>Why do you eat animals if you love animals?

>Why do you eat animals if you love animals?
How do you respond?

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Meds. Now.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    One of the reasons why I love animals is that they taste good so..

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    just say: why do you eat plants don't you love plants when we need them to make oxygen? in fact, why do you hate this planet so much that you want global warming to happen

    now watch the sjw goes into error does not compute mode and dig holes

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't, I only love the ones in tune with humans, like dogs or magpies. They have a sixth sense that lets them know when they're being stared at, like we do. That comes from growing side-by-side with us. Wild dogs/wolves even hunt with crows now. It's been caught on camera. There are certain animals that are just meant to be teammates with us, and others who are better served on a plate. This is also how I get around people saying intelligence, because animal intellect doesn't particularly matter to me since we can measure it in a ton of different ways. The ability to empathize only matters in a small way to me as well.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    ALLAH PROVIDES

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    taste good

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you love animals, why you dont frick animals?

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm perfectly fine with them eating me when I'm dead.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t give serious responses to women or sois so i’ve never had a real life argument with a real life vegan

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    At some point I wanted to go vegan, I thought I only ate meat for the taste. I soon realised that plants simply don't have the same nutrition. There are certain essential nutrients not found in any plant and others have horrible bioavailability. It's sad to kill animals but I value my own health more.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"Harm"
    How can you harm something that isn't even a thing? Do you worry about harming dirt because its state changes when your foot lands? Do the rocks suffer? moron.

    Most animals aren't beings. They are animate objects and have no moral value. Only humans have any real value (practical and moral), while animals only have moral value by way of humans feelings regarding them, which are arbitrary.

    Learn the difference between conscious and sensate.
    Learn the difference between nociception (a biomechanical system) and suffering (the subjective experience of undesirable conditions).

    Furthermore, on what basis is any and all harm bad? That is nonsense. Only harm done directly to you or something that needs to remain unharmed to maximize your chances of survival and reproduction has any relevance to your life. Harm is, in fact, good, depending on what is harmed (such as to release stored energy and nutrients or to alter something to make it more useful, or as a matter of course in essential activities).

    Convert to hinduism or fricking give up, child. You are a new-agey idiot who is all oversocialized white child feelings and 0 sense. Try going back in time and staying away from talking animal cartoons so you grow up with a little less brain damage,

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      but the general scientific consensus is that animals are sentient? cambridge declaration of consciousness is perhaps the most cited example. whats your basis for thinking a pig for example isn't sentient?
      >Furthermore, on what basis is any and all harm bad? That is nonsense. Only harm done directly to you or something that needs to remain unharmed to maximize your chances of survival and reproduction has any relevance to your life. Harm is, in fact, good, depending on what is harmed (such as to release stored energy and nutrients or to alter something to make it more useful, or as a matter of course in essential activities).
      instrumentally yes but not in and on itself, say you could get the same positive effect without the harm then that would be better, right? asking why harm is bad is just a circular question, you're asking why feeling bad is bad? and again not being able to eradicate all suffering from the world is not a justification for doing more than you can't avoid

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >trust the NGOs!
        Based moron. Even human consciousness isn’t universally proven. Only assumed because even npcs are extremely valuable. It’s religion for fedoras complete with ordained priests.
        >if harm doesnt matter…
        There is no better or worse. Irrelevant means irrelevant. Something else theoretically having a bad time is not necessarily bad.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          are you actually doubting other humans than yourself are conscious? are you a fricking solipsist? the fact that it (probably) can't be proven means you have to make an assumption either way and if the evidence very strongly in one direction then of course that's what you should do. especially considering the consequences of your stance if you are wrong. all knowledge is derived from axioms - is that a basis for you to just believe literally what you want?
          >if harm doesnt matter…
          what? im saying the opposite. it's not irrelevant and it does matter. there's intrinsic value in that feeling bad is in fact, bad and that feeling good is good but if you sincerely don't believe that other humans (especially) or animals are sentient you are borderline psychotic

          what makes bivalves different from insects?
          Nothing, they are exactly the same undeveloped creatures, being fine with one but not the other is blatant hypocrisy and selective morality.

          what? they are completely different animals in every single way lol. completely different biology. i can't speak to what exactly, I'm no expert, but my understanding is that bivalves posses no organs that indicates any level of cognition. insects have basically only been researched on this in the last decade and we don't really know as I mentioned, but that they do have organs that we think enables sentience and display traits that we relate to consciousness. but again, even though proof is weak it still suggests it. again, better safe than sorry

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >organs that enable sentience
            that's called the brain, almost everything has a brain yet the existence of a brain isn't enough to tell you shit.

