to them. Obviously, the more people that disagree with someone's justifications, the more likely it is going to be interpreted as not normal. Normal is completely relative. Many people enjoy the taste of meat, therefore it is normal, and few people question it. Those that do *cough PETA cough* will be viewed as insane, and be ignored. So we eat meat because we like it.

>>4824142
Key word:was

Well you see its in our nature to eat meat we have been doing it for millions of years so its just human do it so what is that so many are being killed yes its upsetting but if we dont we will die simple logic.

Most humans agree that killing other humans is morally wrong.

There is however, a nonmoral conflict in this matter: Most people do not consider animals to be humans.

This means that unless they have some other principle which forces them to believe it is wrong to kill animals, they believe it is morally optional or obligatory.

I believe they are right, I consider it to be optional.

>>4824164
That's the really dumb.
You could replace the word meat with heroin and your argument would be the same.

>>4824336
No we wouldn't die if we stopped eating meat.
You're dumb as well.

>>4824081
That's implying something only has value if it's given to it by humans.
Obviously some people would say that's true but as people as dumb as yourself exist I'd be inclined to disagree with that notion.
It just seems selfish anyway.
You're also dumb.

Why are there so many people on /sci/ who don't back up there arguments with logic? ;_;

>>4823894

It's perfectly ethical to raise an animal humanely and humanely slaughter it, it doesn't know it's going to die, there's no cruelty in that

A different question is whether animal treatment standard

If we can't eat animal these animals they're of no use, and would all be got rid of for the benefit of the planet

Because it is.

>>4824623

>A different question is whether animal treatment standard

are currently acceptable

>>4824622
> Says syntactical concerns owned me.

No really it is not stupid. It explains why animals being "human" does not have to mean it is immoral to kill them and eat them. It also happens to explain why heroin being "human" does not have mean it is wrong to "kill" or eat. In fact it also explains why humans being "animal" doesn't mean it is always wrong to "fountain pen" or "J. Random Other Word" humans.

>>4824142
>This is not true. People have been living perfectly healthy lives with vegetarian diets for hundreds of years. For the majority of history, meat was a rare and luxurious commodity.

ummmm, nope. vegetarianism has never been practiced voluntarily by any sustained society, at any time in history. it is nothing more than an ancient dietary fad... Previous to the research of amino acids in the 1940's and 1950's, being a vegetarian was a total crapshoot for your health--as there was no way to know what you were lacking.

eating carnivore goes back much further. the Inuits did it for ~1000 years, and the Dorsetts before them another ~4000 years-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-carbohydrate_diet

if eating a meat-only diet was bad for you, there wouldn't be any Eskimos around today

-------

vegetarian diets are not about 'being healthier'.
vegetarian diets are almost entirely about 'not killing animals, at the expense of your own health'.

>>4824142

People need meat(fats and proteins that are easily available to the human body) which are extremely important during early development(children -young adults). There really isn't any debate about this.

And for the person who said the human diet is mostly meat(we eat too much meat) and not fruit and vegetables is wrong. It is true that we can't break down cellulose but the phytonutrients that are only provided by plants is essential for a healthy body.

The OP needs to recognize that death is a part of the cycle of life and that quality of life(for both man and animal) are the real things to fight.

Meat doesnt taste good, whens the last time you ate raw flesh?

you have to burn it, then disguise it with various sauces. meat in its natural form would make nearly everybody throw up.

>>4824887
Steak tar tar is a common dish in western europe which is raw meat with nothing added.

You can't claim that it's not natural to eat meat because of how it tastes anyway. Majority of the population consumes some form of meat. I don't think you can pretend we've been doing it all this time out of peer pressure.

>>4824887

I ate some salmon yesterday and it was pretty damn good raw. Fat tastes good.

And the quality of "mass" produced meat is terrible (all corn raised).

>>4824651
>if eating a meat-only diet was bad for you, there wouldn't be any Eskimos around today
You know people can eat a diet that is "bad for you" and still survive, right?

If only 80% of the population can survive on it for more than a year and most who don't die of other causes have crippling arthritis starting at 30 and die of heart disease between 50 and 60, that's still enough to sustain a population.

I'm not saying that a meat-only diet really is that bad, I'm just saying that you're using bad reasoning.

Anyway, maybe three quarters of the Eskimos died in the first generation that tried to go all-meat, and the Eskimos we have today are descended from only people who handle it unusually well. Natural selection can happen fast with things like that.

