It's time to talk about moral consistency. FUCK YOU NONVEGAN

>>133919698

It's tasty. There's my justification.

>>133919698
I like the way it tastes.

>>133919766
Would you accept the justification of "you're tasty" for a human murdering you. If not, why not?

>>133919828
Because then I'd be dead and I don't want that.

>>133919828

Because I follow social convention. Let me know when eating humans becomes socially acceptable. Then I'll begin eating humans. I'm sure they're tasty, too.

>>133919698
F1. retarded assumption
F2. Retarded assumption, also consciousness would be the standard reply

>>133919828
I wouldn't. I'd shoot the nigger.
I don't have to justify shit to you, you stupid little faggot.

>>133919828
>>133919954
If cows tried to eat me then I'd genocide their species.

>>133919954
Do you reject the fact that animals have a will to live then?

Why the fuck are we supposed to pretend we're better than animals?

I don't see these assholes pleading their case to lions, tigers, and bears, though I wish they fucking would, smothered in honey.

>>133919698
Because i value all life equally, and don't privilege one life form above another just because it has cute eyes and makes little noises.

Next question.

>>133919979
Social convention does not equal morality. Social convention can be used to justify rape and murder of humans and if you would not accept these things being done to you, you cannot levy social convention as a justification for eating animals as it produces inconsistency.

>>133919987
Are you rejecting human moral value? Elaborate

>>133920033
A will to live is irrelevant in a situation where one is human and the other is not

File: 1472875912731.jpg (200KB, 736x330px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 736x330px

>>133919698
>>133920033
>>133919828
Humans are fully sapient and self aware, capable of complex abstract thought and decision making. The fact we're able to have this conversation is entirely unique to humans. This fulfills the exceptional human characteristic required for moral coherence in your argument.

Dead on first principles.

>>133919995
I will assume you value logical consistency, and am trying to point you in that direction.

>>133920053
This. OP's arguement tries to establish some equivalency between animals and humans, but then ignores the fact that some animals would most definitely eat humans if given the chance.

Animals arnt self aware like humans and they probably don't have souls ether if you belive in that kinda stuff ,which is probably why the taste so good

>>133920019
Has a cow ever tried to eat you? (Ps I realize self defense is justified)

>>133920295
>We are human
>Humans have a vested interest in the survival and safety of other humans
>Therefore, humans will not eat humans because we ourselves would not want to be eaten
>What animals may or may not want is irrelevant because they are neither human nor party to this basic social contract of not eating each other

>>133920156

Cool. Well, I just follow social convention. Let me know when social convention permits cannibalism, and I'll begin eating tasty humans. I haven't much "consistency." You think reason produces morality. Morality is whoever has the most power - whoever has the ability to make other conform to a particular set of values, whether they're arbitrary or not. This is the nihilism you created. Sorry.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to eat a tasty animal.

>>133919698
>What's your justification for eating meat?
It's nutritious, it tastes good and I'm an omnivorous animal.

>>133920416
The day cows and shit stat to evolve and invent shit is the day I'll question eating them. And that still won't stop me

>>133920270
I am a little confused as to what you mean by "fully sapient" (are you appealing to species?) Some humans are not capable of abstract thought. Do you support raping and murdering these humans?

>>133920597
see
>>133920416
>Therefore, humans will not eat humans because we ourselves would not want to be eaten
>What animals may or may not want is irrelevant because they are neither human nor party to this basic social contract of not eating each other

There is literally nothing with species exceptionalism.

>>133920661
nothing wrong with*

but you could construct the same argument without species exceptionalism, leveraging the concept of social contracts and game theory

>>133920597
>Do you support raping
Nobody said anything involving rape. Why are you doing it now, my degenerate friend?

>>133920298
I fully understand that bears (read: carnivores) will eat humans given the chance. The distinction here is that these animals do not have moral agency, nor can they conceptualize logical consistency, and are therefore "off the hook" so to speak. Humans (most ((you))) are moral agents and can conceptualize moral agency, and should act accordingly.

>>133920761
And? You're implying there's anything inherently morally wrong with killing lower beasts. In fact, your entire argument hinges on that unsupported assertion.

File: 1493702597272.gif (2MB, 400x417px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x417px

Livestock isn't sentient. They're lesser species. They don't care about helping refugees or painting a picture, they just want to eat and screw. And if they can eat and screw a lot before the slaughterhouse then it sounds like a pretty decent life if you had their brain capacity

>>133920334
Some humans are not self aware (due to severe mental handicap). Do you support killing and raping these humans? If not, then a justification other than "lack of self awareness" must be levied to justify animal killings.

>>133919828
Why would I give a flying fuck about his justification? All I care about is that he grills me on a BBQ, not boiled.

>>133920761
>The distinction here is that these animals do not have moral agency
So these animals are, in fact, fundamentally different from us. I thought species equality is what you were basing your argument on in the first place. Which is it, now?

>>133920858
Hey fuck face, why don't you reply to where that same argument was rebuked? I'll recap if you need it!

