I'm thinking about becoming a vegetarian. I like to eat burgers and chicken but I can't help but feel bad. I love animals and know that the animals we eat don't wan't to die. I could do fine eating vegetables, fruits, and nuts. I like all of those things just fine. It makes eating out a little harder I would imagine, but I would feel better about myself as a person.
Anyone tried it out? Were you happy/healthy? Why did you do it?
>>734430430 I have thought about that. What makes round celled life more valuable? I think it's that they are aware of their life and fight to keep it. Where things like fruit trees grow fruit specifically to be eaten and spread their seeds. It makes more sense to me.
I don't know why I love animals. Always have. My dog is my best friend. Sad I know.
>>734430533 >I think it's that they are aware of their life and fight to keep it So plants that send out distress signals to other plants should not be eaten? >Where things like fruit trees grow fruit specifically to be eaten and spread their seeds. So you are only going to eat things like fruit, making sure to plant the seeds after you are done? >I don't know why I love animals Think about it.
>>734430694 But those "signals" aren't something that the plant sends out because it wants to. It's just built in to the plant. Like we don't tell out heart to beat I suppose.
I completely get what you're saying and agree though. I've certainly given it a lot of though. Life consumes life, it has to. But eating plants seems to me to be less cruel. They aren't conscious beings. They aren't aware.
>>734430766 I've noticed this as well. Most vegetarians are weird as fuck. I would still be eating things like eggs and cheese. I should be getting all the nutrients I need to live. Hopefully not go crazy as well.
I love burgers though. Maybe those bean burgers aren't too bad?
I certainly wouldn't be one of those people that judge omnivores either, because this hardly even makes sense to me.
>>734430865 >But those "signals" aren't something that the plant sends out because it wants to. It's just built in to the plant. Are the bleatings of a goat something that it sends out because it wants to, or is it a built in evolutionary response? > They aren't conscious beings. They aren't aware. So? Why does that matter?
>>734431163 >Because eating a conscious, self aware being is what is weighing on my conscious. Why though? That's the question. Why do you think that matters? >A plant never knows that it even exists or stops existing. So? It does exist, doesn't it?
>>734430910 True, brains aren't required for base life, but they are required for self-awareness and appreciation of life. That's what makes me want to try to do this. Taking life from something that knows the value of it doesn't set well with me. Even though I know that it's the natural order.
>>734431279 I think what it boils down to is that animals like life. They play and eat and have emotions. They want to live. Plants don't care or even know. If I could just exist without eating I probably would, but eating plants seems like the better option for me. They don't care, and often times even rely on being eaten to spread their seeds via other animals shit.
>>734431479 Because it makes me sad. They want to live and I want them to live. I don't know why I feel this way. When I am around animals, even chickens and cows, I can see that they would rather not die.
The same reason I wouldn't kill a person. People are the same. They just want to live.
>>734431770 >Because it makes me sad. That's not a very good reason. >The same reason I wouldn't kill a person Except we can, you know, come up with rational reasons why people going around killing each other would be a problem. Society would collapse. We don't base morality on what makes us sad.
I went vegetarian after watching Earthlings about 3 or 4 years ago. I went vegan a few months after that.
My health improved when I went vegetarian, but it really improved dramatically when I went vegan. I reversed some digestive issues I had, lost a bunch of weight, had more energy, and just feel better in general. I laugh when I hear people try to perpetuate the "vegans are weak and unhealthy" stereotype, because it certainly wasn't true for me. I'm way healthier than I was when I ate meat, and I still eat processed junk and don't exercise enough. Those are habits that I'm planning on changing, but just cutting meat, eggs, and dairy out of my diet did fucking wonders.
I really hope you give it a shot. Even if you just cut out meat, try it and see how you feel.
>>734431987 I live in a farm state. I can buy eggs from local farmers who have chickens that live in coupes and walk around in a field all day. I would have to pay $6 for a dozen, but if I can avoid supporting that then that's okay I suppose.
