Vegan for life give it a go

>>734215236
>If you love animals so much why do you eat their food?

No.

Plants have feelings just as much as animals ie: none, just physical reactions to stimuli

File: 1495052516415.jpg (116KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 600x600px

>>734215307
Not animals eat plants cunt. This faggot was looking for a /thread

I fucking love meat tho

>>734215236
Just because plants belong to a different kingdom it doesn't mean you can eat them. You are a kingdomist!

File: 1338756622688.jpg (71KB, 503x644px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 503x644px

veganpower <3

>>734215848
why wouldn't we eat dogs? I would love eating a rhino :P ñam

>>734215848
I would totally eat a dog if it were legal here.

Dogs are raised like livestock in some countries.

>>734215964
It should be legal. I bet a German shepherd tastes great

>>734215848
picture is BULLSHIT. literally no good reason given not to eat mean, only "muh feels" for a ugly little retarded inbred dog, who was produced by humans and didnt evolve naturally.

Here, i give you reasons:
1. It spares energy and place to skip meat, cause not so much energy gets lost. so better for environment and more ppl could live if we all would skip meat.

2. Many animals have to suffer because they are held in a bad way, which is ethically not good, cause they have a brain and feelings, which plants dont.

3. its much healthier, and saturated fats from animals are bad for health (heart attacks, alzheimers disease etc.)

4. there are no negative aspects with todays globalized society

>>734216334
#2 is a non-point. The suffering of non-people is not ethically relevant.

>>734216532
it is. why shouldnt it be ?

>>734216656
Go play in the zoo cage with grizzlies and you might get it. Humans are apex predators so start acting like one instead of being a faggot.

>>734216656
It isn't, because morality exists to enable society. The suffering of non-people does not in itself harm society.

>>734216126
technically legal

>>734215236
Fuck that. Give me a steak.

You're breathing right now and massacring billions of innocent germs.

File: IMG_2260.jpg (70KB, 640x543px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x543px

>>734215236
I guess you evolved with pointed k9 teeth to rip the flesh off a tomato

>meatspin bitch

>>734216827
>>734216883

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1]

If you have concious beings and say its not wrong conduct to let them suffer, then you say its neither wrong conduct to let a human suffer because there is no quantifiable difference in the qualitative feels a concious being might have.

from your standpoint, the holocaust was "ok" because they are (from a twisted, insane point of view) no "humans"

to say that ethics should only apply to humans is primitive.

>>734217006
are you sure? my dog won't be that happy when he discovers it though

>>734216334
The human animal has adapted to eating meat. Now we require certain enzymes that can only be gotten from eating meat. Forgoing all meat leaves you malnurished.

1. Do you really want to live in a world with 2X or 3X the population? You think shit's crazy now, just imagine how fucked up civilization would become.

2. A rose can scream, and trees chemically beg for help when stressed or being eaten by insects. It's up to individuals to establish their own morality - not you.

3. not healthier. Vegans die at same ages as everyone else.

4. Limiting where you can eat is a negative aspect. Being considered a goddamned nutjob is a negative aspect.

>>734215236
Thats actually good advice. So mancy vegan women and so little vegan men. You'll lose weight and have a good chance with vegan ladies. All for the price of (sadly delicious) steak.

Where else am I going to get my protein?

>>734215236
This fucker swallows jizz but
>dUnT eAtS mEaT cUz MuH FeEuNz

Fuck off shit faggot

>>734217199
>Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.
Correct.
>If you have concious beings and say its not wrong conduct to let them suffer, then you say its neither wrong conduct to let a human suffer because there is no quantifiable difference in the qualitative feels a concious being might have.
Incorrect. We are a society of humans.
>from your standpoint, the holocaust was "ok" because they are (from a twisted, insane point of view) no "humans"
Incorrect. The victims of the Holocaust demonstrably had the potential and the actual capacity to be members of the society that killed them. Indeed, the classification of them as not human was itself wrong as it was detrimental to social functioning.
>to say that ethics should only apply to humans is primitive.
I didn't say that it should only apply to humans. I said that it should only apply to people. I'm open to the possibility of non-human people, we just haven't found any yet.

Defining morality based on the capacity to suffer is arbitrary.

>>734217392
>Now we require certain enzymes that can only be gotten from eating meat.

wrong.

>Forgoing all meat leaves you malnurished.

citation asked

>Do you really want to live in a world with 2X or 3X the population?

no, i dont.

>A rose can scream, and trees chemically beg for help when stressed or being eaten by insects. It's up to individuals to establish their own morality - not you.

ehh, i just did that, didnt i ? do you have a point ?

>not healthier. Vegans die at same ages as everyone else.

wrong. its shown that colesterol raises the rate of heart attacks. its shown by recent harvard studies that saturated fats significantly increase the rate of alzheimers disease. (factor of 3 i think)

> Limiting where you can eat is a negative aspect.

where you can eat is insignificant.

>Being considered a goddamned nutjob is a negative aspect.

i dont understand that.

>>734217199
Jews are Humans. Nobody ITT even mentioned that they might not be. You're doing some serious mental gymnastics trying to rationalise biting and buying into PETA nonsense. There is a constant war in nature of the dominance in species.That's a fact. Humans are apex predators. That's a fact also. You are trying to go against the nature with your PETA bullshit and I'm sorry to inform you that anything that goes against the nature is bound to fail sooner or later. Let nature do it's work Anon. We are not Gods even if some people think so.

