Veganism is the only logical position regarding animals

>be born
>eat meat
>die
>eternal void
vs
>be born
>don't eat meat because muh animal feelings
>die
>eternal void
hmmm

Even on /an/ there's bait

What's wrong with you guys?

>>2318153
no. agriculture ruins ecosystems.

File: b4f.jpg (23KB, 569x428px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 569x428px

>>2318171
Ecosystems ruin agriculture.

>>2318153
We only care about humans because of our minds and because evolution programmed us this way. If another animal would achieve the same intellect/awareness that we have, we probably would stop eating it.

Now, if a human stops being a person (dies or becomes brain dead) I think it would be perfectly ok to eat this person, if you really wanted to.

>>2318178

It wouldn't matter to you if an animal of lesser intelligence than a human were murdered in front of you? So you don't care if you see a dog or cat or any other animal killed before you?

Inversely, do you consider it wrong to murder or exploit a human who is severely handicapped or mentally retarded?

>>2318171

Yes, plant agriculture as well as animal agriculture are both not ideal for the environment. Because of this, the logical option is to end animal agriculture and repurpose the immense amounts of grains that would be used for animal feed to be fed to humans.

>>2318189
As I said, evolution programmed us to feel more empathy towards our own species (pretty much every animal does the same. But not only do we feel more empathy for other humans but other mammals as well (but in most cases not as much as we would feel for a human).
For example: I would bother me a lot more to see a kitten die, than it would bother me to see a lizard, a bird, a spider, a fish or a slug die. But a murdered human would bother me the most.

That said, I don't see a problem with slaughtering animals for consumption (or killing them to protect our own hide). We keep them safe, ensure their survival and they provide us with meat, milk, eggs, wool and leather.

They live and die with purpose, just like we do.

>>2318189
>It wouldn't matter to you if an animal of lesser intelligence than a human were murdered in front of you? So you don't care if you see a dog or cat or any other animal killed before you?
I have seen animals slaughtered before and I was fine with it. I have seen dogs shot for attacking livestock and I was fine with it. I've known people who beat and abused their pets and I stopped associating with them.

>>2318205

It's completely illogical to say that you simultaneously feel no sympathy or empathy for animals, yet have a problem with pet abuse in the same sentence. You are being logically inconsistent and should tell me why you are not okay with pet abuse but you are okay with seeing an animal being murdered before you.

>>2318199

It bothers you a lot to see a kitten die, but you would have no problem seeing a cat or dog be murdered for the purpose of slaughter for food?

If this is not the case, then you are completely disconnected from the food you eat and you are being logically inconsistent. Keep up the cognitive dissonance!!

>>2318228
>It's completely illogical
>You are being logically inconsistent
Well people aren't perfectly logical machines. I'm OK with animals I'll never meet getting killed, but not ones that I've developed an attachment to getting hurt.

>>2318236
>Keep up the cognitive dissonance!
Dude, you're leaving straw everywhere! Now I gotta clean that up!

As I said it would bother me to see an animal die, that includes being slaughtered for food.
Maybe saying that I literally have no problems with it wasn't the best way to phrase it. I do have a slight problem with it but in my eyes the ends justify the means and I value their sacrifice.

>>2318153
Define this "moral value."

>>2318228
I don't care about some faggot dying in some loser country but I do care about people I know dying. Try wrapping your head around that you preachy cunt.

>>2318256

>Define this "moral value."

This means the principles of morality that apply to sentient beings (or to some idiots, only humans). If a being has moral value, like a dog, then there are a set of actions that can be done or not done to the being, some being morally justified (such as non-exploitation), and some not (like harm). A rock, or a non-sentient being has no moral value, thus the principles of morality don't apply.

>>2318239

So you're okay with seeing a video of a cat being killed because you haven't met the cat or developed an attachment to it?

>>2318248

>I do have a slight problem with it but in my eyes the ends justify the means and I value their sacrifice.

You have a slight problem with the fact that animals are kept captive and murdered huh? That's because animals are of *moral value*. Having flesh to consume in a non-essential circumstance is as good of a justification of murder of humans then it is of animals.

>>2318264
>having moral value means you may or may not be able to do morally justified or unjustified things

This is literally meaningless.

What is sentience?
What makes something "morally justified"?
What are these "principles of morality"?

>>2318269
I think you're jumping to early conclusions here friend. It's clear that you're very emotional about this topic, but please do me a favor:
Take a step back and try to understand that your morality and your view of the world are not universal truths. You seem to believe that humans and animals have the same "moral value" (Whatever you mean by that. You talk about it as if it was objective instead of subjective) and that's why I am bothered by the death of an animal. I think differently.

On a side note: You talk about VEGANISM, but you only bring up the killing of animals. Why are you against...wool or milk? No animals have to die in order to "harvest" these recources.

>>2318275

>This is literally meaningless.

Yeah it is literally meaningless, because it goes further than being a strawman argument. The only problems that you have with my argument is that you don't want to go on Google for 2-3 minutes and won't look up things that you are ignorant of.

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. This is a pretty common word and you should have already known the meaning.

Something is morally justified if it doesn't violate the principles of morality. This doesn't need Google.

A moral principle is the universal norm upon which all other principles on the rightness or wrongness of an action are based.

>>2318282

>You seem to believe that humans and animals have the same "moral value"

Animals of *of moral value*. If I saw a bear attacking a human and could save the human by killing the bear, I would. Humans have a higher moral value than a bear.

>(Whatever you mean by that. You talk about it as if it was objective instead of subjective)

Morality does not exist physically, but like math, logic, etc. there are fundamental laws to it, including the assumption that at action done to an object of moral value is only justified if you would be okay with it being done to you if the circumstances were reversed. If you were a dog, would you be okay with a human petting you (if you enjoyed being pet)? If so, then petting a dog is a morally justified action. What if you were a dog that was about to be murdered for food, would you be okay with that? If not, then it is logical to say that murdering a dog for food is an immoral action, mainly because it involves the harm of a sentient being.

>On a side note: You talk about VEGANISM, but you only bring up the killing of animals. Why are you against...wool or milk? No animals have to die in order to "harvest" these recources.

Veganism is actually about the unnecessary exploitation and harm of animals. Keeping animals captive for wool is exploitative, as it is for milk. Additionally, these industries do cause the death and suffering of animals. Dairy cows live a life of constant pregnancy and separation from her babies (many of which are killed for veal), and are slaughtered at a fraction of their natural life expectancy, when they stop producing milk at a profitable rate. Wool, as you might imagine is similarly fucked up and I'm personally against it.

>>2318296
I haven't really addressed your argument. I am clarifying it to myself, and asking for you input in case you use something non-standard or wish to draw particular attention to something. You do want others to fully understand your argument, right? After all, I didn't major in philosophy.

It appears your definition of sentience does not allow for brain dead people to be afforded moral value. How do you address this?

When I Google moral principles I immediately find definitions which are relative (i.e. what is moral "to a society"). It appears that there may not be such a thing as a "universal moral principle." The Wiki article on universal moral principles seems to say they aren't necessarily "universal," if I read this right.

Are you arguing that you and I adhere to the same moral principles? What might be a few examples of such principles? Feel free to link something that goes into some detail of you feel it's too tedious for a 4chan post. But please try to be specific / relevant if you do so.

You imply the existence of a fairly well defined morality with "universal moral principles," "other principles," "rightness," and "wrongness" mentioned as elements of this morality. Would you care to elucidate further?

>>2318304
Ok, regarding the moral value thing:
There are no fundemental laws to it, at all! Have you ever wondered how every human being has their own moral code, which can vary drastically from person to person? Why some people are ok with exploiting not only animals but their fellow man? Why some people are shockingly ok with punishing or even killing other humans (or animals) for fun? That's because it's purely subjective. If there were any objective truths or guidelines, we would all be on the same page (well...most people would be).

>If I saw a bear attacking a human and could save the human by killing the bear, I would.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, you're saying that to you humans have a higher "moral value" than a bear (or any animal with a lower sentience) and that you're ok with its death if...the ends justify the means.

Lastly, if a wolf surprised me in a forest and tried to me...I wouldn't have any huge problems with it. Of course, in the moment I would try to fight back and survive (because my reptilian brain is forcing me to). But right now, without any adrenalin in my veins, I would say that this is ok. The wolf eats other animals, that's just what he does and I'm also an animal. I can't blame him for it, it's what he does.

>>2318313

>It appears your definition of sentience does not allow for brain dead people to be afforded moral value. How do you address this?

A brain dead human is of moral value because of his possible recovery from brain death. If there is no possibility of recovery a brain dead human is not of intrinsic moral value. Harming a brain dead human still has the possibility of harming other people like family members.

>When I Google moral principles I immediately find definitions which are relative (i.e. what is moral "to a society"). It appears that there may not be such a thing as a "universal moral principle." The Wiki article on universal moral principles seems to say they aren't necessarily "universal," if I read this right.

Just because there may not be a "universal moral principle", does not justify obviously immoral acts like cold-blood murder, slavery, rape etc. Perhaps it was not considered immoral to kill ones own pet if they grew tired of taking care of the pet hundreds of years ago, because we did not know that animals have the capacity to suffer. Now it is considered immoral because our knowledge has changed.

>Are you arguing that you and I adhere to the same moral principles? What might be a few examples of such principles? Feel free to link something that goes into some detail of you feel it's too tedious for a 4chan post. But please try to be specific / relevant if you do so.

I honestly can't say if I believe you and I should adhere to the exact same moral principles, I haven't thought about that. Some principles would be "it is not justifiable to needlessly exploit sentient beings", "an action done to an object of moral value is only justified if you would be okay with it being done to you if the circumstances were reversed".

>>2318313

>You imply the existence of a fairly well defined morality with "universal moral principles," "other principles," "rightness," and "wrongness" mentioned as elements of this morality. Would you care to elucidate further?

idk if I can give some sort of modern 'bible of morality', but some examples of morality axioms would the golden rule and the non-aggression principle which have wiki articles.

>>2318304
Do you ever maybe think that domesticated animals and humans mutually benefit from each other

Sheep get eaten by coyotes all the time, you know?

>>2318323

>Do you ever maybe think that domesticated animals and humans mutually benefit from each other

Yes I've considered that, and my conclusion is that animals don't benefit from the relationship. The vast majority of animals eaten live out torturous lives. Even at the hypothetical "perfect farm" animals are slaughtered at a fraction of their life expectancy and do not get to live out a normal life, with freedom, a mate, etc.

>Sheep get eaten by coyotes all the time, you know?

The fact that life isn't easy for wild animals doesn't justify the needless mass murder of animals. I'm really arguing about the lack of justification for the needless murder of animals, and we are not in the same situation as wild coyotes, who must kill for survival. We are people who can go to the store and choose to eat plants.

>>2318304
>What if you were a dog that was about to be murdered for food, would you be okay with that?

In a vacuum, the decision would always be for one to live. However, real scenarios do not typically involve vacuums, and many lead to unsolvable issues (so far as I can tell).

Example:

I am a Falconer and have a raptor.

A raptor must eat meat; no known vegetarian diets exist. Ergo one of the following must die:

1) Farm raised quail / rat
2) Wild rabbit / duck / squirrel
3) Raptor (via starvation)

Something HAS to die; the decision cannot be avoided. What is the moral decision here?

In the dog scenario, suppose you offer the dog a choice between death by gunshot (arguably negligible suffering) and wild release (which amounts to death by starvation or some other likely brutal means). Which would the dog choose? Would a different animal make a different choice?

Suppose you offer the dog the choice between living exactly 2 years and then being killed for food (in a presumably humane manner) vs. never being born in the first place. What is the answer here? Real people often choose a brutal life over certain death / the easy way, so the correct choice is not immediately clear.

The given scenario (the one made "in a vacuum") is more like offering a dog the choice between living with a family for 2 years and being killed for food vs. living with a family for its natural life. This is an uncommon sort of scenario where the dog's decision would be clear.

My point is your proposed choice isn't one which would be realistically encountered, and some scenarios which would be are not easy to answer.

>>2318332
To add to my answer:

All real scenarios end in death, except for the ones where one is not born in the first place. One may argue that the true decision is how you die.

I argue the correct action depends on realistic futures available. As this will depend on the animal in question, a different animal may have different options (due to different capabilities, mentalities, etc.), and thus different morally correct answers. This contradicts the assumption in OP that "animals" may be considered monolithically.

>>2318189
It has nothing to do with humans or animals. It has to do with how much empathy you feel for another creature.

For example I wouldn't mind if 20 ethiopian children were killed if my pet could live in return. Because I feel nothing for them but I feel a lot for my pet.

>>2318332

My analogy seems much more similar to the animal agriculture industry than yours.

re - gunshot + wild release: Humans have no control over the suffering in the natural food chain. As of now, any attempt to remove suffering from nature would result in the destruction of the world ecosystem, and should be considered a necessary evil. Raising animals only to kill them against their will at a young age is not a necessary evil.


>Suppose you offer the dog the choice between living exactly 2 years and then being killed for food (in a presumably humane manner) vs. never being born in the first place.

The fact that animal agriculture brings animal lives into existence does not justify murdering them. It's life should not have been needless brought into existence only to live a life of exploitation, harm, and predetermined murder.

>>2318347

>For example I wouldn't mind if 20 ethiopian children were killed if my pet could live in return. Because I feel nothing for them but I feel a lot for my pet.

So you would choose to kill 20 Ethiopian children, who are trying to kill your cat for food, yourself instead of letting your cat die? I think before killing all 20 of them, you might realize that a beings moral value has to do with the actions you choose to do to them, instead of purely choosing based on empathy.

