and so it begins

>dying due to vegan diet

>>38729894
jesus christ how are we still talking about this.
A vegan diet reduces the chance of cancer, but it increases the chances of being skinny as fuck and weak.
people can survive on both diets with very little effort.
morally it's obviously a better choice, but we are shitty people who like our big muscles so fuck animals.
being vegan won't make you jesus, but it won't kill you either. the same with eating meat.

>>38730627
>morally it's obviously a better choice

Morally I think you are a faggot and should kill yourself, faggot.

>>38730627
>we are shitty people who like our big muscles so fuck animals
>we

>>38730627
>morally it's obviously a better choice
Do you think a lion gives a fuck that he just killed another animal so he could eat. Fuck no he walks around like the king of the fucking jungle.

>>38730627
>morally its the better choice
Nah fuck you. We have dominion over animals. It's our job to keep their populations in check by eating them. Otherwise they'd starve or get hit by cars or something

checkmate vegans

>>38730627
>A vegan diet reduces the chance of cancer, but it increases the chances of being skinny as fuck and weak.
In this combination I disagree. Vegans are more likely to eat (too) little and be skinny, but it has more to do with the individual than with the diet itself. Whereas for meat and cancer, it is the diet itself which increases the chances.

>>38730654
It's perfectly possible to eat meat yet recognise that, ideally, it's not the best moral choice. Kind of like I know that lots of stuff that I buy is made by slaves in East Asia, but the stuff is cheap so fuck 'em. One doesn't have to be a vegan-hating meatlover in order to just enjoy some meat and be honest about it being a shitty choice overall but too delicious and good for gainz to give up.

>>38730685
Lions also eat the young of their rivals, so I don't think as humans we should learn our moral lessons from them?

>>38730685
Hunting your prey is not in any fucking way the same thing as going to the store and buying torture meat.
but fuck this pointless squabble
going lifting

>>38730697
>Whereas for meat and cancer, it is the diet itself which increases the chances.
Not if you only eat a little bit now and then. Being an omnivore doesn't mean you eat meat every day; you can eat meat 2-3 times a week, and only enjoy small portions, and have a mostly plant-based diet besides that.

t. vegan

>>38730627
You sound like a total fucking faggot hipstercuck. Kill yourself.

>>38730721
no u

>>38730698
there is not one morality. There is nothing morally wrong with eating animals. Religions offer the morality that we have souls and that animals are made for us. Evolution gives us justification that we are superior species and our physiology requires us to eat meat.

It is only to your flawed "morality" that it is wrong.

But I dont believe it is. As it is not wrong for a wolf to eat meat. As there are species who otherwise destroy eco systems, or just replenish their numbers easily. It doesnt matter.

The only thing that is morally wrong here is that people like you are allowed to exist.

>>38730710
And stay small forever.

Fucking dyel scum

>>38730710
i've seen a lot of ppl saying "t," before a sentence..what does it mean?

>>38730627
You're an idiot fa m, here's the reasons:

Not everyone's metabolism is the same, some people can cope without meat, others cant
Store bought vegetables are laden with pesticides (not healthy fa m)

And of course it's a better moral choice not to eat meat, considering how these factory raised animals are treated, but when you buy ecologically farmed meat the animal was raised and killed humanely, there is no ethical conflict here.

>>38730746
Most people eat an excessive amount of meat.
Have you ever seen the conditions in which the animals are held? They suffer for all their short life. Why support that when you could easily just not eat meat.

>>38730779
have you ever seen the cock that goes into your mouth, daily? Have you ever seen the condition that your asshole is put in? Will your anus suffer for all of its short life? WHy support that when you could just easily only get aids.

>>38730775
>but when you buy ecologically farmed meat the animal was raised and killed humanely
Good luck finding that. And with the amount of meat eaten, if everyone only bought this type of meat, we wouldn't have enough space for all the animals. It's unsustainable.

>>38730798
>I have no arguments left, so I'll just insult him
Classic.

>>38730801
it's not unsustainable, people just need to start eating meat less (2 meals per week)

>>38730811
>muh feels
>arguments
pick one
>being faggot op
always pick this

Did anyone of you read the fucking sticky?

>>38730827
not the guy u're talking to, but please never post on /fit/ again you're the cancer. It's impossible to have a discussion with stubborn ppl like you...

>>38730861
lol faggot, nobody cares about your dumb fee fee's. The suffering of animals means shit. Its a non argument, especially when I can, and actually do buy nearly grasfed, organic meats here in europe. You probably could do the same too if you spend a bit more cash.

Even if they were suffering a bit. Lol who cares. In nature they would be suffering as well. Most animals are struggling with hunger.

And empathy is reserved for our own species...shit only even our own race. I wouldnt eat a nigger, or a jew, but shit, I wouldnt really care THAT much to see it suffering.

>>38730685
Wow, im sorry for your low iq. Is it as low as a lion?

File: 1473882728050.jpg (16KB, 556x561px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 556x561px

>so many newfags on this board

>>38730914
Say those words after you watch the whole eartlings documentary. Then I have no problems with your statement.

>>38730652
He has a point though m8. Unless you've hunted an animal and hear and watch the thing die, you won't really appreciate whats on your plate.

I make sure to never waste meat.

File: 1283134275701.jpg (40KB, 550x472px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 550x472px

>>38729894

>>38730977
>cant even vocalize his ideology and links to some liberaltard "documentary"

lol, I think today, il try to find the cheapest, the most cruel meat that I can find. And then eat it. And there is nothing that you can do to stop me.

File: 1472507886666.jpg (33KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x550px

>>38730627
>morally

>>38731019
how is it liberal, you amaricans are truly dumb.

>>38731168
>chews on the souls of tortured animals

delicious!

>>38730813
haha
no

fuck you

>>38730627
Fuck you my great uncle got his thumb bitten off by a pig. Those fat fucks deserve what they get

>>38730627
>morally it's obviously a better choice

Please kill yourself. Please.

>>38730775
>it's a better moral choice not to eat meat, considering how these factory raised animals are treated, but when you buy ecologically farmed meat the animal was raised and killed humanely, there is no ethical conflict here.

Why should I care? Is the animal aware of how "immorally" it's being treated? Is it capable of realizing that it's being abused? And what difference does it make when it's just going to be killed and eaten anyway? And isn't it more moral to have lower priced meat to benefit poorer people?

At a certain point, most animal rights people ultimately fall for the mistake of anthropomorphizing animals and assuming they're just humans who can't talk. This is foolish, naive, and childish

jesus christ how are we still talking about this.
A vegan diet reduces the chance of cancer, but it increases the chances of being skinny as fuck and weak.
people can survive on both diets with very little effort.
morally it's obviously a better choice, but we are shitty people who like our big muscles so fuck animals.
being vegan won't make you jesus, but it won't kill you either. the same with eating meat.

