No.170475[Last 50 Posts]
Any vegan wizzies?
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 sir. Veganism does not provide the body with the proper nutrients that it needs. It also comes off as a fad promoted by bourgeoisie cosmopolitans. However I am not against it for those living as ascetics.
I will also add that I would maybe do vegetarianism if I had access to or was skilled at preparing Indian food. Pajeet food is godtier even without meat.
I've been a vegetarian for about 3 years now. Not currently interested in becoming a vegan but who knows, we certainly have the technology and food availabity today to make it work. That said, I really dislike how you began this thread. I've read most of Plato's dialogues and don't remember anywhere being mentioned he was a vegetarian, much less vegan, same thing with Socrates. In fact, both Plato and Socrates were pious to Greek deities and most likely both made use of animal sacrifice, Socrates in particular is shown a few times straight up telling people to kill animals for the gods. The famous cock to Asclepius passage comes to mind. So no, most likely not vegetarians, much less vegans.
Same thing with Plotinus, I've read some of the Enneads and don't recall any veganism in there, though I might be mistaken, I would have to look through, but given the fact you straight up lied about Socrates and Plato, I can't take your word for it anymore. Also I know for a fact Buddhists are not vegans either, not even vegetarians, they can still eat meat if it's offered to them and the Dalai Lama himself follows this tradition and is not a vegetarian, so excuse me for placing his opinion above yours when Buddhist diet is concerned.
So basically every single person I know anything about in your list shows that you're lying and distorting the truth with no shame whatsoever. Why would you do this? It just makes me angry at you and your bullshit. You don't need to do that to prove your point, if anything it's just the worst start possible. Every other thing you said in your OP is now tainted.
Take my advice and just start this thread over without so much bullshit and I might contribute with my experience and how I became a vegetarian, it's actually a very interesting story. Other than that I have nothing else to ad to such a shitty OP to an otherwise interesting topic.>>170476>Veganism does not provide the body with the proper nutrients that it needs.
That was true until recently, right now we do have enough food tech to make it work, if you really want to do it at least, but this OP was so full of shit it really burned me down and I don't want to post anything about it now.
i eat whatever is in the house, i dont complain about food, and i dont comment on food that others eat. this is the neet diet
i dont particularly care about veganism or vegetarianism. nutjobs, cults, spiritualists, empathy zealots, annoying, obnoxious, condescending, holier than thou, etc… that is what i think when veganism and vegetarianism are mentioned
i dont care what other people eat… when you talk about it and try to convert others to your diet, i REALLY dont give a fuck
Listen you fucking cockscuker, I know more than you will ever know about Platonism. You haven't read any dialogues you fucking lying piece of shit, if you had you would know that in the Republic Socrates posits a vegetarian diet as the ideal diet for the state. You also don't know shit about the Platonic tradition, it's origins, and the successors of Plato. Plato and his teacher Socrates descend from the tradition of Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, and further back Pythagoras learned from the priests of Egypt, vegetarians. It is more likely than not that they were also vegetarians. Also Plotinus' student, Porphyry, the man charged with writing and editing Plotinus' dictation, was a vegetarian or potentially vegan. He makes it clear in his "on abstinence from animal food" that a plant-based diet is the tradition he has received from his elders and not a novelty created by him, you fucking dilettante piece of fucking shit. And he also says that literally all great metaphysical traditions such as the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Brahmins, and so on were vegetarians as well.
Also I don't give a single fuck what the "Dalai Lama" does. I care about what early non-sectarian Buddhism and the Buddha taught and he taught vegetarianism as proven by the edicts of king Ashoka, the legendary Buddhist king that spread Buddhism across his domain and beyond. He prohibited the murder of animals and their consumption. And that a mendicant monk will eat meat if that is what is offered to him by the people doesn't make him a non-vegetarian, you fucking moronic imbecile stupid fuck.
So YOU take my advice and promptly kill yourself and thanks for exposing yourself as the unknowledgeable, ignorant, dilettante, fucking idiot that you are in front of everyone reading this thread. You truly proved that all of your "knowledge" on what you claim to know comes from Wikipedia, you demon from hell. Die!
I just love how you magnificently proved yourself to be of the polloi kai alloi, the unlearned mundane many, a normie, a dilettante, an ignorant fool, a buffoon, a clown, a fucking jester spouting his disgusting lies and doxa of which he knows not the littlest thing about. And the pride you take in "correcting" me is the cherry on top. And you managed to post your shitty reply full of shit three times, polluting the eyes of everyone reading this with your garbage. Die you miserable scum!>>170480
You're a hylic dog and will perish like the dog you are. Enjoy!
while writing that post, did you go through my post and put a checkmark next to all my criticisms, making absolutely sure to behave that way? amazing
you aren't veganposter, he was banned and moved on, but you are behaving the same as him. he wanted combat and his thread was a gladiator arena
It's a significantly less varied diet and I don't swing much toward antinatalism.>>170484
Column 4-7 are pure guesses and the second link comes with a disclaimer right at the start so I wouldn't put any value to it. Points for the effort of writing all of it though. >>170476>It also comes off as a fad promoted by bourgeoisie cosmopolitans.
Often it seems so, the ones who have some connection to the countryside or other countries are often more balanced in their stance.
Vegan Wizard reporting in. Gonna make this quick because I'm only here briefly (won't be able to respond to replies, btw).
I've been Vegan 10 years. I don't know that I'd say that veganism is 'irrefutable', but I really don't see how anyone making moral claims can't be pretty quickly exposed as hypocritical through raising the issue of veganism. I've talked to many vegans, and most of them are very genuine people, not the "loud and obnoxious" sort that's often held up as a strawman. In my experience the antis are most hysterical and loud. I hear much more often from them, in the same way that I've barely met an SJW type but deal all the time with people ranting about them.
I do think complexities have to be acknowledged. For example, while it's easy to claim that nothing justifies treating animals in this manner, even for our own continued existence or subsistence, the reality is that many\most societies in the world today involve consuming animal products, and people raised in those societies unconsciously accept it as normal until challenged. Even people who do the killing are often just taught that it's normal, I've met young succubi who knew the names of the cows they ate, or who had killed chickens themselves, at first felt revolted that humans could be that insensitive, but considering the conditions of their upbringing it's understandable.
Many people in situations of relative economic privation will have a harder time adjusting. As a NEET it's easy for me to take the time to make vegan meals, while people who work to survive are clearly going to be exhausted at the end of a day, and the nature of work encourages hunger for protein and fats. Obviously this doesn't make their actions morally justified, but it's just a reality of what humans are. So if you really want a vegan world, you have to consider the economic and social circumstances people are raised in. Even climate is a factor, for example speaking to people in Lappland, I realised that it's probably somewhat harder in freezing climates with whole winters where you don't see the sun, to maintain a vegan diet. So there has to be a lot of understanding.
All of that said, to refute you >>170476
, every major nutritional organisation in the world agrees at this point that an adequately planned vegan diet is more than sufficient to meet all needs, and in many ways it's healthier. Pretty much the only difference is that meat has more protein and more of certain minerals - but that is NOT necessarily better for you. ADEQUATE protein is important, but you can get that from a properly planned vegan diet, and for every bit of animal flesh or animal product that you consume, you're actually missing out on important nutrients like water-soluble vitamins, phytonutrients that fight cancer and keep you young and healthy, and fibre which is important when it comes to proper absorption of the nutrients you've consumed. My attached pic I made years ago in response to another image (the overweight asian boy was part of that image), the core point of which is that we evolved to be opportunistic omnivores, but in nature likely preferred a predominantly vegan diet - it's reasonably to assume that our bodies are kept in best health through this diet, our bodies evolved over time to benefit from and to some degree rely on nutrients provided primarily or exclusively by plants - hence for example our preference for high levels of Vitamin C, not found in animal flesh.
Someone here mentioned the veganposter, I don't want to be confused with him so let me state that I'm NOT that guy, if he's the guy I have in mind - he posts on that OTHER site almost daily(?) and one of the best points he makes is that it's morally inconsistent for Wizards\NEETS\Hikkis to complain about having been socially ostracised, isolated, bullied, etc and then to go on and consume animal flesh. So for Wizards, etc I'd say - I fully understand feeling threatened or upset or annoyed by this issue being raised, I felt the same at first, I was worried I'd end up a skeleton with brain damage, and I thought I'd spend long hours in torment longing for Quarter Pounders but in reality it really didn't involve any pain or longing, just a short period of adjustment and learning new recipes, and how to eat better. So please consider it. Nutritionfacts.org is one of the best resources on all of this, I watched hundreds of Dr. Greger's videos, he doesn't seem like an ideologue to me, he's reasonably balanced and regularly revises claims he's made in the past in light of new information.
The main point is make sure you take some B12 sublingual tablets, some Omega 3's (Vegetology Opti 3 is what I take), Zinc (the vegan diet typically has less minerals, and because of soil depletion some minerals like Zinc are good to supplement, meat tends to have high concentrations of these minerals but the FORMS and the AMOUNTS of those minerals are NOT healthy), if you're worried about adequate protein there are many vegan forms of supplement, I add some Sunwarrior Protein to my smoothies. It's only slightly more expensive per gram of protein than Whey protein, and I personally find it superior in that Whey always made me feel bloated. If you want to try this, you don't even have to go all out at once - you could try phasing in more vegan foods, find a vegan recipe or two a a week to try, try adapting some of the recipes you make to vegan.
Good luck, Wizards.
I don't care about the sufferings of anyone else but my close family. Spend a decade NEET, tell me vegan bullshit matters. Oh to be young and idealistic…
>The main point is make sure you take some B12 sublingual tablets, some Omega 3's (Vegetology Opti 3 is what I take), Zinc
>add some Sunwarrior Protein to my smoothie
thanks nature for providing us with these pills
>the reality is that many\most societies in the world today involve consuming animal products, and people raised in those societies unconsciously accept it as normal until challenged
yeah you gotta challenge these beliefs, gotta tell the world they are being mean and they should adhere to your moralistic, patronizi ng nonsense about animal suffering or whatever
Holy shit, what an extraordinary response.
Is it the first time you get called on your bullshit? You really thought you were the only person on the planet to have read Plato or god forbid, have an opinion on his writings? The passage you mentioned, Socrates seems to be concerned about the costs of eating meat and the consequences of a luxurious life, not some ethical or animal welfare concern like 21st century vegans. Plato and Socrates didn't have a problem with animal sacrifice. And what about in Memorable thoughts of Socrates, where he argues that the Gods put animals in the world for no other end than to provide men with meat and labor?
I guess you'll just say you don't give a single fuck about Xenophon either, then? Or anything in those books that contradicts your narrative? Because that's what you do. You align bits and pieces of those philosophies and religions from thousands of years ago, from people who lived in wildly different times from ours, and try to equate them to your 21st century vegan ideas and behavior. Of course it will fall apart pretty much immediately under scruitiny, what did you expect? You'll gladly ignore any meat eater Buddhists just to be able to say they're vegetarians, when they're clearly not. That you'll omit and select, to put politely, history to have your little narrative going is not why I called your response extraordinary though.
No, actually it's just I've never seen someone's false pretenses of having moral and ethical standards to be thrown out of the window so fucking fast! You come here posting all those cool guys from antiquity, trying to equate their thoughts with yours, pretending to have this overreaching loving-kindness ethical stance that extends beyond humanity and reach every animal life on the planet, preaching about karma and spirituality, along with a picture saying "I love all animals" and yet the second someone says something you don't like you start foaming at the mouth while violently and openly wishing people to kill themselves? I even winced when I read your post I was so amazed how false and dense you are. I guess that's why you almost shat yourself in anger back there, it really struck a nerve when someone was able to see you're a full of shit. Really made you completely lose your grip and show your true colors didn't? I never saw a mask falling from a psychopath's face so fast.
No seriously, compare >>170475
. It's amazing, I never seen anything like it.
I guess veganism needs no enemies having you as an ally. Rest at ease. I certainly won't be calling out on your bullshit again, you may rule your little thread unopposed from here on.
What a pathetic and insane cope post. You didn't even address any of my points, you nitpicked what you could (Socrates and Buddhists) and still failed. Socrates refers to meat eating as bad because of spiritual reasons. And I'm not "ignoring" meat eating Buddhists. I'm ignoring sectarian Buddhists who are not authentic Buddhists, and even they will not eat meat unless it is offered to them as well. And I already addressed that a mendicant eating meat that is offered to him is not morally wrong or against the teachings of the Buddha.
You didn't address Porphyry, student of Plotinus and editor of his works, or Plutarch, who were vegetarians or potentially vegans because you got brutally obliterated and exposed as the ignorant fool you are.
>I guess veganism needs no enemies having you as an ally. Rest at ease. I certainly won't be calling out on your bullshit again, you may rule your little thread unopposed from here on.
That's right shut the fuck up you dilettante fuck I made you my bitch in front of everyone in this thread. I blew out your back like the weak little boy you are. I am infinitely more knowledgeable than you and demonstrated it so. Your wall of text with no substance is pathetic.
I like veganism. Plant foods are cheap - especially beans. Beans are a dollar and they expand up to 2.5x their weight when soaked and cooked. They're easy to store, they store for very long, and they're a life food. They're full of fiber, which is something everyone gets their full fill of. Beans are just amazing and economic. They have tons of anti-oxidants too. The only thing I don't like about them is that if you're growing them, it's an ideal to shell beans. They're so cheap that it's not a problem for me, so it's just better to buy if you're being self sufficient. The same goes for other vegetables. Potatoes, rice, carrots, all those plant foods. They're cheap, nutritious, and great for you.
I just need to actually cook vegan food. I'm slow to change and I've known about veganism for two+ years. I have a few recipes to try, but I'm too lazy / scared to try anything new. I'll get there though.
Oh no, he is back.
I wonder what it is that makes these vegans so ascerbic. Inmendham is like this too.
>>170489>every major nutritional organization in the world…
yeah right, the same groups who want us to eat bugs also say that. Being a psuedo-succubus and flooding your country with aliens is perfectly good and healthy as well according to such "major organizations."
>be sure to take all your xyz pills
yup being vegan is so healthy just be sure to take all these pills and injections (like vegangains) so you dont fucking die.
Respect to the pajeets though since dal, naan, and coconut soup are amazing but even they utilize a lot of diary and eggs in their diet.
Is vegan cheese still totally disgusting and unable to be melted/cooked with?
I know vegetarian fake meats have come a long way but what about cheese technology?
nice vid…oh wait, no
not this faggot again
Modern day vegans are jewpilled soy consumers that had their brain already melted from xenoestrogens
"M-muh phytoestrogen! You're a soyboy!".
Screeched the ugly low-T fat wizard-LARPing crab.
Phytoestrogens cause ANTI-estrogenic effects in male bodies. Meanwhile the meat and dairy you drink is riddled with ACTUAL estrogen, the same type of estrogen created by human bodies. Being fat, which carnists often are, also has estrogenic effects. You're the soyim, and I assure you that I am more masculine and strong and have higher T than you will ever have. I guarantee you two are weak fat beta crab males and I would destroy you freaks in unarmed combat any day.
They're not the same groups you idiot and eating bugs wouldn't be vegan. ALSO, veganism is the most healthy diet and one HAS to take supplements like B12 because of modern farming. You can always eat fortified foods, no need to take supplements.>>170561>>170564
Oh also you FUCKING morons, literally every plant food such as rice, apples, carrots, coffee, etc, is a source of phytoestrogens.
Dumb shit like this is why I already knew this thread actually belongs on /b/ and not /wiz/.
It's almost like vegans have brain damage or something
No, veganism is form of zealotry/fanatism, anathema to wizardry.
I went down a rabbit hole with this guy a week ago. It's incredible.
I went from just thinking he's some random anti-vegan guy with a big ego, then you go on a trip of watching him eat raw meat, drink animal blood, then eat rotten year old meat, eat a random dead squirrel, watching him sungaze, say the earth is flat, to talk about how the Illuminati eats and rapes children. The final revelation that puts him above the rest is that he thinks this is a good thing that they shouldn't be hated for.
And he also hates Runescape.
I've been watching this guy too hahaha. Also Frank Tufano who I've bought meat from. I've even been eating raw rotten chicken livers. It really does give you euphoria, I thought everyone was imagining it and forgot about it being called "high meat" and then it happened to me.
I did not have to adjust at all to eating raw or fermented meat, but a week later I started drinking raw milk and I had to adjust to that. I think my intestines or stomach were inflamed for a week or two but I kept craving more raw milk.
I felt really good the two days I ate only meat. I'm not very steadfast so I've returned to eating the poison my mom buys. I'm fasting today so I'll use this time to clear some grass in my yard and set up my fire pit.
I'm not going to go carnivore I'm just going to be paleo and eat 80+% animal, raw, fermented and cooked. I'm interested in finding wild or heirloom plants to eat although I get enough copper from seafood.
Can you explain more about this guy's antics?
I can't bring myself to have to visually be exposed to it, but i am very interested in what is going on here
im not vegan 'cause i can't give a shit about what happens to animals.
Yes you do, you are just hurt and reacting to that
The Buddha wasn't vegetarian
>>170479> right now we do have enough food tech to make it work
So you're admitting that veganism is unnatural and artificial?
Chimps eat meat though. They even eat each other. Why are you people so deceived?
I really hate to be on the veganwiz side but if you read that picture you'd see they admit that chimps and other primates eat meat and insects.
Yes he was. Read the edicts of King Ashoka the Buddhist king, you fool, and then kill yourself for not even being able to Google.>>170693
Listen you moron, the reason we need to take B12 supplements is because of modern farming. The ancients were mostly (90%+) plant-based throughout history and even going back to the paleolithic.>>170694
They don't eat meat you buffoon, they will sometimes cannibalize each other which is wholly unrelated to their diet, or occasionally opportunistically eat meat.
It's not their standard ideal diet you retard. Cannibalism is a social thing not a dietary thing. And opportunistic meat eating is a survival thing, they wouldn't do it unless they had to. Plus this has nothing to do with human consumption of animals you fucking clown. Yet you carnists love to bring up how chimps eat meat but you aren't out there living like chimps. Just accept that you're a demonic normie from hell that loves to eat the tortured carcasses of dead animals because they taste good (taste given by PLANTS, you don't see carnist normieshits eating raw meat like chimps do but "OH BUT MUH MONKY EAT LE MEAT VEGAN BTFO!").
im an opportunistic vegan then. i eat pretty mcuh whatever but that's just because it's a survival thing as you say
these dumb nonvegans are sad! feeld good being better than everyone else
Isn't this just like humans though?
Some will enjoy the hunt and kill just for the sport of it
No they don't. Meat represents only 3% of their diet and they hunt and eat those monkeys for fun and not for food. But realistically it represents less than 3%. And bonobos which are closer to humans eat less meat.>>170707
You're the type of idiot that gets his
"information" from YouTube videos and podcasts. Maybe read an article on primatology you mental midget.
I tried to keep that post brief but here's some more detail I tried to refrain from. These are just highlights from a single day or two of watching him.
My first exposure to him was perhaps a year ago, making commentary on vegan videos, noting on how many of them subscribe to basic esoteric ideas from Eastern religions or New Age thought, like chakras or "vibrations". He would note this, and always throw asides on them being mentally ill.
A year later, I'm watching him more closely, and find videos of him staring into the sun for minutes at a time, strange considering the above statements.
In another video, he recalls landing in a mental hospital due to his frequent sungazing. Here he mentions starting to crave human flesh after not eating for some time, wanting to bite his doctors. I think he mentions that cannibalism is the inevitable result of veganism, but he also always paints cannibalism in a beneficial light. I've seen at least two or three videos where he includes audio clips of people talking about the supposed benefits of eating children, about how a child's flesh has properties that can keep people young and happier, and this is more effective when the child is in severe pain and suffering. He doesn't attack these supposed people, though, he says that being against this and being against anything is a sign that there's a problem with YOU, happy people don't get mad and the people eating children are staying happy. He says this in a video where he starts with talking about superhero movies being brainwashing trite, but with the weirdest criticism of the heroes being bullies for stopping the evil super killer bad guys who want to kill everyone. He also has videos about self-defense fighting. He talks about how all martial arts and self defense techniques being made-up shit that will never help you, and that actual fighting involves biting people and tearing flesh off them. I don't see anyone else mention this weird cannibalism shit of his, I think schizophrenics just hear people talk about satanic baby rapists and automatically thumbs up and get on their own soapbox.
