Have you ever wondered why it is so easy to argue against eating meat but so hard to argue for it?
That is because there are exactly zero ethical justifications for eating meat.
The vast majority of ethicists agree that eating meat is plain wrong. Why can't meat eaters accept this?
I enjoy eating meat.
I don't care if animals have to do die for my enjoyment of eating meat.
Call the fucking cops you faggot.
When it becomes an argument of ethics.
It becomes an argument of which set of ethics are more beneficial to all of mankind, which cuts into ethical codes held by opposing religions and political ideology.
I'll tell you the ending:
You won't win and no one will agree.
It occurs in nature since forever.
Ethics, morality, religion and politics is for beta cuck normalfags.
Nihilist/hedonist master-race report in.
There are no legitimate arguments on the ethical side, regarding animals, for not eating meat. An animal's suffering is irrelevant simply because they have simple minds. You shouldn't kill/eat primates, dolphins, shit like that, but cows, goats, sheep etc isn't a big deal on the suffering side.
Really the only thing wrong with meat is that it takes like 10000% more resources to get the animal raised to be eaten. You could feed 100 people with the food it takes to get a cow ready for slaughter. That is the only issue here.
It tastes good, ethicists must really get their panties in a knot when people say they hunt for fun too.
>kill all unbelievers
>only glorious blessed ones remain
>no more arguments
Humans can do (and should do) whatever they please.
We must embrace chaos/suffering and burn it as fuel for the great journey that is yet to come.
Our ancestors had always eaten meat (since we were originally hunters and gathers). According from my old biology teacher, eating meat was essential to developing human intelligence in our early human ancestors.
Meh, not really though. More of an economical issue. It's not like if you stopped raising farm animals to kill for food, that food would just be given away to the poor. Almost 33% of all food already produced is thrown away every year as it is, can't really look at food wasted on raising animals and get mad when nearly all people don't even clean their plate.
Fuck me. That is the best argument against meat Ive ever heard (if its true at least.)
I have never heard that before. If thats actually true it just proves that this world is idiotic because you're right that would be the only issue. Or a bigger issue than "please! no more sad animals!"
We are omnivores, which is proven through history AND anatomy (teeth). That means eating meat is completely okay for us and it is not animal cruelty nor is it unhealthy. Meat is an excellent source of protein. And the most obvious part - it tastes amazing. So stop starving my food by eating its food and respect the food chain.
Humans fight on intellectual levels nowadays. The loser doesn't die, he just has shitty job, shitty moneys, shitty family etc. We need the losers to do the shitty jobs, so the winners can pay attention to better things.
Animals are literally just for food. We have no obligation or any need to preserve them.
Like I said here >>25613343, even if we stopped producing meat, we're still wasting a shit ton of food every year. No point in depriving ourselves of delicious burgers, steaks, and chicken wings over it.
You should probably get off your computer, then. Strip off your clothes and leave the notion of living in a house behind you. Run towards the nearest wilderness, right now. Go now. You might catch a rabbit before they all realise you're there.
Doesn't it take it alot more resources for vegs to get full nutrition? Sure if we grew simple crops like grain it would be no problem but the we would get malnutrition if everyone was fed grain. That's why it takes a variety of crops to give full nutrition without meat. I heard it also takes more resources than raising animals.
>We are omnivores, which is proven through history AND anatomy (teeth). That means eating meat is completely okay for us
>things are this way, and that means they ought to be that way
People can survive without meat.
>excellent source of protein
So are beans, retard.
>it tastes amazing
Basically "lol but BACON"
You're a prime example of everything that's wrong with people who eat meat. Fuck you.
I'm not a huge veggy fan. I hate the holier than thou attitude and love eating meat.
The problem is this scientifically right. Energetically eating meat is super wasteful and terrible for the environment. Not going to stop me, but I can't argue that eating meat is "right" from a utilitarian perspective. Now if you want to make the jump to it being morally "wrong" I'm not as sure but smarter people than me have landed at that conclusion.