It's stupid to think that sometime the vegan people will rule the world, thus meat industry will be doomed. It won't happen, the same ammount of meat will be produced.

The whole vegan thing is just a silly joke, for those that want to be entitled and call themselves "Vegans", or those that take morality to a new point, those foolish persons that think that moving their little finger will change the world.

It's time to grow up and notice that the world wont change by such nonsensical stuff, it's time to grow up and see that the world is a wicked place, even more wicked than everyone eating dead animals.

>>38730700
>torture meat
commit suicide as soon as possible.

>>38731286
Gook detected.
I knew one of you sub-human fucks would show up. There's is a fucking hierarchy in this world and animals are above you, that's why people care about them and couldn't give 2 shits about you slanty eyed fucks.
Enjoy working in a nike factory with conditions worse than what the animals get.

>>38730774
t. is short for "terveisin", which is Finnish for 'regards'. So it's a perfectly common Finnish way of signing letters/emails that got turned into a meme. So "Regards, a vegan" is what I meant.

>>38730746
Of course not, but given the commonly accepted morality of a general rule of "don't harm things that can suffer unless absolutely necessary", killing an animal just to eat it isn't acceptable when you don't have to do it. We make exceptions for a few animals, but that is cultural habit and not logic or ethics; this is why the majority of people would be horrified at eating certain animals while they're cool with others (and which is which depends on culture).

>The only thing that is morally wrong here is that people like you are allowed to exist.
But this contradicts what you just said about there being no one morality? You seem like a very bitter and hateful person who has a poor understanding of reasoning, and your claims of "evolutionary superiority" reveals you as both uneducated and insecure. The post you replied to didn't even advocate veganism, in fact it defended meateaters and claimed that they aren't ignorant or immoral, they just don't feel a pressing need to change.

To clarify the point on evolution, there are no legitimate teleological notions in evolution; it tells us HOW things happened, not WHY or where they are going. One cannot draw morality from evolution, that is a fallacy. And there is no biological notion of "superiority" without context (i.e. adaptability or fitness, which are the terms actually used). "Superiority" is used only by pseudo-scientific social darwinist types, of which I am guessing you are one. In the name of such beliefs, then, please end your life.

>>38731390
This is a good point, only large-scale political change coupled with agricultral reform and innovation in food and nutrition science could decrease animal consumption globally. Veganism is at best a personal statement; a protest of sorts. I'm vegan myself but I have no illusions about it changing shit in the grand scheme of things.

>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-best.html
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html
>>38729894
>Meat, dairy and eggs cause Alzheimer's
Disproven pseudoscience
>>38730627
>>38731327
>A vegan diet reduces the chance of cancer
Quit spouting disproven memes.
>>38730698
It's perfectly possible to eat meat yet recognise that, ideally, it's not the best moral choice.
Eating meat, like eating plants isn't a moral choice
>>38730779
>Have you ever seen the conditions in which the animals are held? They suffer for all their short life. Why support that when you could easily just not eat meat.
>What is free range and organic
>>38730813
>people just need to start eating meat less (2 meals per week)
>Stop liking what I don't like and do this because I say so
>who has a poor understanding of reasoning
>reveals you as both uneducated and insecure.
Someone like you who believes in a shitty sub optimal disproven meme diet, and keeps on spouting pseudoscientific bullshit has no right to say anyone has a poor understanding of reasoning or is uneducatedc and insecure. Go shill your disproven bullshit somewhere else.

>>38730627
Second for it being a better moral choice. I'm not vegetarian/vegan, but it's mostly because I'm lazy and don't care enough.

>>38732568
>being this autistic

>>38733326
Hes right though

>>38730689
You are not very smart are you?

>>38730652
>>38730685
>>38730689
>>38730721
>>38731265
Seeing what meat is doing to your brains and sense of empathy / morality I am really tempted to go vegetarian or vegan (if not for the meat in the oven right now)

>>38733718
>Seeing what meat is doing to your brains and sense of empathy / morality
Not wanting to deal with idiocy and quack science, rather than meat, is the cause of "lowered empathy" you're seeing. And although I'd say it's a bit much, there's also only so much empathy one can have for idiots who refuse to do any research and shill bullshit. If you don't wan't to be proven wrong and piss of intelligent people, don't post quack science
>I am really tempted to go vegetarian or vegan (if not for the meat in the oven right now)
So feeling butthurt about a disproven meme would cause you to abandon meat? Don't be a emotional bandwagon jumper

>>38730813
Vegans make up 1% of the population
If everyone did meatless Monday, it would have 14 times the impact that veganism currently has.

Shit, if everyone would use that top-of-the-food-chain brain to get their protein from plant sources for one meal per week, it would have five times the impact that veganism currently has.

Global warming would be dramatically impacted (decreased methane production)

Energy crisis could be easily solved (less land spent feeding livestock and more land spent on renewables)

Do you guys even want to Make America Great Again?

>>38730977
Fuck Earthlings. Cowspiracy is one that reaches across aisles.

>>38730627
>morals
Get a load of this guy

>>38730627
>morally it's obviously a better choice

There is no objective basis for morals, faggot. Morality doesn't exist. It's a fairy tale we tell each other for various reasons: genetic, cultural, historical, etc.

>>38730685
>observe the dyel that thinks himself a lion because he can go to a store and buy factory farmed meat prepackaged and weighed for his convenience

>>38731762

>there are no legitimate teleological notions in evolution
>He doesn't know about the natural law
>B-but it's invalidated b-by modern science!!

kys

Typical scientism. You're a complete retard that swallowed the full 10 inches of the positivist cock.

Animals have no value outside the one we abscribed to them. They suffer, and their suffering means nothing.

>>38734388
All the posts I quoted whinged that eating meat is not a morally worse choice which it clearly is. This has nothing to do with science, only with human decency

>>38735582

Except it isn't.

>>38735597
How does it feel to have devolved?

File: Homer.jpg (262KB, 1284x980px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1284x980px

>>38735796

>Says the vegan

kek

>>38735814
>Implying im a vegan
I would be but I like eggs milk steak and gains far too much
I do appreciate veganism because it is the right thing to do, even if I'm too weak (lel) to commit to it

>>38735857

I really fail to see what makes it more morally correct than eating meat.

Animal suffering is a non-issue

I don't give a fuck about cows or pigs senpai, it's not like they are only alive because we eat them or anything.

I wouldn't eat a cat, but if you really care about dumb animals like pigs or cows then you're a fag.

>veganfags will respond to this

File: PUS_EATERS.jpg (647KB, 799x1406px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 799x1406px

Eating meat is so fucking stupid.

