Justify non-veganism

The weak must fear the strong.

>>2793143
Interesting.

>>2793135
I don't hear any complaints from animals

>>2793135
No but I reject morality and embrace egoism so checkmate vegans.

>>2793135
vegetables are disgusting. I don't care about animal suffering.

File: onkelbob.jpg (8KB, 165x163px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 165x163px

>eating meat
Jews.

>>2793135
>animals were only born so they could be killed. Without the meat industry these animals would not have enjoyed the positive aspects of their life as there would have been no life
>animals in nature have short, difficult lives filled with fear and suffering. A factory-farmed cow is never hungry and never has a reason to fear. A free-range cow enjoys a good life
>animals are fucking stupid compared to humans. animals that aren't fucking stupid compared to humans are generally not farmed. Lavishing them with gifts or whatever is pointless, they can't appreciate them. Just keep them fed and happy and they will be happy. If the animal can appreciate a better life, then eat a different animal that can't

Any of those good enough for you?

>>2793243
Half of this statement is true about humans as well. The other half is fucking retarded.

>>2793258
Why exactly do you feel that a cow, raised in a free-range environment, has a worse life than a wild cow would?

>>2793243
I see you're using utilitarianism, which actually lends itself really well to vegan philosophy. I'll give you my thoughts.

>Them having a good life doesn't ethically justify killing them. If your argument is that them being born is net positive happiness, then the imperative on your part is to give these animals a happy life but then let them die naturally.
>See above
>So being stupid justifies what we do to animals. So by that same justification, can we take someone who is permanently mentally impaired, and has no potential to surpass the intelligence of a German Shepard, and eat them? More to the point, is it only intelligence which you can use to assign value to a life, or would you also use the ability to suffer to assign value? Even if a pig is stupid compared to us, it can feel pain, so does it's stupidity justify killing it?

Side note, pigs are as or more intelligent than dogs, according to current science. Chickens are pretty smart too and can solve fairly complex issues relating to colours and patterns.

>>2793272
>Side note, pigs are as or more intelligent than dogs, according to current science.

That is a valid point. Sheep, cows, and many fowl on the other hand are fucking retarded.

>So by that same justification, can we take someone who is permanently mentally impaired, and has no potential to surpass the intelligence of a German Shepard, and eat them?

Kill them, certainly. A person with dog-level intelligence would be exceptionally retarded. Cannibalism is taboo for (at least partly) an entirely different reason to morality.

>>2793265
wat

>>2793135
You realize that it's not necessarily unethical to eat meat, right? Once we've established that there is in fact an ethical and humane way to raise and butcher an animal (free range, pasture fed, stunned and killed without pain), your position should change from "people shouldn't eat animal products" to "people should support farms that raise their animals in an ethical and sustainable manner."

>>2793294
How much space do you think a cow needs to be happy? Do you not feel that a sense of absolute safety and a constant supply of food would go at least some way to compensating for a lack of infinite space?

>>2793135
As long as we kill each other, we'll kill animals.

>>2793135
These animals are born and raised, much more safely than they would live in the wild, in exchange we eat them. Because of the demand for vegan products the habitat of many animals gets destroyed, to make room for soy fields. Even if you are vegan unless you live a naturalistic lifestyle you contribute to animals being killed. I do not get why milk or honey production is considered evil, unless unnecessary cruel. (which to be fair it often is) By the same logic pets or really any way we interact with animals is wrong. I do not really care about justification, I eat meat because I enjoy it. (hedonism I guess)

>>2793283
So if intelligence and potential intelligence is the marker for worth, there's nothing wrong with a species of aliens unfathomably smarter than human beings performing a perpetual on us, in the name of hotdogs?
>>2793301
And what is an ethical way to kill an animal, when you don't need to? And how do you justify any other associated trauma or pain, from transportation, enslavement, artificial insemination and so on? How do you reconcile that you've commoditized and killed these animals without consent on their part, perhaps even resistance?

>>2793135
I don't ascribe to the same moral and ethical code as you. Using evolutionary theory I can argue that cattle are the exploitative ones

these gotten a species to literally change the face of the planet solely to cater to the needs of cattle and rear them in numbers far exceeding anything they could have had in the wild, there well fed, there kept clear of pests and treat when there ill and most importantly as long as the symbiotic relationship exists there more or less guaranteed survival, cattle from an evolutionary perspective are the ones taking humans for a ride not the other way round.

they will literally go extinct if people went vegan

>>2793338
I am not that anon, but he said that eating meat is not inherently evil, which is true. They do not even necessarily need to be killed. Do you think it is immoral to eat a dead animal you found in the wild ?

>>2793327
Appeal to nature fallacy. Agreed though, but we're getting there.
>>2793333
Again, if you're using the utilitarian logic that we should give them happier lives than in the wild, then I would offer the challenge that we should be even more ethical and not eat them, while also domesticating them. Also, saying vegans also cause harm isn't a justification. Milk and honey is unethical because of the associated rape, infanticide, separation of mother from child, and in the bee's case, cutting off the queen bee's wings and leaving her to sit in the hive, perpetuating honey production. Honey is also important for the health of bees and we're taking it from them, giving them sugar water instead.

I'm not asking anyone here to care for the record. I'm just curious to see if anyone can actually justify it. Or what you come up with in attempting to do so.

>>2793348
Treating someone better than they would have been treated initially is fine. But it isn't a justification for doing harm to them.

