This beautiful creature must die a death for no reason and death

>>38230006
It's death for food, there is a reason, and it's completely natural.

the reason is i shall devour it
so it aint murder
rekt fag

>>38230006
It's not for no reason. That lamb has committed the crime of being delicious, the penalty for which is death.

without """"murder"""" that creature wouldn't exist

>>38230024
" Completely natural " Literally raised to be killed at their fattest when their are so many alternatives that could save their lives

I don't like autistically pro meat eaters, and I don't like autistically pro vegans.

I feel like both kinds of people are fucking annoying and super autistic and I hope your kind doesn't exist post WW3.

>>38230043
without countless rapes, murders, wars, genocides, disasters you and i wouldn't exist. does saying rape is bad invalidate the existence of a child born from rape?

>>38230050
If we didn't eat them, we would raise them, therefore they wouldn't exist, they wouldn't be alive.
Who are you to deny their sheer existence?

>>38230050
It's a fucking lamb you retard. Wanna send it into the wild where some other predator will eat it? There's a reason we're at the top of the food chain.
>b-but think about the animals!
Lmao we're the only ones that matter you beta cuck

Sure lets release it into the wild where it will get hunted down by foxes. You think that you should charge the fox for murder? Stop being so soft kids usually get over the circle of life when they turn 12

>>38230080
*more precisely: does wanting to end rape mean we wished all children who were raped were never born? the implications of judging future actions by the goods that have emerged from the past's evils are interesting but not particularly interesting in this case.

breeding millions of animals to suffer and die is bad. ok if that didnt happen all those animals you care about wouldnt exist. yeah but fuck off retard idiot

>>38230050
Name the alternatives then, fucko

>>38230109
*rapes you*
stop complaining sweetie :) its just part of nature, inevitably rapes are going to happen. therefore don't reproach me for my actions and try to insist that i can change my behaviour for your sake.

>>38230006
What will be around longer, easier to acquire, and more nutritious after SHTF; meat, or your bean products?

>>38230006

I had lamb the other day. I normally hate lamb meat, but this time it was awesome.

>>38230134
different situation different ethical standards
shit hasnt hit the fan so you are just a fat lazy decadent enjoying trivial, unnecessary pleasures born from unimaginable suffering

>>38230006
The world is a battlefield and humans are currently dominating the fuck out of everyone else. We must assert our dominance by eating the other animals.

>>38230006
Slaughterhouse work in general is shitty, but think of how depressing it must be to spend 40 hours a week cutting the throats of cute little lambs.

>>38230006
haha i ate a gyro today

>>38230132
Uhmmmm no sweetie you cant rape anyone *shoots your family and eats them* *sips tea*

>>38230150
If you don't follow a universal ethics set, fuck off. If you were truly moral, you won't have kids and subject them to the possible torture that is life. Otherwise, fuck off with "ethics"

>>38230080
Man has domesticated and selectively bred that animal for food it has no niche in nature and couldn't exist in the wild.

>>38230101
>their shear existence
LOL

>>38230150
>different ethical standards
ethical standards are standards exactly BECAUSE they do not change as the context does

what the fuck does "standards" mean to you? if you switch ethics as you please they're not ethics anymore

>>38230006
I'm not so easily manipulated. You're a faggot OP.

>>38230180
>>38230250
there's a difference between bringing someone into a world where they will inevitably suffer, but also be capable of thinking their life valuable and good enough to be worth all of that suffering - and to bring masses of beings into the world, with no regard for their fortune, simply to satiate your basest pleasures.

i don't pretend to advocate or adhere to a universal ethics. people are free to ignore the animal shit as much as they want, nothing i can do will stop that. i just take pleasure in exposing how readily they will abandon all pretenses of compassion, virtue and morality simply to justify "yum food" to themselves and to others. the idea of forcing self-important retards to realise how worthless their dishonest, socially aggregated moralism is brings me pleasure.

despite the death of God, too many dull minds really perceive themselves as intrinsically more righteous than the rest of the mass of mankind that preceded them. an easily refuted fantasy.

>>38230006
shot a deer at 150metres through the chest.
was down in seconds and tasted wonderful
u mad yet? if not i could give you a picture of the skull too,,,,

>>38230006
It does have a reason. It is made of tasty nutritious meat that I would like to eat

Who cares?
It's just an animal. Why would you care, anyways? What has animals ever done for you?

>>38230006
This is why I don't understand why people get so mad over Asians eating dogs. We're in America doing worse shit to other animals, but since we don't keep a fucking cow as a pet, it's okay.

>>38230050

Typical wooly-headed vegan thinking...

>>38230339
Dogs love you a lot more than a cow or a sheep would. They become part of your pack

humans can happily survive on raw meat, face it, we are carnivores by nature

>>38230494
not happily. apart from not being docile, another reason we dont like to eat carnivorous animals is because their food source (raw meat) makes them more prone to infections and parasites

>>38230006
You can only murder humans retard.
Ready to get your mind blown a sec?
Ok here goes.
>We're all going to die oneday
Whoaaa

>>38230379
If you put them on a farm like we do cows and pigs and chickens, then they probably won't see the owner as part of their pack.

>>38230006
Help it then, OP

>>38230585
*singles out your family as part of haplogroup desirable as being sex slaves and no longer considered citizens*
sorry you can only murder citizens. um if i kill your mum in a depraved sex act who cares? everyone dies retard.

>>38230006
I want to fuck the lamb

If I eat its delicious meat that is reason enough.

>>38230006
>and death for no reason is murder
And?
People murder anon.

>Can kill animals but you can't fuck them
This is 100% bullshit

Looks tasty ngl

>>38230564
That is merely supposition. I hope you are not suggesting that people would not have parasites if they lived without consuming meat...
You don't think the chinese eat dogs, or that tribes eat monkeys do you? Maybe your cultural biases are the reason for your inaccurate world view.

>>38230647
found the furry

File: 1497206762233.png (13KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 650x650px

>>38230006
>tfw switched to non dairy milk alternatives, primarily soy, but also almond and coconut

I still eat some cheese and some meat but in significantly less quantities than before, im not saying that I will ever go vegan but I am exploring the possibility in the future, if I do it will be one step at a time and a gradual thing.

Poor lammies

>>38230663
>I hope you are not suggesting that people would not have parasites if they lived without consuming meat...
No, of course not. I'm saying carnivores are not a good food source to breed because the things that they eat, which affects the quality of the meat of the predators, can't be so easily controlled.

>>38230006
Help it! Give me your meat instead, you holier than me.

>inb4 phrasing

>>38230076
This

Just shut up

>>38230006
It was born to die, it only exists to be food. If they were not food it would have never been bred.

>>38230688
oh yeah ok, I don't know why I responded to that statement originally. I had not been making any arguments about eating carnivores. I just said people can live their whole lives off of raw animals, so the argument that people do not eat meat by nature is wrong. maybe you confused me for someone else, I just autopilot reacted to the carnivore line without even thinking it was a total non-sequitur.

>>38230024
Unnecessary food. I could kill and eat you but that wouldn't make my killing you necessary or acceptable. You aren't in the wild trying to get back to civilization and starving. You're walking into the grocery store and paying someone else to slaughter and butcher it for you. There is nothing in meat you can't get elsewhere.

>it's completely natural
Appeals to nature aren't arguments.

>>38230688
Parasites from raw meat are generally a meme. Even if you get them they work symbiotically with your body. I eat raw chicken 'n' shit. Read The Recipe For Living Without Disease.

>>38230612
I don't know who you associate with to get this idea that men and animals are somehow equal, but I can imagine it well.

>>38230728
So why can't we eat you? You were born to die and you're completely useless.

>>38230794
Nobody said livestock and people were equal retard.

>>38230593
But my point was if you put a cow or a sheep in your house they wont love you like a dog

>>38230794
equality can go fuck off. i dont think animals are as "valuable" as humans, but i also dont want to treat things simply according to how valuable they are to me. im not some market productivity drone.

when it comes to grievous suffering, a hierarchy means very little. it is still suffering.

>>38230813
The value of a thing, whether it animal, person or object, is not derived by how much it loves you. This is despite what most robots would leave you to believe, particularly regarding women.

>>38230768
>that wouldn't make my killing you necessary or acceptable.
This is 100% opinion.

I would do above, the only reason I don't is because most people don't want me to and they have more guys, guns, and resources on their side so I must comply.

May as well kill animals, it's at least a taste of force I get to apply.

>>38230813
cows and sheep can form bonds with other animals and humans, though obviously not to the same extent as dogs (as far as i know)

you might simply be explaining the underlying psychology of why we love dogs more than cows, in which case you're quite correct, but if you think that translates from "is" to "ought" >>38230838 is correct

Why do you care? Do you think animals have a concept of suffering beyond "this isn't pleasant"? They don't clamour to experience life or ponder the great depths of existence, they just want to eat and shit and fuck. Billions have come before it, hopefully billions will come after.
Don't think I lack empathy, I go through life overthinking everything and worrying about what people think of me so much that life is often a struggle; in this way it has cemented this view in my mind that while the welfare of these animals should be sustained, but they will die eventually anyway

>>38230838
lead you to believe. not leave lol

>>38230847
>This is 100% opinion.
It's not.

>I would do above, the only reason I don't is because most people don't want me to and they have more guys, guns, and resources on their side so I must comply
You're either a teenager, trolling, or a morally bankrupt coward. Regardless, your argument is worthless.

>it's at least a taste of force I get to apply.
You don't apply any force though. You pay someone else to do the work for you.

>>38230838
My point is that I don't care if a sheep or a cow dies just as they wouldn't care if I died

File: 1351127152377.jpg (135KB, 450x557px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 450x557px

>>38230006
>This beautiful creature must die
I don't think it's a beautiful creature.

>a death for no reason
It's dying so it can be used as food.

>and death for no reason is murder
No. Unlawful killing is "murder".

