What is the moral/ethic counter argument to veganism? I mean

Its an unnatural diet and extremely constricting. Why should I put so much effort into following a rigid and unvaried diet which will ultimately cause me as many health problems? Morality isnt a substantive argument to do or not do something for most people.

These animals have been bred for millennia solely to produce these things for humans. Their whole raison d'être is to give us food.

It would be unethical to deny their history, much like denying war to men.

>>2100218
>much like denying war to men
what do you mean anon?

Because I value humans over animals, and through my own consumer choices I cause great harm to humans. Why should I give a shit about animals if I depend on taking advantage of various people across the world to produce cheap goods? Another non-edgy answer would be that up until recent a vegan diet was hard to achieve and in human life you can't avoid using animal products. Also, when do you draw the line to harming life? If animals are not to be treated worse then what about plants, Are insects okay to eat, etc. The better question to ask is what is a real compelling argument for veganism

1 Corinthians 8:11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

You don't need a counterargument to counter an invalid argument, you just need to point out a false premise or a failure to articulate the argument in a valid argument form.
What's an argument in favor of veganism?

>>2100200

Cause it doesnt make sense.

>>2100255
Dude fucking off your self.
Jesus crist, Holy Scriptures are not an argument
>>2100254
Yeah that's fucking true too, it's like a hypocrisy-inception

>>2100235
That the evolution of man, indeed most mammalian males, is due to war. Thus having enforced periods of peace denies man's nature and is unethical.

>>2100200

Because I'm a registered dietitian.

>>2100269
Meat is murder, Morrisey is vegan, We cause pain to living beings for our gluttony

File: 1466120584119-4.jpg (10KB, 216x255px)

10KB, 216x255px

>>2100290
>Meat is murder
Care to support the claim?
>Morrisey is vegan
Morrisey is also shit.
>We cause pain to living beings for our gluttony
So what?
I see 3 premises, no conclusion, as part of 1 long sentence without enough verbs.

>>2100255
This is in reference to eating meat sacrificed to idols, not a statement that the eating of meat is in anyways immoral. At least quote Singer or somebody like him instead of pretending others share your viewpoint.

File: a3d8f3a9bd147c9a5affcf5af4b57d99.jpg (15KB, 220x218px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x218px

>>2100290
>Morrissey is vegan
nice meme

File: ww1gondola.jpg (75KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x650px

I don't bother discussing personal philosophies and ethics with them so I say that the consumption of meat and therefore its industry is never going away. People will always eat meat while it's there no matter what so I might as well blend into the huge majority demand and enjoy it.

That being said they could still up the industry standards when it comes to animal suffering in my opinion.

>>2100200
>Why are you not vegan anon?

I can afford proper food.

>>2100302
Not my opinion tho, it's the vegan argument with a bit of memes here and there

>>2100344
That isn't an argument, though, and the memes certainly don't help you. You're trivializing the vegan position, which doesn't help us arrive at any conclusions w/r/t the validity or soundness of serious arguments by vegans.
How about you go look at what Singer has to say, at the very least?

File: FeedLotsvsPastures.jpg (220KB, 615x300px)

220KB, 615x300px

We are a carnivore species and need animal protein to develop our intelligence, specially in our growing stages.
However I agree a big part of the meat industry have become horribly cruel. We should give animals a decent quality of life according to their needs and a quick and painless death

What reason do I have to be? I need vitamin b12 just like everyone else.

File: IMG_1676_7_8-1.jpg (807KB, 1620x1080px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 1620x1080px

>>2100357
You take your self a bit too seriuosly.

>We cause pain to living beings for our gluttony
The fact that we kill living beings when we don't need too (because we can find other sources of food) seems enough of an argoument.
We kill them because we enjoy meat (this is valid for me too) without thinking about morals and shit, then we call vegans a bunch of pussies

File: B12.1.jpg (69KB, 653x543px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 653x543px

Strict vegan is doable, but incredibly hard. B12 is very hard to get for them, and getting complete proteins is also difficult. If you lack just one amino acid, you can't build any protein, and your body suffers horribly.

>>2100367
I agree with anon here
>>2100371
This too

Dolphins are smarter than africans, so dont eat them.

>>2100397
The OP is about arguments against veganism. You don't decide what an argument is. I've taken logic classes. I know what an argument is: it's a series of propositions (premises and a conclusion) in one of several valid forms.
If you aren't interested in arguments then don't mention them in your OPs or tell people who ask you to make one and then tell you you've failed to do so that they're too serious.
You're not serious enough, is all.
>The fact that we kill living beings when we don't need too (because we can find other sources of food) seems enough of an argoument.
Argument*
Are you saying that nobody should ever do anything that they don't need to do, or if an alternative action can be taken?
I don't know who 'we' are, either-who are you talking about?

ITT
>subjective morals
>it's in X's nature

Animal treatment is an ethical matter. If the animal is capable of complex feelings and intelligent enough/capable to experience suffering, mentally and physically, the consensus is that we should avoid inflicting suffering on them, because we agree that suffering is bad.

That's all cool and nice and proper.
And then here come the vegans.
>No honey because the bees are slaves for their honey
>no silk because silkworms are slave labour
>No eggs because the poor hen..whatever
>No milk because the poor cow feels objectified???

Improving the living and death conditions of animals farmed for their products is one thing.

Advocating for the rights of a bee whose nervous system can't even generate a concept more complex than "go by the hardwired stimuli and keep moving" is another.

File: download (12).jpg (12KB, 246x205px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 246x205px

>>2100200
>What is the moral/ethic counter argument to veganism?
"Nice spooks nerd"

works 100% of the time

>>2100439
All you seem to have taken from that class was a whole lot of pedantry and little logic.

Clearly, he's proposing that causing suffering in instances where it's easily avoidable is unethical. I don't think it's necessary for him to specifically argue that inducing suffering is a negative, is that something you want to deny?

>muh feelings trump biological need

>>2100456
Best post ITT, essentially why I stop at vegetarianism

>>2100484
>Biological need
>By losing energy at successive tiers of the food chain we can't feed as many people
Right...

Also:
>hurr durr my biology says I can club my rivals to death and rape women if I can get away with it
>might makes right amirite lads??
>fucking moralisers denying my biology
You might think these things. If you do, I'm not sure why you're bothering to post in this thread.

>>2100200
I have thought a lot about this. I used to be a vegetarian, but the only valid argument I can provide for my current carnivorous position is my own pleasure.

I care more about the pleasure eating meat gives me than the suffering of animals that is required for it's production.