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              bad wording sorry. i'm not gonna try and account for the neurological mechanisms. previously it was thought that consciousness required a neocortex but this has since been challenged. many birds like parrots are probably even sapient doing things like abstract reasoning.
              again it is very hard to actually prove another beings cognition but the fact that basically all animals exhibit behaviors that are consistent with consciousness. insects have been showed to learn and generalize tasks, make trade-offs (reasoning) and given morphine shown less care for pain. they react to many of the chemicals that we know alter our states in the same ways in fact.
              again none of this is conclusive of course, but there's more and more evidence pointing to that they probably are. so, again, it's reasonable to give them the benefit of doubt.

              The feelings of something other than yourself are not relevant and may not even exist. You require a third party with a supreme power to judge something as good or bad even if it does not affect you. Sorry. Intrinsic morality is intrinsically a farce. You’re just an egoist wearing a mask. Underneath it, “it bothers my feefees”

              It doesn’t bother mine or affect me so i will eat ze birds. Deal with it.

              you are not refuting the argument. repeating yourself does not make you more right. why is it a farce? why is there not intrinsic value in the fact that feeling good is obviously good and feeling bad is obviously bad? why does it require a third party? you're not reasoning, you're just making statements you've already made and that I've already responded to

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you are not refuting my arbitrary just so leap in logic!
                I don't think "I do not want to feel bad therefore NOTHING should feel bad" needs refuted any more specifically than it already has been. It's clearly a purely emotion based stance. It was refuted by his statement on you being an intellectually dishonest egoist.

                Just because you do not desire something does not mean it is wrong for everything. That's a massive leap that begs a lot of questions. You are not everything else. Nor is everything else equally relevant to you. And there is no link between you and a distant cattle without a god or karmic mechanism to oversee it and judge you for how "good" or "bad" you have been - or if you are mentally ill and empathize with cattle so long as you can imagine it (the REAL it or not) . I'd say it's a disordered take, either natural or artificial, to empathize anything but your own species and its commensal organisms that are empathized with as a matter of facilitating your survival strategy.

                From this you could state that you empathize with cattle as they are your commensals for performing heavy manual labor, but at some point there is an animal you have no rational basis to give a frick about. It's just irrational feelings, ergo you are an intellectually dishonest egoist. See: Asians who say "i'm vegetarian" as they club some fish no one gives a frick about.

                Intellectually disohenest egoist is a fancy term for narcissist. Someone who pretends their feelings are a cosmic OUGHT that is relevant to anyone else because the narcissistic delusion is that you are somehow important. Your emotions are not fact. They are a form of opinion and compete equally with all others - on the basis of force and natural selection.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                its an emotion based stance yes, because the intrinsic value comes from the emotion. it seems to me you dont actually understand the argument or that you disagree with the premises of it (which ive again argued for and you havent responded). do you disagree that feeling bad is in all cases where its not used instrumentally to attain something positive is bad? like its fricking semantically defined this way - feeling bad is feeling bad. if you do not experience that emotional state, that you and i both know what it means, then you do not feel bad. and again the evidence points to other beings experiencing this state
                as a consequence of your reasoning - do you think hitler, ultimately, cant be said to have done anything wrong?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >14 year old tries to philosophize
                Unless your god is named ethical consistency and sits in the heavens above checking everyones flowcharts frick off with your “i might be arbitrary but at least im principled!” nonsense mr. I read one whole bool by kant.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                whats arbitrary about it? practicing whats the argument entails? the fact that the consequences of the argument arent crystal clear does not mean the argument isnt sound

                >feeling bad
                >but other things
                >relevant
                There is a massive gulf here that you can not bridge without a form of delusion - empathy or faith. Period. There is no logical connection.

