Why don't animals deserve the right to not be slaughtered

>>2067874
You act as if anyone should have that right, I want to slaughter and then eat what I slaughter fag


>>>/pol/

>>2067874
It's not a question of morals, most people just like to eat meat, and so there's a demand, and so that demand is met.

It would be wonderful if everyone was so self-conscious but that's not how humanity works.

>>2067897

Just give me a logical reason why it is not acceptable to hurt a human but it is for an animal (e.g. for food)

>>2067929


Because God told us, We're above them, We rule the earth, idk. It's in the bible,

>>2067919
your argument doesn't work because it doesn't work with humans. For me (and you im guessing) the demand won't change the belief that it is wrong to kill humans. Its also hard. the way you talk, you suggest that the demand decides the morality, but i think the morality decides the demand partly as well.

im not talking about human awareness. im not looking for reasons for why we act now. im looking for logical justifications. Maybe if it was more normal to kill humans ( or slaves or niggers), there would be more demand.

>>2067874
Look kid, If you're vetard, and want to push vegottry, just kill this thread, We like meat like my bitch.... Ok?. Capish

>>2067959
im not vegan, im looking for a logical argument.

>>2067937
There is no God silly

>>2067971


Eat or be eaten, there's your main answer, If you're alone in the forest and a lion came by, That lion will not ask question to his fellow lion, if there's any logical answer not to eat you, so it will eat you like a ragdoll you are, Now flipped the subject, will you ask this question if you don't have anything to eat? i don't think so, Historically,biblically.

>>2067999

Whatever you say ,Atheist dude

>>2068000
Some are good too eat,but not all of them, That's I'm trying to say here, Don't be like china, where they eat everything that moves, I.e dogs, rats and shits,not to mention fake rice bullshit

>>2067874
Humans can tell me to stop eating them, thus I've violated their rights
Animals can't tell me to stop, so their rights don't exist

>>2067874
>forgetting animals kill other animals in addition to humans

>>2068000
so then if you were put in a situation where killing another person would benefit you and no one found out, would you do it?

>>2067971
Survival of the fittest, and greater good mentality. Both tend to be attributed to the most strictly logical veins of thought.

Animals have less intelligence, less capacity for reason and logical thinking, can't develop strategies for survival and can't work together as effectively as humans can. Compared to human equivalents, the societies and technology of the smartest and most advanced animals is less than stone age.

Intellectually and physically, we're the fittest. Therefore we reap the benefits of hunting and cooking meat of animals.

Then there's the greater good - humans have and continue to benefit vastly from the nutrients gained from meat. Animals are plentiful and just one cow or deer can feed an entire family for days, even weeks. To cut that part of our diets out entirely at any point in history would've massively impacted the progress of human civilization simply because we'd have less fuel to work on.

As for the continued eating of animals, that stems from the fact that humans killing animals is now a part of the global ecosystem. If we stopped hunting and eating animals all together, overpopulation would fuck up the environment.

Should we treat lesser beings humanely and mercifully? Yes, but that's more a question of civilization and morale. Should we stop eating certain animals to prevent fucking up the ecosystem? Yes, absolutely. Should we stop killing all the woodland critters and let them roam free? No. People need to eat, meat tastes good, and if you don't eat meat, you lose essential nutrients. Because even if we could make synthetic deadless food that tastes exactly like a ten ounce steak medium rare steak, overpopulation would fuck shit up son.

>>2067874
Animals eat other animals, why should we be any different?

>>2068017
desu i respect chinese eating habits more than western people being squeamish about dogs. if ure gonna eat one animal, might as well eat all the fucking things, especially the insects which probably are barely "alive" as we would see it.

dont see why people get so offended about eating dogs.

>>2068039
then why shouldn't we eat other humans? plus >>2068033

Humans are special because they have the ability to morally reason. Animals do not. Morally reasoning makes humans special, and gives us rights.
Do you even kant bro?

>>2067874
Rights descend from the social contract, and so are only possessed by human beings.

>>2068037
but theres an arbitrary line to the logical thinking thing. why not just kill retards? they arent fit. kill the autists, schizophrenics etc etc.

also, we are at a level of technology when we can probably manufacture foods without killing animals with everything we need so the nutrients thing really isn't an argument.

>>2068060

animals do morally reason actually.

>>2068061
i understand that society requires consent and understanding so for that reason animals cant be a part of that so i think to some limits then i think its okay to dictate control over them or use a limited force for the benefit of both us and then (especially as we are more intelligent) but i dont think that necessarily means we should inflict pain on them if we don't have to.

>>2068062
I'm fine with killing animals for food yet don't advocate for executing the mentally infirm for the biological reason that I'm opposed to the death of members of my own kind. That and killing someone with mental illness does very little for a society they can contribute to and function in, whereas killing an animal feeds hungry families. People with autism and schizophrenia are still people in the sense that they contribute and have the capacity improve the human condition.