>>4824887
>you have to burn it, then disguise it with various sauces. meat in its natural form would make nearly everybody throw up.
Uh... haven't you ever seen anyone eat a blue rare steak without sauce? Raw meat is delicious. The only problem is that it has to be very high quality to be both safe and sufficiently tender.

We use tools, we wear clothes, we cook food. Our bodies evolved along with these habits, and there's nothing unnatural about them for us.

>>4823894

Because humans are omnivores and our bodies are designed to eat, and require meat to survive. And the only reason vegetarianism exists in humans is because of recent scientific breakthroughs in vitamins and food production that allow faggots like yourself to not die of malnutrition. That and certain animals have evolved to actually be food. And if we no longer ate meat, certain animals like Cows and Pigs, which only evolved this way via selective breeding, would go extinct because they are no longer genetically designed to fend for themselves.

>>4824904

Raw meat is only bad because of the bacteria, and viruses that grow in the meat after it's been butchered. Not the meat itself.

If you could cut off a slice of steak, and theoretically keep it free of any bacterial or viral growth for a day, absolutely none. It would be safe to eat raw.

Which is why we have things like pickling, freezing, cooking, salting, etc. meat to preserve it. Not because of anything about the meat itself, but what grows on the meat when this isn't done.

>>4824975
Yes, in fact. Traditionally meat has been spiced, salted, cooked, and (as of late) refrigerated in order to keep it relatively free of bacteria.

This has just made a culture around methodology for preserving food and preparing it, aka cooking. However this doesn't mean raw meat is bad for you. Only recently have we had the know-how to realize how to handle raw meat in such a way that we can eat it with virtually no risk involved.

>>4824142

And for the majority of history, society sucked.

In order to become extremely strong, a lot of protein is required. Best natural source is animals.

If you're against the cruelty of animals, join a movement. Get your friends to vote against bills that would allow the cruelty of animals. Join a protest even.

However becoming vegetarian is not going to change anything. It's like voting. Don't vote.. see if that makes a difference. Everyday approximately 358,000 people are born. Ask yourself if when they grow up they're going to care about whether or not you ate vegetables.

I'm all about going against cruelty of animals, but I'm not about to pretend that eating vegetables is going to change any of that.

>>4824975
You forget about parasites.

>>4825026

And aliens. And mold.. There needs to be a general term for nasty shit don't want to eat.

>>4824142
> People have been living perfectly healthy lives with vegetarian diets for hundreds of years.
We do not know of any human tribe in the history of humankind that did not feast on the flesh of dead creatures as at least a part of their diet.

One theory is that our brains grew in size and our digestive tract shrank once we figured out that putting flame to food made it easier to chew and by cooking the food, made it easier to digest, allowing the absorption or more nutrients.
the human body was designed to eat meat. Plant based food, while nutritious, lacks some vitamins. I believe B12 deficiency is common in some vegans.

Anybody who believes humans should not eat meat might as well also believe lions for example, or any other carnivore should not eat meat. That's just plain wrong from both an ethical and biological standpoint. What right does anyone have to dictate what any other organism should consume (even of your own species)? Meat is the best way to get energy and protein provided you're developed for it.

If you believe we should not eat meat you're saying the human is too good to eat it? Somehow different than any other animal? That argument is just as good as the religious view against evolution. "I can't have evolved from a monkey, I'm too good for that."

plants also contain a lot of cellulose which our bodies cannot digest. (hence corn in the poop).

>>4825035

Vegans and Vegetarians must take vitamins in order to handle some deficiencies in their diets. Vitamins are recognized by FDA as a drug (in the same sense that dopamine is a drug) and are patented and sold for hellaciously more then it costs to make.

It's an incredibly unhealthy diet, championed by incredibly unhealthy people who use it as a moral crutch and away to exercise a moral authority in their lives they otherwise lack.

I never quite understood why they carry around such nutty conspiracies and theories and yet refuse to do things that might actually do good for society.

>>4823894
>pretend it's normal and ethical

because it is and it's fucking delicious

There is one thing i ALMOST agree with vegans on.
the drinking of milk.
Given that if I (or most anyone for that matter) consumes too much of a milk product, I shit fire the next day. I have figured out that my tolerance is 1/4 gal of milk every 24-36 hours. Mozzarella cheese however is the worst. 1 cup of it and I assplode 10 hours later.
But it can be argued that too much of anything is bad.

Because the more something suffers, the better it make you feel

see also: rape, war, genocide, trolling, cults, and politics

>>4825055
and i guess next you are going to argue that the bleeding of pigs is inhumane?

>>4825055

Don't forget, Colonel Sanders personally fucks each chicken before he throws it in the woodchipper.