>>38230833
OK pal.
Imagine this.
Because the internet is a big network that selects information, spreads it and modifies it and discards it, it represents the physical workings of a higher level of consciousness.
And you're here posting shit memes and fucking it up. Causing high level suffering.
Until the internet develops the means to surgically fix itself would you mind not posting? Spare us all some fucking suffering. Tia.

Btw noice dubs.

>>38230904
Why does something need to care for you for you to care for it? You realise that by being more intelligent we've developed the concepts of ethics and morals, right? Why support the suffering of other sentient creatures for no reason? Would you assist a stranger with their throat slit if safe to do so despite them never caring for you before then? If not, why? If so, why do you support people but not animals who have literally done you no wrong.

You can argue that roasties/normies are cunts so you wouldn't help the person but when has a cow ever called you a loser or bullied you?

>>38230936
>I don't think it's a beautiful creature
But you recognise it's a creature.

>It's dying so it can be used as food.
Needlessly

>No. Unlawful killing is "murder".
>haha, I played semantics with OP
Way to advance the conversation and avoid responsibility for your actions m80

>>38230006
>beautiful creature
not really

>a death for no reason
it's delicious

>and death for no reason is murder
so what, murder isn't always wrong, this is one of those cases

File: IMG_2771.png (65KB, 500x396px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x396px

>>38230076
Fuck off with your "everyone but me is retarded" meme

>>38230967
>>38230967
All humans share many traits and experiences and we all have the ability to potentially bond with one another. Treating others as you would want to be treated and such. Most animals just see you as another animal, as they should. If that lamb could eat me it would

>>38230871
what you say is why i care, though. it is suffering not redeemed or ameloriated by profundity or reflection. it is simply abject terror, grinding and mashing of teeth, confused, heart-rending shrieks. then eternal silence.

if the religious are right, there is an afterlife for humanity that redeems a billion-fold all of the horrors that have befallen men, women and children. yet even in this world, the animals do not attain something greater once they have passed. they simply suffer meaninglessly, without ever knowing why.
for some, this makes the suffering of animals nothing of concern. for me, that is an existensial horror that i would try to alleviate through tenderness and compassion to as many creatures as possible.

>>38230936
>No. Unlawful killing is "murder"
semantic shift, poetic use of language everyone understands.

File: tellmewhy.jpg (7KB, 236x238px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 236x238px

>>38230076
>"HEH HEH I CAN'T EVER BE WRONG BECAUSE IMMMMMMMMM A CENTRIST!"

>>38231011
>not really
See above

>it's delicious
Tastes gud tho is not an argument. If you tasted good would it be okay to eat you?

>so what, murder isn't always wrong
When is murder not wrong?

>>38231030
Again, stop with this childish "why should I care if it doesn't care about me" bullshit. You're a higher being with a set of ethics and morals (although it's questionable here. I suspect it's just bitter people being edgy and not actually representative of how they really feel). What something else would or wouldn't do for you is irrelevant when the question is what is right.

>>38231135
i dont mind their amoralism as much as its inconsistency. its very cowardly to be a nihilist when its convenient, like when you want to eat bacon, and being a moralist when you want to get angry about someone hurting their pet dog.

if one truly believes there is no such thing as morality, then moral judgement becomes senseless. i cant blame anyone for having a coherent philosophical understanding of the world.

but the people in this thread are not. you could pretend to be moral for your own gain as a moral nihilist, i suppose, but i suspect people touting petit-nietzscheanisms in this thread are really just confused and unselfaware

>>38231135
So what is the reason I should care?
Eating other animals is part of nature and life. It provides us with useful food and resources. I wouldn't support unnecessary cruelty to animals but death is a part of the circle of life. Many animals in farms are treated very well and by eating them we are giving their deaths more use and meaning instead of a pointless death to a treatable disease in the wild

>>38231207
Tell me, why should we treat animals like humans? In what way is that the good thing to do?

File: max.png (51KB, 694x364px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 694x364px

>ethics
>morals
>especially applying to non-people

>>38231247
i never said to treat animals like humans retard. fuck off.

*infects you with lice*

>>38231255
thanks stirner-kun

>>38231259
You said that people were being amoral for eating bacon. Explain please

Vegan spotted

>>38231207
I agree with this post 100%. Well written anon.

>>38231218
>So what is the reason I should care?
Because your choice is inflicting horrible and undue suffering on another sentient creature. You lament your lot in life but what of the cow? Its situation is not much different to yours but you see it as lesser than you because of your greater intelligence and anthropocentric bias. This is akin to Stacy or Chad shitting on you because they're better looking and more socially apt.

>Eating other animals is part of nature and life
An appeal to nature is not an argument.

>It provides us with useful food and resources
Lets just focus on the food argument for now. There are other methods to obtain food without having to make others suffer. Billions of animals die yearly just so you can eat something which is easily substituted. It doesn't even require talking about the health argument against meat.

>I wouldn't support unnecessary cruelty to animals but death is a part of the circle of life
Force breeding animals, pumping them with hormones, B12 and antibiotics, force feeding them, keeping them locked in tiny cages and stalls, slaughtering them arbitrarily, and distributing their slowly rotting corpse (thanks to refrigeration) is not part of the circle of life mate.

>Many animals in farms are treated very well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr5oyFSrZ9I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vqIGTKuQE
Yeah bro. This is so well treated. I'm sure you wouldn't object to being treated like this at all.

>we are giving their deaths more use and meaning instead of a pointless death to a treatable disease in the wild
Assumedly you're a useless NEET. Therefore by you're logic it's okay to slaughter and eat you right now because it's better to give you meaning than let you languish for years doing nothing in loneliness and bitterness. Do you see how this is a dumb argument? It's just your argument turned back on you. It's unacceptable.

>>38231218
>>38231330
Why do you have the authority to determine what a meaningless life is? Why do you have the authority to decide that some things are better off dying for their own good?

>>38231330
If a cow is so sentient why does it not care for humans?
Is killing bugs wrong?

>>38231330
an appeal to nature when you are talking about an animal's diet is a valid argument. Sorry they didn't cover this in philosophy 101, my man.

>>38231330
>>38231381
Also meat is not easily substituted. It is a very nutritious useful food and I never said some animals aren't treated badly. I just said many are treated well. We can improve standards.

Also if suffering is the problem according to you does us killing them not end their suffering? Life involves a lot of suffering? Should we end all life?

Humans have far more potential for meaning than any animal.

>>38231381
>If a cow is so sentient why does it not care for humans?
Sentience and caring for other species are not the same thing. This is why we seem to be in a unique position, but for the occasional predator (which humans are not) who takes pity on the baby of its prey, no other animal appears to feel empathy, at least in a similar capacity to humans, for other animals. This isn't therefore justification for needlessly killing other animals.

>Is killing bugs wrong?
That depends on whether they're sentient and capable of experiencing life. The jury is out on that so I have no opinion.

>>38231409
An appeal to nature is invalid when I can just say "muh atherosclerosis tho". Sorry they didn't cover this in nutrition 101, my man.

It's not about nature or hierarchy you retards, and it's about needless suffering done by our hands. If we take into our responsibility the raising of an innocent animal intelligent enough to know emotion and pain while having the capacity to give it a happy life, it's cruel not to.

>>38231424
>nutritious
What nutrient is found in meat that you can't get elsewhere? But for this magic nutrient, and ignoring all the negatives associated with meat, it can't be said to be hard to substitute.

>I just said many are treated well
Proof required

>We can improve standards
You're not an idiot who thinks there is a way to humanely slaughter something prematurely for no reason are you?

>does us killing them not end their suffering?
No. Farming and killing them IS the suffering.

>Life involves a lot of suffering? Should we end all life?
You're going full retard. I never said we should treat animals super nice and find a way to make them live forever. I said we should end as much suffering as possible. As a robot you think you'd be on board with this.

>Humans have far more potential for meaning than any animal.
Person A has far more potential for meaning than you. Does that make it okay for them to kill you?

>>38231447
This

>>38231428
Why is a cow more sentient than a bug?
Should we kill humans in comas if they don't pass an arbitrary definition of 'sentience'?
Also if a cow is more sentient than a bug then a human is more sentient than a cow. You are fine with killing less sentient creatures just as I am, you just choose to draw your line somewhere else

>>38231428
better not drink any water, wouldn't want to get stuck with an immoral case of hyperhydration

>>38230681
Instead of being an autistic retard, why not just raise more of your own food? Eggs from your own chickens, milk from your own goat. Humans have a digestive system designed for consuming pieces of other animals. You can survive without, but everyone who tries ends up with malnutrition.

You can be opposed to factory farming and feed your body at the same time. This vegan shit didn't become popular until huge cities existed and people were raised in a human zoo. That kind of thing fucks you up a bit.

>>38231135
>When is murder not wrong?
When it's against something that lacks self-consciousness for one.

File: weeaboo.gif (10KB, 146x133px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 146x133px

>>38230006
>>38230050
You know they die regardless of what we do, right?
If they're just going to grow up and die for no reason we might as well eat them

>>38231468
>Why is a cow more sentient than a bug?
Probably something to do with their brains. I'm not an expert in this field and neither are you. It's foolish to bring it up like it's an argument.

>Should we kill humans in comas if they don't pass an arbitrary definition of 'sentience'?
We literally do this all the time. It's where the idiom "pulling the plug" comes from.

>You are fine with killing less sentient creatures just as I am
Strawman. I am not fine with killing anything sentient. I said the jury is out on whether bugs are sentient or not.

>>38231482
And you think animals aren't conscious of their surroundings, their family or themselves? Are you retarded? Do cats stalk prey without regard for their visibility, their profile, the prey itself or the sound they make? Stop making shit arguments to justify your bad decisions

>>38231381
People have had pet cows (and pigs), and for that matter many pets consider their owners their family based on certain familial behaviors displayed towards humans.

>>38231467
Why have a substitute when we can have what we evolved to eat?

If you need proof go to a farm. If they aren't treating the animals well then contact the nspca or whatever they have in your country.