>>734217669
>Incorrect. We are a society of humans.

which point exactly is incorrect ?

>Defining morality based on the capacity to suffer is arbitrary.

i didnt do that. i observe that i think that every concious being should be considered concious by other concious beings and not done systematically harm to, if this can be avoided easily, whereas ethics is the space where i make that observation.

>>734217870
it was an extrapolation of your logic.

>>734217870
i dont even know what peta is.

>>734218169
>>734218250


It's pure naivety and stupidity. That's what it is.

>>734218128
>which point exactly is incorrect ?
This point: If you have concious beings and say its not wrong conduct to let them suffer, then you say its neither wrong conduct to let a human suffer because there is no quantifiable difference in the qualitative feels a conscious being might have.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

>i didnt do that.
You did.
>ethics is the space where i make that observation.
Alright. Explain how you have made that observation without making an arbitrary appeal to consciousness.

>>734215848
that dog survives by eating animals and animal byproducts, fed to it by a human who eats animals

File: 15 - 1.jpg (48KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x500px

>>734215236

>>734218349
>Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
ok here what i mean:
-there are concious beings and not concious things
-non concious things cannot feel
-humans are concious
-its not wrong conduct to let concious beings suffer
-thus its not wrong to let humans suffer

>Alright. Explain how you have made that observation without making an arbitrary appeal to consciousness.

why is it so arbitrary to you ? youre making an arbitrary appeal to society. how do you build the "worth" of society ? from the "worth" of the individuals that live there. their "worth" is built by the conciousness that they have.

>>734218877
aaaand i won. have to go, was nice to show you ppl ethics.

p.s.
i think therefore i am

>>734219293
>aaaand i won.
You won at what exactly? I'm not throwing meat out of my diet no matter how much you faggots cry.

>>734218877
>it's not wrong conduct to let conscious beings suffer
I object to this premise. It should be "It's not wrong conduct to let some conscious beings suffer"

Here's an example to show why your reasoning is flawed:
-it's wrong to lock people up
-criminals are people
-thus it is wrong to lock criminals up

>why is it so arbitrary to you ?
Because it isn't based on any reasoning. It's based on personal whim. You are drawing a line in the sand on consciousness for no given reason.
>youre making an arbitrary appeal to society.
I'm making a subjective appeal to society on the reasoning that we must in order to live and prosper. Anyone who shares that goal will agree with me. If people did not agree with me, then society would collapse and we would die. The suffering of non-people has no analogous consequences.

>>734219293
>posting and declaring yourself the victor before running away
>>734219722
Since I posted after you, and you are gone, I suppose that actually makes me the winner.

>>734215236
why do you hate plants so much,
they give you air and don't attack human unlike animals which waste air and give you infections and shit

I'm not going to eat the food that my food eats.
Fuck outta here with that nonsense.

File: vegans.jpg (173KB, 1200x860px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1200x860px

>>734215236
The hard truth op is, we eat meat, we love meat, and our bodies are built to digest meat.

>>734217669
Stop trying to seem intelligent you dumb fuck. Do you like pain? No. Do you like suffering? No. Do you think a cow feels pain and suffering when its slaughtered?yes. Do you want to be slaughtered? No. Are you a fucking hypocrite for contributing towards its pain and suffering when you yourself dont want it? Yes.

I mean if you said you agree with veganism but just couldnt be arsed eating vegetables, id understand it more. I have no problem with people who admit that they're weak minded. Just dont try justify it you absolute mongaloid.

>>734221786
>Stop trying to seem intelligent you dumb fuck
Why? If you have a problem with my argument, address it.
>Are you a fucking hypocrite for contributing towards its pain and suffering when you yourself dont want it? Yes.
Do you want to die? No. Are you a fucking hypocrite for contributing towards the death of plants? Yes.
>Just dont try justify it you absolute mongaloid.
Name calling is the surest sign of a weak argument.

File: nintchdbpict000265066700.jpg (204KB, 960x706px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 960x706px

>>734215848

>>734222234
Name calling is fun, has nothing to do with my argument.

The difference is plants don't have a brain or a central nervous system.

But even so, lets pretend they do. Eating plants to raise cattle would still kill more 'innocent' plants than it would if we didnt eat animals.

Honestly just take a moment to think about the fact you might wrong. Im tryin to save life and youre trying to end it.

Even if im wrong, what have i lost? Taste? I dont really care for meat much anymore. I fucking miss cheese but theyll create something close soon enough.

Feels good to be on the right side of history brahs.

>>734223269
>The difference is plants don't have a brain or a central nervous system.
And why is that relevant?
>Eating plants to raise cattle would still kill more 'innocent' plants than it would if we didnt eat animals.
You know what would kill the fewest innocent plants? Killing yourself. That isn't even a joke.
>Honestly just take a moment to think about the fact you might wrong
I have thought about this quite a lot. Have you? Have you considered the consequences of your morality?
>Im tryin to save life and youre trying to end it.
You aren't trying very hard.
>Even if im wrong, what have i lost?
What is this, Pascal's wager for veganism?
>Feels good to be on the right side of history brahs.
I know it does.