>>734431016 If you're in the US, Whole Foods sells a vegetarian burger patty that's pretty damn good. In their 365 range. My wife's a vegetarian. I'm not, but those burgers are tasty. There's also a vegetarian burger getting released by Impossible Foods. It's a start up, I've heard people can't taste the difference.
>>734432229 >There is no good argument in favor of eating meat It tastes good and there's nothing morally wrong with it. >health That's a personal matter. People are free to do all sorts of things that aren't healthy for them. There are plenty of vegan foods that are shit for your health. >ethical concerns There are no ethical concerns.
>>734431972 >There's nothing morally wrong going on in that video
I don't think you actually believe that. If you weren't just throwing up a wall, you would at least be able to recognize why other people find it objectionable. You're being purposefully obtuse, because deep down, it actually bothers you.
>>734432385 >I don't think you actually believe that. I do though. >you would at least be able to recognize why other people find it objectionable Because they are having a misfiring of an emotional reaction that evolved so they can sympathize with other humans. >You're being purposefully obtuse, because deep down, it actually bothers you. Nope.
>>734429866 Plants are living things too. So instead of killing something that has the ability to fight back, you just yank veggies and fruits from the ground/their tree and murder them with the thought that you're not killing. How cruel can you be.
>>734432284 Valid idea. I do believe most people at their core think that killing is wrong, but we are told from birth that people eat animals, even though this day and age their is no need to, only a want to. However I respect peoples right to eat as they choose, I just want something different for me.
>>734432266 Fun fact: That's just one of the reasons to go vegan. Animal agriculture is a multifaceted issue, affecting the health of individuals, the environment, the well-being of animals and the ethical concerns with exploiting them, and the spread of major communicable diseases.
>>734432686 > I do believe most people at their core think that killing is wrong Do you have a problem when clean your kitchen counter, killing bacteria? Killing can be fine and even perfectly normal. It's murder that's the problem.
>>734432780 Fun fact: I can talk about all of those things as well and how vegans are hypocrites at best. >the well-being of animals and the ethical concerns with exploiting them Still not a real reason.
>>734432381 You're a joke. Even if you don't personally have any qualms about killing animals, you should be able to recognize that there are ethical concerns. Why would anyone take you seriously when you make it clear that you won't take their concerns into consideration?
>>734432575 I think feeling guilt for taking a life is normal, I don't want to not feel bad about that.
>>734432625 But plants do not know that they are alive or value that life. They rely on their fruit being eaten to spread seeds even. The difference is eating something that values its life verses eating something that doesn't even know that it is alive.
Also, wouldn't it make it more fucked up to breed something into existence for the sole purpose of killing it? What kind of life is that ? Personally, if I could choose between that life and not living, I would choose not living. No contest.
Another reason people go vegan: sexual abuse as a child.
They see animals as helpless which reminds them of themselves getting abused as children.
Gee, I wonder who promotes the idea of sexual relationships with children.
Dingdingding! That's right. The cultural Marxists.
So, your Marxists teachers make you read books in highschool/Uni like the Beat Generation which talks about how gay sex with little kids can be fun even if the kid is getting raped he will cum uncontrollably. Then they hypersexualize little girls, tempting people to rape them.
They want you to be abused. They want you to see the entire world as simply oppression.
They want you to see food as oppression. Nature itself as oppression. Family as oppression. Authority as oppression.
You really wanna get back at the guy who molested you? Don't go vegan. Stop the cycle of Marxist indoctrination.
>>734432976 >should be able to recognize that there are ethical concerns There aren't any that hold up though. >Why would anyone take you seriously when you make it clear that you won't take their concerns into consideration? Because I already have taken them into consideration and found them lacking.
Why should I keep taking vegans seriously even though they keep saying things like "deep down, you really already know killing animals is wrong" as if they know me.
>>734432625 Plants are not sentient. If you can't tell the difference between sentient life and non-sentient life, you are pretty dumb. I'm not sure what help there is for you, and I hope that you're just trolling and don't actually think like that.