What is so inhumane about killing an animal?

If dieing is suffering then we can simply end all suffering by killing all life.

No, because i still have potential for meaning. A cow hardly comprehend it's own life.

>>38230132
Rape isn't necessary for life to exist.

But without one entity eating another entity, there wouldn't be life on this planet. At least, not in its current form. Period.

That's the most comical thing about the affected pretend moral superiority of vegans - they place themselves in diametric opposition to the foundation of all life on Earth.

"Oh no, it's OK for animals and microorganisms to eat other organisms - just not people."

On what moral basis? If your moral law contradicts life itself, then you're a death-worshipping cuck piece of shit.

>>38231499
>your not an expert
>the jury is still out
Why should I listen to an arbitrary decision made by someone on what is and isn't 'sentient'? I know other humans are 'sentient' because I am a human and they are like me.
What is your definition of sentience?

>>38231534
Evolution is inefficient. We can do in few years using technology what evolution cannot achieve through decades-spanning trial-and-error cycles, which can go for millennia until reaching a sufficient solution. In other words, it's in the power of human will to go for a better way than evolution, much like how many people can choose not to eat meat and even live longer and healthier lives.

>>38231499
>And you think animals aren't conscious of their surroundings, their family or themselves?
A few animals do have self-consciousness by the mirror test but even then nowhere near humans and those animals aren't the ones humans eat anyway. Retard.

>>38230132
>stop complaining sweetie :) its just part of nature, inevitably rapes are going to happen.
I know you're being sarcastic but that's a good point to legalize rape.

>>38230768
>Appeals to nature aren't arguments.
Sure they are.

You're the one making the false assumption that your naked appeal to emotivism (and fucking toddler-level emotion at that) is somehow more morally grounded than a naturalistic ethics.

In order to believe that your moral views are correct, we would have to believe that it would somehow be better if we could train, say, tigers to eat nothing but beans. Because your little-girl tears for lambs are better than nature and life itself.

Fuck you.

>>38231590
>mirror test
>hmmm, the poodle isn't reacting to the dot, it must not realize the image is itself!

don't forget that all human knowledge passes through the filter of human brains and so is somewhat... sketchy

>>38231574
But we have evolved over an extremely long period of time to be what we are now. We are effectively designed by evolution. It is safe to go with evolution. Going completely against it could lead to many unforeseen consequences. We don't fully understand our evolution or how we work. We couldn't even build a human in a lab

>>38231534
>Why have a substitute when we can have what we evolved to eat?
If we evolved to eat meat why are we the only omnivore to get atherosclerosis? It's impossible to get in true carnivores or omnivores that have a normally functioning thyroid gland.

>What is so inhumane about killing an animal?
What's so inhumane about killing you? You're an animal.

>If dieing is suffering then we can simply end all suffering by killing all life.
I've answered this already

>No, because i still have potential for meaning. A cow hardly comprehend it's own life.
I'm going to need citations for both of these points.

>>38231573
>Why should I listen to an arbitrary decision made by someone on what is and isn't 'sentient'?
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

>I know other humans are 'sentient' because I am a human and they are like me.
Anthropocentrism isn't an argument friend.

>>38231590
There is no hierarchy. It's sentient or it isn't. Calling people retarded because you're flustered won't get you anywhere lol

>>38231603
>Sure they are.
They aren't. It's a logical fallacy. Sorry anon.

>naturalistic ethics
>it's natural to factory farm animals, forcefully breed them and slaughter them, sending their rotting corpse internationally
Wow. This really made me think anon. I hate animals and morals and ethics now.

>>38231609
if you actually think animals have any essential self-consciousness you have to be mentally deficient honestly, there's nothing objectively unethical about abusing or killing animals

>>38230838
>The value of a thing, whether it animal, person or object, is not derived by how much it loves you.

That's certainly a factor in its moral value.

The reason I won't eat a dog is because dogs as a species have allied themselves with humans. If you properly raise a dog, it would happily die to protect your children. On that basis, we FUCKING OWE dogs.

Because of "how much it loves you", a dog can place you in a state of moral obligation. A fucking spider can't.

>>38231609
Yes I'm sure inside the poodle's head it is too busy thinking about string theory to take notice of the dot. Perhaps it's thinking of a book it's going to write or a speech it's going to make

>>38231636
>There is no hierarchy.
Yes there is and humans are at the top
>It's sentient or it isn't.
It lacks real self-consciousness so it's okay to kill it though
>Calling people retarded because you're flustered won't get you anywhere lol
Look at the post I was replying to, moron lol

>>38230872
>It is not.
What makes you say that other than muh feels?

>disagree must be teenager
I'm 32.
>I feel differently that makes you a coward
That's not what cowardice is.
Do you think creating this thread makes you brave? Or are you just poking people with a stick to see what they'll do? More people like eating meat than trying to give animals humans rights, if I can accept that I have no power in society, why can't you?
Delusional, would be my guess.

>>38231643
you're talking out of your ass though, I get it, you're a brainlet and it's an easy route, but at least drop the spectacle

>>38230872
>you don't apply force
Implying I wasn't hunting yesterday.

File: lamb-02.jpg (178KB, 911x1024px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 911x1024px

>/r9k/ wants to deport THIS pure beautiful soul

>>38231655
>too busy thinking about string theory to take notice of the dot. Perhaps it's thinking of a book it's going to write or a speech it's going to make

Are you?

>>38231668
Now he's just calling people who disaree 'brainlets' , so much for the arguments.

Flailing about

>>38230103
>we're the only ones that matter

Yeah, wait until the rest of the insects die off and then you'll be whistling a different tune. Guess which animal is the only one not required for global homeostasis? Fun-fact: It's the only animal to have named itself

>>38231648
>That's certainly a factor in its moral value.
Perhaps but it's insignificant. If you could save someone from death with the push of a button despite the fact that they wouldn't do it for you it's still unethical to not press it and save them. You're arguing with emotion right now.

>A fucking spider can't
Spiderbro would disagree.

>>38231656
>Yes there is and humans are at the top
lol okay. Go walk around the jungle of the Savannah and tell me what an apex predator you are if you make it back.

>It lacks real self-consciousness so it's okay to kill it though
Nope

>Look at the post I was replying to, moron lol
>I can't call him retarded so I'll call him a moron
lol just stop dude

>>38231659
>What makes you say that other than muh feels?
Morals and ethics. You don't think I actually feel anything for you, do you? I'd defend your life on moral and ethical grounds, not because I care about you.

>I'm 32.
>32 but conveniently ignores the rest of the statement to try and show an ad hominem which doesn't exist
;)

>I feel differently that makes you a coward
Strawman.

>>38231671
>implying you've left the house in the last week

>>38231674
>implying this little nigga wouldn't happily play with everyone in this thread if they were chilling in his field

>>38231693
>you'd have to be a retard

you're lazy cat mews aren't an argument, brainlet

>Hey, whoa whoa whoa, where are all these personal attack coming from??

I get it, you like to eat meat and are not concerned with the ethics of it. Calling you a lazy faggot is an accurate statement though, and you can't huff your way out of it.

>>38231636
>>38231636
I still don't understand why you think it is bad to kill a sentient animal.
I still don't understand why I should listen to an arbitrary ruling on what is sentient and what isn't. All life shares many traits and it's good to look after nature but you can only be sure that humans are like us and should be treated as we want to be treated.

Saying dieing is suffering is absolutely stupid. Dieing is an end to suffering

>>38231674
haha cowe

>>38231636
>They aren't. It's a logical fallacy

According to whom?

We'd need mutual agreement on both the method and outcome of moral reasoning to declare naturalistic ethics fallacious, and we don't have that.

Your emotivist tripe is easily defeated by my simple assertion that I don't share your emotions on this matter. At which point I'm sure you will fall back on either "You're lying!" which will lead us nowhere, or my favorite, "Well, you're clearly defective if you don't have the same emotions I do," which, as circular reasoning, is a clear logical fallacy in a way appeals to nature are not.

>>38230006
I agree it is a beautiful creature, its meat is god damn gorgeous! Lamb meat is the best and anyone who hasn't tried some needs to go and get some right now.

>>38231715
>If you could save someone from death with the push of a button despite the fact that they wouldn't do it for you it's still unethical to not press it and save them.

And now you're claiming to have resolved the streetcar problem?

Prove the above proposition. Go ahead. I'll wait.

>>38231735
>>38231745
Look at these two. They've decided that rather than have a conversation in good faith that they'll devolve into semantics and start demanding minutae explained for no reason other than to derail the topic. The first guy (apart from retardedly thinking that factory farming itself for itself isn't suffering) wants to argue the definition of sentience. The second cunt can't bother to do a google search on fallacies and why what he's saying is pointless to respond to.

I have no idea why meat evokes such irrational and emotional responses from people.

>>38231775
Then we have this idiot. The streetcar problem involves two parties, one of which must die. My example gave only one party who needn't die. They aren't the same.

>>38230006
I agree. Everyone who can should go vegan. Also, abortion is murder.
I find it strange how someone could hold one view and not the other but there are millions.

>>38230006
That lamb is far too young to be slaughtered. Do you believe everything you see on the net?

>>38231792
Cows, pigs, lambs and other stock are sentient, capable of joy and pain. Fetuses aren't. Q.E.D.

>>38231792
I agree with this. I think this is why veganism gets tarnished; a lot of subscribers are retarded liberals who work on feelings instead of facts.

>>38231715
>Morals and ethics. You don't think I actually feel anything for you, do you? I'd defend your life on moral and ethical grounds, not because I care about you.

You haven't presented any syllogistic argument about this ITT at all.

Your moral argument is based on "muh feels". The fact that you deny having the emotions that you're basing your argument on merely makes you more ridiculous.

Your argument boils down to "Lambs suffer." Well...so what?