                You drop the larp and admit you make decisions based on feelings, specifically a form of delusion (attempting to empathize with something that most likely doesnt even have an experience). Or you just ramble. Pick one.

                but empathy still isnt a prerequisite for the argument to hold man. feeling good is good and feeling bad is bad, theres intrinsic value in this. recognizing that humans have empathy and are able to act on this is kind of the entire point of ethical discourse. i thinks its extremely silly that i have to make a commital in a "higher plane" or delusion as you call it as their obvious inherent qualities are reason enough. it is a sound argument that relates to the natural world as we know it to be. again this of course assumes other beings conciousness and experience of states yes
                aaand once more, other beings most likely have experiences? you or that anon only has said some vague thing about not trusting ngos on this point. whats the basis for not believing non-human animals are sentient? do you not believe other humans to be sentient as well?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                There is no intrinsic value in something else theoretically feeling bad. Refuted on principle. Keep rambling.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >feeling bad
                >but other things
                >relevant
                There is a massive gulf here that you can not bridge without a form of delusion - empathy or faith. Period. There is no logical connection.

                You drop the larp and admit you make decisions based on feelings, specifically a form of delusion (attempting to empathize with something that most likely doesnt even have an experience). Or you just ramble. Pick one.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                most actual philosophers lean to or accept moral realism. to say that its moronic or even undefensible is in fact, moronic

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The feelings of something other than yourself are not relevant and may not even exist. You require a third party with a supreme power to judge something as good or bad even if it does not affect you. Sorry. Intrinsic morality is intrinsically a farce. You’re just an egoist wearing a mask. Underneath it, “it bothers my feefees”

            It doesn’t bother mine or affect me so i will eat ze birds. Deal with it.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are humans not animals too? Very ignorant to be putting all non-human animals under one umbrella.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Vegan here, I'm starting to feel really guilty about eating plants too. Might switch to an all-fungi diet.
    Any other Mycovores here?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You would be better off with veg. You could argue that mushrooms are far more advanced in terms of mycelial development and "intelligence" than the average plant and it's lowly roots. Couple this with some weirdos that eat psychoactive varieties and claim mushrooms spiritually have souls and what you observe during a trip is that soul's essence it is more of minefield ethically compared to eating something like a potato.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I only love sexy animals

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If killing insects is okay for vegans then why is consumption of honey bad?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      its not

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        lol
        lmao
        the consensus is that they don't give a shit about insects, a lot of our activities you wouldn't think of are actively harming insects in some way or another and plenty of them are also related to crop agriculture, not to mention things like pests such as wienerroaches,ants,mosquitos

        they also argue that since insects lack any form of real consciousness, they are free game to be even eaten as they are more environmentally friendly so why is honey still bad for consumption? the moral consistency is absurd
        which brings down to the answer being: its gross
        which isn't a real argument.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          the fact that we inevitably cause harm by living is not a reason to do more than we have to. veganism isnt a purist ideology, its simply (most commonly accepted defonition) to abstain from animal products as far as practially possible. avoiding bee products and carmine is not very hard
          from what I understand we know virtually nothing of insect cognition and that they may or may not have some degree of sentience. its incredibly easy to just avoid it so why not, better safe than sorry.
          i really have no idea where you get this from, what consensus? youre obviously not vegan yourself - whos telling you this? look at any major vegan org and theyll tell you not to consume insect products. the only thing vegans generally disagree on is clams, oysters etc.
          directly eating plants is generally the most efficient due to trophic levels so youd still end upp killing the least amount of insects and rodents.
          getting rid of pests could be considered self defence dont you think? pretty different circumstances in any case than killing them simply because you like the taste

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Vegans: YOU MURDER ANIMALS
            >Vegans: Now me, I only murder a few animals.
            Lol. Lmao. And let's not forget eggs. The other vegan joke.
            >CHICKENS CAN BE BATTERY HENS SO I WILL NEVER EAT EGGS
            >Well yes, agriculture can exterminate animals and enslave people, but it also can't! :3
            What's the vegan position on malaria? We can eradicate malaria right now by eradicating mosquitoes. Mosquitoes will die horribly. Many animals will starve. Birds will lay nonviable eggs. But tens of thousands of humans, who arguably suffer more (if not being the only animals in africa that can suffer besides other apes, elephants, dogs, lions, and spotted hyenas), will live. Which is vegan? Wait for another option as people suffer and die horrible or eradicate the animal issue? How about the canine rabies issue in the third world? What's more vegan? Feral dog eradicaiton or wait for a new solution while people suffer and die?

