Moral vegetarianism is a sham. Vegetarians don't eat animals because they have a respect for life, what they do is assign an arbitrary value to a being's life. To them, an animal's life is much more valuable than a plant's despite both being alive. Moral vegetarianism is not meant to reduce "suffering", it is meant to fuel the sense of moral superiority of the practitioner. And beyond all this facade is the truth that vegetarians very much value themselves, their ego, this is why they are willing to take life (plants) in order to fuel themselves instead of ceasing to exist and actually make a difference. Also the human body kill millions of bacteria everyday (which is life). A guy who only eats meat but never bathes or washes his hand would preserve more lives than a life-long vegetarian.
>the human body kill millions of bacteria everyday (which is life). A guy who only eats meat but never bathes or washes his hand would preserve more lives than a life-long vegetarian.
Stupid ass analogy. Bacterias live with us, inside us, we'd kill them anyway. It's not in our power to do otherwise.
We stomp on bugs and run over little animals crossing the street at high speed. That shit is tragic too but sometimes can't be avoided even if you're a convinced eco-terrorist.
The difference with all of that when it comes to food consuption is that humans arbitrarily choose to kill animals and eat them when it's been proven that you can live ealthily even on a plant-based diet, and that by doing so you're contributing to emit less Co2.
It's not hard, really.
Consumption of meat and fish is due to a habit related to the pleasure of eating, not a necessity.
There are fake vegetarians/vegans who will go back eating meat when the trend will die, and I'm not taking them into account.
Compared to someone that exclusively patronized industry. However, you can not digest every part of every plant. Humans are not herbivores. We are anatomically adapted to depending on a diet that contains a non-negligible amount of something that was part of or came out of an animal. This is where the animals come in, as part of our little ecosystem.
You can, and should, feed these scraps to animals, and thus eliminate your dependence on more facets of industry:
The production and transportation of supplements
Additional exotic greens you needed to lay off some of the supplements
Trips the the grocery store.
But vegans were never about the environment, or efficiency. It's about some borderline religious delusion about theoretical animal minds and moral goodness that extends beyond pragmatism as if they are biting their tongues on the reincarnation/afterlife issue.
>I want to pretend to care about animals but I still actively support horrendous animal cruelty in the factory farming of chickens and pigs.
The same could be said about the arbitrary distinction between humans/animals.
I bet it's been said in this thread already but I'm saying it again.
fucking moron. Plants don't have central nervous systems and subjective experiences, you can't fucking tell me chopping up a carrot is the same as sticking a cow in the throat.
Prove that anyone else but me has subjective experiences.
if you were running a human farm, it would not be long before people tried killing you (and each other). someone tried killing a bunch of dogs, and the surviving dogs started attacking him. we can shoot cows in front of their dear friends and they just look confused and kind of surprised by the noise.
not all animals view death in the same way
it is humane to just give some of them a painless life and a swift death. they care about the end of their life like you care about breathing an extra percent of oxygen or not.
the funnest part about trolling vegans is that they are almost always emotionally affected by it
as a meat eater this is the most suffering i will likely cause in my entire life
You mention it yet still dodge what I think many vegetarians are getting at - its not about life for the sake of life, its about suffering. Plants don't show any obvious evidence for being concious or capable of suffering. Cows do, they react in all the same ways humans do with respect to pain and torment so the most obvious conclusion is that cows can suffer and plants cant. If you could somehow slaughter animals on an industrial scale, while causing no suffering, I think there might be room for the argument you're making, but that is clearly objectively not the case. Stupid take.
>if an organism just so happen to take a different evolutionary path, then they are inferior and we are free to kill them
Suffering is an arbitrary standard. An animal deciding the worth of a living being's (plants) existence based on standards that is only applicable to them using an animal centric brain. It is a fucking psychopathic and egomaniac thing to do.
'Life' is just as arbitrary a standard, living and not living isn't a sharp boundary. What things are living and what is 'one' life? A cow has thousands of living cells within it, each with self replicating mitochondria, how many lives end when you kill a cow?
The idea that unethical things are bad, and should be minimised is a human concept itself as far as we can determine. Isn't it psychopathic and egomaniacal to make any moral judgements, since they are inherently based on our conception of good or bad? An assumption we make is that suffering is unethical and generally bad, its a leap of faith, but its one we make so as not to be lost in total meaninglessness.
