Any vegan wizzies?59 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Why or why not are you vegan?
"From these practices it is perfectly evident that it is not for nourishment or need or necessity, but out of satiety and insolence and luxury that they have turned this lawless custom into a pleasure. Then, just as with succubi who are insatiable in seeking pleasure, their lust tries everything, goes astray, and explores the gamut of profligacy until at last it ends in unspeakable practices; so intemperance in eating passes beyond the necessary ends of nature and resorts to cruelty and lawlessness to give variety to appetite." - Plutarch the Platonist
All great wisdom traditions such as the Pythagoreans, Platonists, Rishis of India, Buddhists, etc were vegetarians and vegans. Great men like Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Porphyry, Plutarch, other Platonists, the legendary Rishis of India, Gotama Buddha and his spiritual descendants, Nikola Tesla (a most legendary wiz who gave us everything in the modern world), Leonardo DaVinci, Isaac Newton, all vegetarians/vegans.
Furthermore, veganism is irrefutable. The arguments are impossible to refute and the science sides with veganism. And the decadence which has been brought about by the higher consumption of animal products is palpable in society. Not only do you suffer physically from eating animal products, you also suffer spiritually, intellectually, and karmically. It has been proven to be the ideal diet wholistically and for all stages of life.
If I may say so myself, veganism is the wiz diet.
No but I eat soy nearly every day (TVP and tofu). You know what is actually "soy"? Meat and dairy which contain actual estrogen, the exact same estrogen produced in human bodies. Meanwhile, phytoestrogens from soy (and all other plants, they all contain phytoestrogens) have anti-estrogenic effects.
OP confirmed lying troll
That's not how logic works. If I refuse to prove that 1+1=2 doesn't mean it's not true. It means that I can't or don't want to do it.
You are panicking now because you know it's true. LARPers BTFO
The challenging part about veganism is fulfilling your nutritional requirements. A vegan meal itself doesn't mean it's a healthy meal. It seems like veganism would require a lot of supplementing or consideration into every meal consumed. I'm open to it if I had a nutritionist and someone to meal prep for me, but that alone tells me that humans are naturally omnivores. I just don't think I could give it the time and effort to make it work. If we ever get to a point as a society that I can go vegan without devoting any extra mental energy/money into doing it I'll make the switch, but probably not until then.
It's really not very hard. All these people saying you need supplements are vastly overstating the importance of those nutrients. Just eat a variety of plants and you'll largely be ok. Not that there's really any reason to be a vegan in the first place.
did you find out about that site from reading your mother's facebook page? good lord
No it wouldn't. Just B12 and fortified foods.>>170841
There is pain in eggs, man. Half of baby chickens born are roosters and they're ground up because they don't lay eggs. And the hens are crammed tightly in a big cage and when their egg-laying years are over they are murdered for their meat. As for honey, it's not for you. Bees make it for themselves. This was figured out a long time ago. And back then these animals were treated WAY WAY nicer than today. Today they are treated brutally (cows are raped, hens crammed, sheep tortured, etc).
"If, however, some one should, nevertheless, think it is unjust to destroy brutes, such a one should neither use milk, nor wool, nor sheep, nor honey. For, as you injure a man by taking from him his garments, thus, also, you injure a sheep by shearing it. For the wool which you take from it is its vestment. Milk, likewise, was not produced for you, but for the young of the animal that has it. The bee also collects honey as food for itself; which you, by taking away, administer to your own pleasure."
I've experimented with a vegan diet in the past but I find the meat is far too stringy.
if i died right now and never supported the meat industry again would it make enough of a difference to save even one chicken? that's my thought
RECTUM - CAPACIOUS
I have been veg more than 2 months. I think that pic is biased.
Which things on it are incorrect?
You would say that the problem lies inside the method instead than in the mere act of obtaining eggs.
It's not like bees were to be my suffering wagecucks, I mean, how much worktime am I adding to a bee while taking the honey? they have no other thing to do in life…
I once used to buy organic, yup.
Man, I would totally give you every hair in my body with no problem, specially if you pay me. Cattle are nourished and protected by the very humans (when things are done well) who take advantage from them. It can perfectly be a symbiosis, which never needs to be ended just because being carried out in a neglecitve way…
If your arm is broken, you set a bandage on it, instead of chopping it off. the same with these relationships, and be aware, than having milk, eggs and honey can surely give you a living without truly killing other animals.
Comparing us to wolves is disingenuous, should of used chimpanzees for that chart
Who gives a fuck about healthy? If you go vegan for health reasons you're a fucking tool. If you only eat meat for health reasons you're a fucking liar.
What are you talking about? The whole point of dieting is for health reasons
He's referring to the moral reasons, such as the pic in the OP.
That's not a moral reason, it's an appeal to emotion. If he has moral reasons he should delineate them. Is all killing immoral? What quality in a living creature makes it immoral to kill it? Is it immoral to kill insects, plants, bacteria? Are predators like wolves evil for killing other animals?
There is only 1 (one) single moral principle that will ever matter. Suffering bad.