>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would justify the murder/exploitation of that human

I can think of one, it's called sapience, aka the reason humans can think things and applies those thoughts and experiences into anything else;allowing the rise of culture, technology, beliefs, advanced communication, etc. Without it, we're basically incredibly shitty primates from a biological perspective to the point we'd literally be fair game to just about any animal that bothers to hunt us; then it's not even considered "murder" anymore, it's simply predation. The concept of murder is exclusively a human only construct in which it's declared wrong to kill specific things or predominantly other human beings. Animals kill others with no remorse simply; you could take one animal and put it somewhere it doesn't belong and it will have no issue with preying on and out competing other animals or be preyed upon by different ones(see any invasive species ever)
Not to mention without sapience, intelligence doesn't mean shit (dolphins are considered intelligent but you don't see them with the ability to advance forward by applying their sentience into other means such as the rise of their own advanced culture or a society.) If humans lacked it, say good bye to all of civilization ever as we'd pretty much remain as slightly more intelligent primates with some tool use where if we became complete apex predators, we'd have already puts even more species into extinction as there would have been no concept of conservation or anything at all that practices restraint. Hell, domestication wouldn't be a thing so companion animals or animals cultivated for other means wouldn't exist. We wouldn't even rely on plants either as agriculture would not be a thing as well, making us remain into the hunter-gather life style of acquiring good. That's to say if we had ever even advanced beyond early hominids and instead remained on the same level as the great apes

>>2318401

>I can think of one, it's called sapience, aka the reason humans can think things and applies those thoughts and experiences into anything else;allowing the rise of culture, technology, beliefs, advanced communication, etc. Without it, we're basically incredibly shitty primates from a biological perspective to the point we'd literally be fair game to just about any animal that bothers to hunt us; then it's not even considered "murder" anymore, it's simply predation.

I'm not totally sure you understand my argument. You're saying that if a human being lacked sapience, due to some degree of mental retardation, one would justified to exploit/harm/murder this person? The argument I'm coming from says that it is wrong to exploit/harm beings that are sentient (this word has a wiki article).

>>2318405
I'm saying without sapience of the entirety of the human race , there is no such thing as exploitation/murder because it's entirely a human construct. Other animals wouldn't have such concepts if we we are their same level and as such, will show no restraint in feeding on us. Hell, animals already don't show restraint in that; if you go out to the woods right now, you're fair game to bears, big cats, wolves or any other macro predator if you had no means to defend yourself (no weapons, tools, etc) Hell, even pets will attempt to eat your corpse if you dropped dead in front of them, it's already happen in the past.
There is no such thing as murder in the animal world. We are not part of the animal world. We're animals yea, but a complex, highly specialized one where we basically defined our own niche, literally too. Sapience is the only reason why we perceive such things as murder or exploitation

>>2318393
>The fact that animal agriculture brings animal lives into existence does not justify murdering them.

They must die somehow. Given the available realistic eventualities one has to choose from, "murder" is fairly benign.

>It's life should not have been needless brought into existence only to live a life of exploitation, harm, and predetermined murder.

This is not an argument, merely an assertion.

When is conception immoral? Why? I would argue that the golden rule (which you yourself have put forth as a moral principle) would mean conception / birth is likely moral, as most people would choose a poor life over no life.

>>2318399
Morals are just a human construct of self preservation.
You don't own slaves because your society can afford not to. You don't rape other people because that's detrimental to yourself and your society. Murder stops being murder when applied to self defence or to rescue another, if society deems it so.

A tiger or a wolf doesn't think twice before eating your ass raw because that benefits its survival.
A house cat or dog warms up to you and is your partner for the same reason.

>>2318153
You're wrong.
Source: evolution.

Veganfag eternally BTFO

Lots of thigns arent' needed, you still do them.

You don't NEED internet access OP.

You don't really NEED a house or a car or electricity and all the modern conveniences.

Your "need" reasoning doesn't work because you hypocritically only apply it to your own arguments.

I don't NEED to eat meat but frankly that isn't a good enough reason.

>>2318154
This can be applied to literally anything, though. I'm not even a veggie and this is fucking retarded. Basically, your argument is that anything is fine because "we all die yolo"

>>2318407

>There is no such thing as murder in the animal world. We are not part of the animal world. We're animals yea, but a complex, highly specialized one where we basically defined our own niche, literally too. Sapience is the only reason why we perceive such things as murder or exploitation

Even if you use a anthropocentric definition of murder, you still must concede that in the animal world killing is done for survival, which is a situation that no person in modern civilization is in. The fact that humans are highly specialized and complex means that we are easily capable of survival without eating other animals. Additionally, even if animals can't comprehend murder or exploitation, their needless killing still is not justified, just as it wouldn't be justified to do to a human who is incapable of sapience.

>>2318440
>They must die somehow. Given the available realistic eventualities one has to choose from, "murder" is fairly benign.

For an animal life that a human being has forced into existence, it is ridiculous to say that "murder" is an acceptable way for that animal to go. Tons of cats and dogs are forcibly brought into existence, and many of them at least get to live out their natural life expectancy while being provided reasonable care.

>When is conception immoral? Why? I would argue that the golden rule (which you yourself have put forth as a moral principle) would mean conception / birth is likely moral, as most people would choose a poor life over no life.

I would argue that the act of conception is immoral when the being in question is destined for a life of exploitation and murder. Also keep in mind that this logic is crazy when compared with humans. It is immoral for a brother and a sister to create life together because their baby has a high chance of being severely disabled. It is immoral to bring a human life into existence if their conception hinges on their eventual murder.

>>2318541

>Lots of thigns arent' needed, you still do them.
>You don't really NEED a house or a car or electricity and all the modern conveniences.
>I don't NEED to eat meat but frankly that isn't a good enough reason.

Uh, murder isn't an essential ingredient the internet, electricity, modern conveniences etc. murder is an essential ingredient of eating meat. The former are justifiable, the latter isn't.

File: 00428382-155D-4519-3E8F26D3DC5C22E3-large.jpg (49KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 800x600px

>>2318153
>watch wildlife documentaries
>wolves exhausting deer, elk, and even mooses, then nip at them to death
>crocodiles rip open zebras guts and waits for it to bleed out
>bear taking it's time killing a deer

VS

>slitting throats and pistons through the head, nearly instantly to instantaneous death

>Humans are of moral value
Which is highly subjective to each person, and not everyone could even be considered to have "morals".

You know what my morals are? A quick and easy kill.

I used to have chickens, somewhat free roaming. They'd follow me everywhere given the chance, since I didn't really have much to do so I dug worms up out grandparent's compost heap.

When it came time to put one down, I'd hold it down but calm it. Once it was fairly calm, a quick chop from a machete would kill the thing right quick. Bloody, but it's better than cutting their throats with an oyster knife.

>>2318327
>do not get to live out a normal life, with freedom, a mate, etc.

Oh boy, what are the odds you're the kind of person that doesn't spay/neuter, or hold it off until they've ~*experienced*~ motherhood.

>>2318565

>You know what my morals are? A quick and easy kill.

So you think needlessly murdering a sentient being, such as a human, at a young age can be morally justified? Would you be okay with being needlessly murdered if it was quick and easy? If you were a chicken would you be okay with being needlessly murdered?

>I used to have chickens, somewhat free roaming. They'd follow me everywhere given the chance, since I didn't really have much to do so I dug worms up out grandparent's compost heap. When it came time to put one down, I'd hold it down but calm it.

If you think of chickens as completely valueless besides for their ability to grow meat than this sentiment would make sense, but it kind of sounds like you had at least some level of emotional attachment. If your neighbor was in the same situation, but kept dogs and cats for meat instead of chickens and slaughtered those animals in the backyard next to yours, would you be okay with this? The fact is that chickens desire to live a life free from exploitation and murder in a very similar way to cats and dogs. The consistent position to take is the one of animal welfare.

>>2318573

>Oh boy, what are the odds you're the kind of person that doesn't spay/neuter, or hold it off until they've ~*experienced*~ motherhood.

Of course there are moral grey areas. Some vegans would say to only adopt animals that are s/n (spay/neuter). Some would say that s/n is necessary because it prevents an unknowable amount of homeless dogs who are incapable of caring for themselves. And of course some say that s/n is hugely exploitative, harmful, and doesn't merit the positive effects on society of s/n.

What do you mean by experienced motherhood?

>>2318585
>such as a human
Why are you comparing animals to humans as if they are equal?
They are not, sorry about your feelings.

>>2318585
>needlessly murdering a sentient being, such as a human, at a young age can be morally justified?

Well, I'm alright with abortions and not beyond killing child soldiers. You could consider those deaths needless, but que sera sera.

I wanted meat and eggs, I got meat and eggs. Just like every other omnivore species on this planet, just my methods are more organized.

>if you were a chicken

I would be too stupid to know that I was going to be killed.

>you think of chickens as completely worthless beyond meat, but you have sentiment

One, I also grow them for eggs. Thought of breeding, but that'd be a bit too much work.

In the end, my ultimate reason is to keep them for food. But I treat these animals with respect and kindness till their purpose comes. I see no reason to mistreat them in their short life.

Chickens don't show the same empathy and sympathy a dog or cat does. They see you as a food source, and vise versa. Their end purpose is a food source, not a family extension.

If someone were to be slaughter cats and dogs in the backyard behind mine, there will be blood. But that's because of a culture difference and a different standing of morals. Never fond of hunting coyotes or wolves either.

If dogs were to attack my family, I wouldn't stop to kill them.

Chickens are simple creatures, who seek to eat and reproduce. Dogs and cats behave differently.

>>2318591
He's a vegan, what do you expect?

>>2318591

>Why are you comparing animals to humans as if they are equal?

They are not equal, but they both are sentient and obviously wish to not be needlessly harmed or killed.

>>2318613
>needlessly
If that animal died to provide me with substance then it's death was not needless. The fact I could have chosen a salad over a steak is irrelevant.
>>2318611
While I understand why you feel this way, assuming all vegans are irrational is very illogical. The person I replied to actually gave a thoughtful and intelligent answer, proving your statement to be false. All that aside there is always a little truth to every stereotype, and anyone who has ever met a militant vegan would be inclined to agree with you.

What a wreck of a thread. Two pseudo-intellectuals arguing in what seems to be a competition for who has more logical fallacies.

OP, animals have hunger and desire for food. What you should be arguing is if our desire for meat should be more important than the life of another animal.
>>2318591
Humans are animals.
>>2318587
He is saying you are one of those people who think it's cruel to not let an animal have an offspring.

>>2318602

>Well, I'm alright with abortions and not beyond killing child soldiers. You could consider those deaths needless, but que sera sera.

I'm mostly just talking about a case similar to the situation of animals, for example the killing of a human after a set number of years for meat. There are definitely grey areas with edge cases but I don't see how any of them justify the needless killing of a sentient human.

>I would be too stupid to know that I was going to be killed.

I'm saying that if you knew you would be a chicken, would you rather that chicken live a life of exploitation and death.

>Chickens don't show the same empathy and sympathy a dog or cat does. They see you as a food source, and vise versa. Their end purpose is a food source, not a family extension.

So if the hypothetical neighbor had dogs that were incapable of empathy and sympathy due to mental retardation because of inbreeding, you would be okay with that dogs' exploitation and death? It seems like you might have inconsistent views about which animals are worthy of life and non-exploitation.

>>2318638

>What a wreck of a thread. Two pseudo-intellectuals arguing in what seems to be a competition for who has more logical fallacies.

I mean you could at least say what my fallacies are if you're putting that point forward.

>>2318636
>If that animal died to provide me with substance then it's death was not needless. The fact I could have chosen a salad over a steak is irrelevant.

I don't think the fact that you didn't need to kill the animal is relevant. A similar example might be, "I was really angry so I decided to kick a *Insert sentient being here (baby, cat, chicken)*, the fact that I could have punched a pillow or plant is irrelevant". Actions on sentient beings should be justified, but aren't always; there are serial rapists (of humans and animals) and psychopath murderers (of humans and animals) in this world unfortunately. And thanks for talking to me by the way, just wanted to say that.

>>2318642
I'm not putting a point forward but expressing my discontent; there is no way i'm reading this thread again to list them.

>>2318545
Its true tho

>>2318153
No need to fight you, I'mma just eat a steak.

I'm actually cooking steak pudding right now. I'mma enjoy the shit out of it.

>>2318640
>I'm mostly just talking about a case similar to the situation of animals, for example the killing of a human after a set number of years for meat

For what purpose? That alone is asking for disease. The birth rate at which a human spawns is heavily impractical for food sources unless desperate measures arise. Finally, that is asking for your death warrant, as others see you as a threat to their society.

With animals, they are not unified to the extent, nor can they ever.

>hypothetical neighbor had dogs that were incapable of empathy and sympathy due to mental retardation because of inbreeding, you would be okay with that dogs' exploitation and death?

At that point, why should I care? The dog's fuck all retarded, unable to perform it's purpose. Thus it serves no reason to feed on the family.

>you might have inconsistent views about which animals are worthy of life and non-exploitation.

Yes, that is called judgement. It is something you must maintain all your life. You can't simply stare at everything in a black and white hue.

File: 1480097401905.png (200KB, 552x310px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 552x310px

>>2318657
>comes into thread not to participate but bitch for no reason

There's 2 ways to become a faggot:

1) Suck another man's dick
2) What you just did

>>2318640
What is the extent of your experience with animals?

>>2318667

>For what purpose? That alone is asking for disease. The birth rate at which a human spawns is heavily impractical for food sources unless desperate measures arise. Finally, that is asking for your death warrant, as others see you as a threat to their society.

