Vegan

>>41766995
All the positives of eating vegan are canceled out by the fact that an omnivourous diet includes everything in a vegan diet and more.

isnt veg oil bad

>>41766995
Just go vegetarian and eat lots of eggs and beans.

Vegan is for fags and soy will give men cancer.

It will also make men cancer.

>>41767404
Citation needed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
>It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

>>41767022
You mean like cholesterol and a high amount of trans fats? You do know that vegans have lower rates of heart disease and cancer?

File: vegan.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>41766995
If you want these sick gains, then yeah, you should turn vegan.

>>41767926
just looking at this guy makes me want to forget the gym, eat meat, and sit on the couch
if thats the product of exercise and veganism, count me out

>>41767926
Dude looks sick. Like dying or some shit.

>>41767926
TEN YEARS
E
N

Y
E
A
R
S

>>41767926
This guy models like a bobblehead, I can't stop laughing. Is he humming or something? His head moves like one of those fembots in Austin Powers when he seductively rips off all his clothes and makes their heads explode. I forgot this was a discussion on vegans, carry on. On a sidenote, could someone link that scene in Austin Powers with the fembots?

>>41767926
Pathetic neck and chest.

>>41767877
Enjoy your estrogen, faggot.

>>41766995
>Positives
Your food didn't have to scream
There is no mother, sister, son, daughter etc missing someone because of your food
There are no corpses on your plate
You did not turn someone with a face to poop
You have slightly less lower chance of getting heart disease, diabetes, stroke and colorectal cancer
You have an 18% smaller GHG footprint and a smaller water footprint than before, you are also not taking part in Amazon deforestation
You will discover dishes, flavours, spices etc you did not know existed before
You may or may not get a new perspective on the value of life and morally consistent logic
>Negatives
There are no accurate substitutes for steak, gyro, pancetta, bacon, cheese, prosciutto, eggs over easy fried in butter etc., so you'll miss them hard.
You have to track your nutrition closely because vegetables are less nutrient dense in fat soluble vitamins and most minerals than meat, due to bio accumulation. Plants have also got way less protein per calorie on average, so your diet will be even more restrictive.
>What do?
Make the substitutions you want and don't find inconvenient because why not.

>>41766995
yea im vegan look its pretty good and u feel alot better especially if u cant help but eat alot of bad junk food and food high in saturated fat.
if u want some tips u need to learn how to cook thats the most important thing and also u need to have a big stomach because alot of produce isnt very calorie dense so its hard to get ur TDEE. but yea good luck its worth it in the long run and u in 50 years will thank u for it

>>41769612
>you are also not taking part in Amazon deforestation
>as a soy eating vegan

yeah right

File: alien gains.jpg (59KB, 300x393px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 300x393px

>>41767926
This vegetable lizard man is bigger than 99% of /fit/.

File: 1497211325206.png (612KB, 576x960px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 576x960px

HOW ABOUT FOR ONCE. FOR FUCKING ONCE a NON JUICED UP VEGAN POSTS SOME PICS YOU DYEL PUSSYS.
WE CARE ABOUT GAINS. GAINS GAIND GAINS GAINS GAINS NOT CANCER YOU PORTLAND THIN WRIST FAGGOTS REEEE.

>>41769749
The V A S T majority of soy is cattle feed, and soy derived products are at worst 10% of the average vegan's calories

>>41769838
>Facts
There is NOT A SINGLE macro or micro nutrient that you can't get from a vegan source
>examples
Brian Turner
Jon Venus
Vegan Physique

>>41766995
Just do Raw vegan in the Week and cheat day on Weekend.
Your Body dont Need more meat/dairy then once per week. So with 1 or 2 cheat days per week you have everything that you want and are healthier than every omnivore.
You have all the positives from both diets.

>>41770889
>Raw vegan
No. Raw vegan is retarded and unnecessarily restrictive. It offers no health or environmental benefits, it saves no extra animals, it excludes nutrient dense and protein rich foods from your diet like potatoes and beans and it's just a bad idea in general

>>41766995

>live longer
Yes

>live stronger
No

>>41766995
>positives
If done healthfully, vegan diets have protections against heart disease and some forms of cancer

you arent contributing to a needless
holocaust

grills find compassion sexy as well, it shows you arent up your own arse

>negatives
putting up with corpsemunchers spewing the same refuted shit time and time again like soy will give you tits etc

some restaurants suck dick as they put animals in everything

once you make the connection its hard not to get angry at regular corpsemunchers sometimes, just catch yourself and remember they are indoctrinated

>>41771036
prove you cant be stronger. What is it vegans lack from diet which means we are weaker?

stop just asserting things like a child who doesnt know what they are talking about.

>>41770942
this, its fine if you wanna be raw vegan, but everything you said is correct, and its annoying raw vegans lie. Vegans should be ethical across the board.

>>41766995
>turn vegan
Vegans are born that way, it's not a choice

>>41769749
80-90% of amazon deforestation is for cattle grazing and growing soy to feed cattle.

>>41769092
t. moron

>>41771132
i think that only applies to the gays

>>41771297
No you can obviously choose if you're gay.

>>41766995
It's literally a meme propagated by touchy-feely cult members. I've tried eating Vegan and I've tried eating clean with low fat. Eating clean with low fat made me feel way better.

The "health benefits" come from comparing vegan to a trashy diet filled with fat and red meat, not a bodybuilder diet filled with vegetables, chicken breast, skimmed milk and egg whites. If you try to argue this with a vegan eventually it will turn into a pissing match and their points boil down to "animal suffering is bad".

File: 1459220518149.jpg (310KB, 879x592px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 879x592px

There are environmental, health and ethical advantages of a vegan philosophy and lifestyle. Negatives, as with any lifestyle change, is that it takes a while to get it into routine where you don't even think about it. I have been vegan for 1 year and 2 months and things have been very easy the last 7-8 months.

>>41771108

Calm down, just going by the amount of strongmen who are vegan vs not.

Im sure its entirely possible. But its more difficult.. And /fit/izens are dumb people, they dont want to get their calculators out to see if theyre getting correct amounts of nutrients for the rest of their lives

>>41766995
Regardless of the validity of any pros or cons, the main reason you shouldn't go vegan is because you'll be regarded as a fucking autist by anyone who finds out. Which will be everyone, because you won't be able to resist telling them how good a person you are because of it, and how anyone who isn't vegan should just kill themselves.

like the faggot in this webm basically >>41767926

>>41771361
Vegan here

I swap nuts/seeds with grain. Fuck grain

>>41771362
A RECORD HOLDER IS VEGAN

and nah senpai, the reason there arent loadsa vegan athletes is because we only make up such a small number of the population, and they already dominate in certain fields
>>41771324
>eating carcinogens is healthy
>implying causing needless suffering is not morally bad

mate you thicc

>>41769828
bullshit, he has the muscle of a 2 year natty lifter that just looks better than it is becuase he eats like a auschwits convict

>>41771097
have you ever interacted with a chicken, cow, or turkey in real life? they are barely sentient. also, plants are living entities too, why is it okay to kill some forms of life but not others?