It answers all of your questions. Either you accept this foundation of morality. Or you don't at which point who gives a shit about talking about morality with someone who has confused it for self-interest.
In that case you're obligated to support the meat industry. If you don't let the animals get killed in the prime of their life, they will get old and suffer even more.
The most moral thing to do would be to buy meat from hippy free-range companies since those animals have exponentially less suffering than wild animals.
The most moral thing under that premise would be to wipe out every sentient being from existence immediately.
You are selfish and evil for choosing to live in comfort rather than sacrifice yourself to kill as many babies and pregnant succubi as possible.
We must abolish all freedom, because freedom has the potential to create suffering. Because suffering is absolute Evil, pleasure is absolute Good. This is just logic. So we must kidnap all humans and put them in matrix-style capsules where we will continuously stimulate the pleasure centers of their brains for the rest of their lives. This will generate Goodness. If a human wants to escape to outside of our pure Good matrix, they are in effect generating Evil/suffering and thus should be slaughtered at all costs. Since our pure Good matrix generates only Good and no Evil we shall breed humans as much as possible to create more Good generators. Eventually we shall cover the earth with a blob of pleasure generating-flesh, nothing but Goodness.
Will they be allow to reproduce while in your pleasure capsules?
Because it is deficient. Veganism is an extreme…
>>171047>is it immoral to kill insects, plants, bacteria
Not unless doing so leads to unnecessary harm being inflicted on animals and humans (e.g. wiping out plants which provided a food source for a certain animal).
A line has to be drawn somewhere, ethically speaking. It is why you don't feel bad walking on concrete but would feel bad walking on a cat which is lying down in your path; one has moral significance, the other does not. The question is why, and the answer is because the cat (and other animals) possess the capacity to experience pain either directly via physical harm or due to deprivation etc. A pig is more intelligent and possesses a greater capacity for suffering than a comatose human being, so the distinction between the two is not straightforward.
Wolves aren't evil for being predators, because their survival depends on their eating meat. The average human being does not need to consume meat to survive except in extreme scenarios. We no longer live in an era where small-scale, localised farming is possible due to the massive population and the massive, consumer-driven demand for a great deal, and a great variety, of meat. This means the process of securing that meat becomes industrialised, which in turn means (and plenty of documented evidence exists to prove this) the systematic brutalisation of animals, mainly those which are content to exist by just eating grass etc. The reason for this systematic brutalisation of tens of millions of animals each year is not due to necessity but the selfish demands of consumers who want a bacon double-cheeseburger with chicken tendies on the side, without considering the harm inflicted on the animals which were raised, brutalised and slaughtered for the purpose of that one meal. And that doesn't even cover the amount of meat which is wasted either because people buy more than they need or because restaurants, supermarkets etc dispose of so much unsold food as a matter of routine.
The debate about vegetarianism and veganism absolutely relates to Wizardry.
So often the complaint across the various boards is that normies treat wizards with contempt, disgust and dismissal. There are threads about wizards being bulled either as a child or in the workplace, and how the tacitly accepted cultural norms of normie society are hostile towards wizards to the point of making people here feel depressed, abused, worthless etc.
Animals, particularly tame animals like sheep, cows, chickens and pigs which overwhelmingly only eat grass, seed and foliage (not by moral choice, but inclination), are in a sense animal representations of the wizard. While the normie alpha chad predators sit atop the food chain and strike fear into other animals, the sheep, cows etc just stand in fields eating grass and following their kin across the land. And how are these rather meek and pathetic animals treated? Just read about factory farming to find out.
Nah, I see myself as more of something like a bear or other solitary animal that does what it wants.
Wizards are not herd animals like sheep or cow. That shit is for normies.
So you compare wizards to normcattle? Kek i think you're on the wrong website, may i offer you a return ticket?
>>171211>le true wizard may may
Sorry but no, simply no
I don't buy that more intelligence = more capacity to experience pain. If so then cutting out the eyeballs of a genius would create more pain than cutting out the eyes of a retard. That doesn't make sense. Are there any studies regarding this?
>Wolves aren't evil for being predators, because their survival depends on their eating meat
If you start out with the axiom that suffering = evil then it shouldn't matter whether or not you're creating suffering in order to perpetuate your own existence, no? You've said that a human ripping out the guts of a rabbit is evil because it generates suffering. A wolf ripping out the guts of a rabbit creates the same amount of suffering, the same amount of evil. If a wolf is a creature that generates evil it would not be inaccurate to call the wolf evil.
In terms of suffering, I was referring to unnecessary suffering. For example, a wolf eating a rabit in order to stay alive, or a man in the wilderness killing an animal for want of an alternative, or even something as mundane as a farmer killing animals which eat his crops so that the supply of food to the local human community isn't jeopardised. All those could be interpreted as forms of unavoidable or necessary suffering, where suffering would exist either way. I wouldn't describe such actions as evil in the first instance because animals lack the capacity for moral action (as with children and the mentally retarded) and in the second instance because the starving traveller and the under-pressure farmer have to decide whether to suffer harm to themselves or their community or to inflict harm in order to prevent harm to themselves etc.