A high fat, low carb diet has been proven to reduce your risk of a slew of mental illnesses and seriously reduce or eliminate inflammation.
Better yet advocates of this diet encourage grassfed and pasture raised meat which is raised by a more ethical standard than conventional livestock.
>Animals are literally just for food. We have no obligation or any need to preserve them.
Yeah, things like bees are not important at all :^)
I wish this were true but it isnt. Someone can correct me because this is not my field but everything I've learned about biology/ecology is contrary to this claim.
>people can survive without meat
I can survive without memes alright. But not live without them, you feel me?
>so are beans
Beans are great, but if I had to eat them as much as I eat meat, I would be fed up within a week.
>lol but bacon
How can vegetables compete?
At least there's more meat left for me if you don't eat it. Thank you.
also this was b8 probably
The ultimate ethnical truth you should know is that life is not possible without death. Agriculture requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems
I am pretty sure some similar issue would come up if we would eat plants only. If man starts messing with nature he always fucks it up for some time, until he finds a way how to compensate. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't eat meat specifically.
Source this for me. I'm pretty on the fence for GMO, I see the benefits and drawbacks in a realistic manner I think. But I'm not sure what you mean by the corn is producing pesticides.
There is corn designed to withstand higher doses or certain pesticides but my understanding was this takes up a smaller percentage of corn grow (12% maybe? I'll google it).
This leads to more pesticides in use but it's not really right to say they create pesticides by using gmo corn.
That said I will agree a lot of our coming environmental issues stem from how we manage livestock here (carbon usage, water use, antibiotic use).
I'm not even arguing against meat, just stating the facts. I fucking love meat.
Not arguing against meat. Just stating facts, and GMOs are a plague against all creatures anyway.
GMOs are the only way we will feed our bloated population in the future unless we all start eating cloned meat from labs or fucking yeast farmer like we are in a got damn Asimov novel!
I can't source anything for you, this is a topic you have to want to find for yourself. All the "trustworthy" research you're going to find on the topic of GMOs are in the pockets of the people genetically modifying our food. You either trust the alternative media or you don't, and I happen to trust them.
Well I mean, we throw away a third of all the food we produce as it is. We should focus on efficiently using the food we make instead of making more food anyway, and that's ignoring the fact that a lot of the corn we make anyway is made into corn syrup.
Ok. You're one of those.
Ill be generous and consider your point to be that a lot of research is funded by entities that would benefit from GMOs looking safe/good.
This isn't crazy but honestly, I knew the people in the plant science and agronomy labs on my campus. I've worked with these people who have spent years of their lives working on these plants and have the hard evidence to back up their claims.
I agree it would be naive to dismiss any misgivings about GMOs, and there are some valid points to consider. I just think it's short sighted to dismiss a huge technological advance (one we've sort of been using for 1000s of years just with shitter tools) based on fear mongering.
I feel like half of this is because Monsanto is a dick of a seed supplier and people equate the whole of GMO crops to them.
>but so hard to argue for it?
What? There are nutritional requirements. There's also a lot of industrial concerns to livestock raising -- horses and cows who would normally go into leather and glue suddenly are made up of a lot fewer useful parts
>bbbut why not use pleather and synthetic glue
animal glues are obsolete, yes, but it's just an example. a lot of parts of animals go into a lot of things, so you may as well eat the rest of them. the amerindians would be proud of how thoroughly an animal is used when butchered
leather, though, is used in a lot of real applications that aren't just fashion. for example, it's a far superior material to rubber for creating seals in pneumatic systems where a part isn't moving.
there's also stuff like gelatin, hair and furs, etc
there's also ethical reasons for hunting and fishing, usually ending up in "if we don't kill some of these deer, they will over-populate and ruin the ecosystem more than just shooting one or two bucks"
Enjoy your no gains
>vegan food pyramid has supplements on it
Who cares what some slimy greenboy says? There is nothing morally wrong with eating meat. You gonna tell me it's wrong for a tiger to eat meat just cause it has to kill another animal to do it? It's nature. Grow up, green bitch
So you hold yourself to same standards as a wild animal?