>>734433034 It's not just that it makes me sad, it's why it makes me sad. Surely, even as someone who disagrees, you can see the moral dilemma with cruel treatment and killing of animals right? Taking their life without even blinking an eye.
>>734433193 >There aren't any that hold up though. Killing holds up to me. Killing when, in modern times, there is no need for it. You don't have to agree, but surely you can acknowledge the logic behind people who may view it this way?
>>734433431 >Surely, even as someone who disagrees, you can see the moral dilemma with cruel treatment and killing of animals right? No, I can't. All I ever see from people who have a dilemma with it is that it makes them feel sad. There's a reason vegan videos are filled with images designed to create an emotional response rather than just giving a good moral argument against it.
I'm very casually cutting out most meat and dairy, but I still partake sometimes.
I think it's mostly a kind of cultural indoctrination that makes us think the modern slaughter and dairy industry is perfectly OK. It's fucked up, when you take a step back and consider the reality of it, and how unnecessary it is (in most developed countries). And actually most people, when confronted directly with the reality of what they're eating and where it came from, feel slightly repulsed... It's just very easy when everything is packaged, disembodied, sanitised, and removed from the act of killing, to see meat, milk and eggs and something other than what they are.
Translating that realisation into motivation enough to avoid all meat and dairy is difficult, though. It's easy to fall back into old habits.
Thankfully, in a lot of countries, vegetarianism isn't such a niche choice anymore. Makes it slightly easier.
Anyway, it's perfectly possible to be healthy on a vegetarian diet. You've just got to replace the nutrition that you lose.
>>734433008 You can't rewrite history to fit your Marxist worldview.
Hinduism/Jainism is not the same thing as vegetarian/veganism.
The reasons behind religious restrictions on food are spiritual/sacred, not moralist or ethical or environmental or "muh feels".
Feeling respect/sanctity for all life and sympathizing with the pain IS normal.
Feeling guilt for eating is not normal.
Guilt is a result of formerly Christian, now Marxist influence in society, which wants you to feel guilty about everything so you'll never be ambitious and be so afraid to oppress anyone that you'll never talk to a girl, get in a fight or ask for a raise. If you really think this is a "tin foil hate theory" take a look at some of the Vegan websites. Find me a single one that doesn't have Marxist terminology/propaganda embedded within it (aside from the ones that straight up admit Marxism), and I'll show you a man that didn't look hard enough.
>>734433557 >Killing when, in modern times, there is no need for it. There is need for killing. You need to kill for most foods. Whether you are killing animals or you are killing plants, fungi, or bacteria, you are killing. >>734433565 I'm not a sociopath. I feel deeply for my fellow man and donate my time, money, effort, and blood to help them. >>734433590 >animal welfare is a reason to not eat animals Not a valid one. >just being antagonistic? I see something that's wrong and I attack it, if that's what you mean.
>>734433813 >refuses to accept logical reasoning or scientific evidence I accept both those things though. I freely acknowledge that the farming of animals is bad for the environment and that eating meat can have detrimental effects on your health.
>>734433961 >Killing is immoral. Can we agree on that? No. Is it immoral to kill disease-causing bacteria? Is it immoral to kill yeast by baking bread? >If killing is not immoral what is immoral to you? Harming people. > Torture is immoral right? Torturing people is. >which hopefully you can at least understand I can understand it, sure, it's just completely arbitrary.
It's the difference between being able to experience and not experience reality in a subjective way. If that's irrelevant, then you are saying that human life has no more value than grass. Do you really believe that, or are you stretching because your argument is incredibly weak?
>>734434263 >then you are saying that human life has no more value than grass Not intrinsically, no. Human life subjectively has more value to us though since we are human and our societies are made up of humans. There's no reason to extend this value to everything that is sentient.
>>734429866 Been vegetarian for over a year, going to be going vegan soon. I feel 100% better, but its not just because meats not good for you. I improved my diet drastically because you need to pay more attention about what you eat. Groceries are cheaper though, I feel better, I can sleep now. By far one of the best choices I've made TBQH.