>>2100510

>ignores the essential vitamin and whole protein arguments

>>2100482
>pedantry
All I'm asking for is a valid argument. I haven't gotten one. I've gotten unsupported premises that don't follow from or imply each other.
>Clearly, he's proposing that causing suffering in instances where it's easily avoidable is unethical
Then he should have said so.
> I don't think it's necessary for him to specifically argue that inducing suffering is a negative,
Well, that would be a good thing for him to argue for.
>is that something you want to deny?
Christ's suffering on the Cross led to the redemption of mankind. I do most certainly deny that all suffering is bad.

>>2100522
Requiring supplements isn't that strange though. Literally everyone in the Western world takes them whether they realise it or not.

>Dat iodised salt

>>2100200
Morals does not exist. It is only determined by circumstances. So there are no reason to refute veganism with morals.

File: IMG_1594.jpg (36KB, 359x222px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 359x222px

>>2100200

>>2100456
I agree that small invertebrates are a bit weird. I would actually say a vegan who ate them could still legit consider themselves a vegan.

The dairy industry involves the slaughter of calves though, it's an inherent part of it. The egg industry also, but to a lesser extent.

>>2100482
>philosophy
>arguing morals
>anything but pedantic

>>2100559

And where does the B12 in the supplement come from? Also, that doesn't account for getting whole proteins.

>>2100543
Correcting someone's spelling on a Finno-Ugric pistachio appreciation blog is pedantic.

All suffering is bad. Jesus suffering on the cross was bad. The good bit you associate with Jesus's suffering (the redemption) was not one and the same as his suffering, it was an outcome of it. The net result of the entire scenario may have been positive, but that does not mean that the suffering component was good.

What you are trying to argue is "suffering towards the end of an ultimate gain is not bad". This is a non sequitur to "unnecessary suffering is bad", as the unnecessary part directly implies either no ultimate gain or an ultimate gain which can be achieved without suffering.

In this case, the suffering of animals is unnecessary because the gains (energy, vitamins, so on) can be at worst equally efficiently gained from other sources. As such, a "we need to do it for the greater good" point is moot.

>>2100584
There are numerous legume, bean and vegetable whole protein sources.

>>2100584
Literally all the organisations whose opinion we should care about say B12 is the only thing you have to worry about.

I imagine it comes from fermenting stuff? Or from seaweed? Dunno, happy to be educated.

It's also worth pointing out the average vegan diet is healthier than the average non-vegan diet. Although admittedly not any "ideal" diet.

>>2100599

Correct. However, I guarantee many vegetarians, let alone vegans, do not get a varied enough diet to meet their bodies amino acid needs.

>>2100607

You base this on?

>>2100607
I'd probably argue the same of meat eaters in fairness, I can't speak for your country but if you saw the quality of meat products people consume in mine...

File: 1468041529218.jpg (19KB, 279x288px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 279x288px

>>2100398
>B12 is very hard to get for them
Yea man heading to your local pharmacy is such a hassle

>>2100600
>It's also worth pointing out the average vegan diet is healthier than the average non-vegan diet.
That's largely because if you're going to be a vegan, you have to pay lots of attention to your diet just to avoid animal products, not to mention needing to worry about deficiencies for things usually not found in plant-based food. And of course, then you have to factor in the fact that people who become vegans tend to be more health conscious in general.

>>2100600

>fermenting stuff

Scientists actually ferment microorganisms for B12 supplements, because neither plants nor animals are capable of making it by themselves.

>average vegan diet is healthier than the average non-vegan diet

Sure, if you compare it to the people who consume fast food and other shit regularly.

>>2100491
How the fuck did you came to that conclusion?

>>2100649
not an argument

>>2100618

I've had to treat a few.

>>2100624
>quality of meat

Hell, even milk and eggs have everything you'd need.

File: land_mammals.png (33KB, 619x495px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 619x495px

>>2100200
Simple: if we didn't eat them, they'd be extinct.

Cattle take up far too much valuable land, and are far too destructive, to be running wild. We'd wipe them out, either deliberately, or through simple expansion. There's very few wild cattle in the world, and they exist almost exclusively in developing nations.

Really, vegans just want all the cows to be dead.

File: c86.jpg (34KB, 600x342px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x342px

>>2100650
It's bloody obvious for everyone it's a question. Are you going to point out it's written in English as well? And posted on 4chan? Or that it's not a statement? Or that it's written after 8pm CET?

File: hitler, autistic.gif (999KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 500x400px

>>2100655
you're being indignant at the anon agreeing with the anon making an argument and not making an argument yourself as to why you feel the latter anon is incorrect and shouldn't be agreed with

They'll kill us, if we don't kill them first.

Plus, they're communists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI

File: Nietzsche1882.jpg (329KB, 1274x1700px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1274x1700px

>>2100200
>What is the moral/ethic counter argument to veganism?
Meat tastes good, is good for me, and it is my irresistible natural instinct as a predator to eat other animals.

To not eat meat would be a denial of my true self. That said this is not a universal counter-veganism, this is a defence of why I'm not a vegan, otherwise there are valid reasons to be vegan but I would say that morality isn't one of them.

>>2100664
I'm not making an argument for anything because there's a huge jump between what >>2100456 wrote and from that go to >>2100491 merely being a vegetarian instead of a vegan, since it's basically just as bad to be a vegetarian as to eat meat since they 99 times out of 100 are from the same industry.

The numbers of farms that don't kill cows on assembly line in milk production are so bloody rare that I've a hard time believing he gets his non-vegan resources from one. And it's not as if he have claimed he has.

>>2100691
my bad then

File: 1334628464173.jpg (17KB, 350x277px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 350x277px

>>2100696
Sorry if I sounded like a dick.

>>2100652
Doctor?

If so can we have more details on these cases?

>>2100218
Hahaha!
>It would be unethical to NOT kill them
This is some denial-esque reasoning, anon.

ITT: Rich people problems

Poor people eat whatever the fuck they can get their hands on.

>>2100763
t. Noam Chomsky

>>2100200
There are no moral implications of eating meat. Death and consumption are foundations of life. how you procure said meat is the issue.

>>2100200

BLOOD

>>2100686
>muh human nature

>>2100200
Eating vegetables does not contribute enough iron and carbohydrates. Eating vegetable does not contribute enough sugar and calories. We're human beings run by blood and energy, not animals run by only a beating heart. Without meat we will be infected with anemia.

>>2100855

There's plenty of iron in stuff like spinach and kale. Absorption might not be as great, but you get enough. Vegetables are carbs, which are sugars. If you supplement vegetables with beans and such you can get enough cals. Step your game up, anon.