Sure, pulling the plug on a vegetable or slipping some bleach into the sippy cup of someone with Downs will stop them from carrying on their genes and being a drain on society, but they weren't going to reproduce in the first place the long run they don't do that much harm.

I mentioned some kind of universal tofu that tastes exactly like steak, but I should have mentioned that even though we could probably manufacture foods that don't involve dead animal bits, the fact that a fucking vast portion of the world lives in abject, crushing poverty and starvation means that eating animals is the only option, when it even is an available option. If you're not eating meat and you don't have much to go on in the first place you're going to have medical complications and you're more likely to starve to death.

>>2067874
> Deserve rights
Theres your problem. No one deserves rights. You only have the rights that you can protect. The reason humans dont kill each other more than they do is because we form societies for safety. If you kill one, there will be consequences.
There are about as many consequences to killing a cow as there are to killing an apple. They are both living and both have chemicals that are released in the event of injury. Just because an apple doesnt squeal, cry, or move doesnt mean it doesnt have its own interpretation of "pain." Neither can protect itself and we need food to survive. Now if you try to kill a wolf in front of a wolf pack then you will be in deep shit.
Just think that if you end up in some sort of death camp, you cant just say you have the right to life. Because clearly you dont. You cant defend that right in that hypothetical moment and no one is coming to your rescue. Therefore you dont have the right to life and your captors decide what happens.
Is it fair? no. But thats what life is.
Animals also need population control.
Cutting out meat would limit the food supply and increase prices, no one wants that.

>>2068101
discriminating because of same kind is illogical and is dangergous because it potentially justifies things like racism. i think everyone on this board would agree utilitarianism is not the most desireable moral system and can become paradoxically inconsistent at sometimes.

ill say that this isnt an activist post saying lets become vegan, lets move the world to veganism. this is simply a moral question about what we should do and i think that assumes that we have the resouces to do it.

i think at the end of the day all morality actually has some inconsistencies because even with the poverty stuff, the discrimination thing looms up so its weird. i do actually dispute though that people in poverty eat mostly meat. i expect that meat is actually more expensive (as traditionally; we probably eat more meat now than we ever have done in the past) but i think in todays world maybe it depends and its not an issue i find important to discuss.

>>2067874
Because I'm hungry
>and i want to kill

>>2068101
except iceage maybe. but thats a guess.

>>2068122
those issues have been covered elsewhere in the thread i think.

>>2067874
i think the two extremes of this argument are either a utilitarian one or respecting every living thing. but this gives no answers.

The animals are there to be eaten. That's what God put them on this Earth for.

Now should we be depriving them of little or all movement to be cannibalized like in slaughterhouses with pigs? The answer is obviously not. Economically speaking, pigs are not even an agricultural beast until later on in the civilizational process.

If I may bring in outside philosophical arguments, if you want to argue against an animal's rights, you have to argue that animals are not worthy OF rights. There are several philosophers who argue that since animals are incapable of reason, they do not have moral standing and are therefore not entitled to the rights that a rational agent such as humans would. I can't personally come up with a reason at the moment, just stating a way one could be formulated.

>>2068143
ironically, the god argument is the best one. but i think theres no good reason to believe in god so that kinda fails.

>>2068101
dude see this >>2068062 you have no logical reaon not to kill them without random discrimination. i think i mixed up some of the posts i was supposed to reference to but you will all see them if you read. and ill direct you in case.


>>2068122
look at very early up i adresssed someone already who asked me if we have rights. i think maybe we dont have rights but then if we use cost benefit then that doesnt discriminate but the fact is we do disciminate arbitrarily. can you defend that? i mean cost-benefit depends on the size of your group and thats probably why we have wars and arguments so its not really an argument.

>>2068145

but the problem is that these philosophers are making non-scientific assumptions. ive actually already adressed up there the social contract and that all animals need to be capable of consent>>2068073 but i dont think saying they have no moral standing is valid because we are on a continuum with them, share much biology and psychology. they clearly do have some standings, its just if they can understand and consent. but again, you have to ask, does that justfiy hurting them if its not necessary. i.e. we have technology to produce food not to need to eat animals.

>>2068145
the poverty thing is the biggest argument in my opinion. the most dificult one for animal rights or vegans, its like the many moral predicaments you might get given in a philosophy class like with the trains.

>>2068033


Sheeesh, do we really need to argue about foods?

>>2068124
I get that you're not saying "why are you savages still eating meat it's 2016", and I appreciate the debate because it's created a good dialogue.

I don't agree with utilitarianism either, and I don't agree with killing someone because they're mentally ill or a "drain on society", that was just me taking morals out of the equation for a second. What I was trying to illustrate was that comparing the reasoning behind killing animals because it's practical isn't comparable to the reasoning behind killing humans with mental problems. One's just nature and the other is being an advocate for eugenics. I don't personally agree with eugenics at all, I was just using it to illustrate a point.