You've gotten to the point of questioning that arbitrary standard, but rather than grappling with that absurdity, you've just replaced it with a new arbitrary standard.
You can not just make up ethics like this either. Ethics are prescribed. They are taught. They are the enforced social norms.
Current ethics are that animal lives have the monetary and utility value. Only human lives are priceless (and under the same system of animals, have limitless value because they have practically limitless utility).
What ethics are being made up here?
The idea that non-humans are anything other than chattel property that you are not to cause "pain" (we don't actually acknowledge that they have the SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE of pain) solely because doing so tends to make them more difficult to manage.
Yeah, its just intended to mean there that society almost always believes that suffering as a concept ought to be avoided, whether you take the suffering of animals to be real or relevant is further decision.
Human suffering only. Which is redundant.
Suffering requires being a person with a subjective experience of life. Otherwise they simply respond to it.
The abuse of the animal is a concern because an abused animal, due to its instincts for dealing with threats, may learn to attack humans. The abuse of a human is a concern because the human can suffer, and if you do not believe that is wrong then you renounce your own right to avoid that situation in accordance with the mechanism by which we make society possible.
Why don't you think animals have a subjective experience of life
Exactly one brain configuration is absolutely known to *usually* produce it and nothing else even comes close. The most conscious animals on earth have much more loosely organized, less well connected brains and still they are leagues above the typical shit vegans whine about, like cattle and chickens that haven't even developed yet.
But that's my opinion. Not ethics. Ethics are prescribed. Ethics are what you deal with when you go to jail for killing a man for threatening a deer's life.
Ironically vegans care the most about the things they should care about the least according to their own morals.
Idk where this definition of ethics comes from, but its not the normal one
I define morals as personal and ethics as a part of society in order to make it clear that ethics does not mean "scientifically true morals". There is no such thing unless you have proof of a creator who has maintained ownership and therefore an intent.
Yeah, saving a plant from a burning house is the same as saving a dog.
What a tired argument.
>dogs are more valuable than plants because...they just are okay?
>High utility, continuously produces or protects food and property
>A trustworthy dog that likes you is surprisingly hard to come by
>Turns dirt and air into food
I would save the dog unless it were a pitbull or rottweiler.
>i value the life of organisms based on their utility to ME
>nooo i have to be super good because uhhhhh
Who's a good boy? I could be an actual dog and still be less of a dog than you, my property.
You mean your kids not being autistic enough to turn out like the unabomber and actually reproducing and existing as happy workers in society?
Actual you moron i don't eat meat because i have a fondness for the critters it's made out of, have you seen those videos of cows listening to music? Its adorable!
Not all flesh is the same flesh.
Not all brains are the same brains.
Not all natures are the same natures.
Not all life is equally valuable.
Are you a rational man or a delusional pseudo religious idiot who believes in some savage hindu bullshit with the actual religion stripped away
occams razor. the reasoning that all life is equally valuable and OUGHT TO BE treated equally is extremely complex and shaky.
the reasoning that each individual is to be valued differently is very simple. “Different animals provide different things”
Even vegschizos fall into it when they have to defend the microbial holocaust
You don’t believe this unless you think it’s okay to kill and torture dogs
Plants don't have brains, animals do and have been proven to feel the same emotions as humans, simple as.
No, they actually haven’t, and even if they did it doesn’t matter
I want millions of humans to die so why would i care about a much dumber and less capable cow with consciousness so poor it barely qualifies as a mind
Explain rats bringing food to rats who are too old or sick to get it themselves? Explain rats purposely sharing their food with rats they just met?
>And even if they did it doesn't matter
the theoretical suffering of a rat has no bearing on the life of any human period
my duty is to myself, my family, my race, and my species.
bro you can say "programming" for literally any human behavior.
Even if you can, although it's unlikely that you are the only human who can think on the entire planet, humans are my species. I care about humans, and those who do not are free to go extinct. And humans care about humans who care about humans, as those who do not often go extinct.
Or admit that you act spiritually
Or admit that there is a point where virtue becomes detached from reality and becomes spiritual
Or act delusionally
Pick option 2 in every case and wonder why we laugh while the west falls.
"I care about humans"
>Wants to genocide black people
One of these things is not like the other.
I said I care about humans. Not golems, not neanderthals.
and i said two continents, you filled in that blank yourself
Europe and North America
China WILL rule the world.
