Meat

Also, i already asked on /sci/ but got no good explanation and the thread was deleted.

https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S8666919

Because God told us we can?

We don't live in paradise (Eden) anymore.
We live in a fallen world.

You again?

>>2357272

DIETARY PREFERENCES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE; DIETARY PREFERENCES ARE BASED ON AESTHETIC, AND ETHICOMORAL, BASES, WHICH THEMSELVES ARE INFORMED BY A BIOLOGICAL BASIS.

THE RADICAL FACTOR IS NOBILITY —AN INDIVIDUAL'S DEGREE OF NOBILITY, OR LACK OF IT, WILL DETERMINE THE REQUIREMENTS OF HIS/HER PHYSICAL BODY, AND THE CONSTITUTION OF HIS/HER ETHOS.

NOBILITY IS A PSYKHIC QUALITY, NOT AN INTELLECTUAL QUALITY.

>>2357290
nobility is something you made up

>>2357296

?

>>2357272
Culture mainly. Cuisine is incredibly deep rooted and reasoning doesn't do much to stop it. We could get sustainable, cheap protein from things like crickets and grasshoppers, but those are icky so I'll stick with killing a large domesticated animal that's less cost effective.
I'm really hungry for a cheeseburger now.

Because why not?

I find there are no moral objections religion-wise (at least the Abrahamic ones anyway) to not eat meat. Plus it's tasty AF and nutritious, as long as you keep in touch with cholesterol and shit.

Also on many modern world (NZ, for example) the system ensures the animals will die as swift and as painless as possible.

If being veg's your thing, go forth. I'll keep chewing meat.

File: s1.reutersmedia.net.jpg (47KB, 450x324px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 450x324px

>>2357272
>we cannot hurt these living beings that feel pain and communicate with each other
>but we can hurt these living beings that feel pain and communicate with each other but cannot run away

>>2357272
Im kind of vary anything the person says in the video since psychology is infested by psuedo science nonsense.

>>2357276
>>2357318
god is not an argument

>>2357318
>I find there are no moral objections religion-wise
Morality goes beyond religion.

>>2357333
I dont think anyone has posted a reason not to eat besides "my feelings" so "my feelings" is a perfectly valid counter argument.

>>2357319
Plants don't even have pain receptors.

>>2357342
Nor are they self-conscious.

>>2357340
How about "there's no reason to stoo eating meat"? Its the truth, besides it works for people that dont believe in god also.

>>2357351
>to stop
Damn typo

>>2357352
It conflicts with other values you have, like the doctrine of not causing unnecessary pain.

Do you believe it's okay to torture stray animals? Why, why not?

>>2357272
>Why do we still eat meat?
Because meat is sweet narcotic

>>2357272
This.
>>2357310

Culture + customs in my opinion.

>>2357355
>>2357355
>like the doctrine of not causing unnecessary pain.
I dont think they suffer in a farm, they're only alive for human consumption and thats the reason they are all around the globe (talking about cows)

>Do you believe it's okay to torture stray animals? Why, why not?
Obviously not okay, but i dont think we torture them, we just kill them for consumption, otherwise they live good lives, they get food and a roof, they're way better off than they would be being stray.

>>2357364
>I dont think they suffer in a farm,
Factory farming, which is the vast majority of meat production, has miserable conditions for animals.

>they're only alive for human consumption
This fact doesn't justify meat consumption. In fact, the implication might be the very opposite: If you bring something into existence, you have to bear responsibility for it.

If you birthed a child, would you be allowed to do as you please with it just because you brought it into existence for whatever reason?
No, you would have to bear responsibility for it. You'd have to care for it, bring it up.

>>2357364
>Obviously not okay,
Why? What's wrong with torturing beings?

File: 13516221_1244900715550122_402094859612612545_n.jpg (37KB, 450x567px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 450x567px

>>2357364
>I dont think they suffer in a farm
We do cause harm to animals and not only to those that we are raising to be our food in factory-farming system but also to those we keep around for other resources and even entertaiment.

>they're only alive for human consumption and thats the reason they are all around
I agree that most of those animals are alive because of us but in my eyes that means we are even more responsible for their well-being.

> otherwise they live good lives, they get food and a roof, they're way better off than they would be being stray.
I dont think this is exactly true for most of the domesticated animals meybe with the exclusion of our companions/pets.

If you want check out some documentaries like Earthlings. I also dont think its intentional torture but we do cause a lot of suffering to animals.

>>2357272
>fish are bugs

>>2357272
>Why do we still eat meat?

Many of us don't!

>>2357340
>>>2357333 #
>I dont think anyone has posted a reason not to eat besides "my feelings"

You can reduce any "should" argument to that. Why shouldn't you hunt and eat other humans? "Muh feelings."

File: Max stirner.png (96KB, 500x483px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x483px

>>2357432
Yes, indeed, whats your point?

>>2357437

I think Stirner memes should be taken as admission of being wrong.

File: 13329117_1167322813307410_1255083078_n.jpg (28KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x480px

>>2357466
I cant really find anything being said wrong so far. Unless you think morality isnt subjective and isnt based on feelings.

>>2357474
C.S. Lewis already debunked that.

Morality is objective.

>>2357479
careful, you're gonna trigger all the atheist commies.

>>2357474

But it can be consistent or inconsistent.

>>2357272
Because it tastes good

/thread

>>2357272
Imagine, the entire world eats a vegan diet:
A farmer harvests his crops
The crops are transported to the shops
The shops sell the crops

Three people are employed

Now, imagine a world where people eat meat
A farmer harvests his crops
The crops are transported to another farm
The crops are fed to the cows
The cows are slaughtered and transported to the shops
The shops sell the meat

Five people are employed.

The meat industry feeds and houses millions of people. Therefore, it there slaughter of animals in justified.

>>2357505
>it there the slaughter of animals is justified
*the slaughter of animals is justified

>>2357272
>Humans have become more intelligent
Take a trip out of your ivory tower suburban city environment. Any time.

File: 1454134707106.jpg (144KB, 1012x1280px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1012x1280px

>>2357479
>"moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world"
>debunked

Because it tastes good. Fuck animals.

File: Moral Relativism.jpg (31KB, 430x504px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 430x504px

>>2357516
>what is a conscience

>>2357342
Plants react to damage so they must be able to signal that they are hurt which is exactly what pain is.

>>2357544
But is conscience not based on one person morality and social norms?

Not passive aggresive here just trying to understand

>>2357613
https://www.youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodle/videos

>>2357558
Without a central nervous system though? I can have a cut that will scab over but it's not related to feeling the pain of the cut.

>>2357544
Not something that bolsters the case for MIND-INDEPENDENT AND OBJECTIVE PRESCRIPTIVE FACTS

>>2357272
Because veganism and vegetarianism are alot of time full of pseudoscientific bullshit and demonizes one of the most healthy and nutritious foods you can eat. Choosing to eat or not to eat meat is neither moral or immoral, Not eating meat also doesn't make you a better person and merely boils down to choice. Eating meat also isn't bad for you, isn't the devil that cause heart disease/ cancer, etc. like many believe and on the contrary is quite healthy for you. Meat also tastes very good and their are nutrients that are only found in meat, and in nutrient quantity and well as quality meat outdoes almost all other foods. Not to mention meat has complete proteins, and is hands down the best protein source
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-best.html
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html
>http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.1.6291
>https://www.anabolicmen.com/fats-and-testosterone/
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-simplicity-of-dieting-it-really-is.html?m=1
>https://breakingmuscle.com/fuel/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health
>https://authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/
>http://www.saragottfriedmd.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-revisiting-the-meat-igf-1-and-cancer-connection/
>https://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/minger_formal_response2.pdf
>https://deniseminger.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/
>https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
>http://www.foodrenegade.com/the-china-study-discredited/
>https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/

>>2357649
Down with the began agenda!

>>2357649
You can get all your nutrients without killing animals.
Vegetarians can get B12 from dairy products and eggs, making it not necessary to kill the animal.
And Vegans can get B12 from supplements (not natural).
Also, studies show that people that don't eat meat live longer.

There is no real reason to eat meat other than for the taste.

>>2357272
If all people stop eating meat, most of those precious animals who you want to save will be risking extinction, stuff like chickens and cows may be fine as long its not full veganism.

>>2357272
Also what about meat eating animals? Is it fine to kill animals to feed those you want them to be released in wild and hunt on their own?

>>2357678
>You can get all your nutrients without killing animals.
Sure
>Vegetarians can get B12 from dairy products and eggs, making it not necessary to kill the animal.
>And Vegans can get B12 from supplements (not natural).
Yes, they can but they wouldn't have supplements from outside sources if they just included meat in their diet
>Also, studies show that people that don't eat meat live longer.
Bullshit and only works when you compare those diets to unhealthy people eating the Standard American Diet. Veganism/Vegetarianism isn't healthier, the people eating just happen to be healthier than unhealthy people eating a shitty diet. If those people were compared to healthy, fit people who exercised and dieted properly, the fit person who ate meat would live just as long if not longer and be just as healthy if not healthier
>There is no real reason to eat meat other than for the taste.
Yes there is and I not only listed them but gave evidence for them in my post. Be vegan or whatever if you want just accept your doing things in a less effective/counterproductive way most of the time, be honest about the downsides, don't bullshit about your diet being heathier when it's not and don't lie about meat being unhealthy and about it doing things to you it does and/or doesn't do

>>2357505
I don't even.

It baffles me that you think you can estimate the amount of people involved in the production this way.

Also, you can just add an arbitrary amount of other intermediary or refinement steps to the crops side (like sorting by quality, people producing threshers, soil, pesticides, research) or reduce some steps on the meat side (like transportation for local ranchers).

Lastly, "it's moral because more people are employed" is a very weak argument to me.

>>2357705
Also accept that your diet is merely a choice. No more no less

>>2357649
>eat or not to eat meat is neither moral or immoral
What part about forcing your will on other being and causing harm, suffering is not immoral?