I hate to break it to you, but animal products cause disease and are orders of magnitude more impractical as a food source when compared to plants. The world is fucked up and some people have caused the birth of children for the sole purpose of exploiting them (for rape for example). This is obviously sickening, and the realization that this happens to billions of animals on a mass scale is generally what drives people to reduce animal products consumption.

>At that point, why should I care? The dog's fuck all retarded, unable to perform it's purpose. Thus it serves no reason to feed on the family.

So the purpose of a dog's life is to be a subservient companion and source of pleasure for people? The fact that you can help a helpless animal live a decent life doesn't play in? That seems like a motivating factor for many people, esp. people that adopt or rescue dogs.

Anyways I'm just gonna concede this one to difference of opinion, because I'm of the opinion that no animals purpose (if it has one) should be needlessly determined by people. Just for reference I was randomly motivated to start an agrument thread after watching this vid on the weakness of anti-vegan arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueqDkY3aNAY

If I was in your position idk if I would watch the video because a lot of the positions that has makes me feel hypocritical. Please consider veganism (or at least a reduction in the consumption of animal products) for the environment, personal health, and the welfare of innocent animals. Even if morality is completely ephemeral, I doubt many people would argue that the factory farming industry that produces most meat in the west as well as an absolute shitload of crazy suffering.

>>2318680

I have super normie experience with animals fwiw. A couple pets growing up, cat sitting and dog sitting gigs, seeing them in zoos, aquariums etc. and of course I ate a bunch of them for years.

File: border-collie-frisbee.jpg (126KB, 853x481px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 853x481px

>>2318692
>So the purpose of a dog's life is to be a subservient companion and source of pleasure for people?
Actually yes
And thats not me saying "humans are the species that matters the most". Thats me saying it from an evolutionary standpoint. Dogs were bred to be human subservients for thousands of years
That doesnt mean you should treat a dog like shit, just dont pretend dogs are independent creatures.
Have you ever met a boarder collie? Specifically one who doesnt have a job? They tend to get really neurotic.
Theres one I know who the only "job" is has is coming into my daycare a couple of days a week and all he does is push toys for hours because he needs something to do that he gets rewarded for. If we take away the toys he gets really stressed out.


I'm not even against vegetarianism.(Though I wish people would push for better treatment and a less meat diet over the "MEAT IS MURDER" outlook) I just hate when people do it with ignorance of the animal kingdom

>>2318698
Okay. Fwiw I've done kind of a shitlot with them:

- wildlife rescue (mammals like squirrels and racoons and all kinds of birds)
- farming (fowl, mostly, including slaughtering several hundred chickens I personally raised in a commercial slaughterhouse)
- a couple dogs and cats
- falconry (raptors are absolutely barbaric)

Also there's at least 2 or 3 anons debating you. I'm the one with the position that the morality of an action wrt an animal is dependent on realistic futures for said animal.

I generally keep things separate by assigning specific animals a "purpose." The purpose of a meat chicken is to become meat at a certain time, so it is not sad when that happens. The purpose of a rescue squirrel is to reintegrate with the wild if possible, bearing in mind that the wild / nature has a bad habit of monstering pretty much everything in it, including the monsters themselves. The purpose of the squirrels I hunt with my red tail is to feed my red tail, and so when they die for meat it is not sad. Purpose is somewhat arbitrary, but that's not important to me.

Note that I am not arguing anything here, only making my own thoughts on the matter open. I'm partly saying this because another anon mentioned their cow having a purpose, and I wanted to comment on how I've seen that as a point in common with farmer types. The people I know that work with animals a lot take a pragmatic approach to things.

Again, not really going anywhere with that, just throwing it out there.

>>2318555
Killing in the animal world by is done:
-for eating
-for sport (feral cats)
-to establish dominance over others of the same species (fights between clans of animals such as meerkats, or independent animals like tigers)
-on accident, mistreating a cub or weaker animal than themselves (see:every single mother who has accidentally slept on top of their baby)
-in self defense (venomous snake biting someone that steps on it)
And humans do these too (plus killing for clothing and to get rid of pests/unwanted animals in their property; homicide is a more delicate and complicated subject).
It's impossible to live a life in which no organism dies because or for you. Why do plants have less "moral value" than animals to you? They also die and may experience a level of pain because of you or for you to be able to eat it. The only difference is that animals move on their own and blink and shit.
Not everyone can or wants to devote themselves to not eat meat, eggs, milk, or fish. Do not try to make them seem less morally correct than you, specially to those who just can't choose a more expensive and complicated lifestyle.

File: vigans get out.png (145KB, 301x208px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 301x208px

>>2318153
Why is it wrong to have different spices unequally? For example, would you argue that a parasite has a right to inhabit your body because of its inherent right to live?

>>2318741
Read the thread. OP has specified sentience as a qualifier.

>>2318741
>sentience
That is just an example and regardless it still proves my point because OP chose to exclude certain species from having their rights protected based on their perceived lack sapience. Allow me to rephrase that. Should I get rid of rats in my house (because they are known to carry disease) or should I take the value of their life into consideration?

>>2318751
sorry reposted to the wrong post.>>2318751

>>2318716

>Thats me saying it from an evolutionary standpoint. Dogs were bred to be human subservients for thousands of years.

I don't see how you can say that "because we bred wolves to be docile, empathetic, and lose their ability to survive in the wild" logically follows to "the product of that breeding has the express purpose of being the subservient helper of humans".

Again, imagine if a lineage of humans were forcefully, purposefully bred for a few thousand years to be really good factory workers, or to fit in really small spaces. Would the express purpose of one of those humans lives do to their task in perpetuity? I would find that immoral, as I would with needlessly selectively breeding animals. Humans bred boarder collies to be neurotic (which is a psychological disorder)? I honestly find that kind of fucked up.

Aside: Veganism is not the same thing as Vegetarianism (veg). Vegan is an effort to not exploit and harm animals, whereas veg is pretty much only abstaining from meat.

File: tumblr_n12i52c3R31sl3wgio1_1280.jpg (236KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1280x960px

>>2318781
Humans didnt just breed wild traits out of dogs. Dogs were bred as tools for use:
To hunt, to guard, to herd, to carry supplies, and even to turn beat.(look up turnspit dogs and prepare to be upset)
And yes dog breeding is fucked up at its core
Just because people have come to love dogs as more than tools doesnt mean that behavior bred into them isnt still there. We keep breeding most of those specific dogs even without the use of tools.
If anything pure breeding is more fucked up than it was when we used them for tools because now we just breed unhealthy traits for the sake of having a cool pure bred dog.

>>2318304
>using the golden rule as the basis of your morality
Literally more retarded than Utilitarianism. And Utilitarianism is fucking retarded.
Babbies first attempt at moral philosophy?

>>2318719
>Purpose is somewhat arbitrary, but that's not important to me.

Well the idea of whether or not animals have an express purpose is important to me. This is a difference between us. I'm not saying I think your position is okay, but I've debated that topic in other parts of the thread :3

This is a completely different subject but, how was killing all those chickens? Personally I would be fucking horrified at the thought of slicing an animal and seeing it's blood spill out. Did you ever kill a chicken while you were hungry and wish you could eat that specific chicken?

>>2318792
uh *meat

>>2318793

Why don't you cash me outside with some arguments then?

>>2318792

>Just because people have come to love dogs as more than tools doesnt mean that behavior bred into them isnt still there. We keep breeding most of those specific dogs even without the use of tools.

I realize that they were bred for specific work purposes, as well as purely for personal pleasure. I'm just saying that it doesn't make those beings have an express purpose in life, or at least a purpose that we needlessly impose on it.

Suppose I have a single chicken that I take care of. I keep it happy, healthy, and I eat its eggs. Is there anything wrong with that for a vegan? I wouldn't be harming the animal in any way and it's just doing what it would do naturally

File: tumblr_namyuieewX1tfzaajo1_1280.jpg (975KB, 1024x768px)

975KB, 1024x768px

>>2318806
Anyone who would call you wrong for that either
A) Doesnt even understand their own moral justification and is an idiot
or
B)Is someone who takes care of chickens and knows that you should usually keep more than one because domestic chickens are social creatures

>>2318806

This is a moral grey area imo. Some people would say that it's immoral to do this because it's exploitative to keep a chicken captive at all. The way I see it, is that the ability to survive in the wild has been bred out of chickens, so as long as the chicken was taken from a farm or something then I don't see anything wrong with that.

File: tumblr_njxxauUAIw1qb8vfjo1_1280.jpg (272KB, 1280x889px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1280x889px

>>2318813
fwiw you cant just pluck a domestic chicken out of a wild. Anything in this situation would come from a domestic setting.
Wild poultry acts different

>>2318818

Yeah, I was saying that I hope the chicken was saved from slaughter from a farm or something.

>>2318153
Food is a human need, and humans do need some vitamins that only occur in meat, or meat by products. Unless you think taurine supplements come from air.

Morals don't objectively exist, so that's a shit argument.
Animals kill each other for food all the time. Some even do it for fun.
Morals don't exist.

Meat is an essential part of the human diet, and some people are allergic to legumes, soy and grains which are the only viable protein alternatives to meat. Do those people just die? Again humans also need taurine which is only present in animals. Taurine supplements also come from animals, their is no way to make a synthetic alternate and it's not found in plants.

Kill yourself.

>>2318831
So, you are wrong. Taurine is not sourced from animals, it is industrially synthesized. Taurine is not a dietary requirement for humans. Humans (unlike cats and a few predators) synthesize all of their own taurine from amino acid precursors.

Every single vitamin, nutrient, and mineral can be obtained through vegetarian living. I am not vouching for vegans, as I haven't the experience or research to cover that ground, but I can say that vegetarians can cover every single base without consuming meat.

>Source
I have been vegetarian since birth, and have never consumed meat. I am at an average BMI, and am good on all serum nutrients (have done blood tests in the past year).

>>2318228
I don't approve of people beating their bets because there's no reason to it. There's a reason to slaughter game animals and livestock, they're tasty and parts of their body are useful. There's a reason to shoot dogs that are attacking livestock, they're endangering someone's property and in most cases their livelihood.

You may not like or agree with the reason why animals are slaughtered and eaten, but it is a reason nonetheless. Furthermore, I think the animal being tasty is enough reason to justify it being killed and consumed. I value my happiness from eating the animal greater than the animal's happiness from living. It is selfish, I'll admit that and I'm okay with that.

On the other hand beating a pet has no upside, it just causes harm, that's why I'm against it. If someone could show me a benefit to beating their dog then I'd be okay with it.

>>2318678
The main thing i wanted to say was
>What you should be arguing is if our desire for meat should be more important than the life of another animal.
but i'm sure everybody will ignore that.
You on the other hand said nothing but bitching in your post.

>>2318842
>i'm sure everybody will ignore that.
1. you can't argue how things "should" be, as Hume pointed out.
2. not all lives are equal.

>>2318845
You are using the wrong meaning of 'should' in this context.
Nice opinion.

>>2318847
it only has the one meaning in this context.

>>2318794
>Well the idea of whether or not animals have an express purpose is important to me. This is a difference between us. I'm not saying I think your position is okay, but I've debated that topic in other parts of the thread :3

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. I'm saying I assign a purpose to them, but the specifics of the purpose depend on the circumstances.

>This is a completely different subject but, how was killing all those chickens? Personally I would be fucking horrified at the thought of slicing an animal and seeing it's blood spill out. Did you ever kill a chicken while you were hungry and wish you could eat that specific chicken?

I don't believe I ever have killed a chicken while hungry at that moment. They were sometimes used for meals on the same day though. I've also killed and eaten sheep the same day, but again not while hungry ... I don't think.

As far as "how killing feels," I'm not sure either that I could describe it well or that the experience would be similar between people. When you kill 200 of something you don't really feel anything special after the 5th or so, it's just kind of another chore.

As far as killing single things though ... actually doing it feels strange usually. It doesn't horrify me, but there's a sort of sense like you are taking a one-of-a-kind painting and setting it on fire, a sense of permanent loss, if you will. It tends to be most poignant as the animal is transitioning from consciousness to being dead, i.e. somewhat after the throat is cut, as you see them start to sort of relax and their eyes stop looking at anything in particular. I wouldn't call it a pleasant feeling, but it passes quickly and soon you are dealing with a carcass and not an animal.

As far as the actual act of slitting a throat, it isn't something you sit there and overthink; you simply do it. Blood is nothing special if you've ever scraped yourself before, it's only that there is quite a lot of it if you cut a throat.

>>2318153
Where do vegans get steady calcium if they refuse to drink milk

>>2318854
The calcium fairy, you dingus.

>name fagging
>shitposting about veganism.
sage goes in every field.

>>2318849
And yet you managed to get it wrong.

>>2318854
We don't need to drink milk after breastfeeding is over, in fact there is a whole war on whether it is bad to drink milk or not.

>>2318692
>>2318692
>I hate to break it to you, but animal products cause disease and are orders of magnitude more impractical as a food source when compared to plants.

Tell me, which is more likely to get you infected? Contaminated human meat which contains viruses that target humans, or beef? The answer is obvious. Also, human "breeding" isn't really a thing lest you're in some Albanian sex dungeon.

>So the purpose of a dog's life is to be a subservient companion and source of pleasure for people?

Did I say that? No, I said an extension of the family. Don't set up easy knockdown strawmans and not get called out on it.

Additionally, that's the hypothetical neighbor's dog, not mine. Of course you forgot about that. Again why should I care about his retarded inbred mutt? At the point it becomes abuse, I'll take notice, but otherwise putting the pupper down with quick 12 gauge blast suffice.

And when I mean extension of the family, that doesn't mean its gonna get valued all the same as a person.