>Le I wanna be as strong as an ox

Where the fuck do you think the ox gets its nutrients from? Energy goes from the sun to plants to the ox. Cut out the middle man and just eat plants.

>>38735985
Try eating grass for a month see how that works out for you

>>38735985
Why not just be powered by the sun?

>>38730700
>torture meat
This nigga

>>38731762
>t. is short for "terveisin"
It is also short for typed by

File: 1430509728055.jpg (127KB, 390x700px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 390x700px

>>38732568
Ma nigga

>>38730698
>Lions also eat the young of their rivals, so I don't think as humans we should learn our moral lessons from them?

Would be great, I could date a single mother and not be a cuck if this was viable option.

>>38735985
>somatic cells (commonly known as pus)
Somatic cells are any cell of an organism that isn't reproductive cells. So of course there'll be somatic cells in milk.
Why do vegans need to spread information to get their points across? It's almost as though their beliefs are unscientific...

>>38730627
>morally it's obviously a better choice, but we are shitty people who like our big muscles so fuck it

Survival instinct must be weaker in vegans

>>38735985
Look at how big trees get, and they don't have to kill anything.

Imagine that.

File: cory.jpg (402KB, 1553x1779px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1553x1779px

Typical small and starved beta-vegan.

>>38736245
If I could make atmospheric nitrogen biologically available and produce energy from water and sunlight I'd get fucking huge too.

>>38736289
>Typical roidet
Fixed

>>38731556
I'm a white American, buddy

File: 1460344792505.jpg (9KB, 210x236px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 210x236px

>>38735205
>Animals have no value outside the one we abscribed to them.
I'm pretty sure the phytoplankton who are responsible for most of our oxygen have objective value while shitposters on a anime forum do not.

>>38736358
>he's big so he's on roids

Typical small minded thinking from a carnist

>>38736086
>how to superman mode?

>if you eat shitty bland boring food your entire life there is a slight increase in your chance of living to 90 instead of 87

oh boy, what a great deal

>>38736339
>Not having photosynthetic symbiots implanted under the skin.
>Making it.
LOL dyel forever, mate.

>>38736216
Plus imagine the GAINZ.

Vaginal gainz trynna start broccoli within the yt "fitness" to stay relevant lmao

>>38735205
Actually I'm opposed to positivism in life sciences and scientism in general. I'd say that trying to apply science to ethics is a case of scientism itself. But no, teleological notions have no place in serious biology and agreeing with this has nothing whatsoever to do with positivist methodology.
Argue otherwise if you like but don't just make retarded insults because you have no arguments.

>>38730627
This.

Not even just morally but as a collective not eating animals is in our best interests (to limit global warming).

Having said that I want to be stronger and that would be harder being vegan. Also like most Americans I am short sighted and dont give a fuck about anyone else.

>>38737294
>you die at 87
>two years later, a way to permanently store your consciousness to a bio-mechanical brain has been perfected

>>38731762
>commonly accepted morality of a general rule of "don't harm things that can suffer unless absolutely necessary", killing an animal just to eat it isn't acceptable when you don't have to do it.

your morals are peasant-tier
humans evolved to be omnivores, so it's amoral for us to eat meat, just like any other omnivorous animal
we're all just animals

>>38730700
>torture meat

Modern day men sicken me

>>38735205

You're a fucking retard.

>>38731762
Morality only applies to humans and is a social construct. Eating is a natural function. Our choices of what we eat have as much to do with morality as what we drink and where we breathe, shit, etc. Since animals are not members of human society, morality has nothing to do with them.

>>38731556
If animals were above us, we would still be competing with them. If they were above us, they wouldn't be in cages at the zoo. Harambe would never have been in the cage in the first place.

File: 1456801409948.jpg (283KB, 962x641px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 962x641px

>>38731762
>fallacy
>implying morality has anything to do with logic
>implying it isn't logical to eat weaker organisms for nutrition

File: 1470156773235.gif (3MB, 294x238px)

3MB, 294x238px

>>38737294
>people still think being vegan is just "eating lettuce and shit"
Just type "vegan" in front of your favorite foods in google and you'll find thousands of recipes.

>>38738264
Do you lick your own butthole and eat other animal's feces too? Lions do that.

I bet you do nothing for 18 hours a day like lions do though.

>>38737294
>implying this isn't what fatties say about fit people in general

File: giantdad miscreant.png (631KB, 553x732px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 553x732px

>killing animals to eat / use them is immoral
>mfw

How about making animals immortal to eat / use them?

The cow, pig, sheep, dog, turkey and chicken will NEVER go extinct as long as humanity exists, as opposed to all other races of animals on this planet. This is assured 100%. The perceived "suffering" of singular animals is irrelevant. These animals have traded the flesh they do not need in death, and after breeding plentifully, for infinite existence. Servitude in exchange or protection. Is that not a graciously made trade, from the infinitely more superior race to their lessers?

>>38738209
It is a social construct, yes, but there is no reason to assume it only applies to humans simply because only we possess the capacity for it. That's not how morals work; we can't just go "it's our thing so only we count", it's not self-evident that it's limiting in that sense.

> Our choices of what we eat have as much to do with morality as what we drink and where we breathe, shit, etc.
But these things DO have to do with morality. For example, I don't get to shit in your livingroom or drink your scotch.

>Since animals are not members of human society
They are not members of the human race, but use of animals is a fundemental part of human society - where would we be without horses or dogs? Or without having raised animals for food? Our society developed differently because of animals; so why not show them consideration now when are able to for the first time? (Yes, I acknowledge that eganism is only possible in the modern era, and that old-timey humans HAD to eat meat.)

>morality has nothing to do with them
Except if I ate your dog, when someone killed Harambe, whenpeople cry when a pet dies, Alexander naming cities after Bucephalus and ancient Egyptians burying cats like they did their kings, police dogs getting proper police funerals, etc. etc. Animals are and have always been subject to human moral considerations, respect and empathy; we just makes exceptions for a few of the delicious ones.

File: 143235765756.jpg (58KB, 364x544px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 364x544px

>>38735985
>not drinking pus for those stomach fauna gains
>eating 16 lbs of grains that result in no gains instead of meat which is pure gains
>eating soy in general, ever
>not properly cooking your food to negate the issue of e. coli
Plus we're not all fat fucks, so who cares about cholesterol if you live healthy
ALSO, oxen have different stomach fauna then us, so they can digest plants differently. We shit out most of the plant matter we ingest

>>38736289
>roiding for this

>>38738324
yeah except they look like shit

>>38738264
>implying morality has anything to do with logic
It does not in the strict sense, i.e. morals cannot be derived from logic. But a moral argument still has to be logically valid in order to be an argument at all, and not just a baseless opinion. So you can't say "I do X because animals do X!" or "I do Y because evolution!" because those would be logical fallacies. An argument that is fallacious is not valid; i.e. it's not a real argument at all - just utter, senseless bullshit. Now you are of course entitled to believe in it, but don't go claiming it makes sense.