Discrimination isn't about animal vs. human, it's human vs. human. Considering animals to be "lesser" than humans isn't illogical nor can it justify racism - racism against blacks or asians or whites isn't morally or scientifically correct because in no significant way is any race lesser or superior than another.

I don't discrimination against animals, I just tdon't consider them to be sentient creatures - that's why I feel alright with eating them. They're animals - at risk of stretching things a bit, I'd compare them to particularly complicated, intelligent and fuzzy plants. They don't have societies or civilizations or rational thought. They act out of instinct. That's why I think it's okay for us to kill them without consequence, as long as it's humane, non-painful and doesn't impact on their ability to live their lives and be a part of the ecosystem.

>>2068041


Insects are fine, But dogs? Cats? Come on can you really eat a dog in front of Your dog?

Please don't use the chicken to refute this.

>>2068225
Westerners are squeamish about eating dogs because we as a society are so close to them. They've been cultivated and evolved alongside us. Eastern cultures simply don't hold the same views of companionship as we do.

The argue for not eating dogs is that they're both incredibly useful and incredibly close to us. They're practically comparable to a fellow human, in terms of how they contribute to and are included in our society.

>>2068225
you weak immoral fuck. eat one shit eat it all faggot.

>>2068220
paragraph 2 : you say its not comparable yet you wont be able to come up with a logically consistent reason.

the idea of arbitrarily distinguishing groups can justify racism and that is pretty much what splitting animals and humans is. you say "no significant way race is less or more superior blah" but give me scientific reasons. theres no fucking necessity that thats the case. just as poor people usually have poorer education and less income than rich people and depressed people usually are unhappier than happy people.

im sorry but if u look at phylogeny and animal brains, they are literally so similar to us. pretty much the same. cognitively, emotionally, so similar; we are animals; theres no discontinuum. and i work with rats and study neuroscience and cognition. instinct is an unscientific idea; even rats have similar cognitive capabilities to humas or we wouldn't use them to test drugs on executive deficits. at the end of the day i think your argument doesn't necessarily outweight the idea of inflicting as little pain as possible without meaning. if we dont have to eat animals, we dont have to hurt them.

>>2068024
What about a human baby

>>2068242

same with easterners... sign of lack of logic.


come on, i need a conor mcgregor to knock me out. someone give me something good ffs.

>>2068292
ha that sounded bad, i mean, dogs can potentially have the same relationship with easterners and they still have to come against any other normal arguments for animal rights. im no libcuck; not gonna excuse them for being azn.

>>2068065
How so?

>>2068325
they share similar emotions and emotional parts of the brain that does similar things as humans; many of them can form social structures and do altruistic acts. animals, mainly mammals and birds definitely have the ability to morally reason good and bad; maybe not as good but its a continuum and they have the same foundations. i think humans are just more intelligent and thats the main difference.

>>2068285
If animal brains are so similar to ours, why haven't they developed civilizations? Why aren't they possessing of rational thought? Why are we the only intelligent life on Earth? Why haven't they achieved sapience?

Yes we are animals in the sense that we're the same classification of organism. But we're not animals in the sense that we're above woodland creatures and insects and farm animals and fish because we can create technology, advanced languages, rational thinking, complex societies and civilizations.

I'm not arbitrarily distinguishing between groups when I say animals, as in fish and moose and ants and birds, and human beings, as in homo sapiens, are different and distinguishable from each other. Because they fucking are. Biologically we're animals, yes, but intellectually we're sapient life.

And I say racism is scientifically baseless because other than physical traits and ancestry every human being is equally capable of say, learning rocket science or writing a sonnet. All that "muh aryan master race" stuff is pseudo science. Racism is justified by "you look different and do things different, and my way of doing things is fucking better because I say so and I don't want to bother learning why you do things the way you do so you're subhuman". It's just autism. Weather a person should be considered inferior or not is based on their choices, not their ancestry or their skin tone or whether their great great grandfather moved to India or to the Caucasus mountains eons ago.

If we don't have to eat animals or cull their populations to avoid damage to the ecosystem, then yes, we shouldn't kill them. It's just needless destruction. But at this moment in time, and throughout history, we've had to eat animals. Until we create Star Trek style replicators that can create synthetic meat, we're perfectly justified in killing and eating animals.

>>2068340
>i think
When you have actual proof of these things please present them.

>>2068364
dude if you look at the structure of cognition and the both the structure and function of the brain you will see it is of a continuum. chimps are very close. desu i think you really have to learn about neuroscience. it really is a fallacy to think animals and humans are just complete distinct beings. yes we are different but you set an arbitrary distinction and you can set those between any set of animals. it doesnt make logical sense and i think there are other distinctions which though are still kind of arbitrary, do alot less harm to beings involved.

ive seen how some people think apes or dolphins or certain birds should have rights because they are intelligent. yes they are but other animals still feel pain and things like rats are marginally less intelligent. better arguments come about when you consider other hominids not as intelligent. what is the fucking line. those hominids almost as intelligent as us. sorry no. some people are less intelligent than some chimps i suspect too.

i think racism isnt as simple as saying "i dont say you're better because of looks". i actually think that not being racist is more about solidarity than a "lack of racism per say" because logically i guess different groups of people can be better at different things. while the right wing chooses to want to force those things, i think not being racist is more about solidarity and uniting people and treating people equally just because theyre human.