>>2357649
>. Choosing to eat or not to eat meat is neither moral or immoral,
That's what we're arguing about in this thread, but thanks for just deciding that you're right without giving any arguments.

>Because veganism and vegetarianism are alot of time full of pseudoscientific bullshit
All dietary sciences, and actually medicine in general, has huge problems with pseudocience.

>>2357290
You're a loony

>>2357272
yes
Morality is a construct that has societal purpose but beyond that it is mere a fake construct.

>>2357687
>If all people stop eating meat, most of those precious animals who you want to save will be risking extinction
A generation of animals would be lost, but countless future generations would be saved the pain. Those animal species wouldn't cease to exist, by the way, because people like many animals even without eating them.

>>2357725
Wrong.

There is a universal moral law, a standard.

File: 1481702006420.gif (1MB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 512x512px

>>2357774
You only think that because your brain is more inclined to require rules.

File: cultured meat.jpg (488KB, 1180x842px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 1180x842px

>>2357705
You do realise that because of people that are stubborn and addicted to meat, scientists are developing cultured meat.
Meat is only consumed because people are addicted to the taste, because it's considered normal since primitive times, and because people don't seem to care about the animals.

Also, a lot of people in the world, even the intelligent people don't think, investigate or care about this issue, they just consider killing animals for food normal or even necessary, even with alternatives.
The taste is so addictive that people lose reason.

https://youtu.be/MOfZtuKeTyM

I suggest a compromise. People will stop eating animal produced meat but in return it'll become perfectly legal to hunt and kill vegans for food.

>>2357887
I propose just killing vegans, and using the skulls of PETA members as trophies.

>>2357736

you are completely deluded

>>2357712
>forcing your will on other being and causing harm, suffering

that's a good thing

>>2357272
Nigga meat tastes good and I don't give a fuck about your moral justification.

Only reason why I consider going veggie is to teach myself how to cook better

survival of the fittest.

i dont give a fuck, show me as much gore as you want, i have slit many goats throats and eaten them after with my uncle, and i can tell you.

there is nothing more satisfying than feeling power.

>>2357272
Have you ever saw a vegan one would call masculine? I for sure did not.

Fun fact: Animal fat is neccesary for proper production of testosteron.

File: 1485778355262.gif (2MB, 320x218px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x218px

>>2357887
>as soon as all vegans are eaten, there is no more meat to eat
>everyone becomes vegan because of lack of meat
>people can hunt vegans again
>the meat supply never ends

>>2357707
It was an oversimplification to illustrate how more people are employed by increasing the amount of steps from raw material to finished product, it wasn't supposed to be an accurate and detailed analysis of the production chain of beef.

>Also, you can just add an arbitrary amount of other intermediary or refinement steps to the crops side (like sorting by quality, people producing threshers, soil, pesticides, research) or reduce some steps on the meat side (like transportation for local ranchers).
Yes, but if you want to boil it down to an extreme you're left with:

Farmer
Shop

vs.

Farmer
Other farmer
Shop

>Lastly, "it's moral because more people are employed" is a very weak argument to me.
Why? People are fed, housed, given clothes, education by the meat industry. People that can grow up to become scientist, engineers, politicians, therapists, the people that will support society in the future.

>>2357999
ya, that American weightlifter at the 2016 Rio games

veganism is for rich ppl.

Wouldnt survive in a harsh environment w/o meat.

Inuits are alcoholic but not stupid

>>2357999
>masculine

Do you mean muscular?
This guy on Youtube is pretty buff and he's vegan.
In this video he shows what he eats in a day, he overeats because he works out, a normal person doesn't need to eat as much.

https://youtu.be/vGpy6h0LbQM

File: lloyd.jpg (26KB, 359x222px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 359x222px

Reminder.

>>2357899
Explain why or fuck off, if you can't or don't want to contribute to the thread.

>>2358052
>Yes, but if you want to boil it down to an extreme you're left with:
Your oversimplifaction is just a comparison of quality (number of categories of workers). It doesn't account for quantity (number of workers within the categories), which I'd say is what is the actually essential thing here.

It may simply be the case that the reality looks like this:

2000 Farmers (consisting of 10 types) growing grain
15 Shop workers

vs.

500 Farmers (consisting of 50 types) producing meat
15 Shop workers

The grain industry then employs more people despite having less types of people involved.

>Why? People are fed, housed, given clothes, education by the meat industry. People that can grow up to become scientist, engineers, politicians, therapists, the people that will support society in the future.
How about we do everything as inefficient as possible then? Get rid of machines, plow the fields by hand again. Imagine how many people we could employ in farming, if we got rid of tractors.

>>2358066
You're not living in a postapocalyptic world or stranded on a pacific island. Your rules of conduct should fit to that reality, rather than the "what if" that isn't and will probably never be the case.

Honestly, if we simply stopped eating cows we would probably reverse human induced climate change.

>>2357719
>but thanks for just deciding that you're right
You're welcome
>without giving any arguments.
Except I did

>>2357272
> all nutrition needs from other sauces
I can smell the fallacy here

File: creepy_cow.jpg (14KB, 350x329px)

14KB, 350x329px

>>2358187
Are you mad? Have mad papers, do you?

Our eating the bastards is the only thing keeping their numbers from exploding exponentially and frying us all in cow-fart.

>>2358298
The unnatural number of cows only came about due to human breeding, they'll go down once the demand disappears.

You try to abstain from meat anywhere besides India where agriculture can be continuous and you're just gonna starve.

>>2357272
Youre honestly doing an animal a favor when you shoot it with a gun. Most animals do not die peacefully from old age, most are eaten alive by predators. The problem with vegetarians and animal lovers is they refuse to accept that animal suffering is an inevitability. Suffering is apart of life, get over it.

>>2358318
PETA will not let that happen.

>>2358285
see >>2357678

>>2358298
>>2358359
We are breeding a large unnatural amount of animals just for human consumption, they wouldn't exist otherwise.
I think these animals would prefer to not exist than to be confined and slaughtered for food.

>>2358409
>vegans believe farm animals have existential crises
Goddamn dude

>>2357276
>Because God told us we can?
God told Noah he could, before him everyone was vegetarian.
Lrn2bible

>>2358179

It's not a "what if" question dude.

More than half of the world couldnt eat vegan even if they wanted to.

It's not insulting when i said it's a rich ppl thing, just a reality.

>>2358409
I think you are overestimating the cognitive ability of farm animals. You are imposing your human feelings on to an animal whos brain is far more simple than your own. Do they feel pain, yes. Does it really matter, no. Because these animals are born to be made it to a product as efficiently and quickly as possible. They're "feelings" basically consit of "ouch, eat, fuck". They dont prefer to be anything.

File: price.jpg (233KB, 593x615px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 593x615px

>>2358066
>>2358457
What? It can be even cheaper.

Those animal product prices are pretty far fetched.

>>2358504

You dont get it. Its not about money. Ils about where and how you live.

>>2357432
You shouldn't hunt and eat other humans because it will really suck when other humans decide to gang up and hunt and eat you you fucking retard.

No matter how many cows i eat, all the cows aren't going to gang up and try and eat me. Maybe they should be a bit more evolved, then i might care about what a cow thinks.

>>2357272

Because the killing animals thing is a fucking joke.

If you want to help animals, you promote yourself to the top of a social hierarchy so you can enact actual rule and laws protecting certain animals.

Instead people turn into faggots who can't grasp the notion that virtue-signalling is not the same as doing something "virtuous".

So they display their faggot special snowflake faggotry instead of thinking "what would actually be effective?".

Why live? Your existence is predicated on the destruction of countless animal and plant matter.

>>2358271
I actually did look through all your sources and didn't find a single thing proving this statement:

>Choosing to eat or not to eat meat is neither moral or immoral,

Note that I don't give a fuck about the dietary viability or how natural it is to eat meat, and neither should anyone else for this thread. This is /his/, not /sci/, which means that this thread is either about the history of meat consumption and vegetarianism or about its ethics.

If you actually think that your post addressed either of that, which it didn't, unless I oversaw something in your links, then one still has to point out that just posting an assortment of links is really poor form. Argue your point yourself.

>>2358573

What's your actual point?

This seems like an incoherent rant.

>>2358457
Well, does it apply to you or the other half?

No? Then clearly there is room for veganism, and just how much room there is is simply a matter of refinement.

>>2358486
> They're "feelings" basically consit of "ouch, eat, fuck". They dont prefer to be anything.
Is it morally permissible to slaughter and cook a human baby then? Their cognitive world isn't particularly developed either and doesn't go beyond "ouch, mmmhh, zzZZzz" and whatever onomatopoeia there is for pooping.

What about people with extreme mental retardation?

>>2357272
t. vegan in denial

>>2358946
not even him, but that post is barely readable, dude

The true issue with meat is that it simply isn't efficient. Farm animals require massive amounts of feed to put on weight.

Insects are the future though. Plus that crunch from fried mealworms is hard to beat.

>>2358741
>Note that I don't give a fuck about the dietary viability or how natural it is to eat meat, and neither should anyone else for this thread.This is /his/, not /sci/, which means that this thread is either about the history of meat consumption and vegetarianism or about its ethics.
Except those subjects are part of the reason why both historically and scientifically humans have and can, eaten meat. You and other people should give a fuck about it because it's part of the same topic and relevant to OP's post. Your singleminded separation of those fact's between /his/ and /sci/ not only shows that you didn't get that from my post, but also isn't an argument either.
>If you actually think that your post addressed either of that, which it didn't
>Except I did
>unless I oversaw something in your links
That's an understatement
>then one still has to point out that just posting an assortment of links is really poor form
>Missing the point this hard

>Argue your point yourself.
What part of 'I did' along what I posted
>>2357649
>>2357705
>>2357709
are you not getting? I'll spell it out for you, but unlike you claim, no I don't have to
>Choosing to eat meat
vs.
>Choosing not to eat meat
Is literally all being vegan or not being vegan boils down to. The only thing you're doing is making a choice to eat or not eat something.
>(cont.)