>>41770571
Well no shit its vast majority with vegans being such a tiny minority
>10%
Maybe to some skelly faggot who lives off kale and letucce, but anyone wanting protein will have to deal with soy protein, not to mention anything made to be fake meat has soy

File: a299fc411932bc769ed235be148b5e71.jpg (54KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x600px

>>41771324
Health conscious meat eaters has been compared to vegans and vegans still come out on top. Check out the studies on the seventh day adventists for example.

Saying that people who cares about ethics are "touchy-feely cult members" is not an argument.

>>41771385
Grains are great, just not refined grains.

File: patrik.jpg (2MB, 4000x2836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x2836px

>>41766995
Turn to Patrik Baboumian for motivation. He's Germany's strongest man, world record holder, vegan, encouraged me to make the transition.

the sole reason to go vegan is moral

>>41771458
It's the fundamental reason, but not the sole one.

>>41771362
The amount of the general population that is vegan vs not is different, how can you compare vegan strongmen vs non vegan ones
>>41771324
So many mistakes, fallacies and wrong assumptions in one post that seems to be kindhearted other than that
>It's literally a meme
No
>propagated by touchy-feely
If compassion for the defenseless is touchy feely then yes
>cult members.
Not a cult
>I've tried eating Vegan and I've tried eating clean with low fat. Eating clean with low fat made me feel way better.
Good for you. Maybe you did veganism wrong (not enough calories, not adequate micronutrients tracking, not doing it for long enough to let gut bacteria adjust) or maybe you did everything right but still somehow felt low energy. Maybe you have never even gone vegan and just shitpost. Either way, anecdotes are best left out of objective assertions
>The "health benefits" come from comparing vegan to a trashy diet filled with fat and red meat, not a bodybuilder diet filled with vegetables, chicken breast, skimmed milk and egg whites.
I want to say that is true, but milk and chicken have estrogen. Anyway, let's just say it's 95% true. However, most people who turn to veganism do so for the animals and environment. Health is a tertiary reason or an added bonus. Very few people do it to lose weight or get rid of acne, and those are often the types who cling on to pseudoscience without doing heavy research first anyway
>If you try to argue this with a vegan eventually it will turn into a pissing match
Usually the non vegan is not open-minded about accepting a couple truths which is partly at fault for the conversation turning to shit
> and their points boil down to "animal suffering is bad".
Not really, no. UNNECESSARY animal suffering is bad. Also, GHG emissions, water footprint, Amazon deforestation influence etc are all far lower in the case of vegans.

>>41771434
>10m yoke walk world record
Who even gives a shit? It's not even something cool like deadlift or log press.

>>41766995
living as a vegan is like playing game with a cheat code
and without losing your life like roids do

>>41771530
Grow up faggot
Also vegans represent a tiny fraction of the total population so it makes sense that they have a tiny fraction of the world record of anything

>>41771493
do you honestly think that if there was no animal agriculture, there wouldn't be a financial reason to cut down the rainforest?

>>41771530
lol he hasn't even won germany's strongest man since he went vegan
>b-but muh ultra specific record in a strongman event with an exact combination of weight and distance!

<muffled paleo is best>

any health benefits to going vegan are due to the fact that literally anything is better than the standard american diet

>>41766995
Hey guys.

If I don't want to go the "all or nothing" route with eating veggies, because all or nothing diets suck and almost always fail, what if, and this is a BIG what if, but what if I, or we, just focused on eating less meat?

Wouldn't that reduce the problem quicker than tying to get a handful of people to eat
nothing but plants?

>>41769612
>not taking part in Amazon deforestation

Faggot, look into the mass deforestation being caused due to palm oil production. And for someone that only eats sticks and leaves aren't you being a little hypocritical in blaming meat eaters for disappearing forests?

>>41771555
Deforestation would definitely be a lot slower since there would be way less incentive to cut down the trees.
Also, all strongman (actually all athletic) events are like that, what does that have to do with anything

>>41771572
>Reducetarianism
Absolutely, I even suggested that OP does that: >>41769612
>Lol sticks and leaves
Ahaha so funny man epic screencapping for r/4chan

>vegan
Literally only a valid option for women who don't need strength or mass

Turning vegan will make you more feminine, weaker, thinner, slender, and probably turn you into a fucking faggot. You will never be considered a man if you turn vegan, and you'll be stuck in ottermode at most if you stay vegan.

Bottom line, eat some fucking meat

>>41771614
literally nuke yourself

>>41771572
Is it really a zero sum game? Can't those with the fortitude and intellectual honesty to go vegan do so, and the others reduce their meat untill there are more convenient alternatives for their weak minds.

Also, as stated earlier in this thread, 80-90% of amazon deforestation is due to clearing way for cattle grazing and to grow soy beans to feed to cattle. Vegans, and vegan companies rarely use palm oil unless it's from a sustainable source. And surprise, surprise, a large portion of palm oil is used for animal feed. 20% of the palm oil and 80% of the palm kernel oil imported to the UK for example is used in animal feed.

File: 936.jpg (27KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 625x626px

>>41771614

File: 14355543_353761338298550_1838603212961431250_n.jpg (63KB, 769x556px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 769x556px

>>41771689

File: protein 1.png (136KB, 787x878px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 787x878px

Daily reminder vegan protein powders are literally cheaper and have more protein per serving than whey protein powders.

>>41767926
nasty ass DSL

>>41771324

Chicken breast, eggs, skimmed milk are the worst possible foods right after bacon in terms of health for different reasons.

Poultry is always contaminated with insane ammounts of PCB's, almost as much as big fish.
And chicken consumption has been also linked to stunted genital growth in boys.

>>41771731
Serving size is 5g bigger faggot,
Compare 100g.
But price per protein it is still cheaper (as long as whey isn't on offer, which it currently is)

>>41771782
>Eating chicken makes your dick small

This is why nobody likes vegans. Blatant fucking lies and propaganda like this.

yo my vegan bros, love all of u.

anyone got experience with eating spelt in place of rice/quinoa etc? 15g of protein/100g and cheap as fUUUCK where i live

>>41771782
>And chicken consumption has been also linked to stunted genital growth in boys
kek! fuckin' dicklets

>>41771794
whey makes you ghey

>>41771708
You know, being vegan myself, I can see why this doesn't resonate well with non vegans.
Let's say the trait farm animals lack is "being classified as a homo sapiens". This includes orangutans too, making them ok to eat, but it also pretty much can't be argued against.
>>41771689
What is this supposed to be
>>41771731
I've looked into it. The only one that is actually cheaper than whey concentrate is pea isolate. All others (hemp, rice, soy, blend) are more expensive. The "from" next to the price tag does not represent the 2.5 or 5kgpouches which have better €/kg ratios
Also, pea protein isolate has way less in all 3 BCAAs and lysine compared to whey, per serving (24 g pure protein)
Let's be honest with our facts.