>>2100200
This thread is a lot of retarded shitposting, but to answer your question veganism is not sustainable with current levels of agriculture, current nutritional requirements, and current population. The consumption of soy, in particular, is incredibly problematic, as it is destroying much of Southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Northern Argentina, reducing many people there to serfdom, exposing them to a large number of harmful pesticides, and limiting their access to food other than the soy that's produced, which they buy at marked-up prices. Soy is also a highly land-intensive crop.

I believe there are now numerous studies indicating that the most ecologically sustainable diet is milk-free vegetarianism (can still eat eggs). This is because cows are a huge environmental problem, but chickens really aren't (and they're more efficient to raise, especially just for eggs).

>>2100874
i want to thrive, not survive

>>2101018

Your body gets rid of most excess things

>>2100200
There's not one. But the justification is that people are more or less slaves to ther circumstances. Bucking cultural expectations, personal habits and let alone having the economic means to embrace veganism makes proves a great challenge for a lot of people.

>>2100944
84% of the worlds spy is fed to livestock you bellend. Soy is an awful example.

Point to higher vegan consumption of nuts or avocado and you might have a slither of a flawed point, but soy? No.

>>2101172
Are such people, people?

>>2101290
Yeah. I can't pay for it. Also, I don't care about animals.

>>2101290
Sorry, I thought you were asking something relevant. Disregard my reply.

>>2100254
>Because I value humans over animals
Kind of this. Before taking veganism seirously one should probably try to untangale oneself from buying clothes/phones/gadgets and other material goods connected to child labour or just poor working conditions in general.

>>2101376
>but you lynch niggers

>>2101385
I don't get it

>>2100200
Because my morals aren't fucking gay

Yes, the modern morality is hypocritical for meat eaters but the issue here is that modem morality is shit

>>2101394
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

>>2101406
>>2101385
huh, that's interesting.

>>2100808
Human nature is inescapable.

>>2101419
Only if you're a cow.

>>2101426
The greatest lie humans have ever conceived is that they're not animals.

Even today, when people acknowledge that humans are animals somehow people still manage to hold onto the trappings of religious nonsense that justifies humans as being "above" the ways of other animals.

>>2100200
Because I can teleologically suspend the ethical.

Plants are so much more efficient way to retrieve suns energy for human consumption so when taste problems will be resolved there will truly be no point in having cattle.

And that is not a bad thing. If humans only ate plants earth could sustain so much more humans than when people eat meat.

>>2101435
Religion doesn't enter into it. You'd be hard pressed to find any exact consensus as to the nature of that particular animal, scientific or otherwise. For instance, the most prevailing theory is that we are not predators, but scavengers.

Additionally, we're the most domesticated and trainable animal around. It's quite simple to make any individual human defy anything that might be surmised as his "nature", and only so difficult to apply similar reprogramming to the masses.

Human nature is a spook, and it's actually the greatest lie ever conceived, used primarily as an excuse to control the populous.

>>2101435
>The greatest lie humans have ever conceived is that they are animals.

File: bviii.jpg (6KB, 200x195px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 200x195px

>>2100200
Don't be a fag and evangelize your diet. I don't even eat meat and I'm saying this.

>>2101544
>Religion doesn't enter into it
It does though. Free will is just social artefact left over from our concept of the soul.

> It's quite simple to make any individual human defy anything that might be surmised as his "nature"
I never said that human nature isn't flexible. I fully acknowledge that human nature is informed by material conditions and can be manipulated. But nonetheless anyone hoping to do so has to work within the pre-existing parameters that lie before them.

And as a matter of fact if humans truly were free-thinking beings it wouldn't be possible to exploit their brains in such a way.

>>2101571

It would be nice if you were informed by anything that was not demonstrably batshit crazy.

>>2101571
Free will doesn't enter into it either, and in some ways, requires a lack of a soul, in addition to generally being core to the construct of the spook that is "human nature".

Yeah, I'll relent there are biological aspects that make some changes harder than others - you can't make man exclusively breath ammonia without some sci-fi level physical alterations, but meat eating isn't really one of them. There's a fuckload of Hindus and other vegetarians out there, and they've been around for much longer than modern farming and shipping methods.

Not that I recommend it, but it isn't even a speed bump, much less a wall, as far as the sort of alterations you can make, survive, and still be considered human.

File: 1481222374759.gif (1MB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x375px

>>2101583
>You disagree with me
>You are batshit crazy
Like I said, people are not ready to accept the reality of their place in the universe.

>>2101602
>Free will doesn't enter into it either,
It does though. If you're not driven by your own conscious decision-making then what are you guided by? The answer is clear as day, your innate biological instincts and urges (as well as socialized instincts and urges but those are just outgrowths of the former).

> There's a fuckload of Hindus and other vegetarians out there, and they've been around for much longer than modern farming and shipping methods.
I understand that. I never said it's not possible to not eat meat, clearly it is. I just said I personally would rather not be a vegetarian because I don't think silencing my most primordial instincts on this matter would improve my life in any way.

>>2101290
Ok, I'll admit I messed up the details. However, here is the study for you to examine. I'm assuming, of course, that you are not an anti-natalist, and you do believe that generally it is better to support more humans on Earth than less.

https://www.elementascience.org/articles/116

As for the argument over soy, while it is true that soy is used to feed livestock, many vegans trumpet soy and soy products as alternatives to meat. I am merely pointing out that this would solve few problems.

>>2101633
If we were driven solely by biological instincts, we'd be eating our babies and throwing poo at each other, in addition to not being able to communicate through language, or even reason with it internally.

We might be a biochemical construct predestined by circumstance and granted only the illusion of free will by the fact that we cannot predict everything our universe or ourselves has done and thus, as a causal inevitability, will do, but instinct doesn't even make up the majority of our gray matter. To even function in this society, or any other, there's a million different instincts being repressed and redirected in any given moment in a myriad of ways, and as a result, human nature is the most amorphous spook around. To claim you even know what human nature is, and that you're going to cling to one supposed facet on the basis that it's somehow indispensable, regardless of the countless other changes you've made to the system just by being alive, is the height of hubris, folly, and ignorance, all rolled into one.

...and, essentially, is the exact same thing the vegans are claiming to do.

>>2100302
>So what?

Well you can't argue with a nihilist. But if you consider that by being vegan you are reducing the experienced suffering on earth by a considerable amount the their is a strong moral argument . Especially as there is no necessity to cause that suffer except for hedonism.

How is painless death immoral? It's not negative in any way.

>>2101714
breeding the animals for food with no intention of providing a good quality of life could be considered immoral

File: WEdgJTH.png (645KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 640x480px

>>2101714
If you think they are experiencing painless deaths, I've got news for you...

