We no longer need to eat animals to survive. This doesn’t need to happen.
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
We no longer need to eat animals to survive. This doesnt need to happen.
We no longer need to eat animals to survive. This doesn’t need to happen.
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
The solution is to eat stupid people, thus reducing the amount of meat-eaters on the planet.
Vegans always turn out to be murderous freaks. It turns out they had concern for their fellows after all… their fellow animals. They aren’t people.
I am aware that animals are capable of suffering and that many are undergoing suffering right now at this very moment.
I also don't care. Whether they are happy or in agony, it makes no difference. Only humans and animals that I personally know and feel sentimental over matter to me. Most humans are naturally like this. It's why stuff like 9/11 and that one israeli summer camp are little more than memes to the people who have no personal involvement in any of it.
To give you an example, would you actually care about some african or indian child starving to death, to the point where you'd permanently change your lifestyle to alleviate their anguish? Of course not. Despite the fact that these sapient humans have a longer lifespan and will thus experience more suffering than any animal, you still don't even *know* them, they aren't even real to you.
That's why your guilt tripping doesn't work.
>To give you an example, would you actually care about some african or indian child starving to death, to the point where you'd permanently change your lifestyle to alleviate their anguish? Of course not.
Peter Singer cares about them and the animals being killed for meat. Personally I'm really only concerned with the animals because I do see a difference between me killing the animals by buying meat and letting kids overseas die through no fault of my own.
correct, and it's not even an argument you can get all your nutrients from other sources, "processed" is a weaponised word morons clutch to.
incorrect. enjoy malnutrition and being an ethically invalid moron doomed to hell for rejecting christ.
CHOOSE YOUR FIGHTER !!!
>yeah i gave you a natural sympathy for living beings
>yeah i made animals really fricking delicious for some reason and also made their teats leak tasty nutritious milk
>have fun in my nightmare world you little b***h
i dont have a natural sympathy for cattle and fowl you oversocialized manchild
oh man...youre pretty frickin twisted...imagine a day in your sickdark world
humans have been eating animals without guilt for thousands of years it's not natural sympathy at all. it's a few recent generations of homosexual in a very specific part of the world (westoids) that are like this
You mean Abrahamic cultures? That shit spawned animal trials and the idea that garden of eden was where man and beast lived in harmony and peace, carnivore wit herbivore, herbivore with omnivore.
>Abrahamic cultures
wtf is that? I don't care what some shitty israeli book says but what people actually did and nobody stopped eating meat or feeling guilty about it because of the bible, ever.
Abrahamic includes Christianity and Islam. The point was that Abrahamic texts began the trend of moralising and humanising animals which has lead to ideologies like veganism today.
it's only white people that care about this shit
why are you so adamant on changing the way humans do everything?
will you not be happy until we all become race-mixed goblins of ambiguous gender who only eat insects and plants?
>we all become race-mixed goblins
If we are no longer white people then there would no longer be people caring about it. Isnt that what you want?
The future vegans want.
There’s no way to defend eating animals without also defending raping or torturing them. Lmao
You already got btfo and broke down crying because of this.
This is thread #5. The longer it goes on the less you seem like a vegan and the more you sound like an autistic sociopath planning on raping and murdering his mothers dog. But only if he can make sure its “le ethical consistence”.
This. You could unironicaly keep tally marks at this point on how many times OP has been goatse'd. Just about any argument him and his sympathisers make can be refuted and by the 2nd (you) they just throw le epic clapback because they cannot provide any other counter argument if they are unable to move the goal post to something esle they can exhaust before being humiliated again.
You haven' refuted anything, lol. You just keep insisting that this has somehow all been debunked but it isn't and it's a very obvious hole in your logic. If you think harming animals unnecessarily is wrong there is no logical reason to eat meat.
>If you think harming certain animals unnecessarily is a sign that something is wrong with someone
ftfy
you put words in peoples mouths because you have no argument. no one ever said that harming animals unnecessarily is wrong. you got answers from "not all lives are equal, ergo I consider your point invalid in the first place - which animals?" to "they don't matter but current morals are part of a system about managing human behavior"
PS: there is no such thing as ethical behavior without god
and you can not merely make up a god. real faiths have multiple people attesting to one divinity and its miracles.
now here's my refutation of your argument
"you think harming certain animals unnecessarily is a sign that something is wrong with someone" is not particularly ethical it's just self preservation/group preservation behavior that can exist without a god. it's a simple question of how much risk is worth letting puppy torturers walk around uncatalogued. but it's not objective. maybe someone else wants to harm group cohesion by increasing the number of undiscovered sociopaths to create conditions to favor their own group. then that would be right by their metrics, but not objectively.
without GOD, all morals are relative to the people that hold them and the closest you can get to ethics is a consensus on feelings.
so state your faith or just admit you are as arbitrary as anyone else
without GOD there is no value in being "ethically consistent" because ALL OF YOUR ETHICS ARE INHERENTLY ARBITRARY ANYWAYS.
so yes, you can be against torturing animals, but be fine with eating them, on religious grounds, which is a valid basis for ethics.
The old atheist gotcha is "pain is wrong. would you like to be in pain? no? then it's objectively wrong. there, morality without god"
But the gotcha to the gotcha is "why should it matter to me if you are in pain"
Which reveals the atheist as again operating on personal preference, might makes right, etc. There are many reasons that even someone with a lot of empathy might prefer someone else be in pain and sans god there's nothing wrong with being a psycho either.
So it is indeed irrefutable that objective morals and ethics are not possible without god - either a supremely powerful human being or a real god.
No one can have a discussion on the validity of veganism as a moral or ethical stance without first stating which religion they follow.
It's interesting how Americans who eat meat by the pound must be the healthiest country alive
now do high-fat vs. high-carb you disingenious moron 🙂
vegan brainrot
I'm not a vegan homosexual, the other guy is
how will israelites transfer their sins into animals without this?
if this is about farm cruelty then go talk to the cruel farm hands you stupid Black person
You will have to kill me in order to stop me from consuming meat.
The best argument you can ever make is that meat tastes very yummy, while greens taste very yucky.
Little children will literally vomit from eating greens.
Try to feed an infant vegetables, it won't take it well, because, duh, humans are not meant to eat them.
If this doesn't tell you that we're carnivores, then you've been brainwashed.
What is a woman?
The least likely to die in warfare, famine, or cannibalistic panic scenarios.
When I meet a vegan irl who can out lift me I might give them a chance but that will never happen because they're all dyels
Meatbros… how can we justify eating meat without also justifying torturing animals for fun?
you could go the route that they understand torture but not mortality and dont have a right to life because they cant reciprocate it
or you could go the religious route, which is basically what vegans do
The very idea that ethics must be consistent is spiritual. There is no magical good boy point to be attained by having consistent ethics. You basically believe in a moronic form of karma. Situational and relative decision making is effective and is still able to follow a predictable pattern enabling cooperation with others.
you have an entire thread here of justications and the only refutation is “BUT I LIKE COWS VERY MUCH SO UR EBIL ;_;”
There isn’t one though, the only attempt at a rebuttal is “well torturing animals is wrong because the type of person who tortures animals is probably a bad guy” but there are also statistics that people who kill animals in general are probably more likely to be bad guys too and that kind of logic is basically equivalent to thought crime, we don’t judge actions as good or bad based on the probability that it makes you a good or bad person we judge actions based on… if they’re good or bad
Yes we do. Look at Indians, they are physical washouts, we don't want to be like them.
So let me get this straight, the world shattering vegan argument is that you should give up the best way to get proteins and many other nutrients from food because guess what, your teeth! Your teeth are the problem here. They don't match to your food.
How moronic can you be?
Yep. Such idiotic arguments are probably side effects of nutrient deficiency.
We're talking of humans here, not cats. Cats are obligate carnivores. There might be dumb people who feed their cat vegan food but don't act as if it's the norm for vegans to do that. What one can hope for is cultivated meat at least in the pet food market.
Vegans harming animals because they wanna "protect" animals. Vegans are humans and as such they seem to do moronic shit only to feel great with themselves without really caring how they affect others.
>Cats are obligate carnivores.
So are humans, dumbass.
That's why a vegan diet imports food from all over the world and requires supplements.
Most micronutrients are missing or insufficient in natural plants.
Torturing animals for fun is not morally bad, you brainwashed pig.
The only argument you can give me is empathy, and empathy is a purely emotional argument that can change drastically from culture to culture.
Humans are naturally sadistic animals towards prey, but emotionally empathetic towards their own community (other humans).