>>2359012
>Why have we somehow evolved past the need to eat meat as OP implies? Where is his proof of this?
There are people who have lived their whole life as Vegans, and have lived just as long as meat eaters, studies even show they live longer.
We don't need meat at all. What other proof do you need?

>What about meat eating animals, are they immoral for eating meat as well?
They are not intelligent enough to even realise they are making a mistake, they are guided by instinct.

>>2359108
>>2358741
>(cont.)
You also do realize OP's most likely the same poster that posted this thread right?
>http://desuarchive.org/his/thread/2316196/#2317126
And even if he didn't, it's still the same thread with his and your exact same points addressed. And if you really want to get into a pissing contest about what's poor form you should have addressed OP's post first and foremost. Even the archive post I linked should have more cause for you to address than mine; necause not only has OP, the posts in that thread, nor you for that matter managed to give answer as to why eating meat is immoral in the first place, when an effective answer came up dealing with you and OP's points, just like in this thread; neither you nor OP can still give an effective answer. Why should anyone ITT start off with either you or OP's moral assumptions about eating food? Why is eating meat immoral and why have humans somehow become so much more intelligent that we don't need to eat it?
>Humans have become more intelligent and have realised they could get all their nutrition needs from other sources.
Why have we somehow evolved past the need to eat meat as OP implies? Where is his proof of this? What about meat eating animals, are they immoral for eating meat as well? Why should anyone, myself included to answer you or OP's questions, when you haven't even answered theirs? Why can you both spout statements that you don't need to prove yet I and others in this thread must "prove" theirs? ( and also unlike you claim I have provided proof and evidence for mine) Furthermore, why are you and OP calling on others to prove your claims that you yourselves haven't even backed up. That's not how a debate works and that's not how you win one
>>2359023
Fixed

>>2359130
see >>2359110

I dont really care about the animals but theres something to be said for rising standards of living and demand for meat across the globe.

It simply is not currently sustainable to have everyone eat the same amount of meat as the west, but everywhere.

>>2358757

You lack reading comprehension.

People prefer explanations which grease ideations/predictions about their frame of reality and which grease chatter between social agents.

People don't select EFFECTIVE methods, they select methods which promote social interaction.

Being a single moral agent isn't effective at reducing the suffering of animals. Because there's far more agents who have no qualm about killing animals. There's far more agents in positions of power who have no qualm about killing animals.

It'd be far more effective to climb to the top of a social hierarchy and implement rules that govern a society-wide diet rather than buying a can of beans at Whole Foods.

Until then, you're stuck with the absolute futility of dealing with agents who have far different moral calculations.

File: 1478483672846.jpg (75KB, 600x596px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x596px

>>2357272
>So, is killing animals justifiable just for it's tasty meat?
Yes.

>>2359186
>It'd be far more effective to climb to the top of a social hierarchy and implement rules that govern a society-wide diet rather than buying a can of beans at Whole Foods.

Your entire argument falls apart because you can do both. Nor is doing one of the two entirely ineffective if you don't do the other, it's not a zero sum game.

The problem is that your entire "point" is incoherent and silly, not with my reading compehension

>>2359140
>>2359110
>There are people who have lived their whole life as Vegans, and have lived just as long as meat eaters, studies even show they live longer.
When compared with unhealthy people who eat the SAD.
Dealt with this.
>>2357705
>We don't need meat at all.
Science has said otherwise. And by "we" do you mean everyone, or just you? What about people who like to eat meat? What about people who both like meat and use it as apart of their diet to build muscle and stay healthy?
>What other proof do you need?
Actual proof hat not bullshit, cherrypicked, pseudoscience, and/or shittily interpreted to meet vegan bias and ignores biology, science and proven facts
>>2359110
>They are not intelligent enough to even realise they are making a mistake, they are guided by instinct.
On whose authority is meat eating animals drive to receive sustenance for other creatures a "mistake"? What makes how they get food so? Why are these creatures less intelligent? Who deems these creatures less intelligent and on what authority?

>>2359228

Eating meat is a lot easier than trying to organize your entire diet around not eating animal products.

And it's hypocritical because as I've said, human society directly, and indirectly, leads to the death of countless animals.

Are you going to tabulate all the things you use and interact with in everyday life?

No, because that's a megalomaniac's dream. To control the world of perception and evaluation by applying a universal moral principle.

>It's not a zero sum game

You can spend life being a faggot vegan or you can prepare to take office/power and implement rules that apply society-wide against the "suffering" of animals.

>>2359262
>Eating meat is a lot easier than trying to organize your entire diet around not eating animal products.

That's not an argument. What is easier is irrelevant.

>And it's hypocritical because as I've said, human society directly, and indirectly, leads to the death of countless animals.

Accusing someone of hypocrisy is entirely fallacious as an argument.

>Are you going to tabulate all the things you use and interact with in everyday life?
>No, because that's a megalomaniac's dream. To control the world of perception and evaluation by applying a universal moral principle.

It's only you talking in these meglomaniacal terms though.

>You can spend life being a faggot vegan or you can prepare to take office/power and implement rules that apply society-wide against the "suffering" of animals

There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone doing both.

You appear completely unable to think in a remotely logical or remotely coherent fashion.

>>2359303
>That's not an argument.

It's an argument because the type of moral agents we are (or we are dealing with) have to make decisions in a finite time dimension.

Being "vegan" as a personal stance is being stupid.

>Accusing someone of hypocrisy is entirely fallacious as an argument.

It's an argument because it means you haven't properly thought of the scope of the issue. You have an obsessions with "personal action" when the issue transcends individual moral agents.

>It's only you talking in these meglomaniacal terms though.

Because a lot of people never properly examine their principles and the implications their principles lead.

>>2359333
>It's an argument because the type of moral agents we are (or we are dealing with) have to make decisions in a finite time dimension.
>Being "vegan" as a personal stance is being stupid.

That makes no sense, claiming we have to make decisions within a finite timescale does not lead to "being vegan as a personal stance is stupid".

Your premise does not meet you conclusion, the very definition of fallacious reasoning.

>
It's an argument because it means you haven't properly thought of the scope of the issue. You have an obsessions with "personal action" when the issue transcends individual moral agents.

You have no idea what I have an obsession with, I haven't made any argument for "personal action" and even if I (as an individual) genuinely did have an obsession with "personal action" that would STILL be entirely fallacious as a "point".

I'm not even vegan or vegetarian btw.

>Because a lot of people never properly examine their principles and the implications their principles lead.

You seem completely incapable of thinking in a remotely coherent or logical manner so I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too much.

>>2359108
>Except those subjects are part of the reason why both historically and scientifically humans have and can, eaten meat.
As is organic chemistry and the invention of fridges. I doubt you'd want to talk about the viability of fridge technology ITT, despite them being relevant.

>What part of 'I did' along [...] what I posted are you not getting?
The part where a moral justification is made. I don't find it.

>choosing to eat meat vs. choosing not to eat meat is literally all being vegan or not being vegan boils down to.
Vegetarian, you mean.

> You also do realize OP's most likely the same poster that posted this thread right?
I didn't see that thread when it was posted, but his is 4chan, not some regular BBS forum. Demanding of someone else to be aware of all the threads that were posted more than a week ago and demanding them to sift through archives goes against the whole point of this website: ephemeral discussion. So, if someone wants to make a point, he should make it himself in the thread. This is why moot doesn't like archives, by the way.

>Why have we somehow evolved past the need to eat meat as OP implies? Where is his proof of this?
Sorry, don't care either way.

>What about meat eating animals, are they immoral for eating meat as well?
We never morally evaluate animals because they aren't capable of moral reflection. Humans are.

>Why should anyone, myself included to answer you or OP's questions, when you haven't even answered theirs?
Why should anyone what? To whom should the "you" answer what? That's not an English sentence.
Do you think that asking for justification for meat consumption among humans isn't permissible until a justification has been given for meat consumption among animals, or what did you try to say there? If it's that, then be reminded that we never evaluate animals morally because they aren't capable of moral reflection.

To be honest i hate people that give any other reason to why they eat meat other than for the taste.
This is the most honest answer you get when you ask /ck/ why they eat meat >>2357504
People are so addicted to the taste of meat that the only solution for these kind of grown up people might be cultured meat >>2357874

I also think there should be some kind of education in schools to show the kids what alternatives they have.
Some people aren't aware that their meat comes from animals, so you should just teach them when they're young, take the kids to a farm to meet the animals then show them video of them being slaughter, and have them eat the meat to see if it helps them decide.

>>2359262
>And it's hypocritical because as I've said, human society directly, and indirectly, leads to the death of countless animals.
Some human actions are essential to their survival. The accountability is lessened when it comes to a question of survival. I don't think that eating meat is required for a regular Westerner's survival anymore and that people that are aware of other possibilities only consume meat for the pleasure it provides.

You could probably find a lot of other unnecessary deaths of animals, but the case of meat is a rather egregious one due to its scale and intensity of suffering. What other human action yearly leads to hundreds of billions of deaths among conscious animals purely for the sake of pleasure?

>>2358760

Never said i was anti-vegan. Might even give a try. But that's bc i live in a developed country.

File: 9EoMYxa.jpg (219KB, 1080x1284px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1080x1284px

>>2357319
Except that cattle consumes way more calories than it provides. Therefore eating plants directly is more efficient than feeding an animal for years and then eating it.

>>2359771

You can't really say that until you have an intimate knowledge of biochemistry.

Using "efficiency" means we have to take into account how the body processes plants.

Not calories because that's a fucking stupid measurement.

"Let's try to model metabolic systems by burning shit in a piece of chemistry."