>As a social primate species, humans have a vested interest in the safety and survival of other humans
>Loss of human life should be avoided, and a social contract of mutual non-violence makes humanity stronger
>Animals are not party to this contract, nor are they humans

>>133919698
>animals are of moral value
?????

>>133920270
Crows have the indicators of being capable of this as well. They can deduce logic puzzles, communicate with each other, etc. For this reason, I suggest increased rights for crows and relatives.

>>133920597
Yes, I support removing these humans.

File: rick quote make anything sound bad.jpg (109KB, 739x409px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 739x409px

>>133919698
>moral value

Lost me there. Morality is vacuous. It's just feels armed with mental gymnastics. In any consistent moral system, everyone is a terrible person.

I eat meat for fuel. My dietitian reccomended it to me because fruits and vegetables cause horrible stomach pain. Not that you care, since you're just looking for excuses to call me a horrible person and feel oh so good about it.

>>133920416
I was responding with the fact that animals do have a live to a specific person bringing this up. Would you call the killing of a human by an alien morally justified because "Aliens have a vested interest in survival and safety of other humans"? I think you are appealing to species to justify the killings of these animals (if this is not the case please clarify). Unless you would accept aliens killing humans because we are not their species, your argument in inconsistent.

>>133921052
>I suggest increased rights for crows and relatives.
And you'll be laughed out of every audience in the world for doing so. Humans are inherently exceptional, and until you can deal with that fact your arguments are all resting on falsified principles.

>>133919698
Humans don't have moral value. Persons have moral value. If you disagree then I guess you can't be a vegan and pro-abortion.

>>133920995
Many animals follow contracts similar to this, especially corvids and relatives. They form tribal units, which will share time watching young, chasing off predators, and collecting food. They communicate with each other. This is a small example of social contract in place.

Also worth noting: They recognize that some animals are predators, but will generally ignore humans, as they recognize they pose no immediate threat.

>>133921110
Mockery is not a counterargument. I plan to perform extended studies and experimentation to support my claims.

>>133919698
following basic biology is not immoral, humans like many other organisms have evolved to eat meat, at least partially.

the food chain is not a social construct

>>133920495
If you don't value logical consistency, then I honestly cannot argue with you. Perhaps re-examine the concept of logical consistency then take a look at your actions. No bad feelings but some personal development could do some good. I reject the "might makes right" argument as it justifies literally anything if you are more powerful, contradicting my belief in human moral value.

>>133921091
>Would you call the killing of a human by an alien morally justified because "Aliens have a vested interest in survival and safety of other humans"?
Yes, and that's why we need to be fucking careful with SETI programs, because it's possible or probable other intelligent species that evolved as hunter gatherers have come to the same conclusions.

However, insofar as mutual trade can benefit both groups, violence would be avoided. We can see this in human-animal relations in non-destructive livestock practices such as sheering.

>>133921239
>I plan to perform extended studies and experimentation to support my claims.
You go right on and do that, Lord of Crows

>>133920515
Is eating meat necessary for your survival (could be the case if you are an tribes person or live in really rural areas)? If not, then it is inconsistent to eat meat if you have a personal belief in human moral value.

File: iguessthis.jpg (50KB, 600x317px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x317px

>>133921020
Beats me as well.

>>133921393
>then it is inconsistent to eat meat if you have a personal belief in human moral value.
You continue to argue as if killing animals is inherently immoral. You still have not backed this up in any way. You're taking the argument of a religious fanatic - not bowing to Christ is inconsistent with human moral value (from the perspective of a Christian)

>>133921393
>it is inconsistent to eat meat if you have a personal belief in human moral value
How so?

File: Checkins.webm (2MB, 1283x540px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1283x540px

>>133919698
>Animal moral value

>P1
Humans only have moral value if their existence benefits other people.

>P2
Animals may have moral value if their existence benefits people, but most species lack traits that make them useful beyond being harvested for animal products or just eaten.

>C
Many animals must be domesticated and/or killed in order to maximize their value.

>>133920586
Is your justification for eating cows "Cows are not on human level intellect"? If this is your position, would you accept being killed by Stephen Hawking because you are not on his intellectual level? If you would not accept the justification of "lesser intelligence" when used by Stephen on you, then you cannot reasonably apply it to animals without being inconsistent. (aka applying a double standard)

>>133919698
Veganism and shit is just more brainwashing from the left to convince us to hate and kill ourselves for population control and the earth. It's also a hobby for fucking rich people who have no life

>>133921404
the only winning woof is not to play

File: 1477453109622.png (581KB, 896x672px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 896x672px

>>133921557
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

>>133919698
Morality has no absolutes

>>133920661
Sorry could you clarify your justification for killing animals? Want to make sure I have your argument correct and not attack a strawman.

>>133921625
>the only winning woof is not to play
I bet you don't even know about multibark woof.

>>133921695
>could you clarify your justification for killing animals?
It's easier to eat them when they're dead.