>>734434401 Because our society is composed of people. Allowing the torture of people is clearly and demonstrably harmful to society and the individuals within it. Torturing a chicken is not inherently harmful to society. >Where do you begin to think it's wrong? At people. Torturing a pet dog would only be wrong in the sense that it causes emotional distress to the dog's owner.
>>734434390 If value is subjective... and I only have value because I value myself... and animals are capable of valuing themselves... but plants are incapable of subjective experiences... Then animals have value, And plants don't.
Because, the only quality a thing needs to have value, is to be able to value itself.
>>734434811 >Intrinsically, human value does have more value than grass How so? How is it the value of life not something subjective minds give to things? The universe doesn't seem to have any sort of special consideration for life. >I think your view here is in the minority Very possibly. That doesn't make me wrong. >Do you really reject the concept of sentience hierarchies? If you are asking if I reject the idea that some things are more sentient than others, then no. If you are asking if sentience should correspond with moral standing, then no.
>>734435160 >and animals are capable of valuing themselves Which would give them value to themselves, not to me. >Because, the only quality a thing needs to have value, is to be able to value itself. In a sense, but that value does not necessarily extend to any other thing. An animal can value itself, but I do not value the animal.
>>734435689 Ok, let's consider it. Then isn't it a problem, by your own logic, because it's an affront to the owner of said plant? If the plant was unowned or not valued by a sentient being, then there is no issue of it being valued.
>>734435624 >So killing the homeless could only help society. It wouldn't though. Your surface level reading of morality is laughably bad and common. >Anything wrong with killing them? A number of things. For instance, if non-homeless thought they could be killed just for becoming homeless, they would be motivated to do anything and everything to not become homeless, including murdering the non-homeless.
>>734433008 >I think feeling guilt for taking a life is normal, I don't want to not feel bad about that.
>eating a burger is equatable to personally murdering someone And this is why I don't understand vegans. Hell of a fucking jump. Plus, we're at the top of the food chain to the point where we're manipulating natural selection to breed traits desirable to us. That's pretty fucking apex, to me.
vegetarianism and veganism are steps backwards in evolution. If you feel bad start eating free range or grass fed meat and eat smaller amounts. A healthy diet is primarily plant based with small amounts of meat to supplement extra protein along with eggs and tofu
>>734435896 >If the plant was unowned or not valued by a sentient being, then there is no issue of it being valued. Correct. >>734435647 >animals have value Subjectively, sure. >Whether or not you choose to respect that does not change the fact that they value their own lives. So here's the question: how is this actually relatable back to the subject? They value their lives. That's fine. I do not, and the moral objection still does not stand.
>>734435902 You're missing the point of the question. Say you could kill a person. It would have no consequences and you would get cut a nice check. You get to walk away. No consequences to you or society.
Would you do it? If not, why? Because they are a sentient creature that is shaped like you?
What if they were mentally handicapped to the point of having the same level of awareness as a cow? Then would you kill him?
>>734436163 So you would have no objection to being treated as livestock are treated? As long as you have an objection to that, then there is still a moral obligation. Your failure to empathize does not constitute an argument, you should still be able to see what the moral objection is, even if you don't personally feel it. This still feels like you're being purposefully obtuse.
>>734436327 >You're missing the point of the question. No, I get it. This ain't my first rodeo about morality. >No consequences to you or society. There are consequences to society though. Such a society allows for people to be killed with no consequences to the killer. This would in itself be harmful to a society. >Because they are a sentient creature that is shaped like you? Nope, because it's harmful to society. >What if they were mentally handicapped to the point of having the same level of awareness as a cow? Level of awareness is not a meaningful criteria to my morality. >It's clear you have a line, but where? At people, as I have already said. People should only be harmed / killed if it is necessary.