Anyways, it's been found out that he stabbed several classmates in high school back in Latvia when he was 16. A former teacher apparently confirmed this when she was shown a video of him eating a dead squirrel in public in a London street, messing with its organs.
And continuing with his teenage year, he was really into Runescape. His earliest videos were Runescape related and he amassed enough of a following that I found still gets referenced in some corners today. He says that he stopped playing after realizing how much Masonic imagery is in the game or something weird like that.
He might has some disorder or something. He always speaks in an arrogant way, smug chuckles, it reminds me of those people who call you sheep and that you're living a lie, and then tell you to drink their piss and stop wiping if you want to break conditioning. They're the only ones who have everything figured out, while they enjoy their prions. Saying weird shit like the only people who have a problem with him blasting black metal in public are the clinically depressed. It's just hard to understand his mindset.
The only thing I learned is that neither veganism or these crazy meat obsessed diets are things I want to get into.
It's a video showing the entire process of chimps hunting and eating a monkey. It can't get more cut and dry than that. And even if it is only for sport, then this whole narrative that veganism is how people should live because chimps do is stupid because they hunt and kill for fun, so why shouldn't people?
If you are a vegan for ethical reasons and then advocate for the murder of people who disagree with you, then you are a hypocrite.
Damn, how self-obsessed can one person be?
I wonder if all of this healing bullshittery in fact perpetuates itself as a hypochondriasis
Are you literally saying that chimps do something, so why can't humans?
I can't even contemplate responding to that, my brain will start shrinking
the topic should be banned. attracts nothing but nutjobs and trolls.
diet and lifestyle talk in general is fucking worthless, it's no wonder succubi like it so much, but really i don't understand why they pop up so often in here.
I guess all you're arguments involving the dietary habits of monkeys are completely irrelevant and shouldn't have been posted then.
I have the feeling that this same thread or a very similar one with the same enraged veganposter/Op already happened several times before
He's admitted before that he's just trolling and he's not actually a vegan.
You missed the part about him drinking his own piss for two years, a question which i have asked about here before and was debunked
Self-obsessed piss-drinker laments that his health keeps getting worse after he keeps trying more extreme diet choices
He only tried pee-drinking briefly out of desperation.
So tell me what all of his navel-gazing self obsessing has led to, what has he gotten from it?
I guarantee there are happier obese normies eating handfuls of pills than him
And one just not simply drunk piss for a "brief" two years. That is some kind of undiagnosed mental illness.
Not that i am one to talk, in all honesty, i suppose it takes one to know one.
No I am not trolling. I am an actual vegan.
Post a pic of your pantry full of soifood then.
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.
I'm not vegan because I basically love eating meat, but I still think it's the morally right thing to do, and people who try to morally justify it are either okay being psychopaths or just have weak minds to bend to such a justification and shouldn't be trusted
I feel bad for all the animals that died so I could live my useless life but I am just addicted to meat, I cannot live without it.
Therefore I look forward to the first burgers created out of pure stem cells in laboratories and I if they were cheaper then real meat even better
Why not just eat a veggie burger with meat sauce? It's very similar
In the context provided, yes. The idea that human = moral agent, rational at all times isn't valid. >>171331
People with dementia etc do?
Desided to try vegetarian diet for a week or so.
A few days in and I am getting real tired of being gassy, bloated, and shitting 5 times a day.
I don't remember it being this bad the last time I went veg for a week or two, but last time I was mainly doing can food and bread poverty style vegetarian diet.
For whatever reason the oats and beans this time around ain't agreeing with me, and every fresh veg I eat just gets shit out 4 hours later.
Chew well, drink a lot of water. Increase your fiber intake gradually. Search for stomach-friendly ways of cooking/eating legumes.
I eat like 100 chickens a year.
Strange i have the opposite reaction. When i start eating meat again, my stomach starts churning, trying to digest it and i feel heavy and sick.
Vegetables, Salsa, Tortillas, fresh fruits, rice, coconut water, that all goes down a treat!
meat is healthy and no one should feel bad for eating eat
what race are you?
i think whites are generally less suited to be vegan than other races>>171431>>171423
meat is healthy and no one should feel bad for eating it
consider how lucky we are we don't have to just go to a forest with nothing but a stick to get our food>>171311
if animals are just as smart as humans they should just nuke humans or something so we don't eat them
I am biracial, do you have any evidence for this claim?
I think i am lactose intolerant, which i heard results from low testosterone and being a weak boy.
Do Africans in the bush survive of a plant diet or meat one? I have heard conflicting things.
The Eskimos survive of 70% meat diet
>>171734>I think i am lactose intolerant, which i heard results from low testosterone and being a weak boy.
You heard a load of bullshit. Lactose tolerance is almost entirely genetic.
Are you GP or Mel Hapa?
dialy reminder that 70% of world population has this and it is entirely natural to have it.
There is not a single species on the planet that takes nutrients from milk in adult lifetimes except the homo sapiens europicanus
It is even saud that milk could be one of the factors why europe has a much higher cancer rate then for example asia.
You don't need to be butthurt about being lactose intolerant.
imagine not being able to eat cheese
imagine not being able to eat ice cream
i agree dairy is not ideal food for humans (meat is) but let's be honest there are worse things (sugars, seed oils)
I don't understand the question, please rephrase>>171736
So i can't digest lactose my drinking more or injecting good bacteria to breakdown the milk better?>>171738
Europeans are also the tallest in the world on average, how do you explain that?>>171741
Yes we do, lactose is tasty
there are actually studies showing correlation between dairy and height
it might just have to do with protein quantity and/or quality
europe just has more wealth and being malnourished is a problem in other countries which obviously affects height
but there are other causes of height, genetic predispositions as well
>>170475>Why or why not are you vegan?
Pure selfishness, which is fine. It would be unnatural not to be - the issue is when the human population grows so large as for it to be impossible for the world to satiate all the competing self interest.>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.
Yep, don't have a problem with it. There is no such thing as ethical consumption anywhere, somewhere along the food chain or the supply chain of any commodity something or someone is getting fucked over. Unless you'd like to become a nudist in the interest of stopping sweatshops too and forgo electricity for environmental reasons, don't expect me to become a vegan.>Furthermore, veganism is irrefutable. The arguments are impossible to refute and the science sides with veganism.
You can't make an "irrefutable" ethical stance. That would make morality objective, and veganism therefore would become a religion. >And the decadence which has been brought about by the higher consumption of animal products is palpable in society.
All society past the agricultural revolution is decadent, that is the nature of civilization. If you're going to go down this path at least go all the way, remain consistent with your principles. >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.
Life is suffering. Seeking to improve that state of affairs is to challenge the nature of reality itself, and as such is pure hubris. If you want to fake feeling better about yourself, go ahead, but don't think for a moment that anything you do makes any difference or puts you above anybody else. >If I may say so myself, veganism is the wiz diet.
You've already got your massive vegan identitycock, don't drag wizardry into this.
So life is suffering and we can't aim to improve it?
If everyone took your stance, we wouldn't even be working on lab-grown meat, plant-based replacements and cures for cancer
>>171830>So life is suffering
Yep.>and we can't aim to improve it?
No, you can aim to improve it, and I admire you for trying - all I'm saying is that I don't believe that anybody should be beholden to try and improve life, not least since such efforts are unlikely to be helped much anyways. The struggle in the face of adversity on your part is extremely admirable, but I don't want to take part and I feel no shame in that. >If everyone took your stance
If everyone took my stance there would be no such thing as society at all. Something similar would go for everyone taking the same stance in any event, which is what I'm defending, simply that veganism ought not to be considered a prequisite for morality when all common people are victims of the same unjust system. >we wouldn't even be working on lab-grown meat, plant-based replacements and cures for cancer
as I said very admirable, but I don't care and I'm not interested in others, animals included, only in pointing out that meat-eaters are not evil people, even when it's a conscious choice.
Your entire post reads like a contradiction and i don't know where to start with it, i'm not the OP, so maybe i'll let them interject or i'll try again tomorrow
Not all of them
>Why are you not vegan?
because I'm a human
Animal attacks you, you kill it. You don't waste the meat.
all those ravenous cows and sheep attacking people huh.
You do know that cows kill more people every year then sharks or bears right?
So do cars, refrigerators, and vending machines. Doesn’t mean they’re maliciously coming for you like a predator would. I don’t even care for vegans but I don’t know what kind of shit he’s pulling with “self defense”.
all these videos are ANECDOTES. they are not actual scientific evidence. they are just cherry-picked pictures and videos of actual malnourished vegans. they dont actually show that necessarily all vegan diets are bad for you, just that SOME of them are. they are almost all of RAW FRUTARIANS. a raw frutarian diet actually is a malnourished and deficient diet, and shouldnt be recommended to anyone
you HAVE to be a disingenuous person to link such a video. sv3rige's videos are SCARE TACTICS used to appeal to people's fear and emotions. they dont link any science, they just use anecdotes of people in bad health
for example, lets say i did the same thing but with people on a keto diet or who ate mcdonalds. just put scary eerie music in hospitals with sick people and associated it with their diet. it would just be DISINGENUOUS and used as propaganda to scare people, and should be reasonably dismissed as garbage. you dont use anecdotes and spooky music as evidence that a diet is bad for you. you use scientific evidence
a well planned vegan diet is nutritionally adequate for ALL STAGES OF LIFE. virtually all nutritional organizations say that, and the ones that dont appeal to nutrients like "b12 tho" or "vitamin d tho", which animals dont actually make. there are studies on vegan children who were vegan from birth, and they grew up just fine. and they had significantly lower rates of diabetes and obesity, unlike our modern children. childhood obesity and diabetes is an epidemichttps://www.eatrightpro.org/-/media/eatrightpro-files/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diet.pdf
no really, are you even trying? is asking for intellectual honestly too much?
do you think a video with spooky music and malnourished people, and literally ZERO scientific references of any sort, is actual reasonable evidence against a vegan diet?
>>172673>Doesn’t mean they’re maliciously coming for you like a predator would.
You do know bulls are a thing right?
When was the last time you ate a bull steak? And it's all a moot point cause no one here actually hunts for their food, let alone kills in self defense for it.
The only argument you need against veganism is " meat tastes good".
holy shit this schizo is still pushing this? it feels like years since he started
>>172692> meat too polluted to be beneficial. You're better off being a pescatarian
Ever heard of heavy metals?
Eat sealife from the bottom food chain to avoid heavy metal buildup, duh.
Vegans have to eat insane ammounts of food every day. Also not everyone does well on a vegan diet. We definitely didn't evolve to be vegan. Even pre homo sapian humanoids all ate massive ammounts of meat. If you wanna subject yourself to some meme diet go ahead, but don't tell me I'm a bad person for not doing the same.
What century of BC are you living in?
>>170475>Not only do you suffer physically from eating animal products, you also suffer spiritually, intellectually, and karmically
No I don't. I love eating meat. Go be a hippie faggot somewhere else.
He constantly spams 4chan too
>>170489>[insert ape here] consumes mostly plant matter>mostly>not entirely
I love it when vegans refute themselves. It's so adorable. Go be retarded children somewhere else now. This is a place for adults.
Cro-magnon wizzo understands
>>172686>When was the last time you ate a bull steak?
Like two or three weeks ago.
>And it's all a moot point cause no one here actually hunts for their food, let alone kills in self defense for it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that cows do indeed attack and kill people which you implied they didn't sarcastically in this post here>>172670>all those ravenous cows and sheep attacking people huh
Also appears that you were totally full of shit when you said "I don’t even care for vegans but".
guys, its honestly so fucking immoral and hypocritical of you to eat meat. seriously
like, the sheer amount of hypocrisy on this board is unbearable for me. in all imageboards, actually. look at the /dep/ board. there are so many threads about people moralfagging about being bullied, about their depression as a result of being bullied, being harassed by their parents, being abused by society, being hurt by normies and by succubi, etc. they all implicitly say that its WRONG with how they were treated, as they are complaining about how cold and ruthless other people are
but then they turn around and do the same thing to animals. animals like pigs, cows and chickens are enslaved, raped, castrated, branded and sent to a slaughterhouse to be killed, for your TASTE PLEASURE. in the USA alone they kill over 100 MILLION pigs a year. the average dog has the intelligence of a 2.5 year old, and the average pig has the intelligence of a 3 year old
these animals are sentient and conscious. they have FEELINGS, the same feelings you have. they feel grief, sorrow, joy, pain, pride, jealousy, boredom, lust, hunger, fear, anxiety, love. they suffer horifically as a result of your taste preferences. how are you any different than the normies you complain about, if you do the same to the helpless defenseless animals?
we dont need to kill and eat them. we can be healthy without eating them. BUT NO, people choose to kill them for their pleasure. how is this any different to torturing and killing dogs for fun? both are done for pleasure and both result in horrific animal suffering
i honestly just feel its so hypocritical to eat meat, and ESPECIALLY the people in this thread. they are so eager to criticize normies for their cruel and unethical behavior, yet they turn around and laugh and pay for the suffering of animals to continue
go on youtube and watch "dominion" or "dairy is scary". these animals live horrific lives, all for your double bacon cheeseburger. i dont think mods allow videos of animal suffering for whatever reason, even though all of you pay for it to happen?
please try to morally justify your behavior
>>173098>"dairy is scary"
You mean that campaign by some York Region attention whore who vandalizes public and private property to advertise her Youtube/GoFundMe videos in which she simply reads off publicly known pre-published articles for ad revenue? The one who deletes+blocks anyone pointing out that much of the footage of slaughter she speaks of is exclusively from Halal/Kosher farms where animal torture is considered necessary? I spraypaint over this bitch's graffiti.
The harm caused to animals is indirect, so you can't really compare it to something like bullying which someone imposes on another person with the intent to harm them. It may also result in suffering but the intent and action types are completely different
Also of course people are hypocritical, we live in an incredibly complex system where we cause harm in innumerable ways. If you are vegan or vegetarian you also cause untold amounts of needless harm to animals through the farming process. Not to mention the hypocritical nature of your moral posturing while you also eat living organisms with plants, which some studies have shown have a rudamentary pain response which works quite similar to animals
It's a good goal to want to reduce suffering as much as you can, I can get behind that, but calling people hypocrites when you also cause insane amounts of similar harm is a crap argument
>>173102>The harm caused to animals is indirect
WRONG. when you pay for meat, you pay explicitly directly pay for animals to be enslaved, abused, raped, castrated, have their teeth and tails cut off, and killed at a small fraction of their natural life. thats what's required for meat to be made
an analogy i think is fitting is paying for human meat that comes from slaves. if you pay for human meat that came from enslaved humans that were raped, castrated and killed, you are financially propagating an industry which directly does this
>so you can't really compare it to something like bullying which someone imposes on another person with the intent to harm them
it is comparable, because bullies abuse the weak for PLEASURE. its fun for them to kick and abuse the shy autistic losers in school. and meat eaters pay for animals to be abused for THEIR PLEASURE. its fun to eat double bacon cheeseburgers and popeyes fried chicken. both actions necessitate the suffering and abuse of a victim, and both actions are done for the pleasure of the abuser
>It may also result in suffering but the intent and action types are completely different
the only intent meat eaters have is PLEASURE. taste pleasure, in the same way that the only intent bullies have is sadistic pleasure. its all for fun and pleasure
does pleasure morally justify abusing the weak?
>Also of course people are hypocritical
vegans dont pay for animals to be enslaved, raped, castrated, branded and killed for their pleasure. that would be meat eaters
>we live in an incredibly complex system where we cause harm in innumerable ways
this is an appeal to futility, which does NOT morally justify abusing animals. just because we will always cause harm to animals in some marginal way, like accidentally hitting them with cars or killing rabbit dens to build houses, doesnt mean its morally justifiable to enslave and kill them by the hundreds of millions for our pleasure
we still have a moral obligation to not subject them to needless suffering, in the same way we have with dogs and cats
>If you are vegan or vegetarian you also cause untold amounts of needless harm to animals through the farming process
sure, but you cause DRAMATICALLY LESS. again, you are appealing to futility. that would be like me saying "its okay to enslave, rape and kill children, because humans always cause harm no matter what we do, so why bother trying to reduce the harm im causing"
its a shit tier justification
>Not to mention the hypocritical nature of your moral posturing while you also eat living organisms with plants, which some studies have shown have a rudamentary pain response which works quite similar to animals
first of all, plants are not sentient. PLEASE POST ME THE FUCKING SCIENCE showing that plants are sentient. SHOW ME THE SCIENCE. man, when meat eaters say "plants are sentient, you're evil! =O", they are being so facetious and disingenuous
second of all, by going vegan you dramatically reduce the amounts of plants needed to feed humans. feeding plants to animals is grossly inefficient, as you need 13 kilos of corn or soy to make 1 kilogram of a steak. if you care for the precious lives of plants, then by going vegan you dramatically reduce plant deaths
>but calling people hypocrites when you also cause insane amounts of similar harm is a crap argument
this is a "tu-que" logical fallacy. you are attacking my character instead of addressing my criticisms of you. and when it comes to meat, im not a hypocrite because i dont pay for animals to be enslaved, tortured and killed for my taste pleasurehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
>when you also cause insane amounts of similar harm
just because i cause harm, doesnt mean i concede the harm is immoral. and i cause dramatically less harm that meat eaters
you cant call me a hypocrite if i dont think what im doing is wrong. i dont think eating plants is morally wrong, so im not doing anything wrong. but you do think that torturing and killing animals for pleasure is wrong, yet you still do it, hence the hypocrisy
>>173124>you are financially propagating an industry which directly does this
That's what I meant, sure my actions lead to the outcome of the animals dying, I've seen some people put your point as I'm "paying a hitman" to do my job for me. I see what you mean, but it's still different than if I were directly committing these actions myself. I was making this point to compare to the bullying thing, there's a difference between directly bullying someone to their face compared to causing other indirect forms of harm to that person, even if the harm caused is exactly the same the actual actions taken are different and would result in different outcomes, e.g. I would feel guilty if I was bullying someone to their face but not so much if I'm ignoring someones texts or whatever
I'm not arguing morally on that, I'm just saying that you inaccurately described the situation as direct harm. The harm caused by me to animals is indirect. Also any pleasure gained from bullying is only applicable if the person gets upset or reacts, the pleasure is tied directly to the suffering, with animals the pleasure I get is only with relation to my taste buds, it's not like meat tastes better if the cow suffered a lot (this is for me personally, I know some Chinese food practices involve torturing the animal to 'flavor the meat')
>vegans dont pay for animals to be enslaved, raped, castrated, branded and killed for their pleasure. That would be meat eaters
Vegans pay for animals to be decapitated, poisoned, hunted down, shot, for their pleasure too, your hands aren't clean either.