File: IMG_9421.jpg (106KB, 344x540px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 344x540px

>>133919698

>>133921239
OP is a little intense and either just went down a vegan rabbit hole or is 15

>>133921695
Justification is as simple as needs, desires, or convenience. I have no more need to justify taking a deer than I do to justify brushing my teeth. The burden is on you to prove a moral wrong is committed.

File: IMG_9422.jpg (106KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 500x375px

>>133921695

>>133920759
I am building a hypothetical to expose logical inconsistency. If you would not accept a human being raped with the justification of "this human lacks abstract thought" then you cannot apply the justification of "this animal lacks abstract thought" to justify killing the animal. You must either accept or reject both rapings to maintain logical consistency. (ie accepting the justification in one context and rejecting it in another is to create a double-standard)

>>133920858
>killing
Yes, it would be merciful.
>raping
Because civilized human beings find that normal behavior on par with eating/killing(for X reason). Of course you had to go with that as an argument. Jesus fuck, jump in a meatgrinder and have someone donate your remains to be nigger feed. Its evident you're just going to walk around in bullshit circles for the entirety of this thread.
>>133919698
>What's your justification for eating meat?
Survival is the one and only justification. If you weren't such a bleeding heart faggot with an eating disorder like a teenage girl having to rely on (((supplements))) you'd know that the hard way.

>>133919698
We consume life or we are consumed by it. I don't care if i eat tofu or steak or both, i'm eating something that was alive and now is not so i can decompose it into nutriment
>i see no moral contradiction because animals are not from the same species as us and therefore it's predation.
>mass factory of meat is pretty bad and unmoral for alot of reasons, one should kill his prey or eat other things. Just eat what feels natural.

>>133921859
You're still hung up on the first principle that killing an animal is morally wrong. Prove it. Without that, you have nothing.

>>133921859
You're equating raping a person to killing an animal. It's not even the same action you're using, buddy.

File: IMG_9423.jpg (2MB, 3088x2056px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3088x2056px

>>133921859

>>133920839
My argument hinges on whether you personally have a belief in human moral value. If you do think humans have moral value, then you cannot justify killing a "lower beast" in such a way that does not produce a double standard when applied to humans. For clarity, I would ask that you clarify your justification for killing animals so I can better understand your argument.

>>133919698
What the fuck is moral value?

>>133919698
>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless
An IQ above 70

File: 1482694261062.jpg (14KB, 280x357px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 280x357px

>>133919698
The entire argument presented in your image for ants boils down to a logic puzzle

>What trait can be absent in animals but never in humans, that gives humans innate value?
Humanity.

>>133922015
>a belief in human moral value
Then define it, retard. Your "moral values" are neither universal nor assumed. You keep waving "human moral values" around, but without definition it holds no more value than a sealed holy book.

>>133920849
If you are contesting animal sentience, I have nothing to say other than use google to resolve the dispute. This is an objective, impirical reality, take a look at some of the evidence suggesting that animals are sentient. (this is a little grey when approaching ants, but for livestock this is very clear.) I would ask you resolve this before continuing.

>Valuing your own species above others is "logically inconsistent"
lol

File: tmp_26532-1498859184836-1149504747.jpg (87KB, 735x490px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 735x490px

Veganism is simply an attempt to evade the fact that life feeds on life, that the universe is a vast web of creation and destruction. A vegan is just a person who spares his own feelings by killing creatures that can’t scream. Vegenism is an attempt to remove man from nature, rather than to embrace nature and plunge into it. As such, veganism is nothing more than an ascetic retreat from life.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iF4r85luJuo

>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
I disagree with this proposition. Just because you say it is so, doesn't make it so.
It also is a narrow, nongeneralized case. If we accept the proposition as "reasonable" albeit not fully developed, it is also conceivably reasonable to presume the proposition would be true if we replaced "animals" with "plants" or "fungi" or "bacteria".

>>133922220
>Quads of truth

>>133922015
>>133922140
Ah, I see where the miscommunication is. I keep assuming you're referring to value as in morals in your later posts, and that's false. In that case, see

>>133920995
Humanity is unique because we are human. Humans have intrinsic value to each other that we do not share with (most) animals because we are a social species. We uphold a social contract to which only humans are party. ALL OF THOSE are exceptional characteristics that no animal can hold (with the exception of pet animals holding companionship value)

>>133922015
>human moral value
What does that even mean? Define your terms. Morality isn't universal and we have no idea what you're talking about in this case.

>producing double standard when applied to humans
It's not a double standard because it's not even the same entity. It's human v not-human.

>>133920892
If you do not accept the justification levied in a human context, but accept the exact same.justification in an animal context, you have created a double standard. This is the definition of logical inconsistency.

>>133920597
>>133920858
Because it's a slippery slope. First you support the killing or retards, next thing you know they're hunting down anime watching basement dwellers like yourself.

>>133922461
>slippery slope
Really makes me think.

>>133920941
To clarify, I DO NOT believe in species equality. Do you agree that some humans lack moral agency?

>>133922220
>he values swedes
KEK

>>133919698
Great argument, except you could also apply it to plants

Starve yourself my m8

>>133921530
>chicken harvester
Neat.