>hippies and vegetarian
GTFO
>>>/pol/
>>>/lit/
>>>/x/
>>>/hm/
>>>/y/
>>>/b/
>>>/adv/
>>>/fit/
>>>/r9k/
are that way

>>4825054
Fucking shitskin. If you can't process a half gallon a day you're not white.

>>4825033
are you 12?
even "hundreds of years" is too few, vegetarian exists since or before we know how to farm
because it happens when you don't have meat at all,
later on, as human begin to social, you can see that meat is almost always much more expensive than plants in general.

>>4823980
and proceed to not survive

>>4823894
it IS normal.
and its tasty, so w/e

>>4824102
someone people actually believe his.
humans gastric acid isnt made for eating meat,
just look at your hands, they are made to pick up and eat fruits,vegetables.

Because meat is delicious.

>>4825093
and also pick up a spear, and fuck animals up with it

>>4825038
>>4825095
Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

>>4825093

The human hand evolved to hold and use tools. Our teeth evolved not only to grip and cut meat (incisors and canines) but to also grind nuts and vegetables (molars), we're omnivores fag. Next you're going to fucking say the banana was engineered to fit into the hand too.

>>4825093
they also let me hold weapons that i made with my gigantic brain which i need so that i can get the meat i need

Since we're debating morality and shit here, and we've attracted a bunch of anons interested in this kind of think, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask what /sci/ thinks of eugenics. Tons of people are against it, for seemingly no good reason, when if we implemented non-destructive eugenics (even just selecting it so children only get their best genes of their parents) it would make the world so much better.

>>4825101
yeh, im in favour

>>4825099
The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this; all omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animal's flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw bloody meat disgust us as humans. This is why we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of the flesh.

If a deer is burned in a forest fire a carnivorous animal will NOT eat its flesh. Even circus lions have to be feed raw meat so that they will not starve to death. If humans were truly meant to eat meat then we would eat all of our meat raw and bloody. The thought of eating such meat makes one’s stomach turn. This is my point on how we as humans are conditioned to believe that animal flesh is good for us and that we were meant to consume it for survival and health purposes. If we are true carnivores or omnivores we would eat animal flesh raw and bloody. Cooking our meat and seasoning it with salt, ketchup, mayo, mustard or tabasco sauce disguise the awful taste of flesh. This is the only way we as humans would eat meat because we refuse to eat it raw and bloody like real carnivores.

really? our teeth are good at tearing up raw meat?
thats news.

>>4825101

I tried my best to understand the Star Trek logic of eugenic wars, but it doesn't make sense.

Besides, in a unknowable future time we will probably be bioorganic beings, or have complete machine bodies. the fact of eating and chewing shit will become immaterial. And all the fags who died sucking juice from soybeans would seem laughable in the grand scheme of things.

all meatfags shut up about my posts? how do you explain the difference in the gastric acid of a carnivore and a human? you guys only focus on the "look at your hands" argument cause you can't disprove the other one.

/sci/, why did we invent ethics and make faggy OPs whine about eating meat?

>>4825112
we didnt 'invent' ethics. morality just comes naturally to all complex and intelligent species'

Eating meat is part of what makes us human. Eating meat is what allowed us to develop our larger brains and strong endurance. If we never started eating meat, we would still be in africa as meat for other predators

>>4825104

>all omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw.

This is because they eat the meat fresh and their digestive system is designed to deal with any parasites or bacteria. Whereas once humans learned to cook food, thousands of years ago, our bodies devolved the need for such precautions as we were not longer eating raw meat.

Good luck expect vegetarians to know shit about science or evolution.

>>4825109
your post was utter bullshit, provide citations or GTFO

>>4825114
are you fucking stupid? even if we eat cooked meat our system isnt made for digesting meat, its not like cooking it will make it easier for our weak ass gastric acid to digest it

>>4825120
cause your posts are full of citation now?
our gastric acid IS weaker then lions, check it if you dont believe it
>Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

>>4825123
>our system isnt made for digesting meat
twat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Digestion#Protein_digestion

>>4825126
>our gastric acid IS weaker then lions
>then
twat

>>4825123

What? are you dumb? your body is better adept at digesting meat then it is plant matter. Some of which is made of tightly packed cellulose fibers. Some animals like fucking cows, need several stomachs and they constantly chew and regurgitate the plant matter they do it to break it down properly. Other animals swallow stones to grind up plant matter in the stomach.