And i think thats also a nicer way to look at the world rather than simply just saying "i dont discriminate because of your looks", i say, you can do more than that, right. I think the IQ race threads are a good example of those discussions.

fair enough on your final point thouhg.

>>2067929
Humans don't taste very good.

>>2068368
i said i think humans being more intelligent is the difference but we know for a fact the similarities of their brains and behaviours so... again? you just picked one word from my whole sentence without context didn't you?

>>2068364

you can also go back in time to maybe 10,000 years ago and say "why havent humans developed civilisation"

File: AW burg.jpg (150KB, 580x435px)

150KB, 580x435px

because meat is tasty as fuck

>>2068550
irony you chose a pic with the shittest burger. why not 5 guys. fucking moron

>>2067874
Ask the animals. When they can answer, I'll consider their rights.

>>2068593

im destroying newborns as we speak fuckboy.

>>2067947
I didn't say that demand decides morality, I said that it's not a question of morals at all.

People can and do fully acknowledge that the actions that they take lead to suffering, and still do them, because it's convenient and pleasurable for them to do so. You can probably think of many scenarios, even ones not related to animals, where this is the case.

Vegetarianism or veganism takes either a profound act of willpower or a strong cultural pressure, both of which are difficult to come by in the general population. I won't say that knowledge doesn't help, but it's not enough. Human beings are incredibly good at compartmentalization, we do not act in ideologically consistent ways.

>>2068642
yeah but the reasons people do this is through a culturally defined morality. i don't think people always do things because of logic straight out by thinking of it. they do it because it feels right due to norms, thats kind of what morality is and why its illogical. but we have an ability and a duty to shape our norms. just as we think its good not to kill people or discriminate against people.we can do it in a better way to shape it to the morality that we like, which i think anyone would say, is the reduction of suffering. because ultimately thats what society is about. altruism is about reduction of suffering and we do that in love and empathy. and even when we get to the selish parts of the spectrum, economics is also about reducing suffering, even if thats by bargaining and exchange. so we can all agree, reduction of suffering is the best thing.

>>2068006
/thread.

>>2068642
also, its not just about the individual actions. but its about the stance and the attitude of the whole society. people always do wrong, thats a fact. but what is the standard we hold them by, what is the standard you hold yourself by.

desu i wouldnt say veganism is about willpower, more about belief. ive met vegan friends that are shit organizers, shit at impulse control. humans are not consistent naturally and i said before, morality always has challenges in certain situations which can be difficult logically e.g. train situation, poverty situation; but i think in general we can hold up society to a statuts of valuing lives and wanting them not to feel pain.

again, many people give excuses that describe what people do. but im not looking for that am i? im looking at what is the best people can do, to improve. you saying that people tend to do one thing is like saying dogs tend to shit on the floor. its natural, but dogs learn if they need to.

>>2068642
many examples of humans in the past acting inconsistently to things that we would say are more or less standard in todays society. sure there are criminals but its still a standard to evaluate people. are you a big boy?

>>2067874
They're bred to be slaughtered. They're literally brought to life to die. They wouldn't have even existed otherwise.

Treating them inhumanely is a different story, but we cant feed our ever growing 3rd world population without cost cutting. You'd first have to make the argument of decreasing populations in the West to what they were before mass immigration booms.

>>2068657
You'd have to change that culture, which would take a lot of steps. You'd have to drastically reduce the supply of meat so it no longer saturates the food market, you'd have to change the staples of many different cultures (ethnic and national), you'd have to flood the media with anti-carnivore and pro-animal messages, and so on. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it would be very difficult and would take centuries. And then you'd have to crack down on the black market that would inevitably develop.

My point is that it's not just a matter of making logical arguments until everyone agrees with you.

>>2068673

paragraph 1: niggers are brought to life. if i didn't buy mine then they woulda been slaughtered by kurt wallace in boise. good thing i kept em, saved their lives. i slave em on the fields 20 hours a day but they alive. god damn niggers dont know what they thankful for.

paragraph 2: i think this borders on logistical argument and ive actually talked about this above just now with people on this thread but i guess its long for you to look.

one of my contesting things is actually how much meat do you think 3rd world populations actually eat. desu, you probably eat alot more meat than any poor person.

you have a point though and economics is not a thing we can control and i said before that this does bring up an inconsistency of discrimination with humans which for me is natural. but also this doesnt excuse someone in a well off situation eating meat does it?

so you're telling me, the fact that sahid in hindu kash can only afford to eat pork means that someone in fucking bel air is let off from eating it? is that your fucking argument?

come on big boy, come on.