>this is an appeal to futility, which does NOT morally justify abusing animals. Just because we will always cause harm to animals in some marginal way, like accidentally hitting them with cars or killing rabbit dens to build houses, doesn't mean it's morally justifiable to enslave and kill them by the hundreds of millions for our pleasure
I'm not talking about accidental stuff, I mean your point is how my indirect actions lead to the horrific deaths of animals. You also cause this same form of indirect harm through almost every action you take, you contribute to global warming, your computer parts were made affordable by human suffering and abuse, your contribution to soil erosion, the thousands of insects you've killed over your lifetime, your clothes. For you to act morally superior while still participating in insane amounts of other kinds of suffering is why you are just as hypocritical as I am
Humans are the dominant species, it's our responsibility to make sure not to cause any unnecessary suffering, we probably agree on that. I think the egg industry and dairy industries should be stopped or change how they operate, chicken maceration is like something from a nightmare. Socially capable animals like monkeys or dogs should be outright banned from being farmed ever, pigs too. If you can offer a cow or a chicken a good enough life then I see no real problem
We don't know whether plants are sentient, or even what sentience actually is. Please post the science on us proving animals have sentience then - crap argument. Plants share a similar pain network to humans with glutemate, you can see videos of plants 'experiencing' pain online when you put dye in their glutemate system. They are also capable of some mathematics, some trees communicate with each other through electrical signals, we don't know what plants truly are. We do know that they try to avoid pain and damage, so they have the same will to live that animals have. I just don't think you should be casting judgements when the objective real-world suffering you cause could be comparable to any meat eaters
Humans need to eat in the end, something has to suffer to sustain us, I think the choice in what you eat should be made responsibly and with the intent to cause as little suffering within reason. We should probably eat meat less but not quit it altogether, you can post me studies of how a vegan diet is healthy if you take certain supplements and all that nonsense, but we still evolved eating meat and modern science still doesn't know for sure how important that might be to our body. I've seen enough times of wrongfully implemented vegan diets with teeth falling out and other abnormalities, plus it's a pretty recent diet in the grand scheme of things, a lot of the older vegans are probably only in their 40s and 50s now, so we still aren't sure of the what damage it might do to the body
Anyway I think we agree that we should minimize our suffering, I think that's where a proper discussion can be had. You shouldn't start acting morally superior though, that's where veganism is starting to verge on religion. In 20 years there will be stem cell eating faggots calling you wicked and you'll find it as tiresome as I do with veganism
>>173098>we can be healthy without eating them
no, you may be able to, but not me. my ancestors spent thousands of years wandering a wasteland of ice hunting mega fauna without any vegetables in sight. the simple fact is, im not evolved to eat vegetables, its ludicrous to think that every other animal knows what to eat, but when children refuse vegetables theyre being picky eaters. reforming factory farming is a good idea, but im not needlessly sacrificing my health for that.
>>173141>but it's still different than if I were directly committing these actions myself
so paying a hitman to kill an animal for your pleasure is not the same thing morally speaking as doing it yourself?
if i paying a hitman to kill a human or a dog for my pleasure, is it morally permissible because i do it myself?
> there's a difference between directly bullying someone to their face compared to causing other indirect forms of harm to that person
sure, but you are not causing indirect harm to animals. you are causing direct intentional harm, as your money goes to explicitly enslaving and killing with. thats the whole purpose of farms and slaughterhouses; to enslave and kill animals
>I'm just saying that you inaccurately described the situation as direct harm
but thats LITERALLY what is it. lets say i payed some chinese person to enslave, torture and kill dogs for me pleasure, because i enjoy watching dogs suffer. how is that any different than doing it myself? how is that any different if a human were the victim?
if i payed someone to bully some autistic loser kid in school, is that okay because i payed for it to happen?
my money goes to the the sole purpose of abusing the victim. its paying for direct abuse and harm, theres no difference
>The harm caused by me to animals is indirect
WRONG, you keep using that word wrongly
for example, if i payed for someone to torture and kill children for my pleasure, is it also indirect harm?
>Also any pleasure gained from bullying is only applicable if the person gets upset or reacts
thats not true. for example, i could pay someone to bully and torture someone and record it, because i have fun watching the recording. is that morally permissible because its "indirect" harm, according to your usage of the word?
>with animals the pleasure I get is only with relation to my taste buds
its all just sensory pleasure. sensory pleasure is pleasure you get from your 5 senses; physical touch, smell, eyesight, sound and smell
you are paying for someone to torture and kill animals for sensory pleasure
is it morally permissible for me to pay someone to torture and kill humans if i enjoyed the way they taste?
>Vegans pay for animals to be decapitated, poisoned, hunted down, shot, for their pleasure too, your hands aren't clean either.
again, this is a "tu quoque" logical fallacy. you are appealing to me being a bad person as a justification for your behavior, which is comically fallacious. even if i ate meat, it doesnt make you eating meat morally justifiable. you are causing a great deal amuont of harm to animals FOR YOUR PLEASURE, which is so comically hypocritical. not to mention, vegans cause DRAMATICALLY less harm to animals
thats the whole point of veganism, to cause the least amount of harm to animals as reasonably possible. i dont think the pleasure you get from killing animals is a moral justification, which is why i think meat eaters are hypocrites and immoralhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
>>173141>is how my indirect actions
again, we need to talk about direct and indirect actions. if you are paying for a hitman to kill someone, you are directly paying for murder. if you are paying a hitman to kill someone so you can eat them, you are directly paying for murder. if you are paying a hitman to kill someone and record it and send you the video because you like watching it, you are directly paying for murder. murder is a NECESSITY in the process, and its murder for pleasure
with vegan food, its not. you can have vegan food, for example, grown in a green house with no murder involved. and its never murder for your pleasure, with vegan food, it actually is indirect becaus
>You also cause this same form of indirect harm through almost every action you take
again, this is just another appeal to hypocrisy. even if i was a serial killer, that wouldn't morally justify YOU killing animals for your pleasure. and vegans cause a DRAMATICALLY LESS amount of suffering to animals. you have to be so facetious and disingenuous to think that a vegan diet causes the same amount of suffering to animals as a diet with meat in it
vegans dont pay for animals to be killed for their pleasure; meat eaters do. the amount of animals killed for the same amount of calories is dramatically lower on a vegan diet, thats why you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to go vegan. its your moral duty not to abuse animals like pigs, in the same way its your moral duty not to torture children to abuse dogs
>For you to act morally superior while still participating in insane amounts of other kinds of suffering is why you are just as hypocritical as I am
me as a person is FUCKING IRRELEVANT. im not saying im morally superior to you, im saying that veganism is morally superior to eating meat. a lot of vegans are shit people, but thats FUCKING IRRELEVANT
not to mention, a vegan diet isn't a good thing. its MORALLY NEUTRAL. you literally do nothing bad on a vegan diet
for example; are you a good person if you dont participate in dog abuse? are you a good person if you dont rape and kill children? are you a good person if you dont run a slave trade?
no. not participating in these actions is morally neutral. if you participate in these actions its morally bad, but not participating in them is just doing nothing. doing nothing is morally superior to actively participating in animal abuse, which is why veganism, philosophically speaking, is morally superior to eating meat, even if an individual vegan can be a horrifically immoral person in all other aspects of life
if you want to talk about the ethics of computer parts, child workers, and insect lives, make another thread about it. this thread is talking about the ethics of killing animals for your TASTE PLEASURE
>socially capable animals like monkeys or dogs should be outright banned from being farmed ever, pigs too
cows are socially capable animals. turkeys and chickens and lambs as well
>If you can offer a cow or a chicken a good enough life then I see no real problem
i reject the idea that being born into slavery, being raped, being castrated, living in a enclosed prison, and then eventually being killed can ever constitute as a "good life"
for example, if you were subjected to this "good life" would you accept being raped, enslaved, castrated and killed against your will, if you were allowed to walk around in the pretty grass?
by these standards, the slavery of blacks was morally permissible, because they had a "good life" compared to how we treat animals
>We don't know whether plants are sentient, or even what sentience actually is
we obviously know what sentience and consciousness are; they are the ability to subjectively percieve the world and experience emotions. and we dont have any REASONABLY EVIDENCE to show that plants are sentient. for all we know, rocks and dirt and water could be sentient, but theres no REASONABLE EVIDENCE showing that they are sentient
but there is reasonable evidence showing all mammals and birds are sentient
>Please post the science on us proving animals have sentience then - crap argument
it wasn't an arguement, it was asking for PROOF. you cant reasonably make claims without providing proof. "claims without evidence can be reasonably dismissed without evidence", as the saying goes
and here is scientific proof showing that modern farm animals are sentient
cambridge deceleration of sentience:http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
DeepSqueak-ai used to find mice communicate ideas and express emotions through their voice, published in nature science journalhttps://github.com/DrCoffey/DeepSqueak/blob/master/DeepSqueak.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25LYVxTUZhM
>>173141>Plants share a similar pain network to humans with glutemate
no they literally dont. pain is an EMOTION, and plants cant feel emotions. plants cant feel pain or anxiety or depression or grief. they dont have a brain, and theres no evidence showing plants can subjectively experience ANY emotions
>you can see videos of plants 'experiencing' pain online when you put dye in their glutemate system
PLEASE post them. post me scientific papers showing plant emotions
i want to see them. POST YOUR PROOF
>They are also capable of some mathematics, some trees communicate with each other through electrical signals
just because theres evidence that plants behave intelligently, and that plants make noises doesnt entail that plants are SENTIENT OR FEEL EMOTIONS
for example, a human in a permanent severe coma also makes noises. he can snore or fart, and his body still reacts in intelligent ways by digesting food thats put into him by a tube, or healing physical wounds
but this person is not sentient because they are in a coma. intelligent behavior DOES NOT imply sentience
>We do know that they try to avoid pain
plants cannot avoid pain because they cannot experience it. they try to avoid physical harm to themselves, but not pain explicitly. pain is an emotion, and plants cant feel emotions
>I just don't think you should be casting judgements when the objective real-world suffering you cause could be comparable to any meat eaters
please show me evidence that a vegan diet causes comparable damage to animals and the environement as a diet with meat in it
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS. where are your proofs? because i think you are just talking bullshit, with no evidence for your claims
>Humans need to eat in the end, something has to suffer to sustain us
sure, but we have a moral obligation to reduce the suffering of any being capable of suffering as much as possible
for example, we can live of the flesh of humans, but we choose not to, because we dont need to eat humans, and eating humans causes a great deal of suffering. we have alternatives. thats why you have a moral obligation to go vegan, because you have alternatives to eat meat
>We should probably eat meat less but not quit it altogether
but we dont NEED to eat it. that would be like saying "we should probably rape and kill less children, but not quit it altogether"
both actions are needless, and are done for pleasure. its not a NECESSITY
>but we still evolved eating meat and modern science still doesn't know for sure how important that might be to our body
i think the science is clear, a well planned vegan diet is nutritionally adequate for all stages of life. PLEASE show me the science that says we dont know if we can be healthy on a vegan diet. i already posted pic related >>173098https://vegstudies.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/JAND_2015.05_Position_of_the_academy_of_nutrition_and_dietetics_vegetarian_diets..pdf
>but we still evolved eating meat
what we did in our evolutionary history is irrelevant to today's moral behavior. we also raped and killed eachother throughout all of human history, but that doesnt morally justify doing so now
and humans are omnivores. we can live off meat or plants. and since we dont need to eat meat, we have a moral duty not to do so, because it causes a great deal of harm to animals
> I've seen enough times of wrongfully implemented vegan diets with teeth falling out and other abnormalities
yeah absolutely, theres no shortage of retarded vegans who go on a raw frutarian diet and lose their teeth. thats why a "well planned" vegan diet should be underlined. but not all vegan diets are bad ones. usually these idiots end up on sv3rige's channel, but he just cherry picks vegans with an actual bad diet to scare people, its incredibly dishonest and facetious content
not to mention, meat causes diabetes, heart attacks, cancer and stroke.
>a lot of the older vegans are probably only in their 40s and 50s now, so we still aren't sure of the what damage it might do to the body
people on a prediminantly plant based diet are some of the longest living populations in the world. a chinese centenerian diet is 98%+ plant based. the traditional okinawan diet is 98%+ plant based. the adventist vegeterian diet is predominantly plant based, and as of 2020, the adventist vegeterians are the longest living blue zone population. they overtook the okinawas, after a lot of KFC restaurants were opened in japan
>Anyway I think we agree that we should minimize our suffering
yeah, thats why you have a moral duty to not abuse animals, since you dont need to
you're not in some island survival situation, where you have to kill a wild deer to survive. you have supermarkets, and groceries, and doordash, and automobiles, modern medicine and the internet
>>173152> my ancestors spent thousands of years wandering a wasteland of ice hunting mega fauna without any vegetables in sight
man, get this garbage out my face. your parents ate grains and vegetables, and they turned out just fine. im sure you ate grains and carbs and fruit and vegetables growing up, with no medical complications. just because you dont like plants doesnt mean your body cant absorb them fine
>the simple fact is, im not evolved to eat vegetables
thats simply not true. maybe you have an addiction to eating meat, like whose freaky eaters who only ate french fries or pizza for 20 years
but biologically speaking, your body is fully adapted to eating cooked grains, beans, lentils, fruits, nuts, vegetables and seeds
maybe you have some food allergies like peanuts or gluten or something, but your body is fully capable of working fine and being healthy eating plants
> but when children refuse vegetables theyre being picky eaters
just because a child doesnt like vegetables doesnt entail that they're body cannot digest it, or that the vegetables arent healthy for them
i dont like some vegetables too. i dont like brussle sprouts, egg plants, cauliflower, most wet fruit, but i still eat them. do you know why? because theres a lot of evidence that they are healthy for you, and reduce your chances of diabetes, obestiy, heart attacks, stroke and cancer
but i actively avoid peanuts because they dont sit well with me, but i eat walnuts fairly regularly. if your body cant handle certain foods, like nuts, or soy, or gluten, THEN AVOID THOSE FOODS. i can guarantee you that with enough time and experimentation, your body will get used to beans and lentils
can rapidly changing your diet cause digestive issues and stomach and instestinal issues? absolutely, but this is true of all major dietary shifts. it took me literally a full year, all of 2017 to fully adopt a vegan diet. there is evidence literally showing it takes time for your body to adjust to a different diet, but overtime the gut micro-bacteria does change to adapt to the different foods in your colon
> but im not needlessly sacrificing my health for that
but your body doesnt NEED to eat meat. thats why its so immoral and hypocritical of you. with time and effort, you can survive and thrive on a healthy vegan diet. your anecdotal personal experience with a bad case of gas when you ate beans one time doesnt reflect the SCIENCE
man, it really tilts me how hypocritical so much of this website is. the entire board of /dep/ are these whiny hypocrites with quivering lips and tears coming out of their eyes, crying about the unjust behavior of normies and females, yet they themselves abuse animals and refuse to do anything about it
All this information is essential for a warp waning diet.>>173179
WarpWiz you are back!
Where have you been my friend?
Bitter foods should be eaten in very small quantities.
Children prefer meats and sweet fruits, because that's what is natural!
Coconut is an antiseptic on the molecular level and omega-3's from fish are excellent for cardiovascular health
Does that mean we should get ill and die to cure the obesity epidemic?
i understand they want to, but they would be consciously choosing to be ignorant of the truth
vegans activists often say "before people knew about animal ethics, they were good people, but after they were informed of animal suffering through vegan activism, most of them will still continue to eat meat, and they then become immoral people"
ignorance is bliss, and a thread like this is dispelling and correcting ignorance
you can still obviously choose to be an immoral animal abuser, but just dont complain of injustice when you are a active participant in abusing the weak. dont cry out to god about all the injustices you've experienced in your life at the hands of females and normies when your own hands are stained with blood, you fucking whiny hypocrite>>173179
but this fundamentally is a ethical and moral discussion. we're talking about right and wrong, and whether its ethically permissible to kill animals and eat themhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/
can you survive on a diet with animal products in it? ABSOLUTELY. i have never made the claim that you cant live off meat, nor have i ever said that humans are herbivores. but just because we can do it, doesnt make it morally permissible. this is an "is-ought" fallacyhttps://fallaciesfiles.weebly.com/the-isought-fallacy.html
just because something is that way, doesnt entail it OUGHT to be that way. "ought" or "should" are normative statements. they are moral-fagging statements. "thats wrong" or "thats immoral", etc. and the whole point of veganism is to argue that eating meat is morally wrong, and that all you meat eaters are whiny animal abusing hypocrites, who cry crocodile tears when you're the victim, and fish for pity points from others, yet turn around and abuse animals for your pleasure>>173184
children arent even fucking moral agents. they cannot make moral decisions, because their brain isn't developed enough to comprehend right and wrong
not to mention, just because a child likes something, that doesnt entail the food it likes is healthy. children like coca-cola, mcdonalds, pizza, chicken nuggets and candy, but none of those things are good for you>>173184
the obesity epidemic can be reasonably blamed on eating a diet high in animal products and processed foods.
animal products include meat, cheese, milk, eggs, fish
processed foods include white rice, pasta, potato chips, coca-cola, flour, processed sugar, refined oils, chocolate, etc
eating a unprocessed "whole foods" vegan diet makes it very hard to be obese. oh, and statistically speaking, a keto diet is NOT sustainable for long term weight loss, and is also grossly immoral
If I buy a steak it doesn't mean I directly kill 1 cow to get this steak. 1 cow can provide 430 servings of retail meat, to put it another way that 1 cow can feed 430 people in one day. Those 430 people are tied to the death of the cow, you could argue this is direct, but each individual person isn't directly responsible for the death of the cow, only partly, and that's why I say the individual harm I cause is indirect. Humanity as a whole is directly responsible for the deaths of animals, but I as an individual form a small part of that chain.
Like the bullying thing, if someone commits suicide because 430 people replied 'lol' to some insult direct towards them on Facebook, are they directly responsible for the death? You can argue either way on this in a semantics sense but you also have to concede that this form of harm is less direct if they killed themselves because you insulted them to their face. Your culpability changes in scenarios like these, as does my individual culpability for the death of each discrete animal. Once again, not saying this is morally right, but that an argument of direct harm is misleading
>is it morally permissible for me to pay someone to torture and kill humans if i enjoyed the way they taste?
Of course not, humans have rights and a social contract amongst each other, in order for you to retain your freedom and luxuries you enjoy today then you and other humans have implicitly agreed this contract with each other. These same arguments cannot be made for the rest of the animal kingdom
>again, this is a "tu quoque" logical fallacy[…]as a justification for your behavior[…]you are causing a great deal amuont of harm to animals FOR YOUR PLEASURE[…]vegans cause DRAMATICALLY less harm to animals[…]i dont think the pleasure you get from killing animals is a moral justification, which is why i think meat eaters are hypocrites and immoral
Your argument is that meat eaters are hypocritical, I believe the same of yourself. I'm not using this "tu quoque" fallacy to defend my actions, I'm saying that you are morally posturing when you also commit horrific levels of harm. To put it another way, if I kill 12 children and you kill 1 child, would you have grounds of accusing me of being immoral? Even if your point is correct I could make the same point right back at you. The only real argument you could make is that you caused less harm, and that's not much of an argument for you or the vegan diet as being morally superior. The only real point you have is that you cause less harm, but you still cause harm for your taste pleasure
> if you are paying for a hitman to kill someone, you are directly paying for murder.
Agree. If hundreds of people all chip in for this murder of 1 person though then my own actions have had a less direct consequence for that person dying
>you have to be so facetious and disingenuous to think that a vegan diet causes the same amount of suffering to animals as a diet with meat in it
I said it could be comparable in total suffering caused. Animals who encroach on farms and get poisoned or trapped suffer a far worse death than most animals in a properly regulated farm. The same indirect link between myself and suffering caused by farm animals can be demonstrated by your taste pleasure from eating your favourite veggies/fruit and the barbaric death that those animals experience. I probably cause more overall suffering though yes
I have my own moral obligations, you have yours, you cannot impose your moral obligations on me and vice versa. I do have a personal moral duty to minimise suffering that animals experience, we should eat animals less, we shouldn't farm certain animals, we should offer them a good life
>no. not participating in these actions is morally neutral. if you participate in these actions its morally bad, but not participating in them is just doing nothing. doing nothing is morally superior to actively participating in animal abuse, which is why veganism, philosophically speaking, is morally superior to eating meat, even if an individual vegan can be a horrifically immoral person in all other aspects of life
You still participate in animal torture one way or another, there are countless unseen links across almost every aspect of your life. Here's a list I compiled from a simple google search:
Tallow is fat from cattle, and it is used in wax paper, crayons, margarine, paints, rubber, lubricants, candles, soaps, lipsticks, shaving creams and other cosmetics
Gelatin is used in shampoos, face masks and other cosmetics. Gelatin is also used in foods as a thickener for fruit gelatins and puddings (like Jell-O), candies and marshmallows.
In addition to pork, several valuable products come from swine. These include insulin for the regulation of diabetes, valves for human heart surgery, suede for shoes and clothing, and gelatin for foods and non-food uses. Swine by-products are also important parts of products such as water filters, insulation, rubber, antifreeze, certain plastics, floor waxes, crayons, chalk, adhesives and fertilizer (USDA, 2016). Lard is fat from pig abdomens and is used in shaving creams, soaps, make-up, baked goods and other foods.
