Why aren't you a vegetarian, /lit/?

File: MI0001570429.jpg (63KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 400x400px

because i dont give a fuck hahahahahahahhahahahaha hahahahahahahha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah \m/

>>7328956
Because egg & dairy animals have existences that are 10000x more torturous and inhumane than feeder animals who are just fattened then slaughtered.

It would actually be more ethical to only eat meat and avoid eggs and milk.

Because I don't think animals deserve my moral judgement as much as humans do.

That said, I don't think animals deserve to be tortured, but being humanely put down for food? Don't see the issue.

God put animals on the Earth for our use. It's in in the bible, bro

Also I purposefully buy the cage free eggs

Because I don't want to have all sorts of nutritional deficiencies and other related diseases.

>>7328988
>avoid milk

why

>>7329037
muh broscience
>>>/fit/

I guess I should be. I keep telling myself I'm trying, which allows me to feel superior without committing

I am, I don't talk about it irl with anyone.

>>7329030
Just because you have the right doesn't mean you should exercise it.

I don't find penis attractive

He's actually been the focus currently in my ethics class and it seems to me that he basically just takes utilitarianism to its logical extreme.

That its our job to worry about the feelings and well being of every current living thing on earth, and that we as first world nations should throw our lot in with the third world nations because preferential feelings is racist.

His whole argument for never eating animals hinges on the idea that preferential treatment of any species is speciesism, which is equivalent to racism and sexism, which is bad.

This fallacy of begging the question about any ism being bad cannot be addressed because to do so is to go against the orthodoxy of the 21st century. If you don't accept that premise though then he doesn't actually have any argument.

>>7329068
I highly doubt that.

because i like killing things

>>7329083
Top > Bottom

Becausey life is fulfilling enough that I don't have to search for things to be morally superior about

Your thread got deleted last night when you tried but you still decided to remake it?

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

436KB, 800x500px

>>7329088
This is a pretty good answer.

Pic related.

>>7329010
>being humanely put down for food
When and where does this EVER happen? On what planet?

>>7329111
damn

>>7329114
I'd rather get bolted than die of cancer or heart failure

>>7329114
Everywhere in Europe, we have a standard here, savage american

I enjoy eating meat

>>7329126
Fun fact: your meat doesn't come from special fairytale utopian farms.

>>7329120
If you don't want to die of cancer or heart failure then you'd better stop eating animal products

>>7329114
I'm pretty sure it's more humane to knock an animal unconscious before killing it for example.

>>7329136
And where is this practiced?

>>7329135
Fun fact: I buy ethical meat. I buy locat meat from the butcher. So yes, it does.
A cow is shot in the head, and dies. There is no excess pain to be suffered when animals are being killed. Others get bolted through the head. Stop implying there's no nuance in the killing of animals. Some of it is done in a good manner, others are not. If anything, don't be a vegan and only buy ethical meat to support the business of slaughtering properly. Being a vegan is being a useless null-factor in how animals will be killed.

>>7329135
I mainly eat fish boyo, but whatever trevor--I'm sure I'll die of gout now haha

>>7329143
lmao there's no such thing as "slaughtering properly" you dunce

>>7329150
But there is, though. The animal doesn't experience the dying, you know.

>>7329150
Just like there's no way of having sex properly--yet we all have our preferences; what we prefer is what we deem 'proper'.

Proper sex to you is recieving cock up the shit-shoot.

I prefer audience pussy.

>>7329135
>If you don't want to die of cancer or heart failure then you'd better stop eating animal products
Also completely false, and no support from any sort of science but the falsely reported "meat causes cancer" media-hype articles.

>>7329154
You're depriving it of life, though.

>>7329176
Which is bad, why? It isn't any worse off.

>>7329173
Never said meat causes cancer. Dairy products contribute to cancer and general health issues.

>>7329181
>taking the only thing it has doesn't make it any worse off

>>7329140
All over Europe at least, and in my country. It's not legal to slaughter an animal in my country without having knocked it unconscious.

This is incidentally also why Muslims are whining too, because it means they can't get halal meat without importing it.

>>7329185
Instead of greentexting what I am saying, make a proper argument against what I am saying. Tell me why it is worse off dead than alive.

>>7329176
But it dies to become a beautiful blue-rare steak, served with a light salad and a bottle of red. (with some freshly baked bread, with olive oil for dipping)

It gives the animal purpose and meaning. If that seems wrong to you, then how could you claim to love animals?

>>7329046
Dairy farms are way worse than meat farms. That and milk is bad for you.

>>7329197
>"Man, death is so much better than life. I wish I were one of those animals, man."

>>7329236
It's okay, you're getting there! I have faith in you. A few posts away.

>>7329197
Holocaust supporter detected

>>7329236
You see if you had more fish in your diet your brain would function better.

File: 1422398168771.jpg (138KB, 908x540px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 908x540px

Although I would admit that eating meat is 'immoral', I don't subscribe to morality.

>>7329242
>>7329236
So causing death to a living organism is bad?

What I never understood about animal rights movement is: why does nobody give a fuck about insects?

Everytime you walk/drive outdoors you run the risk of murdering multiple insects. If a person runs over a dog they feel sad, but when 10 bugs get splattered on their windshield, they just ignore it and wipe their windshield.

>>7329236

Cows have an inferior ontological existence, and don't have the capacity to contemplate more than their senses and urges.

Aesthetically, a steak prepared by a skilled chef is superior to the existence the cow had as a nearly unconscious grazing animal.

>>7329186
Do you realize that bolt guns are never taken proper care of and therefore do not immediately render animals unconscious, and generally instead just cause them even more pain?

>>7329268
>why does nobody give a fuck about insects
why are you assuming this is the case

>>7329268
Don't forget the millions of micro-organisms they destroy--and all that innocent semen they swallow.

>>7329273
Send me your source for this claim.

>>7329273
So what? At least we are doing something to not deliberately make sure the animal suffers the most that it can suffer before it dies.

I find it funny how vegetarians and vegans somehow think it's immoral to eat meat, meanwhile most animals are being eaten at this instance by some other animal.

>>7329073
Patrick findler?

>>7329098
Vers >>>>

>>7329285
Noo... the vegans will say. That is NATURE! Humans are not NATURAL!

>>7329276
From what I've seen, most of the focus is on farm animals/exotic animals. Isn't it hypocritical of calling yourself an animal rights activist and at the same time being selective on WHO is more important to protect?

meat is delicious

>>7329268

Animal liberators grant exceptions to fish and insects (since they grudgingly admit that human life forms need some form of previously conscious flesh in their body to be healthy) because they have a lower form of consciousness than farm animals and other living things. This hinges on the possibility that fish and insects don't have the nerve endings to experience pain as other animals do, however, its self-evident that insects and fish wish to preserve their life the same as other animals do so they're actually making the same sort of speciest divisions that meat eaters do just with a pushed back goal post of standards.