>>2068683
i understand that you're not actually making an argument in your post but ill just say this for anyone.

ive said this before, im not talking about logistics so much.youll see in my comment below and some above that i understand things like poverty. human culture i understand as a norm though it isnt justifiable. the point is that no one here on this thread is willing to admit that eating meat might be a bad thing.. everyone has an if, or but.

btw, ive said before above but im not a vegetarian. i eat meat. this is a moral exercise. im not campaigning for anything.

>>2068683
also, when has anything changed overnight, whether that been attitudes to sex or race or even the animal rights we have now (not same as my debate), your point isnt even that relevant. those changes have happened before in terms of things such as i've listed above, maybe not overnight, but it is a documented fact that we do change.

>>2068683
im also not sure you can put a prediction on how long it will take. im sure things took a long time in medieval time. maybe attitudes change alot more quickly now. even if not, im not sure you can predict change reliably, unless you can give me a good reason. and its probaboly different dependent where you are. i also think people underestimate how much things have changed in the last few decades.

this is a really shit example but im just gonna say it coz i noticed it and found it interesting before and regardless of this debate, but in the tv show friends, they make loads of gay jokes like 10 - 20 years ago. you cant get away with the same kind of jokes on a tv show now. just kinda weird. the attitude to gays has changed completely.

>>2068673
and remember homosexuality was illegal in britain in 1976.

theres no big boys left.

>>2067874

come on big boys.

>>2067874
i won. first time vegetarian arguments one. i am god. fuck you 4chan. cunts.

>>2067929
because humans established society (morals) so that they can live without having to worry about getting killed by other humans randomly.
there is "right", there is only compromise, and we call that morality.

>>2069000
yeah but the thing is that that is defined by group dynamics and its only been recently that we look at ourselves as a global human group. cost and benefit is for the individual, expands to a group. that group can be anything. can justify racism.

i think youre crazy if you think your morality is defined by that and not something a little bit deeper...

>>2069000
i also did address some kind of social contract/consent stuff further up.

>>2067874
Anon the fact we have pepsin means we are supposed to eat meat.

>>2069019
>i think youre crazy if you think your morality is defined by that and not something a little bit deeper...
do you have anything solid to suggest otherwise? that morality is beyond society? I don't think you do.

File: gottlieb_1-052616-e1462630546257[1].jpg (325KB, 1600x1067px)

325KB, 1600x1067px

>>2069036
You can't be serious.

>>2067929
self awareness

also, it is literally the nature of this world. when we decide animals can no longer be food does this mean we need to go out and kill all of the prey animals of this world. why is it ok for a lion to eat meat but not ok for a human to do the same? because humans have an unfair advantage over their prey? do not lions also have an advantage over their prey? isnt it the same for all predators in that they have an advantage of their prey?

your ideas are merely virtue signalling that completely disregards the laws of nature and the natural world simply for the benefit of being able to feel morally superior.

>>2069043

the morality that you feel in yourself. if you're telling me you would feel nothing if you saw someone say fall into a river or just any other bad predicament. not necessarily a life threatening one. Just the fact that you would react to a human in a sense of frailty or danger or something like that, supports my point.

>>2069047
Yes I am serious, a digestive enzyme meant to break down protein or meat is evidence our system requires protein to live dumbass.

>>2067874
Because we need to eat meat, it's required as a part of our diet.

If we are treating animals like humans, we must hold them to the same moral accountability and incarcerate them for killing other animals.

Retard op logic

>>2069048
That's not an argument against the existence of animal rights though, it's merely a practical obstacle. How can you not differentiate this very simple point?

>>2069048

dude ive been through this earlier up and animals definitely have self awareness. atleast some do, mammals, birds, probably reptiles and amphibians to some extent but i dont know alot about them. you look at a rat they have the same kind of brain areas, which are in a neuroscientific sense considered homologous. we use rats as models on human cognition and they seem to do pretty well.

dude, i welcome you to be a lion all you want. but i wont give you the honour of having the morality of a human who through their own empathy wants to minimise the suffering of other living creatures. ive said before, you can take a utilitarian stake on it but utilitarian ideologies can bite u in the ass, you can take a speciest take on it but any arbitrary boundary also bites you in the ass. i guess morality isn't logical but if you want to live in a unified fair society under law then it should be and it should be fairly given out. you cant just use random priors or survival of the fittest. i dont think i even have to go into why thats ridiculous because you know it already... so there.

>>2068291

Falls under 'Human rights', kid.

>>2069064
That is not an argument against the existence of animal rights though, it's merely a practical obstacle. How can you not differentiate this very simple point?