>>41767404
>soy will give men cancer.
It's literally the opposite you fucking moron. Even if it were true, you think being vegan is reliant on soy? Fucking retard LOL

>>41771404
see what i mean.

Yes i have and they are very sentient. Especially baby cows, they are playful as fuck.
Weird how you left out pigs.
Even if they are "barely sentient" how does that justify stabbing them?

Also plants are NOT SENTIENT, so it doesnt fucking matter.

Even if plants were sentient how does that justify stabbing cows?

hurr durr you cant be against human murder because plants are living durrrr

4chan isn't mature enough to handle the facts and reality of veganism, yet. Give it 5 years. When I started coming here everyone hated gay people. Now look at this place, it's literally filled with traps, sissies, cock rates, cock tributes, male assholes, etc.

>>41771689
>Loma Linda Ca.

Degenerate quasi-gook shithole. Terrible nigger infested blocks in the outer suburban regions. Has a Clarks health food store next to giant gook temple for the mentally challenged. I can't drive a single block after work without being BUTTBLASTED by a poverty yellow belly driving 30mph in a 45 zone while drifting in and out of the bike lane. A vast majority of the city blocks and main rodes are riddled with the homeless and homosexual during at least one hour of the day. The other inhabitants are entitled, lower class citizens, or both. I went to clinicals at the VA and had to SUFFER the presence of a chink invader who quotedly drove 40 on the freeway because "he doesn't want to get a ticket." The bastard wore the tightest fucking pants out of old navy and midrift teasing polo on the market. The other trainees were hood nigglodians chimping out on eachothers sneakers every other morning.

Fuck that place. Good medical programs tho.

File: bowie neat.gif (3MB, 445x275px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 445x275px

>>41766995
based beige.Comfiest videos on yt 10/10

>>41771614
>being this insecure about your masculinity you cling onto food as your masculine identity

>not understanding real men protect those who cannot do so themselves

>not understanding real men have honor
>>41771708
NOBODY CAN REFUTE THIS BECAUSE IT IS AIRTIGHT
not one corpsemuncher will name the trait, they will just name differences and be so dense they cant understand that isnt an answer.
>>41771816
says the people who spout out plants have feelings and soy causes huge estrogen

Daily reminder that 80% of vegans are women.

>>41771413
Wrong.
1) 1 kg of live cow (about 0.5 kg beef) requires about 7kg of grains or soy, look it up. Eating 1000 kcal beef requires way more soy compared to eating 1000 kcal soy.
So, if everyone went vegan overnight, we wouldn't need to destroy as much rainforest
Also
>Only soy has protein and fake meats are only made with soy
>What are lentils and beans
>What is seitan

>>41771816

It's not lies, it's been shown to stunt genital growth in boys, meaning it won't make your dick smaller now if you keep eating it, but pregnant women and young boys have been shown to have smaller penises than populations that didn't grow up with considerable chicken/egg consumption in their diets.

PCB's are also found in other foods, even plants but they are mere traces. Fish have by far the most PCB's, specially big fish.

A lean beef steak is much healthier than chicken even if it's full of anti biotics and mammal hormones, that's the point I was making.

Also, skim milk has been shown to contain even more mammal hormones than whole milk.

>>41771413
>What is an energy pyramid
I'm not even vegan, but you're a fucking retard. Eating producents (plants) and not primary consuments (such as cows) is way more effective in terms of water usage and areal needed for the same amount of calories, protein, nutrients etc. If the entire world went vegan it would be very positive for the rain forrest and the enviroment in general. Please dont ever post on this board again :)

>>41771924
>implying thats a bad thing
>being this insecure about your masculinity

>>41771920
>NOBODY CAN REFUTE THIS BECAUSE IT IS AIRTIGHT
See >>41771843, I'm curious as to what you'd answer to this

>>41771843

Yeah, I took that screencap a while back, just realized pea protein is now at under 9 pounds, pretty cheap tbqh.

>>41771413
WHEN WILL THE SOY MEME DIE

corpsemunchers are like full on SJW's, no matter how many time a point is refuted, no matter how much evidence, they will just block their ears, cry, call us names, then carry on as if nothing happened.

Honestly, corpsemunchers who argue against vegans like this are the biggest faggots going.

>>41771934
>but pregnant women have been shown to have smaller penises
Now that is truly shocking

>>41771966
"because they arent homosapiens"
that isnt a trait that justifies murder, its an appeal to collective fallacy.

If i were to transfer your consciousness into a cow is it justified to kill you because you are a cow?

If aliens came down and tried to exterminate us because we arent apart of their collective, would you accept that as justification? Obviously not...so there is a double standard when its applied to animals.

One more ex to drive home. As this is an appeal to collective i could say, blacks arent white so its justified to enslave them...see what i mean?

>>41771843
The picture represents the so called "blue zones" with the longest living populations and what their lifestyles have in common.

When it comes to your objection to the argument, I would say this. Would they accept being excluded from the moral sphere on the basis of species? Would they say a creature with the exact same traits as a human would have no moral value just because it's not classified as a homo sapiens. Or imagine if Homo floresiensis survived untill this day, being very human like, would a genocide of their species be morally neutral.

>>41771978
Why are vegans so often such assholes

>>41771556

Ironic thing for a paleotard to say

>>41772076
literally because you're either a brainlet or a proud murderer
makes me sick to my guts there's people like you who's proud of torturing,chopping head of,mutilate
the corpse and then proceed to munch the carcass of innocent sentient beings

>>41772076
>im a victim of the meaney weaney vegans
>but its cool how its socially acceptable to make fun of vegans

stfu you SJW fairy

>>41772003
>"because they arent homosapiens"
>that isnt a trait that justifies murder, its an appeal to collective fallacy.
How is it a fallacy? Can you please post non veganism related examples? I honest want to know, I'm just playing devils advocate.
######
Please keep in mind while reading the below that what ask yourself wants to do is show an inconsistency on the moral code of non vegans. Vegans draw the line at "sentient", non vegans draw the line at "homo sapiens". I am not trolling, please show me where there is a moral inconsistency or double standard in my reasoning.
######
>If i were to transfer your consciousness into a cow is it justified to kill you because you are a cow?
That is 2 orders of magnitude more stupid than the "wwyd if stranded on a desert island with nothing but pigs and a knife" argument non vegans use. Anyway, I guess I'd do what cows do. Protest, then die, then get turned to poop.
>If aliens came down and tried to exterminate us because we arent apart of their collective, would you accept that as justification?
Again, I would not accept it but I would also not be able to do anything against it. I'd fight, lose and get eaten, or maybe commit suicide and get eaten. I honestly don't see how this is a counter argument.
>Obviously not...so there is a double standard when its applied to animals.
No, there is not, the moral code is consistent, it's just that the "ok to eat" line is drawn at "not human"
>One more ex to drive home. As this is an appeal to collective i could say, blacks arent white so its justified to enslave them...see what i mean?
No, I don't see what you mean. Blacks are human, whites are human, dogs are not human, horses are not human, cows are not human. Blacks and whites are not ok to eat, enslave and own, the rest are.
######
Again: I am not actually saying animals are ok to enslave or eat. I am showing how one can be consistent and not use double standards in his logic and moral code, but still eat meat.