Can you give me a video that doesn't last an hour in length.

>Anyways I'm just gonna concede this one to difference of opinion, because I'm of the opinion that no animals purpose (if it has one) should be needlessly determined by people

If that's the case, why do you determine the purpose of what people can and can't do? We are animals, we bleed, breath, and breed.

>many people would argue that the factory farming industry that produces most meat in the west as well as an absolute shitload of crazy suffering.

At some point, most people don't care as long as there's a slab of meat on their table.

>>2318873
Isn't cow milk not all that good for humans, mostly because of the high lactose and fat intake, but it's tasty and a good and common source of calcium?

>>2318692
>that video

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>>2318889
The issue is with all milk, i'm not knowledgeable enough to talk more about it though.
One thing is true, there is a lot of propaganda and misinformation recarding milk and many other foods.

>>2318888
>Tell me, which is more likely to get you infected? Contaminated human meat which contains viruses that target humans, or beef? The answer is obvious. Also, human "breeding" isn't really a thing lest you're in some Albanian sex dungeon.

That's kind of a strawman, I just said that animal products cause disease, which is true. Over all populations and even accounting for how "healthy" ones diet it, it has been shown vegans die of less diseases than omnivores. A 1/4 of deaths per year are attributed to cardiovascular problems.

>Additionally, that's the hypothetical neighbor's dog, not mine. Of course you forgot about that. Again why should I care about his retarded inbred mutt? At the point it becomes abuse, I'll take notice, but otherwise putting the pupper down with quick 12 gauge blast suffice.

I literally asked if you would be okay with that dog's exploitation and death, and your answer is exploitation (abuse) no, killing yes? That's a pretty strange position to take on the life of a sentient being.

Yeah, I would not exploit or kill an animal that was an extension of my family, but I still would not value that animal exactly the same as a human. I never said this. I would definitely choose the life of my human family member instead of my animal if I had to make the choice, but I wouldn't say that because dogs (or any animal) are of a lesser moral value, they can be killed.

>If that's the case, why do you determine the purpose of what people can and can't do? We are animals, we bleed, breath, and breed.

I'm not imposing my will upon anyone by arguing for veganism.

>At some point, most people don't care as long as there's a slab of meat on their table.

Many people decide to go vegan when they are made aware of the horrors of the animal agriculture industry.

>>2318893

What I just posted the video for information. How the fuck can you call something a straw man if there is no argument I've misrepresenting? Or are you trying to say that the video one huge straw man?

File: 1487086192224.png (18KB, 452x363px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 452x363px

>>2318692
>>2318893
Actually, fuck it, saying straw man without saying why is stooping to the "Ask Yourself"

He takes theoretical arguments and shoots them down with "evidence", but then fails to back them up with said evidence.

He has no sources linked. He says "just look it up yourself." Saying that alone shows the state of his argument.

He starts about by going with an Ad hominem by saying that if you don't agree with me you are mentally retarded. I wish I was joking but I am not.

He doesn't set down terms like "sentience". Sentience, according to Webster, is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

Nor did he set down equal levels of sentience. Or that humans hold themselves to different standards. That is how we held ourselves then and how we held ourselves now.

He also uses the term "murder" quite liberally. By definition, it is the unjustified killing of other humans. We say killing for other animals, in a sense to dehumanize for obvious reasons.

He equates eating meat to slavery, crucifixion, rape, etc, etc. But why is it equal to those? He leaves the viewer floating in the water while he states that it is solid ground.

He doesn't justify why something is "justified" or. He just says it isn't or is.

He shows lush biomes. Not everyone lives in green biomes. Not everyone has access to those "foods". I've lived in deserts and tundras before, where almost nothing grows.

At the end, his arguments are one-sided, without any ability to backfire from the opposing opinions, and thus falling flat.

>>2318910
>Over all populations and even accounting for how "healthy" ones diet it, it has been shown vegans die of less diseases than omnivores.

Source it then.

>A 1/4 of deaths per year are attributed to cardiovascular problems.

Implying eating thick starchy food rich with sugars won't kill you either.

>I would definitely choose the life of my human family member instead of my animal if I had to make the choice, but I wouldn't say that because dogs (or any animal) are of a lesser moral value, they can be killed.

So what if a dog attacked your family? Or bears signs of rabies? Like rapists, murderers, and those who threaten my homeland with malice and destruction, I'd kill a dog just like I kill a man.

>dog's exploitation and death

How as it being exploited till that point? It was being fed, given shelter, and care until a blast to the face. Merely entertain a person does not count as exploitation if it costs the dog nothing on it's side willingly.

>I'm not imposing my will upon anyone by arguing for veganism.

Yes, but your opinion is.

>Many people decide to go vegan when they are made aware of the horrors of the animal agriculture industry.

Hindus, to some extent, were vegan, or at least vegetarians. They saw meat eating as shameful. Yet someone steps out of line and off with their heads.

You can't assume everyone goes vegan because "food industry is horrible and evil".

File: tumblr_nw3si67TXU1s6taa7o1_500.jpg (59KB, 500x360px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x360px

>>2318922
tbf in his last point he said "many" not everyone

>>2318917
It took me a few minutes to realize you weren't talking about OP

>>2318917
>He has no sources linked. He says "just look it up yourself." Saying that alone shows the state of his argument.

It really only takes a few seconds on Google to find overwhelming evidence that back up his claims.

>He starts about by going with an Ad hominem by saying that if you don't agree with me you are mentally retarded. I wish I was joking but I am not.

Pretty sure the video starts off with him saying that the majority of omnivores are indoctrinated into something that is immoral. Straw man.

>Nor did he set down equal levels of sentience. Or that humans hold themselves to different standards. That is how we held ourselves then and how we held ourselves now.

This doesn't even make sense. Organize your thoughts.

>He also uses the term "murder" quite liberally. By definition, it is the unjustified killing of other humans. We say killing for other animals, in a sense to dehumanize for obvious reasons.

But muh dictionary definition. The definition of murder is anthropocentric because it is a product of it's time. Kill and murder mean the same thing in this case so why do you care? Because it appeals to emotion in the smallest way?

>He equates eating meat to slavery, crucifixion, rape, etc, etc. But why is it equal to those? He leaves the viewer floating in the water while he states that it is solid ground.

He explains this clearly. Animals live terrible lives and then are brutally *killed* (or would you rather I say 'harvested' haha). Just watch that section again?

>He equates eating meat to slavery, crucifixion, rape, etc, etc. But why is it equal to those? He leaves the viewer floating in the water while he states that it is solid ground.

>He doesn't justify why something is "justified" or. He just says it isn't or is.

He says that his position is based on the law of reciprocity or golden rule. I mean if you're just watching half of the video and skipping around you wont understand it.

>>2318917

>He shows lush biomes. Not everyone lives in green biomes. Not everyone has access to those "foods". I've lived in deserts and tundras before, where almost nothing grows.

He addresses this when he talks about 'isolated tribes'.

>At the end, his arguments are one-sided, without any ability to backfire from the opposing opinions, and thus falling flat.

Hardly.

>>2318922

This link cites a ton of studies and meta analysis done over the years: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/dxrates

>Implying eating thick starchy food rich with sugars won't kill you either.

Not implying that. Saying animal products alone account for a ridiculously high amount of deaths. Read the link to see how vegans with 'unhealthy' diets have less disease than non-vegans with 'unhealthy' diets.

>So what if a dog attacked your family? Or bears signs of rabies? Like rapists, murderers, and those who threaten my homeland with malice and destruction, I'd kill a dog just like I kill a man.

Yep violence is fine in self defense of course.

>How as it being exploited till that point? It was being fed, given shelter, and care until a blast to the face. Merely entertain a person does not count as exploitation if it costs the dog nothing on it's side willingly.

That dog is a sentient being who does not want to die, and shooting it in the face harms the animal. Needlessly harming and animal is just another kind of exploitation. It costs the dog it's life, I don't see why you wouldn't consider a loss of life as losing something.

>opinion

How if my opinion imposing my will on people? Am I forcing you to be vegan right now?

>Hindus, to some extent, were vegan, or at least vegetarians. They saw meat eating as shameful. Yet someone steps out of line and off with their heads.

Vegans can be bad people? Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian? This is completely irrelevant to veganism.

>You can't assume everyone goes vegan because "food industry is horrible and evil".

I don't. Not all people go vegan, even when faced with the facts.

>>2318932
>>2318934

>It really only takes a few seconds on Google to find overwhelming evidence that back up his claims.

Then give it. In the same way we maintain an innocent until proven guilty, you must give evidence. Saying "I don't have to do this for you", doesn't cut it and shows that you are too stupid or lazy to back up what you believe in.

>majority of omnivores
>indoctrinated
>into eating meat
>omnivores

Also you avoid the fact he states you don't agree with him you're retarded

>This doesn't even make sense. Organize your thoughts.

What that, we as humans, can't produce subjective thoughts at a level more complex than other animals? That we are simply at heart apes that just shit eat or die? That'd explain your "retorts".

>He explains this clearly

Actually no he doesn't. Animals sitting there just eating then having their throats slit (which is a bit cruel, since they feel it for the 15 secs of their lives) when the time comes.

There's a difference between nailing a man to a wall for days on end to suffer, and a quick bonk on the head of a chicken to substantiate yourself.

I do not agree with all animal conditions. I don not believe that farm animals should be held in tight cages, unable to move around at all. But I don't believe that "oh all animal killing is evil because it is gory and makes me sad".

>Kill and murder mean the same thing

Except when they don't. Killing is broad. I can kill a plant. But do I murder a plant?

>law of reciprocity or golden rule

Except there isn't a set "golden rule" outside of "me hungry, I eat". He chose a set of morals, then said it is the de facto one.

>isolated tribes
Russia, Canada, and Alaska aren't isolated tribes. The Middle East isn't one big tribe. Iceland isn't one big tribe. Britain, Sweden, Norway, and Finland aren't isolated tribes.

Biomes =/= tribes.

>Hardly.

The only thing hard about this video is being able to listen to this garbage.

>>2318953

>Then give it. In the same way we maintain an innocent until proven guilty, you must give evidence. Saying "I don't have to do this for you", doesn't cut it and shows that you are too stupid or lazy to back up what you believe in.

Then ask for it. He'll make a response for you if you upload a veganism related video directed at him.

>omnivores

Fine, I messed up the wording. Majority of *people*. How about you not get your panties in a knot at him insulting yours and others intelligence? Also that's not an ad Hom if you consider context. He isn't using their retardation as a way of refuting their position. He is either just calling them or their position retarded. Are you feelings hurt or something?

>What that, we as humans, can't produce subjective thoughts at a level more complex than other animals? That we are simply at heart apes that just shit eat or die? That'd explain your "retorts".

That is hardly any better. Obviously humans have a higher level of sentience https://youtu.be/ueqDkY3aNAY?t=31m18s

>Actually no he doesn't. Animals sitting there just eating then having their throats slit (which is a bit cruel, since they feel it for the 15 secs of their lives) when the time comes.

I mean if you can see that being forced to live ones final years in a crate unable to move as being somewhat as bad as crucifixion, then I don't really see that problem here.

>Except when they don't. Killing is broad. I can kill a plant. But do I murder a plant?

If it makes you feel like a badass then I don't see why not. As long as it isn't causing exploitation or harm to sentient beings.

>Except there isn't a set "golden rule" outside of "me hungry, I eat". He chose a set of morals, then said it is the de facto one.

If a sentient being had the choice to eat you or eat plants, you would want it to choose the plants. Conversely if the situation was reversed and you were deciding to eat that being or plants, it is consistent to not kill the being.

>>2318953

>Russia, Canada, and Alaska aren't isolated tribes. The Middle East isn't one big tribe. Iceland isn't one big tribe. Britain, Sweden, Norway, and Finland aren't isolated tribes.

There are vegan people in these countries. I thought you were referring to people who couldn't obtain vegan food but I guess you're referring to....? What makes veganism impossible in Britain?

>>2318946
>study

Interesting. I'll take to to read through them once the weekend comes by considering I have college work.

As a standing point, correlation does not equal causation.

>Saying animal products alone account for a ridiculously high amount of deaths

Again, I'll read link. But you have to remember that these vegans may also be very health conscious relative to people simply eating meat.

>Needlessly harming and animal is just another kind of exploitation

So throw it out to the cold? Hope another family takes care of might be a better solution, but if you have no where to go, all well.

>dog is a sentient being who does not want to die

All life, down to the simplest bacteria, do not want to die. Furthermore, the dog is too stupid to know what a gun is or will do.

>How if my opinion imposing my will on people? Am I forcing you to be vegan right now?

No, you have a opinion that thinks that people should be forced. Not that you are forcing people, but you think you do.

I could think all women should be viciously raped and murdered, but if I do nothing about it I'm not forcing anyone.

>Vegans an be bad people

No, but you point was that many people do because "pitty the animals". But that is a very narrow view.

>I don't. Not all people go vegan, even when faced with the facts.

>Even when faced with the facts.

I could say that there is facts that black people in America commit more crime than other races and ethnicity, that doesn't mean I should go pursue black people.

You can't simply generalize an industry with a few animal videos showing shitty conditions.

>>2318975

>So throw it out to the cold? Hope another family takes care of might be a better solution, but if you have no where to go, all well.

I mean this dude bred it, I think he should be responsible for it's wellbeing.

>No, you have a opinion that thinks that people should be forced. Not that you are forcing people, but you think you do.
>I could think all women should be viciously raped and murdered, but if I do nothing about it I'm not forcing anyone.