>>133920995
Is your arguement that because animals are not in our social contract their killing is justified? (Im really not trying to strawman you im sorry) You may be deploying both a species justification and a social contract justification at the same time, but this will be resolved if we can just stick to a single justification at a time.

>>133921020
I would ask, what is your justification for killing animals?

>>133922533
It should, Adolf, because dark-haired Germans are next in line.

>>133922558
>I DO NOT believe in species equality
And yet you insist in equal treatment of the unequal.

>do you agree that some humans lack moral agency?
Yes. Keyword being "some". They're still humans, though.

>>133922840
Now I'm thinking twice as much.

>>133921052
If you do bite the bullet and suggest that these humans lacking in moral agency can be raped and murdered (not sure what "removed" means exactly) then you are maintaining logical consistency which is better than most. The debate becomes much more drawn out as I now have to convince you that retards have moral value. Thank you for at least being consistent.

>>133919698
If your conclusion is wrong, look at your premises

P2 is false, because the trait which is absent in animals that is present in humans, is 'being human'. 'To deem ourselves' implies social convention. Social convention states that eating animals is ok and eating humans is not.

>>133922772
>Is your arguement that because animals are not in our social contract their killing is justified?
Again, I don't feel any need to justify killing an animal. The moral burden is to prove it's wrong. Your argument rests on the idea that animals have no distinguishing traits which, absent a human, would make the human fair game for hunting. I've pointed out several, among which is the human social contract, that cannot by definition be absent a human but can certain be absent animals.

Without your argument that no such distinguishing trait exists, there is no moral reason not to kill an animal.

>>133923046
>can be raped
You really are fascinated with rape, aren't you? Are you jewish or black, perchance?

>>133921065
I'm sorry if it comes across that I am attempting to shame anyone, I am merely trying to rectify logical inconsistencies. So ill take it you do not have a belief in human moral value?

>>133919698
Fuck off NWO cunt. We know that Agenda 21 promotes veganism and so does WHO. We're not falling for it.

>>133922935
>equal treatment
No one is insisting we put clothes on cows, so treatment is not equal. It's simply a respect towards animal life.

>>133923245
>respect
What an empty word. What does "respect" entail?

>>133921110
What traits do humans have that grant them this exceptional status? If a human was lacking in whichever trait you choose, do they still deserve the right to life?

>>133921131
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, could you clarify what you mean by "persons". Dont want move further until I understand your argument.

File: IMG_5939.gif (220KB, 317x240px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 317x240px

Life and death are the same thing. I eat meat. You murder microorganisms merely by breathing. Neither of us can claim moral superiority or inferiority. I understand being young, you'll understand someday

>>133921239
Thank you for a voice of reason.

>>133922015
You're implying that humans and animals have the same moral value here. The killing of "lower beasts" occurs all the time within animals as well. Yet they are not held to the same standards you are applying to humans simply due to the fact that they do not even know what morality is. This is what places them below us in terms of moral value.
I am not arguing that "it's natural to eat animals as other animals do it as well", simply illustrating the fact that those without morals cannot be held to the same moral standards, and have equal moral value, as those who do.
Before you say "I never said they have the same moral value, I only said that they have moral value", do keep in mind that you have been equating the act of killing animals for gain to killing humans for gain this entire thread, implying these acts are even remotely of the same impact in terms of "moral value".
>inb4 "tu quoque!!!" "appealing to nature!!!"

>>133921268
I would agree that in a self-defense or survival situation, the killing of animals and humans is completely justified. What this argument is focused on is the unnecessary killings of animals. I assume your use of a computer means you have access to a grocery store, rendering killing animals unnecessary for you (and is then logically inconsistent for you to do so) ((what is your justification for killing animals in a non-survival situation?))

>>133923300
sigh, could you not click my ID and highlight my many posts itt where I described such a distinguishing characteristic?

>humans are a social primate species
>humans have intrinsic value to other humans in this capacity that we do not share with other animals, and that other animals do not share with us
>additionally, humans are socially advanced enough to recognize the inherent game theory advantages of non-conflict with other humans, and have created social contracts around this
>humans are the sole party to these social contracts, as they are built on the unique value humans have to each other

>>133922673
>swedes
>same species as human

>>133921315
If you accept the justification in both contexts, then you are logically consistent. I personally would not accept this justification from aliens, and therefore, cannot personally deploy it to justify killing animals.

>>133923381
Our society has already given up on the concept of an intrinsic value to human life when we embraced abortion. In stead we invented the concept of "personhood" to qualify which humans have value and which humans do not. A fetus is human, but it is not a person, thus we can kill it. An animal certainly isn't a person. If you believe that there is an intrinsic value to human life then you cannot morally support abortion.

In fact your argument against animal killing is almost completely interchangeable with a Christian's argument against abortion.

>>133919698
That statement is logically inconsistent.
Animals are not humans.