>>7329285
I don't think it is immoral to eat meat. You're dumb.

The rights of human beings are more stringent than the rights of animals, and yes rights are relevant. We have the ability to listen to reason and be moved by it, whereas animals do not.

Singer tries to trip us up with his "muh retards" argument but offers no reason as to why we cannot simply say that the emotional reasons which push us to defend retards are not morally relevant.

>>7329281
Earthlings

>>7328956
But I am, OP. And I have read Singer's book, amazingly, in a graduate level Literature course focused on animal-based literature and its influences.

I'm mostly vegan, I just have a weakness for pizza sometimes. If factory farming wasn't a thing, I wouldn't be nearly as bothered by the practice. I just don't think the satisfaction of eating meat is worth the suffering and enormous strain on our environment (which is predicted to have bad repercussions in a couple of decades).

>>7329030
Just so you know, cage free eggs is a bullshit term akin to "natural." They're as miserable, just with slightly different housing.

>>7329301
Fine. I don't really give a shit. Vegetarians can be vegetarian if they want, it just means more steaks for me.

>>7329111
That's pretty fucking boss.

>>7329313
xD

>>7328956
Cuz I'm vegan.

>>7329285

This is a bad argument because humans have the capacity to rise above nature.

Not necessarily supporting the opposing side, but you just need to use better arguments.

>>7329306
How do you tell a miserable chicken? Do they do a slower dance after decapitation?

>>7329325
Did your parents hate you?

>>7329279
>>7329268
It's a matter of degree. A microbe -- if it had the ability -- should keep from causing harm to other microbes, otherwise they'd be viruses.

File: http___clipartzebra.com_images_2_cute-cow_cute-cow-01.jpg (33KB, 400x389px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x389px

>>7328956
I am actually. Never tried to convert anyone or even started myself a debate about it, on the contrary, carnivores always appear shocked when I say I'm a vegetarian after being asked if I am because they see I don't touch meat, and then they start to lecture me about the "hierarchy in nature" and that eating meat is the purpose of life. My retarded workmates bother me with their le very funny jokes like "lol anon why won't you come and eat a dead cow mooo mooo XDXDXDXD".

>>7329320
>This is a bad argument because humans have the capacity to rise above nature.

[citation needed]

>>7329271
>inferior ontological existence

That's some crazy ass metaphysics you've got going on.

>>7329328
>>>/pol/

>>7329326
Your arguments are really well crafted, vegan.

>>7329328
>and then they start to lecture me about the "hierarchy in nature" and that eating meat is the purpose of life. My retarded workmates bother me with their le very funny jokes like "lol anon why won't you come and eat a dead cow mooo mooo XDXDXDXD".

Shit that never happens: the post.

>>7329331
Your entire life is the citation you stupid fucking idiot

>>7329303
No such thing as reason. Only language-games.

>>7329326
Do you have two daddys?

>>7329320
Shit, yeah, I'm so tired of people throwing the same five arguments at me. Typically it's just me saying, "oh, no thank you, I don't eat meat" which turns into getting badgered as if I'm offending that person's moral code by refusing meat. Lots of people throw the "loud and self-righteous vegans" title around, but I don't preach at people yet get shit for it anyway.

>>7329340
I don't know any vegans/vegetarians in person, and those around me are very stupid, and they are pissed at animal rights activity they see on social networks telling them what to eat so they need to say "umnumnum meat is so good fuck you".

>>7329351
They're trying to save you, before it's too late

>>7329327
So then all life below our degree is negligible? And what is the difference between an insect and a rodent? Both are small "unwanted" lifeforms.
Its not impossible to not kill insects, it just wouldn't be convenient never using a car and carefully walking everywhere.

>>7329345
Saying that humans can rise above nature is complete and utter bullshit, because everything humans do is a part of nature because WE are part of nature.

You need to try harder with your criticism faggot. Just because something humans do is unprecedented(i.e civilization and space-travel), doesn't mean it's "unnatural".

It's as natural for humans to eat meat as it is for a fucking lion. We have eaten meat for millennia, and just because a bunch of hippie tree loving faggots like you find out that you want to eat the grass that the cow eats instead of the cow, changes literally nothing.

>>7329328
>>7329340
Oh you are fucking wrong. Different veg-anon. Even my friends have Moo'd while eating their burgers in front of me. Here's the thing, if vegetarians/vegans are all loud and forceful assholes, no one would actually do that for fear we'd start lecturing. I get it because I don't actually vocalize that I find it disgusting and disrespectful.

>>7329351
>Lots of people throw the "loud and self-righteous vegans" title around
I never got this. 90% of the time when discussion arises about meat-eating it's never a vegan or vegetarian starting it. Meat-eaters for some reason feel personally attacked by the fact that I believe eating meat is a poor decision, when in fact all I'm doing is defending my point of view.

>>7329356
It's been sixteen years too late for me then.

I think it honestly goes back to hunter and gatherer bullshit ingrained in mankind. Or for a /lit/ example, in Lord of the Flies, Simon handing over his meat to Piggy and Jack being highly insulted that Simon didn't appreciate his kill and the meat he supplied.

>>7329358
>Saying that humans can rise above nature is complete and utter bullshit

You just have weak willpower lol. lrn2categoricalimperative

>>7329358
>because everything humans do is a part of nature
Are you stupid or something lol I'm not even the guy you were arguing with either, I just stopped reading your dumb ass post immediately after that

>>7329362
Because your poor "point of view" is that of a religious sort. Not based on facts.

>>7329362
I feel anonymously bonded to you via experience. I hope you have it better than me, none of my friends are veg. Some have said they'd like to but it's just "too hard." One of them gave me shit for purchasing a blush compact that didn't have a "no animal testing" image on it. Bitch, please.

>>7329374
I wouldn't be a vegan if it was all about morale. Pacifism is the only 100% moral obligation I have. Other than that, everything I do is for my mental and physical health.

>>7329374
>Animals needlessly suffer in a system that's barely a century old
>We don't have to eat meat to survive, most of the world's healthiest cultures eat very little meat
>On average, in most ways people who are vegetarian tend to be healthier than non-veg.

I mean, I find the entire system horrifying and barbaric and I wish people would take ownership in their participation in it... but I'm not one to think that preaching on high changes people. I'm far too agnostic to shove sanctimonious shit at people and expect it to change anything.

File: roastlegoflambwithga_90252_16x9.jpg (57KB, 608x344px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 608x344px

>this is what vegetarians want to ban

>>7329370
>lrn2categoricalimperative

Sorry, I don't follow autistic morality.

File: Rip_and_tear.png (178KB, 297x234px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 297x234px

>>7329111
That's the most metal thing ever.

>>7329387
>Oh and of course, the damage to the environment and our resources.