I care about more than just my own species and race it's called empathy you should try it sometime.
And no, im not anti-white, im just a guy who actually goes out into the real world instead of sitting in extremist websites getting brainwashed into losing any sense of empathy.
Empathy for anything outside of your species is not empathy. It's a mental disorder. Please explain what you or anyone gains from caring about the theoretical feelings of a lower automaton.
I can understand caring about maintaining a functioning ecosystem as a resource store and for the medical and scientific benefits of preserving biodiversity, but livestock in particular are antithetical to that and were created to be killed.
Okay why not start with yourself if you think millions must die?
Because I am not native to one of those two continents.
>OP trying to justify his unhealthy deep fried chicken obsession and poor grooming saying that he saves more lives than a vegetarian
Literal dick contest and insecurity overload. Just let people eat what the fuck they want and figure it out for themselves.
you ought to say that to vegans and vegetarians killing millions of plants.
Why do carnists think thats such a "gotcha" plants aren't sentient but animals are, its that simple.
what an arbitrary distinction used as a coping mechanism. animals think just because life have taken a different path aside from them that means they are lesser value. this isnt the gotcha you think it is.
As opposed to eating the farm animals which as we know eat nothing at all, sparing the plants. The plants which are not capable of thinking or feeling in any capacity greater than a microbe. The plants which serve as the producers in an ecosystem. Those plants are definitely less ethical to eat than the animals which are demonstrably capable of thinking and feeling pain and most certainly do not want to die and also lead to more plants being consumed overall.
I'll admit there are some valid arguments one could make against veganism, but your obtuse feigning of concern for the lives of vegetation is about the shittiest one you could make
Not all animals think or feel to the same degree or at all.
In fact most don’t have any mind, and even fewer comprehend mortality. Cows demonstrably have low rates of mortality comprehension. Pigs and dogs, however, can more reliably understand and want to avoid or prevent death.
Coincidentally the Bible says not to eat dogs or pigs, but cows are fair game.
You just keep repeating those arbitrary standards over and over again. Humans can never actually give a reason why animal lives are more important than plants because it will always be based on the bias of their animal brain. Its just an egomaniac thing where because some lifeforms did not adhere to the same evolutionary path they did, that means they are inferior despite both animals and plants having the same motivation of not dying, eating and reproducing. A plant has thorns because it does not want to be eaten just like how a bull has horns. They both show they dont want to die yet the bull is somehow more important than the plant because monkeybrain says so.
blithering retard moron demonic idiot beast man
Even if you go by the notion that a plant's life is equal in value to an animal's life, vegans still kill fewer plants than meat eaters, because farm animals are not only killed and eaten by humans, but the animals themselves also kill and eat plants.
Growing plants just for animal feed is not a necessary activity.
>Just let people eat what the fuck they want and figure it out for themselves.
Yeah, I too hate that first world states are pushing the vegan agenda instead of a health agenda. Its like they want both weak suplement dependant weaklings and morbidly obese lardlasses to be the only possible way to live life.
What is it with people and thinking no meat = weak? i mean seriously there are vegan bodybuilders if they can surpass the usual gym chad then you can atleast stay average eating no meat.
>i mean seriously there are vegan bodybuilders if they can surpass the usual gym chad then you can atleast stay average eating no meat.
1 or 2 successful ones is not a rule and they are pumped in suplements (like most bodybuilders) so its not a good way to compare. Show me stats that long term veganism is healthy and keeps you fit (no, 'plant-based' or okinawan diet isn't vegan). Most people can't hold vegan beyond a year and its because they feel like shit and the minute they eat 100 grams of fish or steak they feel extremely better quickly. Animal protein is essential, we can later have a discussion about where the quantity sweet spot lies, but veganism is unhealthy for most of the population and against human rights when forced on children.
Vegan bodybuilders are trying to hack the human body by using a carefully assembled and MASSIVE amount of plant matter, often processed, along with artificial supplements, to replace the nutrients you can get by eating one single egg or a fish.
One little supply chain disruption and vegans have to chose between starvation and just eating a fish/egg
We need to consider for a moment that animals are not people and do not feel angst and despair and suffering etc in the same situations we might. Most of them don't even fear death or know what it is. Vegans try and skirt around this argument by literally screaming
but that literally means it reacts to its environment and does not imply any subjective experience
>To them, an animal's life is much more valuable than a plant's despite both being alive.