            I posit a saner system aka what we knew for 2 million years already
            NOT ALL LIFE IS EQUALLY VALAUBLE.
            And a fact:
            HUMANS NEED MEAT TO LIVE

            >but if i construct this elaborate replacement with the help of a globalized economy and modern nutritional science!
            You can also do that for cats but they are also obligate carnivores because they still have micronutirent deficiencies and even macro issues especially if the sophisticated supply chain required has a slight disruption. So "cats need meat to live" holds true, like "humans need meat to live". The strongest and most dominant groups of humans have always eaten animal proteins. Vegans and vegetarians are weak religious nutjobs. Easily conquered

            Veganism is a practically, logically and ethically invalid/moronic stance. Period. The only way it can be defensible is if you are, yourself, a convert to a religion that enforces veganism as a sacred stance, or if you are an egoist and admit you are being entirely arbitrary based 100% on your feelings which do not need to be valid by any standard because nothing matters

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              again man, you and me living inevitably causing harm is not a justification for causing even more harm. please try to understand the arguments instead of screaming like a 14-year old. you're not even responding to any points. i also don't understand why you seem to think this has to be binary - the argument that you shouldn't eat animals because it causes animals unnecessary harm holds water regardless of your moronic mosquito thought experiment
              >Well yes, agriculture can exterminate animals and enslave people, but it also can't! :3
              i'm not sure what you're trying to say here?

              this whole mosquito scenario is very strange - i hope you understand eradicating all mosquitoes will have huge consequences not just on animals but also on humans. destroying an ecosystem is not a good idea - look how it went for Mao in china. it's not a good solution for anyone. on the canine thing why do you think those are the two options we have? this whole paragraph is completely nonsensical
              >NOT ALL LIFE IS EQUALLY VALAUBLE.
              sure man but it's still valuable. why cause harm when you dont have to?
              >HUMANS NEED MEAT TO LIVE
              but this is obviously wrong as there are healthy vegans alive and out there?
              >Vegans and vegetarians are weak religious nutjobs. Easily conquered
              it's getting increasingly harder to take you seriously. you sound like you bought a katana at the mall and call yourself a warrior.
              >Veganism is a practically, logically and ethically invalid/moronic stance. Period. The only way it can be defensible is if you are, yourself, a convert to a religion that enforces veganism as a sacred stance, or if you are an egoist and admit you are being entirely arbitrary based 100% on your feelings which do not need to be valid by any standard because nothing matters
              well again, causing harm is bad and you should therefore avoid it if you can. it's not black and white and does not have to be. please explain how this is not a sound argument

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            what makes bivalves different from insects?
            Nothing, they are exactly the same undeveloped creatures, being fine with one but not the other is blatant hypocrisy and selective morality.

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I also love your mom and I eat her out too

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a glutton and have very poor discipline and self control

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If God did not intend for us to eat animals why did he make them so delicious? Checkmate atheists.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      So anyway

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Test

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Hmm

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >If God did not intend for us to eat animals why did he make them so delicious? Checkmate atheists.
      Good question.

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I eat them because I love them

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't eat the animals I love. I think cows are moronic and annoying for example, so I have no issue devouring their flesh.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    ...at this point shouldn't this thread be on /x/?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Should have been moved to /trash/ from the beginning, but I can keep going as long as the religious idiots can.
      Wait til they find out that God's morality is arbitrary.

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    reminder Yahweeh (abrahamic god) is fine with people executing animals for being victims of zoophiles

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based

      Should have been moved to /trash/ from the beginning, but I can keep going as long as the religious idiots can.
      Wait til they find out that God's morality is arbitrary.

      >god is arbitrary
      It isn’t by definition.

      Veganism is not a rationally defensible position unless the religion you follow demands it or you’re an egoist and therefore amoral. Cope.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It isn’t by definition.
        Opposite. God's morality MUST be arbitrary, otherwise you are saying it is based on something outside of God and thus we dont need God to give it to us.
        Either God's morality is entirely made up by God, and arbitrary, or God isnt the final source of good.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Opposite
          Incorrect.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God's morality MUST be arbitrary, otherwise you are saying it is based on something outside of God and thus we dont need God to give it to us.
            >Either God's morality is entirely made up by God, and arbitrary, or God isnt the final source of good.