>>7329387
[source needed]
[source needed]
[source needed]
No popscience junk articles, please. Sourced studies.
Animals do not needlessly suffer, but if this is the case, it should change. I am talking about the meat I buy, which I make sure are killed humanely.

>>7329358
>Saying that humans can rise above nature is complete and utter bullshit
What a depressing view of humanity to have to carry around everyday.

>>7329392
As long as you recognize that you're a deviant I'm okay with that.

>>7328956
Because I am. Trying to slowly become vegan after reading that book but it's hard when my diet is mostly quorn products

No, I never mention it to people unless they're about to feed me meat.

When I do, people tend to probe me with a hundred passive-aggressive questions. I'm never the one to start that debate.

>>7329328
This is very true. People tend to see the diet as an indirect moral criticism of them and they go into defense mode. I've never met a vegetarian or vegan who pushed his or her beliefs on others, though I don't doubt they exist.
If I would ever try to sell vegetarianism to someone, I wouldn't focus on any moralistic aspect because ultimately it's redundant and people will not change their diet for moral reasons. They won't do anything for moral reasons.

The biggest reason to go veggie is to curb your environmental impact. The agricultural industry is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases and if everyone stopped eating meat we would not even be considering the idea of global warming.

Aside from that it's generally a healthier diet if you do it right.

>>7329407
Really, and why is that?

>>7328965
You are a terrible Buddhist.

>>7329410
"I didn't experience these people, therefore the chance of them existing is probably quite small"
Grow some braincells if ya will, thanks.
If I'd go to a house of a vegan, I wouldn't expect them to serve me meat. If a vegan comes to my house, they do expect to eat only vegan.

>>7328956
Here's something to consider:

https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

>>7329410
>halloween_ghostcostume.jpeg

>>7329403
You legitimately go out of your way to get local/humane meat? If so, good job.

I've learned in the past it's not worth my time to look up articles because despite how legitimate the study, people who are straight up pissed about vegetarians in general will always find something "wrong" about it. If you look at the average meat eating American vs the average vegetarian, try to tell me who tends to be more healthy. That's just straight up logic.

For the environment, the US government just funded a huge study on it and the results came out this year if memory serves.

>>7329411
With all the ingenuity and creative genius of mankind, why sell us so short? I abide by Shelley's view, mankind as a whole is barbaric, but men can do astounding things.

>>7329410
Trying to convince people to become vegetarians because of global warming IS a moral argument m8.

>>7329423
America isn't the whole world, nor do average people matter. I know plenty of Vegetarians who live off crisps and pizza.

>>7329416
Actually, I and my friends do a cooking night each month. Most of my friends will always have something vegan for me, or if they can't manage it for a main dish, they'll let me know so I can bring something to go along with salad. When I cook, I do cook vegan sometimes with their consent, but I'll cook meat for them as well. It's their decisions.

>>7329423
Ah right, probably means the studies are indeed faulty in some aspect. If not, post them here. I'm sure the oh so well studied things that you mentioned in your post are very clear and concise.
Just because the average american compared to the average vegetarian is healthier, does not mean you found any causation. It might correlate, but that's about it. Again it is evident that you do not fully understand how logic works.

>>7329430
I never said that humans can't do astounding things. The point is that writing a book or building a rocket is natural when you are human, just like natural means killing a gazelle for a lion.

Separating humans in to a category for themselves "outside" of nature, makes zero sense at all.

>>7329435
I don't deny that. But as a whole, they tend to be healthier. The young vegetarians aren't typically decent at handling cooking yet. I did a lot of grilled cheese my first couple of years. Now I have a garden and eat mostly veg.

Averages are how we even have statistics, how do averages not matter?

>>7329416
I was sharing my anecdotal experience, not making a claim. I'm just suggesting that the amount who are dicks is greatly exaggerated because, like I said, some people see the diet as a personal attack on them and some of that perceived dickishness might be illusory.

>If I'd go to a house of a vegan, I wouldn't expect them to serve me meat. If a vegan comes to my house, they do expect to eat only vegan.

Yes, because you are not abstaining from plant based foods, so why would they think you had any objection? Peter Singer actually accommodates others and occasionally dips into dairy when he's in company, which I think is a fair minded thing to do. Removing meat from a meal is simple and really no fuss. Besides, if you don't want to eat/cook vegan then don't invite them or accept invitations. No-one is trying to dictate your diet. You make your own decisions.

>>7329432
Hmm possibly, but it's also something people can relate to themselves. Animals might suffer, but as long as we don't see it, we really don't care. We don't see meat as the flesh of an animal; we see it as a neatly packaged food-product. Global warming can and has had devastating effects on humans, so it's something more tangible for people to grasp onto.

>>7329456
>Hmm possibly, but it's also something people can relate to themselves. Animals might suffer, but as long as we don't see it, we really don't care. We don't see meat as the flesh of an animal; we see it as a neatly packaged food-product. Global warming can and has had devastating effects on humans, so it's something more tangible for people to grasp onto.

I don't agree with that at all. I think part of the reason there even exists skeptics of global warming is precisely the reason they are not affected by it, just like when they go to the store and buy a steak and they don't see the process it took to get it there.

File: aurelius.png (352KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 640x480px

>>7329447
Tell me how factory farms follow the "natural" order then? They're anything but natural. I never said they were entirely outside of nature... if anything, from my perspective, man's goal should be to excel beyond base desire.

>>7329420
this can't be real

>>7329456
Rather generalizing to say "People tend to.." but if it was only what you mentioned it to be, fine. Vegetarian health isn't healthier, at all, as a regular well-rounded balanced diet is quite a lot healthier than sitting on your ass all day eating pizza's and vegan-chocolates day in day out.

>>7329462
They are clearly natural, because humans eating meat would happen anyway, and industrialization is simply a way to make that same behavior that our ancestors did more efficient.

Our ancestors also made hammers out of wood and rock, but these days hammers are made of hardened steel, yet you wouldn't call the hardened steel hammer unnatural would you?

>>7329443
Here's one" http://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/vegetarian-diets-linked-lower-mortality

I know you can just as easily point out a study that says the opposite of that.

My main point is that even if it was definitive that all vegans die 5 years younger from eating like this, I'm fine with it because I would have spent decades not adding to the torture and death of thousands of animals just to feed me. It's as simple as that.

>not being vegan
If you accept the principle that it's wrong to cause unnecessary harm to sentient creatures you shouldn't support the egg and dairy industries either.

To produce milk cows need to give birth. To sell as much milk as possible most of the calves born through the dairy industry are slaughtered or used as veal.

To produce laying hens for eggs you have to separate the female and male chicks. The male chicks are gassed or thrown in a grinder because they're useless for the industry.

I used to be one of those 'bacon tho' people, but I feel a lot better since doing what I always kind of knew was right.