>>38738467
But every time /fit/ is shown a pic of a vegan who looks good, they just insist they roid and that no no proof of this is needed, because the person is a fit vegan and hence MUST be roiding. The possibility that /fit/ is wrong and that vegans can get buff is not even considered, let alone taken seriously, for even a split second.

>>38738497
because vegan's beg not to be taken seriously

>>38730627
Here's a bit where you're not informed. Getting cancer is pure randomness but what plays a big part are oxidants(free radicals) and antioxidants (free radical killers).

Large doses of vitamins A,C,E, and selenium have been directly linked to causing a large number of free radicals because of a paradox that occurs whenever antioxidants far outweigh the oxidants present in the body.

Veganism is healthy, but try to keep everything in moderation. And if you are going to be vegan, maybe skip on the multivitamin

>>38738497
Because vegans are by far the most fucking annoying special snowflakes in the world and taking turns to shit on them and all of their achievements is extremely cathartic.

Plus, there's been more than one case where some vegan braniacs had the bright idea to feed their newborn baby in an exclusively vegan manner and of fucking course it died within three months because lmao veganism. Then they went to jail for negligent manslaughter. That kinda shit is just tickling my funny bone.

>>38738506
How, by presenting actual arguments and pleading for compassion in the face of mockery and then posting evidence that their diet works? How is that "begging not to be taken seriously"? Would /fit/ do this for ANY other diet? Keto? IF? Any lifting program? I mean sure there are disagreements on those things, but if someone claims to be doing one of those things and posts a good pic of themselves, people usually accept that yeah, that might work for some people and leave it at that. Maybe even ask for some tips. Even for crazy memes like cold showers, some people get interested when someone claims it gets results, even WITHOUT evidence that it does.

Only vegans are dismissed out of hand and treated completely differently overall. Why? Because they're vegan. That's the only reason needed. Is that circular reasoning? Who cares! As meathead here >>38738264 puts it, logic doesn't matter! And as >>38737830, >>38730914, >>38731286
and others show, who cares about morals or ethics either? Vegans are wrong because they are vegans, and that's that and if someone disagrees, well you can always just call them a faggot (>>38730721, >>38730652, >>38730914). Yeay debating skills!

>>38738570
because you're all a bunch of fucking faggots

take a look at your post if you really need an example

File: download.jpg (14KB, 218x231px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 218x231px

>>38738556
>have met many vegans
>none of them even mention their diet unless people comment on it
>none of them are preachy dickholes that act special
>every time were at a social gathering with alcohol involved meat eater always make fun of their food
>retards such as yourself get angry over nothing
>better act like they're the problem NOT ME
idiot

>>38738613
>have met many meateaters
>none of them even mention their diet unless people comment on it
>none of them are preachy dickholes that act special
>every time were at a social gathering with alcohol involved vegans always make fun of their food
>retards such as yourself get angry over nothing
>better act like they're the problem NOT ME
idiot

(see, I can make unsubstantiated dumb posts too)

>>38738556
Have you met any vegans IRL? Like, honestly? I'm vegan myself and I've met a few annoying vegan fuckers, desu. I find that not hanging out with them is a better solution than either arguing about it on a Ghanaian bedpost maintenance forum or eating meat just to spite them.

Oh and I find that meatheads can potentially be just as annoying when debating this IRL. Like for example I've never brought it up but people ask me constantly and want to debate it even when I try to avoid it.

And yeah, surprise, people are stupid and kill their kids through neglect and shitty diets. I don't see how a kid dying from a shitty vegan diet is either worse or funnier than one dying from a shitty omnivore diet. People need to be taught a bit about nutrition and punished when they don't apply what they've learned to their kids.

>>38738586
>Literally doing exactly what I predicted.
>Not having the creativity to even come up with a different insult but using "faggot" just like I said.
>Confirming my post as true.
Heh. Good job, Einstein.

>>38738630
But it's not true, though. You know damn well vegans get made fun of for what they eat; it's happening right now in this thread. You've probably done it yourself. But when do meateaters get picked on by vegans? Sure they try sometimes online, but has it happened to you IRL? Honestly?

File: how about fuck you peasant here's the aristocracy rolling in.png (339KB, 510x388px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 510x388px

>>38738654
Of course not! The vegan diet leaves them too weak to dare to do so IRL, lest someone could breathe on them the wrong way and break their spine. I'd be careful about what I say if I was in that state too.

Or just more realistically, I'd also avoid walking into a room and telling everyone in there that what they believe is morally fucking wrong, for fear of actually getting my shit pushed in.

Realtalk tho, you can eat whatever you want, I'm not judging, but don't you dare try to upsell me on this garbage morality reasoning that I see every fucking where.
>"corpse eaters"
>mfw
Like, fuck off bro, morality is possibly the worst angle to approach this from, because it's the part that makes me want to punch people until they shut up.

>>38738636
If telling the truth confirms your post as true then whatever I guess

File: 903835.gif (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>38735857
>tfw you try veganism

>>38737216

>Doesn't realize he's one of them
>Didn't even understand what I was implying

wew lad

>>38737386

Saying teological notions have no place in biology is a case of scientism itself.

''Don't make retarded insults because you have no arguments'' This is literally what you did with your other post.

Also, in case you're not aware, this is not a biological question, but a philosophical one. Again, since didn't bother answering, have you heard of the natural law theory?

>>38738165

Nice argument.

itt: cultfags

File: n725075089_288918_2774.jpg (45KB, 533x594px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 533x594px

>animals
>morality

>>38738570
>Only vegans are dismissed out of hand and treated completely differently overall. Why? Because they're vegan. That's the only reason needed. Is that circular reasoning? Who cares! As meathead here >>38738264 puts it, logic doesn't matter! And as >>38737830, >>38730914, >>38731286

>Somebody doesn't agree with me? I'll just say that they didn't even offer a counterargument even though they clearly did!

>>38738516
>getting cancer is pure randomness
>carcinogens

>>38729894
a regular diet can be okay so long as meats and such are eaten in moderation, as with everything, moderation is key
if people actually knew how to eat and get the nutrients they needed, being vegan would not make them weak
in the end it really shouldn't be about morality, and more about which you truly believe will be more healthful in the long run; so if you don't know how to get all of your nutrients from non-animal foods, either learn how or don't be vegan, it's as simple as that
[spoiler]and that's all without taking genetics into account[/spoiler]

/thread

>>38730779
Have you seen the massive amounts of land cleared in order to own a farm? as well as chemicals sprayed? At least we use the animals we kill.

lmao all these butthurt meattards

vegan is the future just embrace it

File: monsoon.png (563KB, 933x769px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 933x769px

You can't fight nature, Richard. Wind blows, rain falls, and men eat meat. Scoob tells me you see your diet as "moral": something that saves lives, a means of sustainability. Now, there's a pretty meme! Exquisite! It spared you the burden of all the gains you've lost, absolved you of guilt when your chest couldn't grow.