>>41772134

>Vegans draw the line at "sentient", non vegans draw the line at "homo sapiens"

The point of his logic exercise is to determine why a line could or should be drawn at "homo sapiens" that isn't hypocritical.

>>41771964
>i suck dicks solely to prove to everybody i dont like it!

>>41772134
why are you missing the point?
The hypothetical are not stupid, its showing you the inconsistency

Do you find those hypotheticals justified or not? they use your same appeal to collective

Yes but black are not part of my white group so fuck em...this is the same logic as "they arent human"

I honestly dont know what to say...if you cant understand why "its ok to kill animals just because they arent human" is not an appeal to collective, and how all i did in the hypothetical was use the same logic.

Unless you name a trait that you would accept in both the animal context and the human context.

>>41766995
go vegan and take B12 supplements then you're good

File: Capture.png (305KB, 363x409px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 363x409px

>vegan diet will lower your test and kill your gains


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQzILxkd3M8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxzefN8Yca8

This guy switched to vegan overnight, been at it for a full year now, since then he lost fat and increased lean body mass. He has a fat free mass index of 24.4.
He also did a testosterone comparison pre and post veganism trial.
His testosterone showed SLIGHTLY higher than when he was eating animal products.

And btw, this guy eats soy products, so there is no excuse.

>>41772166
incoherent

>>41772134
why is it not ok to kill and enslave niggers?
you have any reason when you draw that line? or you just following the norm without ever questioning/understanding the reason?

>>41772153
Hypocrisy means that there is a double standard, I just showed that there is not a double standard. But please, help me refute this. I love how airtight and inarguably correct all pro vegan arguments are, and this one little hole feels like a thorn on my side.
>>41772063
>Blue zones
Thanks
>Name the trait objection
Can you please reply to this?
>>41772134

>>41772119
>>41772124
Normal people aren't this butthurt about other people's eating habits. Even the rapefugees don't tell anyone else to do ramadan.

Seriously just relax, you're allowed to have your views but screaming and shouting about them is just weak shit.

>>41772196
mate ive explained it. You cant just say "you cant be immoral to anything that isnt homosapien" that line of reasoning is inconsistent as you would reject this same line of reasoning if a humans consciousness was transferred into anything that was not a human body...showing that there is more to it than morphology.

As ive said this is an appeal to collective and youd have no argument when i say "its ok to kill niggers because they arent white humans"

>>41772186
Unless he's a confirmed natty then don't even bother

>>41772213
it's the hundreds billions of innocent sentient beings that's slaughtered every year that make us vegans butthurt af anon
turn on your brain anon

>>41772213
>playing the victim
>waah vegans are assholes
>thinking needlessly stabbing things is just an eating habbit
>didnt refute any vegan argument

typical meat eater.

>>41772196

>Hypocrisy means that there is a double standard, I just showed that there is not a double standard.

Being homo sapiens isn't a trait. If you're trying to make a case for why it's okay to kill and eat other animals but not humans, you have to identify a trait of the animal that, if it applied to humans, would justify killing and eating the human. Just saying "because it's not human" doesn't answer the challenge.

>>41772225

His test levels are well beyond natty levels according to his physician, idk how else you could prove you're natty beyond that.

>>41772224
Not him but I understandvery well that it's a dirty industry and is immoral, but I don't claim to be moral. Am I prepared to change my diet and other areas of my life in order to combat the industry? Simply, no, I don't care enough.

>>41772242

around*
not "beyond"


>tfw brainlet

>>41772179
>The hypothetical are not stupid, its showing you the inconsistency
I think I showed that a meat eater can be immoral yet consistent if he draws the line at "homo sapiens", didn't I?
>Do you find those hypotheticals justified or not? they use your same appeal to collective
Was I not clear in my wording?
>Yes but black are not part of my white group so fuck em...this is the same logic as "they arent human"
Yes, it is the same logic, but not with the same "consistent ideology" line.
>I honestly dont know what to say...if you cant understand why "its ok to kill animals just because they arent human" is not an appeal to collective
I do see the fallacy, except a fallacy doesn't necessarily invalidate an argument. Example: "Bobby says Robby isn't a cat, because it has three legs"
Bobby's reasoning is fallacious, but that doesn't mean Robby is a cat. Robby might be a dog.
>all i did in the hypothetical was use the same logic.
Not the exact same. Again, the line I used was the same through all my posts, so I can't see the hypocrisy
>Unless you name a trait that you would accept in both the animal context and the human context.
"Being Human".

I will now change my wording, maybe it will be easier to answer. What do you say to someone saying "come on bro, they are animals. Who cares?"

>>41772224
>>41772241
>I will now change my wording, maybe it will be easier to answer. What do you say to someone saying "come on bro, they are animals. Who cares?"

>>41772224
"if human consciousness was transferred blah blah"
aside from knowing the unknowable. (this has never happened, as such you have no basis to assert the outcome).

Such a creature would then be a moral actor. And would have moral value.

>its ok to kill niggers because they arent white humans
There are people that would agree with such statements.

what is your point?

>>41772134

>That is 2 orders of magnitude more stupid than the "wwyd if stranded on a desert island with nothing but pigs and a knife" argument non vegans use. Anyway, I guess I'd do what cows do. Protest, then die, then get turned to poop.

>Again, I would not accept it but I would also not be able to do anything against it. I'd fight, lose and get eaten, or maybe commit suicide and get eaten. I honestly don't see how this is a counter argument.

That is just arguing might is right and could obviously be applied between humans as well. It's not what you would do, it's about if you would accept the reasoning or not.

>No, there is not, the moral code is consistent, it's just that the "ok to eat" line is drawn at "not human"

Well any such distinction has to be justified, if not it's completely arbitrary and one would be in no position to argue agains anyone arbitrarily excluding oneself from the moral sphere.