>>2101712
...and what if the alternative for them is extinction? Because that is exactly the case.

What if we go full Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and create sampiant cows that actually want to be eaten, desire to be consumed, and will calmly explain which bits of them are best fit for consumption while at your tableside?

>>2101751
>>2101754
So we agree that eating animals is okay if their life is not shit?

>>2101686
>If we were driven solely by biological instincts, we'd be eating our babies and throwing poo at each other, in addition to not being able to communicate through language, or even reason with it internally.
Because that's what animals do and humans aren't really animals right :)))))?
Seriously though, elaborate on this point.

Additionally I fully understand that men are made of an innumerable number of urges and desires pushing and pulling in all directions that makes trying to quantify human nature an impossible feat. But even if we can't fully comprehend it it is still apparent in that our natural urges reveal themselves to us. I never said I know what human nature is, I just said I don't resist my will to eat other animals. That desire comes naturally and I simply embrace it as a part of myself.

I can only understand what my subconscious reveals to me as "my ideas", so too is the case for everyone else. Maybe we'll never fully comprehend the darkest depths of our own psyche but much of it is made obvious just by being alive. Why we dream, why we do things without even noticing doing them or remembering it happen, why we love who we love, the mystery of all of this and more melts away when we cease trying to defend our most arrogant and nonsensical notion - the notion that we have free will. For this I do not know why you call human nature a spook, to accept who we truly are, and be beholden only to what we truly want is no spook at all.

>and that you're going to cling to one supposed facet on the basis that it's somehow indispensable
I never said it's indispensable. Clearly it is on the count that lots of people don't do it. I just don't want to do without it.

Also, not to be rude but it's becoming a recurring theme. I'd appreciate if you could try and argue without putting words in my mouth and deliberately misrepresenting what I've just said to make for bombastic prose.

>>2101766
I'm only the second of those quote backs, but I'd certainly be more comfortable with that. It would, however, also considerably raise the price of beef, and may thus cause human suffering in some parts of the world.

As with everything, there's reasons why things are as they are. Improving most of these things is an endless process of tug of war where any absolutist idea only strengthens the opposing side. (And much like tug of war, every now and again the rope snaps and kills a bunch of people.)

It's a very small sacrifice to not participate in a lot of suffering. For some people this doesn't matter.

>>2101767
>Seriously though, elaborate on this point.
Like all social mammals, we repress and redirect our baser instincts and emotional drives in order for our social networks to function. We've just raised it to such an art form that the network of social editing has become core to our identity.

>I just said I don't resist my will to eat other animals. That desire comes naturally and I simply embrace it as a part of myself.
But that's the exact argument the vegans are making. Look up their stuff! They claim we're all naturally vegetarians and have been brain-washed into eating meat after a tradition instilled by a period of desperation. (And while I find their reasoning faulty, we're certainly not carnivores.)

One man's human nature is another man's abomination.

I'm a meat eater myself, but I'm not going to defend it, or anything else, by saying it's "part of my human nature". Anything within my ability to control is entirely my own responsibility.

>>2101920
So eat beef, and avoid human suffering and the mass extinction of cattle. It's the moral thing to do.

>>2101904
Do cows live that badly? Or are you just referring to the feedlot ones? I'm from argentina and i see them pasturing around in giant fields when traveling.

>>2101926
That doesn't make any sense at all. You're somehow implying you're causing human suffering by not eating beef, and that said suffering is even close to how fucked up the meat industry is.

>>2101938
Suffice to say the degree of suffering they're put through varies from place to place... Just don't ever watch a video called "meet your meat".

Some of the propaganda the vegetable murderers put forth does lead to the question, "How are you even saving money like this!?" - I suspect, in some instances, the folks working at these places are frustrated with their lot and taking it out on the animals.

I was reading an article where someone rigged up a nitrogen suicide booth for pigs, that was about the cheapest, cleanest, simplest, and suffering-free execution of food stock imaginable. But watching the pig happily walk up to a plastic covered food trough and just suddenly fall over dead spooked out the workers so much that they refused to go near it. So there's "muh tradition" that's hard to break... And then there's always crap like Halal chicken.

>>2101940
Do you know how many people are employed by the meat industry, both directly and indirectly, and how many people depend on cheap meat just to live? It's a multi-trillion dollar industry! So yes, if enough people stop eating meat, there'll be MASSIVE human suffering.

Not to mention the cows will all go extinct.

No one wins.

So if you want to prevent mass suffering though mass destitution and mass extinction, eat meat.

>>2100200
because it is ethically unnecessary to espouse moral principles in the treatment of non-persons.

>>2100510
>Can't feed as many people
Argiculture & livestock are the biggest pollutors in the world, driving that demand isn't something we should want to do

>>2101967
Even if said non-persons can experience suffering because they have developed large brains and complex cognitive abilities parallel to experiencing physical stimuli like pain?

>>2100200
Morals/ethics are spooks. You don't need to justify eating meat.

Many species of animals exist for virtually no other reason than human consumption. Without humans demanding meat produce for food, there would be significantly less animals as a whole.

>>2101676
Yeah, this concept of ideal efficiency pops up every so often. It doesn't mean what people think it means.

An average vegetarian diet is currently less land intensive than an average non-vegetarian diet. If you have a piece of arable land it will always be much more calorie and nutrient efficient to grow crops than to graze or grow animal feed crops.

The point of this is marginal land, land which cannot be used for crops efficiently. We can squeeze some grazing animals onto that, we can make use of fish from the sea and we can use food waste to feed pigs. If everyone switched to a mainly vegetarian diet, only having small amounts of meat rarely that is produced in ways that does not detract from arable land use it would be more efficient.

>>2100281
Are you the next great philosopher or can you point me to someone who believes this. I am actually interested in reading more.

>>2101965
>one species goes extinct
>mass extinction
???

>>2100200
There is no moral/ethic argument for veganism anyway

>>2103216
Given that said species makes up the bulk of the weight of land mammals on the planet, it's a pretty massive extinction.

>>2101921
>Like all social mammals, we repress and redirect our baser instincts and emotional drives in order for our social networks to function.
We don't though. We just live in a society that makes our baser instincts marginal compared to our much more complicated socialized instincts (which as said earlier are outgrowths of the former anyway). Even in the most advanced cities on the planet when a man feels the urge to kill he does it, when he feels the urge to rape he does it, when he feels the urge to just take what he wants like fruit off a tree he does it. And as a matter of fact the only way these may be stifled is by appealing to and manipulating other instincts (as you rightly point out) just as the motivation to do so lies in other instincts. For instance as a social animal though we may feel the urge to kill we also feel the urge to not get killed. Thus even on an anti-free-will basis it's inevitable that human social groups will evolve to act in each other's mutual benefit.