Right, so I could stop a guy from brutally raping a woman in an alleyway. And then I could also rape her, but use minimal violence and inflict as little harm on her as possible. I've given her a better alternative, but it does not justify me raping her.

Just like you can break up the rape and then choose not to rape the woman, you can give an animal a better life than out in the wild without killing them for food.

I'm not asking for a better alternative to what would happen in the wild: I'm asking for logical justification for what we're doing to them now.

Them going extinct isn't a justification either. It's not our imperative to ensure they don't go extinct.

>>2793338
>So if intelligence and potential intelligence is the marker for worth, there's nothing wrong with a species of aliens unfathomably smarter than human beings performing a perpetual on us, in the name of hotdogs?

No, assuming that they do it in a way that doesn't have a notable affect on our enjoyment of life. If the human farms let us enjoy comparable levels of mental stimulation and socialisation, and vastly improve our security and ease of living, then they could be entirely fine, depending on how long they allow our lifespans to be.

>>2793357
Ok, I get your point about honey and milk, but how is eating them even more ethical ? Also should we then domesticate all the animals ? Should not we use the massive resources needed to do that in improving human societies ? Not meant to be an argument, I am genuinely curious

>>2793373
>you can give an animal a better life than out in the wild without killing them for food.

Nobody is willing to adopt tens of thousands of cows to compensate for the meat industry not existing. If nobody eats meat then nobody gives those cows a good life. Your rape analogy doesn't work, because "save the woman and leave" isn't an option. The options are ignore her, or help her and then rape her yourself.

>>2793338
>And what is an ethical way to kill an animal, when you don't need to?
So rather than ensure animals lead happy lives and contribute to happy lives of others, we should ensure that they're never born? I'm not going to say your position here is invalid, but surely you can see that there's another valid way of looking at it.
>And how do you justify any other associated trauma or pain, from transportation, enslavement, artificial insemination and so on?
None of those things are inherent to raising animals. I live near a farm that doesn't even push their cows; they're called to anywhere they need to be.
>How do you reconcile that you've commoditized and killed these animals without consent on their part, perhaps even resistance?
Animals can't give informed consent. They can and do give simple consent by walking in to be butchered under their own power, and by not flipping their shit and smashing the building down during the process.

>>2793405
I'm not asking about the practicality of adopting animals, I'm making the point that it isn't ethically consistent to domesticate animals but then eat them.

My analogy does work because you absolutely have the option to not eat an animal if you have the means to domesticate it. Refuting the analogy because it may not pan out that way practically is besides the point.

Empathy can only be applied to those that can feel it themselves.

>>2793135
Animals aren't people.

>>2793496
Not a justification to cause them harm if you don't need to. Your dog isn't human, can I slit it's throat and eat it with gravy?

>>2793135
what are your thoughts on the abortion of humans?

>>2793135
Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

It's a wonder you godless people can tie your own shoes.

>>2793544
100% fine with it, I'm sure. Just so long as nobody eats them.

>>2793544
I don't have any real opinions on it, but I'd probably be pro-choice. The whole brain activity thing involves too much science for me to give a shit and research it, but around the time the baby starts feeling substantial pain is when I think you shouldn't kill it. People who think it's unethical to abort a fetus but eat animals are stupid, and taking their logic all the way, it's a bit like saying every time a woman chooses not to get pregnant, or every time I jerk off, I'm killing a potential baby instead of letting it be born.

So yeah, pro-life is pretty stupid even for vegans.

>>2793272
>the imperative on your part is to give these animals a happy life but then let them die naturally
This doesn't make sense, because then what would the human get out of the arrangement? Satisfaction? I remember hearing some quote from a farmer who raised free range pigs, cattle, etc.

"They have one bad day"

Quick air shot to the back of the head, they never see it coming. No fear or pain. And now the farmer can use the livestock to produce food for society, isn't that an 'ethical' thing to do?

>>2793517
No, because it's taboo to eat pet animals. That's the reason why we don't eat horse despite the similarity between horses and cows. Even in cultures where they eat dogs, they have special breeds of eating dogs that are closer to some sort of rat hyena hybrid than house animals.

>>2793483
You don't need to rape to survive. You do need to eat, and animals provide sustenance. It's not a wasted life.

>>2793653
Personal gain isn't really relevant here. Though I take your point that it would make sense for the arrangement to be a positive sum game, the issue is it's not positive sum when the animal dies. Also, it's still immoral to kill them unless you need to.

Now let's say there's no alternative, the farmer needs to kill the animal and eat it? Justified. Or he could eat the food the animal is eating... in which case it's not justified.

Refer back to my analogy about the women being raped in the worst way, or a less worse way. Neither is ethical. The ethical choice is to leave her alone.

You can leave the animal in the wild, give it a good life then kill it, or just give it a good life.

File: manoflogic.png (67KB, 500x310px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x310px

>>2793135
If you try to force all of your actions to conform to logical necessity, you'll end up starving yourself to death like Kurt Godel.

>>2793357
I wasn't implying that killing is natural to humans or that it's inevitable, I'm responding to this point.

>if it's because of sentience, the ability to feel and suffer that we ascribe moral value to the life of a human being, and because of this it becomes unethical to harm a human being without proper justification, how then, can you justify harming an animal without proper justification?
We as humans do not yet have the sufficient collective value to human life that prevents from killing each other, so I argue that until we are over conflict within ourselves, then perhaps our violence towards lesser creatures will subside.