>ITT - butthurt vegan / vegefagitarians who can't accept they're fucking retarded for no reason rofl

>>38740324
Isn't the seed distrubiton also super scummy? Don't most big corps that "rent," out the seeds to farmers fuck them over so much they stay in debt constantly and literally try to fuck over organic farms every chance they get/

>>38741675

Yes. They genetically modify seeds, then hold the patent (which is legally dubious as is; should people be allowed to own genetic code, even spliced genes that exist naturally?).

The farmers must pay to continue buying and using the seed. If they don't, they will be out competed by the superior genes of people who do buy the plants. If they do buy, they have to pay extremely high fees meaning that they remain poor anyway.

>>38736289
This is why /fit/ humor and CBT are the same. Why not take your health seriously and put on some real mass at the same time?

>>38738049
>he is so emasculated he can't even be manly without eating another "hunter's" cuck meat.

>>38738264
>He doesn't know that eating meat is creating greenhouse gasses that are preventing the development of human civilization

How can you possibly think eating meat is logical when we have B12 supplements?

>>38730627
>morally
I literally do not care about animals at all. They're not human, they do not matter.

The only decent argument for veganism I've heard is that the prices for keeping livestock around are ridiculous, but instead they just keep prattling about animal rights like anyone gives a shit.

>>38738448
>grains
Hot implication
>soy
It's almost like you don't know that eating soy has been found to have no negative health effects at 12 or fewer servings per day. I know you want to keep justifying your chicken, but it's really almost impossible to increase your risk of cancer sue to phytoestrogen consumption.

>>38738516
>skip on the multivitamin
I'm pretty sure that's the point.

Seriously though, if you can survive and make gains while eating as little meat as possible (thereby preventing ecological problems) why not do it?

>>38741675
>literally try to fuck over organic farms every chance they get

YES

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/02/488336925/monsanto-sold-soybean-farmers-a-weed-beating-tool-they-couldnt-legally-use

>But even though the EPA hasn't approved the use of dicamba on this new seed, obviously, Monsanto has started selling these dicamba-resistant seeds.

>It was telling farmers, here are these dicamba-resistant soybeans, but don't you dare go out and buy dicamba to spray on those crops.

>Well, evidently, farmers did exactly that. They sprayed dicamba illegally, maybe because they were having such, you know, terrible problems with weeds. But dicamba is a chemical that really blows easily in the wind.

>Scientists have been doing experiments in the greenhouse with pigweed and dicamba. And in their experiments, pigweed that's been sprayed with dicamba over a few generations has been able to develop resistance to the chemical. So if farmers start using dicamba a lot, it may not actually work for very long.

Monsanto is as bad as Apple at forcing their customers to upgrade to the latest phones but they also make their new phones brick any Android device connected to the same network.

also you know, instead of phones it's the livelihood of individuals they're tinkering with as well as the health of the general populace and even the price of goods in the economy

>>38738630
Literally false.

A friend of mine ordered chicken dumplings tonight and offered one to me. I said "thanks, but I already ate." He said "Ph that's right. You're vegan" (I'm not, but I eat a plant-based diet). We get into a thirty-minute roast of vegainism where I laugh along with all his jokes and call him a cuck for eating another man's meat.

He ends up finishing the dumplings while I enjoy a tortilla and hummus platter. We both walked into it talking shit, but we have different opinions. I will never bother him about eating meat, but he likes to start bantz and talk shit about vegan options. I'd be mad if I didn't know that he respects my choice without wanting to do it himself.

>>38738731
I lol'd. I completely agree with you that morality is one of the worst possible angles to take, but there is enough evidence to suggest that we would experience benefits in our lifetime from not eating meat. I'm assuming you're an intelligent person who thinks critically and looks for evidence on both sides before making a decision, so I won't patronize you further.

We both know that a decrease in livestock consumption can yield tangible benefits to every human currently alive in forms of water conservation, energy conservation, and prevention of global warming; so I think it's fair to say that a decrease (or halt if you feel the need) in animal consumption can yield measurable benefits that you will experience in your lifetime.

>>38740218
Tell me, why were over 20 countries studied in the seven country study, but the Ancel Keyes hypothesis remains the most contested hypothesis in modern dietary science?

Human beings are an adaptable species, and there is no reason to believe that a diet high in fat is optimal for health and wellness. If this is true, why then would we promote a diet that is both not proven to be healthier and also has been found to have profound ecological impacts on the planet?

>>38730627
Jesus fuck you retard, the research shows that long term vegetarian diets predispose your DNA to more heart disease, beetus, and cancer. Why do you think PAJEET land is the world's beetus leader?

>>38738295
I'm all set with my porkroast, mate.

>>38740465
I'd rather eat fat vegans than quit meat.

>>38742886

you went full retard. No hope for this person.

The amount of " Animals don't have feelings, I don't care about factory farming" and " Morals suck, I'm a purely logic based human, all I see is nutrition" reminds me this board is full of 14 year olds.

>>38740254
"lol who cares", "lol faggot" and variations of "I'm too edgy for morality" are not arguments, they're confirmations that the poster is underage.

>>38733718
It's atherosclerosis blocking their brain arteries.

>>38736030
People just do fine on moringa leaves and b12 rich pond water.

>>38739203
>scientism
From the wiki page on it:
>Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints. [P]hilosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."

Teleology:
>Teleology (from Greek telos, meaning end or purpose) is the philosophical study of nature by attempting to describe things in terms of their apparent purpose, directive principle, or goal.

It... just isn't a "scientism" kind of statement to say that teleology has no place in biology. It... just isn't, the two are completely differnt things and you'll just have to explain to me how you arrived at this conclusion because from where I'm standing you just don't understand the two words. Teleology has no place in evolution because teleology is about PURPOSE or GOAL, and clearly no organism has a conscious goal it seeks to fulfill through evolution. Organisms adapt to their environment but a species doesn't have a collective awareness of where this is leading it. Sure, teleological LANGUAGE is sometimes used as a simplification, but that is not the same thing.


>natural law theory
I assume you mean the one in philosophy, the stuff Aristotle, Hobbes and Aquinas talked about? If so I don't see the connection to either evolutionary theory or teleological notions in biology. Again, it just appears to me as if you have a vague but incorrect understanding of what these words actually mean and kind of jumble it all together... correct me if I'm wrong, I'm trying to understand here, I really am.