Cooking meat however, breaks down the connective tissues of the meat itself, making it easier to chew, and digest. As the meat more easily breaks apart, creating more surface area for the acid it break it down even further. The human body is more designed to eat meat than plants, faggot.

>>4825128
protein is not the same as meat dumbfuck.
meat isnt a good source of protein,
nuts have way more.

because it is certainly normal

ethics are a matter of debate

>>4825098
Our front teeth are fucking sharp, a cat is a carnivore dem front teeth tiny yo. Also, if we shouldn't eat meat, why does it trigger such an immense good feel when we taste meat?
We can't digest the cell walls of plant cells, and we don't have the bacterial flora in our gastro intestinal tract to digest those either.
We have learned to COOK (are you fucking dense you stupid nigger) in order to digest meat in a more efficient way. There is increasing evidence that cooking contributed immensely to our evoluion.
We used to pick our fruits and vegetables, occasionaly ate meat, then we started cooking a shitton. Invented farming and shit like that so we could thrive even better as an organized organism. The whole debate about "why are we eating meat, we're herbivored durrr" is completely moot because we're fucking humans, we can eat whatever the fuck we want, AND we can clearly digest it.

>>4825123
Just because we have to cook our meat(we dont) doesnt mean we weren't meant to eat it. Its just easier on our bodies if we do cook it. And since we're easily capable of cooking our food, we adapted that way

>>4825098
I think that whether humans were evolved to eat meat (spoilers: they were, though not in the amounts they do) is secondary in this argument to whether it's morally right to kill another animal for our own sustenance.

I say yes. And I'm totally comfortable with that; chickens and cows are fucking dumb and have hardly any personalities. Chickens especially, I grew up with them, and almost all their activities seem to come straight from the brain stem.

Pigs are as smart as a really smart dog, and they can have really awesome personalities. I avoid pork, but I'm still only slightly less comfortable with eating it. Life is a hideous mess. Me not eating it won't stop anyone else, so the slaughter of pigs will continue. The only thing I can do is reduce demand by a tiny measure, which may, if I had binged on hot dogs, stop one pig from being born into a factory farm over like five years.

>>4825135
hahah, rite...

>>4825132
"The human body is more designed to eat meat than plants"
but we need to cook it?
do you cook apples and oranges before eating them?
but i'm sure we are designed to eat something we can't properly digest raw

>>4825104
Ever heard of sushi, faggot?
Also, I've had raw ground beef and it tasted fine. Maybe you're just a weeping pussy.

>>4825123

Again, cooking breaks down the connective tissue in meat.

You ever heard the fucking term "It cooked so well it comes right off the bone"? Why meat breaks apart when well cooked? why Fish falls apart completely when it's cooked? Why meat, muscle is strong as fuck raw?

straight carnivores, which we arn't we're herbivores, need potent acids because they are eating the meat raw, and they cannot chew or grind it like omnivores can.

>>4825142

Because once we started cooking it, it made it easier to eat, removing the biological need to eat it raw, causing evolution to remove the biological function to eat raw meat because it can be cooked.

I have to ask, are vegans really this dumb? I'm serious.

>>4825116
Morality and ethics are definitely a byproduct of any social organism. One can cleatly see lions have their own ethical/moral code for example.
What I'm saying, though, is the complete overrationalisation of these 'codes' because I think a society will keep itself in check and will rule out possible threats if they present themselves to that society. Morals and ethics have brought a completely skewed view of how we want to conduct ourselves as an organized system.
Morality and ethics are a seriously crippling every way of having an efficient society. And our dreams of having a technocracy for example are still far away.

>>4825151
ah, that faggot is a vegan?
heheh, or so he thinks
<<<

>>4825155

>imitation eggs
>made from cow blood

I fucking lost it

>>4825098
We can't eat the things that obligate herbivores are able to. Grass and leaves are not nutritionally dense, and require very specialized digestive systems to process. Herbivores must eat almost constantly throughout the day. Horses, for example, feel the need to eat constantly throughout the day, even when their nutritional needs are met by dense foods such as oats. Humans only feel the need to eat occasionally over the course of a day, while obligate predators may be OK only eating once or less.

The animals that can subsist on the same kind of plant food as us (grains, fruit, starchy plant parts) are mostly omnivores (bears, rats, raccoons).

why is anybody even replying to this stupid piece of shit post??

>>4825098

>Meat-eaters: have claws
>Herbivores: no claws
>Humans: no claws

oh? ALL meat eaters have claws, do they?
so, snakes, sharks, shit like that, not meat eaters, rite?
and FYI, humans kinda do have claws, moron! fingernails!