Great, you figured it out, champ. Many years after your classmates have graduated.
Every vegetarian will confirm you the same.
If you have equal qualms about killing a weed and a dog, you are psychopath. Plants aren't sentient.
an arbitrary distinction of a psychopath.
what a psycho thing to say
No one has refuted OP.
>t. "totally NOT OP (<---dick-loving gay)"
kys, go shit up another board with your gay "i hate animals so much i decided to post on the animals & nature board" bs.
What dinosaur is this?
benisaurus sex :DDDD
If taking or not taking life is the only thing we care about I guess I might as well eat you? You're not more alive than a carrot, after all.
>A guy who only eats meat but never bathes or washes his hand would preserve more lives than a life-long vegetarian.
Only if the meat they eat does not require plants to cultivate.
So mostly this would be insectoid meat.
Moral meat-eating REQUIRES that you eat the bugs, and be happy.
Insects also eat plants
The actual most efficient diet is to raise a meat animal that produces food while alive (ie : eggs) off nothing but food waste, never growing them dedicated feed or a pasture.
>To them, an animal's life is much more valuable than a plant's despite both being alive
And the problem here is...?
Vegetarianism is humanitarian at its core. It takes the premise that human life is innately valuable, but what really is human? Is a creature that's 99% like humans, human? What about 90%? 50%? 20%? Vegetarianism serves to share this status of being innate valuable to other lifeforms that share recognizable traits of "humanity" with humans. E.g. mammals from an biological standpoint are very similar to humans in terms of body plan, chemistry and neurophysiology, so it follows that they have a degree of humanity to them that's worth protecting. Treating the biological "others" as inferior despite sharing so many traits with us would be hypocritical.
haha benis monster 😀
The bacteria argument works because bacteria cells at least behave as if they were alive. But the plants we eat do not.
>/pol/morons keep walking! This is Waufimal man's neighborhood
Mentally ill shut in pseuds arguing with each other: the thread
Bruh I work outside. On a farm. OP is a gay ledditor that has obviously never worked with animals.
This guy actually believes that if you were kept in a protected pod with an infinite supply of nutrients and pleasure that your life would be fulfilling.
>be a honey bee
>no one has to teach you anything
>just know to become a nurse bee
>assist your bee family in hatching
>know without being taught that the hive must be maintained at a certain temperature and humidity
>position yourself around the hive
>you and your bee family flap your wings in one direction
>this creates a circular airflow
>other bees come and spit water into the airflow
>lol bee bros we just invented evaporate cooling and we know how to do it without ever being taught to do it
>can tell other bees where the good stuff is in 3 dimensions using a dance
>no one ever taught us how to do the dance we just know
Humans are utterly BTFO by bees.
Bees will die without Human help when the Sun expands to a Red Giant.
Bees should be grateful.
>h-humans are the smartest with the most complex emotions
>gets stabbed to death for looking at someone the wrong way
These are emotional arguments based entirely off of your Dunning-Krueger induced perception of others.
How stupid are you the literacy rate is quantifiable. You haven't quantified any of your arguments so far. You haven't even posted a study showing humans feel emotions stronger than all other animals.
Substantiate what you're saying with data.
The sheer redditism. I’m not fucking proving humans are smarter than animals. If you are incapable of inferencing that then you are really not worth talking to.
As for animal emotion, start with -
> 1997. “Reconciling Cognitive and Perceptual Theories of Emotion: A R. P.” Philosophy of Science. 64:555-579.
>Darwin, Charls. 1998 . The Expression of the Emotionin Man and Animals. Introduction, Notes and Commentaries by Paul Ekman. London: Harper Collins.
And ten trillion more I’m not going to bother to list to you. If you don’t see the complexity of global civilisation as greater than that of some canine pack then you are beyond hope.
The average animal is smarter and more adept on earth than the average human. They also live vastly more fulfilling lives.
You've been indoctrinated into believing you are the master race on this planet and this allows you to justify the most twisted acts towards what you deem to be inferior life this belief system is counter to everything we see on the planet. You are invasive and shouldn't be here. This entire thread is a redditism.