>>2069053
i don't feel morality "in myself". i feel morality inserted in me through cultural indoctrination & conditioning.
> Just the fact that you would react to a human in a sense of frailty or danger or something like that, supports my point.
well you need something else because this isn't correct

>>2069048

i literally should have a sign on here saying; before you post, read the rest of the thread because ive probably answered what you're about to say. and your argument is a fucking stupid one. "muh lions" "muh lions can kill"

>>2069066
Animals kill each other for food and therefore are subject to the same treatment. Animals are subject to animalistic treatment, and humans are subject to Humane treatment. / thread

>>2069078
The problem of enforcing a moral rule is separate from whether that moral rule makes sense in the first place. You are conflating two separate issues here. It's equivalent to saying early, hunter gatherer man should not be subject to the same moral constraints of human rights because it would be difficult to round them all up and prevent hunter gatherer societies from killing eathother. It's lazy, dumb high school thinking.

>>2069064

dude, read the fucking other posts and you'll see that i actually have a very sophisticated answer to your shit statement, probablty more than you could come up by yourself so fuck off.

>>2069081
False. In my second post, the one you are replying to, I didn't say anything about the logistics of enforcing it.

>>2069078
humans kill animals for food dickhead,,,,

>>2069078

"muh treat me like an animal"

>>2069078
>rights are social constructs!
>might makes right!
lol

>>2069088
Are you even trying to make a point?

>>2069095
Oh okay so let's have a discussion about morality and NOT acknowledge the existence of universal moral standards. Just retarded

>>2069095
rights aren't social constructs?

>>2069096
read the link on my post... the guy said animals eat eachother for food so should be subject to that treatment.... humans eat animals... give humans the same treatment by his logic?


are you an idiot?

>>2069096
yes, by your criteria humans should be subject to animalistic treatment too given they kill animals.

>b-b-but they don't kill other humans, dude, which is why other humans shouldn't treat them like animals!

by this logic, my pet dog who has and never will attack a human should also be treated with the same respect as humans

>>2069099
>>2069095
>>2069100


im OP and im actually abit confused about what hes trying to say about rights.

>>2069099
You're the retard here for falling for 12 year old "might makes right" thinking

>>2069108
i mean the greentext

>>2069104
>Straw man

What makes it morally wrong to kill animals but not plants? Or to kill an animal but not an insect? We have to acknowledge that there is universal standard for going to ask you these questions and pretend they are relevant. Or we can just hurl insults because you're a fuckin idiot

>>2069108
As in, OP is claiming that because animals can feel pain they have innate rights endowed to them. As in, OP is claiming rights are derived from something more than just social interactions. isn't it obvious?

>>2069112

you are actually using a strawman by that because the same moral arguments apply to you so in away you are just diverting attention away from yourself.

you are right though that it is difficult. my first point would be that plants clearly dont feel pain. insects though. now thats the proper question.

>>2069112
Read the OP. It's morally wrong to kill something that feels pain. Plants do not fall into this category, nor I doubt do many insects but I will endow them with the right to not feel pain if it can be shown they do indeed feel pain

There's your universal moral standard

>>2069114

dude the way that he says ...


>>rights are social constructs!
>>might makes right!


isnt very obvious.

>>2069120
So as long as you kill people pain-free it's OK? Or are we factoring in the emotional pain of their loved ones? Rodents don't feel emotional pain for their loved ones the same way dogs and whales do. is there a distinction between those two types of animals?

>>2069112
wait, what do you mean by universal standard?

do you think there should be a dividing line? because i think that other mammals and birds atleast still at the least we know for certain i think they shouldnt be subjected to pain.

>>2069129
yeah, OP thinks rodents shouldn't be killed and pain includes emotional pain. OP also says that in terms of the consentual terms of society that force can be used on animals when necessary but the killing of animals is unnecessary.

>>2069135
So if the issue is the emotional pain of those close to the victim, is it morally okay kill someone who does not have any clothes loved ones as long as it's in a pain-free manner? I just don't buy the standard of "if they feel pain"

>>2069129

to be fair there is a post further up where OP thinks its ridiculous that westerners put chinese people down for killing dogs when its the same as eating any other animal.

File: 5023754550_050ce91857_z.jpg (134KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 640x426px

niggas ITT all must wanna go bald eating animal products rather than retain glorious long hair into their old age on a soy based vegan diet

your choice, enjoy your mpb

>>2069141
what? emotional pain and physical! any kind of pain jesus.

>>2069175
if you read this thread then you'll see that OP isnt vegan.

shit

>>2067874
bump

I'll explain it as simply as I'm able to.

I was working as a slaughterer. I noticed the belly of the sheep wiggling about, so i cut it open. Inside was a lamb. It looks like a hairless horse.

Long story short, I worse it as a hat. He was a great little mascot and friend.

There is nothing wrong with eating meat.

There is also nothing wrong with refusing to eat meat.

If animals are not meant to be eaten, then why are they so tasty? Checkmate, atheists.

I wonder, should known self-aware animals such as say chimps, have a separate legal status from non self-aware animals?