File: careful what you wish for.jpg (27KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 512x384px

>>2793135
>this thread again...
Most of these species would be extinct if they weren't being harvested. They take a lot of land and a lot of resources, and if they didn't offer a significant return, they wouldn't be maintained. If we didn't eat them and use them for materials, the larger ones, certainly, would be extinct within the decade. The handful of wild cows that do exist are the result of abandoned ranches, and they rarely last for long.

Even if not for that simple hard fact, not only are these animals more comfortable for all their lives than they ever would have been in the wild, the deaths they do suffer are relatively quick, whereas a natural death could last from months to years, coupled with mind boggling suffering until then, as most animals in the wild live on the edge of starvation.

Finally, they've been domesticated to such a degree that, even the huge natural habitats required to support them were made available (against all odds, given that natural habitat is vanishing so rapidly), they would be unlikely to survive without human tending.

Not that you couldn't put some effort into making sure that they don't suffer anymore than necessary. You've clearly crossed a line to creating suffering beyond not only what is necessary, but to the point of unprofitability, when they are so miserable that you must constantly pump them full of drugs and antibiotics just to keep them alive, but it seems we've reached the peak of such abuses, and are already slowly favoring allowing them more freedom and comfort, bit by bit.

Also, eventually, we'll have ways to artificially produce everything we get from them in ways cheaper than ranching them allows - at which point, aside perhaps on a handful of ranches for the super rich and some zoos, they will go extinct. So I suppose the vegans will eventually have their wish come true - just in a very monkey paw fashion.

>>2793680
This is incredibly idealistic, is that the intention of your thread? You're arguing for a situation in which the human players get no benefits but the animals get plenty. If you want to make the rape case analogous, it'd be more like having the choice to save the girl, take care of her indefinitely and gently have sex with her.

Why would an individual spend the money and resources to give hundreds of animals a good life if they're not getting anything out of it?

>>2793135
God created certain animals for us to eat and harvest things like milk and fur from, it's part of the natural cycle.

>>2793135
Because food chain

>>2793733
Meant to add that the woman would also need to have the iq of a cow and you'd have to be able to somehow sneak up on her and bang her without her noticing

>>2793135
Because omnivore

it is literally our nature to eat animals
explain canine teeth
Even if you think it is immoral you can argue that most animals aren't self aware so they don't realize what is happening to them
It isn't "nice" but we were never about niceness anyway
You can argue that it isn't ethical but ethics change faster than a teenager in heat when faced with Chad dick.

>>2793135
>Is it possible on an ethical or logical basis to treat an animal this way?
Depends on what ethical or logical basis you're having. If your logical basis is hedonism, which means you should do whatever you want to do that makes you feel good without getting in serious trouble and you like meat, then there is no problem.
If your on the stand-point that humans are a much more evolved animal than other animals, and killing is part of nature (as if a leopard cares about the condition the gazelle was in before he ate her) so why should he not do it?

>>2793135
Because it tastes good, and my pleasure is more important than a chicken's life.

>>2793135
>History & Humanities
Get out

File: 1486601528570.jpg (28KB, 541x545px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 541x545px

Because steaks and burgers and ribs are fucking tasty.

>>2793135

I dont eat burgers.

>>2793135
Im stronger than animals and i want to eat them.

/thread

>>2793135
>to eat a McDonalds hamburger when you could have a veggie burger instead
to sleep in a bed when you can sleep on the floor instead

>>2793135

Because it pisses off you, my ex-gf, and every other one of you obnoxious crybabies all at once, and it tastes good.

>>2793135
>to eat a McDonalds hamburger when you could have a veggie burger instead.

And you could live of soylent green instead of a wholesome and varied diet too!

Choice in life is fundamental to living well.

Eating meat is natural to human history, culture, and civilization and violates no integrity in human morality.

>>2794994

1. YOU ARE NOT "STRONGER THAN ANIMALS", BUT ONLY STRONGER THAN SOME ANIMALS; MOST ANIMALS ARE STRONGER THAN YOU.

YOUR ADVANTAGE AS HUMAN OVER ANIMALS IS YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS, AND ALL THAT IT ENTAILS.

2. BY THAT STATEMENT YOU ARE NOT JUSTIFYING ANYTHING, YOU ARE MERELY REAFFIRMING YOUR SAVAGE PRACTICES.

NONVEGANISM IS UNJUSTIFIABLE.

>>2793823
This is getting pretty close to fetish territory.

File: 1478061152203.gif (142KB, 495x700px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 495x700px

>>2793135
well it is my property after all

Veganism != prevention of animal cruelty or exploitation. It's just a way of pretending not to bear any personal responsibility while living in a world where animals are still used as byproducts for other goods.

>>2793135
It tastes good. I'm willing to eat cultured meat if it's already economically feasible and safe though.

>>2793135
Animals have no ethical significance.

>>2796739

NO, THAT IS HYPOCRISY, NOT VEGANISM; YOU DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT VEGANISM IS.

>>2796764
Just because you don't use animal products does not imply that you will never be in contact with them. Abstaining is just waiving your own moral dilemma. Unless you live in a world the does the same.

>>2793356
>>2793478
OP hasn't addressed any of these valid points.

Also:

1: Humans are sentient. This means that they are aware of their existence and act with intent.
2: Animals are not sentient. They are unaware of their existence and react rather than act.
3: Animals do not have feelings, rather, they have pre-incoded reactions to certain triggers such as pain.
4: Some humans derive pleasure from eating meat, since humans have evolved as omnivores.
5: The act of eating meat creates pleasure for humans but does not create displeasure for animals.
6: Eating meat harms no one while providing happiness to humans.
7: Therefore, eating meat is not only ethical, but practical.