Our social networks are just another facet of our animalistic being.

>But that's the exact argument the vegans are making. Look up their stuff! They claim we're all naturally vegetarians and have been brain-washed into eating meat after a tradition instilled by a period of desperation
Except I'm not saying we should exclusively eat meat. I personally eat most things, and as a matter of fact I would say the majority of my diet consists of bread. It would be just as life-denying of me to refuse to eat vegetables.

>Anything within my ability to control is entirely my own responsibility.
I never said it's not my responsibility. A lack of belief in free will doesn't mean you see yourself as an impartial observer that's simply forced to observe what you do. It's an acceptance of the fact that the body and mind are fully united, that "myself" is a cumulative effort from a lot of different and often conflicting instincts and organisms in my body.

>>2103558
>Like all social mammals, we repress and redirect our baser instincts and emotional drives in order for our social networks to function.
>We just live in a society that makes our baser instincts marginal compared to our much more complicated socialized instincts
How are these not the same thing?

And yes, our morals, laws, and social morays, all derive from the animalistic social tendencies of empathy, but they also, often completely, redirect and override other base instincts. They've become so dominant and so complex that they have shifted the focus of even the social instinct from intuitive to analytical, meaning, very often, correct social behavior is no longer determined by the same part of the brain.

>Except I'm not saying we should exclusively eat meat.
That doesn't make a difference. If you claim you're eating one thing from every food group as a dedication to your "human nature", you're still both claiming you know what human nature is, and relinquishing your responsibility of choice to it.

Free will maybe an illusion, but you're still responsible for your own actions inasmuch as you can control them.

There's plenty of valid excuses to be eating meat or being a vegetarian, but "muh human nature" is not among them.

>>2100217
This whole post is completely fucking retarded.
It's neither unnatural, since humans are omnivores (plus google naturalistic fallacy), nor very constricting, not rigid and unvaried. The few possible nutritional deficiencies can easily be avoided by supplementing. And even if not they only pose serious problems to children and pregnant women.
Morality is literally THE argument that keeps society going. Most people don't kill, don't steal, and usually don't call you a faggot because of morality. You fucking faggot.


Also the whole argument is a false dilemma, since people can just REDUCE meat consumption and get the best of both sides. But of course they don't this because they're fucking faggots and don't give a shit about animals like this guy
>>2100254
but instead argue with
>muh human nature
>muh blurry line so might aswell not give a fuck
>muh lions eat other animals too!!11!11!!
>the animal being bred halfway across the world in terrible conditions, then tortured and slaughtered, then the meat gets processed, then it's shipped to my local supermarket where I pick it up - this is natural because I'm the apex predator :^)

>>2100200
>Why are you not vegan anon?
Inconvenient as fuck.
Tho I could do without meat. But not eating eggs, milk, honey and all the stuff that contain them? How do you even do this.

>>2103609
>are these not the same thing?
I'm not sure if you're guy but anon seemed to be suggesting that the complication of human desire is an intentional effort from society, rather than just another progression of everyone's inner instincts.

>they also, often completely, redirect and override other base instincts
They don't though. They're never managed to override anything, rather they smother one instinct with the enforcement of another. That being social ostracism, probably one of the strongest instincts people have given how easily people just submit to what others want them to do. And when this (among other) counter-measures start to break down the really animalistic behaviour like rape and murder starts to crawl out of the woodwork, as evidenced in any war or governmental-collapse where social cohesion is so damaged that it's every man for himself. This is when we can see the true face of men.

>you're still both claiming you know what human nature is, and relinquishing your responsibility of choice to it
Two things
1. As mentioned multiple times earlier I never said I know the entirety of human nature, but I'm given fleeting glimpses of it by what my subconscious reveals to me as urges, impulses and "my" ideas.
3. I never said I'm not responsible for it. I should also point out that our idea that responsibility and free will are intertwined is another dualistic cultural artefact.

>"muh human nature" is not among them.
I understand you're a /leftypol/ poster (assuming you're the same guy) and you guys have managed to meme yourself into being opposed to any concept of human nature since it's very often used as an "argument" against leftism.

But my argument in any other terms is basically "because I want to". And likewise my understanding of why vegetarians are vegetarian is because "they want to". "They" or "I" in this case just being our internal struggle of urges rather than any conscious effort of decision making (which I don't believe we have).

>>2103531
That would be a normal extinction then. Mass extinction means large numbers of species going extinct.

>>2100710

This is usally how it goes, in my experience

>be vegan/vegetarian
>don't know wtf you're doing
>cut this or that out of your diet
>don't eat a wide range of foods to complete diet
>end up anemic because non-heme iron absorption is poor, and phytates inhibit absorption

>>2100217
>Morality isnt a substantive argument to do or not do something for most people.
Suppose it was, should we be vegans??
>>2100200
I think a proper counterargument can be done by inverting the claim. Say veganism isn't ethically greater, dispute the claim directly and argue veganism has no inherent moral highground above say, non-veganism (like vegetarianism or just being an all around omnivore).

>>2100281
>That the evolution of man, indeed most mammalian males, is due to war.
Not even close to true.
It's usually for the sake of convenience.
If your theory was credible then Sparta would've outlasted their opposition with superior tech and manpower.
Rome wouldn't have fallen.
>>2103187
"The Way of Men" by Jack Donovan is where you should start.
Be warned tho, Donovan is a Norsaboo and a homo.
Also, war is good for technological gains, but its not the sole force behind it.
And in recent times its been economical gains which have further advanced tech and human evolution more than any war, in fact is the anti-eco and most of our gains would be more easily destroyed by war (nuclear holocaust).

What the guy should have said is :Adversity breeds strength.
War is all about adversity, seems logical. Until you realize that too much war just means you are crushed by lesser peoples.
look at Europe, centuries of war only to be beaten by "non-warriors".

I'll be a vegan the day someone creates a plant-based alternative to meat that tastes as good.

It's not like I don't understand that killing animals for no other reason than food is totally ethical, it's just that I don't think it's unethical enough for me to completely change my diet.

If I actually contributed to the murder of children by eating meat I would stop immediately, but right now I am actually helping humans have a livelihood by buying it.

>>2100200
you can argue it's hypocritical to not eat meat out of morality and yet own plenty of objects made with human slavery

>>2103995
tbf a lot of vegan fake meat is pretty nice, but the prices tend to be too high

>>2104001
>tbf a lot of vegan fake meat is pretty nice

I've tried a lot of it, and usually it's just grilled and dried tofu, which honestly tastes like cardboard.