>No, I don't see what you mean. Blacks are human, whites are human, dogs are not human, horses are not human, cows are not human. Blacks and whites are not ok to eat, enslave and own, the rest are.

It's not about the actual statement, because "your" claim about morals exclusively applying to humans has not been substantiated. It's about the logical sturcture of the argument, if action A is justified towards subject X, because subject X is not subject Y, then any groups or individuals that can be fit into this argument and justify any action towards any subject. To show how absurd it is:

Action A is justified agains animals because they are not humans.

Action A is justified against humans because they are not animals.

If it can litteraly come to any conclusion, it's per definition, a useless argument.

>>41772241
>you have to identify a trait
No you do not.

I have no requirement to justify anything.

>>41772193
>not doing something faggots and women do means you are insecure about your masculinity
I dont want to associate my lifestyle and diet with faggots and women, specially when both wont mind getting their extra dose of estrogen

>>41772304
>It's not what you would do, it's about if you would accept the reasoning or not.
Thank you, now I understand. I'll use that
>any such distinction has to be justified, if not it's completely arbitrary
That *can* be said about vegans and the "sentience" line though
>action A is justified towards subject X, because subject X is not subject Y, then any groups or individuals that can be fit into this argument and justify any action towards any subject. To show how absurd it is:
>Action A is justified agains animals because they are not humans.
>Action A is justified against humans because they are not animals.
>If it can litteraly come to any conclusion, it's per definition, a useless argument.
You completely lost me. I've been working on my thesis and posting here for the better part of the day, my brain is mush.

>>41771933
Not "only", mostly, going around vegan/natural shop almost everything i see is soy or soy/rice based
Maybe in a couple years they might get alternatives and across more places, but with so many people hapilly swallowing soy products i dont see this changing so soon

>>41772345
>I am very insecure about my masculinity
>I also would gladly eat beef and milk which contain mammalian estrogen unlike soy, which contains phytoestrogens, which are weak estrogen-like compounds that bind to estrogen receptors and block real estrogen from harming me
>I would not lick sweet vegan fruity mango tasting pussy
Kek all the better for me

>>41772335
Yes you do since you make a distinction, unless you want said distinction to be arbitrary. If I say that you will need to excert more energy running 10m in context X than 10m in context Y, I need to justify that with a trait that justifies the difference. For example pointing to the elevation, terrain etc. would be acceptable traits to point to because of their relation to energy exertion. But just saying context A requires more energy excertion than context B only because context A is not context B is just a meaningless statement since obviously every aspect of each context that relates to energy excertions can be identical despite them being different contexts.

>>41771533
yes

>>41772403
>If I say that you will need to excert more energy running 10m in context X than 10m in context Y, I need to justify that with a trait that justifies the difference.
Yes because you make the claim

Eating meat is default human behavior. The burden of proof is not on me.

>>41772448

>implying meat eating isn't a taught behavior

>>41772348

>Thank you, now I understand. I'll use that

No problem.

>That *can* be said about vegans and the "sentience" line though

It *can*, but it's meaningless since you can get anyone to understand that sentience is the basis of ethics. I think you know the arguments for this.

>You completely lost me. I've been working on my thesis and posting here for the better part of the day, my brain is mush.

What I am saying is that since the same argument can be used to justify anything, then it's completely useless for navigating moral issues. It's also self contradicting.

>>41772515
>Make another claim but again no proof

You are really bad at this.

>>41772448

>Eating meat is default human behavior. The burden of proof is not on me.

That's you making a claim.

>>41772242
>cruise on trt doses
>my test levels are totally normal bro I'm all natty!
Why do retards still fall for this shit?

>>41772543
You dense doublenigger, your parents literally chose your every meal from age -0.75 to age 18, how is this not "teaching" something?
Vegans may or may not be vegans from birth. There are very few who were vegans from birth, but most turned vegan well past adulthood

>>41772574
>He is leaner/bigger than me so he must be on steroids!
Why are dyels always so salty?

>>41772448
>Yes because you make the claim

And you make the claim that animals are excluded from the moral sphere, despite them also being sentient. We are both "10m" but in one context you say no energy is required and in the other it is. That claim needs to be justified, regardles of if you are running 10m or not.

It doesn't matter if it's default behaviour or not, I could be eating meat right now and still debate for veganism. We are talking about ideas here. A good way of seeing it is as an objective third party, not attached to either side.

>>41772546
Is the status quo humans eat meat or not?

>>41772613
I don't make any claim.

You cannot say, "you must justify the status quo, and if you cannot my way is correct".

In this scenario, you are claiming animals require moral considerations which would preclude humans from eating them, you just don't want to have to prove it, so you frame it as a question which you believe meat eaters must answer, and failing to do so proves your position. That is not how burden of proof works.

>>41772668

Is drug use default human behavior too then? Most people use some form of drug, be it alcohol, tobacco, weed, or harder things. It doesn't mean we instictually do it, it's a cultural thing we learn to do.

>>41772814
>you are claiming animals require moral considerations which would preclude humans from eating them, you just don't want to have to prove it,
Name. The. Trait.

>>41772814
Read the argument in this picture:
>>41771708

>>41772842
>Is drug use default human behavior too then?
Probably

>>41772864
I don't have too.

You tell me why animals deserve the same moral considerations, and I will respond.

>>41772930
>there is no trait which would cause a human to deem himself valueless

I think the 44k suicides per year in the US world, would disagree.

>>41772954
this anon doesn't know why we have moral consideration towards other humans
if he does, he would realize all the reasons not to kill a human would apply to animal as well

>>41772979
You misread it, read it again.

>>41772990
>All the reasons not to kill a human would apply to animals
Humans do not kill humans for food. Humans do kill animals for food, which would not be covered by your statement.

Again you fail.

>>41772954
See, this is very silly of you. You really do not have to justify eating meat. You don't "have to" do anything as long as it is not illegal. However, if YOU ask me WHY animals deserve the same moral considerations as humans, then I will redirect you to the good old "name the trait" question.

>>41771493
listen you fagbreh if you need to start tracking your macronutrients and whatever you are clearly on a fucking retarded diet.

le vegan man example:
> BRUH I"m SO MUCH healthier than YOU. IM EATING RAW VEGS ONLI BRUH ITS THE WAY TO GO, PLANTS ONLY IS WHAT IS MEANT TO BE
> FUAAARK I NEED ATLEAST 100 GRAMS OF LETTUCE ELSE I"M NOT GETTIN ENOUGH VITAMIN K for today

fucking idiots.

tracking nutrients is only needed when you are on a dangerous diet.

>>41773100
>You should only watch your step when climbing a steep slope, anyone can walk on the pavement with their eyes closed
This is how stupid you sound. You also confuse vegans with raw vegans, which is a strawman, and you use lots of ad hominem, making your argument weak as shit.