Yep, because we are animals.
>inb4 you don't kill your meat though!
I hunt deer. The population is too high in my area and it's better for the ecosystem we bring that population down. It's nature, the food chain.
Besides, even if you could prove (which you can't, because it's not true) that there is actually something morally wrong with eating meat, it wouldn't mean anything. Animals would continue to eat meat and we would too. Ethics don't actually exist, carnivorism does.
And so do human beings. Just because I defend the morality of one action of an animal doesn't mean I must defend all of its actions. Just because you agree with one of a politician's stances doesn't mean you must agree with all of them.
Good try at an argument though, your 0/2.
I'd like to see these people out in nature without any clue of how the outside world work without their beloved city life.
Watch him pick some grass and chew on it, not knowing he just poisoned himself. kek wonderful
Morals don't exist. They are all socially constructed, and therefore arbitrary based upon the needs of society at the time.
All life is worthless, and all living things are in no way more or less important than rocks, space dust, or photons of light.
First of all, murder is malicious. Animals kill lesser animals to live, nothing wrong with that, it is the natural order of the universe. Now, on to rape. You do know that humans are one of the few exceptions to the rule in which the male is more powerful than the female, right? Dolphins, chimps, and some birds and some beetles are the only animals that are known to rape besides humans.
Tell that to a lion.
Sure we've reached a point where it's feasible to not eat meat, and it's fine not to if your morals are truly against it, but judging other people for doing something natural is silly.
So you're just completely ignoring my previous point?
There's a clear difference between a natural act for survival and a natural act that is unnecessary for survival, like rape and murder.
It causes unnecessary suffering if done for bad reasons, like "I'm in the mood for a ham sandwich".
That's not the only argument for why eating meat is wrong, though. See >>25613274 for example.
You need to eat to survive. Vegetarianism is based off the idea of minimizing unnecessary death.
However, you are slaughtering and ending far more lives than any meat water. Vegetables and fruit are living organisms you know, and there's scientific evidence that they experience pain, or an animal's equivalence to it.
If you're going to be morally self righteous, then follow it through and just starve yourself to death, or be a hypocrite.
Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
Our lord and savior allows us, read the bible more.
I didn't bring up "feels" in any fucking point of this conversation you fucking retard. My point was that just because something (for example rape, murder) happens in nature, it doesn't mean it's justified (and now you see why I used rape and murder as an example, because people usually think those are pretty bad things)
It was a counterexample. You know how those work, right? 1) something happens in nature 2) that something is generally accepted not to be good 3) therefore everything that happens in nature is not good, get it?
Those plants would be fed to the animals anyway. You're basically eating a cow and every plant it has eaten during its life when you're eating meat.
>Those plants would be fed to the animals anyway. You're basically eating a cow and every plant it has eaten during its life when you're eating meat.
So why don't you eat rabbits? Rabbits would just be eaten by wolves anyways.
Why don't you eat birds? They would just be eaten by coyotes anyways.
If you're going to take a moral stance against killing things, follow through. Plants are living beings that feel and react to stimulus too. Why do you get to eat them? Why are they less important than other living beings?
Holy smokes OP getting BTFO live on stream
>vegetarians believe we should genocide polynesian fishers, mongol pastoralists and african cattle cultures
>they believe their argument is easier and more just
>he thinks giving up meat is enough to spare a poor cows life
Talk about slacktivism
Exactly how much do you weigh? Are you anything but one or two calories from starving to death? Then you are not following through. You are killing more than you need to, ending more lives than is necessary.
If you really want to follow through, you could let yourself starve. That way only one life is sacrificed as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of plant lives you take by living the remainder of your life.
I want to stay alive, as do most people, and the best way to do that in the sense of avoiding unnecessary suffering is eating plants.