This is very basic behaviour you can observe from little children, but we brainwash children to feel bad for hurting dumb animals.
There should still be safeguards, like laws against torturing other people's pets and laws preventing minors from torturing animals, but that should be the extend of it.
People who torture certain animals tend to hurt people
Dog eating countries are oppressive and corrupt shitholes
Clearly your intellectual morals don’t account for everything. Maybe what people naturally prefer is for a reason.
>People who torture certain animals tend to hurt people
Yes, because we live in a society where the only people who torture animals are social outcasts, because hurting animals is seen as wrong.
What a moronic argument.
>being this moronic
Oh you’re a vegan playing devils advocate. Bye moron.
Humans are frail, slow, and hunt megafauna. Every culture has a convention for quick slaughter. We are not naturally sadistic hunters. It is our instinctive desire to kill quickly so prey can’t escape or fight back.
>Humans are frail
Not really. We are larger than most mammals. A human in the wild could wrestle a wild wolf into submission.
>slow
Yes, but we make up for it with our intellect.
>and hunt megafauna.
We have archeological evidence suggesting we've also hunted bovids and horses.
>Every culture has a convention for quick slaughter.
Man-made beliefs.
>It is our instinctive desire to kill quickly so prey can’t escape or fight back.
That doesn't matter, all predators do not want their prey to escape or fight back.
holy moron.
>another tard who doesnt know how many products we use cow parts for
Enjoy your fossil fuel derived substitutes
Brainless cow > vat meat. Begans only care how it looks because its a religion not a rational position, tho.
Vegans are selective in what science they believe. They will push the science that agrees with them, but reject and call fake, any science that goes against them.
Like literally any other group in the history of forever.
And all those groups are right, because the objectivity of science is a meme. Scientists are as flawed and prone to bias and political influence as anyone else.
and your forgetting these
dont take your lungs, liver, kidneys, and blood for granted
i could do all that shit.
or just eat a beef burger.
The un-deboonkable rebuttal. Vegans on suicide watch.
so undebunkable, you didn't even try, you just gave a stupid quip
It was joke. Jesus christ.
Hello fellow Marean may the seas provide you with a accommodating weather.
Uhhhh vegans? :DDDD
>non hunters: 2
Vegans and animal rights? More like benis and animals in tights lmfao
>hunters
>sex
>0
fake news, /k/ alone would contribute 5 points
context ? those numbers mean % ?
>some hunters did not even kill 1
can you even be a hunter and never had killed anything ?
I did some reading… Hunters are more likely to refuse to recognize animal rights and kill nuisance pets. They also spraypaint wieners and balls on random walls. That could be innate to hunting or it could be because people who have hunted are just more likely to be masculine because only masculine people would hunt. Sounds based to me.
This study examined the relationship between hunting and illegal violence among college males. Although similar on many socio- demographic characteristics such as age and social class (parents’ education and occupation), hunters were more likely than non- hunters to be white and Protestant.They also were more likely to have grown up with a family member who hunted. Hunters were about twice as likely to have been violent toward nonhu- man animals; however, one type of violence—killing wild or stray animals—accounted for this difference. Regarding violence toward people, hunters were more than twice as likely to have damaged or destroyed private or public property during their last year in high school but were no more likely during that year to have fought with other persons.Thus, at least for this sample, hunting related to harming animals in the wild and to property damage but not to other forms of animal abuse or violence against humans. This paper discusses possible explanations for this result and lim- itations of the study.
Killing animals unnecessarily is wrong
We no longer need to eat animals for survival or health
Therefore when we kill them for food we are killing them unnecessarily
Therefore killing and eating animals for food is wrong
>Mut mah burgers
>Me carnivore me die if me not eat animal me increase IQ with meet
>Think of the jobs!
>if we don't breed them they go extinct and we care about their existence!
all valid points
but don't you like cowies? if you take away the meat industry, you take away all profit incentive for keeping cows alive. they'll just get slaughtered in the millions and then we won't have any more! your way is actually less humane.
Cows, like pitbulls and other unwanted living lines we have created, should be loved and cared for and never never allowed to breed.
That's not possible. Cattle, pigs, and dogs all experience untold suffering from their unnatural state and constant captivity that it is far better to put them out of their misery as quickly as possible.
They actually don’t care. Not only is this a provable fact, but ensuring they don’t care is crucial to workplace safety and product quality.
You are just a moron without theory of mind so you assume they experience what you would with what you know and are capable of. People with real empathy can see the feelings they actually do have, which isn’t much. They are just resources, not people like us.
Studies conducted by PETA have proven that all domesticated animals live in a constant state of fear, pain, and confusion. Euthanasia is the best ending for them.
You are talking out your ass. Disregarded, moron.
Thank you for adding one to the “proof vegidiots are trolling or genuinely mentally disabled” pile.
Here’s the anti pleasure cult now
Animals have no innate moral significance. Meat eaters live longer and animals readily convert inedible plant material into a superfood. Meat eaters are more antifragile and can weather climate and supply chain disruptions. What you need for the bare minimum is irrelevant. Spare me your question begging ascetic monk shit. It’s spiritualist hogwash. There is no real reason that you must do less. Your entire statement is predicated on the beliefs of literal satanic cults (buddhism, shintoism, hinduism, etc) or more likely fedora tipping nonsense that’s so contrived it makes the bible look like a peer reviewed textbook.
So if I killed a bunch of stray puppies for fun there’s nothing wrong with that? What if someone rapes an animal for pleasure, or tortures an animal for pleasure, that’s all good too?
False equivalence.
It’s not about the animals. It’s about the calculated statistical likelihood that your behavior will translate to your treatment of humans. I don’t care about the animals.
Thus far there are strong correlations with bestiality and child rape and domestic animal abuse and violent crime. However, there is no correlation between eating traditional livestock and crime.
If your actions did not correlate so, ie: you were dispassionately engaged in artificial insemination or culling the excess to maintain a sanitary society, it would be fine. The same for the animals but they aren’t important. We are.
Humans without properly functioning empathy and a theory of mind aren’t able to understand that crime is more about motivation than the act itself. That’s why there are degrees of murder separate from degrees of manslaughter with different punishments. These autists struggle with the idea because they’re too simple minded to deal with the complex systems of a complex species.
There is a a significant amount of research that shows how hunters and specially people that works at slaughters has lots of mental health issues and are prone to be violent. Consumers are removed from the act of killing that makes a huge difference, slaughter if an animal in front of a child can be highly traumatizing.
There is research showing that slaughterhouses correlate with crime by means of crime correlating with socioeconomic class. The odor depresses property values and the work is difficult and hazardous with poor pay. Also, guess what the worker demographics are like.
The rest, however, is bullshit. There have never been any studies except on inmate populations, which only reveals your typical “IQ score and other factors” correlations much like religosity and IQ only correlate as far as demographics and religosity. And then the truth comes out - israelites and anglicans are more intelligent than atheists on average. Wonder why? The closest to well controlled any study has gotten was a correlation between SES and hunting (as it is cheaper than buying meat). And even if we did find it is not demographics, that would only necessitate improving slaughterhouse conditions and breeding livestock that are too ugly and inexpressive to bother people, much like humane euthanasia is not a crime but beating a cat to death with a stick is.
Same shit liberals say about Black folk
That same argument works for the research of the bestiality, child rape and violent crime. Its always inmates and psychiatric ward demographics. Ironic you call false equivalence.
>masculine
>has a fixation for penis and masculinity
Sounds insecure as hell
See
You already got btfo.
As usual just cherry picking and taking out of context data. Why don't post the rest of the tables? Also there is almost 20% less hunters than non hunters. The conclusion of the paper is Hunters are in fact more violent, have same emotional empathy but less cognitive empathy, basically they are more prone to yield to their instincts than to use reason, also desensitized to killing animals.
>Humans who understand the natural order and that animals 1: are not moral agents and 2: do not have rights and 3: do not have souls and are not truly lives are more likely to terminate the automatons
You don't say? This is literally meaningless data. People who terminate automatons are more likely to understand that they are automatons. Gasp. Shocker. This is a sign that they have the correct form of empathy and do not assume that things that do not have any minds whatsoever have any feelings to empathize with.
Watching one man die causes trauma. Watching an animal die causes understanding. There is no soul that leaves the body. There is no pleading for life. There is no understanding of its death. There is no suffering or emotion. It simply ceases to function. The best an animal can do is involuntarily produce an alarm call that causes its conspecifics to scatter. What animals scream "HELP" and receive aid? Orcas, I suppose, not the kind of thing we should be keeping in farms or helping. Certainly not cattle or deer.