>>734436246 With the meat industry gone, there'd be even more jobless people. Eventually leading to more homeless people or people killing themselves because they can't feed their families. And all that just because people stopped eating meat. Is that really what you want? Please think about the consequences before you propose such irrational ideas.
>>734436056 >>734436226 >being in a position to literally selectively breed entire species something for traits that make it taste better doesn't mean you're at the top of the food chain
>that's probably a bad thing
>presents no argument, insists own stance is right You people DO love the moral high ground, but really? Moral high ground because "of course I'm right lol read a book"? Whatever helps you sleep at night...
>>734436408 >So you would have no objection to being treated as livestock are treated? I would have an objection in the sense that I wouldn't like it. However, the alien race that is treating me that way would be perfectly justified if I am too alien to be a member of their society. >As long as you have an objection to that, I wouldn't have a moral objection to that. >This still feels like you're being purposefully obtuse. Nope. >>734436582 I don't think I'm a sociopath. I help my fellow man.
Can we deal with facts? >protein from animal sources have an overwelmingly higher level of bioavailability. >you have to eat 4x the amount of vitamin A from plant sources to get what a single serving of liver gives you. >there is a correlation between increased saturated fat intake and increased levels of testosterone production (hormones in general). >your brain is made of cholesterol >your cells need cholesterol to repair themselves. >meat is a complete set of amino acids and are needed for muscle gains, sustination, and repair. >beef and pork contain zinc which has known effects on testosterone production and immune system support. >meat contains collogen that your hair and nails need to grow.
The list goes on and on. We evolved from a common monkey ancestor because we started to eat meat. Our increase in cholesterol in our diet caused our brains to grow. We have cognitive ability due to this.
>>734436950 I don't think so. One of the arguments of vegans is that we need to produce more food for the animals we meat eaters eat. So there'd even more jobs be lost when the animals wouldn't have to be fed anymore.
I'm vegan-ish (I avoid animal products when convenient, which is most of the time unless I'm at a friends place or something).
The best argument against eating animal products for me is efficiency. Animals were never "designed" to be massed produced. Plants aren't either, but they are much simpler and have less of an environmental impact.
The best argument for eating animal products for me is convinience and safety. Not everyone can be vegan and healthy at the same time. There are also some that can, but would require a shit ton of research and effort. The omnivore diet is tried and tested, the vegan diet is (in my opinion) still kinda experimental. I believe veganism can work, but you must do research if you cut out animal products from your diet.
Once in-vitro meat is affordable and ecologically sound, I will go back to eating meat regularly.
>>734436957 >But I'm saying there are none for this scenario. Your scenario is internally inconsistent, because the consequence is inherent to the situation. >No one knows, no one will find out. You know. >Society will not be harmed in this hypothetical scenario at all. Yes, it is, as you and the victim are both part of the society. >A person with the same value as a pig? They don't have the same value as a pig though. The person is a member of society. The pig is not.
>>734436704 God forbid we use that technology to make food that's healthy and nutritious, instead of making mutant animals whose only respite is their inevitable execution "because they taste good"
No, our taste for flesh is some pretty basic bullshit. A real "apex" intelligence would figure out a system that it could feed itself with that wasn't also killing itself, wasn't destroying its own environment, wasn't the breeding ground for some of the most vicious communicable diseases, and wasn't rendering it's own medicine obsolete from having to overdose livestock on antibiotics.
>>734437435 >apex "intelligence" >during the discussion of killing animals and consuming meat 10/10 fucking understanding of the topic. Totally didn't just pick something tangential in order to make a point, no sir!
>an apex predator would find a way to not kill Anon, an apex predator wouldn't give a shit. If it was vegan, it wouldn't very well be a fucking PREDATOR, now, would it?
The job argument is silly for ANY position. If jobs are lost it's because we live in a more efficient society which is good. Imagine if suddenly, we discover a plant that can be easily grown and magically cures pretty much anything. The healthcare industry would lose so many jobs. But I hope you can agree that destroying that plant once and for all to preserve jobs is a silly idea.