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              >god cant base morals on himself and his own creations because
              >*does inventory of own brain cells*
              >i have 3 neurons!
              Vegan “thought”. Abstaining from meat as an obligate carnivore is a disaster for your IQ score. Its a great way to turn a 115 IQ pseud into a very confused 107 IQ pseud who is inept at things other than IQ tests.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You failed theology 101
          God is absolute. Omnipotent, omniscient, onnipresent. His decisions can not be arbitrary because he created the universe and always knows exactly what to tell people, and it must always be objectively correct.

          Either this is all true because it simply is, or you reject God’s existence outright. It is a binary and can not be anything else by its own terms. You must believe all or none.

          >God's morality MUST be arbitrary, otherwise you are saying it is based on something outside of God and thus we dont need God to give it to us.
          >Either God's morality is entirely made up by God, and arbitrary, or God isnt the final source of good.

          I’m not christian but it pains me to see stereotypical antitheists be as stupid as you. You’re even vegan. Lmfao. What a moron you are.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >His decisions can not be arbitrary because he created the universe
            That is what MAKES them arbitrary. You cannot say God bases His ethics on anything but His own fancy because everything was made by Him.
            >antitheists
            Wrong again. I said I dont follow any religion. At no point have I suggested there is no God or I am against Him.

            >god cant base morals on himself and his own creations because
            >*does inventory of own brain cells*
            >i have 3 neurons!
            Vegan “thought”. Abstaining from meat as an obligate carnivore is a disaster for your IQ score. Its a great way to turn a 115 IQ pseud into a very confused 107 IQ pseud who is inept at things other than IQ tests.

            >god cant base morals on himself
            Of course He can.
            That's called ARBITRARY.
            >based on random choice or PERSONAL WHIM
            My ethics are based entirely on my own declaration that suffering is bad and should be reduced where it can.
            It is arbitrary because it based entirely on my own declaration, and not based on any other system.
            God's system of ethics is ALSO based entirely on His declarations of how things shall be, and not based on any system outside of God and what God set up.
            Thus, God's ethics are as arbitrary as my ethics.

            Unless you are saying God's ethics are based on something that is outside of God and God's creations. And I dont know what you think that is.

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              >a supreme being can base his ethics on himself therefore a flawed being can
              You are low IQ. Eat a steak.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Of course I can. I did.
                What YOU mean is that God would be upset, and I disagree. He lets us do all sorts of shit.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                which god does? the most popular god who coincidentally backs the most enduring and powerful nations does not and he punishes people who think they can with plagues.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >which god does?
                Only one Supreme Being. Are we now talking about some other concept than a Supreme Being?

                It’s not a valid ethical system if you’re not a supreme being. Sorry. Might makes right and God is might above all might, therefore he can even decide which might is right. Learn to religion since you are apparently slowly converting to one so you can win your gay vegan argument, cuck.

                >valid
                So now we went from ARBITRARY to VALID.
                Validity is arbitrary. My is valid because I say it is valid. There are other systems I agree are valid as well.
                >Might makes right
                God can stop me any time He wants.
                God's right is that others can make up whatever they want - see religion.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you really expect a serious response after you conflated brahma and yahweh lmfao fricking moron. Eat a steak, your brain will work better.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                It’s not a valid ethical system if you’re not a supreme being. Sorry. Might makes right and God is might above all might, therefore he can even decide which might is right. Learn to religion since you are apparently slowly converting to one so you can win your gay vegan argument, cuck.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Shut up YHVH

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Haha yeah sorry about that.

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Funny how quick this went from
    >a received religion
    to
    >christianity
    Let me guess. It has to be a specific type of christianity, too? Or do you consider a Seventh Day Adventist valid in their religious dietary choices?

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do you eat animals if you love animals?
    I love to eat animals

  27. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thread needs to be moved to /x/

  28. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    To solve this moral quandary I switched to only eating dead vegans. All the taste of meat you crave with none of the guilt.

  29. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    i don't

  30. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm part of the animal kingdom and choose to participate.

  31. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    the impermanence of all things is what makes them precious

  32. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I only eat humanely sourced meat.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Judge: Why did you murder 8 people?
      Serial killer: They lived a good life and were killed humanely.
      Judge: Ah, you should’ve said. Case dismissed

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        animals are not people. people are not animals. next.