>>2067874
Meme answer: Rights are a spook and survival of the fittest means we can do whatever we want

More involved answer: we don't kill animals "without consequence". We have set up laws dictating what animals we can and cannot kill and how we can kill them. You aren't grasping the history of food production and animal rights, we've come a long way from even 100 years ago e.g. The Jungle by Sinclair. Food production is heavily regulated and the animals are killed in the quickest and most humane way possible, coddled basically their entire lives until they are eaten. Simply put we do not have the technology and resources to grow food in a lab yet that is both nutritious and cost effective but we are certainly trying. There's a reason vegans and vegetarians need to supplement vitamins B6,12, Iron, Creatine, DHA, and D3 in their diet, becauae they are only found in meat, fish, and eggs. In poor areas where they could not possibly afford vitamins they need to have meat and the calories and nutrients meat has.
Then you could get into a discussion of is milking an animal akin to imprisonment and torture, completely neglecting the millions of people who need milk and dairy to get the calories they need to survive.
The US gives tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in food aid to poor countries and the preservatives we need for food transport can not be scaled to the sheer amount of produce we would need to send to equal the caloric requirements of these populations that you can meet with 1/8 the amount of meat, if we could set up farms there we would but due to a number of factors from non-arable land to government corruption farms are not feasable whereas 2-3 cows can feed a village of 25-30 people for years with their milk, butter, etc. Interesting aside we are developing fixed airships aka blimps that can deliver up to 100 tons of food to areas that can't normally be reached by plane due to terrain or hotbed areas to would be unsafe to travel to by convoy.

>>2068364
>Why aren't they possessing of rational thought? Why are we the only intelligent life on Earth? Why haven't they achieved sapience?

I think great apes can do rational thought, and we weren't always the only hyperintelligent species on the planet; other humans existed alongside us. Guess what happened to them.

>>2067874
first of all, are animals who are domesticated and bred for slaughter actually "suffering" in the human sense of the term? really, think about it

we may think that animals are suffering, but that's because we have more abstract ideas of what happiness is, animals in nature are primarily concerned with finding food and shelter and not dying a miserable death, humans on the other hand have very easy access to food, laws that decrease the chances of just randomly being murdered, etc.

generally speaking, under humans, most animals are fed, given a roof, and are also given protection from predators, parasites, and the environment

compare domesticated pigs to wild pigs for example, the former are much less "stressed" and aggressive than the latter, who are disease-ridden and constantly struggling to live another day

obviously there are exceptions, some factories will treat animals worse than others, but from an animal's perspective they have most of their needs met under humans instead of roaming around in nature

>>2068044

To wit, there's a discussion about the implications of Cannibalism on what it means to be human in the newest issue of Philosophy.

>>2069419
If they register damage in their central nervous system, yes, they suffer. Damages include loss of companionship - we know cows, for instance, can miss their neighbors in the sense that they display more stress - or freedom - free range chickens are less likely to behave violently towards each other.

I'm not vegetarian btw, I just don't like factory farms.

>>2067874
I can offer a reason. It's because we are genuinely and literally better than them. We are designed to eat them and they're actually really good at delivering nutrients that we need in an easy and delicious package. Now go have a steak and stop being such a faggot.

>>2069337
theres nothing wrong with killing niggaers,

theres also nothing wrong with refusing to kill niggers.

>>2069527
Animals not meant for the slaughter, captive animals live longer, healthier lives on average than any wild animal.

Sorry m8, nature is still more brutal than us. Say even if you manage to break man of every domesticate - where do the animals go? Back to nature so they can be slaughtered or die out from sheer overpopulation? The Auroch doesn't exist anymore. Once the domestic cattle dies cows are gone for good. This is a 'good result' to the vegan. Complete extinction of species.

Vegans don't like animals. They hate animals, which is why places like PETA dump puppies in their dumpsters. They just hate man more than every other animal, which is why they adopt veganism. It's not to save animals, it's to feel superior to other men.

People who do give a shit about animals become environmental scientists, ecology managers, preserve rangers etc. The vegans shit all over these attempts to balance the needs of man and the other animals - resorting to violence and terrorism at times.

Again, vegans are not pro animal so much as anti-man.

>>2069369

you're missing the point. if you had read the rest of the post, you would see that OP isnt as one dimensional as you want to make him out.

the point is that no matter what, no one will admit that eating animals is bad in the sense that it creates pain to living things and so you could construe it as morally wrong. OP understands the logistical factors because morality isn't simple and theres always things to take into account and difficult, sometimes arbitrary decisions regarding life and death. thats not fucking new or difficult to understand, but no one will just admit it. its better to not eat animals.

OP isnt even a vegan.

>>2069369

the idea that hurting animals is wrong simply reaffirms our morality. i know that people are not morally consistent but we need to take out standards as high as we can.

>>2069369
its interesting that yes, you can say its more acceptable for someone to kill an animal if they need to survive; certainly more than killling a human. but the thing is, people like you use this argument to justify killing animals when someone is completely financially sufficient when they don't need to. you guys just run into walls.

>>2069419
if you knew anything about the brain or biology then you wouldnt talk ad hoc asshat shite.]

fucking rights are not supposed to be relative. its not that "fucking nigger slaves are in better condition than free ones" its not a fucking argument. just admit its bad to cause pain.