If you think that all women should be raped, and take to the internet saying that all women should be raped, then you are not forcing anyone to do anything. If I think that women should be automatically considered for the draft instead of just men, and I talk about it on the internet and have a group of people that agree with me, I still am not forcing my will on anyone.

>No, but you point was that many people do because "pitty the animals". But that is a very narrow view.

Many people do go vegan out of pitty for animals. Some go vegan for health, environmental, or spiritual reasons.

>I could say that there is facts that black people in America commit more crime than other races and ethnicity, that doesn't mean I should go pursue black people.

>This thread is just a call to debate. You do not cause black people to commit crime, but eating meat does support the animal agriculture industry. If you want to then you should 'pursue black people' to reduce the crime rate if you think it would help.

>>2318983
>this dude bred it, I think he should be responsible for it's wellbeing.
I concur.

>I still am not forcing my will on anyone.
you think you do.

That came out wrong didn't it. Ok, what I meant to say was that you have a opinion on what is right and what people should follow. The opinion itself, if even if doesn't intend it, seeks it. It's called desire and ideal, but you already know that.

>Some go vegan for health, environmental, or spiritual reasons.

Alas, that's my point.

Well, I'm getting tired. Seeing as arguing whether or not vegan is ideal and the most moralistic isn't gonna change either of our opinions, I say we call it a day.

You realize that "big" brain you have is SOLELY a product of animal protein consumption that began 1.3 million years ago right? The entitled approach from vegans is staggering. Have you ever had to go without food? Or does your daddy buy all your kale? I don't eat store bought meat...but I personally harvest wildlife. I also work in a wildlife field. My food choices are the product of a million years of evolution. It's nice that you are wealthy enough to put yourself above that. Go fuck yourself, nobody cares about your opinions on other people's food choices.

P.S. You realize that there's an argument for plants being a superior and more important organism than anything in the Kingdom Animalia right? Considering they "gave birth" to all life on earth. Take a biology class and learn about the role that plants play in the ecosystem. But keep eating those wild fruits and supporting the destruction of habitat through "organic" agriculture...all while patting yourself on the back as a morally superior human. Fucking douce.

>>2318997

>Have you ever had to go without food?

Vegan here. Yes, I have. How about you?

>It's nice that you are wealthy enough to put yourself above that.

I'm poor and grew up very poor. We couldn't always even afford electricity.

>>2319005

Most farmed plant matter goes to feed cows and other farm animals, not people. Vegans end up consuming less plant matter than omnivores.

>>2319011
>Most farmed plant matter goes to feed cows and other farm animals, not people
true, but only because humans can't eat 99% of plant matter while cows and other farm animals can.

if you could figure out a way to grow corn without cobs, leaves or stems you'd be golden. Until then all that waste is going somewhere.

>>2319014

A great deal of the corn used to feed cattle consists of field corn strains not considered suitable for human consumption. And the corn is grown largely for the kernels. They do use the cobs etc., but mostly after they ferment them into silage.

Generally speaking corn grown for cattle feed is not the same corn as we humans eat. But the land used to grow that corn could easily be used for corn that was edible to humans--except it isn't, because it's used for growing feed-grade corn strains.

If it weren't for the need to produce massive quantities of field corn to feed cattle, the land could also be used to produce more nutritious crops, like hemp.

>>2319014
>>2319021

Also, generally meat-eaters consume more soybeans than vegans.

The overwhelming majority of soybeans are grown for the specific purpose to have their seeds processed into feed. That's a major why the Brazilian rainforests are getting plowed down--to grow soybeans to feed to cows and chickens.

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/consumers/

>>2319021
finishing cattle on corn isn't a need. we grew all of our cattle on sagebrush and grass for hundreds of years.

it just pays better than growing corn for your tortilla chips. As long as beef is worth a hundred times more than corn per pound it's gonna keep happening.

>>2319027
>That's a major why the Brazilian rainforests are getting plowed down
our forests in the US would've been plowed under a long time ago if we allowed it.

the real reason SA forests are being converted is because the countries choose to allow it.

File: 343.gif (11KB, 462x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 462x300px

>>2319029

>finishing cattle on corn isn't a need.

It is necessary for producing beef on a massive scale as is done today. The overwhelming majority of cows raised for the slaughter are fed on corn kernels and soybeans and silage, not little grass blades.

>we grew all of our cattle on sagebrush and grass for hundreds of years.

And the amount produced was a small fraction of the amount produced now.

To produce these overwhelming amounts of beef to be sold as they are now, it requires using massive amounts of land to use to grow field corn and soybeans to feed them.

>>2319034
the Federal government estimates that half of US beef cattle range on government land for almost their entire life. They're sent to feed lots at or around one year of age to fatten on corn for a couple weeks.

this is not secret knowledge, it's freely available to anyone on the internet.

to assume the other half of US cattle are all in factory farms just means you've never driven through the US. They grow on private property, eating exactly the same stuff that grows on government land.

>>2319039

Do they have a breakdown of the amount of energy each cow consumes in grass versus soy and corn (I know corn is technically a type of grass but it's just more convenient to draw a distinction--I'm sure you'll find this reasonable)?

Either way, I don't see how this refutes my original counterpoint to the idea that it is vegans who are more responsible for ecological destruction than meat eaters. That is the sentiment expressed in >>2319005 , and it is mistaken.

>>2318153
>>2318973
>>2318971

Not that anon, but...

What's your opinion on hunting? We all know the nasty ass conditions of an animal factory, but fishing and hunting seems to be a cheap reliable source of protein for both isolated tribes as well as people within first world countries.

Also what's your opinion on hunting to keep the ecosystem in check, as well as free range cattle farming.

>>2319047
>Do they have a breakdown
no.
>I don't see how this refutes my original counterpoint to the idea that it is vegans who are more responsible for ecological destruction than meat eaters.
it doesn't.
I wasn't arguing, I was just stating fact. It is a fact that most arable land in the US is used to feed livestock. It's also a fact that most US cattle free range for most of their lives. These two facts don't conflict, they're both true.

I took agriculture 4 years in highschool
I don't care about watching slaughterhouse footage it doesn't phase me but nature documentaries are my jam
I dont even care about chinks eating dogs its only the retarded ones who torture them beforehand "to make them taste better" I really have a problem with

>>2318153
>Humans are of moral value.

And from the get go this argument is shit.

>>2319484

>And from the get go this argument is shit.

Well if you're not of moral value, then I'm sure you're okay with me killing you.

>>2319583
self-preservation is a biological imperative, not a moral one.

morals are things that overrule biology, not agree with it. Not letting people kill you isn't a moral choice. Letting people kill you might be.

just like fucking isn't a moral choice, but not fucking might be.

morals usually violate biology rather than agree with it.

>>2319587
>morals are things that overrule biology, not agree with it. Not letting people kill you isn't a moral choice. Letting people kill you might be.

Soooo... you are okay with me killing you for no reason? We're not of moral value so I see no reason not to.

>>2319599
>you are okay with me killing you for no reason?
ah, you're retarded.

I'm ok with you trying to kill me and me killing you instead.

>>2319601

So needless murder isn't immoral, gotcha. Next!

Haven't they proven certain plants feel pain? Where's Bugguy when you need him?

>>2319618
>needless murder isn't immoral
if morals don't exist nothing is immoral.

your retardation is thinking morals matter. I won't let you kill me.

not because I think it's immoral, but because morals don't have anything to do with it.

>>2319620
>Haven't they proven certain plants feel pain?
lolno

some plants respond to injury but that doesn't equal feeling pain unless you're retarded.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

Fuck off vegan, you have no moral ground to stand on because moral is literally a human made game. Get off your damn high horse and act normal.

File: tumblr_nisxqhFEMs1qfwau4o1_500.png (143KB, 500x208px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 500x208px

Do vegans eat oysters??

>>2319622
>if morals don't exist nothing is immoral.

Gotcha, there is no difference between right and wrong. Go kill some cats weirdo.

>>2319635
>there is no difference between right and wrong.
you keep pretending morals have any effect on behavior.

I'm not going to kill cats because I don't want to

not because you think it's immoral. You're retarded, I don't care what you think is right or wrong.

>>2319629
>article

>Shitty scientist makes shitty study that gets rejected by tons of different journals before getting accepted.
>Still fails to demonstrate that plants are sentient.

>>2319636
>not because you think it's immoral. You're retarded, I don't care what you think is right or wrong.

And no one cares about what you think is right or wrong. Which is why anyone would be completely justified in killing you for no reason.

>>2319637
I think the irony is that he relies on argument from analogy which is the exact same argument vegans use to say cows are sentient.

>>2319638
we don't punish murder because it's immoral.

we punish it because we don't want to be next.

>>2319640
>we don't punish murder because it's immoral. we punish it because we don't want to be next.

WTF? Well then I'll kill you without getting caught?

File: wild-banana-and-gmo.jpg (19KB, 474x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 474x360px

At the end of the day, being a vegan hippie / hipster is just ruining it for yourself, and nobody really cares. What we really have to worry about is anti-GMO shits because they ruin progress for all of humanity.


>Vegan: Can you remove most of the food from this menu?
>AntiGMO shit: Can you remove most of the world's food?

>>2319645

MODS MODS!!!

Only kidding.

In a "perfect" word everyone would be Vegan I guess and one with nature but since that won't happen. (Not implying)

I could go vegan but honestly I like meat too much. More or less I can't eat beef (gut issues), I dislike Pork besides bacon.

I grew up on a poor small farm where we had chickens, rabbits, two cows, and pigs. We are rabbit, sold cows for slaughter, and sold/ate one pig. A lot of our meat if not most came from hunting for food (deer mostly but some elk, bear, and moose.

We kept animals as a way to feed all of us and we had gardens but no alternatives were really known. I don't like overly large farming operations where they clip beaks etc.

While we don't agree I see vegetarianism and veganism as fine but I won't change from eating meat. Even if I lived on a farm I would still raise pigs, chicken, etc and hunt deer. I find that at least is better than the majority of store bought stuff.

We just happen to be smart animals but we are omnivores by evolution. Yes we can choose to not be anymore but say you were raised in the wild I would assume meat would always be a source of food unless you developed a religion that forbid it. My wife is native and they of course eat meat but respect the life the animals give.

It's all whatever a lot of factors go into it. Most people won't be vegan unless raised so. I say raised because I don't see most people, even us animal lovers, as giving up meet or switching.

I don't hate vegans or vegetarians it's just when people call you a bad person, savage, etc it gets annoying.

Take care Vegan Anon.

>>2319663
Honestly expected this to change to some porn 1 frame in.

>>2319663

For every dog gore you post I'm going to kill an outdoor cat

So three last night and 2 more today. MY neighborhoods going to be cleaned up :)

I have to be on a ketogenic diet for my epilepsy, and I can't eat soy or its derivatives, so veganism isn't going to work real well for me.

Also, I do taxidermy, but only on pest animals.

Fight me

>>2319583
My instincts tell me, if it's hostile you kill it.

You're a hostile.

>>2319065
I think vegan anon is too afraid to answer that question because it contradicts his entire basis for why eating meat is bad.

>>2319635
Dude...

You said needless murder is bad, then advocate for killing cats? What is wrong with you?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

>>2318153
Ok. So let me guess this straight.

>Animals should not be needlessly killed.
>because humans are moral
>and all animals are equal to humans
>therefore all animals are of moral value, thus the butchering of animals is immoral
>eating doesn't justify food because it is unnecessary and expensive

This is what you think, ignoring all the bullshit such as "proof", "facts", or "sauce".

>>2319735
Also, define "needless" killing.

Why is it "needless".

>>2319735
>This is what you think, ignoring all the bullshit such as "proof", "facts", or "sauce".

>and all animals are equal to humans

Straw

>>2319746
Yes, I did drink from one as a child. Would love to watch the fluid swish and swash in nonsensical loops till it reached my mouth.

But let's stay on topic please.

>>2319750
I'm just kind of done with this thread :/

>>2319753
Aww but I just got here.

Now where will I got to waste my precious hours on pointless bickering and tomfoolery?

File: 1420756844457.jpg (582KB, 1600x1131px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1600x1131px

>>2319758

>>2318194
Pastured livestock and eat less.
Imbecile.

>>2319645
>Well then I'll kill you without getting caught?
society in general has a strong motivation to catch you, but I won't care either way since I'll be dead.

your morals are just leftover religious bullshit. Designed to keep you from violating societal norms by pretending you or anyone else has an abiding desire not to murder or rape or steal.

in reality all those 'sins' are perfectly normal human nature. We just don't like it when people do them to us.

None of which works to prop up your silly argument that people shouldn't kill, torture, or eat animals. If we have a law protecting animals you can bet it's actually about protecting society. And society doesn't need protection from chefs or ranchers.

>>2318153
suffering is part of life, these animals will suffer no matter what you would do for them.

but slaughterhouses usually kill the animals lot faster than wild predators, also hunters kill their prey lot faster and more efficiently than beasts.

>>2318153
>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would justify the murder/exploitation of that human.

How about the trait of being human?

>>2319802
>these animals will suffer no matter what you would do for them.
the secret is vegans don't want them to exist in the first place.

think we're going to 100,000,000 cattle into the wild in the US and let them just live there? They're not wild animals, they don't belong anywhere. We sure as fuck aren't going to raise them just to look at. Nope, vegans want those animals dead, not living.

>>2319800
>your morals are just leftover religious bullshit. Designed to keep you from violating societal norms by pretending you or anyone else has an abiding desire not to murder or rape or steal.

Okay so you don't think there is anything wrong with me killing you for no reason? You just don't want me to do it.

I'm clearly not talking about laws here.

>>2319814
>think we're going to 100,000,000 cattle into the wild in the US and let them just live there? They're not wild animals, they don't belong anywhere. We sure as fuck aren't going to raise them just to look at. Nope, vegans want those animals dead, not living.