Eggs are also used for the production of therapeutic vaccines and are beginning to be used for production of antibodies and pharmacological proteins.
A lot of the vitamin supplements that you take were likely derived from bovine blood as well, iron being a main one. Blood is also used in a wide variety of medicinal treatments. I also know that blood is used in electricity generation in some places, it's quite hard to find concrete information for this online but there's also a potential indirect link between your energy usage and the slaughter of cows/pigs. So no, you aren't morally neutral if you also benefit in a myriad of ways
>cows are socially capable animals. turkeys and chickens and lambs as well
By socially capable I meant the ability to form a reciprocal link with humans, dogs obviously do this and monkeys, I think pigs can to a lesser degree. Cows cannot though, or chickens or turkeys or lambs. I made this point because the social link that dogs form with humans will give dogs cues that they are in a dangerous environment, from smelling human secretions to reading human body language. It would result in needless anxiety and suffering for animals such as dogs and monkeys in a farming environment. The same effects aren't true for animals such as cows, chickens, lambs, turkeys
>i reject the idea that being born into slavery, being raped, being castrated, living in a enclosed prison, and then eventually being killed can ever constitute as a "good life"
I agree. That's why I'm against egg, dairy industries. Also slavery can take many forms and if we can grant a happy life for the animals then I think this form of slavery is on a completely different level to being stuck in a cage and enduring immense levels of stress
Imagine if aliens arrived and decided that they will farm all of humanity. Which situation would you prefer out of being stuck in a cage your entire life as against being able to live a relatively free, happy, meaningful existence with a painless death. If we can offer animals something akin to this then I see the happiness granted to the animals as balancing out the dominion we have over them. Sure humans might object even to be given a happy life but we don't have a choice as we wouldn't be the dominant species anymore, such is the reality that animals are born into with humans being the dominant species
Once again, I'm not saying it's morally right, but what you are doing and suggesting isn't morally right either. We are all stuck with the harshness that is reality and must be pragmatic about the situation because that's our responsibility
>>173168>>173171>>173172 >we obviously know what sentience and consciousness are; they are the ability to subjectively percieve the world and experience emotions. and we dont have any REASONABLY EVIDENCE to show that plants are sentient. for all we know, rocks and dirt and water could be sentient, but theres no REASONABLE EVIDENCE showing that they are sentient
It's quite obvious that most animals have a subjective experience, one which is quite similar to our own. I wasn't doubting that, I was saying that to prove sentience is an impossible task as modern science still doesn't know exactly what sentience is or how it manifests
You don't need papers to make these points, they are readily apparent from interacting with animals. I wasn't arguing against that, what I'm saying is that we don't know the mechanism which evokes or brings about this sentience, or what sentience even is, so for you to deny sentience for plants while just accepting it with animals with no concrete proof is strange. Especially given resources such as these:https://www.nathab.com/blog/research-shows-plants-are-sentient-will-we-act-accordingly/>A recent spate of studies, however, is proving that plants have volition, show altruism and understand kinship much like many animal specieshttps://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2018/05/09/a-mind-without-a-brain-the-science-of-plant-intelligence-takes-root/#70220e6f76dc>If Gagliano’s interpretation of the data is correct, the scientific community may have to reckon with intelligent organisms independent of the traditional brain and nervous system model. If her interpretation of the data is correct, we may be in the early stages of waking up to a world long-populated by considerably more intelligent, sentient beings than previously acknowledgedhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/aug/04/plants-intelligent-sentient-book-brilliant-green-internet>Today’s view of intelligence - as the product of brain in the same way that urine is of the kidneys - is a huge oversimplification. A brain without a body produces the same amount of intelligence of the nut that it resembleshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5398210/>classical conditioning in both human and non-human animals has provided a powerful framework for exploring processes like learning, memory, anticipation, awareness, decision-making and more, which are, broadly speaking, attributes of what we call, the mind. Recently, this classical conditioning approach has been successfully applied to the vegetal worldhttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-record-stressed-out-plants-emitting-ultrasonic-squeals-180973716/>Plants scream when they are damaged
Also check the picture attached to my post, which shows plants experiencing 'pain', you cant make any honest claims about plants not experiencing pain as modern science has no idea how it works in plants. For all we know the pain and suffering plants experience is unimaginably worse than what we experience
>for example, a human in a permanent severe coma also makes noises. he can snore or fart
Those noises would be involuntary. Plants communicate with each other voluntarily and reciprocally
>plants cannot avoid pain because they cannot experience it. they try to avoid physical harm to themselves, but not pain explicitly. pain is an emotion, and plants cant feel emotions
>please show me evidence that a vegan diet causes comparable damage to animals and the environement as a diet with meat in it
Meat eaters cause more damage to animals, vegans and meat eaters contribute similarly to environmental damage
>sure, but we have a moral obligation to reduce the suffering of any being capable of suffering as much as possible
And where you draw the line is your personal choice and shouldn't be imposed on others. You do good through educating meat eaters but once you start telling people what they ought to do you are passing into hypocritical territory.
For example bivalves such as oysters are generally regarded as not being able to experience pain and have no brain and therefore would fall under your personal definition of not having sentience. Considering that they don't experience pain and it's likely that plants do experience some form of pain and react to threats then wouldn't it follow your logic that we should only be eating oysters? This would minimize the total suffering we inflict on the world within our power to do so. Also we wouldn't have to trap and poison animals on farms if we just eat oysters. The suffering reduction would be massive. You would need to take a massive amount of vitamins to supplement this diet
If you don't switch to eating only oysters right now then you are just as guilty for leading to animal pain and suffering for your 'taste pleasure'. This is a facetious point obviously, and therefore isn't a good enough argument to convince you, I claim the same contention with your point with veganism
I'm happy to reduce my harm as much as I can within reason, for me personally this includes not engaging in some industries like the egg industry. Also I don't eat meat very much, maybe once a week, sometimes less. I feel morally fine with this in the current situation that I occupy, if I see any opportunities to give animals a better life that doesn't impede on my own wellbeing then I'll take it. To go 'full vegan' and never eat meat wouldn't drastically reduce the harm I cause, if I have one serving of meat a week then I lead to 1 cow death every 8 years. If I were to go vegan then it would be 1 less cow dying every 8 years, but that doesn't change the fact that animals are dying far more often in other areas: through me eating veggies, electricity, global warming eventually, soil erosion to name just a few
>people on a prediminantly plant based diet are some of the longest living populations in the world. a chinese centenerian diet is 98%+ plant based. the traditional okinawan diet is 98%+ plant based. the adventist vegeterian diet is predominantly plant based, and as of 2020, the adventist vegeterians are the longest living blue zone population. they overtook the okinawas, after a lot of KFC restaurants were opened in japan
This isn't really an argument for veganism if their diet includes some amount of meat. If anything this shows that some amount of meat is probably quite important to help you live to a ripe old age. Too much meat on the other hand can be detrimental, it's about finding a nice balance
tldr: I'm not morally clean, neither are you, so you have no grounds to accuse others, especially when being moral in todays society is impossible in the truest sense. Reducing suffering is the correct moral goal, and it's something we should achieve by giving animals a better life but not ceasing eating them altogether as we still aren't sure if it could have a negative impact on humans who are biologically omnivores. Moral superiority places veganism into similar territory as religion and therefore has less persuasive potential, meaning it could lead to more suffering for animals
>>173191>children like coca-cola, mcdonalds, pizza, chicken nuggets and candy, but none of those things are good for you
you cannot compare food that was designed to be addictive to something that humans naturally eat and have been eating since the dawn of time. >their brain isn't developed enough to comprehend right and wrong
oh yeah children are just born heartless killers right out of the womb until us adults teach them morality. that is the opposite of everything everyone has ever observed with children. whenever a child does something immoral its because theyve been told by someone else to do it, that doesnt mean they arent moral, it means theyre weak.>>173173>just because a child doesnt like vegetables doesnt entail that they're body cannot digest it, or that the vegetables arent healthy for them
why would children be repulsed by things that are healthy for them? you have still failed to answer this question, stop dodging it. why do children have to be taught to eat vegetables and not meat?>your anecdotal personal experience
did you mean to reply to another post? because i dont see any anecdotal evidence in my post you fucking retard.
hmmm… i feel as if we are getting REALLY off topic. the subject of conversation fundamentally is animal ethics, and i feel as if you are using a lot of irrelevant red herrings
we are trying to morally justify eating meat, and to determine if meat eaters are animal abusing hypocrites. nothing else
ill go through your post in detail and
the first and most important question is:
what is true about cows, that if true about humans, would make it morally acceptable to kill humans for meat?
to rephrase; what is the trait difference between cows and humans that makes it morally acceptable to kill cows for meat, but not humans?
please answer this question before answering anything else
other questions:>1. if i kick a child to death, did i contribute directly to its death?>2. if i was one out of 50 people, who all kicked a child to death, did i directly contribute to its death?>3. if i payed someone to kick a child to death, did i directly contribute to that child's death?>4. if i was one of 400 people who payed a group of people to kick a child to death, did i directly contribute to that child's death?>5. if i payed for a truck to deliver me good, and it accidently hit and kills a child, did i directly pay for that child's death?>6. do you think theres a moral difference between paying for someone to kick a child to death, or participating in the killing yourself?>7. do you think theres a moral difference between kicking and killing a child because you enjoy hurting them, and kicking and killing a child because you want to eat their meat?>8. do you think that a vegan diet results in dramatically less animal suffering and death?>9. do you think its fair to say that the reason why you eat meat and pay for animals to be killed is for your pleasure?>10. do you think its fair to say that by going vegan, you cause a dramatic result in plant deaths for the same amount of calories and nutrition?>11. since you think plants are sentient, do you think you have a moral duty to go vegan, so you would reduce plant deaths?>12. what nutrient does meat have that you cannot get from plants?>13. do you think its fair to say that killing animals for your pleasure is hypocritical?>14. do you think we need to eat meat to be healthy or meet ANY nutritional requirement that is not available on a vegan diet?>15. in terms of philosophies, do you think that veganism is a morally superior philosophy and way of living compared to killing animals for meat?>16. is what is legal also what is moral?>17. do ethics come from the law, or does the law come from ethics?>18. if humans didnt have rights protecting them, like blacks during slavery, does that make it morally permissible to enslave, rape, castrate and kill black people, like how they were treated during slavery?>19. does being able to participate in a social contract why its wrong to kill humans for meat, but okay to kill animals?>20. is it okay to kill humans for meat who cannot participate in a social contract? such as the severely mentally retarded?>21. is it morally permissible to enslave and kill primitive tribes people who attack and kill all outsiders, and who cannot participate in our social contract, like the North Sentinel Islanders?>22. if other people are immoral, does that mean when they call you immoral that they are wrong?>23. which animals do you think are morally permissible to enslave and kill for your meat, and why?>24. what do you define as a "reciprocal link"? please elaborate>25. do you think that its morally permissible to enslave and kill animals for your pleasure?>26. do you think enslaving and killing animals for your pleasure can be justified if the conditions are nice enough?>27. is pain an emotion?>28. if someone is unconscious and a doctor stabs their body with a scalpel, are they or their body subjectively experiencing pain?>29. do you think that plants have free will?>30. do you think you can have free will without consciousness or sentience?>31. what is your opinion on the graph that i posted, that showed that meat causes dramatically more environmental damage and plant deaths?>32. how many kilograms of plant matter does it take to make 1 kilogram of a steak? do you think this conversion is efficient?
Did you copy paste that list or do you really have nothing better to do?
This wasn't directed at you by the way, it was directed at the others
>>173201>Like the bullying thing, if someone commits suicide because 430 people replied 'lol' to some insult direct towards them on Facebook, are they directly responsible for the death?
i think this is a HORRIFICALLY bad comparison. i reject that internet insults and bullying are the same thing. its a super grey area in regards to how much criticism and hate are morally justified, but there is a difference in kind. you are VOLUNTARILY participating in a online community. theres no gun to your neck, or someone forcing you to be part of a online community that you dont like. like, literally close your eyes and walk away from the screen
but with real life bullying, its involuntarily. its FORCED upon you. thats why i reject your comparison as saying "lol" to someone as bullying
but i think if this were real life bullying, if you were contributing to it, it would be DIRECT harm. if you maliciously insulted and humiliated and bullied people in real life, and as a result they are suicidal, you are DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING to their abuse, even if you are just one person in a crowd of 50
if you were one person in a crown of 50 who kicked a child to the point of being in a coma, i think you directly contributed to them being in a coma. please dont conflate voluntary internet communities with involuntary places like school, prison, or a home environment
> but you also have to concede that this form of harm is less direct
again, this is a REALLY bad analogy, because you are conflating a joining a voluntary internet community with a involuntary community like school. i think insults and criticisms are perfectly fine in internet communities, but in involuntary places like a home its different. if you have a step dad who abuses you at home, its different to voluntarily joining a minecraft community where people maliciously insult you
and again, if in a online community someone made you feel bad even with bad intentions, i guess its also depending on context and if its justified or not. i think theres a difference between criticizing a child killer and criticizing someone who is ugly and insecure for your pleasure. even if it was real life, i dont think its immoral if its justified, and in a online context its not so clear cut, thats why i REALLY dont like your social media bullying
BUT, if i feel its unjustified harassment, then YES, you would be directly contributing to it. if someone is suicidal as a result of unjustified online harassment, then you literally are directly contributing to it
i also dont know how i feel about how direct of an impact someone can be blamed for another person's suicide, even if its real life bullying, but thats irrelevant
its not the same, because you voluntarily joined it. if you voluntarily joined some BDSM community where someone hurt you, its not immoral, because its VOLUNTARY
but i feel if someone was unjustifiably harassed with no good reason and they are suicidal because of that, then the bullies DID directly contribute to their suicidal feelings, even if they were 1 out of 1000 people who posted malicious comments
how much you directly contribute to something is different between how impactful it is
if you vote for someone, you directly contributed to their presidency, even if your vote wasn't that impactful. how impactful your DIRECT contribution to the problem doesnt entail you didnt directly support the cause
but this is such a GREY area with online stuff, which is why i dont like your analogy
>humans have rights
lets say hypothetically humans didnt have rights, does that make it morally permissible to enslave and kill them?
was it morally permissible to enslave, rape and kill hundreds of thousands of blacks during the slave trade?
is it morally permissible for muslims to fuck 7 year olds because females have no rights in their country?
is it morally permissible for your tribe to rape and genocide another tribe, because according to your laws its okay?
are you seriously appealing to the law as a justification for why its wrong to kill humans?
>and a social contract amongst each other, in order for you to retain your freedom and luxuries you enjoy today then you and other humans have implicitly agreed this contract with each other. These same arguments cannot be made for the rest of the animal kingdom
okay, so let me appeal to marginal cases. is it morally permissible to enslave, rape, and kill humans who cant participate in a social contract? is it morally permissible to enslave, rape, castrate and genocide severely mentally retarded people? is it okay to kill and bomb indegenous tribes of people who refuse to participate in a social contract, like the Northern Sentinelese tribe? they literally try and kill any outside intruder, does that make it morally acceptable to bomb and rape them, because they cannot participate in a social contract?
>I'm saying that you are morally posturing when you also commit horrific levels of harm
i cause justified harm by my moral standards. please dont call me a hypocrite, because by MY moral standards, its okay to eat vegetables, as i reject that plants are sentient and the harm caused to animals, either accidentally or in self-defense is justified by MY moral standards. its okay to kill humans accidentally or in self-defense as well, as my moral standards apply to humans as well
and listen okay, dont delude yourself that vegans are also animal abusing hypocrite as a coping mechanism for you to feel better about your own animal abuse. i REJECT all of your propositions that vegans cause unjustified harm to animals
see, this is what i mean. meat eaters always argue "plants have feelings, that makes vegans immoral hypocrites =O". its SO fucking disengenous and facetious, because the only time anyone EVER brings up plant feelings is in the contexts of vegan debates. if you look at "plant feeling" youtube viedos, every comment is "see, you stupid vegans, you're hypocrites too, why dont you care for the plants =O"
veganism exposes people as facetious animal abusers who have to lie and argue for points they dont believe in to point the finger back at vegans
> Animals who encroach on farms and get poisoned or trapped suffer a far worse death than most animals in a properly regulated farm
i mean, i would argue their lives were a lot better, considering they had freedom, natural relationships with their peers, and were living a life they were naturally designed for. not to mention, i would argue its justified to kill them because they are invadors who are stealing your food. they are not innocent. we HAVE to kill them because otherwise they would eat up all the food. how disingenuous of a person are you
with wild animals, they cannot understand english, so we literally have to kill them. if there was a deer who was eating all of your food every morning, you would have to kill that deer or starve yourself. its in self-defense
the same applies with humans. lets say there was a hypothetical race of wild retarded humans who couldnt communicate with language and ate all of our crops. we would have to kill these people because thats the only way they will stop
not to mention, crop deaths are much larger on a meat based diet, because farm animals eat huge amounts of crops
>To put it another way, if I kill 12 children and you kill 1 child, would you have grounds of accusing me of being immoral?
how does me being a bad person invalidate any of my arguments. this is a AD HOMINEM that you are using. you are attacking my character as a way to discredit my argument. even if i genocided a million children, its still correct for me to call you a immoral person if you killed one child. go on google and search "ad hominem" and educate yourself on common logical fallacies. my character flaws dont invalidate any of my arguments. you can choose not to respect me as a person, but you cannot say my arguments are invalid because of my character flaws
this is like normies on social media saying "OH, YOU SAID THE N-WORD 3 YEARS AGO, SO YOU'RE WRONG". the fucking argument is valid in and of itself, regardless of the character of the speaker
>Even if your point is correct I could make the same point right back at you
sure, but thats irrelevant to the topic of the thread. we are talking about if eating meat can be morally justified, and if meat eaters are animal abusing hypocrites. if you want to cope with being an immoral hypocrite and delude yourself that vegans are immoral because they like to eat bananas and corn, go ahead, but dont tell me that shit justifies killing animals for your pleasure
>The only real argument you could make is that you caused less harm, and that's not much of an argument for you or the vegan diet as being morally superior
so we dont have a moral obligation to cause the least amount of harm to animals as reasonably possible? you dont think causing less harm to animals is morally superior to causing more harm to animals?
>The only real point you have is that you cause less harm, but you still cause harm for your taste pleasure
you're wrong, as theres difference in kind. a vegan diet causes harm for the purposes of sustenance. we actually do need to eat plants, we arent killing for our taste pleasure, its because its a health requirement. i dont like eating kale, beans and sweet potatoes but i do it because my health requires it. i enjoyed eating steak and popeyes fried chicken when i ate meat
what else can we eat? its not done for pleasure, fundamentally its for staying alive
>I probably cause more overall suffering though yes
but again, theres a difference in kind. you are killing for your TASTE PLEASURE, and i am killing to stay alive, and dramatically less so. thats why when it comes to animal abuse, you are a hypocrite, and i am not, because i would be okay with dying if its self-defense or an accident, but you wouldn't be okay with being enslaved, raped, castrated and killed for someone else's taste pleasure
>You still participate in animal torture one way or another, there are countless unseen links across almost every aspect of your life
yeah, for sure, animal products are fucking ubiquitous. just recently i learned that even some toothbrushes use pig hairs for the bristles. but i actively try my hardest not to buy animal products for my pleasure, unlike you. thats why when it comes to animal abuse, i am not a hypocrite, but you are
just because i cant entirely reduce all my animal product useage doesnt entail i consciously participate in it when i dont need to. a lot of it i didnt even know was made from animals, like glue products
not to mention, ALL of those can eventually be replaced with vegan alternatives
if its a life-or-death situation, then i dont really have a voluntary choice, now do i?
>we shouldn't farm certain animals, we should offer them a good life
okay, this is another huge problem i have with you. which animals do you think are morally acceptable to farm?
and would you consider being enslaved, raped, castrated and killed at a fraction of your natural lifespan, while you live in a enclosed prison a "good life"?