>stopped reading there
fucking faggot, making shit up and not citing sources.
the rest is bullshit as well, by the way.

It's perfectly normal. We have incisors for fucks sake.
Ethics are a bullshit human construct that humanities majors go on about to try and pretend they're contributing something to the world.

>>4825180
Snakes and sharks don't have arms or legs, they literally can't have claws. Shut your face EK. That being said, humans are omnivores, so it's whatever. Vegans are faggots.

>>4825187
>Snakes and sharks don't have arms or legs, they literally can't have claws.
sarcasm] oh wow, how fucking observant of you [/sarcasm]
<<<
you stupid cunt!!

thats completely irrelevant, that stupid bastards post up there is still bullshit!

>>4825187
So clearly meat eaters do not necessarily have claws you fucking retard.

>>4825192

Whales are carnivores as well, and some of them don't even have teeth.

Octopi as well, have like a beak thing.

Sea Anemone don't have much of anything beyond grabby things and a crude stomach.

>>4825191
>say something retarded and get called on it
>LOL I TROL U!

You are the cancer of this board.

>>4825204
wtf are you on about, you fucking raving imbecile!??
i wasnt fucking trolling.

>>4825207
Sorry, I guess you really are just that stupid.

>>4825215
[sarcasm] uhuh, i'm so i'm the stupid one for proving that this tard: >>4825098
is posting bullshit [/sarcasm]

go fuck yourself

>>4825224
Yeah, his post is flawed in the fact that he ignores omnivores. That guy has only one bad post to his name, I bet you wish you could say the same.

>>4825245
no, his post is flawed in several ways, mainly due to the fact that hes posting INCORRECT BULLSHIT THAT ISNT CITED BECAUSE IT CANT BE!!

>That guy has only one bad post to his name
>anon
how the fuck do you know?? stupid cunt!!

>I bet you wish you could say the same.
oh fuck off, wtf have you ever done?

I don't know who's trolling who

>>4825247

As if this thread wasn't already shit, along comes someone posing as EK. Time to warm up the ol' report button...

>>4825259
im not 'posing' you stupid fucking cunt!
you too fucking blind to spot the real tripcode?
asshat

>>4825263
He probably assumed anybody who shitposts as much as you wouldn't ACTUALLY take name to it.

>>4825263

The trip that is now public and trolls use constantly? Posting the same shitty reaction images lends a little credence though... You're a cunt either way.

>>4825275
that aint the public one.
EK#.1Omhrk8

The vegans gone, the peace is seemingly restored. Only, hostility seemingly remains as once the prey is dead. The trolls turn on each other. No asshole left un-savaged.

ITT: butthurt omnivores getting their jimmies rustled good and proper

It isn't ethical. People in the future will look back in disgust.

You can make the whole "what is ethical" argument but you know you're just lying to yourself.

>>4825356
This. It is akin to slavery, and in the future when human consideration expands to include nonhuman animals, it will be seen as a cultural practice that will be phased out in first world nations.

If you define your ethics *practically*, how Peter Singer argues ethics to best be defined (the only convincing formulation of ethics I have come across) then you should agree that at the least the modern practice of meat farming is highly unethical. Many reasoned people will agree this is so, regardless of whether or not they abstain from meat.

>>4825356

>Hundreds of years in the future when we all have synthetic bodies

"What about these?"

"Oh Vegans?"

"Well, they were a fashion fad that were told that it's bad to consume animals like every other being on earth. But then spent all of their money buying vegan food and vitamins made with animal parts, then died off of malnutrition."

"Haha, what faggots"

Maybe they'll keep vegans as zoo animals, and kids will toss them Soy Beans.

>>4825377
>in the future when human consideration expands to include nonhuman animals
This is what idiots actually believe.

I say anyone who insists that the animals we eat have equal moral standing to themselves is fair game and probably delicious.

>>4825382
>>4825383
>not reasoned people or butthurt or both

>>4825356
>>4825377

NO. I say we start eating humans too, getting rid of overpopulation, starvation, criminality..
I'd say it's more ethical to start eating humans than to stop eating animals.

>>4825403
That seems an extreme measure. Don't you have a more modest proposal to put forward?

>>4825409
>>4825403

Problem with the criminal bit is. Finding out a person who was later innocent was cannibalized.

Humans are the only concious animals; killing nonhumans for meat is like killing carrots for sugar.

>>4825403
>>4825409
bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/ everythingsanargument/ content/ cat_010/ Swift_A%20ModestProposal.pdf

here ya go anons. freshman year college