        >BUT I HAS ETHICAL CONSISTENCY! LIFE IS LIFE! KILLING IS WRONG OR NOT!
        your ethics based on what? why is all life equal? why is killing always wrong or always right? why is ALL suffering bad? who said so? if it's not a received religion, it's arbitrary in the end, and consistency with nonsense is just pure nonsense. and if you're not christian, you are a servant of satan, according to my only-rational-basis-for-ethics, the Bible. repent.

        you really should because two infamous godless religions are egoism and darwinism. both of these allow selective killing, but don't draw the line at species if you just want to, or if it spreads your genes in particular further. christianity does draw a line so you will never have to admit someones decision to murder your parents may have been ethical. or accept that the state has a right to attempt to end your life. however, you will have to put up with people eating brainless bovines that can't even understand their own mortality. 🙁 oh noe

        furthermore, don't your ethics conflict with themselves because plant agriculture necessitates the deaths of animals and the destruction of habitat anyways? the lifestyle that causes the least killing is in fact exclusively eating meat, specifically meat that has expired naturally. you MUST eat animals if you "love all animals" (in your sick and twisted, defective way)

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          NTA, first post
          >your ethics based on what?
          Generally the idea that suffering should be reduced where possible.
          >why is all life equal?
          It can suffer.
          >why is killing always wrong or always right?
          Did someone say that previously? I disagree with this.
          >why is ALL suffering bad?
          Because I say so. Good and bad are subjective judgements, and I have judged suffering bad.
          >if it's not a received religion
          Oh you want God's word, okay.
          >Gita 6:32 - He is perfectly connected to God who, by comparison to his own self, sees the true equality of all beings, in both their happiness and their distress, O Arjuna!
          >but that's not the right received religion!
          Tell that to God. Seems he likes to say a LOT of things to a LOT of people.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I have judged suffering bad
            why?

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              Free will.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                how does this explain your view?

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              what the frick is this question, honestly
              of course suffering is fricking bad. its literally feeling bad.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                other things suffering doesnt feel bad. hell, most animals cant feel anything period. they have no subjective experience. they’re unconscious, like the visual systems of a human suffering from blindsight/cortical blindness. reacting but unaware.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Look up the word "suffering" in a dictionary.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hurt a rock
                >it cracks
                >the rock is suffering!
                Vegan logic

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >course suffering is fricking bad
                why?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                are you moronic? youre asking why feeling bad is bad

                other things suffering doesnt feel bad. hell, most animals cant feel anything period. they have no subjective experience. they’re unconscious, like the visual systems of a human suffering from blindsight/cortical blindness. reacting but unaware.

                but animals are sentient. theres a scientific consensus on this, stop embarrasing yourself

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            God permits eating animals with humane slaughter. This is not contradictory. Humans have the fruit of knowledge. Kosher animals do not.
            >because i say so
            Mao zedong would use both of us for organ harvesting for that reason. Verdict: ETHICALLY INVALID. Egoism can not be reasoned with, only converted or expelled.

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              >God permits eating animals with humane slaughter.
              God permits you to choose to go to Hell, yes.
              >bad person has will, so good people shouldnt have will
              No thanks, NPC. I will choose to love God, and choose how best to express that love.
              That includes the removal of suffering where I can.

              how does this explain your view?

              You asked for a reason. There is none beyond my decision. I am not compelled to make this choice. I choose it. I judge suffering bad, and thus my ethical framework is based around removing it where possible.
              Why?
              That is my will.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >god permits

                "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
                Furthermore
                https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/LEV+11.html
                Read it. AND DO NOT INVOKE THE LORDS NAME IF YOU WILL
                MISREPRESENT HIS WORD. IT IS WRITTEN FOR ALL TO SEE. FALSE PROPHETS WERE PREDICTED BY CHRIST.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Seems he likes to say a LOT of things to a LOT of people.
                God is contradictory in what He says, even in the same book.
                The challenge was to find where - in ANY received religion - God says not to.
                I provided it.
                I KNOW God is a two-faced b***h that lies to your face. But He still said it.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                The problem is you are not quoting GOD. You are quoting gita 6:32. Which was written by SATAN. I repeat, this is God’s word:

                "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
                Furthermore, as covenants were made and broken:
                https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/LEV+11.html

                By quoting gita, which was written by servants of satan, and saying you quote God, you have blasphemed.