>>2793135
Well the heart of the question is this.

>What makes killing something wrong?

Honestly I don't have a good answer, but remember eating plants also requires that you kill them. So the question is why is killing plants ok, but not animals. If you want to go farther why is killing people. You need to define what key trait makes killing wrong before you can judge anyone else for said killing. Otherwise your position holds no more ground than people who say
>I eat animals because they taste good.

>>2796938
>1 and 2
Honestly, to a degree one and two are debatable but more or less correct.
>3
I would argue that is impossible to know with our current tech and it is likely people's feeling are the same way
>4
True
>5 6 7
Haven't done enough to prove this

I love meat but these arguments aren't very good.

>>2796988
5, 6, and 7 literally build off of all the rest. I would've expected someone on /his/ to know how a philosophical argument functions.

>>2797000
Well i was saying that 1, 2, and 3 are weak arguments without the proper basis especially 2 and 3. I find it interesting to that you state animals feelings are any less real than humans even if functionally we can differentiate them clearly. The whole sentience argument is better founded but their is one example of an animal showing possible sentience. However, on a deeper level sentience isn't something that is on and off. We are only sentience of certain parts of experience and it would not be without reason to argue that a large degree of human sentience is illisuionary.

>>2793135
I can never understand this line of reasoning. If it's not ethically sound to eat animals or animal by-products, why is it ok to eat plants or plant by-products?

The whole "they can't feel pain argument" really falls flat when you consider many animals can't fell pain in the same way we do or at all. Not only that, but I highly doubt most vegans or vegetarians would eat an animal that was medically or genetically prevented from feeling pain.

If one makes an argument that it's not pain, but suffering that we should be concerned about, then I can't see how plants are unaffected. They're a living organism with needs. They respond to stimuli and avoid things that would harm their well being. In growing them as crops, we artificially nurture them and then kill them or harvest from them. There is essentially no difference from how cattle are raised.

There's nothing to justify.

Also I sure hope you vegans don't eat soy.

>>2797048
Honestly, this is generally my argument against vegans.

Because meat is tasty and humans also evolved to eat meat. That's all.

So what's the alternative, OP? Eat vegetables? Oops, you just killed hundreds of mice, rats, worms, and other critters.

And at what point is an organism special enough for you to care about, my precocious child? Do you care about the worms? What about the knits in your hair? The bacteria in your shoes? Any one of these limits is as arbitrary as choosing the limit to be human beings.

The rational argument for veganism is efficiency, but don't delude yourself into thinking that because you don't eat meat that animals still aren't killed for the sole purpose of making your meal.

Because it tastes good, that's why

File: bBTxSad.jpg (58KB, 382x358px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 382x358px

>>2793722

>more comfortable for all their lives than they ever would have been in the wild

This is laughably untrue. The vast majority of animals are born and die in cages, pumped full of growth maximising hormones, developing horrific skin rashes while never touching another animal. Most chickens face one direction their entire lives and never see natural sunlight, their beaks clipped and bones brittle. Most cows are constantly impregnated and ripped from their calves to induce permanent lactation, lame from foot disorders and muscle wastage, living to 3 despite a life expectancy of 21 years.

You're right that meat-eating keeps many animals alive that would otherwise be extinct (or more likely reduced to tens of thousands in zoos and subsistence farms). Why is this a good thing if the majority are locked in constant suffering? Have you ever read I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream? Would you rather you personally were dead, or had to live in a state of constant torture?

>>2793212
You wouldn't understand any verbal complaints from a young infant or somebody speaking a language you don't upon deciding to eat them

this entirely a 1st world problem
you consume and focused on MUH profit that industrializing food production is essential

these animals were raised up to be eaten, that means you have to kill them

you aware replacing meat in your diet means on the bigger scale, we need more land to grow crops? this means less living space for wild animals

Vegans will have no argument when lab grown meat becomes economically viable.

>>2798064
>tfw you know they'll still find a reason to be against it

>>2798056
This is the stupidest post I've seen a while. Or are you baiting?

File: hqdefault.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>2796938

2 and 3 supposes we care only about the suffering of oddly-defined sentients. Magpies and elephants recognise themselves in a mirror - to what extent is this self awareness? Many low-IQ people are fundamentally unreflective and possess internal narrative - would you kills and eat a p-zombie? I'm not sure why sentience is the best basis anyway.

I think the more sensible intuition is to care about suffering, divided into physical and psychological pain. More cognitively complex animals have more psychological pain, so we care about them more, but we care about every animal to some extent, and don't harm them when there are clear alternatives.

>>2797048

Plants do not have a central nervous system or any significant sensory input. The function of physical pain is to help an organism avoid stimuli that may cause them bodily harm. Organisms that are sessile, or unable to move, cannot escape pain and thus there really isn’t any adaptive reason for them to feel pain. So, we don't care about plants.

Animals appear to have a very similar CNS to us though - why do you believe otherwise?

>>2798064
>>2798070

Many cultured meat startups like new harvest are run and staffed by vegans you dolts.

>>2793615
It's not too much "science", retard. It takes 2 minutes of your life to read the pro-life arguments that even a child can understand

>if it can't feel pain you can kill it!
>meat eaters who are okay with murdering a human fetus are stupid
>it's not really a human because it's inside the belly! Its basically sperm!