>>7329484
Why don't we take it to the next logical step and see Oryx and Crake essentially become the reality of the meat industry. I mean, you can go to all levels of horror if morality or ethics don't eventually step in.

>>7328956
Because animals have no ethical significance. I want to eat them, and so I do. That's the end of it.

>>7329491
>I used to be one of those 'bacon tho' people
Same Tbh

>>7329488
Indeed, you add to nothing. Whereas people supporting and buying local & properly butchered animals, support the humane killing of animals, rather than sitting on a fence shouting (or keeping silent) about how bad it is that this is happening.

>>7329491
Yeah, seeing videos of chicks flung into the grinder and calves dying, in some cases, only because the forced separation from their mothers is devastating for herd animals. It makes it hard to not go fully vegan. I've struggled lately because I'm having a shitty time with my job and it's difficult to find good grocery access where I am, so when I eat dairy here and there I feel like utter shit for it.

File: caracalla.jpg (94KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 333x500px

>>7329462
>Marcus Aurelius never said that
>That picture isn't even of the correct Marcus Aurelius

>>7329500
>refusing to eat products of animal murder is sitting on the fence
jesus christ are you joking or are you really this dumb?

>>7329500
Well thanks. I complimented you for making a humane decision in your meat purchases and I'm essentially trash. How are you making a bigger impact on factory farming than I am? Either way, we aren't giving them money.

>>7329493
The only possible solution as far as I see it, is that we manage to grow meat in a laboratory, and thus don't need to kill animals to get it, which would be fine, and I would support something like that.

But until that day, I don't think it's possible to convince enough people to change their meat diets in order for it to have a societal impact.

>>7329503
>"According to Mercy for Animals, male chicks are of no use to the industry because they can't lay eggs and don't grow large or quickly enough to be raised profitably for meat. That results in the killing of 200 million male chicks a year."

Damn.

>>7329511
Honestly just wanted a pic of Aurelius and too lazy to find another one.

>>7329468

There are many conflicting studies, but the majority that I have seen suggest that a vegetarian diet is generally healthier, at least marginally. This is largely because of red meat, which has been shown time and time again to be very bad for us. I'm sure a person could eat white meats/fish and be just as healthy as a vegetarian. But either way, you have to judge each case of it's merits, vegetarian or herbivore.

>>7329513
Oh jolly, how nice of you. Thank you so much.
You are not giving them money, therefor never influencing the meat business as you become a null factor and remove yourself from the equation. You are in neither support of ethical slaughter, or unethical, at least if you do hold a difference regarding these two ways of killing it will not show in your groceries.
>>7329523
Vegetarians are often people who care about their health, thus usually exercise more, are less prone to be couch-potatoes, etc, etc. Nearly everyone eats meat, thus the chance of having a bunch of fat beer-drinking meateaters that are unhealthy (duh) is purely correlation. It doesn't say anything about the diet itself.
Red meat isn't bad either, if you are assuming this from the recent study, it was clearly faulty as the group was way too small to be decisive. On top of this the meat eaters ate A LOT of meat.

>>7329515
Strictly enforced regulations for animal raising is the best chance. But, at least in the US, politicians are owned by corporations so that shit isn't going to happen.

>>7329516
Yeah, what a way to spend your 1-2 days of life. I don't know how people can pick up and throw animals at a grinder all day and not lose it. I know people get desensitized, but damn.

There's a Sanderson Farms one city over from me. I was getting hand/wrist therapy once and one of the workers was there because he basically fractured his hand from breaking necks and breaking down corpses all day.

>>7329413
>terrible Buddhist
>just because he doesn't want to hang out with weird people

>>7329534
>Strictly enforced regulations for animal raising is the best chance.

Yes, but that would cripple the economy because people still want to eat meat.

The only solution is to make people able to still get the product.

It's literally analogous to drug legalization/decriminalization. The Prohibition did literally zero good for America.

>>7329529
WTF is your logic. I once was a buyer, then I quit. The youth in parts of Europe like Germany are becoming vegetarians at a high rate lately. That's like saying none of them make an impact for suddenly not buying meat anymore. No, but if they bought humane meat, THAT would make an impact... Your logic is seriously off here. Regardless, a fuck all ton of people would have to stop buying factory farmed meat to actually cause any changes. It would require a huge number of people making enough of an outcry for politicians to step in or the industry would have to be losing so much money to be desperate enough to stop using a cheap efficient method.

>>7329529
>Vegetarians are often people who care about their health, thus usually exercise more, are less prone to be couch-potatoes, etc, etc.

Yeah, I'm not buying this. You're saying that a lot of vegetarians are vegetarian for health reasons, but the only reason they are healthier is because they exercise. Unless you've got a source, this was pulled out of your ass.

By the way, this "study" was one in many that have proved the same thing. The human colon is not designed to store meat, and residual meat actually stays there for several weeks, sometimes months at a time. We are not evolved to eat meat on such a constant basis. It is a biological observation, not something learned from a few individuals.

>>7329303
Why wouldn't they be morally relevant? You just said the reason we can preference ourselves over animals is because they can't reason. If that's the only factor why wouldn't you apply it to humans who couldn't reason?

>>7329546
It needs to just go up in price too offset using more ethical practices. If the western world didn't shove huge amounts of meat down their throats all day, they could just treat it like a fancy delicacy that they just buy sometimes, like some expensive scotch.

I would never presume that prohibition would work in this case.

>>7329557
Yeah people can debate about heart problems and diabetes and shit, but colon cancer is pretty well tied into meat consumption. My own grandfather was a hell of a meat eater and died of colon cancer.

Again, vegetarians can still get colon cancer, omnivores can still not get colon cancer, but I'm talking averages again. It's like lung cancer and smoking.

>>7329571
The health aspect isn't really one I'm particularly worried about to be honest family. It's just my go-to benefit when I try to convince people to go vegetarian. Failing that I just spam their facebook profile with photographs of slaughterhouses.

>>7329577
It's pretty much the same for me. To have a somewhat "Buddhist" view on oneself and other living beings is so damn alien to most westerners. No, eat this meat, joke about the dead animal, feel like the mightiest being on the planet with God's support to do heinous shit.

File: 1200px-Kale-Bundle.jpg (218KB, 1200x761px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1200x761px

One more vegan checking in

>mfw people who call themselves vegans at my university are willing to enslave and murder hundreds of animals in order to feed their cat

>>7329357
I hope you don't make all your decisions based on "convenience" and doing what you personally "want." If so, you're most likely an insufferable, selfish creature.

>>7329626
I only do because I got my cat before I went vegan. I won't be getting another carnivorous pet, but I have to look after the one I have.

>>7329626
Cats need to eat meat though, don't they.
I mean, what can you really do?

>>7329641
I have a suggestion; if you ate your cat you would save the lives of countless other food animals which otherwise would be sacrificed to feed your cat.