Uh, we don't want to kill them, we just want people to stop breeding and eating them.

>>2319820
>Okay so you don't think there is anything wrong with me killing you for no reason? You just don't want me to do it.
yep, you got it.
>we just want people to stop breeding and eating them.
so you want to castrate them and let them die of old age.

sounds great.

>>2319821
>we just want people to stop breeding and eating them.
Tell ya what, if you'll pay me as much as a beef cow is worth every year to NOT slaughter them I'll keep one for you. Alive and un-tortured.

the problem is vegans won't put their money where their mouth is. If it paid better to not slaughter cows people would not slaughter cows. Step it up.

>>2318265
Same can be said about every Rekt thread in /b/ and nobody cares.

>>2319824
As it's sold or how much it costs to butcher it?

If we didn't not use farm animals that's quite a lot of species to add to the extinct list.

>>2319812
What's that?

>>2319672
Most gmo foods just have more water and a greater dispersal of the nutrients that are actually important desu

>>2319992
>idiot

File: 8659a4a86dbbccb2840aa21350285070.jpg (10KB, 236x354px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x354px

>>2318153
Okay wait tho...

What about insects and fish? I understand big animals but surely you can't be that sympathetic with those species?

>>2318153
Eating less meat is better for your health. Eating meat causes inflammation (however lots of other foods cause inflammation too). Take a look at some of the longest living people's eating habits (see Japan); smaller amounts of meat.

I try to avoid meat for the most part. It keeps me thin, I feel great eating fresh foods, and it's easier on my digestive system.

If you want to eat meat then I'm a big believer in killing it yourself....

File: info-unbk0609-lifespan.gif (18KB, 554x337px)

18KB, 554x337px

>>2320033
What about Hong Kong. A decent part of their diet is meat.

>>2319822
>so you want to castrate them and let them die of old age.
>sounds great.

I mean there are very few bulls compared to the population of female cows. There are so many solutions that don't involve castration like simply keeping them separated and fed for their natural life, letting some breed naturally and just letting them live as natural grazing animals... Anything is better than the systematic captivity, artificial insemination, and slaughter of billions of animals. It's hilarious to try to portray vegans as the immoral ones because they want to stop supporting the animal industry.

>>2319824
>Tell ya what, if you'll pay me as much as a beef cow is worth every year to NOT slaughter them I'll keep one for you. Alive and un-tortured.

A constant cycle of torture and slaughter vs. one final cycle of torture and slaughter... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, which is better? This whole 'cows going extinct' argument is so stupid because we put the cows in that terrible position, and there is no perfect solution to get them out of it. It doesn't mean that *nothing* can be done.

>>2320020
Fish have been determined to be incapable of feeling pain the way we do. They know when something's fucky, but "pain" as we know it is a very complex emotional state that requires a fair amount of brain power.

>>2320116
>there are very few bulls compared to the population of female cows
Because we castrate them.

otherwise there'd be almost exactly half bulls.
are you retarded?

>>2320118
>which is better?
I'd rather be dead than castrated.
I think most men would.

either way, my point is you want them dead. As in not alive. Of course you'll accomplish this by not breeding more, but the result is the same.

you don't want to protect the feelings of cows, pigs, sheep, chickens. You want them to not exist.

>>2320116
>>2320118
We put cattle in that position over thousands of years of farming and selective breeding as a part of our own survival. Only in the modern first world do you have enough food stability to sit back and choose to live a vegan lifestyle, and even in the "modern first world" there are millions of people who depend on easily available animal products for survival because they live in impoverished communities.

Additionally, I don't know where you're getting your facts from, but sustainable herd management means at least some of the animals must be either dairy cows or beef cattle. Unless you want to turn all of these domesticated animals loose and leave them with no veterinary care whatsoever for the rest of their lives? Because cows, even if you turn them all loose in a big old pasture, require maintenance. You drench them to prevent parasites four times a year. You vaccinate regularly. You get the vet in for the ones that are sick or injured or need anything else done for them. Even if you've only got 20 head, that adds up quick. You got 1000 head of cattle, and you have a massive problem on your hands that you're going to want to get rid of ASAP. And you can't just let them go free. You seen those sacred cows in India? The skinny disease-ridden things that go and die in the middle of the street? You don't actually want that for a cow. Just letting that happen and doing nothing about it is cruelty by neglect. "The cow is free. It isn't my job to do all these things for it." Then whose is it? Because that cow is a domestic animal.

And you can't just keep one social herd animal separated for the entirety of its fertile life. Nor can you let it breed indescriminately. Bulls must be castrated or sent off for slaughter because keeping them alone is also cruel.

>>2320129
>you don't want to protect the feelings of cows, pigs, sheep, chickens. You want them to not exist.
I have notice this seems to be the endgoal for some vegans, but I don't understand how they think they will accomplish it. The elimination of domestic species would take decades if not centuries or millenia to implement, and it is currently not practicable.

>>2320133
I'm less interested in the mechanics of it than the philosophy.

If it's better to be dead than to suffer, why is the vegan still alive?

>>2320128
>otherwise there'd be almost exactly half bulls.
>are you retarded?

The proportion of male (castrated or not) to female cows is tiny, not almost half you moron. The proportion of intact males to females is even smaller. Are you retarded?

>>2320154
ah, I see you are actually retarded.

the sex ratio in cattle is 1:1. There is one male born for every female, on average.

>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0093691X77901868

the reason we have so few bulls is because we castrate them, turn them into veal, and/or raise them for slaughter.

>>2320151
Now, if we're getting into the philosophy of that sort of thing, I'd've jumped off a bridge myself 12 years ago.

Philosophy's beyond me.

The mechanics and real-world possibility of something -- that's something you gotta sit down and think through before you go philosophising, because sometimes it just doesn't compute.

>>2320161
>that's something you gotta sit down and think through
Well he's saying he'd keep the sexes separated and just let them live out their lives with no more breeding. But he's also operating on the mistaken assumption that very few male cattle are born.

I'd guess castration would work just fine. Castrate all the males and cattle will disappear in about 20 years.

The philosophy interests me because it seeks to get rid of suffering animals instead of improving their lives. Which is nihilistic. I find a similar problem when discussing overpopulation with vegans and organic types. They want to get rid of 80% of humans rather than improving conditions for them.

it's an interesting approach. Neo-luddites I suppose.

>>2320158
>the reason we have so few bulls is because we castrate them, turn them into veal, and/or raise them for slaughter.

I'm not talking about birth sex ratio, I'm talking about cows alive today. Who the fuck cares what the chance of sex ratio is if we stop artificially inseminating and imprisoning them?

>>2320176
>Who the fuck cares what the chance of sex ratio is if we stop artificially inseminating and imprisoning them?
as soon as you stop there will be tens of millions of male cattle to deal with that were scheduled for slaughter,

and tens of millions more that were fetuses in pregnant cows at the time you stop.
That's just the US. Worldwide the number would approach billions of male cattle you'd have to deal with.

Either way the cows alive today are about half males. We breed new ones for every one we kill.

>>2320165
You can't keep a whole lot of bulls together. During the right season, they're going to fight. Castrate them all, sure. But don't keep a whole lot of bulls together. Or rams. Or boars. Or whatever.

And then letting them disappear in 20 years? See, that's where the issue crops up. That's where the mathematics comes in, because suddenly you've got a whole nation of cattle, say, that are no longer productive but which you must still care for. For 20 years. Unless the government takes them over and puts them on reserves or something, individual farmers turning to plant-based agriculture and not cattle farming aren't going to be able to afford to maintain those herds for that long.

But without tremendous and wide-spread social and cultural reform, no government is going to be willing to foot that sort of bill. Especially not when you factor in pigs and chickens and ducks and turkeys and rabbits and sheep and goats and deer and camels and whatever the hell else people are farming, not just cows.

Everything suffers at some point or another. And that's where I get lost with the philosophy. Everything that has the capacity to suffer, will. You can try and make life as good as possible, but suffering will continue to exist regardless, be it people or animals. Might as well just nuke the earth and leave it to the roaches.

And that whole reduction of the earth's population thing? That sounds dangerously like genocide. Alternatively, it could be achieved with wide-spread sterilisation, but then who do you choose who doesn't get sterilised? You're getting awfully close to a eugenics situation, which is frowned upon in Western society.

>>2320181
>as soon as you stop there will be tens of millions of male cattle to deal with that were scheduled for slaughter,

Well good thing the first world is going vegan gradually, instead of all at once. This hypothetical situation that exists only in your head of the animal agriculture industry being completely defunded overnight is extremely unlikely. The way supply and demand works is that farmers will be forced to breed fewer and fewer cattle as fewer people (as a percentage of the population) support the industry. Eventually animal agriculture will go the way of the lamplighter.

>>2320182
>Might as well just nuke the earth and leave it to the roaches
exactly
>who do you choose who doesn't get sterilised?
and again you grasp the point immediately.

the part I find interesting is that vegans and other dietary leftists for some reason don't understand these points even after hours of discussion. Or they refuse to understand.

It's one reason I tend to stereotype vegans as stupid without actually knowing. They should at least be aware of their nihilism, even if they can't defend it.

>>2320187
>good thing the first world is going vegan gradually
your mistake is thinking ranchers only sell to the first world.

US beef consumption is way down. US beef production is way up. Where is that beef going if americans aren't eating it? The answer is your choices simply don't matter. You don't eat beef? Most of the world does.

>>2320188
>the part I find interesting is that vegans and other dietary leftists for some reason don't understand these points even after hours of discussion. Or they refuse to understand.

My sister is one. I no longer sit down to have meals with her because I can't deal with that degree of wilfull ignorance.

>>2320190
Most of the world does, and so do their dogs. Phase out animal products and you've got to phase out carnivorous pets, too, unless they work out how to make complete canine and feline diets out of insects or something.

A lot of people aren't going to want to give up their dog, for whatever reason.

>>2320190
>US beef consumption is way down. US beef production is way up. Where is that beef going if americans aren't eating it? The answer is your choices simply don't matter. You don't eat beef? Most of the world does.

You tell me where it's going. Probably developing countries? The kind of countries that reduce meat consumption once they reach a certain level of development? As for my choices not mattering: what part of supply and demand don't you understand? If anyone chooses to not buy a product that they usually would, it has some effect on the industry. The last several posts in this thread are simple appeals to futility.

>>2320195
>If anyone chooses to not buy a product that they usually would, it has some effect on the industry.
maybe, if it weren't for the fact that 360,000 meat eaters are born every day while you only get to stop eating meat once.

>appeals to futility.
not a fallacy when your work is demonstrably futile.

>>2320197
>maybe, if it weren't for the fact that 360,000 meat eaters are born every day while you only get to stop eating meat once.

Once more people get educated, the indoctrination to eat meat will decrease and eventually end. Meaning fewer parents will teach their children to enjoy meat.

>not a fallacy when your work is demonstrably futile.

It's not demonstrably futile. It's already working in tons of developed countries. Unless you can *demonstrably* prove that veganism has no effect on any populations..

>>2320194
>so do their dogs.
good point.
most vegans I've met want to get rid of pets too.

>>2320199
>Unless you can *demonstrably* prove that veganism has no effect on any populations..
I've already pointed out the population that matters:
it has had no effect on cattle populations. I'd bet pigs and chickens are growing in population too.

>the indoctrination to eat meat will decrease and eventually end
then we get into the fact that eating meat is a biological imperative, not a learned behavior.

and that stopping eating meat requires technology the world as a whole can't afford.

>>2320201
>then we get into the fact that eating meat is a biological imperative, not a learned behavior.

>and that stopping eating meat requires technology the world as a whole can't afford.

And what the heck are you going to do with all the people who, for one medical reason or another, cannot stop eating meat? As an example, removing meat and animal products from my diet is not feasible because of other dietary restrictions. I could not maintain a vegan diet that would meet either my required macronutrients OR micronutrients.

>>2318153
Bacon is life.

>>2320216
>And what the heck are you going to do with all the people who, for one medical reason or another, cannot stop eating meat? As an example, removing meat and animal products from my diet is not feasible because of other dietary restrictions. I could not maintain a vegan diet that would meet either my required macronutrients OR micronutrients.

Your health argument is bullshit, what nutrients are you missing with your 'restrictions'?

>>2320201
>and that stopping eating meat requires technology the world as a whole can't afford.

Yet meat consumption is basically a product of developing countries. See how your argument completely contradicts itself?

>it has had no effect on cattle populations. I'd bet pigs and chickens are growing in population too.

Oh, are those animals going to countries that are lacking the 'technology' to stop eating meat?

>>2320222
>>2320201

Growth* in meat consumption

>>2320222
>See how your argument completely contradicts itself?
um, no.

I say developing countries can't afford to go vegan and you say developing countries eat more meat?

and in your mind that's a contradiction?

>>2320223
oh, ok.
that makes more sense.

population growth is coming from developing countries as well, so vegans are losing the war by reproduction also.

Even if your position was defensible at even the highest level, I would continue eating meat for the rest of my life. There is not a single logical arguement, analogy, or propaganda video that will change my mind.

>>2320227
>population growth is coming from developing countries as well, so vegans are losing the war by reproduction also.

No... Can you comprehend the idea that developing countries eventually become first-world? You've already conceded that meat consumption is falling in developed countries.

>>2320237
>Can you comprehend the idea that developing countries eventually become first-world?
I understand what you're saying, I understood it the first time you said it.

which brings us to the real reason your insults and stupidity don't bother me-

at current rates of population growth modern society won't survive long enough for the entire world to become what you think of as "developed."

even if we don't kill ourselves the idea is impossible simply because there aren't enough resources on the planet for everyone to have your level of comfort.

the only way your goal can be reached is by killing off about 80% of humanity.