>>2103996

That wouldn't be an argument though, even if that was genuine hypocrisy, which is dubious, your "argument" would be completely fallacious.

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

>>2103939
True enough, but the last time that poundage of land dwelling megafauna went extinct there was a meteor involved. (Actually, there might even be more poundage of cattle than there were of dinos - need to look that one up somehow... I just know they're the only land-mammal to collectively outweigh 7 billion people.)

>>2103632
>I understand you're a /leftypol/ poster
>Everyone who disagrees with me is from camp X
So first I was a religitard, now I'm a leftypol - I voted for Trump, dammit all. (Not that leftypol doesn't suggest just as often that the current status quo is against human nature and forced upon us by the 1% or whatnot, and that communism is the natural tribal structure - so again, same argument.)

>They're never managed to override anything, rather they smother one instinct with the enforcement of another.
You can literally override the will to survive, the most fundamental instinct around. Yeah, there's some rapists and murders about, the reprogramming isn't universally perfect, but even those few are redirecting and suppressing a million other urges every moment of the majority of their lives, just to have stayed out of jail and mental asylums long enough to have committed their crimes.

...and if you are responsible for your actions, why attribute it to human nature? Why say, "I do X because it's in my nature", when nearly everything you do is the result of self and collectively altered nature? Are you a scorpion riding a frog?

I believe everyone makes the choice for himself, but that doesn't mean we need to be selfish. There are ways for non vegans to eat without destroying the environment, but there is no excuse to take an animal against its own will, having kids and family in some way, and being ripped apart, used, badly treated and killed like they don't have a life worth living. Just because some we idiots just think about ourselves! I am Vegan for years now, and there is no comparison to how I now feel and exist, without meat. Don't be selfish for taste, go Vegan for good reasons like, you save up to 1100 gallons of water everyday, 30 sq feet of forested land, 45lbs of grain, 20lbs of CO2 equivalent and one animals life, EVERYDAY. Think for yourself and decide, don't follow anyone, be unique!
Peace

File: 2_gud_low_res.jpg (87KB, 640x633px)

87KB, 640x633px

>>2101426

>>2104079
>implying ad hominem doesn't only apply when the person has an argument to counter in the first place

Pointing out hypocrisy is simply pointing out hypocrisy.

>>2103610
The reason people don't do those things us not necessarily out of morality.

It's more because people don't want the consequences of those actions.

>>2104149
I never said you specifically are religious, I'm commenting on the fact that almost everyone in our society (even atheists) still clings on to some remnants of religious thought such as free will. I just assumed you're /leftypol/ because of how often you say "spook" and "muh human nature".

>You can literally override the will to survive, the most fundamental instinct around.
Of course you can. But it's only made possible by cultivating other urges to the point where they overpower the will to survive and even then it's very difficult to fully make it vestigial. If it wasn't possible to do most anything then the problem of free will would be no problem at all, it would be clearly obvious to everyone that there is no free will.

>why attribute it to human nature?
Actually my original statement was "Meat tastes good, is good for me, and it is my irresistible natural instinct as a predator to eat other animals. ", I didn't say "I eat meat because I couldn't not eat meat". I could, I just don't want to and my explanation of why I don't want to is underpinned by my lack of faith in free will.

>>2100600
You mean unregulated laboratories from China producing lead filled shit to ship to Americunts?

>taking supplements

Also, B12 is not "the only thing" you have to worry about, it's just what comes up most often in the literature.

https://tinyurl com/ zeez4md

>The results suggested a high prevalence of inadequacy for dietary vitamin B12 and iodine in vegans.

https://tinyurl com/ gql3c7z

>The iodine intake among vegans is compromised, and may increase risks to potentially thyreotoxic compounds such as nitrate and plant goitrogens.

https://tinyurl com/ golm64a

>Dietary intakes of key nutrients, vitamins B12 and D, were lower (P < 0.001) in vegans than in non-vegetarians. Nutritional biomarker measurements showed lower concentrations of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D3), iodine and selenium (corrected for multiple comparisons, P < 0.001)

https://tinyurl com/ zyoemny

>For vegans the intake of macro- and micronutrients (including supplements) did not reach the NNR for protein, vitamin D, iodine and selenium. Among vegan women vitamin A intake also failed to reach the recommendations.

Fact of the matter is, vegans have to rely on undocumented, unregulated supplements to maintain adequate nutrition in multiple areas and expect everyone on Earth to follow the same pattern. It's sheer lunacy. All of the health benefits you gain with more plant matter in the diet you can gain following pescetarianism (with the benefit of adding more omega 3 consumption to your diet). There is no reason on Earth to become a vegan over bullshit moralistic reasons that cease to mean anything but fluff when you realize how intertwined everyone's life is with animal products in 2016.

>>2105092
Yet Vegans have a longer life expectancy, no?

Higher than vegetarian, higher than average diet. Lower admittedly than an ideal blue zone style semi-veg diet but still the average person's health would benefit from switching to a vegan diet.

Of course, it's less enjoyable, but longer.

>>2105285
>longer life expectancy over vegetarianism

[citation needed]

>>2100418
Best post itt

>>2100200
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/opinion/veggie.html

>>2100654
>Really, vegans just want all the cows to be dead.

I'd guess that the cows themselves would wish the same thing. Suppose an empire had for centuries maintained a farm for human servants, whose existence was of infinite suffering with no chance for escape. If we were to outlaw this process, all of the released prisoners would likely die in the wild, having no possessions or connections, etc to manage on their own; would it then be ethical to maintain the camps eternally, on the supposition that at least there they will continue to be fed/housed?

For farmed animals, death is their proscription: releasing them to their death is just expediting the process, and in likely a more congenial manner (starving to death is the natural end to most animals, both individually and as a species, compared to inescapable torture and misery). It also ends the continual suffering, they being the last animals to go through it, they would be then left to survive in the manner of all other animals, likely dying (as has been said, they've been biologically altered by their contact with humans) but in a far less cruel, and more importantly, completely unavoidable manner.

File: 1462063045255.png (436KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 800x500px

>>2100200
"Pure edge" is my serious reply.

>strg+f "environment"
2 results
>strg+f "suffering"
33 results

why are you all so concerned about the animals? i'm not vegan because i care about the animals but because meat industry is destroying the environment.

>>2103995
>i'm helping humans have a livelihood by buiyng it

why don't you buy child porn then so kidnappers and child rapists can make a livelihood?