Dude at least think about this a little bit

>>2793135
If everyone became vegan domesticated animals for the most part would die out.

>>2793243
>slaves were better during slavery
>without slavery they wouldn't have enjoyed the positive aspects of their life as there would have been no life

>>2793135
I haven't read the thread but I'm a vegetarian and I really don't see anything wrong with, for example, eating eggs from chickens you know have been kept in humane conditions (e.g. if you owned ones yourself).

>>2797048
Animals have brains and central nervous systems, and are clearly capable of reason and emotion in a way that plants are not. If you genuinely can't see the difference in kinds between a potato and a cow then you must severely lack empathy.

>>2793243
>If there were an industry dedicated to breeding human beings for mass consumption in poor conditions that would be fine, otherwise they'd have no life at all!

>>2793135
well if what you care about is the environment then veganism is demonstrably not the best choice of diet
https://qz.com/749443/being-vegan-isnt-as-environmentally-friendly-as-you-think/?utm_source=fb_qz_p_749443_1

>>2798664
All that study said was that total, 100% veganism worldwide probably isn't the most efficient minmaxing combination. It still concedes that veganism would be dramatically better for the environment than present diets, and that it is only in rare cases where the land is suitable for pasture but too difficult for crop raising that eating meat has the advantage.

>>2798664
>>2798722
Also they rely on the assumption that grazing land cannot be used to raise crops full stop, which is untrue. In the long run, figuring out a way to make current grazing land suitable for crops would certainly be more efficient than using it for meat in perpetuity.

>>2798722
you are correct, but given teh premise for teh thread being justifying non-veganism, this study essentially gives people who are concerned primarily with sustainability a reason to choose any of the diets more sustainable than veganism over veganism.

it is a rather pedantic argument but the logic is sound.

Because I think pain and suffering is the problem, not killing per se, which is why I am for abortion, and euthanasia.

As long as the animals don't suffer before they are slaughtered(which they do in many cases and I am opposed to it), I don't have a problem with meat-eating.

>>2793135
>Can you justify harming, killing or otherwise exploiting an animal in a scenario where it is not necessary?

It is still necessary for humanity to exploit animals.
Try again in 150 years. We are almost there.

>>2798737
Yeah fair enough.

>>2798749
Would you be ok with humans being raised for consumption, provided it were possible to alter their brains to not feel pain or distress?

File: wtf.gif (664KB, 253x200px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 253x200px

>>2798736
>lets giantly modify large swathes of the earths surface and probably destroy numerous species habitats in order to make eating meat into a less environmentally sustainable practice

>>2798766
>let's ludicrously strawman our opponents without using grammar

>>2798764
>Would you be ok with humans being raised for consumption, provided it were possible to alter their brains to not feel pain or distress?

No because eating humans can cause serious neuro-degenerative diseases; I also think most people have a natural revulsion to eating humans which doesn't apply to other animals for a reason.

>>2793373
its also not our imperative to ensure the animals have a healthy life in the wild as well.

File: 1449165776945.gif (3MB, 240x135px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 240x135px

>>2798773
>let's just shout the word strawman and then criticize a posts grammar rather than actually pointing out how the portrayl of teh argument is incorrect

>>2798846
You literally just made up some nonsense no one was arguing for and then attacked it

An animal has no ethics, it only has instincts. In the same way a human without ethics is treated poorly, an animal may be ethically treated poorly. A human who kills another is locked away, something that would be unethical to do to an innocent human. Is torturing animals unethical? No. Is it distasteful? That is up to the individual, personally I think so.

>>2798973
Can torturing animals by proxy of impacting humans, like it is unethical to dump toxic waste into a river because it affects people living from the river?

>>2798999
>Can torturing animals by proxy of impacting humans
...be unethical, [...]

>>2793135
Taste good.
Easy to get.
Have to eat less carbs if eat meat.
Dont care about animal ethics.
Fuck off.

File: seasoned.jpg (142KB, 816x612px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 816x612px

Do you oppose abortion? What is the difference between the tiny brain of a chicken and the tiny brain of a fetus?

If a dog was attacking someone would you say "the dog doesn't have a choice, it is not acting immorally so I won't do anything about it"? If not, why do you sit and watch Lions eat Zebra?

In the west we expend energy raising cattle but in many places in the world cattle are a source of energy. Are you going to ask all those people to kindly starve to death for an animal with a brain that lacks many of our genes and has 1/20th the number of neurons in the neo-cortex?

What is wrong with eating genetically modified meat grown in a vat? They have no brains just like vegetables. Why do you hate good wholesome multinational corporations like Monsanto just trying to make the world a better place? You don't share the anti-intellectual anti-science attitudes of jokes like Alex Jones, do you?

Morality and ethics is more complex than that, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating meat. From what I can see veganism is a bigger problem. There is nothing wrong with tofu of course, veganism is just a diet in the abstract, however it does not take long to find people claiming "vegan wholefoods" can cure cancer and other nonsense. The vast majority of self-avowed vegans have been ensnared by cult-like vegan groups, possibly as part of a marketing campaign to promote quack medicine and expensive food products. Once the vegan problem is solved we can move on to lobbying for more grants for biotech.

>>2798999
Checked

It's unethical to damage someone else's property and an animal can be property. So it is unethical to damage someone else's animal but not your own

>>2793135
Trees feel pain too

everything is relative

you're're a faggot

Hunting is arguably the most ethical way (and potentially only way) to eat meat.