>>133921487
I am not attempting to bootstrap morality here. I am merely trying to point out that if you do not accept the justifications used for killing animals when applied to yourself, you are being logically inconsistent. I have just read you above comment and you are being logically consistent. Thank you for that. (read my response to the above comment)

>>133921494
What is your justification for eating meat? Once I know your justification it can be tested for inconsistency.

>>133920858
>Some humans are not self aware (due to severe mental handicap). Do you support killing and raping these humans?
You do know that vegetables are recommended daily? So are fruits, but we don't eat OPs.

>>133923872
>the justifications used for killing animals
Again, justification is not required to kill an animal when no moral wrong in doing so has been established.

By establishing the distinguishing characteristic of human value to other humans, and all systems and societies built upon that, we have established a moral reason not to kill humans but have not established a moral reason not to kill animals.

What immutable characteristic do you believe animals possess that separates them from plants and makes it morally wrong to kill them?

>>133921530
If a hermit was living completely alone in the woods, it could be said that his existence does not benefit other people because he does not interact with them in any meaningful way. Would you say that raping and murdering this hermit is morally justified?

>>133924090
If a hermit died in the woods and nobody heard it, would he make a sound?

>>133921648
I'm confused, the article linked seems to descrie a form of agrument. Do you think this is a sort of fallacy? I am unclear on your intent here.

>>133921652
I agree. This argument works whether morality is objective or subjective. All it relies on is your personal belief in human moral value and logical consistency.

>>133924229
It can be a fallacy when used in dumbfuck ways, like reducing "what morally separates a cow from a disabled patient" to "should stephen hawking become the school shooter we need right now, but not the one we deserve"

File: 1471985909650.jpg (98KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 400x400px

>>133919698

Vegans are retarded.

I was one for 15 years.

Biggest fucking mental masturbatory self-back-patting garbage you can do with your life.

Protip: until vegans become, say, 30% of the population and aren't just the 0.05% they are now, it won't make a fucking difference.

Gonna need another 500+ years to see that happen, so no, you'll be irrelevant forever.

>>133921774
I am not a tumblrista. This does not trigger me. Please present an agrument.

>>133921822
Please present an argument.

>>133924317
The argument doesn't work if a characteristic all humans possess that give them moral value exists, and such a trait cannot be held by an animal.

>>133921997
Aaand please present an agrument.

>>133921091
>Unless you would accept aliens killing humans because we are not their species, your argument in inconsistent.

Yes I would accept that in principle, but not in practice. I would not blame aliens for killing humans, but I would still call for reprisals and war against them. This is basic large scale tribalism. Why are you incapable of understanding this? I value human life more than animal life. That's it. Nothing more to it. I don't care if an animal dies for a human purpose. I wouldn't be ok with humans dying for alien purposes because I am human, and humans are my species. The fact that you can't even comprehend specie-ism just proves how deluded modern humans have become, at least some of them in the first world. This shouldn't even be a problem.

File: 1500089444863.gif (3MB, 225x324px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 225x324px

Ethics are for pussies.

The only rights a person (or animal for that matter) has are the rights they can defend.

>>133919698
Why do morals need to be consistent? As far as I know, most moral rules deal with specific situations. They aren't generally applicable.

>>133921806
>Justification is as simple as needs, desires, or convenience
I am on board with justification with needs, but not from desires or convenience. It would satisfy my sexual desire to rape someone, but this does not make that rape moral. It would be convenient to kill a rich guy in the woods and take his money (inb4 goyim) this convenience does not justify his murder.

File: 1499901840812.jpg (70KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 803x688px

>this entire thread

>>133923923
Nutrition, dipshit.
Actually, I lied. I just carve up animals for underwear.

>>133919698
>animals have feelings you can't eat them
>plants have feelings but we have to eat something while we're busy virtue signaling so let's say eating plants is ok

>>133921872
Please don't be confused, I fully accept that survival is a valid justification for eating meat, human and animal. Due to your ability to post in this thread, I can say with absolute certainty that you are not in such a survival situation, and it is not necessary for you to eat meat. The "Name The Trait" argument applies specifically to non-survival scenarios.

>>133923282
He's probably one of those retards who demands that hunters cry or pray over a kill, kek. You see them sometimes the comments of hunting videos. "I am ok with hunting, but show some RESPECT to the animal you asshole! You were too excited when you killed it. You have to be somber, and engage in some delusional ritual, because that somehow makes it better in my stunted understanding of ethics".

>>133919698
>There is no trait absent in animals that if animals would justify human exploitation
It's called being human you pozzed faggot.

>>133922262
I should also add that there are times when it is perfectly okay to kill a human.
Self defense is the non controversial one.
The death penalty and abortion are the controversial ones.
This implies that there are situations where a human does lose "moral value".

>>133921915
It appears that your justification is "different species". Would you accept the justification of "different species" for aliens killing/raping you? If you would not accept this justification, it is inconsistent to apply this justification to animals.

>>133924615
Okay, I'm going to have to go through this really slowly.

There are moral reasons not to rape. Therefore, mere desire is not sufficient.

There are reasons not to murder. Therefore, mere greed is not sufficient.