>live in constant mortal danger
>has to move constantly to just find food
>has to go through a very stressful process of taking down prey
>have to defend the kill from others
>or has to escape from predators on a daily basis
>has to get into the equivalent of a knife fight to have sex
>or be a baby and get murdered in your crib because of a new patriarch and nobody cares about the infanticide
>all for the average life span of about 10 years
there is nothing fulfilling in constantly having to fight for your right to exist, it is the exact opposite, its fucking miserable, youre just romanticizing a wild animal, like its the noble savage
>he isn't aware that the most fulfilling lives require suffering
>he thinks non of what he said applies to humans
>fulfilling lives require suffering
so factory farming is a good thing then, since that inflicts the most suffering. if youre the vegan, congrats you just played yourself
Oh yeah and human enslavement and torture is totally good that's exactly what I was saying yeah that's obviously the point right.
>Yet another anon using the slow-paced Wauf to upfill his deepest 4chan fetishes.
Well done, we took the bait and now this is a BBQ-thread
Kek, this is reddit as fuck, your projecting lame.
Hate the guy for being right, I know I am, but he's absolutely right. This is the same as white people boo hooing over the hordes skinning their daughter alive, to utilize your reddit misanthropy at the risk of you shutting down at the rest. It's some fucked up misplaced compassion.
Orcas torture for fun all the fucking time. That's like their fucking thing. What's their excuse if they're smarter and more fulfilled than humans?
Not "fucked up" as in is a bad thing to feel compassion, but that it arises from some brain malfunction initially. Like "crossed wires."
90% of African cannot read or write.
Only 16% of adults are literate. The rest are illiterate. The inability to read or write is normal for our species.
The average corvid is smarter than the average human.
You hold the judaic presupposition that humans are the master species but you can't define why.
>most complex emotions
>most complex DNA
>only species capable of making complex societies
>body and mind are designed in a way that allows near complete dominion of other lifeforms
> most complex DNA
Wait never mind this point I’m wrong here
That's the only quantifiable point you made and it means you are advocating for the execution of anyone who deviates from intelligence. Large percentages of people are completely illiterate. They are not smart.
Even an idiot is a supernatural genius by the standards of chimpanzees and the like. I don’t think emotional complexity is really deniable - at least in the case of “higher” emotions like empathy (where are the animal charities? The animals who voluntarily sacrifice themselves for others outside of stuff like bees?).
I really don’t think complex societies are debatable unless we count ant pheromones as more complex than global civilisation. It’s also undeniable that we dominate just about every other multicellular organism.
>humans are the smartest the most complex!
>shoots up a school
You can't quantify anything you've wrote so far. You can't quantify emotions with studies. You can't even prove how an animal feels.
Do you not think it takes great emotional and intellectual capacity to even commit a tragedy such as this? All the spite, anger, deliberation and planning, obtaining weapons, choosing targets, whatever? All the while operating advanced technology?
Give me an animal doing anything nearly as complex.
This is conjecture. Flat out conjecture.
>its conjecture animals are just as....
Not once, not ONCE, in history, have dolphins or orcas demonstrated cooperative tool use or any sort of manipulation. They have taught each other basic tricks but not once have they been observed working together to use their mouths to untangle a net - or steal and use one. Not once, not ONCE have two crows cooperated in the manufacture and use of anything.
They are not self aware. They can process information well but the ability to truly understand that they are a force in the world, rather than just located in it. The smartest non-human animal still exhibits the level of consciousness found in a dog. They do not have abstract language. They do not have inverse causality wherein the self is the start of all things. They can not be powers that be, they are only objects.
Orca and dolphins do not need to use tools to survive unlike humans. Something they have displayed is interspecies communication. That's right dolphins and orca despite being an entirely different species are able to learn each other's language and communicate with each other. This is a feat that no human has ever achieved.
Your example has only further destroyed your argument. Humans can't communicate with orca. Dolphins can. Dolphins do not need to use tools. Humans do. Idiot.
>Orca and dolphins do not need to use tools to survive unlike humans
Pick fruit. Run after animal. Grab animal. It is that easy. Dont even need to throw rock. You don't need tools. You WANT tools because you are capable of conceiving of yourself as a cause, rather than a mere presence. You are capable of thinking of alternate futures and asking how to make them real.
Our entire civilization only exists because we have this, and have refined it to the point of some sort of understanding of the way brains work. You're just too far up your anti-human asshole to realize it.