Animals can not even suffer because they lack souls and the ability to perceive their own existence. They are just advanced animatronics. There is nothing to empathize with except for a totem spirit that only exists in the heads of schizos.
All animals are machines until THEY prove otherwise. The orcas proved it, the chimps proved it, and with many more cattle in more contact with people for more time they have never demonstrated anything more than sophisticated animatronics.
This is called using reason rather than yielding to (dysfunctional) instincts (that you are basing on imaginary, theoretical inputs rather than material reality). All vegans are one of two things
1: Stupid
2: Religious
He asked if there was something wrong with that. There is, he diagnosed himself with behavior that correlates with harming humans.
>There is no soul that leaves the body.
Agreed. We should implement the harvesting of human flesh in industrial farms immediately. Starting with you.
Why do people who have misplaced empathy for animals LOVE to imagine torturing and killing humans? It's almost like you're mentally ill and your instincts are working on the wrong species.
Logically and emotionally humans are among the souled few. Barely any non-humans display any capacity for being realized beings, and we don't really eat any of them (by we I mean the civilization with more correct morals than anyone else - the abrahamic west).
It's not that bestiality is wrong. It's that zoophiles are abominations. Bestiality is criminal to enable catching and cataloguing the abominations. That's why artificial insemination is fine, but doing it for pleasure is not. We give them short sentences, some punitive and supervisory captivity to determine how unhinged they are, and put them on a list that bars them from being near children. That's because even self reported ones that have never been arrested are significantly more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else - a pedophile being a vile and disordered primitive hominid whose reproductive strategy consists of inseminating females or being inseminated by males before they are able to understand that the pedophile is not a desirable mate. Pedophiles threaten our species because their strategy removes their mates choice from the equation and allows them to make copies of low quality genes, and make an extremely large amount of copies by repeatedly breeding over a longer period of time. In doing so, they also take mates from people who reproduce in a way that benefits the species more. It is simply darwinian for us to control them.
But do go on this really speaks to your character. You have a real liking for the subject of having sex with animals and torturing puppies.
>Had sex with an animal
>Killed a pet animal
>Hunters: 0
>Non-hunters: 2
You are one of the two huh.
Why is it that nihilistic bloodmouths think that their moralless worldview justifies the mass torture of half of all animal life and the total eradication of the other?
>moves goalposts, begs questions, stuffs the straw man
They’re not being tortured. You just think they are because if it were you, you’d feel tortured. But the animals absolutely don’t care.
How do you know they aren't tortured? Do you have pets? If you do would you be ok if the vet said "I have no anesthesia we will have to do the surgery without it"
I’m a carnivore supremacist so i believe only primarily carnivorous animals such as dogs, cats, and people have selves so no.
>inb4 you cant just believe that
You can’t just believe the theoretical suffering of a cow has any bearing on anyones life unless A: you are a supreme judge with power B: you believe in a god or spirit force that fulfills that role. I believe in a god who gave only animals i like souls. Deal with it.
>Believes an old dude saved all current species on earth by building a wooden boat by himself and a few others from an earth scale flood.
Dunno how rational is to build a moral compass from such ancient scriptures made by other humans.
Im going to make my own silly schizo book to infect others with my own ideology.
>christ status: rent free
Show us in the bible where it says “only carnivores have souls” lmfao
The point was that is as arbitrary as your “ethics”. Your ultimate principle is nonsense and has no utility or reward.
The ultimate principle “man above all” gives rise to the supremacy of our species and why you are not a native american dying midwinter.
Is not man above all you fricking idiot, just a few vegan nut jobs believe that. Is simply not being the huge pieces of shit we are and ending a life of a sentient creature simply to fulfill a caprice, because that is what it is to eat meat for someone living in the developed world.
Man above all b***h. We eat meat because it makes us stronger, is an effective way to recycle agricultural waste, and enables us to produce food when and where crops can’t grow. You don’t “need” food that’s not from the other side of the world until you do. Vegan populations tend to be small like groups of monks and rich nutjobs. Or islanders that wouldn’t have civilization without us.
You never enforce that value because meat eaters would btfo you morally logically and physically. “Higher animals” is such a bunch of spiritual hogwash.
Morally nope, logically absolutely not, physically maybe.
What makes you think something is valuable? it boils down to usefulness and psychology
A painting might be valued in the millions but that's all abstract, oil has value because it has potential energy that creates a benefit for humans and what are humans but animals that eat, shit, reproduce and die. It doesn't matter if a human settlement is close to a volcano or a herd of deer, it will erupt and kill regardless of how much value we give to ourselves the natural world doe snot give a shit. As such I choose to give higher value to animals with a complex brain and avoid eating them because they have the capacity to experience and suffer physical pain and psychological distress even if its not like ours it is very likely to be similar. The only thing that separates us is the capacity to pass knowledge and have more complex abstract ideas, not the capacity to experience pain and suffering, the capacity for experience and that is what guides me to assign value and the way I treat a living being.
A cow might not know that his herd mate was just shot but I wouldn't want to end the capacity to experience to a cow if I have alternatives that make me as healthy. The argument that veganism or eating meat is better than the other is full of contradictory evidence, is only when people is highly malnourished or sick that eating meat makes a difference otherwise there is not a great difference.
This is moronic, livestock needs food, how are you going to give them food if you cannot grow crops?
However the benefit is small, cattle is extremely inefficient having a feed to meat conversion ratio of around 6, that means you need 6kg of feed for each kg of lean meat. Poultry cannot readily digest cellulose so their higher feed to meat conversion ratios cannot be used.
However that same agricultural waste can be used to make food by processing it into sugars and then converting it into carbohydrates or protein in bio reactors. The spent media is a good source of minerals for compost and as fertilizer.
except the part where you need a bunch of other machines to get bioreactors to work properly which results in it being more inefficient because you have to consume electricity instead of more feed
>Doggay makes a comeback after he got assblasted by dog eating bantz
>how do you know a cow that eats grass in a field, walks into a hallway, and dies instantly isn’t tortured
The complete and utter lack of struggle? You can kill cows in front of each other and they never fear the gun.
So if they're not being tortured, what's wrong with harvesting human meat in an industrial farm?
>Playing gawd is wrong! because its scary!
>le moral agents
>moral comes from gawd
>I follow religions that tell me to do what I want
Who said anything about G*d? If the animals are being tortured, then you wouldn't do it to humans. If the animals are not being tortured, why not do it to humans?
God is the reason why we have morals, he is just making fun of that as the usual atheist cretin. They hate God because they can't do what they wan't
The species. NOT ALL LIFE IS EQUALLY VALUABLE. Do you not get this?
NOT ALL LIFE IS EQUALLY VALUABLE. You have been told this several times in long and short form vegidiot.
No one but us is who gives that value! and me and millions others choose to give equal value to all higher animals.
So bestiality is ok according to you.
>Violence against animals
>Hunters that killed 48%
>Non hunters 20%
So 2 non hunters had a sexual act with an animal yet this data does not talk anything about sexual abuse why you use it? I bring the topic about bestiality because it is inherently wrong to me to have sex with an animal.
>It's not that bestiality is wrong.
Yeah it is
But AI is techhnically bestiality, yet isn’t wrong.
Bestiality is wrong because sex is involved and there is no consent. AI is not sex.
>AI is not sex
It quite literally is. Bestiality is done for pleasure. AI is devoid of it and if you don’t gag you’re fired. That’s the difference.
why does every single schizopost have to be about pedophilia nowadays
So because animals have no soul cannot suffer etc. Why bestiality should be wrong? It cannot be because it is againsnt human dignity because animals aren't anything more than a bio fleshlight.
White person. Non argument from imaginary experts, emotionally charged and irrational.
Chinese person. Highly logical argument that refutes even imaginary sources on principle.
That’s an argument for why torturing animals is socially unacceptable, not why it would be morally wrong.
>Thus far there are strong correlations with bestiality and child rape and domestic animal abuse and violent crime.
You would have to prove a causal link to make moral judgements out of this.
This is literally correlation =/= causation.
wrong from line one
necessary for what? eating the result of turning corn husks into enough food to sustain a family of 4 for 6 months? and why is it wrong to kill them? not one human life on earth is necessarily affected by the death or life of a cow.
however raising a cow that will go to waste is wrong because the things that do affect people, like the resources that went into it, were wasted, and the pollution that needs sequestered is now pure cost. so we actually have an ethical obligation to increase the efficiency of meat production.
you're correct!
however, the animals we eat require us to eat their meat in order for them to survive!
that you didn't think of that! checkmate vegans!