You have not established a moral reason not to kill animals. Therefore, mere whim is sufficient.

I do not require a morally justified reason to brush my teeth, because doing so brings no wrong. I do not require a morally justified reason to kill a deer, because doing so brings no wrong.

YOU have to establish a moral wrong, BEFORE anyone is required to justify committing the moral wrong.

>>133924809
>>133924946
Killing animals is moral because morality only applies to humans. It is that simple. I would even be ok with genociding aliens who are just as intelligent as us, because morality only applies to my species. I couldnt care less about other species to extend morality to them.

>>133921949
Killing of animals is not ""wrong"". I am building a case that most people would not accept the justifications for killing humans when these justifications are applied to themselves. If you do not either accept or reject the same justification in both contexts, it is logically inconsistent.

>>133922019
The belief that humans should not be killed unnecessarily.

>>133925069
>If you do not either accept or reject the same justification in both contexts, it is logically inconsistent.
That is incorrect, because it relies on your debunked argument that no distinguishing trait exists that gives humans a moral weight animals do not have.

>>133924962
Ahh ok hello your agrument is vastly more clear than anyone else in this shit stack and I would like to focus on responding to an articulate person at the very least. Could you explain what the moral reasons not to rape and murder are for clarifications sake?

>>133925163
I think I am creating confusing by respond to multiple people at once, but I would like to respond to just you for now for more clarity.

>>133919698
>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
There is no way to prove this. Possibly the dumbest argument I have ever read. Took me a while to make sense of it.

>>133923424
?? I am very confused. A microorganism is not sentient (capable of experiencing reality) so anything you do to it cannot be experienced by that organism. Animals however, can experience what happens to them.

>>133925489
>murder
1. Humans have an intrinsic social value to other humans
2. Humans recognize that if as a society, we agree not to murder each other, we will be far better off

>rape
This is more complex, because it's a "higher level" crime, in the development of a society.

Because humans are inherently valuable, we consider each other's emotions and free will in decision making. Rape is a violation of every physical and social freedom and right. It can leave people scared for years.

>>133924090
Possibly. If he likes being a hermit and is satisfied with that then his existence benefits himself, otherwise yes.

>>133919698
>If you have a personal belief in human moral value,
I don't.

>inconsistent to deny animals moral value.
It isn't

>>133925778
I agree that humans have social value to other humans. Why is this the case?

If you are arguing that society will be better off without the murder of humans, a clear case can be made that society will be better off without animal murders. (Increase in food supply, less wasted resources (water, land, waste etc)).

>>133925069
Morality isn't real, dumbass.

>>133926129
Then you're not inconsistent, I have nothing to say to you from a logical consistency standpoint lel. Nihilism defeats my argument in the same way it defeats any argument.

File: americapepe.png (327KB, 564x564px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 564x564px

>>133919698
YOull fuck you kids up if you raise them vegan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcf9CLMQuRQ

>>133919828
>Animals are allowed to eat other animals
>I'm not allowed to eat other animals
Pretty damn racist desu

>>133926229
Human value to other humans is based on the fact we're a social species. We're hard wired for human empathy and need human companionship to live a socially healthy life.

>>133923619
because I want to?

I don't have to justify it, we evolved to do it. Our senses tell us it tastes great.

>>133926414
You have moral agency and a concept of logical consistency, whereas animals do not. I would not call a person who lacks these 2 traits eating animals immoral. They cannot conceptualize what that even means and cannot be held responsible.

>>133926555
That's racist.

>>133926496
I completely agree with this position. Do you not believe that empathy extends to sentient life (read: animals)?

>>133926605
I know when I'm getting memed on have a nice day lel

>>133919698
>If you have a personal belief in human moral value, it is inconsistent to deny animals moral value
it is not inconsistent
> There is no trait absent in animals
the ability to reciprocate is absent in animals. I extend ethical consideration to people on the condition that they return ethical consideration to me. If a person is not ethical in their behavior to me then I feel no compunction to behave ethically towards them. Animals cannot understand this reciprocity. A cow will not recognize my vegetarianism and is just as likely to trample me if I am vegan or carnivore. Therefore, fuck cows. I will eat them because they taste good and eating beef makes my life more convenient.

>>133926647
Yes, but not nearly as strongly. Do you feel as strongly when you see a dead deer as when you see a grieving mother? And what if we extend this to less "cuddly" animals like fish?

Surely we can't base the ethics of killing animals based on empathy. We're more empathetic to dogs than dolphins, which are objectively smarter.

>>133926766
I don't feel empathy as strongly to animals as I do towards humans. Are you saying that because animals are not part of the human social contract that it is morally acceptable to kill them?

>>133919698
You're right OP. We're animals.
And Animals are known to eat Animals.
They are also known not to typically eat their own species unless there are no alternatives.

Now I'm going to enjoy this hamburger(for I am not a cow) just the same way that a Tiger would(for a Tiger is not a cow).