>>2105580
vegans equate meat with child molestation. But what if I see nothing wrong with either? Checkmate cabbage munchers.

>>2105479
Fair point, but you're forgetting one thing. Cows aren't fucking sentient.

>>2100254
>>2100200
>>2100255
>>2100269
>>2100217
>>2100218

how about this
meat production, specifically cattle, produces and contributes to in other ways (transportation, opportunity cost, land use) to climate change almost as much as the petroleum industry.

you probably can't stop using plastic, you probably can't stop driving or relying on petrol for transit, and you probably can't stop using gas to heat your home

but you can reduce or stop eating meat.

>>2106106
>it's an 'anon determines the objective definition of sentience and how it applies to livestock, all in the name of winning an internet argument' post

>>2105033
>clings on to some remnants of religious thought such as free will.
You're the one that brought up free will. (Not that there are plenty of non-religious arguments for free will). But we both seem to be of the belief that free will is either or an illusion or not a thing. (Does leftypol use "spook" though? I thought that Steiner was a right-wing his/lit thing...)

>If it wasn't possible to do most anything then the problem of free will would be no problem at all, it would be clearly obvious to everyone that there is no free will.
That's the problem with pinning motivations on "human nature" or "instinct", it *is* possible to do most anything. The human is a nearly completely reprogrammable beast, and the amount of programming you go through as a member of modern society, both from within and from without, is absolutely staggering. To pin the blame for an activity such as this on instinct (one that many would say you don't even have), is just plain folly, given all the other, in many cases vastly stronger instincts, you are ignoring or redirecting every day. Hence the naturalistic fallacy.

You can't blame conscious choices, or much of anything else, on a lack of free will, as we're all strapped with the illusion of free will, and thus responsible for our decisions. (At least until one of us becomes omniscient - but then he's fucked, as he knows everything he's going to do, and can't do a thing to change it.)

>>2105568
>tfw also a vegan for environmental reasons
>always try to avoid the topic of veganism because people will instantly assume i'm some sort of muh fee-fees animal rights insane person
>even worse when its another vegan because as soon as i say I don't give a shit about the animals and would gladly pay the price for a steak if the externalities were factored in they 360 and walk away

vegans are fucking trash by and large, i understand why people hate them even if i am one.

>>2105479
Damn, you got me... But it does require you value comfort over survival. That there is a slippery slope to anti-natalism. What if all the cows were genetically engineered to be always happy? What if you eventually wind up with cattle that are sapient and demand to be eaten, ala HGTG. Hell, we may take some gene stock and set them up along side us among the stars one day, making them one of the few species to outlast the biosphere.

Or, less fantastically, what if cows simply lived lives at least as comfortable as they would have in the wild, until the moment of their death?

Many would argue that is already the case. In the wild they would have to deal with all sorts of infections, possibly predators, and starvation. Among the more reasonably treated cows, they live a life far more comfortable than their wild ancestral counterparts ever did.

But of course, in the modern world, there's no way wild cows would be put up with in such numbers, so you'd doom them all to extinction, simply because some are suffering?

(Not that I don't love my veal...)

>>2105568
Collectively, agriculture does far more damage to the environment than cattle ranching - albeit, that's partly because there's just a lot more of it.

>>2106199
but anon, its not an either/or. a realistic view of the matter is not one where the choice is "keep a slave race of cows to eat forever" or "forcibly cause cows to go extinct."

the choice for you, as and individual, is whether or not you should eat the cow. and there are a number of reasons to do with your personal health and the environment (and i guess animal suffering too) which may lead you to that decision.

you're right that in the modern world cows would not exist in number like they do without the help of agriculture, but its not a choice between millions of cows or no cows. its a choice between continuing to support an industry that is ramping up the number of cows or pursuing an alternative, which in turn will exert economic pressures on ranchers to switch their own land use.

i don't think anyone is seriously advocating that we put down all the cows tomorrow.

>>2106211
depends on what you mean by environment, i guess.

in terms of global climate animal agriculture is the main culprit among agriculture generally, though deforestation is a close 2nd. of course, most deforestation for agriculture is related to animal agriculture, but even if it was for other crops you are of course correct that it would be a strain and negative impact on the environment.

but converting land from one use to another always displaces the previous inhabitants (i.e., natural flora and fauna). this isn't necessarily bad, but it does change the environment. runoff, fertilizer, etc. are all bad too ofc, but so are the literal shit lagoons that are made for cows and pigs. plus, cows and pigs (and other animals, of course) are an inefficient conversion of water and energy into food, as compared with plants.

>>2106217
Well, ideally, vegans want everyone to be vegan, which, if it were to happen today, cows would likely be extinct by next year's end.

The more non-beef eaters are, the higher the price of beef gets, so there's also a window in there where all you're doing is making the beef industry that much more profitable, and there aren't nearly enough non-beef eaters to get over that hump, nor will there be in the near future.

I do suspect that the cow's days are numbered though. Eventually, we're going to find a way to artificially produce beef so much more cheaply than cows that they will be abandoned, save for a handful of ranches for specialist foods (kinda the way buffalo are now). I also suspect, by then, all the land based megafauna will be extinct, seeing as how we're halving their population every 30 years or so, by habitat reduction alone.

I don't think this is all going to make the vegans feel very victorious.

>>2106217
>implying less than 0.5 servings of beef/day cause any health impacts

Moderation, retards, learn it.

Also, there are no wild cows. The Aurochs are dead. All cows alive today were bred for human purposes, usually by humans. Killing the cattle industry means killing off the cow, I'm sorry to burst your bubble.

>>2106254
NTG, but, there are *feral* cows, if not wild ones. They tend to be very small herds on preserves or wandering about developing nations near where a ranch was abandoned.

Such herds to tend to go extinct though, and even among the survivors, their habitat is constantly encroached upon.

>>2105479
>I'd guess that the cows themselves would wish the same thing

Anthropomorphism (the cognitive bias, as opposed to calling you a fucking furfag). Give me empirical evidence cows have wishes and I will consider their wishes. Until then, quit projecting your own humanity into their eyes.

>>2106265
Feral cows are escaped domestics, and as you stated they do not last. Open pastureland where wild animals can roam free is less and less, and cultivated farmland is no better for a cow than no land at all.

Who hates animals, again?

>>2106267
NTG, but it is possible to stress/depress an animal so much that it starves itself to death and farmers do sometimes struggle with such problems. Granted, the fact that it isn't the norm does rather suggest the cows aren't as miserable as some vegans might think.

>>2106278
Again, not the same guy, agreeing with you. I'm the one saying if we all stop eating beef the cows be fucked. Just pointing out what folks are generally referring to when they say "wild cow".