>>2320240

>I understand what you're saying, I understood it the first time you said it.

And you chose to ignore it before you could think of your "end of the world" scenario.

>even if we don't kill ourselves the idea is impossible simply because there aren't enough resources on the planet for everyone to have your level of comfort.
>the only way your goal can be reached is by killing off about 80% of humanity.

First of all, this is pure conjecture from you. Secondly, you're basically throwing your "world meat consumption is increasing" out the window and saying that society is going to collapse? If society collapses then people will be relying almost exclusively on plants, not meat, due to the fact that meat is incredibly inefficient to cultivate. An insane amount of water and plant calories goes into animal agriculture, especially compared to plant agriculture.

>>2320248
>you chose to ignore it before you could think of your "end of the world" scenario.
I understood that scenario before you were born. I prefer to go through points in sequential order to read your responses to each.

I've had this argument hundreds of times with hundreds of people. I'm curious if you bring anything new to the table.

you do not.

>First of all, this is pure conjecture from you
how much aluminum would be required for every person on the planet to have a car? How much aluminum exists? This isn't conjecture, you'd need 4 more planets Earth to bring our current populations to basic American standards.
>meat is incredibly inefficient to cultivate
yes, I know you're pretending people can eat grass and corn leaves. Or that cattle need special grass grown for them. Neither is true.

>>2320251
>how much aluminum would be required for every person on the planet to have a car? How much aluminum exists? This isn't conjecture, you'd need 4 more planets Earth to bring our current populations to basic American standards.

American standards is not some kind of magical "developed country" standard -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita --. This barely counts as an argument because technology and society are constantly changing. Huge strides are being made in production, public transport and ride sharing.

>yes, I know you're pretending people can eat grass and corn leaves. Or that cattle need special grass grown for them. Neither is true.

This is an age old fallacy. Most corn used in cow feed is not meant for human consumption, it's not a byproduct of human corn. If the world ends people will grow crops that *they can eat*, and the byproducts of that won't be able to feed shit. And of course, "muh grass fed beef". You know that a single cow takes around 9 acres of grassland and years more time to reach the size of slaughter? I would think that people who want to survive would use that land and time to grow crops that are somewhat efficient.

>>2320259
>Huge strides are being made in production, public transport and ride sharing.
our concern isn't moving people, it's moving refrigerated produce. Most of the world can't grow the variety of crops needed to keep a single vegan alive.

>people who want to survive would use that land and time to grow crops that are somewhat efficient.
most land can't be farmed.
a lot of it can grow grass though.

>>2318153
>basing an argument on a few nu-males that won't watch slaughterhouse videos
i watch those and get erect. the screams of those animals increases the tastiness of the meat.

>>2320267
>how much aluminum would be required for every person on the planet to have a car? How much aluminum exists? This isn't conjecture, you'd need 4 more planets Earth to bring our current populations to basic American standards.

>our concern isn't moving people, it's moving refrigerated produce. Most of the world can't grow the variety of crops needed to keep a single vegan alive.

Moving the goalposts. You are constantly changing/abandoning bad arguments and it's kind of annoying. So tons and tons of meat is being exported out of the US to underdeveloped countries with no problem, yet it's impossible to have the same food transportation with much, much more efficient food?

>most land can't be farmed. a lot of it can grow grass though.
>grass

Why are rice and corn so extensively farmed for food? I'll give you a hint but you have to promise me you'll think really hard about this..

>corn
>grass
>rice
>grass

>>2320267
>>2320286

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/css/330/two/index2.htm

>>2320286
>You are constantly changing/abandoning bad arguments and it's kind of annoying
sorry, I'm reading your responses and moving on to the next point. I'm not interested in actually arguing with you, you're a bit stupid.

> it's impossible to have the same food transportation with much, much more efficient food?
meat has far more calories per pound than any plant. it's much more efficient to transport.

crops being types of grass does NOT mean they grow anywhere other grasses do. Again this is the sort of ignorance of agriculture that makes you very boring to debate.

Fuck you vegans, go eat some rocks and care for humanity first.

>>2320290
>sorry, I'm reading your responses and moving on to the next point. I'm not interested in actually arguing with you, you're a bit stupid.

Your individual points do not hold up to scrutiny. Developing countries will eventually become developed? Well I had no reason to even bring that up because... how much aluminum would be required for every person on the planet to have a car? Well I wasn't actually talking about cars, I was talking about transporting food. Yet you call me stupid? I'm not abandoning my points over and over again, you are. You can't just "move on" from point to point if you want anyone to take you seriously.

>meat has far more calories per pound than any plant. it's much more efficient to transport.

Huh, I wonder why you changed your argument about cars to talking about transporting food? The only reason why developing counties or 2nd world countries can buy the meat itself and afford to pay transportation is because their economies are growing. If they can afford beef, which is much more costly (including transportation) than grains, then they can get plants.

>crops being types of grass does NOT mean they grow anywhere other grasses do. Again this is the sort of ignorance of agriculture that makes you very boring to debate.

Grass crops can and are grown on grassland, don't feign ignorance. And you can stop with this whole "I'm ignoring your insults to me" while hilariously trying to insult me. Maybe if you gave a single argument that help up to scrutiny then you could feel justified in insulting me, but at this point it just seems like a shitty self defense mechanism.

>>2320294
>if you want anyone to take you seriously.
you mistake my intentions even after I stated them.
> I wonder why you changed your argument about cars to talking about transporting food?
because you're literally too stupid to understand automobiles are used to transport food.
>Grass crops can and are grown on grassland, don't feign ignorance.
so your claim is that any land that grows grass can grow corn?

do you realize how stupid you sound when you say stuff like this?

>>2320301
>so your claim is that any land that grows grass can grow corn?

LOL, my claim is that grass crops can and are grown on grassland, don't feign ignorance. Anyways, you're completely failing to refute any of my points, and you're not even jumping around any more. Give up? Lel

>>2320303
>my claim is that grass crops can and are grown on grassland
that doesn't imply that all grassland can grow grass crops.
>you're completely failing to refute any of my points
you don't have points, just misunderstandings or lies.
>you're not even jumping around any more
I wasn't before. I responded to what you brought up. You were jumping around.
>Give up?
that's up to you. do you think you have any cogent arguments on why veganism is sustainable? Or more sustainable than mixed-use agriculture or factory farming?

>>2320301
>so your claim is that any land that grows grass can grow corn?

To anyone who may be reading. You might have noticed at this point that omnivores love to resort to straw man arguments such as this. I say corn and rice are grown on grassland, and he says "HURR so your claim is that any land that grows grass can grow corn?" Total straw man. Same with the whole "HHHUURRR so you're saying an animal life and a human life are equally important?" Nope, straw man, I'm saying that animals, like humans have moral value and should not be subjected to suffering and death. Gotta love these anti-vegan arguments man, I get smarter, and they stay the saaammme.

>>2320307
>Total straw man
so clarify what you mean.

If I say not all grassland can be used to grow crops
and you respond that grass crops grow on grassland,

I infer you're saying any grassland can grow grass crops.

the alternative is you agree with every farmer in the world that most grassland can't grow crops but can grow cows.

>>2320307
>To anyone who may be reading
also this is just ridiculous.

your audience is less than 3 people, none of whom agree with you.

>>2320305
>that doesn't imply that all grassland can grow grass crops.

Yeah, I didn't imply that. So what? Are corn, rice and wheat ever grown on grassland?

>you don't have points, just misunderstandings or lies.

You say this, but you can't demonstrate it.

>I wasn't before. I responded to what you brought up. You were jumping around.

Delusion.

>that's up to you. do you think you have any cogent arguments on why veganism is sustainable? Or more sustainable than mixed-use agriculture or factory farming?

This thread is open to any and all debates. If you think veganism is less sustainable than mixed-use agriculture or factory farming, then demonstrate it.

>>2320314
>If you think veganism is less sustainable than mixed-use agriculture or factory farming, then demonstrate it.
I don't need to.

ultimately nothing you or I say is going to change the real sustainability or lack thereof. My interest is in your cognitive dissonance.
the lies we tell ourselves, if you will.

>>2320311
>so clarify what you mean.
>so your claim is that any land that grows grass can grow corn?

It's annoying to clarify if you keep misrepresenting what I'm saying. You didn't say "not all grassland can be used to grow crops", you said "HUR you think that ALL grassland can be used for crops". You misrepresent my argument and then lie about a point you made in the past? Why? You never even made that point until that post!

>I infer you're saying any grassland can grow grass crops.

You need to work on your inference skills? I said nothing of the sort.

>the alternative is you agree with every farmer in the world that most grassland can't grow crops but can grow cows.

I didn't know that all farmers thought this, but I'm not surprised because most farmers are uneducated retards. Crops grown on grassland feed most of the world's humans and a significant portion of domesticated animals, yet only a small amount of grasslands can grow foods? Give me a break.

>>2320315
>ultimately nothing you or I say is going to change the real sustainability or lack thereof. My interest is in your cognitive dissonance.

Oof, hilarious coming from you brave anon. Well you've argued so much, it's sad to see you give up :(

>>2320319
>only a small amount of grasslands can grow foods? Give me a break.
so you're arguing the "MOST" part of it.

fair enough.
grass grows over more than 90% of the planet's surface.
about 30% of that surface is farmable.

so no matter how you cut it most of the planet is suitable for growing cattle but not crops.

>>2320322
>about 30% of that surface is farmable.

And that 30% is more than enough to provide the world with food, especially when we take other farmable biomes into account, and new indoor farming methods that are orders of magnitude more efficient than outdoor farming (of course this technology isn't widespread yet).

Genuinely curious, why don't vegans eat eggs? I can understand not supporting farm eggs but why not the eggs of their own pet chickens? Do they throw the eggs in the bin or leave them until they rot? Either way seems like such a waste of good food.

>>2320324
>And that 30% is more than enough to provide the world with food
that wasn't the point.
your point was that raising livestock is an inefficient use of farmland. I corrected this by showing you that livestock doesn't need to use farmland.

>>2320248
>If society collapses then people will be relying almost exclusively on plants, not meat, due to the fact that meat is incredibly inefficient to cultivate. An insane amount of water and plant calories goes into animal agriculture, especially compared to plant agriculture.

Lemme tell you a thing. I'm not American, BUT. If society collapses, I'll keep some plants, yeah. I already keep a small orchard and I'm periodically adding trees with edible properties to my own land just in case. You never know. For example, I keep a white oak for acorns to make flour and a ginkgo in addition to the fruiting trees.

I DO NOT have the know-how to grow crops year-round. What do I have more immediately on hand? A whole lot of land with grass and weeds that I'm not going to be able to effectively cultivate. I don't know shit about wheat, and even once you've got wheat, you've got to grind it somehow (grinding leached acorns to flour is easy because they're soft!), the land isn't immediately suitable for rice, and I can't eat corn.

What am I going to put on that land? As many goats as my acreage allows. Meat, milk, and maybe goat cheese, if I can work out how to make it. And free fertiliser, and maybe even fuel for my fire from their droppings! I don't have to worry about the water or the plant calories. We get enough rain here. Goats are efficient and can live off pretty rough stuff. They're a lot more likely to get me through a lean winter than some badly preserved apples and a few feeble garlic and leek plants. Except probably not the leeks because I won't have access to them. My entire winter vegetable crop will be garlic and MAYBE a few potatoes if I haven't eaten them all in times of desperation.

On that note, I really need to start looking into keeping bees.

>>2320328
>that wasn't the point.
>your point was that raising livestock is an inefficient use of farmland. I corrected this by showing you that livestock doesn't need to use farmland.

Are you talking about farmable grassland or non-grassland farmlands?

>>2320342
>Are you talking about farmable grassland or non-grassland farmlands?
neither.
I'm talking about non-farmable grasslands

are you actually stupid or just pretending for the sake of argument?

>>2320326
they don't have pets, much less chickens. moral issues probably.

if i felt like it i could probably make a case for captive plant growth vs. foraging, or how eventually there will be no way to rotate crops quite enough before completely exhausting said 30% of world land suitable for farming. there are too many people in the world, not to mention the feasibility of the economy of scale that would have to be established. it would be incredibly unfair to people in, say, japan and northern russia for example, and equally as unfair for the folks actually farming the stuff. they would have to be making major money to sit on their ass and eat imported food while the rest of us work our asses off to feed them. congratulations, you've invented communism. history can tell you how well that's worked.

but all that arguing would take too much effort for the little amount of satisfaction it would grant me.

instead, i'm gonna go eat a hot dog for dinner, and savor every meat piece that's been ground up together to make it, because a hot dog is infinitely more delicious than even your best black bean burger.

stop lying to yourself. eat some fucking meat and get over it.

>>2318153
I love how you say "needless" but not "pointless".

You would really have a strong argument if you used pointless.

You do have an argument on what not going if vegan is pointless, correct? I mean we totally don't want some anon selecting what he can easily refute and bending his opponents' words to fit his agenda, right?

File: Anon you're a mess.jpg (391KB, 1374x1400px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1374x1400px

>>2319599
>>2319618
>>2319635
>>2319638
>>2319645
>self preservation is a biological point
>lol you want me to kill you? XDDDDDDD

File: 1484627536767.gif (3MB, 350x349px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 350x349px

>>2319583
>Well if you're not of moral value, then I'm sure you're okay with me killing you.

Or it could mean that moral principles aren't there from the get go. Biology and morality, while they can coexist, aren't the same thing.