The human race no longer needs you to survive either
shut up Black person
I don't believe in animal rights, so I'll keep eating them.
why do people still post in these threads
Because inferiority complex is rampant
This. Vegans need consistent validation for their lifestyle, its the main reason why start it to begin with.
Why they start it*
Is not just vegans its Vegans, omnivores carnivores, israelites, Christians, Atheists, Dog lovers, cat lovers, any animal lovers. Its so pathetic.
I see more corpse eaters being insecure here to be tbh
Thank you for proving my point <3
><3
Thanks for proving mine, you're literally seething
They are so afraid the evil vegans will take their tasty murder away!
Vegans need validation but meat eaters see them as a threat that needs to be torn down, especially because vegans hijack the judeo-christian anti-pleasure cult to appear moral to the lowbrows who actually believe it
>Meat is pleasure
>Pleasure is bad
>You MUST abstain from pleasure whenever possible to be a good person
The whole delusional animal rights thing is a threat to human prosperity. The ethically consistent conclusion to veganism is that it is ethical to kill a human if they are about to kill a cow.
>Humans are above all no matter how petty their needs are
>But im more important than you and I will kill you if I need to
And thus the troglodytes tear apart each other because nothing is more important than themselves.
no one said that. the closest thing was "i have a right to life that is guaranteed such that by refusing to acknowledge mine, you forfeit yours". you know, the philosophical basis for crime being anything more than animal behavior, without relying on god.
but vegans have repeatedly iterated the animals have the same rights as people. this includes the right to be defended from undue death, upon pain of death for the aggressor. or else animals do not have the same rights as people.
either that or you're a religious schizophrenic and "i disagree" is a logically valid refutation... regale us with mystical tales of souls and consciousnesses, why don't you?
But as usual there is a spectrum, why do you fixate in the extreme? is almost as if you did that to justify your dislike of them as whole.
>vegans would kill you if means sparing a cow
I don't doubt such crazy vegans exist just as there are people who would kill vegans simply because they want people to stop eating meat.
But theyre sooooo yummy
:D:D 😀
Why all this cope from omnivores? Is it because we're approaching the era of plant-based food and cultivated meat as main source of nutrients?
They come here spreading lies glorifying meat. It's amazing
No thats a strawman. If you can cultivate meat on a more economic scale that can out compete farmed and slaughtered meat while being just as nutrious the average person would not have a problem with it. But cultivated meat is no where near that phase and third world countries are highly reliant on grains and small to medium game meat to survive with their poorer income.
We can't pretend that the current system of intensive farming can feed +8 billions people sustainably in the future.
Lab-grown meat is the future, at least in the first world countries.
>drastical reduction of land use
>reduce zoonose risks
>grown in a sterile environment, thus no problem with antimicrobial resistance
>last but not least no more animal suffering
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why stopping at meat? Seafood, dairy products, eggs, cosmetics, fashion... there's a lot to talk about.
Then some anons here have the audacity to speak of moral principles. Are abuse and exploitation moral and ethical? Do you apply morals only when convenient?
Its human nature to be like that. Its almost instinctual to be selfish and thus conceive and use morals only convenient for the individual and groups that share similar ideology.
Finally one self conscious anon.
Population reduction is the future. Fragile industrialized food systems are never not destructive. Sterilizing idiots with an injection is ONLY good. Period. It is moral, environmental, and economic good. Their kids have already been replaced by AI.
DONT REVOLUTIONIZE
STERILIZE
>muh morals
>animals
Animals are not moral agents.
I dont apply morals to cattle period.
>muh failure prone food supply
Lol nope.
Based. Reproduction is unironically not a right. It’s not something goyim need to be complacent. By all means, birthing children of low status or ill health should be prosecuted as a form of assault.
Let's start with you two and all of your family.
Seethe more. China already proves this works. Animals have no rights, and of the rights humans have, popping out excess mouths isn’t one of them. The world does not even need 3 billion people.
>China already proves this works
Are you high? China has reverted this moronic orwellian law when they realized their people have been murdering little girls for decades and they are now drowning in desperate incels who will never find a wife.
The "world" is capable of sustaining roughly 65 billion people with a good standard of living.
the world is capable of sustaining 65 billion people in 300 sqft apartment complexes with a standard of living whose goodness comes from a steady stream of amazon prime deliveries, doordash, alcohol, tv, internet, and video games. all of these people must eat what more or less amounts to slop because the planet can not support any more animal life with that many apex predators trying to live like cattle in a massive herd of nothing but eating and staring into space.
none of them can have a family. no pets, those are inefficient. and lord vegatron said that if he were a cat, he would feel enslaved, so all cats are suffering. anything that increases your food intake or energy use is immoral and illegal. that includes exercise. access to weapons is absolutely forbidden, down to the simple pointy stick (trees are banned, rocks are removed from the environment). because you could have a nice day when it is legally required that you produce children and keep going to work or you will be forced to.
the ones consistently at the top of this scheme will always refer to you as cattle for going along with this. the word in their language is "goyim". and cattle are farmed. for what? tax dollars and money for nothing. you work for them. they get material value. you pay them for immaterial value (aka nothing) such as "IP privileges" to listen to taylor swift. they keep their money and the value of your work. kek.
or we could trim it down to 3 billion and those people could live fulfilling lives without coming as close to permanent destruction of the earth as humanity can.
more people is not more good
and reproduction is not a human right. just because you can light things on fire and some pseud reasoned it was the purpose for being doesn't mean you have a right to. reproduction is essentially bringing a new life into the hellfire and fueling it. so you're lighting things on fire because you can and saying it's your right because you felt good about it.
>or we could trim it down
Every person who ever suggests this is morally bound to be the first in the hopper.
>kill 5 billion people or deprive them of the liberty to have children.
off with his head.
>the liberty to have children
You don’t have this.
This. To have children is to require consent of another party to conceive, therefore you cannot nessasarily make it a matter of liberty like you would with free speech or owning a gun
Furthermore guns can be kept in a safe or shot innawoods without affecting society that much. Freespeech is not free of consquence and is often self regulating by the current narrative society is following. But having children has a tremendous impact society because a child uses resources and can grow up to have more children or potentially do societal harm. Its why the US was the leading power in the field of eugenics and the germans copied a lot of what was done.
What are you going to do to stop me?
Slip a little extra into your routine gigablackdeath vaccine after you've had one if you're just normal, two if you're successful, 3 if you're extremely high quality, or 0 if you're a violent criminal, sex offender, or have a heritable disability, with these figures possible going up or down depending on projected conditions.
Creating humans should be as tightly regulated and morally significant as killing them. Ending a life robs them of potential, creating a life robs them of peace and strictly speaking the majority of humans on earth only suffer and add to others suffering in the process. If human life matters more than anything else then creating it is a significant act which requires not just the consent of both the mother and the father, but the consent of the society that will be burdened by the decision.
A proper and consistent vegan standpoint (anti-human gaia-worshiper or some other kind of new age delusion...) would be that ALL life should be regulated as such. If the foundation of their morals is ALL SUFFERING IS WRONG (because they don't like it, or their god doesn't allow it) then birthing animals is also creating suffering.
tldr?
>he reads at a 1st grade level
Hold out your arm and close your eyes, please.
>le moral agent showing off
you need to build clean rooms
you need growth mediums
you need machines to feed, clean, and oxygenate the cells
you need steel for vats
and then you need all the secondary and tertiary production machine and materials for the above
then you need to power all the above machines
then you also need the space to all the above
cultivated meat is not viable, its not that simple of a process; if the cells get contaminated, because humans are humans, entire batch is ruined; you need a lot of growth medium which gets expensive; do you understand how complicated your circulatory system is, machines cannot replicate it and blood well enough to take care of the cells, which limits how much you can grow at a time regardless of how big your vats are; then you have to be running machines 24/7 at specific temps, which costs a lot of energy and creates a lot of heat; the amount of space required to grow lab meat is ridiculously high, chickens produce a lot of meat in a relatively small space, you get like 15lbs of meat per 100 square ft, lab is like 1, maybe less, because of every machine required in its production; all for a meat product that cant be use for more than anything than a meat paste, a nugget, no one is paying $15 for a single nugget, when conventional methods are $0.30, so unless your can reduce costs by at least 50 folds, which is impossible, its not happening
Our superior Ashkenazi intellect will figure it out as its happening right now. In a decade goyim like you will be bawling their eyes out as usual talking in antisemitic echo chambers about how the evil israelites are on top and have an agenda, how could they have done that! is unfair!