I could very easily assert that the *purpose* of moral reasoning is to facilitate relationships between human beings. Morality is merely a tool, and that's what it's for. And if that's what it's for, then animals are completely outside of the sphere of moral reasoning, no matter WHAT we do to them.

Bathe in their blood. Fuck em up the ass. It doesn't matter.

>>38231792
I think that people attribute murder to feeling pain or scared as the act of killing happens. To the best of my knowledge, a small clump of stemcells will not experience it the same way that a lamb or a born human would. Not my view om any of it, but I feel that's why they can justify it.

>>38231788
>factory farming
I just said farming for fucks sake.

The definition of sentience is extremely relevant to this discussion. How could it not be? That was the base for such a large part of your reasoning

>>38230006
It dies because its fucking tasty. Piss off you emaciated vegetarian faggot.

7 billion people on planet
they need to be fed
it needs to be affordable
it needs to be efficient
there needs nutrition
100,000 years of aggriculture and food tradition
still new ideas being developed like lab-grown meat

stop blaming the average person for the world they're born into
humans are actually doing a pretty good job to improve the world

File: IMG_2346.jpg (110KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1500x1000px

What else would I put my mint sauce on?

>>38231828
>Sentient beings feel emotion, such as pain and fear
>It is morally and ethically wrong to unjustifiably cause pain and fear
>Pain and fear are caused when slaughtering sentient beings, when locking them up for their short lives, forcefully breeding them, etc.
>Animals are sentient
>Therefore it is wrong to do this to animals

>>38231836
Farming and factory farming are synonymous. If you meant family farming you should specifically state it.

Read the links if you want to argue sentience.

>>38231788
So go ahead and prove the proposition.

I don't have to Google the naturalistic fallacy to know that it's nonsense. The arguments against appealing to nature in moral reasoning *themselves* assume their conclusion, and are therefore *themselves* fallacious.

We are able to prove the existence of fallacies in logical argument because everyone agrees what the rules of logic are, and what constitutes a valid and invalid method. We also can test logical arguments all the way to their conclusion, and observe the validity or absurdity of the conclusion. We can't do that in moral reasoning, because those agreements on method don't exist, and since no one has ever successfully proven *any* moral proposition, we can't employ a reductio ad absurdum that has any value.

>They've decided that rather than have a conversation in good faith that they'll devolve into semantics and start demanding minutae explained for no reason

Silly us, thinking that we can't test a syllogism without reaching mutual agreement on premises and definitions. What dicks we are!

>>38231715
>implying you've left the house in the last week
Not going to give you shit for that, considering this board it's not an unreasonable assumption. But it is wrong.

Guess where I am right now.

>>38231830
So if I kill you in your sleep, then it's not murder, eh?

Good to know.

>>38231933
Farming and factory farming are not synonymous. You are stupid.

Why should I listen to this definition of sentience if you don't even understand it well enough to explain it yourself?

>>38231898
It goes surprisingly well with chicken.

>>38231933
>Sentient beings feel emotion, such as pain and fear
>It is morally and ethically wrong to unjustifiably cause pain and fear

This is why it's comical for you to stomp around asserting that other people are committing logical fallacies.

That second greentext point is your conclusion. You're using it as one of your premises.

You can't prove to me that it's wrong to cause animals pain and fear while using as one of your assumptions that claim that it's wrong to cause animals pain and fear.

This is textbook circular reasoning.

>>38230006
No, death of a HUMAN for no reason is murder. Death of an animal is either pesticide or food. No sane lawyer would prosecute a farmer for making mutton.

>>38231896
Even if they could make lab grown meat that tasted better, was healthier, more environmentally friendly, and cheaper, I'd still want to eat meat the old fashioned way, because I enjoy the idea that it comes from an animal. You have neither the right nor the means to stop anyone who agrees with me.
/thread

>>38231896
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA this entire post.

>7 billion people on planet
>they need to be fed
>it needs to be affordable
What about all the food fed to animals that you go on to consume? Just cut out the fucking middle man. Saves time and money and space and stops animals suffering.

>it needs to be efficient
Growing food to feed to other food is inefficient retard

>there needs nutrition
Meat has nothing beneficial that can't be obtained elsewhere.

>>38231967
>Farming and factory farming are not synonymous
Calling me stupid because you disagree is not an argument.

>Why should I listen to this definition of sentience if you don't even understand it well enough to explain it yourself?
Because it is determined by people more knowledgeable than you or I.

>>38231942
>The arguments against appealing to nature in moral reasoning *themselves* assume their conclusion, and are therefore *themselves* fallacious.
It's not fallacious to say an appeal to nature is wrong in the case of humans eating animals because of the scientific evidence demonstrating that it's bad for us. I've already stated that true omnivores and carnivores can't get atherosclerosis yet we can. Show me an omni/carnivore who gets atherosclerosis with a normally functioning thyroid gland and your position will be correct. You're attempting to argue ethics and logic whilst ignoring the health implications of said argument. It's retarded. Stop.

>>38231972
Good to know

originally

>>38231998
>another le semantics argument
wew lad.

>>38232001
Don't cut yourself on that edge bro

>>38232022
>Meat has nothing beneficial that can't be obtained elsewhere.
I want meat though, so this is irrelevant.

>>38232042
What you want is irrelevant. How did you think this was an argument?

>>38232031
That's not edgy, it's the daily life for nearly everyone on the planet...everyone understands this but you.

>>38231955
if you are at a lamb farm I am going to plotz

>>38232063
Why would the things I want be irrelevant? All my concioous decisions are driven by those desires so nothing could be more relevant.

>>38232022
You are stupid for not knowing they aren't synonymous. Why would people even use the words 'factory farming' if everyone would know what they meant if they just used the shorter 'farming'?

>because smart people said so
An idea is right or wrong irrespective of who thought it. If Albert Einstein came back to life and told you that nobody said nigger on 4chan would you believe him because he's smart?

>>38232022
It's efficient in the way that if people want meat we don't have to drive local populations to extinction.

>>38232066
I think you'll find that 99% of people would eat lab-grown meat if it was available. If not more. Not everyone is mentally ill like you bro.

>>38232080
>le nihilism argument

>>38232085
>You are stupid for not knowing they aren't synonymous
Getting real sick of your shit faggot. All your arguments are are ad homs.

>Why would people even use the words 'factory farming' if everyone would know what they meant if they just used the shorter 'farming'?
Because factory farming is a dirty term. Go outside and talk to people and you'd know this.

>An idea is right or wrong irrespective of who thought it
>confusing knowledge for intelligence
wew lad. Maybe you've just been projecting this whole time.

>>38232091
What did he mean by this?


Getting sick of answering retards. I'm going to duck out in 10. Just so none of you faggots start spamming "heh, my dope arguments confounded him so he ran away" lol

>replies with a non argument
No (You) for you.

>>38232125
>think you'll find that 99% of people would eat lab-grown meat if it was available. If not more. Not everyone is mentally ill like you bro.

Don't presume to know what other people would do.

>le nihilism argument
Wasn't a philosophy major, but I don't think that's nihilism. Even if it is, what are you getting at? Do you think everyone should share the same philosophical approach to life? Because that's not realistic at all.

>>38232125
The word farming includes all types of farming and you fucking know it. If people stopped saying factory farming because it's a dirty term then why did they even start saying it to begin with if they already had the word farming which you say is synonymous?

>confusing knowledge for intelligence
I don't fully get the difference but surely the truth is the truth even if it comes from the lips of a retard

>>38232190
>Don't presume to know what other people would do.
>it's the daily life for nearly everyone on the planet...everyone understands this but you.

>Do you think everyone should share the same philosophical approach to life?
Not at all. But "fuck everyone, only what I want is important" is a literal child's outlook on life.

>>38232198
>The word farming includes all types of farming and you fucking know it.
Never said it wasn't. Just that when people say farming it's generally factory farming they're talking about because that's what is predominant. Most people talking about family farms would say that to try and virtue signal their shitty position of "WELL AT LEAST I'M NOT DOING AS MUCH HARM AS EVERYONE ELSE"

>I don't fully get the difference
Knowing things is knowledge. Understanding, fixing problems, abstract thought, etc. is intelligence. A book worm is not necessarily smart just because they've remembered the book and can regurgitate facts. These people who are experts in the field, understand studies and perform their own have concluded animals are sentient. I'm open to the contrary but you need to produce evidence for your position. At the moment you're literally arguing against the validity of peer-reviewed studies.

>>38232283
You said farming and factory farming were synonymous. Now you have admitted they aren't. My point still stands that there many animals in farms that are well treated.

The truth is still the truth though. Explain to me what is in the findings of the study which means killing lambs for food is wrong

>>38230024
I wish i could kill your worthless fatass and tell your parents i was hungry. oh how happy i would be to slaughter your fatass

>>38230076
I don't like the autistically centrist.

I use capacity for enjoyment and sentience as one metric and measure it against how much joy can be made from the killing and eating of it as another.
The life of a sheep can be broken down into 12 years at best where the greatest moment is mediocrity, so for lamb we trade in 11 garbage sheep years for 34 pounds of amazing experience (I fucking love lamb) that's 34 American servings 68 European or if sheep we trade 6 or so garbage sheep years for 83 pounds great experience.
>but anon! Those moments of eating last mere minutes!
Technically yes, but our memory and the processing of such isn't technical, if you remembered each moment equally you'd be able to recount every time you'd waited in a line or had to take a piss- you don't. A good meal however, is stored away forever as a notable memory, the more good memories you can look back on the better you perceive your life as having been.

Theoretically if there was a being of demonstrably greater intelligence than us, but he was a tenth the size of a planet, and could give each of us a delicious meal we'd remember for the rest of our days I'd also be for killing him and eating him.

>>38232384
>You said farming and factory farming were synonymous
Right. But I never said family farming and farming weren't synonymous. You just assumed that because you're trying to argue for argument's sake.

>My point still stands that there many animals in farms that are well treated.
Any farm, by definition, does not treat animals well because it exploits and ultimately slaughters the animals on it.