That video that you sourced https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueqDkY3aNAY a while back said that morality isn't a physical thing, it's a social agreement. Like the video, it fails to take note that ethics and morality are subjective.

Also this entire thread, you've been twisting the words of others to make your argument look better. I was thinking about going vegan for a change, but seeing people like you gave more reason to not.

I love animals, but if I'm going to end as some inconsistent moron who'll purposely twist the words of others just to justify my reasons, I want no part of that.

>>2320496
>letting other people dictate what you do
Just go vegan if you want to. Don't even call yourself such or associate with vegans if you're so afraid of some kind of moron virus.

But desu I think you're looking for any excuse to not make the change.

>>2320348
>but all that arguing would take too much effort for the little amount of satisfaction it would grant me.

Yet you wrote an assblasted essay about it anyway. Why does the existence of vegans make you feel so threatened? I like spinach, so I leave it at that and don't feel a need to post a butthurt rant about how much I love it. I think you're the one lying to yourself.

>>2319065
>hurr durr hunting for survival and hunting for sport are exactly the same

You realize deer hunting leads to population explosions of the same in the long run, right? Every season there's suddenly less competition for food, the deer take advantage of that to eat and breed as much as they can, and then next year will you look at that, they're somehow overpopulated again. Isn't that convenient?
Even if the population of deer didn't gradually stabilize itself, we could introduce predator species. We could lower the breeding population/rates. Hunting is simply a way for the government to make money off licenses, permits, and ignorance.

In any case, killing something for fun is a sign that you're seriously fucked in the head, and that doesn't magically change when you're old enough to shoot Pappy's rifle.

>>2320496
>I love animals, but if I'm going to end as some inconsistent moron who'll purposely twist the words of others just to justify my reasons, I want no part of that.

I love animals, but people who offend me literally force me to kill tons of animals for no reason. Yeah, sounds like you love animals.

>>2320720
Do you think deer suddenly release more eggs to fertilize when conditions are good? Deer don't make that many fawn. Also how many deer do you think are killed by hunters every season? Although we could do more by incentivizing hunters to kill more doe

File: 1487467276776.gif (3MB, 367x280px)

3MB, 367x280px

>>2320722
And you do it again. You're so predictable.

File: 1486539983465.png (267KB, 358x408px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 358x408px

>>2320720
>You realize deer hunting leads to population explosions of the same in the long run, right?

Sauce on stats.

>Every season there's suddenly less competition for food

Deer have to compete for grass? Interesting.

>we could introduce predator species.

Cause that surely won't escalate the amount of problems we have.

>We could lower the breeding population/rates.

Hunting bucks.

>Hunting is simply a way for the government

The government had to regulate hunting because if they didn't there would be no animals left.

>killing something for fun is a sign that you're seriously fucked in the head,

When did I ever say hunting for sport or fun? Also how is it fucked in the head?

File: mmmmhhh, delicious hot roasted dead cow. Come on, stop me. I dare you..gif (966KB, 320x205px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 320x205px

>>2318153
>Fight me

I won't, because I don't need to. You have practically no power stopping me, or anyone else, from eating meat. Why play mental gymnastics when in the end, your say is null?

Cry all you want, you have as much power as the Antifa.

>>2320966
I turned my GF and my parents vegan, as well as a few friends. It's possible that I turned some randos on the internet vegan or at least got them to reduce their meat consumption.

File: grilling a steak.gif (996KB, 500x281px)

996KB, 500x281px

>>2320979
Ok? Your gf, parents, friends, and some strangers online don't represent the entirety of the population.

>>2320983
>You have practically no power stopping THE ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION from eating meat.

Oh, right, I forgot you said that.

>>2318153
Veganism is unnatural and a retarded propaganda that undermines the natural balance of the world. You can't turn everyone into vegans as you can't turn everyone into christians. Kill yourself.

File: if i pull that off will you die.jpg (124KB, 850x564px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 850x564px

>>2320987
>no power stopping me, or anyone else
>you have as much power as the Antifa.

The point of this thread was that "eating meat is murder" or some hippy dippy shit like that. Generally most people want to stop murder. The intent behind this would probably wanting to stop it from happening.

Crying shame that'll probably never happen given how most people don't care for this kind of mobo jumbo morality stuff.

Well good day to you, enjoy the photo of a guy and some albatrosses.

>>2320997

If it's "unnatural" then how is it happening? Are you saying humans (which are made of natural elements--even our brains are made of physical matter) can somehow act contrary to the laws of nature?

>>2320998
>Crying shame that'll probably never happen given how most people don't care for this kind of mobo jumbo morality stuff.

Most people don't go for the ethics argument, though some do. Many people are also convinced by the health and environmental arguments as well.

>>2320997
>Veganism is unnatural and a retarded propaganda that undermines the natural balance of the world. You can't turn everyone into vegans as you can't turn everyone into christians. Kill yourself.

LOL how is factory farming domesticated animals natural?

But outside of shitholes like China slaughterhouses are way more humane than how animals kill each other.

>>2318327
>Yes I've considered that, and my conclusion is that animals don't benefit from the relationship. The vast majority of animals eaten live out torturous lives.
You don't even have a basic grasp of population dynamics don't you?
Hint: Prey animals reproduce like crazy, because very few make it to adulthood. They are either eaten by predators, die of some illness or just starve during winter.
The few who make it to adulthood pop out a few litters, before eventually dying too.

Even better, if some kind of clueless retard like you decides to kill all the evil predators, the population of prey animals explodes and they destroy the entire ecosystem before starving to death.

The entire system is based around them living short and shitty lifes.

>Even at the hypothetical "perfect farm" animals are slaughtered at a fraction of their life expectancy and do not get to live out a normal life, with freedom, a mate, etc.
What do you mean their "life expectancy"? Most of those values are literally taken from animals in captivity.

In nature maybe 0.1% of animals make it that long and even then they are likely to die a violent and terrifying death.

>The fact that life isn't easy for wild animals doesn't justify the needless mass murder of animals.
The entire ecosystem is built around "mass murder". That's how predators eat.

>I'm really arguing about the lack of justification for the needless murder of animals, and we are not in the same situation as wild coyotes, who must kill for survival.
We kill them because meat is delicious, that's why. I don't need to justify myself to some virtue-signaling hippie.

If you think that living in a forest is hot shit, please do so and remember to not bring any evil technology with you.

>We are people who can go to the store and choose to eat plants.
And you're free to do that. If you subject your children to that shit though, I will personally call CPS on you.

>>2318189
This happens still. When humans get our shit together and stop treating each other so horribly, then, maybe I'll think about not killing animals. It seems you have cognitive dissonance on the subject. You and others like you are the outliers! There is still rape,murder,child trafficking,pedophilia, manipulation,greed,sadism,masochism, hate, abuse, etc... going in our "humane" world. And you want to stop killing something that is not our species! You are a self hating cunt and should kys!

>>2318228
No. It's not. It's completely rational and logical. You are delusional!

>>2318264
Sentient is a meme to you. As you are speciest. Constantly organisms smaller than you are being (without thought) killed by you. But because something can think on a vaguely similar level as us. You want it to live "humanely". Well their not human, and until humans stop killing and torturing other humans you're argument is invalid and you are the one with cognitive dissonace!

>>2321003
The same way ants farm insects and certain plant life. We're more advanced omnivores. Kill yourself. Your ideas are cultish and will only work on liberals and the uninformed.

>>2318319
What? We did not know animals have the capacity to suffer. You're a fucking moron if you think that. We've know for hundred of thousands of years that other animals can suffer. You have no actual argument. You started off with a constant, but when better arguments arose you deviated to say a bear "if" killing a human and you could stop it you would kill the bear. You might not have to kill the bear to save the human. You're whole argument does rely on universal truths and when given a better argument, it falls apart. Emotional response 101, is all you have!
"Logic dictates, by course of action. I should play god and shoot you myself."

>>2321000
Humans are naturally omnivores. What I'm saying is, the vegan agenda's goal is unnatural since it advocates this utopia akin to that of communism. Which will never work since nature abhors a vacuum.

>>2318320
>wiki articles
>wiki

Kek

>>2318399
The point

You're head


Flew right over it.

>>2318153
Plants created animals to move their seed around. They created us so we shouldn't eat them. If anything, we should only eat other animals

>>2318555
People here in America the so called "greatest country in the world" die of starvation... every fucking day! You care more about an animals well being than your fellow humans. That's cognitive dissonace at its finest. Evolution is a fickle bitch and when the western world falls to the likes of puskies like you. This argument of yours will cease. "Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life. This is necassary!"

>I love quoting tool like this!

File: image.jpg (122KB, 545x398px)

122KB, 545x398px

>>2318153

>>2318560
Stray cats are a huge problem, because the greed of man! You don't understand. None of this will stop unless we as a species develop past our current state. You're argument is based on a social construct. Inwhich, is only shared by a tiny fraction of our population. Tell the Chinese to stop brutally killing and eating dogs! I can tell you, that it is projecting. Thier way of life us just that.and you're morality has no weight in their social structure, nor the universes for that matter. Humans aren't the end all be all of morality. To stop eating meat would cause a mass death to the livestock we have now. And it would be more brutal than the way we kill them (for the most part). Stockholm syndrome is real and effects more than humans! Slavery is still real and so is all the abhorrent things humans do to each other. Until that stops your want is of no importance!

>>2318587
You already fucked up you're own argument. What a cuck!

>>2318613
Projecting on an animals. That's farfetched. You assume they are as sentient as us. they clearly, are not!

>>2318698
So, you never killed one. It would change your outlook on "life"!

>>2318751
These organisms can destroy our "sentient"minds and force their own will upon us.
For example toxoplasmosis!
Sentience, in itself, is very debatable!

>>2321003
We are natural and our process as apart nature is natural. To say otherwise is false!

>>2321001
Which is subjective, as is you're emotional appeals!

>>2321000
This is true. Everything that is happening is natural, or else it wouldn't be happening!

>>2321119

>Humans are naturally omnivores.

What do you mean by "naturally"?

>>2321141
Nature is all there is. If you can't understand semantics, that's you're own Damm fault!

>>2321145
>Nature is all there is
in which case everything is natural and the term is meaningless.

There's some hypocrisy in using a word you yourself assert has no meaning.

but more importantly it lends a natural basis to the behaviors of eskimos and OP. So we can also say that humans are naturally carnivores and vegans. For if all human behavior is natural, OP's veganism must be natural as well.

>>2318153
>Be vegan
>Can't shut up about how veganism is good and eating meat is evil everywhere
Found your problem, mate. Nothing to fight here.

>I HATE BEES
>FUCK BEES AND NOT IN THE FUN WAY
>AND ON A RELATED NOTE, FUCK HUMANS
why do vegans hate bees?
Do they want mass extinction?

>>2321141
Development wise.

We have the enzymes to digest meat and fiber efficiently.

What humans didn't really evolve for is eating simple carbohydrates, which is why one should watch their diet for those lest they want to get diabetes later on in life. This can vary person to person however, some are more adept to eating a certain kind of diet relative to others.

>>2321147
You didn't get what I'm saying. Nature will never allow humanity to follow fully the vegan agenda. Vegans will always be a minority. Period, unless everyone is enslaved robots.

>>2321147
Veganism is as natural as third wave feminism. It's a mental disorder.

>>2318153
Whether you're religious or believe in evolution, the animals we eat were made to be food. Sometimes I feel bad about eating certain animals but it is a part of life. It is natural.

>>2321214
>We have the enzymes to digest meat and fiber efficiently.
>What humans didn't really evolve for is eating simple carbohydrates
I don't know why you're saying that, god knows we have the enzymes for it.

>>2318153
Lifelong animal lover and current vegetarian here. I'll fight you, OP.

If it's exclusively the manner in which we treat animals in slaughterhouses that bothers you, why can't we humans eat anything that we personally kill? What if the livestock are raised and slaughtered ethically, or if we genetically engineer animal tissues that we can grow in a lab like plants? Would you still argue with that?

I've watched both nature shows and slaughterhouse footage. Some people will watch neither, because both upset them. Your pic related is a strawman and your argument begs the question.

Likewise, you are exploiting animals regardless of what your dietary preference is. Millions of insects and rodents are killed by harvesters every year, and yet taking some honey from bee hives which are tended to and protected by their keepers is somehow "exploitative" in the eyes of vegans. To vegans, milk from cows, regardless of whether this is done ethically or not, is seen as exploitative, even when the cows enjoy being milked and will voluntarily climb into automated milking machines. Harvesting the unfertilized eggs from chickens for consumption (which has literally no impact on the hen) is, you guessed it, still exploitative if you ask vegans. And yet, the brutal deaths of those animals killed while harvesting their food doesn't seem to bother them at all.

Who's the real hypocrite, here?

>>2321416
Diabetes, 'nuff said.

>>2321433
I think OP has just about given up considering how he's been blasted repeatedly before for being a hypocrite and a moron.

>>2318153
Friendly reminder that it was our ancestors eating more meat that allowed humans to become so intelligent that you could come into being and sit as a computer whining about humans eating meat.

>>2322013
FFS anon, stop bumping this thread. It's cancerous as it is.

>>2318153

Fuck off with this prissy bullshit.

Just because you're too much of a pussy to kill for your food doesn't mean the rest of us should be either, loser.

>>2318153
>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would justify the murder/exploitation of that human.
hm?

>>2322378

Not an argument.

>>2322385
Neither is being a vegan.

>>2318153
humans are omnivores. We have the teeth designed for it. Other animals are omnivores. Are we going to force them to not eat other animals anymore too? Animals will eat other animals, and humans are just one specie of animal. Why should we force ourselves to give up something that evolution itself has made available to us?