>not a biological question, but a philosophical one
Indeed, that was my original point as I was arguing against using evolution as a justification for eating meat. It's a fallacy.

>>38741948
>Human beings are an adaptable species, and there is no reason to believe that a diet high in fat is optimal for health and wellness. If this is true, why then would we promote a diet that is both not proven to be healthier and also has been found to have profound ecological impacts on the planet?

When you're buying meat&dairy you're bidding a whole lot more corn and soy than when you buy cornmeal. Off course advertisement would like you to consume more, don't you think about the poor corn farmers that would starve if demand from livestock dropped?

>>38742886
>PAJEET


Back to pol, faggot.

>>38742886
>Why do you think PAJEET land is the world's beetus leader

Because we have a fuckload of carb heavy foods as well as a lot of fried food. Indians have a surprisingly low rate of cancer though.

t. Indian

>>38743688
Do you poo in the loo?

It's our moral responsibility to take care of animals.

>>38743592
Debunked.
http://dietheartpublishing.com/faq

>>38743666
No because those farmers are going to be underwater in twenty years if we keep them in business long enough to melt the polar ice caps.

We need to subsidize renewable energy farming more than we currently do, so the farmers who would go out of business can harvest solar or wind energy.

>>38730627
lmao it isn't moral you fuckface modern agriculture murders shitloads animals to deliver your delicious veggies

unless you're growing your own food you can't even argue

>>38730689
Animals are being bred to be eaten. The populations would be naturally fine if we didn't breed them. Also "dominion over animals" gives us a right to kill and eat them? Nah you're one of the dumbest people to ever breathe.

>>38744568
>Renewable energy
Kek

Ya lets replace your 1000 acres of corn with 10 million dollars in turbines and solar panels out in the middle of nowhere.

And if you're curious. Solar and Wind power while being clean isn't economically viable. Companies that invest in this crap are being subsidized by the government.

>>38735985
>Ground meat has 20% shit

Okay, I know ground meat is not the 100% pure angus beef bullshit i'm promised on the package, I buy knowing they're lying to me. but 20% feces? I'd believe maybe like 5%. If it were 20% it would literally smell like shit while cooking it.

>>38744634
and you're fine with eating shit if it's only 5%? okay then, enjoy your shit

>>38744670
Yeah. Why not? Enjoy eating food that was shit on to grow. Enjoy inhaling air that has shit particles when you enter a bathroom. Enjoy drinking water that has a percentage of urine in it.

You can't avoid this no matter what you do.

File: 1465919548318.jpg.jpg (103KB, 656x708px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 656x708px

>>38744670
>mfw meatheads are so cucked by the Cadaverous Jew that they'd gladly eat literal shit as long as it's not above 5%

>>38744611
Same with corn and soy. They are subsidized so heavily that a farmer is an idiot to not grow them for animal use. Yes, renewables currently need a drastic subsidy in order to be economically viable, but that would be absurdly easy to pass if the GOP weren't promoting candidates who deny climate change.

>>38743833
>>38743592
Don't spread false information. It's perfectly possible to be healthy while eating meat, and meat is not the poison it's been made out to be. If you want to go vegan, it should not be for "health reasons."

>>38744670
>>38744689

>5% shit: fine
>6% shit: ewww gross

Your brain on animal fats.

>>38744685
> Enjoy eating food that was shit on to grow
The shit is broken down and the nutriets used; there's no actual poop from someone's actual butt in my veggies

>Enjoy inhaling air that has shit particles when you enter a bathroom.
Nigga I hold my breath as far as possible in public bathrooms and have a ventilator in my home bathroom. Also these are trace particles at most; the air is not 5% shit even if you breathe in a literal fart out of someone's ass.

>Enjoy drinking water that has a percentage of urine in it.
Filtered, though, so again not like drinking piss straight out of a dick. And not 5%.

>You can't avoid this no matter what you do.
Yeah you can and it's SOOO easy but you'd literally rather eat shit than even consider not eating meat. My god I give up, meatheads have become like a parody of themselves. Why is meat so damn important? I mean I wasn't always a vegan, I enjoyed meat too for most of my life. Then I gave it up and it wasn't a big deal. Whatever... Enjoy your feces, I'll go have some beans and rice.

>>38744693
>>38744611
Gov. subsidies as such aren't good or bad; they're a good way to get the ball rolling in useful tech without waiting for capital accumulation to happen on its own, which can take time. It can be a gentle way of steering the market in the most useful direction until whatever is being subsidised becomes profitable on its own. It's a question of WHAT is subsidised and WHY. Subsidising something, indefinitely, that's bad for the planet in order to save money for the corporations that lobby the government is one thing; subsidising something good for a short while in order to incentivise innovation and investement until it becomes profitable is another thing entirely.

>>38744693
>Fix climate change with renewable energy
Nigger do you know how many tons of steel are in a wind turbine?

>Corn subsidies
Tell the government to stop trying to push ethanol. It isn't viable.

>>38744775
>>38744707
>>38744689
>Someone makes bullshit claim that meat is 20% shit
>Anon said that's bullshit, and that the most he'd believe is 5% at most
>it's now confirmed all meat is now 5% shit

Okay /fit/

>>38744775
>ball rolling in useful tech
That is the point.

Wind and solar aren't useful. I am all for clean energy, but if you are looking for it, this isn't the place.

I would rather see the money used for these wastes be sent to Fusion research. The sooner we get nuclear fusion the sooner we gain energy independence, which you sure a shit aren't going to do with wind or solar.

>>38744835
I don't know how much is actually in it; 20% sounds way too high and even 5% does not sound realistic.

What gets me is that he is perfectly willing to eat meat even if it WAS 5% shit. He doesn't say "that's bullshit, here's some evidence that meat does not have feces in it", but just goes "yup, why not lol? Part of the meat-eating experience!". It just shows that some people would rather eat literal shit than be vegan, and to a vegan that's just super amusing.

>>38744845
Yeah I agree, there are some problems there and fusion research looks promising as fuck (didn't they get more out then they put in for the first time a little while back?). But the best approach is to not put all eggs in one basket, but research many different things. Geothermal, tidal and wave power all look interesting to me. Solar is improving lately, but I'm not a fan of the development so far. Solar and wind are more suitable for small-scale, private use IMO. BUt we're getting off topic...

>>38744904
>"yup, why not lol? Part of the meat-eating experience!"
He actually said it's part of the life experience and no matter what you eat or drink, it's going to have contaminants. He never said he is fine, just that the most he'd be willing to believe is 5%, not that meat has 5% or would eat it with 5%.

>>38738516
>veganism is healthy
>skip the multivitamin

>a diet that it is impossible to recieve certain vitamins and nutrients from

You trying to kill vegans m8?