>The truth is still the truth though
It's funny you say this. Acting like I was always vegan and not an edgy sperg that called vegans faggots and idiots. You aren't interested in the truth, you're interested in justifying your behaviour.

>Explain to me what is in the findings of the study which means killing lambs for food is wrong
Did you deliberately and willfully frame the question poorly so that it couldn't be answered?

>>38232022
>It's not fallacious to say an appeal to nature is wrong in the case of humans eating animals because of the scientific evidence demonstrating that it's bad for us. I've already stated that true omnivores and carnivores can't get atherosclerosis yet we can. Show me an omni/carnivore who gets atherosclerosis with a normally functioning thyroid gland and your position will be correct. You're attempting to argue ethics and logic whilst ignoring the health implications of said argument. It's retarded. Stop.

No, dude.

It's not necessary to get to the point of arguing whether humans themselves are naturally carnivorous.

It's only necessary to point out that carnivores exist.

You're the one trying to prove that eating meat is wrong. If eating meat is wrong based on "suffering", as you have argued, then all carnivores are evil. Full stop. Not just humans. All of them.

And I am appealing to nature in this case because I have to treat you like Job here and ask: Who the fuck are you to assert that nature itself is evil? That life is evil?

I'm going to be very, very skeptical of an argument that requires me to conclude that life is evil. That seems like a potentially unpleasant conclusion.

File: 1498888719759.png (25KB, 669x514px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 669x514px

>>38232423
>sheep are people

>>38232463
>It's not necessary to get to the point of arguing whether humans themselves are naturally carnivorous.
>It's only necessary to point out that carnivores exist.
Entirely irrelevant. Carnivores were only included for accuracy and completeness.

You can't even answer the question. Why do we get atherosclerosis, like every other herbivore that eats an excess of fat and cholesterol but true omnivores don't?

>I'm going to be very, very skeptical of an argument that requires me to conclude that life is evil.
I didn't read most of your reply because you clearly can't argue a point but it seems you also can't argue my point either. Who said anything about evil holy shit lol

>>38232489
Yet another strawman by the illogical and emotional meat eater party

>>38231603
>minimising harm to sentient beings is "toddler-level"

(You)

>>38232511
I don't care about animals. This thread is a waste of time. You are not going to change anyone's mind.

File: Peta flesh.jpg (51KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x480px

>>38232423
>veggies are always saying this kind of shit
>veggies draw guro comics of people killing each other constantly
>veggies promote their "peaceful" "healthy" way of thinking with this shit
Are you all gurofags who got so freaked out by your monstrous murdering people fetish that you project it on the slaughter of animals?
I'm starting to think that's what's up, you guys put weird BDSM shit all over the place.

>>38230006
I think we should just harvest the legs, the animal would not have to die that way. Its a win win!

>>38232461
Mate I can't be bothered anymore. You keep avoiding stuff. It's been fun. Good bye

>>38232536
What you mean is I'm not going to change YOUR mind. I've changed the minds of other anons over the months. You need to let go of the emotional attachment you have to meat dude. "Not caring" is not carte blanche permission to do whatever you want.

I'm sure you were bullied growing up by people who didn't care about you. Not caring didn't make what they did okay or acceptable dude. You deserved better and so do other animals.

>>38232566
Please don't associate PETA with veganism. They may be pro-animal rights but they're absolutely fucking retarded.

>>38232581
Not sure what you mean by avoiding things but okay. Good night anon. I hope you do some research and at least CONSIDER the position of veganism. Watch NutritionFacts on youtube. It's a clinical nutritionist reporting on (obviously) nutrition studies. Watch something about eggs or heart disease with an open mind. If you're wondering why he does it he has a video talking about how seeing his grandmother recover from a death sentence given by heart disease motivated him to become a doctor. Good guy.

>>38232492
how do you reconcile people that can live their entire lives eating only meat, compared to other herbivores who would be dead following the same diet?

>>38232687
>how do you reconcile people that can live their entire lives eating only meat
Hyperbole

>compared to other herbivores who would be dead following the same diet?
It kills us too. Cancer, atherosclerosis, diabetes, etc.

>>38232283
Sheep aren't people though, and I'm not obligated to make you feel good about my choice to eat them or respect your choice not to; If you think that's childish fine, I recognize that but firmly disagree regardless. Good day.

>>38232528
Yes, it is.

If you're watching a nature special with a fucking toddler, and they see the wolves separate the bison calf from the herd and take it down, the fucking toddler always gets teh feelz and wants to know why no one saved the poor, poor bison calf.

Your entire argument is that fucking toddler's reaction blown up into a full-scale argument and dressed up with garbled, half-understood Orwellian "ethicist" terminology.

>Who said anything about evil holy shit lol

Anyone who talks about moral propositions is talking about good and evil, Charles.

The fake terminology invented by academic "ethicists" is designed to avoid making that explicit, as part of a failed strategy to "sound like a science".

"Ethicists", sociologists, psychologists - the whole barnyard are two-bit dream interpreters trying to act like they aren't doing philosophy, and doing it badly.

>>38232730
ok, they eat exclusively meat for 10 months of the year for the entirety of a human life span.

you cannot feed a rabbit meat and have it live long enough to die of cancer because it is an obligate herbivore. Humans can get every nutrient they need from red meat provided it is not cooked. I assume you are being purposely dense because this entire thing is a troll.

>>38232492
>You can't even answer the question. Why do we get atherosclerosis, like every other herbivore that eats an excess of fat and cholesterol but true omnivores don't?

Who cares?

You're trying to address the question of whether killing another entity to consume it is moral or not by talking about hyper-specific prosaic *mere detail*. You may as well try to figure out morality by pondering the existence of our appendix.

The principle that carnivorous behavior is a core aspect of nature is not dependent on that level of trivia. At a very primary level, dating back billions of years and going right to the primary phyla, life is about eating other life. There's just no way around that.

Your dime store Jainism only makes a halfwit's kind of sense if you make arbitrary distinctions (meh sentience!). Do you know how many sentient animals have to die for you to eat a fucking soybean? Do you know the Ragnarok of murder going on at the microbiological level in your body right now?

Nature is red in tooth and claw, Charles. Human beings can exchange moral propositions between themselves, but relative to all other species it's the war of all against all...forever. I'll cut dogs some slack, because they're our Mussolini and they get to tag along on that basis. But everybody else is either food, or a pest, or scenery, or a competitor, or entertainment, or a temporary tool (ie cats).

>>38230802
>Nobody said livestock and people were equal retard.
so what's the reasoning behind treating them as equals?

>>38233393
Not him but
>Makes dumb point
>Won't read thread which disproves the point

>>38233512
>180 replies
please spoonfeed me

>>38230080
>disasters
You and I wouldn't exist
You are so dumb

>>38233569
I'm drunk and I hate you but you said please and I feel bad so I'll shittily try to summarise it:
>We aren't treating them as equals
>We're merely trying to alleviate unnecessary suffering
>It's unnecessary to kill animals because they provide nothing that can't be obtained elsewhere

I think that's it.

>>38230103
>only animal not required for homeostasis

>Animal required for Homeostasis.

Get back to work wagie

>>38230006
>and death for no reason is murder
Deep down, I knew it had to be OK to kill all those Jews.

>>38230967
>>38231042
Calling something "semantics" doesn't actually refute it if someone is using a word incorrectly.

Yes. Correcting someone over the incorrect usage of a word is semantics. That doesn't somehow make the incorrect usage into a correct one.

OP attributed an incorrect meaning to the word "murder" and I corrected him.

>>38233704
>the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
The only problem is it's anthropocentric. Doesn't make it wrong.
>inb4 but legal defintions!
I study law. This isn't a legal question. Don't even try it

>>38230050
>fattest
people don't eat fat you tool

>>38233629
>>It's unnecessary to kill animals because they provide nothing that can't be obtained elsewhere
they provide meat
>>We're merely trying to alleviate unnecessary suffering
noble but we can't just release farm animals because they would fuck up the ecosystem, we'd have to kill them anyway, it solves their long term suffering but so do all genocides
>>We aren't treating them as equals
makes sense since they aren't equal

>>38233802
>they provide meat
So? Like wtf was your point with this lmfao

>noble but we can't just release farm animals because they would fuck up the ecosystem, we'd have to kill them anyway
Haven't seen someone use the "it's for the best of these animals that we continually rape, breed and kill them" argument in awhile

>makes sense since they aren't equal
No shit. But you aren't equal to me. Doesn't make it okay to kill you.

>>38233842
>So? Like wtf was your point with this lmfao
I like meat
>Haven't seen someone use the "it's for the best of these animals that we continually rape, breed and kill them" argument in awhile
Im not saying that its the best for them, Im saying it would be bad for us
>>No shit. But you aren't equal to me. Doesn't make it okay to kill you.
go back to sucking Cenk's dick, Ana

>>38230768
>Unnecessary

The argument was "death for no reason", not "unnecessary death". The reason is food, whether or not you think that's a good reason is up to you, but it is one.

>>38231811
Correct. Plus, lamb wool is not supposed to be tarnished with spray paint.

And the "lambs suffer" isn't a valid argument, slaughterhouse operations in America are designed to cause as little pain as possible to the animal, and people DO eat animal products based on animal sufferings (like why cage free eggs are so popular). It's why people that do like fish may be morally uncomfortable with the practice of ikizukuri, a type of sashimi where the fish is filleted and seasoned without killing it in the process.

Moralfags are the worst

If my body can digest it and it tastes good, im eating it you faggot

>>38233960
but you fail to realize that heart disease demonstrates that humans cannot actually survive on meat

>>38233907
>I like meat
That's not an excuse for any other immoral or unethical activity like rape, murder, burglary, robbery, stealing, etc. Why is it okay for eating meat? Because it hasn't be legislated against yet? Are you a bootlicker?

>Im saying it would be bad for us
How? You're not so retarded that you think people would go vegan overnight are you?