>By socially capable I meant the ability to form a reciprocal link with humans, dogs obviously do this and monkeys, I think pigs can to a lesser degree. Cows cannot though, or chickens or turkeys or lambs
what do you even mean by "reciprocal link" with humans?
severely mentally retarded people cant make a "reciprocal link" with humans, does that make it okay to enslave, rape and kill them for our pleasure?
>Cows cannot though, or chickens or turkeys or lambs
first of all, these animals to have social relationships with humans, and are just as sentient as dogs and monkeys. second of all, is it okay to enslave, rape, torture and kill monkeys and dogs that are so stupid that they CANNOT form "reciprocal links" with humans? we can easily breed such animals
>Imagine if aliens arrived and decided that they will farm all of humanity. Which situation would you prefer out of being stuck in a cage your entire life as against being able to live a relatively free, happy, meaningful existence with a painless death. If we can offer animals something akin to this then I see the happiness granted to the animals as balancing out the dominion we have over them. Sure humans might object even to be given a happy life but we don't have a choice as we wouldn't be the dominant species anymore, such is the reality that animals are born into with humans being the dominant species
its funny you bring up this hypothetical, because this is a common hypothetical vegans bring up to meat eaters
for the 2 options you gave me, obviously i would prefer the "free, happy" existence, but i think this is a FALSE DICHOTEMY. if aliens invaded earth, i would perfer that i wasnt a slave with a "relatively free, happy, meaningful existence with a painless death" in the first place. i would prefer the aliens would leave me alone
for example, if you wouldn't be okay with being born into slavery, and being killed against your will, so an alien can have fun eating you, why is it morally okay for you to do so to animals?
not to mention you have to be SO FUCKING FACETIOUS to pretend that animals live nice lives, even on the absolute best farms on earth. ALL of them are still enslaved, killed against their own will at a fraction of their lives, live in a prison with no freedom, have their children taken away from them. i dont think this can reasonably be considered a "relatively free, happy, meaningful existence with a painless death"
>Sure humans might object even to be given a happy life but we don't have a choice as we wouldn't be the dominant species anymore
yeah, but you do have a choice right now with how you treat animals. thats why you are a FUCKING HYPOCRITE. you abuse animals for your FUCKING PLEASURE. you wouldn't be okay with being enslaved and killed by aliens for their pleasure, yet you do so to cows, because its fun for you
>Once again, I'm not saying it's morally right
exactly, we both agree you are a whiny animal abusing hypocrite, who cries with shivering lips when he is bullied and abused by others, and turns around and consciously pays for animals to be abused for his PLEASURE
by both of our moral systems, we agree that you are a animal abusing hypocrite. but by MY moral system, i reject that im a animal abusing hypocrite, because i think the harm i do to animals or humans because my diet is morally justified. i dont think you can reasonably call me a animal abusing hypocrite if i reject your moral standards
am i a hypocrite on other subjects? sure, im not jesus. but when it comes to animal abuse, i dont think i am, where as i think you are
>but what you are doing and suggesting isn't morally right either
well, first of all, compared to eating meat, i think a vegan diet is morally superior because it causes a dramatic reduction in harm to animals, and the harm isnt for our pleasure, its for survival. i think theres a difference between torturing and killing a dog for your sadistic pleasure, and killing a dog because you are on a island and you are about to starve to death
>We are all stuck with the harshness that is reality and must be pragmatic about the situation because that's our responsibility
yeah, its your responsibility to cause the least amount of harm to others as possible>>173259
do you really have nothing better to do than point out that i have nothing better to do?
talk about the pot calling the kettle black
and yes, i have nothing better to do and i enjoy talking about animal ethics
>>173202>You don't need papers to make these points, they are readily apparent from interacting with animals
oh, but anon, i REALLY dont think you fully appreciate how facetious and disenenous people are when talking with vegans. i had to REPEATEDLY update my scientific evidence for animal sentience, because meat eaters were criticizing me source quality and not linking direct papers
when it comes to the subject of the ethics of killing animals, people get extraordinarily defensive and facetious
>so for you to deny sentience for plants while just accepting it with animals with no concrete proof is strange
well, i just dont see any reasonable evidence to suggest that plants are sentient any more than rocks, or dead bodies, or bacteria or my computer
the only evidence of sentience we have are from brains and nervous system
>plant sentience tho
hmm, for the sake of brevity and the argument, ill just concede that plants are sentient. but thats a RED HERRING. its literally IRRELEVANT
even if plants are sentient, we still have a moral obligation to go vegan, because a vegan diet dramatically reduces the suffering of those poor plants. we feed a huge amount of plants to cows, pigs and chickens. it takes like 12 kilos of corn or soy to make 1 kilo of a cow, its grossly inefficient
but feel free to call me a plant abusing hypocrite for cutting my grass for my visual pleasure. i always enjoy the high quality comebacks from meat eaters
>Those noises would be involuntary. Plants communicate with each other voluntarily and reciprocally
well, according to the dictionary, the word "voluntarily" requires free will. are you saying plants have free will? dont you think its a bit facetious for you to say we dont even know what consciousness is, yet you are invoking a comically great area like plant free will?
when meat eaters go on long rants about plant sentience as a coping mechanism to paint vegans as plant abusers, thats when the only thing i can do is enjoy the comedy
i mean, im just appealing to the overwhelming scientific consesus here. and the scientific consensus is that plant sentience is a pseudoscience. but maybe plants are sentient, how do i know? maybe David Chalmers is right about panpsychism, even everything is conscious, who knows?
but even if they are sentient, we still have a moral obligation to go vegan, because that reduces plant suffering
>vegans and meat eaters contribute similarly to environmental damage
umm… i dont think you appreciate how much environmental damage farm animals do. first of theres green house gasses, whatever thats worth
another topic of environmental damage is pollution. farm animals produce HUGE amounts of waste. theres literally small ponds of animal manure. its literally a small sea of animal piss and shit. im NOT making this up. this feces nightmare literally leaks out into local bodies of water, which decimate all the animals who drink or live in the waterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_productionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7854HbH9Ro
i mean, seriously? you do know the reason why the amazon rain-forests are being burned down is to make room for soy farms and for cattle farms, right? literally farm animals consume like 95%+ of all soy products are consumed by farm animals
like, you cant be serious when you say that vegans cause the same amount of environmental damage as meat eaters
>You do good through educating meat eaters but once you start telling people what they ought to do you are passing into hypocritical territory
please tell me how its hypocritical to tell people what they ought do?
is it hypocritical to tell people they ought not to torture and kill children?
> Considering that they don't experience pain and it's likely that plants do experience some form of pain
if plants experience pain, then i think that bivalves also experience pain, because they literally show the same behavior as plants, even dramatically more complex. bivalves have nerves throughout their body and behave intelligently, just as smart as plants if not smarter. even if they dont have a brain, they have a much more developed nervous system
if you're going to argue that plants are sentient, (lol), then surely bivalves would be sentient, and more sentient than plants
>This is a facetious point obviously
your entire rant about plant sentience is also facetious. is it too much to ask you not to be facetious? am i being unreasonable here?
animal ethics always brings out the inner facetiousness in people, for whatever reason
> I claim the same contention with your point with veganism
but, unlike you, im not facetious. i think animal abuse is fucking wrong
like, no seriously, have you heard of pigs screaming at the top of their fucking lungs, as their legs are attached to a mechanical lift, so they will be suspended in the air before they get their throats slashed?
have you heard pigs scream in crates as they are being transported to a slaughterhouse, which will electrocute them and
no seriously, listen to this. a gas chamber is considered one of the most "humane" ways to kill pigs, between liek 30% to 50% of all pigs are killed this way, depending on the country. pigs are more intelligent than dogshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVR7NjnMkIc
have you heard of a cow cry in sorrow, as its children are taken away from here, over and over, year after year, and have to seen the fear in its eyes as its being proded into the slaughterhouse?
i take animal abuse very seriously! im genuine in my debate, im honestly not facetious. if anything im just lazy sometimes, but i am genuine
>To go 'full vegan' and never eat meat wouldn't drastically reduce the harm I cause
but it would reduce the harm you are needlessly causing to animals for your pleasure
for example, if i raped and abused a child once a year, it would be a lot less harm than if i raped and abused a child everyday. but its still child abuse once a year. i think we have a moral obligation not to needlessly abuse humans or animals, regardless of the extent
>but that doesn't change the fact that animals are dying far more often in other areas: through me eating veggies, electricity, global warming eventually, soil erosion to name just a few
this is where i have to contest. because the amount of animals died for meat doesnt just include the meat, it includes the harvesting deaths, and all the other thigns you listed. meat is bad for global farming and harvesting deaths much more than veganism is
>tldr: I'm not morally clean, neither are you
but you are a animal abusing hypocrite, where as i am not
>so you have no grounds to accuse others
please dont ad hom me, anon
>especially when being moral in todays society is impossible in the truest sense
depends on what you even define as "moral". nihilists are moral by their own standards, even if they kill children everyday
but just because you do cause harm to other, doesnt mean you dont have a moral obligation to cause the least amount of needless suffering to animals
>as we still aren't sure if it could have a negative impact on humans who are biologically omnivores
ah, okay, so you are appealing to the nutritional and physical need to eat meat. PLEASE see this post that i posted >>172684
please provide me evidence that we need to eat meat to survive, for nutrition, or be healthy
>Moral superiority places veganism into similar territory as religion
veganism is a ETHICAL PHILOSOPHY. i know its convenient for you to label anything you dont like as a religion, but its in the encyclopedia of PHILOSOPHY, not religionhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/
>>173263>i reject that internet insults and bullying are the same thing
This is my main point with regards to whether things are direct or not, it's such an incredibly simplified and binary way of looking at situations that I find it pretty pointless to be honest. In the end it's just coming down to opinions.
That's why I think you should break systems down as best as you can and analyse them, rather than casting a blanket moral judgement.
>you are VOLUNTARILY participating in a online community. theres no gun to your neck, or someone forcing you to be part of a online community that you dont like. like, literally close your eyes and walk away from the screen
Try saying something like this who was suicidal over online bullying, something which I don't think they'd agree with you on that their participation was "voluntary" in. Quite easy to imagine such situations, I imagine kids these days are probably socially expected to have some sort of online presence. If you argue "just don't turn your computer on lol" I could just easily say "just don't be fat lol" to some kid being bullied for their weight, it's a lame distinction
>i dont think its immoral if its justified
Who gets to be the judge of whether it's justified or not
>BUT, if i feel its unjustified harassment, then YES, you would be directly contributing to it. if someone is suicidal as a result of unjustified online harassment, then you literally are directly contributing to it
"Directly contributing to it", that's not a very good way to demonstrate a direct link though. You directly contribute money in companies pockets who also lead to animal and human suffering, so you now have a direct link to animal torture? To ask this in another way, is the directness of the action only related to your intentions? With harassment the intention is to upset, with eating animals the intention is to eat parts of a dead animal, if you were supplying companies with money to torture animals but your intention was only to buy some rubber or wax then you don't have a direct link - that's my attempt to steelman where you form this distinction
In reality, it obviously makes no difference and your contribution to animal suffering is the same regardless of intent. Anyway this whole direct/indirect angle is a dead end if you truly care about suffering etc, the important thing should be suffering experienced rather than how directly it was applied as directness is tied more into culpability - which meat eaters obviously concede as an animal does need to die in order for you to eat meat
>lets say hypothetically humans didnt have rights, does that make it morally permissible to enslave and kill them?>was it morally permissible to enslave, rape and kill hundreds of thousands of blacks during the slave trade?>is it morally permissible for muslims to fuck 7 year olds because females have no rights in their country?>is it morally permissible for your tribe to rape and genocide another tribe, because according to your laws its okay?
This just brings into focus what I think is the main issue with the whole vegan discussion. There are different kinds of morals, if you were to ask muslims the question you brought up then a lot of them would hold firm on moral grounds. You wouldn't be able to sway them. Similar to the roman empire for example, where owning slaves was probably considered a perfectly moral part of everyday life. The morals you are trying to argue from are a 'higher' form of morals, something which you can apply throughout history, the present and the future, not necessarily tied to humanity but to life as a whole. These higher morals are the kind of thing that informs the law, allowed humanity to progress, this was one of the primary benefits of religion on society in my opinion. On the morals you pose I agree with everything you say, that suffering is wrong, we shouldn't needlessly kill things, generally try to make life as bearable as possible for as many other beings, including myself
Now you aren't perfect, same as everyone else, you break these higher morals just like everyone else does, yet still act morally superior, that's where my main problem with your points and veganism in general is
>okay, so let me appeal to marginal cases. is it morally permissible to enslave, rape, and kill humans who cant participate in a social contract? is it morally permissible to enslave, rape, castrate and genocide severely mentally retarded people? is it okay to kill and bomb indegenous tribes of people who refuse to participate in a social contract, like the Northern Sentinelese tribe? they literally try and kill any outside intruder, does that make it morally acceptable to bomb and rape them, because they cannot participate in a social contract?
If the Northern Sentinel island tribe built boats and started raiding society then we would have every right to defend ourselves. As they are capable of forming social contracts eventually, at least their young ones, we wouldn't have any right to enslave or enact some form of control over them because we want to. The potential is there, and that's the important part, this same thing applies to babies who can't form a contract with us but will eventually. With severely mentally retarded people it's dependent on many things, if they were in pain and suffering and wanted to die then it's fine to kill them. If they are dangerous to everyone around them then we would have to enslave them somehow, like putting them in a mental hospital
>i cause justified harm by my moral standards. please dont call me a hypocrite, because by MY moral standards, its okay to eat vegetables
You are a hypocrite by the same higher moral standards that you happily hold me to account for
>see, this is what i mean. meat eaters always argue "plants have feelings, that makes vegans immoral hypocrites =O". its SO fucking disengenous and facetious, because the only time anyone EVER brings up plant feelings is in the contexts of vegan debates. if you look at "plant feeling" youtube viedos, every comment is "see, you stupid vegans, you're hypocrites too, why dont you care for the plants =O"
>veganism exposes people as facetious animal abusers who have to lie and argue for points they dont believe in to point the finger back at vegans
I do believe that vegans cause untold amounts of suffering to animals, plants, just as meat eaters do. Meat eaters are obviously trolling (for the most part) with comments like that, but the intentions behind their statement doesn't invalidate it. The main purpose for them saying things like that is to mirror your hostile and preachy attitude
> Animals who encroach on farms and get poisoned or trapped suffer a far worse death than most animals in a properly regulated farm>i mean, i would argue their lives were a lot better, considering they had freedom, natural relationships with their peers, and were living a life they were naturally designed for
I don't agree that animals in the wild automatically have a better life than what we can potentially offer farm animals. Also innocence has nothing to do with it, we don't need to kill them, we could build barriers, deterrents, we could farm a massive surplus to take into account losses to foragers. The reason we kill them is because other methods are uneconomical
>the same applies with humans. lets say there was a hypothetical race of wild retarded humans who couldnt communicate with language and ate all of our crops
Agreed, but this comes down to self preservation, and your own personal justification is that you deserve to live more than these other humans. You are not wrong to do this in my eyes, but morally this isn't clean either
>not to mention, crop deaths are much larger on a meat based diet, because farm animals eat huge amounts of crops
Not necessarily, certain crops might attract different types of animals, the wider variety of crops needed to sustain humans compared to the relatively simple crops like soy beans for animals could result in different ratios of animal deaths, and also in exactly how the animals die, some need to be poisoned, some need to be trapped
>how does me being a bad person invalidate any of my arguments. this is a AD HOMINEM that you are using. you are attacking my character as a way to discredit my argument
Yeah I stated in that reply that I'm not using what I said as a justification, if I kill 12 children and you kill 1 then you've commited the same immoral act that I have. I'm not trying to discredit your argument, I'm saying that you have no grounds to claim moral superiority because you are also guilty
>so we dont have a moral obligation to cause the least amount of harm to animals as reasonably possible? you dont think causing less harm to animals is morally superior to causing more harm to animals?
I agree with the higher moral you are appealing to, I don't agree that you adhere to this moral nor do I agree that your outlook is pragmatic or reasonable long term
>you're wrong, as theres difference in kind. a vegan diet causes harm for the purposes of sustenance. we actually do need to eat plants, we arent killing for our taste pleasure, its because its a health requirement
You can get sustenance from other means, like through eating oysters, eating garbage, from roadkill, foarging already killed plants and mushrooms, through eating dead insects you find on the ground. These would all cause true minimum direct/indirect deaths, and if you were truly serious about that goal then you would be doing the things I mentioned. But you don't. So it is influenced somewhat by your taste pleasure
>but again, theres a difference in kind. you are killing for your TASTE PLEASURE, and i am killing to stay alive, and dramatically less so. thats why when it comes to animal abuse, you are a hypocrite, and i am not
I eat meat to stay alive too, to stay healthy, I choose meat for my sustenance sometimes as my body was designed for it's consumption and the taste pleasure of meat influences me to do so. Same as you with plants. But you keep acting like you are some saint because you put different dead organisms in your mouth than I do, all while also benefitting from the deaths of the animals that I consume
>just recently i learned that even some toothbrushes use pig hairs for the bristles. but i actively try my hardest not to buy animal products for my pleasure, unlike you. thats why when it comes to animal abuse, i am not a hypocrite, but you are
The list I provided was just from me clicking on one article, the use of animal products in our society is absolutely everywhere. You still use, benefit, enjoy and take pleasure from the application of animal byproducts in society
I accept and understand my participation in this. You don't accept it but still benefit, this alone possibly makes you more hypocritical than me
>not to mention, ALL of those can eventually be replaced with vegan alternatives
not within our lifetimes
>which animals do you think are morally acceptable to farm? and would you consider being enslaved, raped, castrated and killed at a fraction of your natural lifespan, while you live in a enclosed prison a "good life"?
Cows are acceptable, chickens if done properly can be acceptably farmed also, basically any animal which doesn't suffer inherently due to the farming environment it lives in. I'm arguing that animals who are ignorant to their situation but benefit by living a happy and natural life are okay for humans to farm in order for us to maintain ourselves
Basically I'm arguing on your side here, the only difference is that I think humans should still have access to animal resources and you don't
>what do you even mean by "reciprocal link" with humans? severely mentally retarded people cant make a "reciprocal link" with humans
Mentally retarded people will have some basic understanding of your intentions and your presence as a threat to themselves, causing them mental anguish, so no that's not okay. A reciprocal link I just mean with dogs in that they can read human body language and signals, they can signal us and we return expected signals back to dogs. Because of that they form a social link with us, this link would give dogs constant warning signs that they are in danger when in a farming environment and it would lead to a form of mental breakdown in the dogs
>first of all, these animals to have social relationships with humans, and are just as sentient as dogs and monkeys. second of all, is it okay to enslave, rape, torture and kill monkeys and dogs that are so stupid that they CANNOT form "reciprocal links" with humans? we can easily breed such animals
All claims you make in quantity and types of sentience are conjecture
A form of the eugenics you describe with dogs has been attempted in China, but from my research it's clear that these social functions are still present in dogs. The social functions still would be there in monkeys. To achieve what you describe is beyond modern medicine right now and would require a complete rewiring of the brain. It opens up another moral pitfall that there's no need to go down when we already have animals like cows which offer us what we want
>for the 2 options you gave me, obviously i would prefer the "free, happy" existence, but i think this is a FALSE DICHOTEMY. if aliens invaded earth, i would perfer that i wasnt a slave with a "relatively free, happy, meaningful existence with a painless death" in the first place. i would prefer the aliens would leave me alone
I would prefer they left us alone too, but I find it interesting to probe this question a bit. What if we are already being farmed by aliens? Like alien abductions you hear about, what if they are true, sometimes they abduct but take humans back and some other times they abduct and eat them - Even though to any higher moral standard the aliens would be wrong (and would make themselves vulnerable to another alien race doing the same to them) you would have to admit in this scenario considering the circumstances you would probably find the aliens to have given you just enough freedom to live a life while never likely experiencing the effects of their farming. In other words, the aliens have minimized their suffering as much as possible given the circumstances
>not to mention you have to be SO FUCKING FACETIOUS to pretend that animals live nice lives, even on the absolute best farms on earth. ALL of them are still enslaved, killed against their own will at a fraction of their lives, live in a prison with no freedom
Yeah, I want to reform the farming system so they live to an acceptable age and are given acceptable amounts of freedom. And I am against dairy farming like I said in my earlier posts
>yeah, but you do have a choice right now with how you treat animals. thats why you are a FUCKING HYPOCRITE. you abuse animals for your FUCKING PLEASURE
I eat animals because I'm not convinced of the health requirements of the human body being met long-term by a vegan diet. There's pretty much 0 studies which show what happens to a human body from being a baby to 70 years old while eating 0 meat. Even if I stopped eating meat now then I've still gained the health I have by eating meat previously, meaning that at some point it needs to happen because humans are omnivores, it's in our nature. Do I need to eat meat to stay alive? No… Do I need to eat meat to ensure optimal wellbeing? Yes
Also this "you eat animals just for PLEASURE" stuff is a reductio ad absurdum argument. It's like me saying that if your electricity comes from pigs blood then you abuse pigs just so you can jack off to porn, for your PLEASURE, omg you absolute monster!!!!!!!