>>38744962
B12 supplement is not the same as a multivitamin.

>>38744835
>>38744685
>>38744634

The infograph said 20% of meat CONTAINED salmonella bacteria, which likely came from poop. It did not say 20% of any given meat CONSISTS of pure poop. Amazing, still, that someone admits to be willing to eat something that's 5% or less poop.

>>38744942
Yes, but as argued in >>38744775, poop contaminants are usually trace amounts that can be avoided. 5% is just too much, dude... 5% is not a contaminant, that's an ingredient. You'd be eating poop at 5%. Willingly.
(Again, meat is NOT 5% poop, I just find it funny that some people would eat it even if it was. Just shows how ingrained meat-eating is to some people.)

Average Vegan poster, so we can get this shitty thread over with.

>veganism is healthy
>meat will give you cancer, eggs will give you heart attacks
>vegetables have as much, if not more protein than meat! Wh-what's 'bioavailability' and 'amino acid ratios'...?
>have you watched Cowspiracy or Earthlings?
>not saying you're a bad person, just that vegans are morally superior and you're killing sentient life with your diet :)
>Cows milk is for baby cows
>Oh, you're pescetarian/vegetarian/doing Meatless Mondays? That's great but it's not good enough
>read this PETA literature
>here are some studies, don't bother reading, I've highlighted what I think conforms with my beliefs in the abstract

Any more I can put in this Vegan bingo?

>>38744812
Wind tech here. Yeah they weigh a lot, but they're still the best form of renewable energy. They pay for themselves in 4~6 years and continue to produce power another 20 years. When they're too worn out to be effective, we don't just leave them there. The towers don't really age, so we pop a new motor and blades onto the old towers. Used parts get melted down and reformed into new machinery.

Why do you think the government is putting up so many? Because they fucking work.

>>38745080
>>Cows milk is for baby cows

I tought it was for cats?

File: 1466275970297.jpg.jpg (36KB, 476x353px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 476x353px

>>38745080
Average Meathead poster ITT:

>Iol who gives a shit!
>ur a faggot lmao!
>2 edgy 4 ethics
>compassion is for faggots
>I can cherry-pick studies too!
>my gainz are literally more important than this planet or the life of billions of sentient creatures on it
>did I mention vegans are faggots?
>EVOLUTION! NATURALIST FALLACY! CANINE TEETH AND OTHER EXCUSES!
>O-oh a f-fit vegan? H-he's roiding, I know it! He must be, otherwise my excuse would be invalid!
>"Giiiiirl, you need a shot of B12!" and other hits
>I is superior meat-eating hunter-man! Alpha!
>I would literally eat poop rather than be vegan
>I once met this one annoying vegan and that invalidates all animal ethics ever because I said so. Bacon.

>>38730627
>implying I don't want to die faster

>>38745259
Don't forget the part they would literally agree to eat 5% poo .

>>38745080
>bioavaliability and amino acid ratios
Chicken protein: 79%. Rice protein: 74%. You're right, anon. I could never mix rice and pea protein together to make a shake.

I don't know how you're still falling for the complete protein bogeyman when we have tofu (61% bioavailability, so notably lower), but 40 grams of complete protein per 1lb block.

Getting your protein from vegan sources is easy as long as you don't have food allergies.

>>38729894
Can we agree that picking one side of the spectrum is retarded and we need a balanced diet consisting of both meat and vegetables?
It's like you guys are forcing yourselves I to the left-wing right-wing paradigm without realizing it. Piling up claims as to which side is better but never realizing that the benefits are mutually present in both diets.

Seriously read a fucking book anons.

>>38738384
This desu senpai

>>38745295
>I could never mix rice and pea protein together to make a shake
Who the fuck eats chicken protein shake?

Why don't you compare rice & pea to whey or casein if you are making a shake?

If you are comparing meals, why aren't you mentioning the calorie per gram of protein of chicken vs rice or pea?

>>38745298
I disagree with needing meat, but I generally agree with you. The main issue is that a typical, American diet involves meat for all three meals of the day when this could be significantly cut down. Meat is expensive, but current diet trends focus entirely too much on protein.

If half the population made a meatless meal one day per week (logistics of getting people to do that aside, I don't think that's a completely unreasonable thing to ask people to do), that's about a 2.5% decrease in meat consumption. That's more than double what vegans are currently doing, so I think we really need to quit being such an EXCLUSIVE CLUB and start helping people find ways to eat plant-based options even if they still want to eat meat.

>>38745259
This

>Tfw full of energy and feel good on vegan diet
>good feels from knowing I'm changing the world for the better
>carnivore cucks will never know this feel because they want to feel like men by being savages

File: 1473582021746.png (123KB, 268x332px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 268x332px

>>38744981
>Amazing, still, that someone admits to be willing to eat something that's 5% or less poop.

He literally never said that though. Why do you keep insisting that he did?

>>38745369
Because it's irrelevant. If you're following IIFYM and not getting enough protein, just drink a protein shake. There is no reliable source that recommends getting more than one gram of protein per pound body weight under any circumstances. Which protein source is "best" is completely irrelevant.

>>38745405
What was your diet beforehand?

I was vegan for about 6 months, now vegetarian due to the trace amounts of egg whites in quorn, and apart from pooping more I felt no different.

>>38745500
Mostly chicken breast and lots of whole milk. Now it's more fruit, vegetables, and legumes. I definitely feel a lot "lighter"

>>38745500
Another vegan. I feel less bloated, but that was because I was a vegetarian and ate a lot of dairy and it turns out I'm allergic. I feel other benefits as well, but I can't honestly attibute them to veganism since I ate lots of crap and drank a lot of booze when I was vegetarian which I don't anymore.

I don't remember what I felt like when I ate meat at all, too long ago.


>>38745434
Oh Jesus tittyfucking Christ, are you for real?? Here, look:
Post >>38744670 asked:
>...and you're fine with eating shit if it's only 5%?
And he replied in >>38744685:
>Yeah. Why not?
And then went on to argue that it's unavoidable. So yes he literally said that, yeah, he would eat meat if it was only 5% (or less) poop.

>>38745500
>due to the trace amounts of egg whites in quorn
Wut? Trace amount don't count. "Trace amount" means like less that 0.02%; it's factory contamination and not an ingredient. You'd get more non-vegan stuff in you from kissing an omnivore, sharing the same kitchen with one, or probably even breathing the same air...

>>38743632

>By definition, scientism is in opposition to any kind of mysticism or idealism
>A teleological view of nature is necessarily linked to some kind of mysticism or idealism (ie: belief in god)
>Therefore scientism is in direct opposition to teleological notions in biology

''and clearly no organism has a conscious goal it seeks to fulfill through evolution. Organisms adapt to their environment but a species doesn't have a collective awareness of where this is leading it.''