Unnecessary suffering is inflicting harm on a being capable of experiencing pain for reasons which aren't necessary to the continued survival of the being inflicting the harm. A poorly managed zoo is an example, where a dolphin wastes away in a tiny pool of water for no other reason than to provide pleasure to humans observing it, suffering both physical and mental anguish (evident by its listlessness, etc). Another example in my opinion is a human being who contributes to and therefore tacitly encourages the behaviour of the meat industry which, in its industrialised form (e.g. factory farms), necessarily inflicts not only the most obvious unnecessary harm (depriving an animal of its life) but also a great deal of physical and mental pain (evidence overwhelmingly proves this to be the case) as a matter of routine, simply to meat consumer demand as quickly as possible. Again I wouldn't use the word evil, because that seems to be linked to religious ideals, but I would describe such an act as unethical if it is true, which in most cases it is, that the person queuing for a double-cheeseburger in McDonalds can live as if not more healthily without paying for minimum wage employees in a factory farm somewhere to inflict harm on an animal for the purpose of shipping its flesh to a fast food restaurant where it can be enjoyed for about ten minutes by someone who, statistically speaking, is already overweight and therefore not by any means starving.
The initial point about intelligence and suffering is valid, and I agree with you. What I was trying to explain is that when many if not most people consider their ethical obligations towards other beings, the tendency is to draw a line between species which I believe is arbitrary and based on an unquestioned bias in favour of ones own species at the expense of another. An adult pig is more intelligent than a severely retarded human being, for example. The question is how do we decide who is worthy of our moral consideration and to what extent. Animal welfare laws exist for a reason, for example, but these again are arbitrary in the sense that what would be illegal to do a cat or dog is done on a routine basis to pigs and cows, both of which are arguably as intellectually advanced, not to mention as capable of suffering harm, as cats and dogs. Insects as I understand it have not central nervous system, and therefore do not experience pain (happy to be corrected on this). If we reduce the notion of a human being to something beyond its physical manifestation (e.g. by throwing a Rawlsian veil of ignorance over the physical appearance of animals and humans) we understand ourselves to be thinking, observing beings capable of expressing wants and preferences, and also of suffering and avoiding unnecessary suffering. Understood on this basic level, animals share these qualities with us and are therefore in my opinion worthy of our ethical consideration to the point where injuring an animal, much less killing it for unnecessary, fleeting pleasure, should be considered an unethical thing to do.
I do however agree that reality is complicated, and that issues such as tame animals dying in the wild through lack of human stewardship is an issue worth discussing, as is the overpopulation of animals and the suffering they thereby inflict on themselves through starvation and whether killing these animals via a gunshot is an ethical act when faced with the prospect of them starving due to the relative lack of resources available to the oversized herd etc.
Vegans are ultra faggots. They are up for capitalism that kills animals and wildlife directly or indirectly. But don't want to eat animals that are bred specifically for eating purposes. Exploiting cows for milk doesn't bother vegans though. And making soil infertile due to repeated farming that kills earthworms and other small necessary bugs don't bother them.
We bring the balance, we non vegetarians.
You should bow to our feet and follow our faith and ask for forgiveness for vegans are sinners
>>171293>exploiting cows doesnt bother vegans
wh-…. what are you saying? do you know what a vegan is?
>saying shit about farms that makes no sense
are you referring to crop rotations? because all farmers already do this.
I genuinely can't tell if you're a troll or just fucking retarded.
How come you can say this, but when i talk about meat the mods delete my comments?
nobody denying that humans are omnivorous creatures, veganism is about ethical task of ending animals suffering and abuse
Bambi, Fox & The Hound, and other talking animal movies indocrinate children into adopting the semi-conscious worldview that animal lives and animal minds are just as valuable and have just as much depth as humans'. Many children believe that animals actually have a language and can talk to each other, because they see it in movies all the time. Failure to address this indoctrination results in vegetarianism and veganism in adolescents and adults.
How can you be so stupid to think animals don't communicate with each other?
Animals show complex emotions and long-term thinking, such elephants grieving for each other and monkeys that can learn thousands of human words.
We are just animals too. The only way someone can justify shitbrained denial of this and place humans into a completely different category is being some indoctrinated-from-birth Christian that believes in things like souls
If an animal starts asking for rights I'd be fine with giving them rights. But they can't ask for rights, because they can't understand the concept of rights. They are not moral agents. It's stupid to grant them personal agency. Pic related, an elephant was tried and executed for murder. That's pretty stupid, you have to agree.
Once animals become moral agents they can be treated equally to humans.
What about children, are they moral agents? How about the temporarily insane? Or how about an elderly person suffering from dementia?
The fact that something isn't a moral agent doesn't mean they do not suffer nor that they have no preferences, desires, etc.
are you seriously comparing animals, children, and mentally ill people?
>>171323>Pic related, an elephant was tried and executed for murder. That's pretty stupid
animal control goes out and kills animals that have killed humans all the time, stuff like bears, crocodiles
Those aren’t trials, they’re extermination’s.
They have the potential to act as moral agents. Animals do not.