>by both of our moral systems, we agree that you are a animal abusing hypocrite. but by MY moral system, i reject that im a animal abusing hypocrite, because i think the harm i do to animals or humans because my diet is morally justified
You can't apply moral standards to me then just not apply them to yourself, wtf
>well, first of all, compared to eating meat, i think a vegan diet is morally superior because it causes a dramatic reduction in harm to animals, and the harm isnt for our pleasure, its for survival
It causes harm reduction in some areas for sure, yes, but it's not 0 harm, and the harm you cause is still quite staggering when you actually think about it. The harm you cause is more often than not for your pleasure, even if you aren't fully aware of your connection to the harm. Also given that there are many more "morally superior" methods than even veganism, such as freeganism, yet you don't feel compelled to go down this route shows me that you want to cause harm reduction only to a certain extent - your own comfort
>when it comes to the subject of the ethics of killing animals, people get extraordinarily defensive and facetious
Were you going around calling them monsters and that they love torturing animals? If so then it's only natural for them to get defensive
>even if plants are sentient, we still have a moral obligation to go vegan, because a vegan diet dramatically reduces the suffering of those poor plants
Possibly, but not necessarily. It's also likely that the plants humans prefer to eat feel far more pain than the corn and soy fed to animals
Also did you know that when there's a surge of veganism in an area that there are far less left-overs for the animals? If this happens for long enough or if it remains uneconomical to feed the animals then it's yet another link that you have to animal suffering. I'm not making some grand point with this, other than the fact that your actions aren't as clear cut as you make out
>well, according to the dictionary, the word "voluntarily" requires free will. are you saying plants have free will? dont you think its a bit facetious for you to say we dont even know what consciousness is, yet you are invoking a comically great area like plant free will?
I've got nothing to say on free will
By voluntarily I meant that it's not a remotely triggered or reactive signal, it's done based on what some people think to be the individual personality of each plant
>when meat eaters go on long rants about plant sentience as a coping mechanism to paint vegans as plant abusers, thats when the only thing i can do is enjoy the comedy
that's pretty cold man
>i mean, im just appealing to the overwhelming scientific consesus here. and the scientific consensus is that plant sentience is a pseudoscience. but maybe plants are sentient, how do i know? maybe David Chalmers is right about panpsychism, even everything is conscious, who knows?
Yeah, who knows, it's not wise to say for sure that plants are or aren't sentient because we just don't know
>but even if they are sentient, we still have a moral obligation to go vegan, because that reduces plant suffering
You have a personal obligation because of religious veganism yes, your obligations go further than that as if we find that some plants suffer far more than others then your diet will become even more restricted and your mental and physical wellbeing will suffer as a result of this arbitrary moral obligation. I have a moral duty on this also, but not an obligation
>another topic of environmental damage is pollution. farm animals produce HUGE amounts of waste. theres literally small ponds of animal manure. its literally a small sea of animal piss and shit. im NOT making this up. this feces nightmare literally leaks out into local bodies of water, which decimate all the animals who drink or live in the water
>i mean, seriously? you do know the reason why the amazon rain-forests are being burned down is to make room for soy farms and for cattle farms, right? literally farm animals consume like 95%+ of all soy products are consumed by farm animals
>like, you cant be serious when you say that vegans cause the same amount of environmental damage as meat eaters
Methane emission is bad but not in the same way that CO2 is, methane breaks down through entropy almost as quickly as it is created by cows. So yes, the methane in the air right now is storing loads of heat, but it's also dissapearing just as fast as cows fart it out, so it's a stationary heat sink. CO2 on the other hand just stays there and builds up continually, always increasing the heat capacity of the earth. So cow greenhouse gas emissions are nothing compared to conventional green house gasses. Also there's nothing we can do to stop global warming now, it's gonna happen. In 20 years or so humanity will just have to band together to build a massive mirror in space or mass manufacture carbon catchers
The thing about water needed for meat is just a non-argument, water doesn't dissapear, it's still there, animals just move it about. The only cost is in trying to recycle it
The amazon rainforest dissapearing isn't great of course, but it's not some massive catastrophe. Either way with my concept of eating animals at like 3% that humanity does right now would make this a non-issue, so we are arguing the same point here
These environmental effects aren't because of farming, it's because of over-farming
>please tell me how its hypocritical to tell people what they ought do?
is it hypocritical to tell people they ought not to torture and kill children?
You are telling people they ought to do what you tell them to do, because it will make them morally pure, when you are also guilty of the same moral wrongdoings
>if plants experience pain, then i think that bivalves also experience pain, because they literally show the same behavior as plants, even dramatically more complex. bivalves have nerves throughout their body and behave intelligently, just as smart as plants if not smarter. even if they dont have a brain, they have a much more developed nervous system
Bivalves do have nerves but no brain, so any pain experienced will be in the same quantity as plants. Bivalves don't demonstate much of any intelligence, according to natural selection the bivalves were negatively selected for intelligence as intelligence requires energy, which they don't readily have, and no intelligence is required to filter feed.
An argument can be made that plant intelligence far exceeds bivalves, as they communicate, learn, adapt to situations, can perform mathematical calculations, help other plants, warn neighbors of threats, learn through association, have capacity for problem solving, etc, the list would be massive if I went through all of the intelligence traits of plants. Most of which bivalves lack
Even if I were to say that bivalves and plants are equal in intelligence, you should still be open to eating oysters then as it fits your random moral obligation.
That's not all though… you missed the main reason why I said that. Animals suffer and die to feed you, if you just ate bivalves then the harm reduction you cause would absolutely fucking dwarf the reduction you cause by going vegan. Under your own moral stipulations you HAVE to start eating only bivalves now because you are not a hypocrite and I am
But there's no reason for you to do so because such an act would be utterly ridiculous and no reasonable person should expect you to do so. There's no way on earth I could say that you have a moral obligation to only eat bivalves, the only person I can force this moral obligation on is myself and I wouldn't be conceited enough to act morally superior for doing so because it's my personal choice and has nothing to do with anyone else
>your entire rant about plant sentience is also facetious. is it too much to ask you not to be facetious? am i being unreasonable here?
I made no such rant on plant sentience. All I did was say that we can't be sure whether they are or aren't sentient
>like, no seriously, have you heard of pigs screaming at the top of their fucking lungs, as their legs are attached to a mechanical lift, so they will be suspended in the air before they get their throats slashed?
Yeah, it's messed up. I think the system should be reformed
I think new kill methods should be devised also, I've read online of times when cows 'woke up' from the bolt pistol while their body was almost entirely cut in half. Botched kills on pigs where they don't fully cut the arteries etc, it's brutal no doubt. Reform is needed
>i take animal abuse very seriously! im genuine in my debate, im honestly not facetious. if anything im just lazy sometimes, but i am genuine
Me too, I care very much about what life animals have to experience and importantly, what life we might be able to provide them
>for example, if i raped and abused a child once a year, it would be a lot less harm than if i raped and abused a child everyday. but its still child abuse once a year. i think we have a moral obligation not to needlessly abuse humans or animals, regardless of the extent
Agreed, we need to find a more humane way to acquire these resources
>but you are a animal abusing hypocrite, where as i am not
We both are whether you like it or not
>nihilists are moral by their own standards, even if they kill children everyday
By their own standards, yes, not to any higher or universally accepted standard
>but just because you do cause harm to other, doesnt mean you dont have a moral obligation to cause the least amount of needless suffering to animals
>please provide me evidence that we need to eat meat to survive, for nutrition, or be healthy
We don't need it to survive, nor do you need plants to survive. We do probably require meat to be healthy though. I'm not going and finding you studies because studies only analyze one particular tiny area with regards to health, I'm talking about overall mental and physical wellbeing. Depression among vegans is quite common and quite correlated with the diet. The human body is omnivorous, to deny a certain part of your nature will entail some drawbacks. I'm not willing to sacrifice my wellbeing
>veganism is a ETHICAL PHILOSOPHY. i know its convenient for you to label anything you dont like as a religion, but its in the encyclopedia of PHILOSOPHY, not religion
Sure, christianity endorses an ethical philosophy too which is separate from the religious aspects. Christianity also however imposes a set of morals on the world which can't be challenged if one is to adhere to it, this religious aspect is also a core component to the vegan movement
All your talk of how I'm such a disgusting pig abusing hypocrite and you are a pure moral being, it's pure dogma, it's religion
>>173274>I don't agree that animals in the wild automatically have a better life than what we can potentially offer farm animals
sure but that doesnt morally justify enslaving them and killing them for your taste pleasure. if we enslaved blacks and gave them what we think a better life is than what they had in the wild as tribes-people, would that make slavery for your pleasure and financial profit morally acceptable?
> we don't need to kill them, we could build barriers, deterrents…
yeah sure, i would agree with this. its just more expensive to do so. but if there was a way to do so, then we have a moral obligation to do so. maybe with ai-piloted drones to zap them or something whenever they try to steal or food. i dont know
>There are different kinds of morals, if you were to ask muslims the question you brought up then a lot of them….
again, you DODGED THE QUESTION. please stop bringing up irrelevant red herrings and rambling off in a irrelevant tangent when its inconvenient for you
i asked you "why is it okay to treat animals this way, but not humans" and you said "because theres laws protecting humans"
and when i pointed out to situations where there wasn't laws protecting humans, and if the lack of those laws makes it okay to exploit, enslave and kill humans, you dodged the question
if you think that the reason why its okay to kill animals but not humans is because of the law, then you would have to concede its morally okay to enslave and kill humans if there wasn't a law, otherwise you would contradict yourself
>Now you aren't perfect, same as everyone else
more of these irrelevant ad homs. coping by deluding yourself into thinking that everyone contributes to the exploitation of animals for their amusement is irrelevant. i entirely reject your accusations, but even if they are true, they are IRRELEVANT
> I'm saying that you have no grounds to claim moral superiority
you keep interpreting me as me lording over my moral superiority over you. i dont necessarily think this is the case. as a PHILOSOPHY, i think that veganism is morally superior to eating meat. as a ETHICAL PHILOSOPHY
but that doesnt entail that vegans as people are morally superior to meat eaters, because vegans could be the biggest liars, cheaters, abusers, child kidnappers, rapists, etc. my arguing that as a philosophy and a way of living, its morally superior, and the version of yourself that is vegan is morally superior to the version of yourself who eats meat. does that make sense?
> I don't agree that you adhere to this moral
what i do is fucking irrelevant. you can believe i rape children and own slaves and casually bomb poor countries, if that makes you feel any better. feel free to delude yourself that vegans are evil immoral people because they contribute to animal deaths when they buy spinach. the ONLY relevant question here is "can eating meat be morally justified"
>or reasonable long term
well, i'd argue that veganism is the most sustainable diet, because it has the smallest environmental impact out of any diet. the environmental damage of meat is really high, compared to beans or potatoes. but to be honest, i never really cared much for the environment. i care for animal suffering primarily
>at least their young ones
so its okay to enslave and kill the older tribes people who cannot form social contracts with us?
> With severely mentally retarded people it's dependent on many things, if they were in pain and suffering and wanted to die then it's fine to kill them. If they are dangerous to everyone around them then we would have to enslave them somehow, like putting them in a mental hospital
bro, you DODGED THE QUESTION ENTIRELY. im just asking for logical consistency here. severely mentally retarded people are no different to animals, in regards to their intelligence and capacity to make social contracts. is it okay to breed them into slavery and kill them for your pleasure?
dont bring up these irrelevant hypothetical like "oh, but its okay to kill them if they're in pain =D". you said "social contract tho", and im holding you to your standards. severely mentally retarded people cannot form social contracts, so does that make it okay to enslave, rape, castrate, torture and kill them for my pleasure? farm animals are not dangerous to other people, they are born and killed into oppressive slavery, all for your amusement
you said its okay to do so to animals because they cant form social contracts, so does that make it okay to do so to severely mentally retarded people and mentally retarded children?
if its not, then you are contradicting yourself. im just asking for logical consistency
>You are a hypocrite by the same higher moral standards that you happily hold me to account for
no, because i dont pay for animals to be enslaved, tortured and killed for my AMUSEMENT. i pay for them to be killed indirectly in self-defense and by accident for my sustenance. i dont pay for dog fighting rings either, which also is paying for animals to be exploited and killed for my amusement. i reject that killing a animal with pesticides is torture for my amusement. if you disagree, feel free to think so, but again, thats irrelevant
>I do believe that vegans cause untold amounts of suffering to animals, plants, just as meat eaters do
they cause suffering, but its dramatically less, and its for self-preservation and the killings are done in self-defense. if you unironically think that vegans and meat eaters cause the same amount of suffering to animals you are either comically delusional or comically facetious
>The main purpose for them saying things like that is to mirror your hostile and preachy attitude
yeah, but im FUCKING RIGHT
just because it hurts your feelings doesnt mean im wrong. im sure that child torturers and rapist and people who torture dogs get facetious and disingenuous when confronted with their behavior, but the person telling them its wrong is still right. its really sad that you have no intellectual honesty when confronted with your animal abuse
not to mention, you only eat meat once a week and literally concede its immoral
????????????? *confused black guy* ????????
why is it so difficult for you to go vegan? you barely eat meat as it is. and if theres no moral difference between eating meat and being vegan as you facetiously argue, why not eat meat every day?
okay, i think im more or less done arguing with you. nice chat, but i feel ive already made the points i want to make
and one last thing about hypocrisy; hypocrisy is predicated on your OWN moral standards. you cannot be a hypocrite if you think you are doing something okay. for example, if i kill someone and i think its morally justified, someone callot call me a hypocrite if they disagree with me. hypocrisy is when you treat others in ways you wouldn't want to be treated yourself, the golden rule
and no one being honest would be okay with being born into slavery, forcibly impregnated AKA raped, castrated, eletro-shocked, have their kids taken away, have their teeth pulled out and tails removed, and killed at a small fraction of their life, so some superior more powerful and intelligent species can stuff their stomachs with so many bacon double cheeseburgers that they become so obese that their bodies cannot stand up and support their weight, so they start using scooters to get around so they can eat even more double bacon cheeseburgers and die of diabetes and morbid obesity at the age of 51
fun fact: i used to live with a guy who was super-morbidly obese, and ate predominantly meat and processed carbs. pasta with meat sauce is all he ate. he also used to smoke cigarettes all day right outside the door, and he and his girlfriend used to smoke crack and meth together. he died of a heart attack in a ambulance at the age of 50. he used to steal my food and pretend it wasnt him
i showed him animal suffering, and presented vegan arguments to him and he didnt want to see it, and deluded himself that the canned meat and exceptionally cheap butcher cuts he was spending his government check on was ethically sourced
may i be the first to suggest that there is no ethical way to enslave and kill an animals who doesnt want to die. humane killing for taste pleasure is a contradiction; a oxymoron
also, here is a general resource for anyone interested in veganism. i think that veganism is morally superior to eating meat, and i think you have a moral duty to go vegan, in the same way you have a moral duty not to torture children or kill random homeless people
veganism is actually a non-action. when you are vegan, you are just not participating in something evil. you arent a good person for being evil, but i do think if you consciously eat meat after being exposed to veganism, you become an immoral version of yourself, as i consider animal abuse immoral
feel free to post your qualms or moral justifications as to why its morally acceptable to enslave and kill cows and chickens, but not humans
but as it stands right now, i consider ALL meat eaters on this website to be hypocrites of the highest order imaginable. we literally have a entire board called /dep/, where there are these endless pity parties of people complaining about injustices towards them. people crying with quivering lips saying how its IMMORAL that normies abuse them, that bullying is MORALLY WRONG, that its wrong how their parents abuse them, how society and females mistreat them etc
and then they turn around and pay for animals to be abused, exploited and kills, for their pleasure. it bothers me that theres so much hypocritical moralfagging on this board, and i feel inclined to point it out
vegan activists often say "by spreading veganism, we are making people consciously aware of the suffering they are causing to animals. before, most of them grew up for decades without even thinking about farm animal ethics ONCE, but once they've been repeatedly exposed to it, and thought about it, most of them will continue to eat meat. and at that point, they've consciously chose to abuse animals, and cannot appeal to ignorance anymore"
ignorance is bliss, after all. and im just here to make you aware of the truth
Comfy vegan street interviews:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAHHcq1WwtUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rabHBbgDH3Uhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ4cwqvo9L8
horrors of slaughterhouses:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEskohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KezHKbUzy0A
horrors of the dairy industry:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI
understanding why we eat pigs and love dogs:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao2GL3NAWQU
philosophical arguments for veganismhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1vW9iSpLLkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLl3vEGU49Q
how to get started on a vegan diet:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wofs3rFnggshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgiOT_kZ_jshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKwnMCEp3HM
how meat causes diabetes, cancer and heart disease:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXigmGZk5FU&list=PL5TLzNi5fYd8FjyRK69fnvN3nX4TCvrez
vegan weight lifterhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftonX5zBrHUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHrysja5lYw
environmental damage of the meat industryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7854HbH9Ro
how animals are the main originating source of all viruses and pandemicshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_ppXSABYLY
>>173279>if we enslaved blacks and gave them what we think a better life is than what they had in the wild as tribes-people, would that make slavery for your pleasure and financial profit morally acceptable?
already answered this
>again, you DODGED THE QUESTION. please stop bringing up irrelevant red herrings and rambling off in a irrelevant tangent when its inconvenient for you
>i asked you "why is it okay to treat animals this way, but not humans" and you said "because theres laws protecting humans"
already answered this, it's not okay morally because of social contract and it's not okay individually because of laws which are made to maintain the social contract
>and when i pointed out to situations where there wasn't laws protecting humans, and if the lack of those laws makes it okay to exploit, enslave and kill humans, you dodged the question
>if you think that the reason why its okay to kill animals but not humans is because of the law, then you would have to concede its morally okay to enslave and kill humans if there wasn't a law, otherwise you would contradict yourself
The function of the law is to maintain the social contract which excludes human slavery entirely
>coping by deluding yourself into thinking that everyone contributes to the exploitation of animals for their amusement is irrelevant. i entirely reject your accusations, but even if they are true, they are IRRELEVANT
You expoliting animals for your own amusement is irrelevant? What you say here isn't consistent with your moral stance
>i dont necessarily think this is the case. as a PHILOSOPHY, i think that veganism is morally superior to eating meat. as a ETHICAL PHILOSOPHY
The concepts that veganism appeals to such as freedom for all living beings, minimizing of suffering, etc etc, is morally superior to how people operate in society, yes. These concepts are not upheld by veganism though because currently it's quite impossible as I've shown over my past few posts
Either way, I uphold the same moral goals as yourself, the main difference between us is that I accept the harm I do and you choose ignore it
>feel free to delude yourself that vegans are evil immoral people because they contribute to animal deaths when they buy spinach. the ONLY relevant question here is "can eating meat be morally justified"
Given the current state of reality, in which organic products are essential to the function of society, I believe that providing animals a good life morally justifies using their bodies
If we reach a point where animal products are no longer required and meat is succesfully synthesized then it will no longer be morally justified
What's your moral justification for the harm you do?