>>2360084

Or you could just save yourself the unnecessary biochemestry and look at the feed conversion ratio,which is anywhere from 4.5:1 to 7.5:1

>>2360221
agriculture is more aggressive to the environment than harvesting animals . agriculture also requires the nutrients you can only have plants without P,N,K its most abundant source being animal remains. The plants require predation by osmosis.

>>2357272
Tradition. Also, it tastes good.
t. vegetarian

>>2358836
Babies grow into adult humans who are highly cognitive. People with metal retardation are still people who are loved by there families and their cognative abilities are ususally around the same as children. Also humans taste like shit, can cause disease if you eat them, and our long maturing time, small number of offspring and our calorie requirements make us unsuitable animals for farming. More importantly than that, I put the value of human life higher than other living things because I am a human and hope that other people see my life as having more value also.

File: 458364326.jpg (70KB, 559x598px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 559x598px

>>2357272
Closed the video after the first 15 seconds. How fucking retarded do you have to be to not understand why we eat livestock species specifically bred for their meat instead of swans and rats?

>>2360702
Whoa man, you can't just bring reason into this, vegetarianism is all about feelings.

>>2360702
>Babies grow into adult humans who are highly cognitive

But they aren't adult humans when they are babies.

why do you keep making this thread

>>2357678
>Vegans can get b12 supplements from supplements

How do they make the supplements?

Bacteria

Where is the bacteria from?

Animal intestines.

Vegans lose again.

>>2360900
Did you read my entire post or just the first sentence, because you only cherry picked one part of my explanation as to why eating people is wrong.

Since the baby has the potential to grow into a self aware highly intelligent being, by killing it in its infancy you are stealing that potential from that person.

>>2360929
Yeah but that baby can at age 4 have a brain injury that renders them child-like in intelligence for the rest of their lives.

Also, how is stealing that potential any different than taking the life of an animal that would be left alone if you didn't kill it?

>>2360941
Well again as I said I put the value of human life greater that that of other living things.

Also farm animals would not have been left alone. They would not have existed. In the natual world, no animals are left alone ever. It is an ecology based on predators and prey. The vast majority of animals in the natural world experience great suffering.

>>2360983
>The vast majority of animals in the natural world experience great suffering.

Yeah, but at least you wouldn't personally contribute to that suffering.

But I can see that you don't care.

>>2361004
I do not contribute to suffering of animals in the natural world. When I hunt the animals vital organ is destroyed and dies within seconds, opposed to being eaten alive. Other than that I leave animals alone. I think that people who find joy in suffering, or joyfully cause suffering are immoral people. I do care about animal suffering, however I understand that it is apart of life. Just as human suffering is and all the all the other bad things that happen in the world.

File: mog1.gif (794KB, 329x232px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 329x232px

>be registered dietitian nutritionist
>this thread

Meat is said to contain proteins which are different or metabolize differently from the way other proteins do. It is also believed that this stimulated the development of the brain in human evolution.
Mass factory farms as well as some other farm conditions are what's morally reprehensible. It can be undone but will be difficult to do with neocons running wild allover the place.

Two reasons. The first is that if I were to adopt a stance that killing animals for my own benefit is wrong, I would have to adopt a position of primitivism to maintain consistency. The development of civilization carries with it the deaths of animals as an inevitability; we kill them and destroy their habitats in the course of our expansion, we kill them to protect our food and control the spread of disease, and we kill them accidentally in the course of agriculture. Each and every one of these is both necessary and inevitable in the course of civilization, and since I consider civilization more important than the lives of non-human animals, I cannot adopt a position that it's wrong to kill them for my benefit.

The second is that animals are fundamentally incapable of reciprocation. I may choose to apply the same ethical standards to the life of an animal that I would apply to a human, but an animal will not return this consideration; a cow will kill a human under conditions that would see a human sentenced to the harshest legal punishment. We already do not extend full rights to those who display an unwillingness or incapability of respecting the rights of society, as in the case of criminals or the severely mentally ill and retarded, I see no reason we should concern ourselves at all with the rights of beings that are completely incapable of respecting the rights of others at all. This reciprocation is a vital component of the mutual contract that sustains society, and prevents it from being a Hobbesian state of nature, in which all is indeed against all.

>>2360856
What she was trying to say is, why do we breed specific species like cows and chickens instead of swans and rats?
The rat might be a bad example because they don't have a lot of meat on them, but why don't we breed horses and donkeys for consumption as much as cows and chickens?
It's because people are disgusted by the thought of eating certain animals they haven't been used to eating and it's not considered normal, despite that a lot of people that have eaten horse saying it tastes good.

>>2361607

Not every animal or plant is suitable for domestication you dolt.

File: 1485892625477.png (202KB, 471x495px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 471x495px

I'd be okay with slaughtering and eating vegetarians and this one autistic fuck who keeps making this thread.

>>2361611
Horses are easily domesticated, and some people eat their meat.
So why don't people around the world eat horses as much as cows?

>>2361624

Tons of people still eat horse meat around the globe.

One reason that horses have never been used primarily for food was economic: A young horse had more use as a worker or mode of transportation, and once the horse got too old to work its meat was not particularly desirable. Horses are also not particularly efficient in converting grass and grain into meat, which diminishes their desirability as food.

>>2361635
No, the reason that it's not consumed as much is because it's a taboo to eat horse meat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_meat#Taboo

>>2361648

Well that's also part of it, but I thought everyone knew that bit.

>>2361648
>>2361624
The taboo is largely incidental and not universal - cows just have more meat on em, in addition to being easier to deal with in large numbers.

I mean, if you're going to breed an animal for meat, you're going to take the one with the most meat on it, provided you can domesticate it. From there, as you repeat the process, the animal just becomes a better and better meat source.

Practicality.

>>2357272
Also, why do we have this thread every day, and what the hell does it have to do with /his/?

>>2361659
So why don't we breed swans instead of chickens?
Swans have larger eggs and more meat.

>>2361689

Because they're cunts. I mean, could we donesticate them? A big maybe, but also a big waste of time since our ancestors did the work for us..

>>2361689
Swans are cunts.

>>2357364
>I dont think they suffer in a farm
Do you know how vegans scare people out of meat. They show them secretly captured videos of Industrial Farms, shits horrifying.

>>2361689

This is how I think of it. We tamed the wolf, but something in the wolves personality made it easier for humans to domesticate. On the other hand, nothing about a lion screams capable of domestication.

>>2361693
>>2361694
Just admit that you don't want to eat Swans because other people don't do it and it's not considered normal even if it's not that different from chickens.
You're just doing what other people tell you to do, just because most people say eating meat is ok to eat doesn't make it so, think for yourself and do what you think is right.

>>2357649
>Allthatshitbyyou.jpg

>>2361706

If they sold it at the store and it was reasonably priced I'd eat it.

>>2357649
>and their are nutrients that are only found in meat

Oh like what?

File: 1467004245902.jpg (62KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x375px

>>2357272
>Why do we still eat meat?
Because it's tasty and most people are too fucking dumb to realize how detrimental to the environment it is???
It's not exactly rocket science.

>>2361706
No. You 'hunt' for swans. They're dumb at flying, all edible. But cone with awful pissed-off-cat -like tempers.

>>2358364
Are you retarded? Cows dont live that long, and even then their property. Farmer could go onba rampage shooting every cow in the fucking head, just go down the line, and he would have every right too of he still sold the product and was not just for the hell of it. One final Blitzkrieg through the fields would do the job.

>>2361727

Interestingly, plants have stuff called phytochemicals that aren't found elsewhere. They range from mainly antioxidants and anti inflammatory, to caffeine, to anti cancer/tumor formation stuff, etc.

>>2358117
The majority of domesticated animals cannot survive without human intervention, not to mention the fact the horrible effect the sheer number of now released animals would have on the biosphere.

>>2361795
Then a majority of the generation will die. That's 20 years of suffering to the majority of domesticated animals amounting to trillions. That's horrible.

But how much is that really compared to the whole future history of human existence? We will find ways to grow the human population, which also means we will create more domesticated animals, and we'll do that until a great catastrophe wipes us all out.

Trillions suffering for 20 years once will have been nothing when our population has grown to the point that the suffering of trillions of animals happens every 0,004 seconds, and we might potentially have billions of years left to commit the suffering until human existence has to end when something like the explosion of our sun or, even longer, the heat death of the universe happens.

>>2361659
>Also, why do we have this thread every day, and what the hell does it have to do with /his/?

Science has already proven that we don need meat to get our all of our nutrition needs, if you open this thread on /sci/ it gets deleted, now the only thing to deal with is the ethics of killing animals when it's not necessary.

>>2357272
170.856.000 animals slaughtered every day? wow them numbers m8. rest of the stuff is just retarded.

>>2361211
>We already do not extend full rights to those who display an unwillingness or incapability of respecting the rights of society, as in the case of criminals or the severely mentally ill and retarded,
But we do guarantee them the bare minimum of human rights. Why not extend this guarantee of bare minimum protection, the right to life, to animals? We do, by the way, do that to some degree, as you can see with there often being laws about avoiding unnecessary suffering through slaughter or general prohibition of pointless torture.

>The first is that if I were to adopt a stance that killing animals for my own benefit is wrong, I would have to adopt a position of primitivism to maintain consistency.
Adopt the more specific stance that killing animals for pleasure is wrong then. This doesn't require you to adopt primitivism, it retains civilization and would prohibit eating meat.

Lol image related
It's not real meat their in the matrix
Get it right OP

>>2357346
>Muh opinion.

>>2361004
>Yeah, but at least you wouldn't personally contribute to that suffering.
How is that relevant to the suffering of the animal?

>>2362167
If we forcely sterilized all druggies with a hot iron, the marginal suffering unit output would be vastly reduced one century down the line.