Christians and many others have hated us because we always have fared better, its all envy and with all the obstacles everyone has put us we have come on top.
i pity israelites, because you cant eat pork or shrimp
>implying we care about something we don't like and haven't tasted
Cope
>Never had it
>b...but I wouldn't like it anyway!
MASSIVE cope.
You know what they say, you are what you eat.
In that case I'll rather be intelligent like a pig than dumb like a plant.
>Christians and many others have hated us because we always have fared better
Lol.
Lmao, even.
Land used by single cell protein factory with an output of 1660 tons of finished product per month 793,148 sq feet.
Land used by high density cattle farm that produces 450t of cow (not even lean meat) per month 15'129,933 sq feet
no one is talking about beef, nor could meat paste ever replace a steak
no one is talking about sugar, nobody gives a shit about sugar, its everywhere, and reducing costs by at least 50 folds is the problem, because replicating biological functions that your lungs, blood, liver and kidneys, immune system do, is hard and this is the biggest bottle neck currently, because the ratio to size of the vat to amount of product produced starts decreasing because of the inability to replicate a circulatory system as efficient as blood vessels to oxygenate, feed, and clean the cells; which does beg the question why not just use a bunch of smaller ones where the ratios are higher?
The discussion was about feeding agricultural waste to animals to produce meat, the majority of agricultural waste consist of cellulosic byproducts only ruminants can eat and digest, therefore beef.
Sugar is a feedstock used to make human food and other products, you aren't following the conversation?
are you? because im talking about lab meat, the only person talking about beef is you, also
>nor could meat paste ever replace a steak
which is a problem, when all you can do with meat paste is make nuggets, which are disgusting
And I already acknowledged lab meat makes no economical sense right now but in the future might or might never do.
except you think that it would become viable, i think its physically impossible, and even wasting time and effort on this wasted flight of fancy is worse than doing nothing at all, because you could be spending those resources on something that will bear fruit
You assume too much simply to create an image of your antagonist. I really don't know if it really will work, reason I didn't really discussed any details of it but i did about single cell protein which is already produced and makes acceptable replacements for meat, at least to me.
>acceptable replacements for meat, at least to me.
if you like eating nuggets, i guess
how about stopping all foreign aid and letting mother nature take her course? china and india can be stricter with their aid to their citizens as well
IIRC the issue with lab grown meat is that the energy expense of producing the necessary growth medium for the cell cultures is way too expensive and environmentally unfriendly compared to traditional meat that it's not currently worth it.
Maybe if somebody comes up with a better way of producing growth medium or a way of recycling it.
Meats taste score according to my palate
Beef:9.5 Best meat
Pork:9 Second best
Chicken:8 Ok but needs great seasoning to have taste
Deer:7 Not bad but wouldn't go out of my way to eat it again
Duck:8 Pretty good, the Chinese introduced it to me
Ostrich:7 Like a mixture of beef and chicken but too expensive
Turkey :8 Great
Horse:6 Not that great, has some liver like taste
Donkey:? I guess like horse but worse
Wild pigs:3 Tastes like shit, literally
Elk:5 too "gamey"
Crocodile:8 Similar to Iguana but swampy
Iguana:9 delicious like some kind of chicken
Guinea pig:?
Bunny:9 One of my favs I ate it with a nice sauce
Shark:4 too strong fish taste didn't liked it at all
Human:? Im curious, maybe if I have an accident and some part of me gets amputated
Kangaroo:? On the check list
Buffalo:7 stronger beef taste
Monkey:? If some day I visit Brazil will give it a try I heard it is a delicacy.
Do you know what rabbit/hare meat you tried? Or at least the part of the world you got it?
OP is a god tier troll. rightoids truly are the easiest group to bait
You just werent around for the daily “redpill” shitstorms of stormgays posting muh charts
>YOUR SCIENCE IS FRICKING SHIT YOU NAZI SHITHEAD HERES THE REAL ONE SOCIAL CANCER
>Lol IQ teeeests
-Daily
Meat eaters live longer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8881926/
We are carnivores.
https://justmeat.co/docs/homo-carnivorus-barry-groves-md.pdf
This is not up for debate anymore. If you feel for fish and chickens, then look for a different source of animal protein. I personally don’t believe they even have selves to feel bad for. It is not like anything to be a salmon.
There are studies that do not agree on this topic.
Humans have adapted to eat meat, we're not carnivores. We are adapted omnivores, learn the basics first.
We can survive on a plant-based diet and live a long life.
I will say that this is not up to debate anymore.
Life expectancy cannot be determined by one single factor alone, such as the diet, it's a combination of factors that influence or lifestyle.
>I will say that this is not up to debate anymore
Are you the head arbiter of all things human diet related? Christ you are only proving the sterotype of Vegans having egos larger than their prostate. We will talk about what we want, its not definitive or case closed. Even if you make the argument that we evolve to be adapted omnivores you are conceading the argument because we are not pre-omnivore humans anymore. Our bodies have made the changes to be accustomed to the diet and to go against it is detrimental to health. It also shows that despite getting by as herbivores for some reason we evolved to eat meat too, I wonder why? Could it be the fact that for whatever reason nature allowed this change to occour because it was more efficient for survival? Could it be due to the fact omnivores out competed herbivores?
Your argument only disproves the point you are trying to make. Eat some steak douchebag and learn some humility.
Pot kettle, lol
Touché.
>Humans have adapted to eat meat, we're not carnivores. We are adapted omnivores, learn the basics first.
More vegan brainwashing, this thread is a disaster.
Firstly, homonids have been eating meat since forever. Even chimpanzees eat meat, especially insects.
We have evidence that 2-3 million years ago, hominids started incorporating larger game.
>We can survive on a plant-based diet and live a long life.
No.
We can only do this now, because we have man-made vegetables and fruits, as well as synthetic supplements from otherwise inedible foods.
You would never go "oh we can grow all the nutrients a cat needs in a lab!" and then say that cats are "adapted omnivores", nonsense.
In the wild, 300,000 years ago when the first modern human appeared, you would starve your body from multiple essential micronutrients if you just ate all the nearby fruits, seeds and vegetables.
You would probably get poisoned, too, because most plants that are "edible" to us, don't want to be eaten.
>because most plants that are "edible" to us, don't want to be eaten
no its because we only made them edible in the past 4000 years, and even then for most of that was just wheat or rice, you had to be fricking insane to eat a lot of this other stuff, like potatoes and rhubarb, the poisonous plants, even peppers are poisonous
>actually fricking ritualposting on a board as slow as Wauf
Per wikipedia
"The mandrill is an omnivore. The core of its diet consists of plants, of which it eats over a hundred species. One study found the mandrill's diet was composed of fruit (50.7%), seeds (26.0%), leaves (8.2%), pith (6.8%), flowers (2.7%), and animal matter (4.1%), with other foods making up the remaining 1.4%"
>no longer need
We never needed to.
>This doesn’t need to happen.
You say that as if it's something bad.
The only bad thing is how cattle is treated under contemporary western methods.
Allah has decreed a whole range of animals as permissible for consumption, who are you to question that?
This world does not exist for your or anyone's pleasure. Go visit a speherd for once in your life.
not my problem
Da Minion
>to survive
I'm not trying to "survive". I'm trying to make life meaningful and that comes with eating juicy ass beef.
We do not need to eat meat to survive. Virtually all of the nutrients you need can be acquired by alternative, non-animal sources, with the sole exceptions being B12 and maybe Vitamin D, both of which can be very easily supplemented. Alternatives to meat are usually cheaper, with the few exceptions being literal meat substitutes like Beyond Meat, which isn't necessary to sustain a vegan diet.
Because we do not need to eat meat to survive, the meat industry kills animals and forces them to suffer unnecessarily, which is morally wrong
If you do not think that's morally wrong and it's fine to kill animals and force them to suffer unnecessarily, you should have no issue with someone torturing or killing dogs and cats for fun. Otherwise your worldview makes no logical sense. If you think that's fine, you're a legitimate psychopath
>We do not need to cure moronation to survive
>The world just needs to work overtime to compensate for our moronation
I don't value all lives equally. Your entire tirade begs the question:
Is all life equally valuable?
I don't believe it is. Humans are at the forefront and everything else is only valuable in relation to human affairs. Humans who disagree with this are free to go extinct, or be punished the day they put anything over a human. What we have found is people who are okay with killing some animals do not display any more callous or violent behavior, but other animals do correlate with it, usually animals that have a more human appearance or set of behaviors. This is because empathy is based mostly on visual input, and without empathy, logically, morality ceases to exist. "Psychopath" isn't an insult at that point, it's a compliment.