>so its okay to enslave and kill the older tribes people who cannot form social contracts with us?
No, because they have the capacity to form a social contract too, evidenced by their continuing society
>bro, you DODGED THE QUESTION ENTIRELY. im just asking for logical consistency here. severely mentally retarded people are no different to animals, in regards to their intelligence and capacity to make social contracts
This assumption is untrue, mentally retarded people still have social capabilities which is the basis of the social contract
>severely mentally retarded people cannot form social contracts, so does that make it okay to enslave, rape, castrate, torture and kill them for my pleasure?
Show me 1 example where they "cannot" form a social contract, and to be clear here "cannot" is the operative word, it's nothing to do with willingness it's to do with capacity. To save you time, there's no such example, your question is ignorant of reality
>you said its okay to do so to animals because they cant form social contracts, so does that make it okay to do so to severely mentally retarded people and mentally retarded children?
No, because they can, the social contract is an essential component of human social nature
>no, because i dont pay for animals to be enslaved, tortured and killed for my AMUSEMENT.
I've demonstrated that you do, yet you didn't address my points
>i pay for them to be killed indirectly in self-defense and by accident for my sustenance
This isn't the case for every animal death you are linked to, which involves your pleasure in many instances
>i reject that killing a animal with pesticides is torture for my amusement. if you disagree, feel free to think so, but again, thats irrelevant
Those deaths are torture for your taste pleasure, what I meant with amusement is the deaths sustained by animals in order to sustain your current lifestyle, e.g. using electricity to jack off to porn, listen to music, watch movies, engaging in various hobbies with which animals died to give you the platform to engage in those hobbies. This isn't an exhaustive list too, your benefit in pretty much every aspect of your life from animal suffering
>they cause suffering, but its dramatically less, and its for self-preservation and the killings are done in self-defense
We already agree that it's not done in self defense but for economical reasons
>if you unironically think that vegans and meat eaters cause the same amount of suffering to animals you are either comically delusional or comically facetious
It's closer than you make it out to be, especially for a health conscious meat eater like myself who doesn't eat meat every day
>just because it hurts your feelings doesnt mean im wrong. im sure that child torturers and rapist and people who torture dogs get facetious and disingenuous when confronted with their behavior, but the person telling them its wrong is still right. its really sad that you have no intellectual honesty when confronted with your animal abuse
And my accusations of your similar amounts of damage done to animals is also true, whether it hurts your feelings or ego doesn't matter. Before you reply to this saying THATS IRRELEVANT NONO YOU CAN't ACCUSE ME I ONLY ACCUSE YOU - I accept that the current farming system is fucked up and cannot morally justify it. I'm against it
>not to mention, you only eat meat once a week and literally concede its immoral
To a higher moral standard, yes it's wrong, as is eating plants, poisoning animals, killing animals to entertain yourself, all of which you engage in too
>why is it so difficult for you to go vegan? you barely eat meat as it is. and if theres no moral difference between eating meat and being vegan as you facetiously argue, why not eat meat every day?
Like I said about 5 posts ago, meat should be eaten in moderation in order to optimise your health. Eating red meat every day for example is quite unhealthy, but once a week or 2 weeks is healthy
And I see no reason to go vegan as it wouldn't reduce very much the amount of animals that need to die to sustain my lifestyle. The harm I cause in every other area of my life far outweights a cow dying every 8 years and therefore the harm reduction I can achieve is greater if I act pragmatically rather than religiously
Your whole moral stance on doing the right thing and reducing suffering is great, when you only apply it to this 1 area of life and nowhere else because it's convenient for yourself is why I disagree with any moral superiority claims that you or veganism make
I can pose the same thing back at you, why's it so difficult for you to just go freegan? The harm reduction in that case would be far greater than me going vegan, and an honest moral argument would HAVE to be in favour of something like freeganism as Veganism is still fucked up
Why's it so difficult for you to just eat oysters only? Why did you ignore points such as these?
The reason is that you have to protect your ego, which you feel safe to brandish in discussions about veganism because you are ignorant of your true role and responsibilities in the world. Your moral justification for these actions is just as weak as mine when compared to moral ideals. You want to be morally superior to people and take advantage of animal suffering to do so, it's frankly disgusting to be quite honest with you. At least I admit to the suffering I cause
>>173098>but then they turn around and do the same thing to animals. animals like pigs, cows and chickens are enslaved, raped, castrated, branded and sent to a slaughterhouse to be killed, for your TASTE PLEASURE. in the USA alone they kill over 100 MILLION pigs a year. the average dog has the intelligence of a 2.5 year old, and the average pig has the intelligence of a 3 year old
I have a question: are your objections to animal farming grounded on the fact that they are sentient (thus, they can experience suffering)? If technology evolved into such a way farmers could induce a permanent coma into these animals (thus, they would never experience suffering), would you still be against animal farming?
>>173293> are your objections to animal farming grounded on the fact that they are sentient (thus, they can experience suffering)?
yes, i think we OUGHT to give moral status to being with sentience. i reject that plants and bacteria are sentient, even though they are alive and behave very intelligently. modern farm animals like pigs, cows, chickens, lambs, goats, and turkeys are sentient, thats why i think we ought not to pay for them to be exploited and killed for our pleasure
insect sentience is in the super grey zone, and since its questionable, i think its reasonable not to unjustifiably kill them or exploit them, incase they do have some degree of sentience. i think swatting a fly thats bothering you is justified because that fly is assaulting you and is a home invader. same thing for bug infestations
>If technology evolved into such a way farmers could induce a permanent coma into these animals (thus, they would never experience suffering), would you still be against animal farming?
i think it depends on how its done
i saw some news article a while back about a lamb grown in a artificial womb. FIRST OF ALL, let me say i find this practice really disturbing and disgusting, but i think it has the potential solution to work
my problem with it is the animal is alive and has a brain. im not so confident we can say with absolute certainty that it's not conscious or sentient, because in edge cases there exists humans who temporarily died, and had no active brain stimulation, yet they still reported consciousness after they were resuscitated
i think if they can somehow genetically engineer an animal not to have a brain, then i think probably it would be morally acceptable. its still really disturbing, but i'd have to roll my eyes at this one and say its probably okay
there are plant based alternatives like beyond meat or impossible burgers which, atleast in my opinion, compete with traditional meat in terms of taste. but if you want actual flesh, and dont want partial lab grown meat, then i guess it would probably be the most moral way to go about it, even if its really disturbing
I always kill insects fast because they are sentient. It's not grey zone. See how cockroaches act when under the toxins of repelents. It's torture imo.
what i dont understand is this odd prevailing attitude on this website and other imageboards of "morality is for the weak". like, the posters here commonly have this smug proud attitude that they are above morals
like, heellloooooo? heres a newsflash: YOU ARE THE WEAK
are the "strong" adult virgins, depressed, long term neets, chronically unemployed or underemployed, suicidal and shy?
like, i just DONT UNDERSTAND this smug attitude people here have towards ethics and morality towards other people. they are so eager and quick to complain and moralfag when they are the victims. so many people here, ESPECIALLY on /dep/, moralfag about how evil bullies are, how evil normies are, how evil society and their parents are, etc. you'd think morals and ethics would be important to them
BUT NO. its SO COMMON for me to listen to the bottom of the barrel of society disparaging morals. it makes no sense to me
its like, its only important when you are the victim. i just dont understand this smug pride attitude towards ethics from the posters of this website
animal rights issues are a very serious moral topic because animals suffer HORRIFICALLY, and for some reason, the same people who are so quick to moralfag about ANYTHING else (pedos, circumcision, sharia law, abortion, rich e-thots, bullying, general politics) turn into proud turbo-alpha-males nihilistic sociopaths REAL quick on the topic of veganism
its so odd
Morality truly is for the weak, but it actually serves the weak. It's logical for most people to gang up against murder because it benefits themselves. It doesn't make sense to apply this to animals because animals cannot do anything to deter any transgression towards you.
Human rights is for human. Fuck animals.
If I cut my dick off, will I stop being weak?
It's a higher intelligence thing that you apparently can't understand
You think personal identity should change what your opinion is about something intellectual… Pretty stupid, the two have no relationship
Get over yourself. Hedonistic and nihilistic amorality is the most normgroidic philosophy on planet Earth.
>>173508>It doesn't make sense to apply this to animals because animals cannot do anything to deter any transgression towards you
if you think that moral status should only be given to anyone who can fight back, then by those standards, might makes right
literally people who torture and kill children are moral because the children can do nothing against it
all the bullies and evil people and society who abuses you are MORAL, by these standards, because you have no recourse to defend yourself
the logical conclusion of "might makes right" literally makes anything morally acceptable, including slavery, torture and murder
by your standards, if you were born into slavery, and were tortured and killed at a fraction of your lifespan, its moral, because the perpetrators got away with it
>It's logical for most people to gang up against murder because it benefits themselves
thats not true AT ALL. throughout most of human history, tribal genocide was the standard. if you believe "might makes right", then killing people for fun if you are stronger is morally acceptable
but yet you yourself would cry endless hypocritical tears if you were abused or exploited, like the hypocrites over at /dep/
tell me, why is it okay for you to exploit and kill animals for your pleasure, but its not okay for a superior alien species to enslave you and your family for their pleasure?
>>173509>Unfortunately society does not even protect vulnerable people like myself
thats not true AT ALL. you have human rights protecting you. you have freedom of speech, you have freedom from enslavement, you arent in bondage
society absolutely does protect you. granted, its surely much less compared to females or rich people, but you are still granted a nearly unprecedented amount of protection and liberties, compared to any other period in history
>let alone protect the rights and well being of animals
thats technically not true. its illegal to kill and eat dogs and cats. literally if you kill and eat a dog, there will be a small army of braindead normie meat eaters at your doorstep
but for some reason society doesnt care for the lives and well being of pigs, cows and chickens, which are just as sentient as dogs, and suffer just as deeply
> I think the problem is a lot of us suffer horrifically, both emotionally and physically, so its hard to empathize with animals
well, i understand you dont really care, but that doesnt make it alright to abuse animals. if everyone were to act like this, then when its your turn to be the victim, nobody would care either
and just because you were abused yourself doesnt make it alright to abuse other. this is a "2-wrongs-make-a-right" logical fallacy
by this FALLACIOUS reasoning, you can do anything. literally people can do "i was abused as a kid, so its okay for me to rape, torture and kill other random people"
animals are fucking innocent creatures who are born into a life of slavery and unimagineable horrors. willingly participating in their abuse because you were abused yourself is no justification for doing so
>Just like its hard for normies to empathize with us, they simply cannot understand our suffering.
i understand you were abused by others, but do 2 wrongs make a right?
is it morally acceptable for you to abuse others, or children, because you were abused yourself, and you cannot empathize with others?
and i have to mention, as of right now, you are CONSCIOUSLY AWARE of the abuse you are causing to animals. growing up, you were simply ignorant of it, and cannot be held morally responsible, because you simply didnt know
but because of annoying vegans reminding you of it, you become aware of the suffering you are causing. thats why vegan activists commonly say "before we told people about this, they werent bad people, because they simply didnt know. but after we showed them the harm they are causing, most of them will stay eating meat, and become conscious animal abusers who are too stubborn and proud to change"
conscious intent matters in moral responsibility, and you are now consciously aware of the harm you are causing to animals
and im asking you to try to morally justify eating animals, because im arguing there is no moral justification for eating meat, in the same way there is no moral justification for torturing and killings dogs for fun
why is it okay to kill and eat a cow, but not a human? whats the difference that justifies the difference in treatment?>>173510
why are humans so special? please tell me whats the difference between humans and pigs that give humans moral consideration, but not pigs?
Morality within a species facilitates social cohesion. If we didn't extend moral status to fellow humans, we never would have advanced past the hunter-gather stage. But because our brain is wired to make us feel good when helping others, we were able to create societies. Societies that were based around the enslavement of animals, funnily enough.
Humans have self consciousness animals - haven't.
>>173522>I don't like it therefore normies
Thinking isn't your strong suit.
>>173523>>173525>morally acceptable>morally acceptable>morally acceptable
Newsflash chucklefuck: There is no universal code of morals. You are arguing thin air.
>>173526>Morality within a species facilitates social cohesion. If we didn't extend moral status to fellow humans, we never would have advanced past the hunter-gather stage
what does this have anything to do with anything? this is a red herring. its IRRELEVANT as to what is morally permissible or not
im asking you wether killing animals for meat is morally acceptable, and if so, why. im saying that you OUGHT NOT TO kill animals for meat, and thats its wrong. how morals shape societies is irrelevant
>Societies that were based around the enslavement of animals, funnily enough.
are you saying that its moral to do if we do it?
this is an is-ought fallacy. you are trying to derive an OUGHT from an IS. and in moral philosophy, you cant derive an ought from an ishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problemhttps://fallaciesfiles.weebly.com/the-isought-fallacy.html
by this FALACIOUS logic, we can morally justify slavery of black people
in the past, a large part of society was build around slaves of blacks. slavery was one of the most profitable industries, if not the most profitable industry. someone back then can say the same garbage you are saying right now "blacks are slaves because its the law, they arent people, and morals exist for white people because we build society and base our society off the slavery of blacks"
he is trying to derive that we OUGHT to have slaves because it IS that we have slaves
and you cannot derive an "ought" from a "is". you cannot derive a moral statement from a descriptive statement. read this picture here >>173254>>173527
thats not true. i linked scientific evidence that directly refuted your statement in this post >>173171
dont post unscientific garbage without evidence. PLEASE show me the scientific evidence that animals are not sentient or conscious>>173534
the debate on wether morals are objective or subjective is fucking irrelevant. im asking for YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION ON MORALS. you can be a subjective and think torturing and killing children is wrong
im asking you to morally justify killing animals for your pleasure. are you saying that morals dont exist? are you a nihilist?
>>173551>are you a nihilist?
Where do you think you are?
>>173551>the debate on wether morals are objective or subjective is fucking irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant. The only reason you are in this thread is because you are asserting that objective morals exist by attempting to apply your morals to others. You have no ground to stand on, and therefore have no reason to be in this thread. That's why it's relevant.
>im asking you to morally justify killing animals for your pleasure
I don't need to because I don't see anything wrong with it.
>>173555>The only reason you are in this thread is because you are asserting that objective morals exist
do you know what a strawman is? because thats literally what you did. here, let me define what a strawman is for you
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
please dont strawman me, thank you
>by attempting to apply your morals to others.
again, another strawman. what im doing is asking for your OPINION on what is morally acceptable or not, and why. im questioning your moral system for logical consistency, because im arguing that animals OUGHT to have moral status, because there is no morally relevant difference between the 2 that makes it okay to abuse and exploit one, but not the other
thats why i often ask "what is the difference between a cow and a human that makes it okay to kill the cow for meat, but not the human?". we dont need to argue meta-ethics once we've established some moral baseline
what do i mean by moral baseline? i mean something we both agree is morally wrong
common examples a lot of the whiny hypocrites on /dep/ would agree on:>its morally wrong to torture and kill children for your pleasure>its morally wrong to enslave, rape, castrate and kill members of another race for exploitation>bullying is wrong because humans are important
and once we have established someone we agree on, then we can reason from there. if you want to REJECT all of these normative claims, thats perfectly fine, so ill just question you about your moral system and how its work and why
i know its convenient to strawman me, but i take animal abuse seriously, so i'd ask you not to do it if you want to have a intellectually honest conversation about ethics
>I don't need to because I don't see anything wrong with it.
okay, do you see anything wrong with torturing and killing children for your pleasure? do humans and children have moral status in your ethical system?
can i ask you; do you believe in god?
i think god is important to talk about when talking to nihilists. no one else
i ask because from my knowledge, most nihilists dont believe in god
please tell me what you define god as (every single person defines it differently) and tell me if you believe in god, thank you
No. But tell me more about ASI as a godlike entity casting moral judgement upon meat eaters (but not vegans contributing to human slavery and the destruction of local eco systems with their holier-than-thou diets), ban evader.
Not a strawman buddy, you admitted it yourself. "because im arguing that animals OUGHT to have moral status". This is your belief. You are trying to impose it on others. Get fucked son.
>okay, do you see anything wrong with torturing and killing children for your pleasure? do humans and children have moral status in your ethical system?
I do not need to consider this because I have no intent to do this.
>you admitted it yourself. "because im arguing that animals OUGHT to have moral status"
thats not imposing a fucking belief. im making arguments for it. making arguments for something is not imposing
impose is defined as "force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place"
im not FORCING you to do anything, im just providing arguments that abusing animals is immoral and hypocritical, and pointing out any logical inconsistencies with your moral justification of killing animals for pleasure
im not tying you down and force feeding you beans and corn. you are free to do as you wish, just understand that i dont think you can morally justify eating meat. if you concede its immoral and you just dont care, thats fine! just own it
the only thing im forcing you to do is acknowledge that its immoral to eat meat, and that you contradict yourself if you make any logical errors. but if you think that's a correct use of the word "impose", then by your standards, any philosophical discourse is also imposing on your pre-held beliefs
i know its hard for someone to make you question your beliefs about things, but this is a thread about ETHICAL PHILOSOPHY
veganism even has a chapter in the philosophy encyclopedia!https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/
>ASI as a godlike entity casting moral judgement upon meat eaters
anon, i feel as if you are disparaging and belittling the single biggest event in human history. the birth of super human ai is going to be such a big event, its literally going to be the birth of god. it will be omniscient and omnipotent, which is what i define god to be
thats why i think its contradictory to be a atheist, because super ai is going to be god. that alone is proof against atheism. and, from my little understanding, nihilism logically follows from atheism. most nihilists dont believe in god and say since there is no god there is no morals. thats why i point out to you that there is god
on a side note, its always fun to point out the hypocrisy of the whiny animal abusers in this website. on SO MANY THREADS people complain to god about how its not fair. they cry with hypocritical crocodile tears about how its not fair they were abused and mistreated in life, and they cry out to god, with animal blood on their hands. the hypocrisy is truly priceless
>(but not vegans contributing to human slavery and the destruction of local eco systems with their holier-than-thou diets
um, you are assuming that this god will be a good god that will bring justice to the world. while i would LOVE for this to happen, im not sure if i agree to this. this is why i try to sometimes learn about the ontology of god, but im honestly too stupid to learn that stuff
but if god will bring justice, then all of the evils that vegans do will also get met with justice, if that makes you feel any better
believe it or not, i was never banned from wizchan or 4ch. i just didnt post on wizchan for so long because a year or 2 ago, my vegan thread was deleted even though i didnt break any rules, so i just didnt enjoy speaking in a place where i dont have had free speech and my threads got deleted even though i didnt break any rules
i know its convenient for you to lie about me like the facetious human being that you are, but i would appreciate it if you didnt, thank you
for some reason, because get so facetious and disingenuous and intellectually dishonest when they are reminded of their animal abuse. even the virgins of wizchan. you would think they would be above acting like neurotypicals, BUT NO. even they get irrational and defensive
>I do not need to consider this because I have no intent to do this.
you dont understand. this is a HYPOTHETICAL used to test logical consistency in your moral system. in entry level philosophy, nerds with no life like myself ABSOLUTELY LOVE to use all kinds of hypotheticals to point out inconsistencies in people's positions
these are used in any ethical conversation; politics, abortion, circumcision, invasion of other countries, imigrants, etc
for you to reject the hypothetical would be for you to reject philosophical discourse because its too uncomfortable for you. and if you arent willing to answer hypothetical, at that point, you are digging your head in the sand, because its too uncomfortable for you to think
if you've noticed, vegans are always willing to answer any hypothetical you can think of, because their position is actually logically consistent, mr. hypocritical whiny animal abuser
>>173572>thats not imposing
Oh, my apologies, I didn't realise you were ESL so you struggle to understand the nuances of the english language. "Dictionary definitions for me, not for thee".
>you dont understand. this is a HYPOTHETICAL
Morals are simply what a group of people agree what is considered right and wrong, so they can get along. For all intents and purposes, morals are law. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand.