>>2361648
It's taboo because horses have value besides their meat you dumbass.
Taboos don't come to exist because three guys got together and decided this thing is now taboo. Taboos come into being because people are violating something generally held to be the norm. In this case, eating an animal seen as a work tool and not a food source.

>>2362295
We uphold higher standards to humans and the difference between suffering through action (slaughtering animals) and suffering through inaction (not tending to animals) matters. Also, that's not even how eugenics works.

>>2362167
>trillions
You horribly overestimate just how large that number is and only further prove how biased and unreasonable you are in using such terminology.

>>2362321
Billions then. Who cares. A big number.

How many domesticated animals do actually exist right now anyways?

There are, what, 8 billion humans. For two trillion ("trillions") animals, that'd be 250 animals per human.

250 animals in 20 years doesn't sound like much. Just think about chicken wings.

>>2362331
>Just think about chicken wings.
Or shrimps.

I probably eat hundreds of shrimps alone per year.

>>2362318
your argument is stupid and its a nice way of insulting you on my part.

>>2362331
>who cares
People who want to debate facts.

>how many
Why don't you know this?
Oh I know, because animal rights activists put out retarded numbers like 50-150 billion die per year which is ridiculous.

>250 per human
No, domesticated animals are outnumbered by humans. If you wanna count other food animals, mainly fish and >>2362338 shrimp, you can bump that number up to billions a year.

If you wanna talk the whole world, sure, but in the US we've not come even close to a trillion dead domesticated animals.

>>2362344
>>>/s4s/

>>2362331
>>2362346
And the reason I specify a single country, in this case the US, it's because good luck getting China to stop eating meat. Or from producing most of the greenhouse gasses.

>>2362346
>Why don't you know this?
Because I don't give a fuck about vegetarianism or meat eating. Contrary to what you seem to assume, not everyone is personally involved in this debate.

>If you wanna talk the whole world, sure, but in the US we've not come even close to a trillion dead domesticated animals.
I nowhere mentioned the US. Of course I was talking about the whole world.
Seeing as US-Americans only make up 40-50% of 4chan's population (and /his/ has probably much more non-US-Americans than the average 4chan board), you shouldn't assume that everyone's talking about the US.

>>2362368
But talking about the whole world is stupid. We can't get China to stop eating endangered animals, how are you gonna get them to stop eating animals designed to be turned into hamburger?

For practical discussion you should just ignore them, because nothing you do is going to save those animals and honestly reducing US consumption of meat would just lead to farmers selling the same amount overseas anyways. The whole vegan/vegetarian argument is stupid and requires baseless ideal to function.

because it tastes good and can be a good source of energy

consequences be damned (antibiotics use, environment etc) and nobody really gives a shit about the morality of it as long as its kept so the link between the pack of meat and an actual animal isn't obvious

though i would say most (first world and wealthy people in other countries) people should just eat less meat, not cut it out entirely. veganism in particular has problems with nutrition

>>2362376

>demand doesn't affect production

>>2362380
China is buying US land, and has been for years, specifically to grow beef and feed a country that eats almost as much meat as it does rice. If US demand drops that's only going to cause farmers to sell to China. They won't be making as much money as before, but you're just straight up ignorant if you don't think China wouldn't and doesn't capitalize on falling demand for meat in the US at every opportunity.

If there was an actual drop in demand, that would affect production. But it's 2017 baby. we've been globalized for almost 50 years now.

>>2362391

according to the usmef ~15% of beef produced in the us is exported, and ~25% of pork

the major export markets are canada, mexico and japan

no doubt the chinese are going to continue to import more meat, but it probably won't be importing it from the us unless production costs drop significantly. A major drop in meat consumption in the us would not see demand suddenly rocket in other countries, or the cost of meat go down to make meat cheaper for people in other (poorer) countries to suddenly consider buying more meat

while demand goes up for meat it is more likely you will see production go up in india, china, africa etc. though china doesn't have great arable land iirc

But basically, your premise that demand falling from one of the major (if not still the major) meat eating nations on earth wouldn't affect meat production is utter nonsense. The slack wouldn't magically be picked up by exporting it, farmers would reduce production to avoid operating at a loss instead of exporting it to people who can't afford to pay as much.

>>2362413
Maybe, but personally I doubt it. Farmers don't like selling to China because they can't make as much money doing it, but if the US and Canada just magically stopped eating meat they'd sell to third world pretty readily.

Sure their profit margins would go down, but it's not like they could just switch to selling crops either. Cattle land isn't good for farming generally speaking.
They'd be forced to sell their meat for less to other markets or go out of business.

>>2362424
>Sure their profit margins would go down, but it's not like they could just switch to selling crops either. Cattle land isn't good for farming generally speaking.
Cattle isn't only good for producing meat. They could produce milk, for example.

A gradual change is ultimately a change.

>>2362424

Many probably would go out of business, yes. It would be painful and there wouldn't be an easy solution.

Well, that or the US government would step in and subsidise agriculture even more than they already do. There would still be less meat consumption though, this would probably put foreign farmers out of business instead.

>>2362432
They already produce milk. It's a waste product they can sell in addition to their real money maker, which is meat.

>>2357272

If you kill a pig by shooting it in the head, what's the problem? It's not like they have an appreciation for the future, they're not capable of introspection and so on.

Now, I can understand eating less meat, especially red meat, beef in particular, but I still don't get what's the issue with killing things that have no appreciation of their own life as long as you don't negligently or purposefully inflict pain on them.

>>2363314
Why do you judge how bad killing something is based on whether they're capable of appreciating for the future?

>>2357272
>Humans have become more intelligent
citation needed

File: the matrix food.jpg (314KB, 854x827px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 854x827px

>>2362201
That part of the movie actually explains why we like eating meat so much.
They compare tasty meat to less tasty food the provides the same nutrition.

https://youtu.be/6gL0xQHI0wo

>>2363314
>as long as you don't negligently or purposefully inflict pain on them.
So the capacity to feel pain is more important than the capacity for introspection or whatever. You've contradicted yourself here. What is the acceptable pain threshold level for animal agriculture? Is it not purposefully causing pain to keep an animal in an undersized cage for its entire life?

I think meat eating is immoral, but those essential amino acids ain't gonna synthesize themselves and quinoa is fucking expensive

>>2359374
>As is organic chemistry and the invention of fridges. I doubt you'd want to talk about the viability of fridge technology ITT, despite them being relevant.
No, I want to talk about what I posted ITT, ans well as see you give a proper answer as to why anyone ITT should start out with you and OP's moral assumptions about eating meat; and that humans have somehow superceeded the need or want to eat it.
>The part where a moral justification is made. I don't find it.
Then read my posts again, also see OP's post again>>2357272, see>>2359130 again; see>>2359261; and also see>>2363440, now. And while you're at it you might want to g back and read your own.
>Demanding of someone else to be aware of all the threads that were posted more than a week ago and demanding them to sift through archives goes against the whole point of this website: ephemeral discussion.
I wasn't "demanding" you be aware of all threads posted, I was suggesting OP was most likely the same poster who posted it. Also don't complain about me posting from an archive, when OP as well you; opened the door for this type of discussion in this thread and in your posts
>So, if someone wants to make a point, he should make it himself in the thread.
I've made several points in this thread you still haven't adequately addressed including this post I'm responding to.
>Sorry, don't care either way.
If you want to have a proper debate and want others to take your points seriously; start.
>We never morally evaluate animals because they aren't capable of moral reflection. Humans are.
Who deems animals incapable and by what authority? Why must humans morally evaluate and reflect about eating food? Again, why must anyone ITT start thee assumptions you or OP hold about meat?
>(cont.)

>>2363695
>>2359374
>(cont.)
>That's not an English sentence.
>what did you try to say there?
Fine Why should anyone, myself included; answer you or OP's questions, when you haven't even answered (read:properly or adequately addressed) theirs? And again, why should they?
>Do you think that asking for justification for meat consumption among humans isn't permissible until a justification has been given for meat consumption among animals
I think asking for a justification isn't permissible until you provide a proper justification as to why anyone ITT should start off accepting you or OP's moral assumptions about eating meat in the first place. This justification should not be the following:
>>2359261
>bullshit, cherrypicked, pseudoscience, and/or shittily interpreted to meet vegan bias and ignores biology, science and proven facts.
>then be reminded that we never evaluate animals morally because they aren't capable of moral reflection.
See,
>Who deems animals incapable and by what authority? Why must humans morally evaluate and reflect about eating food? Again, why must anyone ITT start thee assumptions you or OP hold about meat?
again.

Veganism is something resembling religion. Science ignored, on a mission to convert others, obnoxious and opposed to lust. Fuck that. Never talk about veganism with vegans.
>First rule of vegan club: Tell everyone about vegan club.

>>2363648
>quinoa is fucking expensive
lmao no

>>2358504
>not including the price of supplements
Without supplements, vegans and vegetarians will suffer protein deficiencies as soy protein is not equivalent to animal protein in composition of amino acids.

>>2363788
>he doesn't know about nuts

>>2363410

>Why do you judge how bad killing something is based on whether they're capable of appreciating for the future?

That's not the only thing, sure, but it's a sign that what you're killing is a person.

>>2363615

>So the capacity to feel pain is more important than the capacity for introspection or whatever

No it isn't, I didn't say anything like that.

>>2357272
Because the law of nature is "might makes right" so by eating them were playing our natural role of predators. Now in today's society we have the option of choosing to get all of our protein and other nutritional needs from plants rather than animals but it doesn't change the fact that humanity evolved to hunt and kill animals

>>2363851
What do you think about dog meat?

Is farming dogs for meat okay to you? If killing pigs, who are much more intelligent than dogs, is okay to you because they lack you think that they lack personhood, then this should apply even moreso to dogs, since the capacity to develop personhood is tied to intelligence and dogs are not as intelligent as pigs.

>>2358836
Thou shall not move the goalposts and strawman at the same time. Thy loses vy default.