>>7329653
This is why people think vegans are weird

>>7329626
>Forcing your cat into malnourishment because you want to impose your morals onto animals

>>7329641 >>7329650

I mean, yeah, I can't blame you. But I honestly am committed to the position that it's better that one tolerate the suffering/death/re-engineering of animals to raise overall well-being.

If you're committed to a more rights-based approach you can easily get around this.

>>7329662
What do you feed your cat?

Do vegans own dogs? Or is it immoral to own an animal which must be fed by some sort of industrial slaughter to support the amount of domestic dogs which exist? They don't force their morality on an animal which has a radically different biology do they?

>>7329667
I'm vegetarian and I've always fed my cats meat.

My brother is vegan and he feeds his cat meat.

>>7329662
You should just not get a cat. You're only going to make it sick. Get a rabbit or something

>>7328956
I have an eating disorder and reason to believe that cutting anything out of my diet could kill me

Dogs are opportunists and can live just fine on vegan dog food alone.

>>7329667
I'm vegan and I have a cat from before I switched. I feed it meat. I won't be getting another carnivorous animal.

>>7329686
Dogs are pretty good at mediating themselves if they have sufficient freedom, love, and exercise space. When you confine them inside and coop them up or stay away from home for very long periods of time is usually when they begin overeating.

>>7329697
just teach those freeloading bums the value of personal responsibility beforehand and you'll be fine

>>7329664
I don't own one

>>7329667
Dog's can function perfectly well on a vegan diet, I would however think it moral to completely eradicate the species from the planet if it would raise overall well-being.

I accept the principle of hedonist utilitarianism and deal the conclusions it leads me to. There are, however, certain actions such a framework demands of me that I might not be able to carry out myself.

>>7329726

>I would however think it moral to completely eradicate the species from the planet if it would raise overall well-being.

You realize that by this same system of logic it would be more moral to wipe out humanity from the earth than domestic dogs? Nature would carry along fine without humanity.

>>7329946
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1-DQ2Wo_w

always relevant

Because I don't give a shit.

File: newcomopbloodmouth_original.jpg (396KB, 864x864px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 864x864px

>>7329088
>>7329111
Fucking these. Rules of nature muddafucca.

>>7330098
EPIC

>>7329626
My cats still eat regular cat food. One has dietary issues, a very touchy stomach, so they're on a special dry food. I'd like to eventually convert to humanely raised raw meat, but my vet tech friends say they see a lot of complications coming from that.

I'm not going to make my cats go vegan until there's an absolutely healthy way to do it... they're omnivores who are heavy on the meat side... I'm not going to feed them against nature, but I don't want to buy food from factory farmed animals to feed them.

>>7328956
Moralism is bourgeois.

>>7330237
Coming from someone who has the experience of being an immoral subjugated proletariat, I presume.

If the animal liberation movement were to succeed, who would be paying for the euthanizing of every farm animal? Naturally nobody would pay for the animals food/water, nor would nature be able to sustain such unnaturally large populations, but the other option of killing them is extremely expensive. Do they have any doctrines on this?

>>7330268

No one expects any change over night. It would be a gradual change. Breeding would slow down as demand slowed down.

>>7330272
Do they just expect every person to suddenly stop eating meat? Don't they realise how futile that is? How do they expect to hold the attention of the entire population when around 99% of those sympathetic to their cause will stop at improved conditions for farmed animals? Honestly the only way it would work out is through violent revolution and subsequent legislation.

>>7328956
Frankly, it doesn't bother me enough to get me to change my life. I am not a utilitarian. I honestly think human welfare and happiness come before that of animals.

>>7329201

I'm 25, I drink 2 gallons of skim milk a week, and I've never broken a bone because I have calcium like woah. Why is milk so bad?

>>7330284

Did you read my fucking post?

Did you see the word gradual?

Did you see that no one expects it happen over night?

What part of my post leads you to believe that I think any change will be sudden?

I'm not even a vegetarian, I was just giving you the answer to your dumb ass question. When your dumb ass question is answered, don't immediately follow it without an ever dumber question without reading the answer to your first.

Because I'm vegan

>>7330293
>Did you read my fucking post?
yes
>Did you see the word gradual?
yes
>Did you see that no one expects it happen over night?
yes
>What part of my post leads you to believe that I think any change will be sudden?
Sudden as in over a few lifetimes.

>>7330287
>I drink 2 gallons of skim milk a week, and I've never broken a bone because I have calcium like woah.
Hahaha oh my. Hey, I have this rock that keeps tigers away, for as long as I've had this rock I've never seen a tiger. I'll sell it to you real cheap.

>>7330310

So why is milk bad for you? Or are you just one of those bitter lactose-intolerants?

>>7328956
Because Singer is retarded.

>>7330320
salient remark

File: 1418954528580.jpg (155KB, 570x788px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 570x788px

>>7328956
Because it annoys vegetarians/vegans so much.

>>7329726
>I would be okay with the destruction of everything in existence under the condition that it produces "positive utility"

utilitarianism, everyone

http://www.xenosystems.net/insect-agonies/
Singer btfo tbqh

>>7328956
Because I don't believe in morality for the sake of morality. Peter Singer seems to think he's an insightful thinker because he points out that some things are "immoral" by a set of rules that exist nowhere but in his mind.

>>7328956
Meat tastes good and I like it.

File: 1446294702018.png (77KB, 542x535px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 542x535px

Might is right
Empathy is a spook

File: image.jpg (21KB, 231x246px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 231x246px

>>7328973
>>7329010
>>7329068
>>7329030
>>7329073
>>7329088
>>7329109
>>7329111
>>7329120
>>7329132
>>7329199
>>7329271
>>7329285
>>7329298
>>7329303
>>7329358
>>7329391
>>7329447
>>7330320
>>7330334
>>7330356
>>7330536
>>7330551
>>7330519

>>7330551
The ego is a spook

>>7329464
Why not? Because it disagrees with your preconceived notions?

The fact of the matter is, the more people there are, the more harm that's done to the planet. It doesn't matter if you eat meat. It doesn't matter if you are vegetarian. It doesn't matter if you're the strictest form of vegan and only eat synthetically-produced nutrient pills and water. The problem is not what you eat: it's the species producing and consuming it all.

>>7330752
He says cattle graze on native pasture for 70% of their food and he mentions kangaroos as sustainable in a similar way. That ignores every other animal we eat and the grain required to feed them. I don't know what the stats are for pigs, chickens, ducks, etc., not necessarily disagreeing with the overall message, but interesting he cherry-picked cattle.

Also, fruit and vegetable farming could be innovated in a way that protected mice and insects from getting killed in the process. There's no way to reform the production of meat so that no animals are killed in the process. (Except lab-grown meat which vegans would be fine with anyway)

The guy's overall argument might make sense from a utilitarian perspective, but if you're interested in the morality of individual acts, defending your food from mice and factory farming cattle are worlds apart. Farming cattle is an active act of aggression against a sentient being that hasn't harmed or threatened us in any way.