>>41773080
>Humans do not kill humans for food. Humans do kill animals for food, which would not be covered by your statement.
but humans kill humans for money,sex etc.
basically we want something the other creatures have, for human their money or vagina, for animals their carcass to eat or their skin for clothing
now tell me anon (if you know), why killing other humans for our personal pleasure/gain is immoral?
>Again you fail.
i'm not the previous person you talked to

>>41773098
I'm not asking you anything.

You state that we should eat meat because animals have value.
I ask you to prove it.
"name the trait"

That is an argument from ignorance. Even if I could not do it, that does not make your statement true.

>>41766995
yeah, go vegan and become a hungry skeleton
some people, baka
you can't make gains on normal diet yet alone you ask about vegan diet

>>41773160
>shouldn't

>>41773160
>Prove that animals have value!
That is what you are saying, right? Correct me if I didn't understand.
Here goes:
Let me play devils advocate, take YOUR side, and assume animals have no value.
What is the characteristic that animals have whereas humans don't, that makes animals valueless and ok to eat but humans have value and are not ok to eat?
If there is such a characteristic, then say it, and out hypothesis (that animals are valueless and of no moral consideration hence ok to eat) is correct.
If, however, there is no such characteristic, then animals are not ok to ear and we were wrong.

>>41773160
"Name the trait" is in a way a "horizontal" argument, it's not trying to make a new assertion in a "vertical direction". You can notice that it starts with the proposition "Humans are of moral value", *if* you accept this then the rest follows as a logical necessity, it's simply pointing out the points of contact between our current values and the conclusion. If you don't agree you have two option:

1. Demonstrate it to be logically fallacious.
2. Deny humans moral value.

>>41773152
Not the guy you're replying to but

Ultimately we make our own morals. I choose not to kill or harm other humans for my gain. Some people choose not to harm animals. I've thought about that too. I think saying "x is immoral" doesn't make sense, you're just deferring your own judgement to some higher unnamed power (common morality or something). If you think it's okay to kill other humans for your gain then that is your view, but don't try to argue it's immoral / moral to everyone.

>>41773279
Yes you must prove animals have value, which would require some form of argument.

>name the trait
uhhh.....

I don't have to do shit. You're the person with the burden of proof. Your name the trait crap is a fallacy. You are shifting the burden of proof, then your conclusion is again an argument from ignorance. You never proved your hypothesis in the first place.

Here is an easy example of what you are doing.

You: God created the universe
Me: Wow, prove it.
You: Prove god didn't, and if you cannot, than god must have.

Asking me to disprove something you haven't even given evidence for, is shifting the burden.
Concluding that god did it, if I fail, is an Argument from Ignorance.

>>41773325
That's moral relativism but I think you don't really understand ethics and is really just describing social contracts. Could this be true?

>>41773369

I'll speed this up for you two.

Animals are sentient creatures that can think and feel pain, suffering, etc. These are things we understand and seek to avoid.

Now your burden is responding to him and explaining why this doesn't make something worthy of moral consideration, of course without being hypocritical with other beliefs like humans having value and being worthy of moral consideration.

>>41773325
No
there is an absolute right or wrong in an action of killing, that's how criminal laws are made
the higher unnamed power you mentioned is logical reasoning, that's where morality comes from
no wonder all these carcassmunchers act like they do, they're just half evolved immoral savage unable to reason about the simplest thing

>>41773413
Finally

>doesn't make something worthy of moral consideration
Kant said it better than I ever will, so I will just copy his words. I don't agree completely on the rational, but the gist is here.

...every rational being, exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will...Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature have, nevertheless, if they are not rational beings, only a relative value as means and are therefore called things. On the other hand, rational beings are called persons inasmuch as their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves. (Kant, 1785, 428)

>>41773522

Kind of douchey to quote Kant, but what exactly are you trying to say with the quote? It's very vague in relation to the topic

>>41773413
Also I >>41773522
believe your use of sentience is fallacious.

You are not only advocating for the cessation of eating meat but also dairy, eggs, honey etc.

Additionally you have no actual way of knowing what an animal feels or does not feel. A study of fish showed they only have 5% trauma receptors in their brain. Humans with insensitivity to pain have around 25%. This means most likely fish have no analogous feeling to pain in humans.

Using suffering as a guideline, would also require knowledge you cannot posses. You have no idea what a chicken thinks. Assuming it is suffering in a cage would be empathy, not knowledge.

>>41773681
You have dugg yourself into a hole of Kant's deontology and solipsism.

>>41773369
>Here is an easy example of what you are doing.
>You: God created the universe
>Me: Wow, prove it.
>You: Prove god didn't, and if you cannot, than god must have.
False equivalence because 1) nobody can prove either side of the argument and 2) there are no consequences for anyone if, hypothetically, one side were to be proven true.
I can claim that animals are of moral consideration.
>Why tho
Because they are sentient. It is wrong to hurt someone who can be hurt, because they hurt. I can't dumb this down any further, in my mind it is as simple as 1+1=2. Given that we agree on that (do we?) the burden of proof is now on you.

>>41773589
People are ends into themselves
Creatures which are driven by nature not by rationality are means to an end.

And such creatures only have relative value and are summarily called things.

Don't see how it is douchy. I think he has the logical position on the topic. You could quote bentham if you wanted. But I disagree with him, as I do not find a creatures ability to feel pain a compelling reason to give them moral value.

>>41773681

>You are not only advocating for the cessation of eating meat but also dairy, eggs, honey etc.

... Which come from animals. How do you think we get those?

>Assuming it is suffering in a cage would be empathy, not knowledge.

You could argue like that for anything. You only know what you think and feel. You use empathy for anyone else. We can see that animals express emotions like we do and they attempt to avoid pain and death.

>>41773717
And throw in Kant's belief in the human-exclusive soul and the vagueness of "rational creature" and we have a real shit soup.

>>41773719
>I can claim that animals are of moral consideration.
>>Why tho
>Because they are sentient.

Yes, and you correctly made a claim then offered proof to said claim. You didn't make a claim, then ask me to prove the opposite, else you win.

But I already answered the sentient argument.

>>41773727
It is a position, not an argument. A position needs only be said. An argument requires a factually correct or mutually agreed starting position and use of correct logic to reach a conclusion. Kant's quote here is neither.

>>41773727

It's a pretty sociopathic philosophy. It doesn't really define what an irrational creature is and without a real basis asserts that they're expendable and can be used for the gain of the person saying the quote. Plenty of humans, I would consider irrational creatures, but most people wouldn't accept it as moral justification to kill or exploit them for my own gain.

>>41773757
>... Which come from animals. How do you think we get those?
And what about a chicken having sentience would prevent us from eating its eggs?