>>2357319
Plants have defence mechanisms but do not feel pain, they have developed these mechanisms to ensure they reproduce.

https://youtu.be/qzEQ1n7EHPM

>>2363856
Human civilization is about as unnatural as it can get. Arguing about fulfilling a natural role in the ecosystem is inconsistent with civilization itself, and I doubt you'd want to get rid of civilization.

>>2363882
What was the argument that was strawmanned?
Where was the goal post previously?
Do you realize that those are more than three different posters?
How would you improve the argument by principle of charity?

>>2363891
Humans aren't artificial beings what we do is intrinsically natural. we are Apex predators that have begun changing the topographic features of our territory in order to better serve our needs. Many less intelligent species do this as well (thought not to our level) like beavers and bears. Changing our territory and environment is a natural part of being the most powerful species.

>>2363922
So, if what we do is intrinsically natural, then stopping to eat meat would intrinsically be natural, because doing it would still not make us artificial beings.

>>2363927
Yes, humans who stopped eating meat are 100% natural but on the flip side it's 100% to continue to eat meat

>>2363933
Why even care about what's natural? Appealing to nature is a fallacious way of reasoning when it comes to morals.

>>2357272
I protest the consumption of meat from the perspective of ecological ethics.
I find nothing wrong with eating animals that were raised as part of an agroecological system.
The difference i see?
Meat is bought at a store and lived for an industrial system.
An animal is eaten by someone with a relation to its life, and lived in a socio-ecological system.
I also protest buying vegetables and everything else from industry, I view it as self-theft and that people work in order to be able pay for unseen harm being done to them is the cruelest irony.
Buying industrial meat isn't only toxic because it is wildly unsustainable and hurts the buyer and all of life that is interdependent and connected in this world. It is unhuman, it completely desensitizes people from the real world. When people think what they have was bought in a store they forget what is really putting the food on their table and clothes on their backs. Reminds me of this song, https://youtu.be/HSXD93_S6FU

>>2363942
Not him, but I would say not.
With synergetics understood a pragmatic approach will always appeal to nature. We are natures slaves and are only able to exist in the constraints it places on us.

>>2363959
Seeing as vegetarians exist, it clearly is within the constraints of nature to be vegetarian.

>>2357736
That's some JRPG villain logic

File: image.jpg (47KB, 1000x380px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1000x380px

>>2363933
While I disagree with what this anon had to say about you>>2363942

I disagree with you anymore, the way we eat meat is far from natural, it comes from a created system as I say here >>2363952
>in their own image
>their world is fashioned
>no wonder they don't understand

>>2363972
Sakamoto did nothing wrong.

>>2363971
I agree and disagree with the person you replied to.
My beef was you saying that appealing to nature is a fallacious line of reasoning, because it's actually the only line of reasoning.
How ever it is not within our constraints to support our current population with animals in agriculture, brings biodiversity into agroecological systems and is crucial for healthy high functioning networks in them. Vegetarianism makes sense if you are a Jain or a grocery shopper, not if you are human civilization at large

>>2364002
>My beef was you saying that appealing to nature is a fallacious line of reasoning, because it's actually the only line of reasoning.
How can an ought be derived from an is then, without making any value judgements?

What do you think about G. E. Moore's argument against the naturalistic fallacy, or Hume's against the is-ought-fallacy?

>>2363980
I understand what your saying but my original argument was about wither or not it was ethical to consume meat in I believe that it is both ethical eat and not eat meat. Regarding the ecological situation I find that many animals are actively seek out to change their environment to better suit their needs and humans doing that (though to an extreme) is a part of us trying to overcome our limitations.

>>2364018
It can't.
The difference is wether the value being judged is a subjectively abstracted value or an objectively determined value.
The latter being what an appeal to nature is, and the only way a situation can be pragmatically considered. This is not to deduce an ought, but serves to determine what is.
Upon wishing to act on this situation is where the "ought" questions come into play.
Instead of if x is y -> then x ought to be y
It goes like, if x should be y, and y is z-> then x should be z.
This pragmatic approach doesn't deal in the realm of normative 'ought' ethics, but in applied 'should' ethics. The fact is no ought is being derived here at all.
>fallacies
I'm not familiar with either but I will do some light research, see if there is something to be known and get back to you.

File: image.jpg (15KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x220px

>>2364025
It's is us over coming our limitations, that is what is so bad about it. In synergetics there is something known as the enslavement principle, that function in a system doesn't come from what the system does but from what the system can't do. It's order-parameters, the same principle that when understood allowed us to make it to space.
slow moving dynamics at a marcoscopic level(the evolution of complex living systems and biodiversity, the sequestration of atmospheric carbon into the ground) are what control and shape fast moving microscopic interactions(the life of organisms, ecosystem interactions, weather patterns) this entropy regulating behavior is what gives form to complex non-linear systems, it's what allows them to exist. Here is a more esoteric version from Laozi. tao-in-you.com/a-pot-is-useful-for-its-emptiness/
So overcoming our limitations isn't what it seems to be
It's self execution
DE-EVOLUTION
NO SOLUTION
IM A POTATO
I GOT EYES ALL AROUND

>>2364151
i fear I'm only a spudboi, looking for a real to-ma-too
SMART PATROL
NOWHERE TO GO
SUBURBAN ROBOTS THAT MONITOR REALITY
COMMON STOCK
WE WORK AROUND THE CLOCK
WE SHOVE THE POLES IN THE HOLES

>>2361727
>>2361760
>https://authoritynutrition.com/5-muscle-nutrients-in-animal-foods/
>https://authoritynutrition.com/5-brain-nutrients-in-meat-fish-eggs/
>https://dailyhealthpost.com/4-brain-nutrients-found-only-in-meat-fish-and-eggs-not-plants/

>>2365190
>what is fungi
>what is algae

>>2365326
>What is reading

>>2365326
>What is BMAA
>What is anatoxin-a
>What is microcystin

Algae farms need a lot of work before they reach any form of productivity beyond your hipster nutritional supplement market. Most people don't like getting Parkinson's Disease, for starters, or severe liver damage.

>>2365190
>creatine

Your body can synth creatine.

>animal protein

Not the only source of amino acids

>Carnosine

Synthesized in the body by amino acids

>Vitamin D3

The sun.

>Sat fat/cholesterol

Nuts/your body makes cholesterol

>B12

Vegans can eat B12 fortified cereals, vegetarians can eat eggs and milk.

>DHA

Flax/Chia seeds

File: IMG_0679.png (236KB, 500x619px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 500x619px

Some kind of nature
Some kind of soul
Some kind of mixture
Some kind of goal
Some kind of majesty
Some chemical load

>>2361689
Cuz someone domesticated chickens first. They take up less space and are less apt to kill each other in captivity. So even if you could domesticate swans, it'd be hard to compete with the existing market.

Not that people don't sell swan meat, or more commonly, emu meat - but since they are more expensive to raise, they tend to be delicacies in a niche market.

For example:
http://www.brentwoodtradinggroup.com/swmeandswmer.html

[Verse 1]
First things first
I'ma say all the words inside my head
I'm fired up and tired of the way that things have been, oh-ooh
The way that things have been, oh-ooh
Second thing second
Don't you tell me what you think that I can be
I'm the one at the sail, I'm the master of my sea, oh-ooh
The master of my sea, oh-ooh

[Pre-Chorus]
I was broken from a young age
Taking my sulking to the masses
Writing my poems for the few
That looked at me took to me, shook to me, feeling me
Singing from heart ache from the pain
Take up my message from the veins
Speaking my lesson from the brain
Seeing the beauty through the...

[Chorus]
Pain!
You made me a, you made me a believer, believer
Pain!
You break me down, you build me up, believer, believer
Pain!
I let the bullets fly, oh let them rain
My life, my love, my drive, it came from...
Pain!
You made me a, you made me a believer, believer

File: turkeys[1].jpg (142KB, 777x437px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 777x437px

>>2361689
Maybe it's because, I dunno, we already domesticated a larger bird with big eggs and more meat.

Could be something to do with that, fuck idk lmao.

PS: Turkey and ostrich eggs don't sell well.

>>2357272
>So, is killing animals justifiable just for it's tasty meat?
You don't have to justify it. Animals are outside the realm of ethical significance. They're a resource.

You don't ask if its justifiable to harvest iron ore from the ground to make cars, do you?

>>2365681
>three sources

Vegans are terrible at nutritional plans in general, and they don't eat cereal every single fucking day, they develop B12 deficiency and selenium deficiency and zinc deficiency. Sure, you *can* eat brazil nuts and cereals every single day of your life but you won't, and neither will the rest of your ilk.

Just because you *can* do it doesn't mean people *will* do it. Meat products are a cheap, efficient source of many macronutrients to the monkeys of the world who don't understand nutrition, and that is why you will never break our dependence on the domesticate.

That, and the numerous byproducts we derive from animals. The ones that went into your computer.

>b-b-b-but muh harm reducshuns!!!!

I was Cleopatra, I was young and an actress
When you knelt by my mattress, and asked for my hand
I was sad you asked it, as I laid in a black dress
With my father in a casket, I had no plans

And I left the footprints, the mud stained on the carpet
And it hardened like my heart did when you left town
But I must admit it, that I would marry you in an instant
Damn your wife, I'd be your mistress just to have you around

But I was late for this, late for that, late for the love of my life
And when I die alone, when I die alone, when I die I'll be on time

While the church discouraged, any lust that burned within me
Yes my flesh, it was my currency, but I held true
So I drive a taxi, and the traffic distracts me
From the strangers in my backseat, they remind me of you

But I was late for this, late for that, late for the love of my life
And when I die alone, when I die alone, when I die I'll be on time

And the only gifts from my Lord were a birth and a divorce
But I've read this script and the costume fits, so I'll play my part

I was Cleopatra, I was taller than the rafters
But that's all in the past now, gone with the wind
Now a nurse in white shoes leads me back to my guestroom
It's a bed and a bathroom
And a place for the end

I won't be late for this, late for that, late for the love of my life
And when I die alone, when I die alone, when I die I'll be on time

>>2365847

I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, simply pointing out that it's possible if they wanted to do it. I'm the RDN, I've seen a couple people who are vegetarians that don't know shit about their diet. But there are also plenty of people out there eating a complete diet..