(We should defend our food from mice in a way that minimizes harm, though, and I hope we move in that direction.)

>>7330625
The creative nothing does not rest on the ego.

>>7328956
Singer is the best ethicist alive desu.

Long live the utilitarian conspiracy!

>>7328956
Plants respond to environmental influences, attempt to avoid damage, and try through their mechanisms to survive. Why is okay to slaughter and consume them? Just because they are sufficiently alien?

File: doitforhim.jpg (6KB, 266x190px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 266x190px

Would anyone mind editing this picture with pictures of Peter Singer?

>>7329065
>Said no vegetarian ever.

>>7330840
Eh, I don't, I'm a recluse.

>>7330836

No nerve endings. They don't know they exist.

>>7330837
>266x190

What's even the point?

>>7329306
>They're as miserable, just with slightly different housing.
Human beings are miserable, just with slightly different housing. We have a cage called employment.

File: do_it_for_him__template_by_nyoromano-d8yd9ge.png (54KB, 1024x731px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1024x731px

>>7330837
Wrong pic

>>7330847
Sorry
>>7330850

>>7330845
Sufficiently alien, then. If damage perception and avoidance mechanisms are different enough to alleviate concern, it's OK to terminate lifeforms and eat them?

What ever will utilitarianism do when Singer is dead?

Because I value my dietary composition more than I value the lives and comfort of the things I eat.

File: peter.png (527KB, 1024x731px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1024x731px

>>7330850

>>7330896
Thank you so much!

I want to kill and eat everyone in this thread, and despite being a hunter and enthusiastic eater of meat, I'd start with the meat eaters for failing to defend such a patently defensible position, on which rests the foundations of hierarchical society.

Holy shit are you people retarded.

>>7330902
I, personally, delivered a thread-killing blow to OP which has not been sufficiently addressed yet.

>>7330904
which one

>>7330904
Oh the one about how Singer's positions rest on a contemporary orthodoxy of anti-discrimination (in the most general sense of the word) that people are afraid to call into question? If that's you, then good job.

I'm not sure why you guys think this is a complicated issue.

How the hell does this warrant 200+ replies?

>>7330909
why aren't you a vegetarian

>>7330915

I care less about animals than I do about eating meat.

>>7330920
I care less about you than I care about animals. Does that make it more ethically justifiable for me to save an animal's life over yours?

>>7330924
Well it's your choice.

>>7330924

Ethics are an individual choice.

>>7330924
Have fun with the massive societal shaming that will follow such a choice of anyone sees or finds out. Morality (and arguably ethics) are just an overgrown social intelligence geared to survival and reproduction. People are gonna feel threatened by someone who values anything over their own lives.

What justifies choices?

>>7330939
I've never met a person with as much unconditional love and loyalty as a good dog.

>>7330961
Your own satisfaction, tempered with the wisdom not to do things that will invite negative consequences later. if you don't enjoy anything, you'll kill yourself, and if you'rebtoo much of a psycho or retard to think through consequences, you'll get killed, so this works for most people.

Because utilitarian ethics make little sense to me.
Because meat is healthy.
Because I care little about how much a pig suffers.
Because I eat high quality meat which tastes superb.
Because I'm not religious.

>>7330968
That's nice. Doesn't change anything I said though, since it was all about how other people perceive you.

If all you care about is preserving as much unconditional love for yourself as possible (a dog can't love everyone), have at it, but that seems futile. Cultivated, conditional bonds between humans are more complicated and painful, but also more valuable.

>>7330975
Hedonistic utilitarianism is the only true morality.

>>7330968
You must have had really horrible parents, family and friends.
Sucks to be you, it truly, most deeply does if your dog loves you more than your mother, father and brother.

>>7330968
A dog does not have love for you.

>>7331049

Define 'love'

>>7331056
Define ''

>>7331056
Indeed, define it

>>7329946
It wouldn't though, nature is evil, it's up to humanity to save it from itself

violence is always around us and governs anything we do
we need antihumanism tbqh

The amount of enjoyment I take from eating meat compared to the impact of suffering reduction (i.e. zero because supermarkets will buy just as much meat if just 1 person stops consuming it) that'd come from me stopping eating meat actually makes it unethical from a utilitarian point of view for me to stop eating meat

list of anti-vegan/vegetarian arguments ITT that in the form they take would also make killing people ok
>there is no morality
>morality is subjective
>I care more about my own interests
>'isms' are fine

>>7331130
>isms somehow equals killing people being completely fine
wew lad

>>7331130
we essentially kill people every day by acts of omission so you and I both care more about our own interests than that. The difference being that I am not directly killing people in the same way I am not directly killing animals

>>7331136
If it makes killing animals ok why wouldn't it make killing humans ok? And also what would be the basis for the ism? Is it arbitrary, or are there other reasons to prefer one group over another?

>>7331142
you're putting the cart before the horse lad
the argument was that Singer argues that eating animals is speciesism which is necessarily bad because we have arbitrarily decided all isms are bad

>>7331145
>we have arbitrarily decided all isms are bad

Where?

>>7331145
It's not saying all isms are bad, it's saying arbitrary isms are bad. That's why the mental illness analogy is important. Once you've gotten rid of a potential justification for speciesism ('animals aren't as smart/rational') you're only left with the difference of species and that on its own can't justify discriminatory treatment

>2015
>being a utilitarian

It passe 150 years ago, today it's just retarded.

Because my preference for eating meat and limited finances outweighs my moral objection to the undue suffering imposed on the animals that become my food.

>>7331162
what does finance have to do with it

I am a vegetarian almost entirely because people who dislike vegetarianism are so fucking stupid it's obnoxious.

Like, fine, eat the goddamn meat, no one cares, just please stop sincerely using appeal to nature fallacies, and implicitly packing the presumption that humans are too high up on some spooky gradient of eat-ability to eat into your arguments.

>I eat meat because HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A COW MAKE A PAINTING?? I DIDN'T THINK SO! NO PAINTINGS, NO NOT GETTING EATEN!
>I eat meat because it's NATURAL, man! Look, look at my teeth! These teeth were designed to masticate processed cheese slices! I must obey the cosmic toothlaw, the only moral imperative yet proved to exist!

The former argument implies that the qualification for "not deserving to suffer" is some specious, vague, creepy list of notable behaviours, always with zero justification. "Uh well I have theory of mind, so my being flayed into steaks is wrong, but that monkey can't figure out that the other monkey has also seen the banana, so I'm gonna eat both of them and then the banana."

I don't fucking care if you eat every monkey on earth, just stop saying retarded things before and after you do it. Just eat the fucking monkey and stop making remedial logic errors or I'll fucking eat you.