>attempt to avoid pain
Already covered. If you still have a problem with eating fish, eggs, milk, honey etc. you are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand.

File: 1494356895789.webm (1MB, 404x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 404x720px

>>41773757
We also have analogous neuroanatomy, evolution, origins etc. To assume their screams, blood stress hormones, behaviour etc. are analogous or identical to ours but would mean something completely different, or nothing at all, is absolutely absurd.

>>41772954
>>41773160
>>41773369
>>41773522
>>41773769
Let me take you by the hand. Please respond to this (and every subsequent post) in one sentence only. I will do the same too. Here goes.
_____________________

Should we inflict pain on other humans if it is unnecessary?

>>41773821

> what about a chicken having sentience would prevent us from eating its eggs?

The chickens we kill for meat are the same chickens that we keep for eggs. The same stressful conditions apply, and egg-laying hens are eventually sent to be slaughtered.

>Already covered.

Where? The fish pain thing? That's hardly covering the entire topic, but even fish clearly identify and swim away from danger.

>>41773860
>Should we inflict pain on other humans if it is unnecessary?
Free will. So sure.

People engage in all sorts of painful activities freely and willingly.
Tattoos
BDSM
Sports
etc.

>>41773875
So we stop eating chicken, is eggs acceptable?

>identify and swim away from danger.
really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_LjnwVxGL0

>>41773931

>So we stop eating chicken, is eggs acceptable?

Again, eggs come from chickens, the same chickens we raise for meat. Ignoring that we would never raise chickens on an industrial scale just for eggs and not make use of the meat, even if that happened the conditions the chickens live in is extremely stressful and disgusting. You might even be able to argue that just keeping them for eggs is more unethical at that scale, because that's just keeping them alive longer in the worst conditions imagineable.

>really?

Yes, really.

>>41773896

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

"Although all cone snails hunt and kill prey using venom, the venom of this species is potent enough to kill humans.[3] Specimens should be handled with extreme caution."

The fish was not in a normal state..

>>41773859
>but would mean something completely different, or nothing at all
Only if you assumed the chicken perceived the world as you do.

When you stick the head of a chicken in the cone, does it recognize it is about to be killed or does it just want its head out?

File: Coop.jpg (1MB, 1073x727px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1073x727px

>>41773982
How about this, would this be acceptable?

>>41773896
How is it unessesary if all involved has chosen the pain as a means to pleasure? If pain is a necessary part of BDSM then the suffering is nothing but nessesary for those who chose to engage in it.

>>41773982
1 chicken is used for meat or eggs, not both. Same thing with cows, its used for meat or milk not both.

>>41774046
>How is it unnecessary
I took "unnecessary" to mean necessary for survival.

If it was meant in some other way, it is going to be too general to mean much. Because by your reasoning, it would be necessary to kill someone in war. 2 countries engaged in it, and the soldiers generally signed up for it.

>>41774036

That looks nice but it's unrealistic. Having backyard chickens that you keep as pets is very different from meeting demands for eggs on a mass market scale.

>>41774049

Egg-laying hens and dairy cows are used for meat. It would be pretty much impossible both for financial and production reasons to fully separate the two and not get meat from the egg/milk producing animals after their production quality drops.

>>41774145
>Having backyard chickens that you keep as pets is very different from meeting demands for eggs on a mass market scale.
I'll take that to mean you have no moral objection to eating eggs as long as it is done free range and local.

Okay how about Honey?

>>41774098
No, unnecessary means more like "for no good reason", which means unjustified in this context. So his question in essence I think is, "do we need to justify actions that cause harm towards other humans?" or/and "Should we inflict harm on other humans without good reason?"

>>41773896
>Tattoos
>BDSM
>Sports
>etc.
Cheeky. I rephrase.
>Should we inflict pain on other humans if it is unnecessary, if they did not willingly insert themselves in the situation where pain might be caused?

>>41774176

>I'll take that to mean you have no moral objection to eating eggs as long as it is done free range and local.

Well no, because those are buzzwords that usually don't mean anything. That's why I said backyard pets, as it's implied you'll look after them well and have reasonable space to accomodate them and won't be slaughtering them for food, not a local egg company that has profit incentives that mean the chickens are treated as a commodity and almost certainly sold to another "local free range" company to be killed for meat.

Honey I don't care about

>>41774176
Have you conceded the clearer case about meat then? We can move down the line of animal producs after we finish the case of meat or you will just skip around, never conceding any points.

>>41774223
>Should we inflict harm on other humans without good reason?
That is just as nebulous.

Muslims think they are torturing people for a good reason.

>>41774257
You are going to need to give me an example of that type of situation.

I don't think I have had a chance to torture an innocent bystander.

>>41774310
Actually, the entire point about eggs was to define sentient as being fallacious.

Vegans argue not only for stopping the consumption of meat but of all animal products.

So saying we shouldn't kill animals because they are sentient thus we should be vegan is not logical.

And considering he would not accept even the least aggressive form of egg consumption, an creatures sentience is apparently irrelevant.

>>41774334

> Muslims think they are torturing people for a good reason.

And according to your moral relativism they are good, becuase they think so? According to me they are wrong, they base that judgement on a faulty belief in the supernatural. So any "reason" based on the existence of a god, is null and any situation they consider justified based on this is in fact, not so.

>>41774334
Are you trolling?
>Should we harm or cause unnecessary or unjustified pain to a person?
>For example, should you beat up an innocent pedestrian just because you think beating people up feels good?

>>41774377

>Actually, the entire point about eggs was to define sentient as being fallacious.
>Vegans argue not only for stopping the consumption of meat but of all animal products.

And as was pointed out, and what you should have already realized before you tried to make the point, is that animal products come from animals. There's no way to separate the treatment of chickens with the procurement of eggs when we're talking about industrial production.

Of course, even if we were talking about the kindest possible egg farming, some vegans would still argue against it on the basis of nutrition/health.

>>41769092
Enjoy your cancer, nigger

>>41774377
You have misunderstood, we don't think eating egg is wrong in and of itself, but because of the consequences is has for sentient beings. That's where the sentience comes in, so it's entirely logical. If an egg popped out of a vacuum, or a plant, or a rock, vegans would have no issues with eating it. But because even backyard hens require "population control", and that it's perpetuating the suffering of hen species that suffer from the extreme volume of eggs they lay compared to what their physiology has developed to sustain. This goes on and on, why in *practice* vegans are against the consumtion of eggs. Because of the suffering it "indirectly" causes. Now go back to the meat please, have you conceded it?

>>41774445
>innocent pedestrian just because you think beating people up feels good?
what were they wearing?

but no.

>>41774431
Well no, I wouldn't have used that example unless I thought it was immoral.