>>2365665
>what is..
Cyanotoxins that have not been found in arthospira, the only Cyanobacteria that has any nutritional potential that I am aware of. And with the highly alkaline nature of arthospiras habitat, potential for contamination is practically 0 after obtaining a pure culture.
>buying things at the store.
No.
That's why you get a culture and make your own photobioreactors, ya dip.
>>2365649
Never

>>2366005
>Cyanotoxins that have not been found in arthospira (sp)

wrong (you're thinking of spirulina exclusively and still wrong btw)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X12004358

>Only Aph. flos-aquae products were tested positive for MCs as well as the presence of mcyE. The contamination levels of the MC-positive samples were ≤ 1 μg MC-LR equivalents g− 1 dw. None of the other toxins were found in any of the products.

>However, extracts from ALL PRODUCTS were cytotoxic

https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/152809

>However, traces of cyanotoxins have been found
in BGAS products. Despite the general opinion that Spirulina is not toxic, epoxyanatoxin-a and
dihydrohomoanatoxin-a have been identified in a
Spirulina-based BGAS (87). Also, it was found that Spirulina fusiformis can produce low concentrations of MCs and anatoxin-a (88, 89). In addition, the Spirulina-based BGAS was suspected to cause liver damage in a middle-aged Japanese person (90).


>That's why you get a culture and make your own photobioreactors, ya dip.

Pleb, enjoy blowing $60 on microorganisms you can find literally anywhere in the environment. I cultured Spirulina from my backyard (and I never intend on eating any lmao enjoy your future liver disease)

>>2366039
I'm thinking of arthospira planteis
Would appreciate knowing where to obtain a culture in my back yard and what kind of microscopy equipment I would need to obtain a pure sample, I imagine an expensive outfit given the small size of possible contaminates.
And given the sub optimal environmental conditions of most commercial outfits, MC presence isn't very surprising.
I still haven't seen anything to support the kind of fear mongering liver damage you are claiming.
And I've never planned on eating it, just as an additive in producing my own high quality fish feed.
Probably going with nanocoroplis or cholera sp anyways to avoid the bullshit, thoughts?

>>2357272
do non-humans ask for justification for their exploitation?

>>2366532
Do children write 2000 pages tractatūs about why it's wrong to sexually abuse them?

>>2366670
even if they could they would still be unable to retaliate; that's why children and animals are both at the mercy of our whim which cares more about the future members of society than about living bringers of meat

it's so good to do "wrong" things and to see those who care about "justice" powerless against gunmen capturing those who violate the property of extermination camps for non-human sentients

File: edgy_original.jpg (35KB, 297x450px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 297x450px

>>2366939
Edgy.

For all the shit the Beige One comes out with, his piece debunking pretty much every single argument for vegetarianism is actually a decent read (if you can look past the idiotic title).

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

>>2368413

Does he talk about how cows/chickens are impacting the environment?

>>2357272

Because being an omnivore is more logical, and provides the best chance of survival.

Only morons put all their eggs in one basket, and humans aren't THAT fucking stupid...yet. Except for you, apparently.

As an ominvore, if crops fail, we can still eat meat, and if livestock numbers fall, we can still eat vegetables.

>>2357615
Well plants do not have brains as we understand them.
That does not mean they can not feel pain and they can not think. We are learning new things about existence all the time.

>>2369480
>That does not mean they can not feel pain and they can not think.

Plants can detect conditions that are harmful to them, and react accordingly, so they can indeed "feel", however, they do it differently then we do. They can also detect when they are being attacked by insects, and will release chemicals in an effort to draw in helpful insects that will attack those that are attacking them.

Just grow some plants and you can see them moving toward, or away, from light or heat as needed.

>>2357272
>vast majority of animals we consume can only exist in captivity
>releasing them all (assuming this is a 'solution' suggested by vegans rather than humanity having the collective responsibility to 'care for' these beings as >>2357384 said) will inevitably fuck up a ton of ecosystems
how do you get around this

>>2357272
So does this mean that animals that eat meat also have some kind of internal conditioning as well?

>>2369800
I'm not the guy you've been replying to, but I'm a vegetarian as well. I don't think we should release farm animals into the wild. Obviously they will fuck up ecosystems like invasive species are right now all over the world. No vegetarians/vegans I know suggest this. I think you and the other guy are attacking a strawman.

What I and many others think should be the plan of action is a collective phasing out of these animals from large-scale, industrial farming and human consumption. There will obviously be family farms all over the world as long as humans exist. That is an undeniable fact as core to our being as something like wine or grains that we grow. But the vast majority of people will switch over to lab-grown meat for their casual meat "needs", while real meat will become something of a delicacy.

We can't keep killing 1 billion cows, 5 billion pigs and 10 billion chickens a YEAR. It is absolutely wrecking the fucking planet. Raising animals on this scale for consumption is one of the single most self-destructive behaviors we are engaging in as a species.

>>2357319
>>2357342
>>2357558
>>2357615
>>2369480
>>2369545
We are not autotrophs; we are heterotrophs. We cannot synthesize our own food out of inorganic molecules. We have to eat something in order to survive. Luckily we are omnivores, and we can subsist just fine without having to eat other animals.

Many, many species of plants have evolved to be eaten by animals as a reproductive strategy. I'm not saying they "want" it, but plants are very alien compared to us. They have different evolutionary strategies, and different goals. "Pain", "distress", and other concepts like these are difficult to nail down when it comes to fungi or plants. Are they just following their simple programming? Is there something more intelligent going on? We may never know. But what we do know is that we have to eat something else that is alive in order to survive.

For more reading on this incredibly fascinating subject, I suggest reading "The Intelligent Plant":
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant

>>2370039
Does lab grown meat feel pain?

>>2370039
>What I and many others think should be the plan of action is a collective phasing out of these animals from large-scale, industrial farming and human consumption

this is restricting meat consumption to the upper castes and calling it progress, because they will be the only ones able to afford it. Not to mention the cost of numerous goods (INCLUDING VITAL MEDICINES) will rise because scientists will have to invent replacements for animal products which are cheap right now but would hardly be in your ideal world. Supply and demand, bitch, look it up.

Vegans don't understand the economy and I despite fucks like you for spreading dangerous bullshit so that politicians who want to exploit your fees fees can convert you into proselytizes for their election down the line. You're fodder, and you place our needs below the cattle. That's why you will never break our dependence on the domesticate for as long as you draw breath on this Earth.

>We can't

We will. And you will cry.

>one of the single most

Just lol

>>2370061
>New Yorker
>secret life of plants bullshit

You're worse off than I thought.

>>2359415
Literally industrial capitalism.

You can't actually get all the nutrients from just vegetables. Calcium, iron, magnesium are scarce in vegetables. And anything that isn't meat or dairy won't have much protein. Even if it does plant protein often lacks certain amino acids that are essential to our diet.

>>2370131

You're wrong.

>Calcium
Kale, Bok Choy, Snap Beans, Almonds

>Iron
Sunflower seeds, Flax seeds, various nuts, beans, whole grains, leafy greens

>Magnesium
Spinach, nuts and seeds, beans, brown rice, avocado, banana

>Amino acids
Not that hard to eat a variety of non-animal protein to get all of your aminos.

>>2370061
>Luckily we are omnivores, and we can subsist just fine without having to eat other animals.

Depends on how you define "fine".

You could "subsist just fine" on bread and water, too, but I'm not doing that either.

Animal proteins offer the best "bang for the buck", so to speak, and it's far more beneficial to have access to a variety of animal proteins for optimum health.

Besides that, being a vegan apparently turns you into a giant walkig pussy, like you, which means it's best to avoid the practice.

>>2357272
That pic reminds me of how much I love steak
So no, I won't stop eating meat. And if you take my steak, I'll probably cut you up and eat you instead

File: vegan faggots.jpg (217KB, 1245x892px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1245x892px

>>2370154
>Not that hard to eat a variety of non-animal protein to get all of your aminos.

Apparently, it is....

:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/11/italian-baby-fed-vegan-diet-hospitalized-for-malnutrition/

>>2370154
Where you going to get your testosterone from?

>>2370209
>baby
>congenial heart defect
>not even related to amino acids

Try harder anon.

>>2370215

Your body makes testosterone from cholesterol.

>>2370224
>The baby, whose parents allegedly kept him on a vegan diet without providing dietary supplements, was found to be severely malnourished, suffering from dangerously low calcium levels. Complicating matters, the baby had to undergo an emergency operation because of a congenital heart condition, which was aggravated by his low calcium levels.

>>2370154
This requires importing food from all over the world, which wasn't possible until quite recently.

But regarldess of that, it's not just about getting all those nutrients, it's about getting them while staying at 2000-3000kcal per day, without supplements of course.

It's not impossible, but you're being limited in what you can eat. You can't do a balanced diet with high protein for example.

>>2370234

Again, babies have different dietary needs. Not that it matters, because the baby wasn't healthy to begin with and as a result shouldn't have been on a vegan diet. I'm not sure if you're aware that calcium isn't an amino acid.

>>2370238

I'm an RDN, it's possible to do in the recommended 2k diet. Although I never recommend it, but still have to advise people who try to stick to it.

>>2370234
Dude, babies need breastmilk. These wackos were feeding it only vegan food, and denying it breastmilk. That's why it had problems.

>>2357272
why? because we can, we are at the apex predator place and can eat whatever animal/plant that isn't toxic for us and we are willing to eat, meat is delicious, provides proteins that helps in muscular development.