>>7331148
Western Culture as a whole

>>7331153
Not that guy, but I'm fine with not allowing retards the same rights as other people and aborting/infanticiding them ASAP in the future.

>>7331180
>I'm a vegetarian just to stick it to my dumb dad

>>7331189
>getting baited

>>7331130
It's actually the fact that veganism has no logical basis or a dogmatic basis for morality that isn't muh feels.

>>7331180
>changing your entire diet because you don't like someone
wew lad

>>7331245
there is no morality other than muh feels friendo

>>7329271
>Aesthetically, a steak prepared by a skilled chef is superior to the existence the cow had as a nearly unconscious grazing animal.

Never change /lit/

>>7331254
it's a perfectly valid point honestly

>>7331245
neither does not murdering children, that is their point

let me help you


>person A: well we've tried all weekend but i don't think we're gonna bridge the is-ought gap and create objective morality
>person B: yup that's true, so should we just start axe-murdering old ladies and raping everything?
>person A: nah even if we can't prove it, i still have this weird feeling we should frown on being cruel monsters
>person B: yeah you're right, me too
>person A: i guess we shouldn't murder animals to turn them into hats either right
>person B: UH EXCUSE ME THERE'S NO LOGICAL BASIS FOR THAT CAN YOU PROVE THAT USING CALCULUS LOL YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE AN OBJECTIVE COMMANDMENT FROM THE TETRAGRAMMATON TO BACK THAT UP
>person A: b-but we just agreed that there is no objective basis for ANY morality but that we're going to try to be nice guys regardl--
>person B: I DON'T HEAR RIGOROUS PROOFS!!! WHERE ARE THE PROOFS????

person A is just being more consistent.

take a hypothetical person C, who just subscribes to "i'll do whatever the fuck i feel like, all the time." he is also being consistent, so he's on par with A. you might dislike him, but you at least can't argue that he's inconsistent or disingenuous.

the problem with person B is that he's claiming to have the nice guy points and moral upstandingness of person A, for having quasi-moral standards, but then he also wants to turn around and act like person C when it's convenient. again, nothing wrong with being C as long as you're honest about it.

this guy >>7331162 is perfectly honest. he says he has those quasi-moral inklings, possibly, but that they are drowned out by pragmatism and ultimately he aligns with person C, even if begrudgingly. the B's in this thread are the ones demanding proof of Intersubjective Rules of Niceness to Animals, but then tacitly accepting equally proofless Intersubjective Rules of Niceness to Humans. whatever your moral stance, they're just dumb.

>>7331256
That "weird feeling" is just your genes trying to save the species. You are not your genes, and overcoming them should be every thinking man's goal.

>>7331155
Jealous of the only objective morality?

File: hume.jpg (10KB, 241x313px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 241x313px

>>7331260
>should

>>7331266
Purely in aesthetic terms, of course.

The automaton in revolt at least has an air about it...

>>7330994
People don't love unconditionally. People can turn on you in the blink of an eye. A good dog will never forget you. A good dog stays always by your side.

http://www.dogheirs.com/larne/posts/2612-loyal-dog-who-stayed-by-his-owner-s-grave-for-14-years-remembered

>>7329176
In most cases they are only alive because they were bred to eat.

>>7332220
If you raised a human being for meat you would be giving it food and life, that doesn't really make raising it, killing it, and eating it OK. The issue isn't just about life, it's about harm.

>>7332249
if it's killed instantly and there's no one to grieve then there is literally zero harm

File: fjimfyO.jpg (784KB, 3840x5760px) Image search: [Google]

784KB, 3840x5760px

We are currently enjoying being alive during the sixth mass extinction of plants and animals the earth has yet seen.

That means by deduction that there have been FIVE mass extinctions before the one that our precious little lives are witnessing.

Whether or not you eat meat is irrelevant. At least we sort of have a say in this extinction in that we are partly responsible for speeding up the process. And as a bonus to all you vegetarians and environmentally friendly chaps out there it gives you the opportunity to have something to do and feel proud about before you blink out of conscious existence.

>>7332255
If you instantly killed a human with nobody to grieve it would that not cause harm either? I didn't say life wasn't important, I said harm was also a factor.

>>7332262
yes, it would cause no harm unless the killer felt remorse

>>7332249
Yeah but its only temporary, once there dead there dead. We are all going to die, some of us very painfully. At least you know its happening.

>>7332256
nihilistic degeneracy

>>7332262
just to add to that, I think the problem is with ownership and autonomy. If a sentient creature has its own interests and thoughts/feelings it shouldn't be deprived of that through ownership. Just because you gave something life doesn't mean you can own that life and end that life. The end goal should be the abolition of all sentient beings as property

>>7332266
ok so we agree that if killing animals is ok killing human beings with no friends or family is ok?

>>7332271
More like Samsara brah

>>7332284
i didn't say anything about it being ok, i talked about harm which is what you were talking about

>>7332178
My mother had a hard pregnancy and risked her life for me before knowing who I even was. That's unconditional.
Also people do visit the graves of their friends and family, some daily. I love some people unconditionally and some love

>>7332288
if instantly killing animals doesn't cause harm and raising them for meat gives them life, then what would be wrong with that? If there's nothing wrong with it why couldn't you expand the same principle to humans, and raise humans for meat?

>>7332297
you're asking me questions you seem to think i have a stance on. I just answered the question of whether it'd cause harm and it wouldn't

>>7332296
I feel like it's more easy for you to empathize with a human being because you are one. If a dog could communicate with humans and express the pains and sadnesses it feels, I'm sure you would feel just as much if not more of a connectedness towards it than you do for humans.

>>7332296
That's not unconditional, that's literally one condition

But I am. I'm also mostly vegan. When I "cheated" and tried to eat ice cream I found out that I'm pretty much lactose intolerant now, so there's no going back. And I don't want to.

>>7332417
*lack toast and tolerant

>>7332417
I know you don't want to, but there is a way back: lactaid supplement.

I just want to imply that less chance for success is possible.

>>7332391
A dog isn't a human and it's easier to sympathize with a dog because a dog carries little hardship, unlike a son.
>>7332395
I'm sorry your mom doesn't love you and you have to find consolation in lesser life forms.

>>7332442
What's with you and implying that you're the only person who has people who love him? You sound sheltered and ignorant imho

>>7332442
the old ad homy malomy. Would your mother still love you if you locked her in a basement and tortured her 25 years family? that's a condition m80. perhaps you'll grow up 1 day ay

>>7332287
the original fedoras

>>7328956
because meat is neat

>>7328988
What animals do you think that meat comes from m8?

>>7332256

Biodiversity is at an all-time high.

vegan pussy tastes the best tbqh senpai.