>Oh so I can do whatever benefits me without caring? Woe is me. I am so offended. Anyways, did you know I own an acid bath for washing automotive parts? *BANG* MY GENES WIN FRICK KIN SELECTION BEYOTCH
But psychopaths in this species are like parasites, so, eventually the ticks will be picked.
Coincidentally (after 10,000 years of natural selection) the animals the most intelligent, empathetic, and creatively accomplished peoples prefer to eat are the ones that elicit the least evil when eaten. Step up from whites to the superior israelites and pigs fall off the menu. Odd, isn't it?
>inb4 asian IQs!
People with autism have high IQ scores in a narrow distribution and low levels of achievement. Intelligence correlates with IQ, but sometimes a population level average isn't telling the whole story, and an advantage on an IQ test may come at the cost of a mental deficit, and averages may erase the lack of genius.
Morals are subject to evolution. We have animal preserves because of the opportunity cost of letting those animals go extinct. We know the ecosystem they help function may benefit us in the future.
>I don't believe it is. Humans are at the forefront and everything else is only valuable in relation to human affairs. Humans who disagree with this are free to go extinct, or be punished the day they put anything over a human. What we have found is people who are okay with killing some animals do not display any more callous or violent behavior, but other animals do correlate with it, usually animals that have a more human appearance or set of behaviors. This is because empathy is based mostly on visual input, and without empathy, logically, morality ceases to exist. "Psychopath" isn't an insult at that point, it's a compliment.
Ok, then going by your logic we should be allowed to do whatever we want to animals. Torture them, kill them, rape em, that should all be fine to you. Which makes you a psychopath
>Morals are subject to evolution
No, this is fallacious. Evolution merely describes natural phenomenon.. In nature, animals also resort to cannibalism, torture, infanticide, etc yet we would all agree these are terrible things. In nature anything is justified so long as it leads to the promotion of spreading genes and survival, however in human society that isn't defensible at all, we wouldn't defend someone mass impregnating people against their will because it's natural
>Muh asian IQs
Also
the Asia-Pacific region has the highest share of vegetarians (19%) and vegans (9%).
Asian vegetarians will eat fish, eggs, and dairy, fulfilling all of their need for animal proteins.
Asia's lack of innovation aside, I somehow doubt the historically poor dog eating morons of guangdong are raising the bar.
Literally, no, learn to read and think.
Do you know what you just did? You agreed with me. Torture and rape elicit screams and struggles. Audio visual input that triggers empathy. Killing, we prefer to be peaceful. I wonder why? Because a preference for a peaceful death strikes a balance between the simple fact we need animal protein, and the fact that we need to preserve lives (each others) to survive.
People who hunt are not more likely to be criminals. The animals typically hunted share little of their appearance and behavior with humans. People who kill dogs are. Dogs share more of their appearance and behavior with humans. Curious.
I only care about animals insofar as they affect human affairs. People who are fine with cattle standing around and peacefully dropping dead behave normally. People who are okay with killing dogs are less likely to, and they tend to be less intelligent or empathetic, because dogs trigger empathy more than cows. It's that simple. If you portray cows acting like dogs, it makes normal people less comfortable with eating cows because dog behavior is too close to human behavior.
You do not understand how morality would be an evolved trait of a social species, you are actually moronic
Now imagine, that the moral tendencies of different populations of a cooperative species could evolve differently at a neurological level, and that even the transferable ideas themselves could evolve, because ideas that result in their holders proliferating proliferate with them. GASP.
>EVOLUTION IS NATURAL SO EVOLUTION ONLY MAKES THINGS ACT LIKE SHARKS BECAUSE R/NATUREISMETAL
>t. eenage atheist
>Do you know what you just did? You agreed with me. Torture and rape elicit screams and struggles. Audio visual input that triggers empathy. Killing, we prefer to be peaceful. I wonder why? Because a preference for a peaceful death strikes a balance between the simple fact we need animal protein, and the fact that we need to preserve lives (each others) to survive.
Then you should have no problem with someone who removes the vocal cords from an animal, and tortures and rapes them to death in the privacy of their own home
Also, this is all irrelevant, because evolution is contingent on your environment. We don't live in an environment where eating meat is strictly necessary anymore while in the past that may have been the case
Holy fricking shit you are genuinely intelligent
>I have a problem with people who hurt dogs because they are more likely to hurt people
>SO YOU ARE OKAY WITH THEM HURTING DOGS IF YOU DONT HEAR ABOUT IT
No, their hurting dogs affects human affairs. They are either naturally sadistic, or learning to suppress their sense of empathy so they can engage in parasitic and destructive behavior such as theft and rape of humans. So it's not alright.
You're basically saying that unsolved crimes are right. You understand this?
>Eating meat is not strictly necessary!
A single economic disruption makes it so. Maybe instead of trying to cope with slightly worse health, you should worry about finding a form of meat that doesn't kill anything that bothers empathetic people.
>Nooooo morals cant evolve because evolution is nature
Let me tell you this again
YOU ARE GENUINELY LESS INTELLIGENT THAN ME
AND YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF HAVING THIS DISCUSSION
EVERY POINT I MADE FLEW OVER YOUR HEAD
>No, their hurting dogs affects human affairs. They are either naturally sadistic, or learning to suppress their sense of empathy so they can engage in parasitic and destructive behavior such as theft and rape of humans. So it's not alright.
Okay, so harming animals unnecessarily is wrong. So we shouldn't kill and eat animals, because killing and eating animals is unnecessary.
>Nooooo morals cant evolve because evolution is nature
That's the polar opposite of what I'm saying. Eating meat may have been justifiable in the past because it was out of necessity. It is not justifiable now, because it is not necessary, because our environment has changed.
>No, their hurting dogs affects human affairs. They are either naturally sadistic, or learning to suppress their sense of empathy so they can engage in parasitic and destructive behavior such as theft and rape of humans. So it's not alright.
So what if you have someone who rapes and tortures animals but never harms humans? Then you'd unironically have to defend him
>You do not understand how morality would be an evolved trait of a social species, you are actually moronic
>Now imagine, that the moral tendencies of different populations of a cooperative species could evolve differently at a neurological level, and that even the transferable ideas themselves could evolve, because ideas that result in their holders proliferating proliferate with them. GASP.
Nothing you said matters because nature simply describes something that is happening, it doesn't actually justify why we should do something. By your logic I am naturally inclined to think killing animals unnecessarily is wrong. So what? You're just describing something you aren't giving a real justification for it
This is the classic is-ought fallacy, there is no actual justification for doing something "natural" that isn't circular reasoning
>We should do X because it's natural
>Okay, and why does doing something natural matter, morally speaking
>Because it just does!
>the Asia-Pacific region has the highest share of vegetarians (19%) and vegans (9%).
yeah but 95% of those vegetarians and vegans are pajeets and they're all moronic
Your moronic estrogen-fuelled rant makes me want to try dog meat
>2323
>not genetically engineering snakes to be mindless rib factories that live off fortified carbon slop made from bones and processed sewer gases
4678943
Guess who started it, moron
We're playing by your rules
4678940
literal seething /misc/homosexual
>reduced to childish (you) games by a funny shitpost
4678919
How mad can you possibly be? You fear confrontation and discussion so much you react like a kid.
Meet the OTHER gang
>VEGAN
An upper class child who has never worked a day in his life nor seen fragments of survival beyond women gardening on TV, he believes animals have deep inner worlds and comprehend abstract concepts based on cartoons and dramatized documentaries. Out of sympathy for what he imagines animals are like (pets are depressed slaves, he figures), he gladly ignores the suffering of his fellow man that are abused and enslaved to make agriculture cheaper and more available. Will say everything is bad for the environment except for the population, which he believes will and should reach 16 billion, all concentrated in small pod cities where people exist only to eat robo-farmed crops. When pressed to justify his views, he descends into religious nonsense.
>KALETEETH
A cooking hobbyist, he delights in burning fossil fuels to render the inedible into something with more caloric content. This has resulted in noticeable weight gain. He has gone vegan simply to say he is vegan, and will always make sure everyone knows it, but has been caught eating fish in secret. Calls everyone who isn't vegan a psychopath and a murderer.
>BEANFART
Unironically believes that meat will kill him based on poorly controlled studies that compared poor black americans on a fast food diet to their rich white oppressors enjoying the benefits of expensive imports and paid nutritionists and personal trainers. Therefore, he eats the most plant based diet he can afford that day. His hair has fallen out from malnutrition, and yet he is still chubby, so he takes this as a sign of good health.