>>2106290
I said wishes, not emotions. All tetrapods experience emotions, it is clear as day to see. But wishes? Dreams? Thoughts and desires? No, a cow has none of these.

>>2106298
Well an animal refusing to eat could be said to be "wishing" to be dead, even if, yes, it is a bit of anthropomorphization, it isn't a huge stretch.

...and they do actually dream, in the technical sense, and certainly have basic desires. But yes, I doubt they think of the future, or what not.

>>2100235
He's trolling faggot

>>2106314
No, I was serious actually. There's a lot of rather sadistic studies regarding that sorta thing.

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

>>2100269
Fucking pseuphilosophers spewing copy pasta that just sounds about right instead of thinking for a quarter of a second. It's one thing to not agree with veganism but to not understand its argument is a special kind of stupid

>>2106324
Harlow was a sperglord of the highest order but he could sure get science done.

>>2106339
Sad but true - and just as much so that he was just one of a whole lotta efforts in that field.

>Pavlov's poor electrified doggies.

File: cattleproduct[1].jpg (202KB, 600x496px)

202KB, 600x496px

>>2106134
I can stop eating meat. Unfortunately, however, meat isn't the only product man derives from cow.

How's your "organically fertilized" produce treating you, vegan? Enjoying it?

The truth of the matter is, you will not break man of his dependence on domesticates so easily. Certainly not as easily as you dream.

>>2106324
>>2106314
Wait, nevermind, for some reason I thought you were linking back to >>2106290

>much like denying war to men
Eh, closer to copy-pasta'ing Ragnar Redbeard.

>>2100200
Animals deserve no rights because human-centricism is correct otherwise you are a species-traitor.

Also, being a vegan makes you a filthy Stoic because rather than indulging in things that make you happy (delicious meat) you sit back and partake in smugness instead, and smugness is unforgivable.

>>2100200
>What is the moral/ethic counter argument to veganism?
you'd be wasting good meat that animals died for by not eating it

>>2100200
vegans are afraid of living

>>2106347
>implying i give a shit about organic
man i'm not a brainless idiot. i also go out of my way to buy gmo as well.

just because i try to make ethical choices doesn't mean i'm stupid, anon.

>>2106134
>he actually thinks that simply abstaining from meat will fix the atmosphere

"Agricultural practices are responsible for around 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Sources include fertilizers, livestock, wetland rice cultivation, manure management, burning of savanna and agricultural residues, and ploughing.

For example, rice production is one of the single-largest producers of methane, while the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recently stated that the livestock sector alone is responsible for 18% of all greenhouse gas production.

In addition, the conversion of forests to agriculture – particularly in tropical Asia – accounts for a roughly similar percentage of greenhouse gas emissions as agriculture itself."

the problem isnt meat eating anon, its overpopulation

>>2106791
>he doesn't understand doing what you can and accepting what you cannot do
>he doesn't understand the concept of "let not the perfect be the enemy of the good"

i mean sure anon, ideally those issues would be addressed - and indeed a number of groups dealing with deforestation and more ecologically friendly agricultural techniques exist. but just because a lot of negative things for the environment are occurring doesn't mean we should ignore meat production as one of them, nor does it mean that it has to be one or the other. I'm a vegan, but I live in california and as a result try my best NOT to buy almonds and some kinds of rice, because my state is dedicating a ton of water to those land uses while telling me to take shorter showers.

but you know what? even though more than 70% of the water used in my state is for agriculture, i still take shorter showers. even though i know its bullshit and not the *real* problem, my minimal contribution makes a miniscule difference - one that may not actually help on its own, but one that, in conjunction with other people making positive choices, might help in the long run.

maybe i'm naive, maybe i'm too invested in something to see what a fool i'm being, but i'd rather try and do the right thing fruitlessly than sit by and say that there are other problems or that i can't make a difference (not to accuse you of either of those, but that is a common trend i see among people who, for whatever reason, feel that veganism/conservation/etc are foolhearty)

>>2100200
I like to eat meat. I don't care about pretensions to equitable treatment when it comes to goods.

>>2100456
Good post, but I do need to mention that to stimulate cows to produce their milk they are effectively raped to allow for milk production. Not totally harmless.
t. an avid drinker of milk.

>>2100456
>Advocating for the rights of a bee whose nervous system can't even generate a concept more complex than "go by the hardwired stimuli and keep moving" is another.
Well, bees can respond to pain and use similar electro-chemical processes to our own to "perceive" it. But honey bees are probably about the "happiest" bees on the planet. They have a hive that's free of predators, in the most optimal formation possible, and direct and easy access to unlimited food sources. Sure, once in awhile a guy comes in with some smoke and makes them all delirious, but he never takes so much honey that it endangers the hive's supply as they have such an excess.

It's not like we're tying them up, fencing them in, executing them, or otherwise preventing them from anything they'd do naturally and stressing them out.

(Well, at least not deliberately - there was the mass hive death incident revolving around some genetically engineered crops, but that was a side effect of another effort entirely.)

Hen's are another thing though, as it does get to the point where the bird's so stressed out they refuse to eat and they often set up systems to feed them intravenously, and they gather so many infections, as a result of being so packed they are shitting all over each other, they have to be filled with antibiotics. Plus the prion issues that come up with chicken remains being in their feed, similar to the scenario that gave us mad cow disease.

I don't think it's asking too much to up the price of foodstuffs slightly to avoid scenarios by enforcing regulations that reduce the animal's suffering, so long as such efforts are within reason - but just declaring all animal-related "slave labor" immoral, when said animal would either be dead or even more distressed in the wild, and the animal, unlike us, has no axiom as to the "value of freedom" to begin with, is, yes, just retarded. But alas, any absolutist philosophy tends to be so.

>>2108525
Yes, there is a degree of feed animal suffering you can reach where it becomes a food safety issue. If you're stressing the beast to the degree where you have to pump it full of chemicals and intravenously feed it, just to keep it alive, you're clearly doing something wrong.

Ethics don't really enter into it at that point.

>>2107907
Let's not forget that the calves are killed off as well.

>>2107907
I don't think cows really have a concept of "rape". I mean, seriously, if you've ever seen how bulls mate - the cow doesn't have a say in the matter, and takes some serious damage in the process. There's no foreplay or cunnlingus involved - if anything, the artificial stimulation must be loads more pleasant, not to mention safer.

>>2100302
>Morrisey is also shit.
Fucking pleb

>>2100200
I am a healty athletic omnivorous primate, there's no reason tohave an unnatural diet.