Your question was addressed to we and humans, not I. I find it immoral. But there are humans that find it moral.

>>41774549
>no
Good. Why not?

File: 1465592488371.jpg (95KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x600px

Seems like meat-eater arguments always collapse into a mesh of solipsism, moral relativism and apathy. Is the only way to argument against veganism to deny others reality, denounce ethics and not feel?

That people so desperately want to cause animals suffering. Sad.

>>41774599
>deny others reality, denounce ethics and not feel?
And the only moral argument for veganism involves thinking the absolute dumbest creatures in the world are suffering via doing what humans created them to do.

>>41774632
Name the trait. If it is too hard respond to this >>41774578 comment chain.

>>41774549

>Well no, I wouldn't have used that example unless I thought it was immoral.

But according to you, you and ISIS has equally good reasons for your respective values? If ISIS has the value that pushing their beliefs on you and forcing others to follow their islamic law is good you would not have any argument against them doing so? You see the hole your are digging yourself into?

>>41774578
Because you are valuing your own pleasure over the pain of another rational being.

>>41774681
>But according to you, you and ISIS has equally good reasons for your respective values?
Jesus I said no. You addressed your question to all humans. And the answer to that is that yes, humans find it okay to cause pain for a good reason, as there are countless examples.

>>41774736
Excellent. Define "being".

>>41774736
whom did not consent. Else BDSM etc would be immoral.

>>41774765
creature capable of exercising free will in pursuit of its own goals.

And also you do know the definition of beings or person is a philosophical minefield.

>>41774760
What happened to your moral relativism? You used it to get out of the tricky situation where we applied logics to your values. You are contradicting yourself?

>>41774803
How do you know which creature that possesses "free will" and how do you know "free will" exists?

>>41769828
>vegetable lizard man
got me way too hard

>>41774871
>What happened to your moral relativism?
>Say I find it immoral
>Say others find it justified but I do not.
relativism is still intact.

>>41774894
>How do you know which creature that possesses "free will"?
Rational pursuit of your own goals, not just the goals given to you by nature.

>how do you know "free will" exists
humans demonstrate it.

>>41774990

>Rational pursuit of your own goals, not just the goals given to you by nature.

There's no accurate way to differentiate these

>>41774919
No, that's just stating that there are differing opinions. Moral relativism, is saying they are all equally good and no value is better or worse than another. So, ISIS has as good reasons for their values as you and I or not? If not, then you can't appeal to moral relativism as you did to escape your values being brought to their logical conclusion. And if you can't appeal to that, then you either need to show that while some moral statements can be better/worse or true/false, they are not subject to logic, or you need to get on with naming the trait already.

>>41774803
>creature capable of exercising free will in pursuit of its own goals
My definition would be something like "can experience subjective reality" but I don't disagree with yours.
Do animals fall under this definition of yours or not?

>>41775016
Sure there is.

How many creatures paint or shitpost online?
Hell how many fuck for fun?

>>41774990
Are not all goals given by nature? Is our brains, thus us, not a product of nature and are our goals not caused by prior causes? Are you claiming human goals are self-generating?

>humans demonstrate it.

How?

>>41775047
You don't think you shitpost because you have biological social needs to communicate and interact? You really think your shitposting is an action without prior causes?

>>41775027
>ISIS has as good reasons for their values as you and I or not?
To them they are good reasons.

To me they are not. I am not going to pull an anna kasparian and claim I AM FUCKING BETTER THAN YOU! Because being in the same situation I could possible believe and act just as they do, who knows. I was raised in a town of 600 in oklahoma, not iraq.

And why would I value my morals the same as others? If that were the case I would have no morals as one group or another finds every action imaginable justifiable.

>>41775108
Do you know what justifiable means?

>>41775053
>Are not all goals given by nature?
No, as people vary wildly in goals. Where by nature all humans have the same drives.

>are our goals not caused by prior causes?
I imagine society plays a large part in an individuals pursuit. That however is ultimately up to the individual.

>Are you claiming human goals are self-generating?
Within the individual, yes. Your parents may want you to be a doctor, but that decision is again ultimately up to the individual.

>>41771555
>do you honestly think that if there was no animal agriculture, there wouldn't be a financial reason to cut down the rainforest?
I'm not even going to read the bullshit that came before but have you really deluded yourself into thinking livestock is a significant contributor to deforestation? S A D

>>41775085
>You don't think you shitpost because you have biological social needs to communicate and interact?
Humans can and have been raised in isolation.

I don't know what you mean by "biological social needs".

>>41775217

>No, as people vary wildly in goals. Where by nature all humans have the same drives.

That doesn't mean it's not from nature, peoples appearance varies wildly as well. Is this too not a cause of nature? Wouldn't you say our goals all relate to well being and suffering when you follow them to their "natural" cause?

>I imagine society plays a large part in an individuals pursuit. That however is ultimately up to the individual.
>Within the individual, yes. Your parents may want you to be a doctor, but that decision is again ultimately up to the individual.

No, those are just some potential causes. How would free will even work? If you were transported back in time to the last atom when you made a choice, would you be able to make a different choise? Where in the brain, that follows processes that have entirely natural causes, is this "free will" generated? Is it determined? Then it's not free. Is it random? Then it's not free. And if you manage to find it, how did you determine that animals lack it?

>>41766995
I don't really care about killing an animal for my meat because it's going to die anyway. I do care to treat that animal with respect however and I've been buying my meats only from ethical and small-scaled local farms. That's as restrictive and mindful as I care to be, being that I'm not driven by guilt and shame by man children raised by a single mother

>>41775270
You are out of your depth. Read some litterature on free will, ethics and logic. I don't have the patience to continue explaining myself, you have failed so far to name a trait. The one you have named "free will", is either well defined and then doesn't exist or vague and morally irrelevant. Maybe others can continue.

>>41775334
>peoples appearance varies wildly as well.
Does nature make people dye their hair orange?

>Wouldn't you say our goals all relate to well being and suffering when you follow them to their "natural" cause?
No. As I said, if a person can decide to pursue or not to pursue any goal than it is not nature. Natural goals are what leg the praying mantus get his face eaten so he can mate. My goals of lifting are irrelevant from a nature perspective because I already have children, and had them when I was out of shape. I pursue it out of my own free will.

>How would free will even work?
If there is no free will, than this conversation is pointless.

>how did you determine that animals lack it?
Does a dog attack a child out of malice or instinct?

>>41775394
>so far to name a trait
sorry I could not disprove god.

>>41767022
I think vegans are nicer to animals overall.

>>41775495
Answer this >>41775031 faggot

>>41766995
Yes, and turn gay too, the future is now!

Why is there so huge argument about morals when it's really simple?

Humans have consciousness, animals are only sentient.

When animals develop consciousness it's not okay to eat them anymore.