>>7332580
see
>>7329516

>>7329360
people think theres some sort of inherent pretension in being veg, but all i know is pretentious meat-eater BACON BACON STEAK culture, no veg ever acts like that

File: Sky-blue-Dolphins-Tast-Like-Tuna-T-Shirts.jpg (15KB, 235x235px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 235x235px

>>7332752
exactly. and there's scorn and derision by meat-eaters to vegetarians, because empathy and awareness is seen as a largely feminine quality

>>7332752
I'm sure some veg-people are pretentious, because piles of people are pretentious over something other than their eating habits.

But, the choice to be veg, inherently is the opposite of being pretentious because it requires a degree of selflessness and humility.

I love vegetarians, especially those who are vocal about it. It makes it very easy to sort out the people I don't want to talk to.

>>7333048
tbf vegetarians and vegans are usually way more interesting than the people who seriously try to defend meat-eating

>>7330314
>So why is milk bad for you?
It's not. I've drunk 3-6 liters of whole milk every day for the last 3 years. It's not uncommon for it to be the only thing I consume in a day. It hasn't given me any issues. As long as I don't drink more than a liter in an hour, I don't experience any symptoms of indigestion. My stools are always a 4 on the Bristol scale. My bmi sits on the bottom end of normal and my waist-to-hip ratio is so low it likely incites envy in women. I've gotten sick just three times: a cold, bronchitis, and herpes onset.

At first I was worried about hypercalcaemia and milk-alkali syndrome. But it turns out the body is good at ignoring nutrients it doesn't need, and you'd have to consume an alkali with the milk for that syndrome to be an issue.

Milk is incredibly cheap for the amount of nutrition you get out of it.

Milk is literally the only food that exists for which its entire purpose is to be food. If you're lactase persistent and not allergic, there's no reason not to drink it.

Our ancestors actually milked cows before they could even drink it to make cheese and other products. When the mutation appeared that allowed people to digest milk past childhood, it spread with remarkable rapidity. The trait was too valuable. If you couldn't digest milk, you couldn't compete.

With milk as their food source, Europe was primed to become the center for human advancement. When people don't have to focus on acquiring food, they have lots of time to put their brains to use for anything else.

>>7333366
>With milk as their food source, Europe was primed to become the center for human advancement. When people don't have to focus on acquiring food, they have lots of time to put their brains to use for anything else.

Not sure if bait, but are you saying the reason European agricultural productivity went up so quickly and freed up labour for industry is because everyone started producing a lot of milk? Might need a few sources for that...

Regardless, you completely ignored the ethical argument.

>>7332752
This. I've personally killed and eaten several hundred animals of all sorts (hunter) and fat, sedentary fucks acting like eating processed pork and fat-riddled beef makes them a man when I order a light meal at a restaurant makes my skin crawl. That shit's all marketing, like the idea that weak beer and strong liquor are masculine while women drink wine 5x stronger than beer but mix their liquor.

>>7333396
I didn't intend to address the ethics of milk drinking. I'm not qualified to. I answered what I could.

>Not sure if bait, but are you saying the reason European agricultural productivity went up so quickly and freed up labour for industry is because everyone started producing a lot of milk? Might need a few sources for that...
I was reciting from memory what I learned from this Nature article and wikipedia, etc., but it's been a while since I researched so it could be wrong.
http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
>When a single genetic mutation first let ancient Europeans drink milk, it set the stage for a continental upheaval.

>>7328956
>animal rights
>ever
>implying animal's need rights to be treated ethically by man
it's like you dont even believe in rights (just like Singer)

But I am. Been I haven't eaten meat in two years.

>>7333471
That is not the only ethical consideration in becoming a vegetarian.

File: image.jpg (27KB, 200x293px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 200x293px

>>7333471
OP didn't mention rights. But that is one of many reasons Regan>>>>Singer

>>7333483
He's better than singer because he believes in more spooks than singer? rights and morals don't exist. there's really nothing right or wrong with killing animals for our pleasure

>>7333488
Rights and morals don't 'objectively' exist in the sense there's an immovable moral code waiting to be discovered. That doesn't mean rights and morals don't exist. It just means you need to make the case for rights and morals and convince other people to adopt them into their own subjective morality.

>>7330924

Ethics stem from the individual but are enforced by society.

If your personal ethics value animals over humans, that's fine, but society in general will not agree with you.

>>7333498
If rights and moral don't exist objectively, they're just opinions and feelings. You have no basis to convince any sophisticated person of your position. It's literally just you arguing from emotions like an animal.

>>7328956
because i like eating meat.

>>7330975
Agreed on most points but there really is considerable scientific evidence that a drastic reduction in meat intake would be pretty healthy for us.

>>7328956
shit's gay
don't wanna be gay

>>7333521
>everything subjective is irrational opinions and feelings
What things do you think are objective? Why?

>>7332256
Man, that pic is making me ache for summertime (Oz). I just finished my undergrad and I am ready to relax.

>>7333561
objective morality doesnt exist either. its a fabrication.
>killing animals is wrong because my feelings say so
my feelings say its not wrong. there is nothing that makes me inherently wrong on subjective morality. the conversation is over at this point. have a nice day and enjoy your spooks and imaginary rules that have no basis in reality.

>>7329516
Who gives a shit. At that age, it's postnatal abortion.

t. Peter Singer

>>7333580
see >>7331130

>>7333601
my logic is not adhoc. i apply it to all moral claims. you can say a lot of things about the act of killing a person, but any moral judgements you make of it are just your opinions and feelings about the matter.

>>7333607
Yeah, that's my point, if you're being consistent you can't make any moral judgments about killing people either. What things can you say about the act of killing a human that aren't moral? Are they based on anything objective? If not, aren't they just irrational feelings and opinions.

>>7333619
your point is moot because it assumes im not being consistent when i am. you are making an appeal to emotions which only works on feeble minded people such as yourself.
>What things can you say about the act of killing a human that aren't moral?
it will make the other person stop living for starters. duh.

>>7333077
This is true. Crazy people make the best characters.

>>7333644
>feeble minded people such as yourself
Look, at this point I don't know if you're just baiting, or if you're a genuine euphoric stirnerboo, but I was assuming you were being consistent. If you're being consistent morals are irrational and useless and so can't be applied to people. That would make killing people just as fine as killing animals. That's your position, I'm just clarifying so people can see nearly all the arguments here imply it's fine to kill people too

>>7333499
Argumentum ad populum

>>7332772
Not actually. I hate vegans because they want to be morality superior without actually doing something moral. They are like those crazy Baptist pastors with mad cars who preach about hell and haven, but their code of empathy ends with irrelevant beings such as cows and dogs. It's a personal moral high ground without any justification, makes them feel superior without any actual superiority.
Veganism is a religion for vapid people who want to feel warm inside because they didn't eat meat. But unlike religion it asks no actual sacrifice.