We don't even have proof dolphins and orcas have language. They have noises we could compare to language, but no proof they function anything like it, truly representing syntax and abstract meaning rather than an alien form of tone of voice, the same thing exhibited by rodents.
>Humans can't communicate with orcas
There is a multimillion dollar entertainment gig going on based entirely on the fact that we can communicate with orcas but orcas are not as capable of communicating with us. We have tried to teach apes language. What dolphins and orcas are doing is the equivalent of dogs and wolves howling and barking at each other
I'm not reading either of your retarded ass posts.
You bring up two animals which are capable of interspecies communication as an example of human excellence only to get BTFO by their abilities. Fuck off and die retard.
We can get arbitrary animals to cooperate with us in complex tasks and got so good at this we have domesticated several
We can control dolphins and orcas and get them to do whatever we want
Dolphins and orcas are like two canid species barking at each other and managing to form fleeting interspecies packs
>b-b-but i can ride the horse that's communication
Lmfao the cope
A dolphin can literally speak to an orca.
No, dolphins can not speak. They make noises we can choose to interpret as an unknown language, but it is most likely as limited as any other animals "language". Calls, with modifiers akin to tone of voice. They do not possess the brain organization indicative of a creature with abstract language. They're just scaled up water deer with sonar.
>t-they don't speak they can just communicate complex thoughts
I said they don’t communicate complex thoughts. They’re basically on the level of various kinds of meow or ooh-ooh-ah. Doubtfully more advanced than two ape species sharing hand gestures and basic facial expressions.
Only man has sought to understand another mind and have it think to understand his and man has found himself alone
And language isn't the only means of communication, retard. Learn what "communicate" means.
>They can TALK to each other
>well ok actually language isn't the only means...
The list of animals with mutually intelligible body language is too long for non-autistic people to waste time on.
You're lucky that there's nobody around to communicate you a kick in the balls
go fuck around in africa and you can survive without ever using anything resembling a tool
you'll just hate it and think "wow this sucks my life would be easier if i had a rock or a pointy stick" and maybe die at 30-40, but you can do it
dolphins can not do that as well as us
they can barely do it at all
a monkey with a brain the size of an orca's eyeball is better at consistently doing that, and even figuring it out independently, while only a single population of bottlenosed dolphins has gone as far as using a sponge to make their nose hurt less while nosing around in the dirt, largely by imitation
dolphins don't need tools but they could survive more effectively if they could figure out something as basic and *already demonstrated to them millions of times* as a net. we have monkeys that can row boats around, but no dolphins working together to make a net out of seaweed or something or just, like, steal one of ours. they just behave like every other dumb animal and try and steal from our nets rather than understanding how they work and then they get stuck and end up in a can of tuna
Chimps plan and deliver attacks to other primates
Yup, all domesticated animals didn't evolve to coexist specifically with humans, they just spontaneously happened to have an evolution trend that benefits humans and benefits them from humans but not any other species for no reason in particular. It's just genetic drift.
It depends on what the justification for their abstention from animal products is. If they do it because they value consciousness as opposed to just life, it's morally consistent. But in that case they could still eat animals without a brain, like mussels or jellyfish
If people want to be vegan, they can. I don't care why they do it
the actual argument that won't get you laughed at for being a clown is the near unavoidable human suffering involved in the global agriculture industry and the untold numbers of small animals that are inadvertently and wastefully slaughtered in the process of gathering crops.
I'm a vegetarian out of convenience and I don't believe in the value of an animal's life
Now if there was some beef I could buy for a reasonable price, obviously more expensive than supermarket beef, which I knew had a happy life on fields of grass and then taken to the slaughterhouse calmly without any stress or pain and then had its life ended by a captive bolt to the skull followed by the bleeding out of its neck then yeah, I'd be eating meat
The fact that this is not the case is the reason why I do not eat meat, because I think it is wrong to support an industry that torments animals
It is not wrong to kill animals, we humans have complete ownership over the lives of animals and we can take them as we please
Basically me. Grew up on a farm, learned there is so much depth to be found with most of those animals and just don't want them existing in shitty factory farms, so I can't justify eating meat/milk. I've never had a cabbage recognize me and run across a field to greet me like a chicken or goat or other animal we had.
My friend has chickens so I get eggs and I keep a garden and buy local veggies when possible. It's not complicated.
Morals applying to anything but the survival of your genes (yourself, your family, and your race) are a sham and should be classified as a mental illness. Because they are.