>go back to sucking Cenk's dick, Ana
Who and who?

>>38233911
Food is not a reason because you can get food elsewhere. If you're given the opportunity to steal food when also offered free food it's not ethical to steal the food because you "need" it. It can be obtained elsewhere.

>>38233960
Bro. You're on 4chan and /r9k/. Don't pretend that there are people worse than you.

>>38233758
>The only problem is it's anthropocentric.

Well, yeah. It's a term humans use to distinguish different types of killings of other humans. Its anthropocentricity is inevitable.

OP could've chosen a broader term to make up a definition for, but he chose "murder".

>>38233996
Would you prefer genocide? It perfectly fits the physical elements of a genocide.

>>38233994
>That's not an excuse for any other immoral or unethical activity like rape, murder, burglary, robbery, stealing, etc. Why is it okay for eating meat? Because it hasn't be legislated against yet? Are you a bootlicker?
I don't think killing non-humans is unethical
>How? You're not so retarded that you think people would go vegan overnight are you?
no
>Who and who?
you basically said "Im fucking better than you, you are garbage"

>>38234039
>>38233996
Perhaps I should have said holocaust. My mistake.

>>38234050
>he thinks ethics are subjective

>no
Good. So how would it be bad?

>"Im fucking better than you, you are garbage"
Well this is true from a moral standpoint. I don't know who you're talking about though.

>>38234077
>Good. So how would it be bad?
I listen the solutions of the hypothecical scenario where everyone would go vegan overnight, what are some realistic solutions in your opinion?

>>38234106
You've listed nothing and people going vegan overnight will never happen. I asked if you thought that. You said no. Stop being a dumb cunt.

>attaching human feelings onto mindless beasts

>>38230006

Someone has to feed all those idiots having 5-6 kids each :)

>>38234163
>i didn't read the thread and am retarded
Another one.

>>38233993
Well ya, they can
You do realize that not everyone dies from heart disease right?

>>38234039
It doesn't. At its core, "genocide" refers to the killing of a group, while OP's post was focused on a single instance. Also, OP used the word "death"--which can be natural and unintentional--instead of "killing"; the category the "genocide" and "murder" fall under.

Maybe if the original statement began with "mass killing for no reason is _____", then "genocide" would be a better fit. However, in this case, it doesn't work.

It can be improved this way:
>This creature must be killed
>killed for no reason
>killing for no reason is slaughter

Wouldn't be perfect, but it'd be less incorrect.

>>38234214
You need to look into the reasons for heart disease and compare it vis a vis animal heart disease. Not dying from it doesn't negate his point. Just because some people die young of gunshots doesn't mean Alzheimer's doesn't exist.

>>38234230
He was talking about collective death of animals using a single example. Stop being retarded. You're the third retard to think he'll get anywhere arguing semantics. OP using the word death doesn't mean the animals aren't being killed.

The rest of what you said is the same semantic drivel which refutes nothing and attacks OP's structure of writing instead. Kill yourself autismo

>>38234303
>Kill yourself autismo
why are you causing unnecessary suffering?

File: 96648.jpg (72KB, 659x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 659x720px

>>38230006
these abomonations are created for food they do not repressend the beasts of the wild.
Or do you want us to start hunting again so wild life dwindels?

Why aren't more vegans racists? Just considering who the worst animal abuse offenders are.

>>38234348
he wants people to stop killing animals, I think, he didn't say anything about fish, insects, crabs etc

>>38234347
>ironically defending autism
guy....

>>38234384
>fish, crabs and insects aren't animals
You're like my retarded ass cousin who tried telling me bees aren't animals the other day

>>38234348
>blonde
>bunny
gets that noggin rollin

>>38234423
>>ironically defending autism
who says Im doing it ironically?

>fish, crabs and insects aren't animals
I didn't say that, retard. So you want people to stop killing ALL animals?

>its a "vegan tries to argue with several people at once using flabby emotional responces and gets blown the fuck out on all fronts" episode
yawn. I hate reruns

>>38233994
Bad reasons or reasons that you disagree with are still reasons faggot. I know you like showcasing your moral superiority but you don't need to move the goalposts to do it. I don't care that I can get food elsewhere, it's the meat of sheep I want and the only way to obtain that is if a sheep dies.

File: index.jpg (16KB, 258x195px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 258x195px

>>38234376
Because being vegan is about image and not because of ecology, they only claim it is for the benefit of man and nature but the underlying reason is pure image.
If they truly cared they would also see the damage of soy and almonds are doing to the ecosystem and so of many other vegan favourites. Being vegan is the most white privileged thing on this earth.

>>38234509
>nnyyyuuuuhh but when you wash your hands you kill microbes

jumped ahead for you
animals that are capable of suffering

>>38234527
s-strawman

File: fc75066d7919aa3727607b2d7ac75f02.jpg (47KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 736x736px

>>38234509
>who says Im doing it ironically?
Because no one would do it unironically.

>So you want people to stop killing ALL animals?
All sentient creatures, yes. Is that so radical and extreme?

>>38234533
>Ayyyo judge
>I raped and killed this white bitch
>Why?
>ayyy she had dat privilege
>Well that's not real but because it's your REASON it's a valid excuse

> I know you like showcasing your moral superiority
Thanks. At least you know I'm morally superior

>>38234538
Wrong. Being vegan is an image thing for SOME vegans. Not for the vast majority. Poser vegans are absolute scum. Vegetarians second. Meat eaters third. It doesn't mean you're not so bad, it's just that traitors are worse.

>>38234572
umm can you please remove this image is very offensive to muslim people :)

>>38234543
>maicroebs are animals
retard

which animals are capable of suffering?

>Lions and wolves are allowed to maul, shred, and kill other animals for food in order to survive
>Humans can't do the same

I'm literally convinced that veganism is a meme because the logician that it is built upon is fundamentally broken.

>>38234572
>All sentient creatures, yes. Is that so radical and extreme?
no, its just really unrealistic

>Because no one would do it unironically.
But I just did

File: fuck muslims.jpg (79KB, 736x706px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 736x706px

>>38234596
>this image is very offensive to muslim people
Good. Here it is again

>>38234620
>no, its just really unrealistic
How

>But I just did
Uh-huh ;)

>>38234538
>soy and almonds

how do they do more damage than cattle farming?

>>38234303
OP's post doesn't actually present an argument.

It consists of these three lines:
>This beautiful creature must die
>a death for no reason
>and death for no reason is murder

Consequently, my reply to that post was to address the contents of that post.

"This beautiful creature" is a reference to something singular, "a death" is a reference to something singular, and the image focuses on "A lamb" (also singular). None of these support the "collective death" that you claim is being inferred.

However, even if I were to assume that OP's post was a reference to collective death, mass death still doesn't qualify as genocide; which is what the post of mine that you replied to is about.

I saw a post incorrectly using a word's meaning, and I corrected it. You can call that "semantics" as much as you want, because that's what it is. It still doesn't retroactively turn OP's incorrect usage of the word "murder" into a correct one.

>>38234601
>he doesn't know there are microbial animals

hahaha, let's all laugh at this fool

>>38234631
>How
because literally everyone on the planet would have to share your ideas

>Uh-huh ;)
are you shitposting? can you go to one of the designated shitposting boards?

File: 1482070264308.jpg (58KB, 540x416px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 540x416px

>>38234595
I feel such pity for you. it must be lonely being you.

>>38234643
>an autist tries an appeal to authority argument without any shred of shame
wew, no low for this board.

>>38234661
You know he's a retard trying to describe sentience right? You know not figuring that out makes you retarded too right?

>>38234680
>because literally everyone on the planet would have to share your ideas
The civilized world thinks murder is wrong. Is that unrealistic?

>are you shitposting?
Only for the retarded parts like that. You don't have to lie online dude.

>>38234698
My girlfriend warming my bed, my friends and my family would suggest that it isn't as lonely as you'd think.

File: 1493154713028.jpg (17KB, 460x423px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 460x423px

>>38234634
>Doesn't realise the damage highwatering plants cause on the ecosystem
>doesn't realise almond farms are the cause bee extincion
>calls himself better then meat eaters

>>38234749
>>Doesn't realise the damage highwatering plants cause on the ecosystem
>>doesn't realise almond farms are the cause bee extincion
>le tu quoque fallacy
Why are carnies so dumb? This is assuming anyone gives a shit about giving up almonds, the shittiest nut.

>>38234738
>The civilized world thinks murder is wrong. Is that unrealistic?
people are still killing eachother
how interesting

>>38234789
People doing it and people thinking it's wrong are two different things.
>inb4 BUT THE PEOPLE DOING IT MIGHT THINK IT'S RIGHT SO THE EXTREME MINORITY TRUMPS YOUR ARGUMENT
Please don't be THAT dumb

>>38234782
>almond milk
>you just proved you are Poser vegan and are absolute scum
>Go back to wallonie

>>38234830
What the fuck did he mean by this entire post. Is there a retard whisperer around?

>>38234538
Almost all of soy production goes towards feeding livestock.

>>38234738
>correcting incorrect usages of words is an "appeal to authority" now

"death for no reason" simply isn't a correct meaning for the word "murder", anon.

Don't know why that's such a big deal for you.

>>38234815
>>inb4 BUT THE PEOPLE DOING IT MIGHT THINK IT'S RIGHT SO THE EXTREME MINORITY TRUMPS YOUR ARGUMENT
well it does, you said:
>The civilized world thinks murder is wrong. Is that unrealistic?
there are people in the civilized world who don't think murder is wrong, some civilized countries have capital punishement, would be punishing people for killing insects and other basically braindead animals?

File: Omegle.jpg (31KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 499x499px

Honest question for any vegan out there. How do you place the value of a random human life against the value of a random animal? Do you think the human life is worth more than, equal to, or less than the animal's life.