Take your autism to >>>/ck/

>>2793135
Don't vegans get fucked up immune systems and other negative health effects eventually? Humans weren't made to eat like cattle.

>>2793135
It's called sapience, bitch. Now fuck off.

It's terrible for the environment and it creates more food for useless urban fleshbags like OP

>>2800485
ah you're one of those "every1 shud starve until we're like 50 million again looool" an prims arent you?

>>For example, to eat a McDonalds hamburger when you could have a veggie burger instead
what the fuck is this bullshit bait? Who the fuck cares what kind of burger you eat? You are living in a technological civilization that rivals what the ancients thought possible of the Gods, animals don't fucking matter
If you don't want to slaughter animals then don't raise animals. If humans didn't eat animals we would be jungle monkeys still and the animals we eat would be irrelevant to the world ecosystem

>>2800500
Not an "an" in any sense, nor necessarily "prim" (this unfortunately is not viable) but it is a fact that the reason people starve, is that they have an inherently unsustainable population. This does not only apply to the third world, but also to the west as most are net consumers.

Importing foreign plants and and using more land to grow these plants (under unnatural, unsustainable conditions in Northern Europe) while promoting unrestricted growth is a surefire way towards ecological disaster. Allowing natural death as a consequence of overextension and excessive growth is one way to solve this, but then again, soon enough nature will solve it for us, our soil is already depleted and our fauna is already most likely ruined for as long as the human race continues to exist.

>>2793135

How about I don't care.

>>2793338

You do realize little animals are aware of half the shit you're describing as "their suffering", right?

>>2793307
>>2793265
what "wild cows"? You mean the occasional feral herd they find and subsequently slaughter? The auroch is extinct. Vegans are deluded enough to suggest extincting the domestic variety too. Because you know, pastureland replaced with heavy industry is so much better for the local ecology, right? Vegans need totalitarian state control in order to prevent humans from being humans and building nasty industry over (now restricted) ranchland. The ideal vegan state is North Korea. Think about it.

>Nobody eats anything but grain (if that loooooool)
>Nobody uses cosmetics
>Nobody but a select few use modern medicines (nasty animal testing BAAAAADDD)
>Everyone lives sustainability meme

North Korea is the vegan utopia. No other state comes close to fulfilling veganism as an ideology.

>>2793517

If your culture allows it, sure. From your perspective it's entirely moral. From mine though, it's not only immoral due to having the domesticated animal as a companion and not livestock, but is also immoral due to the dog being my property.

>>2793680

We're humans baby, exploitation of resources is our great gift. And since animals can't revolt and there are no benefits for us to their freedom, objectively and taking morals off it's a good deal.

God created animals for us to eat.

>>2798030

Except of course you're a fucking idiot. You SHOULD be fighting abusive farming like every other person on this damned planet, but you go shitstorming around every person who eats meat.

You're the god damned feminists of food.

>>2798346

That's like comparing being enslaved and shot at the age of 21 by the nicest owners you could think of VS being thrown of into freedom where you suffer from sickness, starvation and a tumour until you die in agony.

>>2798764

No because:

1. Eating humans is unhealthy.

2. I have a biological disgust of eating humans.

3. Due to the very strong feeling of empathy I have for other humans, I would not feel comfortable with this.

>>2798921

then what the fuck does converting grazing land to farmland mean other than light terraforming

>>2800575

holy shit that is superficially true

>>2800648
>1. Eating humans is unhealthy.

Not if you don't eat the nervous tissue.
>2. I have a biological disgust of eating humans.
>3. Due to the very strong feeling of empathy I have for other humans, I would not feel comfortable with this.

And homosexuals turns my stomach, does that mean they should be banned? How you feel about something is irrelevant.

File: EQ of seleced cetartiodactyla.png (40KB, 541x625px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 541x625px

>>2793283
>Sheep, cows, and many fowl on the other hand are fucking retarded

this is a meme, invariably used as a weak argument to justify their slaughter (the James May argument), with the occasional muzzie/jew piping up. The cow, the sheep, the goat and the horse all have higher encephalization quotients than the pig. It is hard to argue based on relative brain mass alone that a pig should be smarter than a cow. Either the cow, the sheep, the horse and the goat are smarter than the pig or the concept of using relative brain mass to determine intelligence is in itself is flawed. Some research has bourne out the idea that cows and chickens (note that EQ is less relevant when dealing with non-mammals) are more intelligent than ranchers gave them credit for. On the other end of the spectrum, all domestic species report a loss in brain size compared to the wild form due to the pressures of selective breeding but often respond by learning and adapting to simulated problems faster than their wild ancestors. When feralized, they tend to adapt as good as if not better than their wild ancestors when dealing with threats from wildlife and many end up overtaking the wild species totally through interbreeding as a result. This suggests that neither neuronal count compared to body size nor relative brain size is a good predictor for determining problem solving ability or general intelligence in mammals. So, what is? Hard research, I'd imagine, but it just hasn't been done yet. So until people make meme documentaries about the emotional intelligence of the cow people will continue to use arguments like this to bite down the cognitive dissonance from eating them.

Me, I say intelligence is a weak argument in general and you're not good enough to determine what intelligence even is in an animal and are liable to confuse fear response or mating response for simulated stupidity. Domestication is a mutual trade off that both species gain benefit of.

>>2793212
If you spent time around factory farms, you would.

File: 1463777613254.png (270KB, 509x501px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 509x501px

>>2802491
They don't speak you dweeb.