Don't let all those domesticated animals sway you with pity, if a cow could eat you and your whole family they would.

yes, killing animals is justificable for just a tasty meat, if you are not comfortable just don't eat it but don't try to sell us your "high moral and ethical" views

>>2370090
>>2370198
Careful, your insecurities are showing. Try to restate your arguments without resorting to ad hominem and projecting your fears of being perceived as a pussy on someone else. It's funny how all pro meat arguments devolve into that, isn't it? Really makes you think...

>>2370249
I'm not denying it being possible. It's just more expensive, more complicated and with no nutritional advantage.

Ethics is the only good reason for being a vegan, otherwise you're just limiting yourself.

>>2370090
I don't cry, I do something about it. I am literally working right now to advance lab grown meat for beyond meat. The market WILL shift to lab grown meat. Eventually you WON'T have a choice. And I will laugh as you cry.

>>2370269

That's fine, but there are people in here saying it's impossible to get the proper nutrients.

>>2357336
No it doesn't. Morality exists only because of religion.

>>2370281
Morality is an emergent property of game theory and group dynamics in social species. Morality is what is permissible and what is not permissible in a group of individuals. It's origin lies in natural selection. Religion is a cultural shell that wraps permissibility and group dynamics into a social fabric that binds individuals together to form communities. It is an abstraction of morality, if anything.

>>2357310
I want a cricketburger.

File: More vegan faggotry.jpg (219KB, 1211x762px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1211x762px

>>2370224

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/baby-breastfed-by-vegan-mother-dies/

>>2370262
>always some limp wristed SJW faggots trying to accuse normal people of being "insecure" when their bullshit arguments get rejected

veg-anon you just said that we could eat eggs and milk and this could provide the nutriments necesary of our diet.

yes, I recon that the meal industry is horrible, but do you think that the egg and milk industry are any better?

chickens grown to produce the eggs, all the males are killed because we don't need fertilized eggs, females are locked in a mass of little jails and fed to produce each day the product desired, the ones too old are just killed.

in the milk industry the cows are forced to breed to produce the milk, the new borns are separated, males will be killed because they can't produce milk, females will be fed and impregnate when it's time, a lots of cows being kept in little cells atached to machines that extract the milk forcefully and dammage their tissue, literally torturing a cow for years, what happen to the cow once it's old and can't produce milk? I doubt that they are given peaceful last years of life

>>2370353

Like I said, babies have dietary needs different from adults. Dumbass vegan/vegetarians need to understand these things, unfortunately for that kid his parents failed him. B12 is probably the most difficult for vegans to get, their sources are restricted to nutritional yeast or B12 fortified stuff like almond milk.

>>2370368
LOL this is so fucking easy to trigger you, god I love it.

>>2357318
>Because why not?

I think we're starting to catch on that industries like cattle farming are massively inefficient. We feed them a lot more than the nutrition we get out, they take up a fuckton of space, the methane production is incredible, they're vectors for disease (and constantly using our antibiotics on them is medically shooting ourselves in the foot) etc.

But they're pretty fucking tasty so it's a tough call. I do think we would all benefit from reducing our meat consumption, even if we didn't cut it entirely.

>>2370374
dude, I feel bad for those poor babies, it's the same for those babies that didn't recieve a vaccine because their parents watched a video that show the vaccines cause autism

>>2369800
>how do you get around this
By slaughtering all of them at once and using their corpses for fertilizer, food, etc. Those cost of growing meat in a lab is rapidly going down (patty of lab-burger went from $325,000 in 2013 to just under $12 today), assuming even a massive slowing of technological development in the field its still very likely that within a decade we will be seeing lab grown meat in super-markets directly competing with natural grown. The only reason the slaughter industry will exist soon will be self-perpetuation, like so many others that should have died off by now.

>we
speak for yourself barbarian

File: vegan faggotry 3.jpg (378KB, 1719x831px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 1719x831px

>>2370374

File: Hamantha Beastly.jpg (26KB, 320x426px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 320x426px

>>2370401
>I'm not triggered, you are!

>>2370474
And you just keep replying

>>2370467

Was her death a result of her diet? From what I can find she died of altitude sickness.

File: Of course.gif (1MB, 476x265px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 476x265px

>>2370477

>>2370537
No that anon. But lol at that gif.

>>2370272
>you won't

I will, because I am bourgeois.

You won't. You'll eat shit and be grateful for it.

>>2370308
what matters is: we have no evidence for punishments in the afterlife for enslavement of other sentients (and the game theory doesn't work with those who can't retaliate and cooperate)

>>2369389
>is more logical
Stop using the word "logical" as as a comparative for "good".

>>2357272
Meat is health for a person as is the high quantities of healthy fats from it. It is also a high source of protein and certain kinds of proteins that are good for us.

True our teeth are really designed for eating nuts, veggies etc but over the lats couple thousand years I think we've been slowly evolving to gain valuable nutrients from cooked meat.

As for the killing of the animals. Look, I get it. When you grow up in modern society you don't see the shit people in the old days used to see regularly. Like the father taking his 9 year old son out on his first wild boar culling where the kid kills one then starts crying, learning about the realities of life and death.

So when you grow up in modern society and are sheltered from those realities seeing the videos of animal slaughtering shocks you.

File: mac demarco lettuce.jpg (118KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1440x1080px

>>2357272
OP here, i got no good explanation why humans eat meat other than for the taste.
I came to the conclusion that eating meat is wrong and unnecessary, and everyone should decide for themself if what they think their doing is right or wrong.

I'm going to try to do the following:
>first, reduce my meat consumption by a lot
>second, try and go Vegetarian
>third, try and go Vegan

>>2371547
>Look, I get it.
Pretty arrogant to dismiss their opinion as them just being either inexperienced or stupid.

>>2357272
Why do we eat anything? Why don't we just live on vitamins and a scientifically-prepared shake containing all essential nutrients?

>>2371547
>So when you grow up in modern society and are sheltered from those realities seeing the videos of animal slaughtering shocks you.

Not really. Pretty much everyone knows about slaughterhouses. We just don't really care.

It's like how Europe's biggest sports clubs are sponsored by brutal Middle Eastern dictatorships, or our phones and shoes are made by kids in Chinese factories where conditions are so bad that they installed suicide nets to catch all the jumpers. Oh no, how terrible, I feel awf-hey look, Ronaldo is advertising a Samsung Galaxy Note 7!

>>2358504
>Comparing a continental breakfast to oatmeal with oj

File: Soylent Drink.jpg (759KB, 1500x866px) Image search: [Google]

759KB, 1500x866px

>>2373388
That might happen eventually.
They still need to do some work on the currently available meal replacements, they don't taste that great and may cause jaw atrophy because their liquid.

File: IMG_0707.jpg (212KB, 660x673px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 660x673px

I said settle down, settle down everything is fine
Take your eyes off the floor
She said no I'm not, no I'm not, no I'm not alright
I lost my head on the door

She's a-a-a-antisocial
A-a-a-antisocial
A-a-a
She's an angel yeah

I'm in deep with this girl but she's out of her mind (wooo oh oh ohhh oh)
She said babe I'm sorry but I'm crazy tonight (wooo oh oh ohhh oh)
She got a black shirt, black skirt and Bauhaus stuck in her head
I'm in deep with this girl but she's out of her mind (wooo oh oh ohhh oh)

Oh yeah
We all need something to live for
Yeah
We all need something to live for

She said I let her down, let her down I no longer dream
Of anything anymore
Said I'm a know-it-all, know-it-all you make me want to scream
And threw herself on the floor

She's a-a-a-antisocial
A-a-a-antisocial
A-a-a
She's an angel yeah

I'm in deep with this girl but she's out of her mind (wooo oh oh ohhh oh)
She said babe I'm sorry but I'm crazy tonight (wooo oh oh ohhh oh)
She got a black shirt, black skirt and Bauhaus stuck in her head
I'm in deep with this girl but she's out of her mind (wooo oh oh ohhh oh)

She's not complicated
Can't be overstated at all
She's not complicated-ated-ated at all

I'm in deep with this girl but she's out of her mind (wooo oh oh ohhh oh) (she's out of her mind)
She said babe I'm sorry but I'm crazy tonight (wooo oh oh ohhh oh)
She got a black shirt, black skirt and Bauhaus stuck in her head
I'm in deep with this girl but she's out of her mind (wooo oh oh ohhh oh)

Oh yeah
We all need something to live for
Yeah
We all need something to live for

>>2362193
>But we do guarantee them the bare minimum of human rights.

Because they are human, this is a fundamental difference. They are akin to us in nature. We also afford them a basic minimum of human rights out of compassion, not out of concern for this reciprocal arrangement.

>We do, by the way, do that to some degree, as you can see with there often being laws about avoiding unnecessary suffering through slaughter or general prohibition of pointless torture.

We do this out of basic compassion. It's basically just a pleasure for us to to do this,

>Adopt the more specific stance that killing animals for pleasure is wrong then. This doesn't require you to adopt primitivism, it retains civilization and would prohibit eating meat.

You're seriously ignorant if you think that meat is all we get out of animals. Countless industries are dependent on the killing of animals, we don't kill them just for the pleasure of eating meat. There's a reason some people say there's no such thing as a vegan.

>>2373687
>Because they are human, this is a fundamental difference. They are akin to us in nature.
What does it mean to be "akin in nature"? Answering this question, you would probably list an arbitrary bunch of human traits, many of which are shared by animals, some of which aren't even shared among all humans.

Animals may not be human, but I think that some of them share so many traits that they deserve a special status. The question shouldn't be "are they human?", but "are they human enough"?

>We do this out of basic compassion. It's basically just a pleasure for us to to do this,
Wrong level of analysis. You might as well say that people don't like to die because it's unpleasant, which completely misses the point.

>You're seriously ignorant if you think that meat is all we get out of animals.
Never said that. Shitty strawman.
I'm also not even trying to defend veganism.