File: Wespenspin-en-face-met-prooi_5277-Edit.jpg (523KB, 1200x805px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1200x805px

>>38230006
>>38230006
This magnificent specimen of nature is being tortured and brutally slaughtered, this death is for no reason. That monstrous spider is a murderer and must be tried as such.

What happens to these animals is excessively cruel, and inhumane. Absolutely barbaric. We don't need to eat meat THAT badly. We would be just fine with more reasonable rearing and slaughter of these creatures.

There is also the matter of not destroying the natural ecosystems that we depend on. Meat industries are an extremely wasteful use of plant based resources (1 calorie out for 10 calories in), and are extreme pollutors.

>>38234572
It wouldn't be a valid excuse, that's not the point I'm making and it's a bad example.

A better example would be something like circumcision. It's a widespread practice that I personally think is wrong. As far as I'm concerned it's genital mutilation. Now, if I wanted to protest this practice, I wouldn't go out there and tell everyone that kids are being circumcised left and right for no reason, because they're not and everyone would start arguing with me about their reasons for supporting it, much like I'm arguing with you now. In order to achieve something constructive, I would need to acknowledge that people do it because of a perceived necessity or benefit and seek out a dialogue about those instead of trivializing them or pretending they don't exist.

If OP wanted a serious discussion they could have asked us if we think it's wrong to consume meat and you'd be right at home here. But they didn't, instead they purposefully made a dumb unnuanced statement to get moralfags like yourself riled up and arguing besides the point.

>>38234844
There is a difference between farming soy beans and soy shoots.
>heres a spoiler one needs twice as much water and it ain't the beans.
Oh and probaly don't know this cattle is only fed with the beans of soy and even then it is only a small part of it's food. it's biggest source of food is grains wich doesn't need as much water as other crops
Get on my level and do permaculture
>nonperma culture vegans are such plebs

>>38234881
>Using the word murder is wrong
>Why?
>Murder is the unlawful killing of another
>Unlawful
>Law
>Authority
>It's wrong because it doesn't match the legal description
Thus appeal to authority. I just took the liberty of skipping several pointless steps while you tried to blunder your way through an explanation.

>>38234883
>there are people in the civilized world who don't think murder is wrong
Living in the civilized world != being a member of the civilized world

>>38234916
I'm not reading your personal crusade about dicks anon. That's gay.

>they could have asked us if we think it's wrong to consume meat and you'd be right at home here
Complaining the message wasn't delivered in an acceptable way is not an argument.

>>38234943
>Living in the civilized world != being a member of the civilized world
thanks for replying to my entire post and not just the parts you find easy to debunk

>>38234910
That is a spider and you are a human being. You can thrive and be healthy and happy without inflicting heinous cruelty onto helpless beings. We can kill and eat them without causing them the inhumane pain and fear that they endure. Why would you fight that? You would never let that be done to your dog or cat. It is a non argument from this perspective.
What is happening to these animals must stop. It must be changed. I will gladly make a few trivial sacrifices to my lifestyle to prevent this from existing.

>>38234915
But it's the most efficient way in getting meat, that's how capatilism works baby.

Also why should I care about the suffering of animals raised to be slaughtered, when they wouldn't have even existed if we didn't want to eat them.

pesca-pescatarians eat only fish that eat other fish

>>38234936
Are you suggesting that vegans account for more soy-inflicted ecological damage than livestock?

>>38234943
>Complaining the message wasn't delivered in an acceptable way is not an argument
It's not an argument in the discussion that you want to have, but that discussion is not what the purpose of this thread was.

>>38234999
>We can kill and eat them without causing them the inhumane pain and fear that they endure.
But that's not what's being argued at all, the OP is suggesting that we shouldn't kill or eat animals at all under any circumstances.

>>38235013
All I can say is again think that any one of them could be your own dog or your own cat. These are real creatures and their suffering is real. What happens to them is absolutely needless. It's heartbreaking.

>>38234995
The rest of your post is stupid. We already kill braindead humans without punishment. Stop expecting me to spoon feed you life facts.

>>38235083
>It's not an argument in the discussion that you want to have
The discussion I want to have is about whether it's right (it's not) or not to eat animals. That's the discussion being had. Cry elsewhere

>>38230006
Why is this thread even here?

It's not like OP is the first person to consider that killing animals and eating them might not necessarily be the nicest thing to do, it's almost as though he doesn't realize that most people have had this thought at some point in their lives, and decided that enjoying meat was the better option regardless of the suffering it causes. People usually make the choice that pleases them, and if society allows them to do so without imprisonment or a lot autistic screeching those choices are unlikely to change.

If OP is trying to start a cultural shift against the consumption of meat he will have to to do a lot more than just post on 4chan, that said even if it did become illegal I'd probably continue to do it in secret so long as as didn't get caught and do long as the penalties are lax; just like how I often steal stuff from stores, insurance fraud, do drugs, torrent copyrighted material, and pay for prostitutes.

>>38235129
OP isn't saying that. The thread is about veganism at its core.

>>38234943
I don't know why OP chose a legal term like "murder" to refer to an animal's "death for no reason" either, but that's just another example of how he used the word's meaning incorrectly.

There are some non-legal definitions of the word "murder", unfortunately, they all refer to "killing" instead of just death.

"death for no reason" neither satisfies the "unlawful" nor the "killing" portions of the definition of the word "murder".

It just wasn't the correct word.

>>38235151
Isn't that what veganism is? Not harming animals at all?

>It's a vegan projects their compassion and emotions onto an animal that can't feel them in an attempt to gain unearned moral superiority over normal people episode

Love this one

>>38235129
>the OP is suggesting that we shouldn't kill or eat animals at all under any circumstances.

Yes because that way this issue will become just another "thing" for the goyim to fight about endlessly in society instead of paying attention to the economic forces which are reducing our quality of life and making the rich richer.

But that's not what's important. What's important is that we all recognize that there are simple things we can all agree on to prevent most of this inhumane and needless cruelty.

We can still eat meat. But these animals do not have to suffer like they do.

>>38235132
>The discussion I want to have is about whether it's right (it's not) or not to eat animals.
I'm sorry that 4chan isn't here to have that discussion with you then, lol.

File: 1497241526633.jpg (107KB, 749x751px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 749x751px

>>38234886
>maximum value
Human (all races, retards etc)
ULTRA POWER GAP
monkeys
pigs/cows
chickens
small animals like rats
fish
ULTRA POWER GAP
bugs
>least value

>>38235165
>I don't know why OP chose a legal term like "murder" to refer to an animal's "death
It's not only a legal term autismo

>"death for no reason" neither satisfies the "unlawful" nor the "killing" portions of the definition of the word "murder".
You're not looking at the post as a whole. It must die. How does it die? By being killed. It suffers death for no reason.

Stop being stupid. This is my last reply to you.

>>38235172
>Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
There you go.

>>38235192
>implying /r9k/ is 4chan
Retard alert

>>38235165
Because murder is scary, and he wants to appeal to your emotions.

I don't even believe that OP is a vegan, I think this is just an argument exercise. Sometimes I do this to just for practice, it's fun for some people.

Playing devil's advocate helps you get inside other people's heads, but I don't know if I could do the vegan perspective because I don't take it seriously enough to fight for it in a convincing way.

>>38235132
>The rest of your post is stupid
you haven't explained why Japan, USA, Belarus etc aren't civilized countries even tho they use capital punishment
you haven't told me which animals are sentient

>>38235135
>Why is this thread even here?
Literal propaganda, mate. Expect to see more of this in years to come. The elite have decided it's time to move this issue into the mainstream as another mass distraction.
>>38235188

It can also be used to bolster dwindling leftist support for islamic immigration due to their refusal to eat pigs. There's always many games being played, but the core of the issue is always power and control.

>>38230006
>Lion kills zebra for food
"Completely natural"

>Shark kills fish for food
"Completely natural"

>Human kills cow for food
"muh animal holocaust!!! Go vegan or you're an immoral degenerate!!!"

>>38235131
No it couldn't because, I would protect my own dog. Also humans have greater sympathy towards dogs since they evolved alongside us and merely interacting with them raises our dopamine levels.

Also dogs and cats are predators. Humans only factory farm beta prey animals. No one factory farms coyotes or foxes or tigers.

>>38235213
>I don't know if I could do the vegan perspective because I don't take it seriously enough
>I'm so young that I think eating meat is still cool or I'm a dumb cunt with an inability to think logically, rationally, and empathize

>>38235234
>you haven't explained why Japan, USA, Belarus etc aren't civilized countries even tho they use capital punishment
You're so stupid that you're arguing against something I never said

>you haven't told me which animals are sentient
This has been addressed. Scroll up

>>38235244
>Literal propaganda
Propaganda for what?

>The elite have decided it's time to move this issue into the mainstream as another mass distraction.
Holy shit /pol/ can be so fucking dumb

>>38235252
>"muh animal holocaust!!! Go vegan or you're an immoral degenerate!!!"
Explain how this is wrong.

>>38230006
Fuck animals

>>38235256
>Also humans have greater sympathy towards dogs since they evolved alongside us and merely interacting with them raises our dopamine levels.
>confirmation bias asf
Stop

>>38235278
You're an animal lmfao

>>38235252
It's not just that they're killed. It's that they are, for their entire lives, put through extremely cruel and inhumane conditions, and then are slaughtered without one iota of consideration for their pain and suffering.

We can still eat meat. But the animals do not have to suffer like they do. They can live cleaner, better lives. And they can be killed humanely. That is what matters here.

>>38235274
>You're so stupid that you're arguing against something I never said
>>38234943
specifically:
>there are people in the civilized world who don't think murder is wrong
Living in the civilized world != being a member of the civilized world

>>38235293
>You're an animal lmfao
No im not, im a human

>>38235274
>Explain how this is wrong.
Animals eating other animals is the natural way of life. It doesn't change just because it's a human doing it instead of a lion or a shark.

I can agree with vegans that the way livestock gets killed is pretty brutal, though. I'd be up for a more humane way of killing them, but to not eat them for some self-inflicted standard of morals is going against the way of life.