>>2070953
fuck off big boy.

>>2067874
no one seems to be able to find a good argument. pathetic.

>>2067929
It is acceptable to kill man. There are no morals

But it is against the law of the united states.

>>2071051
then why is it a law to kill man?

>>2068060
I like Kant but his arguments regarding animal rights are pretty idiotic.

>>2071201
what does he say?

bangbang

I'm sure this has been said 1,000 times already, but they aren't sentient. Therefore they have no rights.

Done.

>>2071288
they are big boy. answer for it. go on, big boy.

>>2071315
no they don't fagboy

>>2071417
is that all you got big boy? how fucking big are you big boy?

>>2069419
so that gives me the right to bring my friends to your house and beat the shit out of you because your suffering is "higher than that" give me a fucking break.

>>2069419
so can i forcibly stop you going to work because i know the government will probably give you benefits if you can't or i know that you parents will look after you?

>>2070978
why not just look after them and not kill them then if we dont have to? and what about freedom of animals to live how they want.

fuck off russian big boy.

>>2070978
lets fucking cut down the human population then. fucking firing squad for niggers and pakis because there are too many of them.

>>2067874
>vegan
>logical argument

Choose ONE.

File: nature.png (436KB, 800x500px)

436KB, 800x500px

>>2071595
animals do not have the freedom to live how they want in nature, and any animal that did have such a freedom would be unstoppable.

The only animal that can claim those rights is the animal at the top of the food chain, which humans are.

Viewing the natural world through the pretense of ethics is foolish because ethics are a human construct.

>>2067929
Because animals don't think. If an animal is killed painlessly, nothing is lost and only serves to gain.

>>2067874
Let me tell you why you think that it shouldn't be acceptable. Having grown in a social environment governed by ethics, but without ever facing the actual need to survive, you've misinterpreted the foundations of ethics or outright shifted them upside down. "Killing is bad" was ingrained into your brain as a social dogma and became a dominant factor in your logic, as opposed to being a rule that was once based on the actual principles of survival. So instead of applying it for it's original purposes, which is to not kill your fellow humans as it eases the survival of the group, you've started applying it to the surrounding phenomena using your vague emotional empathy as the ruling factor. This is also why women are more predisposed to being vegan. Yes, animals have brain activity and might feel some of what we do. No, it doesn't validate any of the emotional decisions that you might propose in response because material world doesn't abide by the same laws as a human society. You were just conditioned to perceive it that way.

tl;dr Only pansies don't eat meat

>>2067874
life only deserves the rights it takes. If animals could take the right not to be slaughtered from us, they would deserve those rights.

Furthermore, all life survives from the death of other life. Literally any anti-meat argument that ignores this is idiotic.

As for vegans, how many animals do you think are killed harvesting your precious vegetables. Tons of them is the answer.

As to the second part of your original question, it is only not acceptable to kill humans without consequence because we made it so. Our laws are baby-tier compared to the laws of nature.

>>2074159
>all life survives from the death of other life
Phototrophes would disagree

File: missiles.gif (839KB, 500x360px)

839KB, 500x360px

>>2067929
humans fight back. they kill eachother and then they kill eachother back forever and it keeps getting worse.

for this reason we established a loose agreement that approximately goes "don't openly seek to harm other humans in obvious ways"

>>2067929
There's a distinction between a human killing a human and a human killing an animal for food. That is that you acknowledge the act of killing as a social action along with the actual deed. Killing as a social action is bad as it leads to all sorts of complications like revenge, conflicts between groups and so on. In a social environment it's almost universally a harmful thing and so it's banned.

Killing for food however is a mostly neutral action, ethics-wise. Predatory animals don't intend to genocide their prey and you would find the extensions of that attitude in primitive tribal rituals, thanking the animal for providing the food etc.

>>2067874
Most animals we eat only exist because we've bred them for consumption over thousands of years. The only reason those nice, docile cows you see grazing pastures exist is because we made them so. Likewise pigs, sheep, etc.

>>2069058
If this is bait, good job!
If not, kys!

File: 4dc.jpg (46KB, 600x706px)

46KB, 600x706px

>>2067874
>right

>>2067874
>why it is acceptable to kill animals without consequence?

Because there aren't any consequences. The animals can't do anything about it.

>>2067874
animals dont get such rights else we couldnt kill and eat them

simple

>Why don't animals deserve the right to not be slaughtered to be eaten?
Because that would be massively inconvenient.

>>2068033
Probably, yes. But I also associate guilt of having killed another person and the grief that causes to others as a detriment to myself, so there's that to consider as well.

>>2067874
>Why don't animals deserve the right to not be slaughtered to be eaten?
Why not plants?


>They are living, feeling animals like us and feel pain.
they don't feel pain like us.
Some argueably not at all.

>>2068563
>yanks
canadian AW is the best
5 guys fucking sucks
so does your meme in-n-out