This is either a well hidden argument from incredulity, or pure ideology. You decide.

The natural law theory is both a legal theory and a moral one. It's obvious I'm referring to the moral one and not the legal one.

To put it simply, the (moral) natural law theory states that humans have reasoning and the Laws of Nature are discernable by human reason. Thus, humans are morally obliged to use their reasoning to discern what the laws are and then to act in conformity with them.

The moral natural law is directly linked to teleological notions in nature and biology. It's the very foundation of the theory.

The natural law doesn't state that natural acts are morally correct, but that Natural Laws are.

It shouldn't be too hard to see how this theory justifies meat eating.

Post bodies you morally upright vegans

>>38747579
The fact that scientism possibly is ONE of many many different views and attitides as regards science that opposes teleological notions in biology, does not mean that ALL opposition to such notions are scientism. Are you legit retarded?

>argument from incredulity
Let me rephrase it then: there is absolutley no evidence for any "purpose" or goal to evolution, nor any possible known mechanism through which any organism could seek a specific goal through it consciously. Given what we know of how evolution works and how the universe works at large, there is no reason to assume teleology. This is no more an argument from incredulity than claiming that there isn't a purple dragon living on Pluto; it would be retarded to claim "there might be, you don't know! Incredulity argument!" because there is no reason to believe it or any to science known way that would work.

>or pure ideology
Did you watch Zizek lectures on youtube and not quite understand them? It's a materialist argument, based on what we actually know about how evolution works. You're the one making shit up because it suits your ideology, and rejecting all science as "scientism".

>>38747579
>Humans have reasoning and the Laws of Nature are discernable by human reason
With you so far. Basic Aristotle.
>Thus, humans are morally obliged to use their reasoning to discern what the laws are and then to act in conformity with them.
Literally naturalist fallacy and is-ought chasm at once. This is a Randian interpretation, a perversion of the Aristotelian view.

>The moral natural law is directly linked to teleological notions in nature and biology.
No? How does believing that "humans have reasoning and the Laws of Nature are discernable by human reason", or even that we are obliged to act in confirmity to them, imply in any way that there is an ultimate goal or purpose to evolution? Again, this is juvenile perversion of ancient philosophy which seeks to establish some kind of social darwinist elitism as 'nautral' and therefore 'right'. Even the basic mechanisms of evolution aren't understood.

>It shouldn't be too hard to see how this theory justifies meat eating.
By claiming it is Natural Law to eat meat. But this is the just a shallow attempt to circumvent the naturalist fallacy by stating that it's about Natural Law rather than natural acts. Yet how is Natural Law established in this case? By observing natural acts. Problem with the argument is that if it can be used to justify meat-eating, it can justify anything also observed in nature and assumed to be part of Natural Law. Why are other acts, such as killing, observed in nature not part of Natural Law and hence justified?

File: 1471803740909.jpg (40KB, 960x724px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 960x724px

>>38729894
>bro you eat these things that cause Alzheimers
>YEAH WELL I ONLY EAT SCARCE AMOUNTS OF THOSE THINGS, U MAD??

talk about missing the point

>>38748801

Correct, but I supposed yours was scientism since it's by far the most common one. Have you not noticed how scientism has perverted many areas of scientific knowledge?

No. Darwin's theory of evolution and later works by other biologists does not provide sufficient evidence to justify the elimination of teleological notions from biology.

I'm not rejecting all science. What makes you think that?

I'm rejecting the idea that outright rejecting certain views because the scientific consensus in one particular field of science seems to disagree with it is somehow ok.

>>38748810

>Ethical naturalism is the naturalistic fallacy

The theist/deist version certainly is.


Your argument implies all natural acts are somehow equally natural, or natural to the same degree. What allows you to believe that? Can you not conceive of a position where all natural acts would be ranked by virtue of their ''naturalness'', where the more natural an act is, the more it can be rationally used as a tool to discover proper human conduct, and the less natural it is, the more doubt there would be in such an interpretation?

Ultimately, the natural law is not what I use to justify meat eating. My view is that animal suffering is a non-issue, and that the utility or value we gain from eating meat is superior than the suffering animals receive in the process.

>>38748901
Read again.

>>38730685
I thought we had evolved beyond barbarism

>>38730627
>Morally it's obviously a better choice
Animals don't have ANY concept of their own death. They don't know they're going to die, they just wake up, eat, and fuck. The only immoral thing about eating animals is when you mistreat them.

>>38749346
You certainly give the impression of rejecting all recognised forms of science. You also assume too much about your opponents beliefs in stead of, you know, asking.

>...does not provide sufficient evidence to justify the elimination of teleological notions from biology.
But why include them to begin with? There was never a reason to do this. You're shifting the burden of evidence. It's not the job of biologists to prove a negative (which is generally taken to be impossible); the burden of proof is on those who use teleological notions to justify why they use them and how they are useful (i.e. what more do we learn about biology through their inclusion). Is there such a justification, that is scientifically sounds? Scientific consensus says no. Even critics of the modern/neo-Darwinian synthesis, like Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Lewontin, reject teleology. In fact critics of the modern synthesis often accuse it of having hidden teleological assumptions or ways of expressing themselves.


My problem with "ethical naturalism", and the belief in degrees on 'naturalness', is that inevitably whatever someone (due to upbringing, culture, etc.) happens to think is "good" gets ranked as "more natural", while whatever they think is bad becomes "unnatural". It's an ex-post justification of beliefs already held through an appeal to nature. I'd rather cut out the middle-man, so to speak, and go directly to that age-old argument on "what is good?" rather than involving ideas of what is natural or not.


>>38749753
This has been proven to be wrong. They don't understand death as we do, of course, but their feel fear. They suffer, feel pain. They fight to survive; survival instinct and all that. What you're saying is just an excuse to justify your actions, it has no basis in reality. Understandable, but still incorrect.

>>38730627
I like how no one ever brings up the fact that 99% of these animals never would have even been born and lived any sort of life if not for the fact that they were delicious. Do you really think there would be roaming herds of chickens and cows in the Maine wilderness or Yosemite?

These animals have existed as nothing but food for us since before we even had a written language.

>>38750224
>of course, but their feel fear. They suffer, feel pain. They fight to survive; survival instinct and all that.
Cool, nothing you said refutes my point. They're happy cows and chickens until one day farmer man takes them behind the shed. They have no ability to understand that day will come. There's nothing inhumane it. You're deluded

>>38750224

Animal suffering cannot be compared to human sufferinng.

File: 13502751_1058306710930451_3918672493452355423_o.jpg (190KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 2048x2048px

>this entire fucking through