How this thread goes:
OP gets BTFO on simple terms
OP repeats himself
OP gets BTFO with actual science
OP links PETA’s website and vague and dated statements from propaganda organizations
OP gets BTFO by being reminded those arent “the science”
OP starts rambling about the garden of eden revealing that he is in fact a schizophrenic seventh day adventist who got lost on his way home to /misc/
Carni/omnivores cope
Having really considered this issue from my perspective, I've come to the decision that the only way to really guiltlessly engage with the meat industry is to genuinely attempt to change it or to willfully embrace its nature. Personally, I just don't care. I think long and hard about the fact that the chicken industry is one of the greatest engines of suffering ever built by human hands. It is an industrial Auschwitz. Arbeit Macht Poultrei. However, I just don't care. Does this mean I am, by the definition of people who choose the vegan path, a monster? Maybe, but at least I know what I'm about. I am willfully complicit in the system with full knowledge of what it does. What I really think is pathetic are the ones who constantly flit between the two options because they lack the strength of character to pick a side, torn between their base pleasures and their desire to think of themselves as a "good person". They eat veal, enjoy it, feel guilty, swear to never do it again, and then do it again. The vegan never does it again. I order a second helping, fully understanding what I am ordering. I respect the vegan more than the first guy.
>you will live in ze pod
>you will eat ze bugs
True and the consumption of way to much meat is unhealthy, destructive to the environment and produces living conditions that are horrific to the animals.
Correct
Outside of spiritual nonsense, the real or imagined suffering of things other than myself is not objectively relevant to my life except in how it motivates things to affect my life. Since cattle hardly react after seeing 1000 of their kin fall dead, the only thing you have besides complete bullshit is fighting me over it. Your words are pissing into the wind.
Personally, and spiritually, I don't believe cattle, chickens, or trout have souls.
We are omnivores of course we do. We have evolved to subsist on both meat and vegetation, our intestines are even specifically formed to digest such a diet. To completely remove meat or vegetation from our diet is unhealthy and goes against biology. It is natural to have both, and being vegan or keto or whatever alternative diet choice is unnatural. No matter how hard you try you cannot move your eyes to the side of your head, remove the canines from your mouth or that endorphin rush from your brain as your olfactory senses detect the scent of flesh. Unless you succeed in the quest for transhumanism this will be the reality off all of mankind.
This one speaks the truth. Factory farming is unfortunate, and realistically we can have guilt free meat via lab synthesis or just better farming practices, but capitalism, much like nature, takes the path of least resistance to achieve its goal.
>meat via lab synthesis
possible, yes
viable, youd have an easier time inventing a perpetual motion machine
Humans are vegetarians by nature. Any meat consumption, no matter how small, drastically increases risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and general obesity. Humans are no designed to eat meat in any amount.
>Humans are no designed
please type english, you seem malnourished
Try looking at your own picture.
You got so thoroughly BTFO in the last thread that you were reduced to a stuttering moron. Making this new thread and reposting all your trolls wont make you right. We can just link the old one and laugh.
https://desuarchive.org/an/thread/4664841/
Yes we need meat to survive. Living in an unnatural weakened state due to social support is called being sick.
No, we do not need to consume meat to survive. It is possible to maintain a healthy and balanced diet without meat.
We have evolved as flexible eaters, and different cultures around the world have sustained themselves through primarily plant-based diets for centuries, you homosexual.
It will be said endlessly in this thread too, but the key to a healthy diet is variety and balance, and vegetables all all the nutrients your body will need.
Once you know this, it's your choice to continue supporting the animal holocaust or not.
Wrong. You are sick. Meat eaters live longer.
Herbivores have no moral value anyways. They are not lives, but objects. Only habituals meat eaters like humans, dogs, and pigs have souls.
Post statistics, you angry supremacist. Remember that those terms are just a how we classify the creatures; herbivores are animals just like (You). You'll hide behind names to find more and more excuses.
Acktchually the real veganism lifestyle is about doing less, working less, and bringing everything back to a zero-kilometer approach.
Do not watch videos of those fancy "vegans" who have to include coconut oil in all their recipes, they are are morons that don't understand what it means to be vegan.
>supplements
I hope you're just pretending not to know that a lot of people use supplements regardless of their diet.
This thread is probably made by some troll. This board is hostile to vegans it seems, OP should have learned that by now. No use arguing with people with a close mind.
MEET THE GANG
>CARNIST
A wealthy intellectual and man of culture and finer pleasures. Advocates for abandoning the smarter livestock species to pet/working animal status and genetically engineering the present dumbest livestock species to be totally incapable of any form of consciousness - so the lack of activity will make their meat more tender. He is, plain to say, sick of those days when the butcher only has tough stew meats, as animal protein is all he eats. Has curiously low blood pressure, very little body fat, and excellent brain function. Completely abstains from drugs and alcohol because they are derived from plants.
>BLOODMOUTH
An anti-cooking advocate, sees the continued use of fire as damaging to humanity and the planet, as we are now so intelligent we do not need to aim for maximal digestive efficiency to survive effectively. Cites studies showing that cooked foods contain more carcinogens and less nutrients than their raw ingredients - especially meat. Holds his anti-fire ideology so far he is against the use of fossil fuels, and admits it would make plant based diets impossible for some time because vegans depend on the global economy to maintain access to a sufficient diversity and volume of crops. Allies with bloodmouth if the power needed to keep fake animals alive is nuclear, because nuclear is technically not combustion.
>CORPSEBREATH
Simply eats what is good for him. Is aiming to maximize his lifespan while doing the least harm, so he only eats animals that have died naturally or needed euthanized to end inescapable suffering. Also consumes infertile eggs and excess milk, but does not believe in separating mothers and calves to increase milk production, because man must be thankful and respectful towards those who provide for him. Thinks carnist is a bit insane and we should just wait for them to die and deal with the taste.
There are statistics and studies in the last thread.
>nooo classification
Classification is significant.
My fricking sides
Lmao beanfart
Stop replying to yourself, it's embarrassing
>t. The living joke
We live in a society where vegans are too weak to click on tbharchive links rather than have repeat arguments.
>Carnist
That’s me. We dont have to go vegan to care about animals. We can just make meat plants from their mutant spawn instead. Imagine, a lump of pure prime cuts with tubes feeding it reprocessed waste in one end and taking methane and liquid pollutants out for recycling out another. Peak empathy and environmentalism. It would be like a big tasty sea cucumber.
Lel
It's hilarious how the vegan "slurs" for carnivores all sound badass
>we do not need to cure moronation to survive, we just need the non-moronic to work overtime to feed us
This is how vegans sound when they face starvation without a globalized economy serving them their exotic crops and supplements to keep them from withering away like a low iq pajeet heretic monk.
how many vegan societies have existed in human history? Can you name one?
There are plenty of "vegetarian" societies that will only eat fish and chicken (a lot of asians actually see vegetarianism like this - no mammals), but vegans have always been small, self-extincting groups of religious nutjobs that "reproduce" by brainwashing new members such as the jains. They can only exist in a small very warm area where agriculture can somewhat sustain a few of them without them all dying of starvation. The women in particular suffer the most, leading to low birth weights, and lower IQs.
There's a reason everyone who was able to build a civilization for themselves without industrialized westerners literally selling them one eats quite a bit of some sort of animal protein.
Humans can "survive without meat" like someone with diabetes "survives". The entire world is working overtime to keep them from dying, but it's a self imposed disorder, not a real one. Most of the things vegans NEED to only be a little less healthy were actually created for people who mostly eat processed grains, sugars, and fatty cuts of red meat, because they're even more deficient. But unconsciously so, they just don't know any better. Vegans do, but their pseudo-religious circular-logic beliefs regarding "goodness" are self-crippling.
That's because we were evolved to use tools and eat cooked meat.
No, we evolved to use tools to grow our own food. Meat is poison to our entire body.
Then go ahead and eat this homosexual and come back with documented results
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/eating-red-meat-daily-triples-heart-disease-related-chemical
This isn't up for debate anymore.
I said don't come back until you eat the fricking hayburger b***h
Humans evolved to eat fruit, not grass. moron.
That's like saying "it's okay to feed dogs chocolate, it just depends on the dosage :^)"
EAT
THE
FRICKING
BURGER
OR YOU ARE NOT VEGAN
>a literal strawman
Bloodmouths are so pathetic.
I am actually vegan, I eat hayburgers every month,
piss off fraud
>Humans evolved to eat fruit
Humans evolved to eat many different things. Fruits, honey, the seeds of wild cereal grasses, roots, tubers, MEAT, eggs, etc.