Hey tell me the rational reason to care about the unproven feelings of a fish
Tell me why these would ever be a priority over the proven feelings of another man
Another man is your species, shares your genes
A fish is only theoretically suffering in your head, it could be more or less a computer
If you are moral you either prioritize humans or you are not moral simple as. Morality is just a word for group survival instincts.
>Morality is just a word for group survival instincts.
I'd honestly describe it like that but more along the lines of "standard operating procedure" as not all moral tenants that we have are instinctual and instead shaped by what those of higher status dictate them to be. For example: The LGBT are all immoral by the morals of most of the non-Western world today and even of the Western world under a century ago, however in the West now they are considered as not being immoral and accosting them is considered immoral.
Following false morals lowers the birthrate, anon. People who think gayry is moral and that being against it is immoral are self-extincting.
>the proven feelings of another man
No such thing.
You can prove that other people react in certain ways or that their brain does this or that, but you can't prove their personal experiences or their feelings.
>fruit, fruiting veggies like peppers and tomatos, meant to be eaten by the plant
>mushrooms (fruiting bodies)
>yeast and other microorganisms (like pollen)
>other stuff I can't think of
What is THIS diet called?
why do you like destroying life?
all of that does not harm anything
>yeast doesn't harm anything
>pumping cows full of hormones to produce milk doesn't cause harm
>eating fruiting bodies without dispersing their seeds/spores doesn't cause harm
>stealing honey from bees doesn't cause harm
Bigot, you need to drop all of that for a chemical diet. You vegetarians and vegans disgust me with how much you get off on harming other organisms purely so you can feel pleasure from your food. Synthesized sugar, protein and lipids is the way to go that's moral.
They don't pump cows full of hormones they actually get them pregnant and keep them pregnant there entire life
Except if they didn't they would all be dead because animals that have zero use end up dead
Do you care about the deforestation due to there seed oils esp. palm oil and avacado. That kills more rare species then a carnivore
An animal life isn't an intrinsically good thing, whether they're dead or alive it makes no difference
Why do people think that an animal being alive is a good thing?
By that logic, why is HUMAN life a good thing? But you're a troll, so you're going to double down on being an edgy retard tbh.
If you do not believe a human life is a good thing, you lose the cooperation of other humans. Now you don't breed and you are a pack animal without a pack. AKA dead.
Morality is survival.
everyone eats it, retard
Anon, it's simple. It just makes sense to respect other conscious beings. You're a massive gay, too
Was considering this recently. One thing about plants is they have pieces that are *intended* to be ingested. Surely eating those is not offending that plants liberty?
Seeds are somewhat of a grey area but I would not expect it to be terribly immoral given the seeds are often eaten as part of the fruit of the plant. When this is not the case, it becomes a question of what sort of Liberty does a seed have. I would say the seed begins to grow in the same way a fetus does in the womb when given the proper conditions and water. So how far until it’s “alive”, when it starts to grow? When it pushes up out of the dirt? When it loses its baby leaves? Interestingly, the question is similar to “what is your stance on abortion”. but aside from that I think we can safely eat the edible parts of vegetables and fruits, and their seeds.
occams razor: plants do not have brains so they don't have intent or rights
>plants do not have brains
>Therefore they don't feel or communicate
They don't feel like motile terrestrial beings but they do react to stimmulus, environment and other plants. On top of that they do have an equivalent for our nervous system. You should read modern studies on plants.
>They don't feel like motile terrestrial beings but they do react to stimmulus, environment and other plants.
Puddles and weathercocks have brains because they react and adapt to external conditions.
>On top of that they do have an equivalent for our nervous system. You should read modern studies on plants.
lol, lmao even.
>Puddles and weathercocks have brains because they react and adapt to external conditions.
Never said they had brains, read moron. And comparing unliving things to plants is retarded. There's hundreds of studies on how plants communicate with each other and the environment but vegans are science deniers so this will fall on deaf ears.
Sounds vegetarian to me, you filthy life hater.
avoids non-fruiting edible items, so stuff like roots and tubers, nuts, seeds, and leafy greens are all off the menu (and some other stuff. Most herbs are off as well.
this bro eating periods lmao
How is that Wauftopic?
Go back to pol
>How is that Wauftopic?
Ikr? God I can't stand seeing vegan threads on Wauf.