Eating meat on the other hand causes a lot more suffering, in so that you're feeding an animal a lifetime worth of plants and only after that killing and eating it.
OP BTFO so bad he just left the thread, goddamn.
What is pain? It's a neurological signal our physical being is in danger. It manifests itself in us as a reaction. The actual sensation of pain is just that neurological signal being perceived. The same occurs in animals, and the same neurological signal has been observed in plants. Plants feel pain, whether it's the same pain you and I feel is impossible to say, because we aren't plants.
Unnecessary suffering meaning unnecessary pain, you are creating the most unnecessary suffering by eating plants. The neurlogical signal of suffering becomes stronger the closer an organism is to death, and the signal continues to fire until after death, when it is no longer perceived by the organism. It takes more plants to feed a human being than just killing an animal and eating it. You are literally creating more "unnecessary suffering" by being a vegetarian. You are ending more lives for your own enjoyment. That's what it is- for your own enjoyment. Because if you didn't do enjoy living, you wouldn't eat.
Being a vegetarian is a morally inconsistent ideology. You want to feel righteous, I get it, but this isn't the way to do it.
I classify causing pain to ensure my survival necessary.
>It takes more plants to feed a human being than just killing an animal and eating it.
Blatantly wrong. That animal has to eat something as well.
>You are literally creating more "unnecessary suffering" by being a vegetarian. You are ending more lives for your own enjoyment. That's what it is- for your own enjoyment. Because if you didn't do enjoy living, you wouldn't eat.
So what you're saying that if I didn't enjoy life, I should end it. And if I do enjoy life, the best way to do that is eating plants, because that causes the least amount of suffering. There's no argument for eating meat anywhere here. You're just rambling.
The underlying point I'm making is that no life truly matters more than any other. A human is worth as much as an animal, an animal is worth as much as a plant. The fact that you don't just end your own life, so as to stop from ending the hundreds of thousands of other lives you are taking, means you are being morally inconsistent. Why is your life and an animal's life worth more than a plant's, when all three feel pain? If you truly believed in minimizing suffering, you would end your own life.
how come there is not a single good argument for vegetarianism?
>b-but I feel bad for animals that suffer on farms
You shouldnt feel guilty about it one bit. This thing is part of our society. Food production is one of the keystones of our civilization. Of course you can pretend to be rebellious and reject animal products. I hope you do understand its not just about food though. They use animal products in your clothes, pills, cosmetic products and everyday life. Everything is economically tied, so you may well had, without realizing, been supporting meat without even knowing it. You couldve ordered a vegan pizza thinking you didnt harm anyone but your funds will go straight to the company that extensively uses meat products, therefore supporting animal murder. If you still wish to pretend you do it fore a just cause, well, thats fine by me. I just hope you realise how absolutely minuscule and pointless these actions are.
Furthermore, I actually think that rejecting this privilege of consuming abundant meat dishes is very selfish thing to do. You just make their death worthless, you know.
>animals in the wild rip and tear their prey, causing their prey to die in fear and shock
>most first world farms make it so that animals pretty much don't see it coming
humans are actually morally superior
animals don't have the intelligence or self-awareness that makes continued life valuable nor the social conventions that make human life in particular so valuable
vegans and vegetarians who think they are morally superior are a laughable lot
You're missing the point.
If all beings suffer and their suffering is equal, plants, animals, and humans, why is it more wrong to eat animals than plants? Because animals can squeal when hurt and plants can't?
It's not so much about suffering for me. It's about consistency. If you want to reduce suffering, follow through and end your own life. If not, you are placing animals above plants in the suffering hierarchy for no reason but to feel morally superior to other humans. Your logic is inconsistent. If you really wanted to minimize suffering, but still live, you would be eating 1 or 2 calories of vegetables a day. But you dont, and because you don't do that, all you are is a hedonistic glutton like any meat eater, with a bonus sense of unearned moral superiority.