>>133925756
sez you
microorganisms react to stimuli
they approach beneficial stimuli and retreat from antagonistic stimuli
that is the exact same basis from which we assume consciousness in other animals and humans, so how can you deny microorganisms "experience of reality"

time to convert to jainism you logically inconsistent retard

>>133927097
I can realize that micro-organisms experience no more of reality that a hand-held calculator that reacts to the stimuli of button input.

>>133926980
yes, because morality is an escape from vengeance
animals will not wreak vengeance upon you for eating them
there is a good chance that if you attack or kill a human that his or her family will destroy you
that is the basis of the human social construct
avoiding mutual destruction

>>133921302
>Got hit so hard with truth that he reverted into an American

>>133927255
Oh lel didnt notice here ya go bud thanks for mentioning it ;>

>>133926555
And lacking that trait is exactly what justifies exploiting them. They are incapable of moral judgement and therefore have zero intrinsic moral value.

File: 1496777491224.png (128KB, 912x869px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 912x869px

>humans are of moral value
But they're not.

File: IMG_5849.jpg (181KB, 490x403px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 490x403px

>>133927220
You just classify living creatures as objects to justify your murder. That's what Hitler did.

>>133927404
I may have been unclear. Who are you referring to with the use of "them". Are you saying that humans that lack moral agency have 0 moral value?

File: 1489001176145.jpg (108KB, 960x710px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 960x710px

>>133927508
>implying that even if hitler did kill anyone, it wasn't an act of war and not murder

>>133927508
The difference is that I would accept my own murder if I was a micro-organism because I would not experience it. In the same way I would accept my own murder if I was a rock or a tree.

>>133924809
Yes, having access to the Internet suddenly makes my body magically provide all the wonders eating meat does. Conveniently you avoided commenting that because you're neck deep in bullshit, nigger.

>>133927641

Hitler did nothing wrong, therefore this is not a state of moral default.

>>133927661
Um there are no nutrients found in meat that are ONLY obtainable through meat sources, except cholesterol. If you really want cholesterol tho you can just suck dick not even memeing semen has cholesterol.

>>133927641
that's bullshit
a microorganism will resist being killed in the same way a human will resist being killed. The fact that it cannot cognize its own murder doesn't mean it won't resist it.

respond to my post you fucking coward
>>133927235
>>133927235

File: IMG_5888.jpg (118KB, 700x982px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 700x982px

>>133927641
Would, could, should. You're as much a killer as anyone, you just have different reasons for killing and different definitions for what constitutes murder. Do whatever you want, but don't expect anyone to care about your semantics

>>133927772
gathering tubers and shit for a whole tribe of people is so much more work than hunting and killing fauna that it's not even comparable.

in the same way that it's easier to satisfy one's protein reqs. by eating a pound of beef than it is to eat five pounds of broccoli

>>133927378
Going on to the statement of yours I responded it, it's blatantly apparent that might makes right. We are on top in the world, nothing outside our domains can challenge us because they have not the might or the intelligence to stop what we do except catastrophic natural disaster and our own fingers on the big red button.
My point is, our might and intelligence is what makes us what we are now, those below us are our tools and our food sources. Do we value some things more than others? Of course, but that is because those things have proven what they're worth to us. It's not immoral to eat something bred or evolved for consumption like a pig or cow, and it's not immoral to keep an animal that has been with us, helping us hunt and track, like a dog.

>>133927714
Hitler did nothing wrong?

He lost the war you edgy faggot

>>133919698
An animal will not give up the part for the whole

>>133919698
I would say it is a inconsistency in the fact that we only have morals for other people, aka people of our own race. We hold ourselves to a standard, or "morals" as in we don't kill each other, or we don't eat each other. Human morality is something entirely made and limited to humans, however people have dogs which that say are morally wrong to eat, however in places like China/Korea it is morally okay to eat dog. Now you yourself can put creatures into your moral guidelines, like not killing dogs, or crabs, or cows. However the animals are additions to these guidelines. And this makes sense because when you hear about a tribe of murdering cannibals you think of them as savages not as people.
In case of confusion, I imply that for human morality, it involves one human doing or not doing something to another human, where as your saying it is inconsistent because it should be one human doing or not doing something to a animal.
So it is not a moral inconsistency.

>>133923643

Dogs can have social value to humans and have had social contracts with humans for hundreds of thousands of years.

You still also have a problem with nonbinary humans. What happens to babies, the mentally ill, or legally brain dead people who aren't physically capable of meeting any of your criteria?

>>133919698
Human life has no inherent moral value. This has been proven tIme and time again since we came down from the trees.

You're conflating moral with emotional value, a rookie mistake, that causes me to hope you get testicular cancer and live the rest of your whiny, pathetic life and yet another involuntary trap.
Kys you faggot.

>>133927807
Look at any video of chimps eating each others..animals have no sense of morals

>>133919698
I think OP gave up guys...Sad!

File: IMG_5683.jpg (171KB, 892x1024px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 892x1024px

>>133928288
Digits confirm OP BTFO

>>133927772
See>>133927772
Granted, its a given you get your protein from swallowing jizz. Bringing up sucking cock was projection on your part.