>>2793135

Look while i agree that animals are treated poorly and we should make all effort to minimize pain I reject notion of application of our morality to animals.
Also if its wrong to mistreat/kill animals for food, why is it right to poison rats or other pests you dont like? How about bugs? Plants are alive too? Where do you draw line? On personal preference? People hate killing cats/dogs in western culture because they are pets here while stuffing themselves with pork. You are all bunch of hypocrites

>>2800721
Homosexuality is not morally equitable to cannibalism, no matter how you slice it. One infringes on the right to life, the other doesn't.

File: 1483719861095.jpg (226KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 800x800px

It won't make any difference in the total amount of animal suffering in the world whether or not I'm vegan, so the only reason I would become Vegan would be to satisfy my own feelings of righteousness, it has nothing to do with what is going to happen to the animals, they're all already dead, really it's all about how good being vegan makes me feel.
Being vegan doesn't make me feel as good as eating meat does, so I'm not vegan

I don't care, I only care about the animals I know, I have no connection with the others, our brains don't really feel empathy for things so inconsequential to our lives. This is the standard, natural state. You will never be able to convince everyone that they shouldn't eat animals because they don't care enough so why bother.

>>2803176
Care and uncaring is simple information. As you've so rightly put it "I only care about the animals I know". So from this, if there is to be a more moral and ethical public action, it has come through information of what they eat, how its killed and what condition it had lived with.


To which most will reply, "I don't care, I don't want to know". Thats not a problem of information or \caring about only the animals they know. Its a problem of willfull ignorance to shield the mind from potential life changing moments.

>>2803200
even if I know I don't really care too much if I don't have a connection with the animal

>>2803206
and the reall kicker is that the animal you see harmed in those animal rights videos is not the animal you're actually eating 99,999999999999% of the time

>>2803206
The question of intimacy is a question of frequency and knowledge.

>>2803208
The same argument could be made about humans being killed in other videos is not the human you know that's being killed. The thing about empathy is the ability to extend the feelings towards others. To feel what others feel. Its not a matter of whether the other is different or not, thats another matter.

If you saw a video of an animal being brutally killed and disfigured, if you do not feel anything then there is empathy issue in you. Whether its shedding your eyes away from that moment of disfigurement or feeling disgusted or feeling sad, these are empathetic feelings.

The animals which are closest to us will ofcourse have the highest level of empathy response from most people. From then on, it would extend down to most other forms of life. Even ants to some people. But for most people, they would feel empathy to other mammals being killed and maimed. Its a simple evolutionary response to promote close companionship. Lacking that response would simply make you a psychopath.

>>2793135
because we aren't fucking prey animals.

>>2793135
Because we're humans and we care about human's. Nobody should have any consideration for animals life. They're not human and are therefore ripe for slaugther.

>>2803237
I was gone for a while, but you don't really do that, it's abstraction really and not really extention of emotion rather it is logic which drives 'empathy' then

Having a balanced diet is important

It's the other way around. We humans have a trait that animals don't: being human.

If something isn't human then we aren't under any obligation to treat them as such.

And the reason why we don't kill and eat other humans is because we wouldn't want that done to us or our loved ones, so we all agree not to do it to each other. Since we're not in the same conflict kind position with animals and they can't even negotiate with us, then we kill them and eat them if we want too.

>>2793135
Real world answer: society can't function on veganism, and humanity is infinitely more important to me than cows are chickens.
Moral answer: it's fine to eat these chickens and cattle, their lives would never have come into existence if we weren't killing and eating them.

File: 1494513491313.jpg (42KB, 720x644px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 720x644px

>>2793135
Because might = right

>>2798612
This

>>2798612
>life is a spectrum but my particular spot to draw the line is the correct one because i believe so

>>2793135
Plants can feel pain as well, they just cant express it in a way that animals can understand. If anything, vegans are worse than omnivores because they're causing a comparable amount of harm while claiming the moral high ground.

>>2800602
You created god in your mind to find justifications for your shortcomings.

>>2793223
More proof that Adolf was crazy, and vegans are just bad people.

At least the heebs eat meat.

>>2793135
You have the emotional intelligence of a child.

Food chain nigga

File: 1494605535403.gif (208KB, 504x2948px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 504x2948px

>>2793135
I am hungry and do not want to pay extra for a veggie burger.
I need food, and the animal product in question is the most easily accessible source of food.
Eating humans can lead to various health complications, and I have no reason to eat a human when there is a perfectly serviceable animal available.

>>2793135

You forgot how most animal meats and dairy are filled with hormones that are similar in structure to our own, thus heavily influencing our hormonal balance for the worse.

Dairy has more of a negative effect on estrogen and testosterone ratios than soy intake.

>>2800613
But you're the one giving the money to these abusive farms, you fucking idiot. If everyone stopped buying their shit, they would go out of business. You're such a retard

Everyone should watch the newest debate video on Vegan Gains' channel. Theres some good points there

>>2793135
Because veganism is unnatural and a first world privilege, not the sacrifice every vegan makes it out to be.

>>2798093
>>2798612
When damaged, plants biologically react. Animals do the same. Pain is simply a feeling that accompanies those reactions. You're both making that argument that plants' inability to feel pain makes it ok to damage them. If that argument is to be followed, would it be ok to slaughter a sedated cow or chicken? Would their inability to feel the harm being inflicted upon them make it morally sound to do so?

>>2793135
I like meat.

>>2793301
The argument against that is that then you're interfering with the animal's interest in living.