Because for an animal to be big and edible they need to been fed a fuckton of plants already. A fuckton of plants which would have fed a lot more people than the animal at that point, anyway.
Besides, the whole "plants feel pain as well" is pretty fucking stupid. They have no central nervous system or anything similar to feel pain. They do release certain chemicals when damaged, but that doesn't mean they actually "feel" jackshit.
Besides, the whole "humans feel pain as well" is pretty fucking stupid. They have a relatively underdeveloped central nervous system or anything similar to feel pain. They do release certain chemicals when damaged, but that doesn't mean they actually "feel" jackshit.
That's true. But if you want to minimize suffering and still live, you should be consuming just enough plants to survive. If you're eating more than one or two pieces of corn a day, you are causing more suffering than necessary and are being a hypocrite.
Whether plants feel the sensation of pain is impossible to know since we aren't plants. Similar to how dogs think, they don't have language, but they are conscious. We can't imagine what their thoughts are like because our minds just aren't built like that.
But the neurological signal of pain is the same in humans, animals, and plants. How we experience the sensations may be different, but who are you to degrade the suffering of a living being (plant)?
You are a hypocrite if consume one bit more than necessary. Vegetarianism is an ethical dead end that does not and never has held up to philosophical or scientific scrutiny.
Stop man, the 13th amendment made it illegal to own niggas like this
They do not feel pain period.
>But the neurological signal of pain is the same in humans, animals, and plants.
Plants have exactly zero neurological signals as they have no neurons, genius.
Not technically a neurological network, but they have an equivalent- biochemical signalling. I didn't want to say that because then you would just say
>If they don't have a nervous system they can't feel pain :^)
Either way you haven't explained why you don't live on a borderline starvation diet- I thought preventing unnecessary suffering was the basis for your whole ideology?
As plants do not feel pain I can eat as many of them as I want. Also, as plants don't have central nervous systems so they can't feel pain. Make that argument again once they find nociceptors in them and you might have a point.
Fuck off kuffar
Good night you filthy fucking vegan kuffar coward.
Burn in hell this festive season. Fuckinh islamophobe
This is a divine mandate.
The Quran teaches that God is extremely displeased with those who prohibit anything that was not specifically prohibited in the Quran (16:116). The upholding of any prohibitions not specifically mentioned in the Quran is tantamount to idolatry (6:148-150). Such prohibitions represent some other god(s) beside God. Worshipping God Alone means upholding His Laws alone.
The prohibited food and meat is detailed in 2:173, 5:3, 6:145 and 16:115. From these verses we have a clear account of what is halal (lawful) and what is haram (prohibited).
"He only prohibits for you the eating of animals that die of themselves (without human interference), blood, the meat of pigs, and animals dedicated to other than God. If one is forced (to eat these), without being malicious or deliberate, he incurs no sin. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful." 2:173
Veganism is actively haram. Since prohibiting what Allah has not forbidden is a haram.
Clear as crystal. Get fucked islamophobe.
Inshallah. I love Allah so much.
>Want to stop eating meat but can't it's just too fucking hard
why - help please
I can feel you frantically googling, trying hard to reassure yourself that you are not a hedonistic hypocrite like your meat eating counterparts- I am a botany major. Biochemical signalling is equivalent in every way to the neurological signals you call pain. We can't look inside the mind of plants as they have no consciousness, but a consciousness is not required to feel pain. Pain is a reaction to negative stimuli, by definition, plants feel pain as signaled by the distressed communications made by plants throughout their entire being, stem, roots, branches, leaves and all. Because we cannot be dogs, we can't say whether dogs feel the same pain as us either. We literally only can scientically measure reaction to negative stimuli, and humans, animals, plants, all three have that in common.
Good try with your quick googling though. Your hypocritcal ideology falls apart in the context of actual scientific relation to philsophical concepts i.e. the relation of physical, measurable pain to the concept of unnecessary suffering.