If anything, the job argument only suggests that change that results in the loss of jobs should happen slowly so that the market has time to adjust.
>>734437435 >>734437764 My bad. Misread part in the middle, which makes the second point not a point. Just woke up. How about this, then?
>no amount of meat is healthy or nutritious Meat isn't nutritious? That's why it's such a much more dense source of protein than vegetarian alternatives, right? Not to mention amino acids. If you over-eat anything, it'll be unhealthy. There is a healthy amount of meat you can eat.
>>734438084 Physically? No. We're outclassed in everything but endurance. As a species? We've damn near removed ourselves from being on other animals' menus, and are in a position to literally farm thousands of just about any animal there's demand for.
That's about as efficient as the consumption of meat gets.
We're not biologically apex, we're artificially apex.
Sure, forget the thought experiment if you want. My argument still holds. A more efficient system will require less work and therefore less jobs. People shouldn't focus on creating jobs, they should focus on creating value. They often go hand in hand but not always.
An apex predator is the top predator in its ecosystem, usually something like a big cat. It's an efficient killer, and usually exist in small populations, because big populations couldn't be sustained with the amount of killing they do.
Humans are agricultural creatures. We grow and raise our own food.
We are the most dominate species on the planet, which is why when someone (you?) said "apex" earlier I assumed they meant it like that and not that we were the apex predator. There's a huge difference between what we do and what apex predators do
>>734438515 No amount is necessary, sure. How much extraneous shit does our society have, though? I'm sure if that was the goal, there'd be things we'd want to tackle far before meat.
And if that's the case as an absolute, why don't most high performance athletes just eat vegan or vegetarian? They're in fantastic health (bar steroid use), and they eat meat. Absolutely, eating MORE meat is bad, but there is more than likely SOME amount of it that's ok to eat without negative impact. Cigarettes will always have negative impact.
>>734439242 Look up "vegan athletes," don't make me do the legwork because you're too lazy. There are plenty, and my guess is that the reason more athletes aren't vegan are the same reasons more of the general population isn't vegan yet either - people have been spreading bad information for a long time, like the kind you've been getting.
>>734439242 Also, as far as "extraneous shit" our society has, going vegan is an issue of personal responsibility. It's taking responsibility for YOUR actions, it's not about what other people do or don't do. Are you doing what you think is right, or are you making excuses to keep doing what you've always done?
>>734439321 Ok, conceding apex predators. We're still at the top of the food chain with the ability to mass-harvest meat. We are THE dominant species, especially when it comes to the ability to eat others. And I'd say the method of killing (piston to the brain) is at the very least close to the most humane way to kill.
>>734439561 Personally, I don't find eating meat objectionable. If I were thoroughly concerned with the ethical treatment of animals, I'm sure I could find sources for my meat that are free-range and whatever else. I don't think. Killing an animal for food is morally reprehensible, especially with the piston we use on cows. But the way I see it, as humans, we're biologically animals, but we've removed ourselves from the "natural" way of doing things so far that I don't really think it's all that comparable.
>>734439864 That's interesting. I wasn't aware of that. I was under the impression that slitting the throat was one of the significant differences between kosher/halal meat and non. I'll have to look into that, if that's the case.
Note that the workers on the line still slit the throat after the pig has been hit in the head with the captive bolt. Also note the pig that has been hit with the bolt that is still clearly conscious and screaming
Was very healthy, but not happy. You'll will be looked down upon by other people, not all but enough to make you feel lesser. It's more expensive if you do it wrong, which is way too easy to do, but you will have absolutely killer fat burning capabilities albeit with lowered muscle gains. Really good for resetting your diet and cutting fat before taking in more protein and building muscle. So it's basically the most effective at some point if you want a good body, but not essential. You will also miss meat, you might say you won't but you will, and that's one of the worst parts.
>>734440330 I miss the idea of meat more than I actually miss meat. I have gone back to eating it, and it never tasted as good as I remembered it tasting. It certainly didn't taste good enough to make up for all the ethical concerns I have
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.