>>38235081
No what i am suggesting is if all of man kind switches over it will have a bigger ecological impact then livestock.
Permaculture is the only way
get on my level

>>38235210
>It's not only a legal term
Hence me writing, "There are some non-legal definitions of the word 'murder'".

>How does it die? By being killed.
Which is why it would've been better for OP to write "killing for no reason" instead of "death for no reason", as I stated in this post >>38234230.

>>38235213
>Because murder is scary, and he wants to appeal to your emotions.

Yeah. I've often seen people misuse "murder" in the past to try to make things sound more sinister.

>>38235299
I can actually agree with that. I'm not some type of edgy idiot who wants to see animals tortured for no reason.

Let them live reasonably enjoyable lifestyles and kill them in the most humane possible before they get to my dinner plate.

File: 1498003907958.png (65KB, 554x400px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 554x400px

>>38235208
I agree mostly except I would go with

>Humans (all races, disorders)
power gap
>Dogs/cats
>Apes
>Monkeys
power gap
>Predator species (unless threatening human life)
power gap
>pigs/cows/sheep/goat
>chicken/turkey
>rodents
power gap
>fish
power gap
>bugs

>>38230006
Murder is when a human kills another human in a premeditated fashion.

A lamb isn't a person.

>>38235299

Where is your proof that animals raised for food go through cruel and inhuman conditions? Have you ever actually seen a farm?

And don't think that one 20 year old hidden camera PETA video of a human being abusing an animal is "proof"

>>38235188
How do they suffer? As far as I'm aware, the animals that I eat, which were very much purposely bred to be eaten, were never brutalised, hurt or malnourished throughout their lives. Except for the part where they were eventually killed in the blink of an eye and processed.

I'm aware that there are some places where people don't stick to the regulations and treat animals badly and I absolutely agree that that shouldn't happen but it's not the norm and it's not what meat eaters want to happen. So telling someone who eats meat about animal cruelty is not an effective way to do anything about it.

>>38235343
>I can agree with vegans that the way livestock gets killed is pretty brutal, though. I'd be up for a more humane way of killing them

This is exactly what needs to be focused on. 99% of people can agree on this. But there's going to be alot of pressure for this issue to become and irreconcilable shitflinging hysteria.

The goal of the upcoming popularization of animal welfare issues is not to help the animals. Big powers aren't going to back this issue with their money and connections because they want to help animals. It's going to be done to get the public fighting about something new, so another occupy wallstreet doesn't cook up again.

>>38235299
>And they can be killed humanely.
Hahahahaha

>>38235304
So you want to explain how capital punishment, (a legal concept) is murder (in this context; another legal concept)?

>>38235342
;)

>>38235343
>Animals eating other animals is the natural way of life
Out of necessity, yes. You conveniently forgot that part.

>I'd be up for a more humane way of killing them
Hahhahaha. How is there a humane way of killing anything? Is there a humane way of killing you?

>is going against the way of life
Yet here you are, a KHV shitposting online, using electricity and eating products farmed for you, shipped to you, presented for you and sold to you. Very natural way of life you have ;)

>>38235376
Yet another one. Jesus Christ.

>>38235383
>Another fag trying to use legal semantics instead of accepting the colloquial definition
Should he have said holocaust instead?

Did all the kids just get home from school somewhere? This thread saw a massive upturn in retardation

>>38235210
>There you go.

So yes then. I'm not sure how saying that OP made a vegan statement and saying that OP is against the killing of animals entirely are mutually exclusive.

>>38235299
>>38235376
But, also, the thing is most vegans just don't want better conditions for animals, they want us to completely stop consuming meat or any animal byproducts. It's kind of hard to work with a side that won't budge.

>I'm a meat eater.
>I'm a vegan, you need to stop eating meat!
>No, I enjoy eating meat, but I agree that factory farms are pretty sad places. I'd be up to support legislation to require these factory farms to improve conditions for the animals during the times they are alive.
>Nope, you're still killing them, you degenerate!

>>38235428
It was implied.

>>38235431
>But, also, the thing is most vegans just don't want better conditions for animals
We want you to stop needlessly killing and exploiting animals. How fucking hard is it?

File: Fedora.png (139KB, 466x466px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 466x466px

>>38235377
>dogs/cats above monkeys

>>38235360
Are you suggesting that it is more environmentally harmful to provide crops and land for 7 billion people than for 7 billion people + billions more in livestock?

>>38235293
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2015/01/12/your-brain-pets/geoJHAfFHxrwNS4OgWb7sO/story.html

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2013/08/07/dog-human-brain-chemistry.aspx

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3408111/

Please, this stuff is well known and pretty obvious if you ask me. I mean why else would so many people keep dogs as pets, in this modern era where most people don't use them as a utility.

>>38235389
>How do they suffer? As far as I'm aware, the animals that I eat, which were very much purposely bred to be eaten, were never brutalised, hurt or malnourished throughout their lives

You are woefully incorrect my friend. Regulations are a joke in the US, and are non existent in China. I recommend a documentary titled "Earthlings"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdJheaJPKh4

>>38235413
>Out of necessity, yes. You conveniently forgot that part.
As it is for humans.

>How is there a humane way of killing anything?
Are you troleing or just stupid? Different deaths of varying levels of pain.

>Is there a humane way of killing you?
I'm a human. Life's not fair. I'm at top of the food chain and I enjoy the taste of hamburgers, hot dogs, chicken, steaks and the like. Not going to stop because of your baseless moral standing.

>Yet here you are, a KHV shitposting online, using electricity and eating products farmed for you, shipped to you, presented for you and sold to you. Very natural way of life you have ;)
So much projection in this post that it's not even worth responding to.

>>38235444
>We want you to stop needlessly killing and exploiting animals. How fucking hard is it?
It's not needlessly. Meat is an important and beneficial part of most people's diets. Not to mention the enjoyment post people get from eating it.

Yes, life's not fair. Some animals were literally born to be food. Go wipe your tears on a tree's leaf, faggot.

>>38235377
Even rodents are above dogs and cats.......you just like pets anon.

>>38235502
Humans don't need to eat meat.

>Are you troleing or just stupid? Different deaths of varying levels of pain.
Killing something is not humane. If I sneak up on you and shoot you in the head is that okay because it was painless, instant and without your knowledge?

>I'm a human.
So?

>I'm at top of the food chain
You are? So you can fight a lion, a shark, an elephant, a hippo, etc?

Or did you mean you used technology to remove yourself from the food chain? I know this is what you meant.

>baseless moral standing.
>Refusing to kill things for no reason isn't a moral position!
Okay buddy ;)

>So much projection
As I said earlier; my girlfriend is warming my bed. I know what I said is applicable to you. Don't deny it.

>>38235550
>Meat is an important
Why?

>beneficial
How?

>Not to mention the enjoyment post people get from eating it.
lmfao not an argument

Everything happens for a reason.
Steve-o really got me with that in his last video

File: top10animebetrayal.jpg (15KB, 603x306px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 603x306px

>>38235464
This is only because of their usefulness to humans now and throughout history, either being hunting companions, protectors of the household as well as providing psychological and physiological benefits to their owners. If they weren't kept so widely as pets then i'd put primates ahead of them.

>>38235481
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3408111/
This is talking about the release of chemicals when interacting with animals. Nothing to do with evolving to release more of them.

>>38235366
Did you know that if you cheat on your taxes, you've murdered the government?

Really makes you feel doesn't?

>>38235488
It's a good thing my meat doesn't come from the US or China then. I'm sorry that that stuff happens over there, but I can't help that some redneck in the US is beating his cows. I'll just keep eating my free range meat.

>>38230080
It does to republicucks.

File: IMG_5551.png (14KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 640x480px

>Centrist scum posting itt

>>38235648
I've already posted a couple of videos of slaughterhouse footage from the EU lol

Carnies just can't make a good argument.

>>38235274
>I'm so young that I think eating meat is still cool

I'm probably older than you. Fun fact though, when I was in high school I have up meat for almost a year many eyes were rolled at my veggie ways, so you've got that bit backwards.

>I'm a dumb cunt with an inability to think logically, rationally, and empathize
You're not even trying anymore. A true vegan would have a better argument on deck already.

>>38235620
Well there's no way to tell what the chemical releases of humans 50,000 years ago would have been in interacting with animals. But we do know that humans and dogs have evolved alongside each other for thousands of years. We also know that dogs' brain chemistry is significantly different as a result of being our companions, and we know this as we can compare it to other members of the canine family, specifically wolves. Dogs get high releases of dopamine in the brain when getting pet, which just doesn't occur in other canines.

>>38235648
You are still a first world citizen on this planet and have the ability to actually do something to help the animals that are suffering. I recommend again to watch the documentary I posted, titled "Earthlings." Here's a better link to the documentary

http://documentary-movie.com/earthlings/

>>38235681
Europe is a big place and you don't know where my meat comes from. Again, what I eat or don't eat has no effect on the faith animals in cruel slaughterhouses.

>>38235590
>Everything happens for a reason.

Well yes, but that statement isn't nearly as prophetic as you believe, it just means that cause and effect are in action

>>38235724
>you have the ability to help animals
>here, watch this documentary

Watching that documentary isn't going to do diddly. How about you tell me something concrete that you think I can do to prevent an animal from suffering.

>>38235707
> when I was in high school I have up meat for almost a year many eyes were rolled at my veggie ways
And you think this makes you look better.... why?

>A true vegan would have a better argument on deck already.
>comes in late
>expects freshly baked arguments
Hang yourself.

>>38235719
>Well there's no way to tell what the chemical releases of humans 50,000 years ago would have been in interacting with animals
>W-Well you can't prove we didn't evolve to produce more chemicals so I win
The article didn't even mention evolution lol.

>>38235738
>you don't know where my meat comes from
It doesn't matter. I don't care if they're sucking the pigs off before they kill them, it doesn't make it okay.