>Biochemical signalling is equivalent in every way to the neurological signals you call pain. We can't look inside the mind of plants as they have no consciousness, but a consciousness is not required to feel pain. Pain is a reaction to negative stimuli, by definition
No it's not. That's like saying robots can feel pain because you can program them to do something when their sensors feel an impact.
Plants do not feel pain, period, and me eating them does not cause any suffering at all.
It's not that eating meat is immoral it's that it's gross and uncivilized. Seriously look at the muslim men in those picture and tell me that eating meat is not disgusting,
Except they do feel it and react with distress, much like an animal would when you kill it to eat it.
And beyond that, you are still taking a life.
You can revel in hypocrisy all you want, but a robot is different from a true, sentient, organic being. It experiences measurable chemical distress when you harm it, like any other living being. Jerk yourself off as morally righteous, but it does not change scientific facts. I think my 3.5 years of botany/biology college education outweigh your last few minutes of frantic googling in attempts to justify your trendy, ethically superior lifestyle.
>Except they do feel it and react with distress, much like an animal would when you kill it to eat it.
They do NOT feel it. They might react to it, but there's no feeling or distress going on. Also plants are not sentient beings.
>I think my 3.5 years of botany/biology college education outweigh your last few minutes of frantic googling in attempts to justify your trendy, ethically superior lifestyle.
Literally lmaoed at this, mister "plants feel pain and have neurological activity too!". I bet you have at least three years of relevant experience in everything you argue about online.
I want to doubt you and call you a liar on the internet about having a background in botany, but the fact your posts are so well written and knowledgeable makes me actually believe you. Plus I love seeing huge ego vegans getting crushed.
It's sanctioned by God.
Doesent matter if they feel pain
I could say that when I hit a dog, it does not feel it. Again, because we are not dogs, we don't know if they genuinely feel it. We do know they have a measurable reaction to negative stimuli, which plants have as well. Their is literal, scientific distress occurring when a plant is harmed. Plants are sentient beings, and are capable of learning, for lack of better word from their experiences. They may not have a consciousness like you and I, but they are living, sentient beings. Just because they cannot talk or interact does not mean they aren't sentient.
Don't believe me if you don't want to, I don't really care. I'm just trying to show you the light so that a few years down the road when you're no longer 18, and interact with people with an actual education, you don't get embarrassed about the fact that your ideology is based on a flawed and hypocritical stance, from a scientific perspective.
Any who I'm going to leave you be now, hopefully you'll at least look into what I've said and reconsider. For what it's worth, I respect wanting to minimize suffering. It's a noble goal, but vegetarianism lies in such a slippery and shaky slope when it comes to that the fulfillment of that goal, when connected with actual biological concepts. I do hope you'll at least keep an open mind and do some research of your own.
A plant releasing some chemicals when damaged is no more of proof of it feeling anything than it would be for a robot which spits acid at you when you kick it.
We can say that dogs feel pain because they have the necessary parts (namely, the nervous system and pain sensing neurons) for feeling it. Plants don't. They do not feel pain.
60% of arable (agriculturally useable) land can't grow plants edible by humans, but only plants edible by animals which then can be eaten by humans. Ask any professor of agriculture, or even any decently educated farmer
Considering all moral and ethical statements are emotivist; they come from our feelings and not our rationality, I'd say that arguing for eating meat, or arguing for not eating meat is on the same ethical level.
If someone says I want to eat meat because it tastes good, this is no different from saying you don't want to eat meat because it harms animals.
It's just an opinion, and it's not rational in any way, shape or form.
Yes, but the point is that the rule is based on emotions in the first place, which is why people who say that meat eaters are disgusting for saying they like the taste of meat, are wrong.
It is simply comparing like with like. If you personally don't want to eat meat, that's fine, but don't pretend you have found a source of objective morality and that everyone else is a moral monster.
True, but I can simply say that I don't consider animals on the same moral level as humans.
And they wouldn't be able to convince me otherwise either, because that's simply my opinion.