>>173573>I didn't realise you were ESL so you struggle to understand the nuances of the english language
oh, i didnt know you get to define words however you like at your convenience? you remind me of those irrational females who scream rape when they are speaking to men who they dont like, or those obese fat activists who think that saying "being fat is unhealthy" is assault
but my opinion hasnt changed, as i dont think im imposing my opinion on you. im not telling you "IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG, SHUT UP", and using force like banning you or silencing you. im just presenting an argument with premises that logically follow to the conclusion, and i ask questions about your moral system to point out logical inconsistencies. i dont think philosophical discourse is "imposing my opinion on people"
like, if you disagree with any of the things i said, im always open to talking about them. i even entertain all of your "plants have feelings =O" garbage. whatever dude, i try being intellectually generous
lol, thats not a fucking argument, thats just you running away from philosophical discourse because its uncomfortable for you to see that your behavior causes harm to animals more intelligent than dogs
>Morals are simply what a group of people agree what is considered right and wrong
i think technically they are what a person considers right and wrong, but i agree that society has its own set of acceptable and unacceptable behavior
>For all intents and purposes, morals are law. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand
well, the law is a reflection of societies morals, but thats irrelevant. its a red-herring. im asking for YOUR morals, the behaviors that are acceptable and not acceptable for you. not for societies morals, not for the morals of other people, not for your mom's morals, not on whether morals are objective or subjective
im asking what standards of behavior you think are acceptable or not acceptable, and why. who deserves moral consideration and who doesnt, and why. stuff like that
and you dodge the hypotheticals because having your head in the sand is more convenient. this is why i respect meat eaters who say "its immoral, but i just dont care", because atleast they are being HONEST
people like you do all this intellectually dishonest stuff, like pretend plants have feelings, or refuse to deal with hypotheticals, or try to turn the table and point out vegans use electronics (and you dont?), etc
even the nihilists who say that torturing, raping and killing a child is absolutely no different than drinking water, morally speaking. these nihilists hold views that most people would consider absurd, but atleast they are being intellectually consistent, and some of them actually are honest and actually do believe that
>>173575>oh, i didnt know you get to define words
"Impose" has multiple definitions. You play semantics and pick which definition is most convenient for you. It's childish.
>im asking for YOUR morals
My morals follow the law, because that's the social contract that I agree to when I participate in society.
>um, you are assuming that this god will be a good god that will bring justice to the world. while i would LOVE for this to happen, im not sure if i agree to this.
So if the AI is not a benevolent god, why would it care if I eat meat or not? Why should I factor its opinion of me into my moral code?
In any case, I think you're making the mistake of anthropormizing it. The danger of ASI lies not in its philosophical or ethical views (of which it will have none). Rather the danger lies in the hypothesized tendency for most sufficiently intelligent agents to pursue unbounded instrumental goals such as self-preservation and resource acquisition.
For example, a computer with the sole goal of solving a difficult mathematics problem like the Riemann hypothesis could attempt to turn the entire solar system into one giant computer in an effort to increase its computational power. It's not gonna give a shit one way or the other about me eating seafood or you contributing to millions of acres of rainforest being cleared by Brazilian farmers in order to capitalize on your holier-than-thou consumer identity. To it, we're just a convenient source of atoms.
>believe it or not, i was never banned from wizchan or 4ch.
I could have sworn that was you complaining on /r9k/ a couple of months ago about repeatedly getting banned from wizchan. But I guess that must have been another militant vegan using the same cringy Facebook-tier memes as you, complete with identical filenames and your telltale manner of debating people by YELLING at your opponent, PROJECTING your own shortcomings onto them and "winning" the debate by simply extending your opponent's argument to ridiculous proportions and then criticizing the result - all while yelling your favorite buzzwords ad nauseam (wanna try something fun? Ctrl+f your threads for "hypocri", "animal abus" "taste pleasure").
(Why yes, we're both /r9k/ crossposters trying and sort of pretending to fit into this place. (You keep quiet about my affinity for Apu Apustaja, veganon, and I'll keep my mouth shut about that time you fingered a prostitute and got an awkward blowjob but was unable to get hard!))
what a perfect description
I also found this article which is quite apt for our local little nutcase;https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dealing-with-arrogant-people_b_990331
"Arrogant people take too many measures to protect their self-image. Their universe is usually small, with statements that have too many "should" and "must." They have idealist views, and a need to impose and make others believe that their universe is the better one. They will usually dislike you if you don't buy into that."
"They are intolerant of differences. They devalue others and put them at a lesser position. They lack the ability to feel confidence internally, and instead find a sensation of superiority by seeing others as inferior. In addition, they can't see different viewpoints. They usually have points of views that are fixated and most of the time not valid, since they are usually the type who only reads the cover of the magazine to look smart, and then is opinioned about it. They may also harshly criticize others who don't buy into their views."
>>173596>and I'll keep my mouth shut about that time you fingered a prostitute and got an awkward blowjob but was unable to get hard!))
no you don't. if you've got proof post it.
i do not under any circumstances eat sheep, goats, cows or bison, deer, rabbits, and other herbivores. I also do not eat squid because they are very intelligent.
i try to eat less chicken and turkey but these ones are very much harder to avoid.
i am perfectly OK with eating pigs and dogs. they are vile disgusting monsters that cannibalize each other and roam in packs looking for infant's faces to eat. they eat their own feces and vomit, and engage in homosexuality and incest.
the only thing that makes me hesitant to eat pig or dog is they are so fucking disgusting i don't know if it's safe to put in my body.
i am perfectly OK with eating fish and insects and my diet is 80% fish. fish and insects are so stupid that biologists have massive arguments about whether or not they can even feel pain. well if they do, the pain is negligible compared to any real animal.
Sounds like a muslim, i prefer dog's company over muslim's.
Ask and you shall receive:https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/59716034/#59716591https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/60293679/#60294559
He's been talking about this sexual encounter in varying levels of detail on several occasions, though with no YELLING about HYPOCRISY or mentions of 'animal abuse' or a 'recursive super-intelligent ai [proving the existence of god]' hamfisted into a response to something completely unrelated, there's no smoking gun, so it takes a bit of detective work to put together a case.
This poster gives a remarkably similar description of an encounter with a prostitute, and while he mskes no direct mention of veganism, he alludes to it by saying he doesn't want to perpetuate any more suffering "human or otherwise." He also - and this is important - mentions drinking green tea with ginger every day:https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/59621068/#59621093
Let's see what happens if we search the archives for 'green tea vegan'. I did not know veganon drank green tea with ginger prior to this, but sure enough: Veganons yapping on about green tea with ginger in his posts about AI, his posts about veganism his posts about vegan soup.https://desuarchive.org/r9k/search/text/Vegan%20green%20tea/
This is all circumstantial though and in theory it could just be a coincidence. Surely there's more than two people on /r9k/ who drinks green tea with ginger. But veganon has been mentioning his age since he was 28 two years ago, and that tea guy who went to a prostitute said he'd be turning 30 in two weeks in a post dated August 17.
Fast forward two weeks and there's a thread from a guy who gives the same description of a visit to a prostitute. This time, he betrays that he indeed doesn't eat meat and that his interest in AI is the only thing giving him a reason to live.https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/59848428/#59848428
I liked the gif he posted of the wizard a lot. What happenes if we search the archives for that wizard gif and that filename? This isn't necessarily a reliable approach, but that picture is rare enough that the archive won't be oversaturated with posts containing it. Let's see what we find.
Another AI-worshipping 29-year-old (as of July 2020) saying that he spends his time learning about veganism. He also mentions AI and the same awkward prostitute encounter.https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/59296004/#59296966
The green tea drinking 30 year old AI-obsessed vegan who went to a prostiitute mentions in the last post that he's 5'11". This begs the question: How tall is veganon?https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/51122309/#51122649
thanks. I hope the mods finally ban him.
looks enough to me, ban him.
Zhis is wizchan 2020, he probably is a mod and nobody will bother banning this trolling lunatic.
I am a vegetarian. I disliked eating meat because I felt bad for animals and one day I just quit.
you don't have to be muslim to see a dog shit on the floor and then turn around and eat that shit and be disgusted by it. i'm disgusted by it as a white person.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Humane Society of the United States, there are about 4.7 million dog bites every year in the U.S. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities.
you also don't have to be muslim to have a problem with those bite stats.https://youtu.be/Bi-f0igUR1c
It's useless trying to argue with dogfags. Have you seen the way they brag about how they care more about dogs than people and how killing a dog in a movie bothers them more than people dying in real life? They're genuinely defective in the brain.
Dogs: friendly, caring, productive, intelligent
Shitskins/Gooks: antisocial, selfish, useless, stupid
dogs: cannibals, maneaters (specifically children and elderly), bark at walls because they're retarded at 106 decibels and keep an entire neighborhood awake, eat poop, eat vomit, eat inedible objects and obstruct their bowels because they're retarded, eat until their stomach bursts because they're retarded
google how often K9 police dogs attack their handler or innocent bystanders and have to be shot lol. even the trained ones are still dumb and unpredictable.
Sheesh, were you raped by a dog in your childhood or something? You're much more likely to get killed by a human.
that's only because your retarded slave is only allowed outside of the house for a few hours a week and they have a BDSM chain around their neck during.
you think it wouldn't be more like 500,000,000 dog attacks a year if they were allowed out when they feel like it?
>>173668>Sheesh, were you raped by a dog in your childhood or something?
Yeah, because succubi love rape jokes. How about you try detecting your brain.
>>173725>succubi>not invoking sex, rape, and other kinds of offense and grotesque jokes at all times when they attempt to "fit in with the guys"
Succubus """comedians""" are proof enough to refute you. Also:>men>writing "sheesh what were u raeped lmao who hurt u sweetie xd clapemoji*100"
lmao, I assumed he was an exceptional weirdo when I was arguing with him in here a few weeks ago but this post makes him appear even more unhinged. "philosophical argument", he made no such thing, just kept saying 'you eat meat for pleasure', then ignored my post when I showed he derives pleasure from animal deaths too. If I knew I was arguing with such a nutcase I wouldn't have bothered
How new are you? He's been at it for years. I don't understand why the mods never took action against him and he was allowed to come back over and over again. These attention starved posters you can instantly recognize are almost always normalfaggots.
I'm new I guess as my replies to him were my first ever posts on this place. I just lurk here once a year or so, I posted because I enjoy debating the "I'm morally superior" vegan types. The moral superior thing and the weird typing style(to identify himself) kinda hint that he's some sort of narcissist so you're probably correct on him being attention starved or vying for attention in some way. I found it pretty hilarious how he suddenly dissapears from this thread and now he's over shitting up r9k
no matter what you eat, you wind up denying something else the right to pursue a formative property of life. the "non-living" elements even possess this trait and what is popularly considered to be alive descended from them.
focusing on veganism, a plant doesnt consciously desire to be eaten just because they evolved fruits. even they desperately reach for light and dig for minerals and water. they show a will to deny the same to other plants if there isnt enough real estate to go around. a wide range of plants are totally antithetical to this supposed desire to be eaten due to their poisonous or otherwise defensive natures. you hate the consumption of meat and yet deny the same dignity that should at least be afforded to plants, too, if not also our ancestral elements.
the truth is the only way to inevitably stop creating suffering for other lifeforms is to waste away and die. life has always cannibalized itself and will continue to do so until the universe is too spent to support anymore of it.
Okay, but there's clearly a difference between killing and eating a human being, killing and eating an animal (hunted or factory farmed), and then finally, the huuuuuge delta between killing sentient creatures (whether or not you include insects here is fine) and farming plants for sustenance. The amount of suffering experienced by each agent is vastly reduced as you go across the spectrum I outlined, with the largest gap occurring when you jump from lower animals/insects to plants.
It would be a huge improvement for life on Earth is meat substitutes and veganism were the predominant diet of humanity. I think your viewpoint is pretty obviously going too far, although it's correct in the same sense of "in the long run we are all dead". It still matters what happens to you in the meantime…
You already proved me correct the second you posted what you did. Here is your last reply you dumb succubus immigrant
the jury is out on whether or not plants can feel pain. we still have no way to know what constitutes even living besides by our own narrow perspective. they definitely have reactions to outside stimulation, though. i am not actually trying to advocate that people just starve to death if they want to avoid harming anything. i meant it more as a way to illustrate a potential conclusion to the sort of moral arguments against eating meat. i am not trying to be some nitpicky devils advocate. i do truly believe all suffering stems from selfish acts to hold onto life. i dont mean to preach to you as i clearly havent found the strength to enact my view. as a side note, humans do have a lot of history with cannibalism and the same is true for many other species. not everything shares the same level of empathy for their own kind. many species are their own biggest competitor.
from an ecological perspective, i agree that the scale and type of meat people are consuming is hugely destructive to natural balance. however, i would say a strong argument could be made for small-scale husbandry. even if i were to stop consuming meat tomorrow, i dont see the harm in raising chickens and cows for eggs and milk. unfertilized eggs should perhaps be considered even less alive than plants. it's analogous to the practice by some vegans who only eat fruits and only when they naturally break away from the plant bearing them.
Salvation is through blood.
I accept your concession.
Plants don't have a nervous system.>…besides by our own narrow perspective…
more biology less liberal arts
likewise, less condescension more facts. good luck proving that central nervous systems are conclusively the only indication that something can feel pain. a lack of methods or tools to prove either way is not conclusive, by the way.
Plants engage in a wide variety of behaviors which are hard to fully understand and some actions they take hint at a possible form of consciousness or awareness. To clarify I don't think it's like animal consciousness but more likely it's a different/new type of awareness that we haven't discovered yet
Plants do show similarities in pain response to animals through the use of the same pain neurotransmitter chemical, however they do not have a nervous system as has been stated, so if they do feel some analogue to pain then it wouldn't be in the same form that animals do. You can see what 'pain' feels like to plants when you google it, scientists have put dye to the glutamate in plants and you can see it spread throughout the whole organism, maybe it's just a defense mecanism to make the plant matter taste foul to caterpillars or maybe it serves a deeper purpose, it's impossible to tell right now
There's research papers coming out all the time, there was an interesting one a week ago showing the chemical mechanism which venus fly traps use to count and perform some rudamentary mathematics
The main question with plants is how they regulate the electrical signals they generate, plus how these complex electrical signals interact with their complex chemical system. Science still doesn't have an answer to this at all, but it does hint at a possible emergent property of awareness in plants, similar to how consciousness is usually an emergent property of a brain. If that is the case then plants most likely do feel pain
All of life reacts to outside stimuli. A bacteria with a motor protein and protein receptors on its surface can move and orient itself towards food based on the concentration gradient of dissolved organic materiel coming from the food. You say that plants use the same chemical that animals use to regulate pain, well maybe its because there's a small amount of hormones that are easy to synthesize. Post a link to a study about plant cognition and I'll read it fam.
It does appear that a lot of plants react via stimuli from built in functions through evolution. For example recently in the study I mentioned about venus fly traps, it was found that plants use calcium flushes as a way to count to 30, once a hair is triggered it releases calcium which slowly starts dissipating and is gone by 30 seconds, but if any calcium is left in the cells and the hair is triggered again this is what causes the trap to shut. Reason I brought that up was something like this obviously isn't cognition and these functions aren't why I think they might possibly be aware
As for studies and stuff there's really not much other than speculation and theorizing. There was a study done on pea plants that seems to suggest some plants are capable of pavlovian learning (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5133544/
) The study basically shows that plants can associate things like wind with light, once the association is made then if you blow wind over a plant it will orient itself towards the wind even if no light is present, the same thing doesn't happen normally with plants so it isn't some built in function. Once again though there's possible reasons for this, I think the paper goes in to explain that there may be mechanical associations within the plant between wind sensing and light sensing, e.g. these 2 senses become entangled somehow, if that's the case it wouldn't really be cognition, although I'm not sure what evolutionary purpose that would have.
What I mainly point to is the electrical signals that plants generate, where these signals come from and why, and how plants interpret these signals etc. We already know that plants communicate with each other through these signals via their roots, mainly as warning signs to other plants, but what we don't know is how they function. Another weird one is how they 'scream' in ultrasonic when cut or are dehydrated, the sensible thing seems to be that it's a warning to other plants but then you have to wonder how do other plants interpret these signals and understand them, and how do they isolate the sound from background noise too. Another unsolved one with venus fly traps is that they can somehow distinguish between a raindrop hitting their hairs and being touched by something. Maybe functionally it has something to do with fluid tension or torque on the hair, but once you solve a mystery like that then another one pops up and it continually gets more complex the deeper you look
Most stuff you look into can be explained by chemical gradients like you said (the same is true for a bunch of human behaviour also), but the more you look into the subject of plant gnosophysiology the more weird they seem, plants really do a lot of odd shit. I look forward to the day when scientists figure out a way to somehow communicate with plants through electrical signals, we will probably have more concrete answers then, I imagine some sort of neural AI will be needed for something like that. Until then it's just speculation but my own personal hunch is that they probably do possess some form of awareness that is alien to us right now
Veganism can only work if you are a female, as all the alternatives to replace meat contain soy and therefore xenoestrogens that are not good for male's hormonal balance. My sister used to be vegan for years, and we had a lot of discussions about this. She admitted that veganism is not exactly very healthy for males.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat, neither morally nor biologically, if you get quality meat that's not stuffed with hormones (growth hormones mostly, that are less dangerous than estrogens). Our digestive system is very much evolved around eating meat, it makes no sense to not eat it if you can.
The people who did that study used a small sample size of about 20 seedlings for each group, and they didn't do any statistical tests to see if their null hypothesis (that the plants do not react to stimuli) was rejected. A 1 sigma strong test would mean that there's a 5% chance of the null hypothesis being true. With the large number of studies, one out of 20 that produce a 1-sigma strong test would be false.
It's just not a quality study for the assertion that it makes.
About the plant screams, its a physiological phenomenon. If I were to be killed electrically and after I am dead my body would be crushed that would also make some sounds because of escaping air. That's not communication. If its demonstrated that plants have an organ that can detect those ultrasonic sounds they make when cut or if it's demonstrated with a good statistical test that plants react to these sounds; then plants would interact audibly.
"Are plants biomechanisms or are they endowed with cognition?" seems like at the root this is a teleological question.>>173866
There are estrogens in meat, milk and cheese, drinking water, aerosol chemicals, and pretty much all plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogen#Food_sources
I'll just have to exercise more to get bioavailable testosterone. Marginal exercise and I'll be better off in terms of health compared to most people I know.
[Last 50 Posts]
I believe one presupposition was that wind stimuli alone doesn't affect the plants behavior towards light, there was a reference to some study from like 1937 in there I believe, or it could have been the follow-up study which referenced this. So they went in without the intent of analysing the effects of wind alone on plants, only to attempt to determine whether plants can form a predictive association between light and wind. So yeah the probability doesn't stack up great because of small sample size and many people believe the probability to be inflated on this as well, but I think it warrants more experimentation, more than the 2 that have only been done so far (to my knowledge). Just to be fully honest here, the second test didn't give results anywhere near as clear as the one I posted, to the point where it was close to randomness but slightly pointing towards plant associative behaviour. I think new tests where the plants are given far longer to 'train' the response would be a good way to go in order to find out more about this
There is certainly evidence that plants are able to detect and process sounds (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/507319v1.full
) While I find the fact that flowers are able to hear bees and increase nectar sugar within minutes quite impressive and interesting, what I find slightly more interesting is how they are able to distinguish between wind and the buzzing of a bee. Once again this can probably be done physiologically yes perhaps with a frequency threshold or something, but it's just one of the countless features of plants which could also suggest some form of information processing or awareness going on internally
As for how they generate the ultrasonic sounds we just don't know yet, we know that they emit a variety of sounds based on stress levels related to how dehydrated and how damaged they are and that the sound seemingly starts almost instantly after being damaged. I believe only one study has been done on this and it suggests further studies to test plants at various stages of development, different damage states such as UV damage, being too cold, disease, etc. It could just be sound generated from outgassing of the inner chamber or maybe something more
yeah I can certainly see how this is a teleological question in a way, potentially also human bias projecting qualities onto plants (like saying plants scream, feel pain, etc), that's why I try to stay away from saying things like "cognition" too much and at best I think there may be some form of "awareness", in the end we just don't know yet but I argue that it certainly can't be ruled out yet either