>>133919698
The lifes of every animal on earth are not worth the life of one human child.

Bro, you were on here the other night. I'm guessing you're the military dude who said he wants to make vegan haters realize the error of their ways or some such shit. I'll level with you. I'm a recovering vegan. I know the amount of supplements needed. I know the sheer amount of volume of vegetable matter you need to eat (rather, drink). It consumes all of your time, your energy and your money. And if I'm going to honestly level with you, it's going to get the best of you.
Yeah, I know it makes you feel good knowing that you're not taking the life of an animal, it made me feel good too but there's a point where you realize enough is enough. Enough posturing for the sake of something that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter. Enough is enough for something that's fueling another industry that pollutes and does its fair share of harming life.
I'd like to tell you that in the end, being vegan made me a better person, but it didn't. The only thing it made me do was open the door, get on the floor, everybody walk the dinosaur.

>>133919698
>what trait is absent in animals, which if absent in humans, would allow them to be eaten?
the fact that we have fucking thumbs

File: shadmeme_3d.jpg (698KB, 1836x2761px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 1836x2761px

>>133928368

if you don't chastise a lion for eating a gazelle why chastise a human for eating a cow?

>>133919698

tastes good, animals exist purely as resources and for our entertainment and no vegan ever came up with rational reason to stop eating meat

>>133919698
I saw a deer-mother and her three calves in my garden last week. Made me want to go hunting.

>>133919698

meat is part of a healthy diet. however eating meat from animals who were treated like shit while alive is degenerate.

On the subject of animal treatment, how is a circus that uses animals, or a zoo that has elephants dance considered wrong or animal abuse?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxhIxSu0DNQ

File: muscle luigi smug that's how it is on this bitch of an earth FULL.jpg (37KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 320x320px

Humans are sapient, animals aren't. I don't believe humans that are no longer sapient (say in a coma, vegetative state, or otherwise heavily brain damaged) have any inherent value.

The reason we don't purge these people is the same reason we don't seize or destroy property or kill pets without good reason. They have value as an object to kin (in most cases).

I do not care about morality or justification. It's all about efficiency. meat = efficient biological fuel source.

>>133919698

Humans have moral value for being humans.
I define human as genetically human.
Animals are not genetically human and therefore have no moral value.

>>133930341
>Humans are sapient, animals aren't.
What about he species of animals that are?
Like dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees?

>>133927989

Wrong again queerbait, if it hadn't been for the rest of europe falling to further degeneracy thanks to the soviets losing the war wouldn't have been an issue. No one genuinely wants to live under an authoritarian regime, but we still need to rid ourselves of society's undesirable elements once in a while.

>>133919698
If you want to stop people eating meat you need to make it worth their while. Describe or create alternative meals which are at least equally nutritous/delicious as those involving animal products but are cheaper, healthier, easier to make or even more nutritous/delicious.

>>133930157
Nevermind. PETA BTFO AGAIN!

From Wikipedia:
"The ASPCA, PETA and other animal groups sued the circus claiming that it violated the Endangered Species Act by its treatment of Asian elephants in its circus. These allegations were based primarily on the testimony of a circus barn worker. After nine years of litigation and a six week non-jury trial, the Court dismissed the suit in a written decision, finding that the barn worker was not credible[22] ASPCA v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., 677 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2009). In 2012, the circus learned that the animal rights groups had paid the barn worker $190,000 to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit regarding the Asian elephants. The circus sued[23] the animal rights groups under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, accusing them of conspiracy to harm its business and other illegal acts. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals agreed to pay the circus $9.2 million to settle the lawsuit."

>>133920217
>hurr what makes humans different than animals
ever heard of abstract thought?

>>133919698
We don't eat higher primates and our pets, in which we recognized a conciousness. We eat mostly domestic animals, which were bred for this purpose.
I have no qualms with eating a chicken, or a fish. If anyone obaserved these creatures it becomes painfully obvious they're fucking stupid and their purpose is to be on that rung of the hierarchy; namely, food

>>133937044
P.S. Niggers, especially the HueHue ones, should be hanged if they eat primates
>inb4 UMA DELICIA

>>133919698
P2 is incorrect. Animals lack both sapience and the potential for sapience.
The absence of both those traits in a human, as in the case of someone in a permanent vegetative state, WOULD result in that human being valueless.

>>133922386
>Humanity is unique because we are human
Circular argument. Establishing the value of the human race based on the homocentric concepts and pretexts set by ourselves to worship our own feats and features.

>>133931686
>the rest of europe falling to further degeneracy thanks to the soviets
Yeah, no. Hitler mixed war tactics with war-time politics. He should've prioritized other things before the Russian invasion or the British air siege. He made terrible decisions, and the whole 'Hitler did nothing wrong' is nothing more than a meme

>>133919698
I reject premise 1 in both scenarios.

>>133919698
No it's not, you're making the egalitarian assumption that humans are equal to animals

>>133920033
YES, Unless they can verbally express it.