The average lifespan of humans in developed countries is about 85 years yet the vast majorty had a omnivore diet, I don't care if i live 10 years longer if I have a vegan diet if that means 85 years of marginal culinary pleasure. My life quality is significantly improved by enjoying the delicacies of meat. Did you know that the depression and suicide rates are higher on vegans and vegetarians?
Everything can be considered a """poison""" it always depends on the dosage.
Agriculture is extremely recent in human history, way after tools were made. Said tools were, what you know, made to kill things. Things we could eat. So if anything we evolved to make tools to kill more animals for meat, not to grow shit.
Furthermore the normal lifestyle for humans were nomadic ones. Herding cattle from land to land and allowing crops to grow naturally instead of cultivating it. Cattle was extremely important in the making of tools and sources of nutrition, just as the sparse crops that man had to share with their animals. This life style stopped with the innovation of agriculture and nomads could just cultivate land instead of trying to find new land for their animals to feed off. This is where the concept of farms came from and the establishment of early villages and by extension civilisations that we know today. Our need to live off of livestock literally made humans the way we are today, not the need to turn into malnourished vegetarian farmers.
Even if it's just one fish per year?
fish is specially pernicious since it could potentially expose you to heavy metals
Humans wouldn’t exist without meat. It was critical in our brain growth.
>He does not know
This, but it was less meat and more fat and high starchy foods. Fatty cuts of meat and starchy tubers that we learned to cook as well as sedge "nuts" are our salvation early on, but we then evolved to need less fatty meats like fish as it was abundant. Bless us, the omnivores.
Ok not a meme response but isn't there an argument that psilocybin containing mushrooms contributed to cognitive development over time with early homosexual sapiens?
The stoned ape theory. Doesn't seem feasible to me because you need the brainpower for the psychedelics to show you something. You need the hardware the shrooms just make it work in a different way.
Shalom rabbi
>drastically increases risk of cancer
Processed foods.
>heart disease, diabetes
Obesity, mostly from carbs/ fast food and junk food.
>stroke
Stroke patients are recommended ketogenic diets.
>and general obesity.
Carbs/ fast food.
Canine teeth are mainly for fighting. Look at other herbivores, like gorillas.
They play a very minor role in digesting meats.
You've posted the brown bear as an example for an omnivore, but brown bear diets are almost exclusively made up of plants.
Meat seems to take a supplementary role, in that regard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_biology_of_the_brown_bear
>Despite their reputation, most brown bears are not highly carnivorous, as they derive up to 90% of their dietary food energy from vegetable matter.
>[...] berries, grasses, flowers, acorns (Quercus ssp.) and pine cones as well as mosses and fungi such as mushrooms.
Humans do not need canines to fight, since we used our upper muscle strength and brain power to throw sharpened objects and setting up traps for hunting.
Exactly! There is also another misconception, that we have front facing eyes because we are predators but that's not the reason, its because we are apes. We have front facing eyes like most primates because our ancestors needed excellent depth perception for an arboreal lifestyle but this became very handy when we begun to hunt.
Yet we eat meat.
We also consume vast amounts of sugar water. That doesn't mean it's healthy for us.
Meat provides protein
The wrong kind of protein, the kind that creates prions. Plant protein is infinitely healthier, and with no risk of prions, cancer, or heart disease.
Meat eaters live longer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8881926/
We are carnivores.
https://justmeat.co/docs/homo-carnivorus-barry-groves-md.pdf
This is not up for debate anymore.
>Created by Michael Goldstein
>Vegan desperately trying to appeal to anti semites
You will find that the narative around the tribes are anything but pro-meat. In fact the idea of vegan slop and high grains is thought to be methods of control.
>Le anti-semite are vegans
Also people mentioned on the site are:
L. Amber O’Hearn (@KetoCarnivore)
Shawn Baker, M.D. (@SBakerMD)
Dr. Csaba Tóth (@paleoketogenic)
Zsófia Clemens, PhD (@ClemensZsofia)
High Steaks (@CarnivoresCreed)
Georgia Ede, M.D. (@GeorgiaEdeMD)
Miki Ben-Dor (@bendormiki)
Raphi Sirt (@raphaels7)
Mikhaila Peterson (@MikhailaAleksis)
Dr. Ann Childers (@AnnChildersMD)
Peter Ballerstedt (@GrassBased)
Travis Statham (@travis_statham)
Prof. Tim Noakes (@ProfTimNoakes)
Nina Teicholz (@bigfatsurprise)
Savory Institute (@SavoryInstitute)
Dana Spencer Shute (@ZeroCarbHealth)
Kelly Williams Hogan (@kelly_hogan_zc)
Carnivore Aurelius (@KetoAurelius)
nutritionwithjudy (@NutritionwJudy)
Michael Anthony (@meat0sis)
All genuine people with no connection to garnivore diet and manosphere
>Le anti-semite are vegans
My point was that anti-semites are not typically vegan and pro bronze age tier carnivore sort of shit
How come our ancestors could eat meat for thousands of years without ever getting prions? Yeah we're not made to eat raw meat anymore but did you know???? You can COOK meat???? OH NO!!!!!!!!!!! THAT WOULD BE MORALLY WRONG BECAUSE (excuse) AND (excuse)
>our ancestors
Didn't eat meat. The idea that "cavemen" (which never actually lived in caves) sat around chewing mammoth bones all day is a myth created by Victorian pseudo-scientists to fit in with their worldview of gradual progress towards civilization. Meat eaters were barbaric, and if we had barbaric ancestors then they must have eaten meat. It makes no actual sense, but then again neither does the "stupid slow dinosaur" myth and the Victorians believed in that too.
Yeah they probably ate plants too but they had to have ate some sort of meat or meat protein to compliment it.
There's zero evidence early humans ate meat.
Why are you lying? There is zero evidence that they ate vegetables as majority of those weren't even present.
Anon…there’s plenty of evidence they ate meat. They hunted. They ate what they killed. There are coprolites full of worm evidence when they didn’t cook it. There are animal bones with clear tool markings where they stripped off meat. There are ashes where they were cooked. Our ancestors followed animals across the planet and ate them.
>goes against biology
No.
Sure we "evolved" to eat meat but that's because food was difficult to acquire for our ancestors so something nutritionally dense like meat was important for their survival. This is also why carbs are so tasty to us, because we needed all the calories we could get since food was so difficult to acquire. In short we evolved that way because of our environment and the resources that were available to us.
Now, food is not hard to acquire at all. The nutritional benefits of meat can be gained from alternative sources fairly easily. Food is so easy to acquire that people are going obese at record rates and it's leading to societal issues. Our love for sugar and carbs, which would've helped our ancestors survive years ago, is now leading to conditions like diabetes. The environmental pressures of today are not the same as the environmental pressures of our ancestors. If we're going by your logic, we shouldn't use modern medicine either, since that "goes against biology" since our ancestors didn't evolve with it.
Evolution isn't moral. Evolution simply describes change that occurs due to environmental factors, it doesn't dictate what we should or shouldn't do. By your logic, we should just let all the endangered species go extinct, since that's a natural consequence of evolution, and we shouldn't have things like animal preserves
Nobody is arguing about morals at all, I don't need to hide behind them because I don't owe an explanation why I eat what I do. We evolved to eat meat. I like doing it. Always have. Always will.
>Evolution isn't moral
Never claimed it was.
>If we're going by your logic, we shouldn't use modern medicine either
We are not evolved to break our legs either, so that counterpoint does not make sense. When you sick it is because there is a deviation in your body's normal function.
>By your logic, we should just let all the endangered species go extinct
I actually see no problem with this. If they cannot compete then that is the course of their existence. I do not believe in "unnatural trajectories" that humans have regarding our impact on nature. We are part of nature and this is nature running its course by us restructuring ecology.
>Food is so easy to acquire that people are going obese at record rates and it's leading to societal issues
No, the reason people are going obese is because of food deserts and processed products being so cheap to acquire. Poor people do not have the time or money to eat fresh and eat well in the west. Something I acknowledge and believe should be corrected. But it is not an exclusively meat problem which I argue in favour for due to humans being omnivores.
This is true but it’s a pussy loser move to buy tortured low vibrational plastic wrapped grocery store meat Buy meat from an actual rural farm or atleast a butcher
Man if I lived long enough for humans to reach transhumanism and we ascend to some greater intellectual form I'm STILL gonna eat a good steak.
so? gonna eat em anyway
>vegan got btfo in the other thread so they made another one
tbh im not a vegan but the dairy industry is pretty messed up
i dont think theres anything inherently unethical about drinking cow milk but the way its done on scale is messed up