>>2800575
How is that supposed to make you right? You haven't made a single argument against veganism, you just said "THEY R JUST LIKE NORTH KOREA XDDD"

>>2803208
It doesn't matter if you're eating that specific animal, what matters is that you're supporting an industry that is directly responsible for inmense ammounts of suffering (not to mention pollution). And it's not like the animals who AREN'T in those videos are having a great time either. Chickens specially.

This thread as always proved that noone can make a sensible argument against veganism/vegetarianism. At the end it's just people creating dishonest arbitrary measures for the value of a life.

>>2806065
Prove to me veganism as a state ideology is obtainable without totalitarian levels of state control. Key points to note will be how you make people stop testing on animals for medicines and what happens to the pastureland after the ranches are banned.

>>2806082
Simple, all hierarchies of life are subjective and therefore veganism has no argument that isn't based in moral theory.

>>2793135
>Can you justify harming, killing or otherwise exploiting an animal in a scenario where it is not necessary?
I eat meat because I can.
>Is it possible on an ethical or logical basis to treat an animal this way?
They are neither human nor sapient.
>Another question for you: if it's because of sentience, the ability to feel and suffer that we ascribe moral value to the life of a human being, and because of this it becomes unethical to harm a human being without proper justification, how then, can you justify harming an animal without proper justification?
Humans morality regarding not hurting others is flexible and subjective depending on individuals and cultural background but when it does exist it comes from a mutual understanding that violence will result in retaliation so it is beneficial to the individual to not act violently to others so as not to recieve violence to themselves. Animals do not subscribe to this morality and have a limited ability to pose true harm to humans anyway so there is no reason to refrain from killing and eating them.
>What is the trait not present in human beings, which is present in an animal, which allows you to remain ethically consistent and still harm that animal?
Being human and sapience.
>What is the key difference that justifies, for example, a pint of cow's milk?
Our ability to take it and the cows lack of protest to our doing so.

The only reason there would be to not eat a creature that is not human is if they were sapient and therefore capable of enacting the same mutual understanding of retaliation for a basis for peace.
Another reason might be personal morality but such a reason cannot be expected to be followed by everyone since morality beyond the non aggression principle is completely subjective.
> Even Richard Dawkins has admitted it isn't possible.
Who cares?

>>2793517
No because I would shoot you for attacking my property, feel free to eat other dogs for all I care though.

>>2796593
>1. YOU ARE NOT "STRONGER THAN ANIMALS", BUT ONLY STRONGER THAN SOME ANIMALS; MOST ANIMALS ARE STRONGER THAN YOU.
Then why can we eat them?
>YOUR ADVANTAGE AS HUMAN OVER ANIMALS IS YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS, AND ALL THAT IT ENTAILS.
How is that not a strength?

You have answered your own question, it is justifiable to eat animals because they are not sapient.

>>2799031
Do you oppose abortion? What is the difference between the tiny brain of a chicken and the tiny brain of a fetus?
That argument goes both ways you realize?
Do you support abortion?
If it is wrong or murder to consume an (unfertilized) chicken egg how is it logically consistent to have no issue with destroying a human zygote?
>
If a dog was attacking someone would you say "the dog doesn't have a choice, it is not acting immorally so I won't do anything about it"? If not, why do you sit and watch Lions eat Zebra?
The difference is that in one situation a human is in danger and while from a potentially objective standpoint there is no difference from a human perspective human life is worth more than that of any of those other species.
>In the west we expend energy raising cattle but in many places in the world cattle are a source of energy. Are you going to ask all those people to kindly starve to death for an animal with a brain that lacks many of our genes and has 1/20th the number of neurons in the neo-cortex?
I agree cattle ranching is expensive and inefficient however it is also only one kind of animal husbandry what is your argument against raising chickens and turkeys? how about farming? fishing and fish farms? Insect farming? hunting?, How about cloning or genetically engineered meat cultivation?
Why stick to a softball target?
>What is wrong with eating genetically modified meat grown in a vat?
Nothing once the tech is in place it will be an excellent and highly economical means of producing meat.
>Why do you hate good wholesome multinational corporations like Monsanto just trying to make the world a better place?
Monsanto is a bad company because of their policies and anti-consumer anti-market tendencies not because of any fault in GMO's.

>>2806182
>You don't know how to argue. Just stop.
-guy with no rebuttal

>>2806078
so what? in the end I don't know th animal so I don't have the emotional ties to care
In the end the vast majority can't reasonably care enough, some can

>>2806226
I don't think it is wrong to consume an egg. I was answering OP's question, maybe I should have linked to OP or whatever.

>from a human perspective human life is worth more than that of any of those other species
Humans have many perspectives. They ought to be objective, I was just illustrating that vegans are not being objective and don't treat humans the same as animals. They have a moral obligation to extirpate most of the ecosystem to prevent animals killing each other.

>Monsanto is a bad company
I don't see anything seriously wrong. Monsanto seed and products work given the conditions they were tested in and it is up to the farmer to make sure those conditions exist on their plot. If they miss something like nutrient depletion due to the overuse of a single crop it is hardly Monsanto's fault.

We humans domesticated and genetically modified lots of animals for example our cows. We meddled with nature, and cattle are the number one producer of methane gas and contribute to the greenhouse effect. Are cows fighting back as a species, taking revenge on humans on a biological and ecological level?

File: the mind of a pagancuck.jpg (45KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 720x720px

>>2793143
>The weak must fear the strong.

Heil odin