                This is the thing you quote. It’s a fallen angel widely known as lucifer. You assign lucifer, a creation of God, a name for God.

                This is an unforgivable sin. You lose. For eternity.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the bugavadadad gita says, according to god
                >heres your god btw (its lucifer)
                Seriously. Never speak of getting your morals from god again. You have quoted the devil in the place of the lord and now you may never be forgiven.

                Even allah and yhwh are forgivable for it’s the word of their prophets and rabbis that is evil and obscuring and they are names for the same Lord, but as a vegan you have rejected the true Lord and substituted him with evil. I hope hell was worth thinking cows were too cute to eat and being a moralizing sperg.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I dont like the words God spoke over here
                You have your choice of words, I have mine. Again - it comes down to your own will.
                I am just honest enough to say I have decided a priori, and only point to God's words as support.
                If God disagrees with me, then God is wrong and I judge God evil.
                Just like you pointed to God and called Him satan, because you dont like what he told other people - you judged God evil.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >bagavadud gita
                >God
                Wrong. Brahma.

                God is el of the mountain, YHWH, the Lord of the tribes of israel. Not brahma.

                Brahma is, by every interpretation of his appearance and feats, lucifer, and the hindu gods are his fellow demons, fallen angels.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Wrong. Brahma.
                No, Bhagavan. A Supreme Person, an avatar of Brahman. God.

                ascribing your hindu shit to God is literally incorrect. there is only one God, and he’s in the bible, not the gitas or vedas or whatever. your gods (lowercase G) name in english is “brahma” or “the devil”. calling your god God is like calling marx God, it’s incorrect language. in English, capital G God is the proper name of only one god, and that god, God, is the only true god. just ask yourself why western civilization keeps prevailing, why israel is invincible, why try atheist asians never have much happen to them, but hindu lands and the anti-theist chinese are constantly experiencing plagues. japan is also very dense, but they dont directly worship the devil so nothing bad happens to them.

                >there is only one God, and he’s in the bible
                Yep. He's all over the place and He says a lot of shit to a lot of people.
                Sorry you dont want to hear about how God cheats around and has been everyone else's babby-daddy too.
                But it's only a mark against you to keep defending Him about it. Just accept, let the truth have you re-assess reality, and move on better and brighter.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                The hindu god is not God. Everyone who believes in God will corroborate this, because it says in their bible that there are demons that pretend to be gods, especially ones disguised as angels of light. They also state that God Himself has stated that He has no likeness of anything above or below, and nor shall anyone portray him as such. Which disqualifies "Bhagavan" because God has no avatars, and can not be truly known by mortals. As this statue exists, and believers say it is Bhagavan=god, it can not be the God of the bible, for Christians, Muslims, or israelites.

                This also means that God can not be an old bearded man, and those are depictions of an angel of light (=satan) and you shan't be trusting any Christians who depict any man as an image of God as they are not true Christians (lol)

                Christians, specifically, are instructed reject that you can come to God through any way but Christ. If you do not come to God through Christ, you have not come to God, so sayeth the bible, the word of God that exists by God's will. Matter settled.

                They are not and can not be the same God especially if you are arguing with a Christian. You can argue over whose is the right one, but the Christians have been rather clear. Their God is NOT in ANY non-abrahamic religion, period, and any hindu who says "we have the same god" has already been contradicted... by the other God.

                Funny how quick this went from
                >a received religion
                to
                >christianity
                Let me guess. It has to be a specific type of christianity, too? Or do you consider a Seventh Day Adventist valid in their religious dietary choices?

                He told you in advance, bro.
                >and if you're not christian, you are a servant of satan, according to my only-rational-basis-for-ethics, the Bible. repent.

                The funniest fricking part about this schizfest? The vegan actually got bullied into basing his morals off religion and converted to hinduism JUST because of his moral arguments on Wauf. Meanwhile the christians and atheists haven't had to change a thing. They continue to eat by the bible, or pursue darwinian supremacy for the whole human race by using increasingly stupid and docile lifeforms as biomass reactors, or whatever.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >god is not God
                We get it. You feel bad that you arent God's one and only. Dont know what to tell you. you can accept that, or keep denying it and being a dumb hoe.
                And you ran like a b***h from the Christians arguing for a vegetarian diet.
                >converted to hinduism JUST because of his moral arguments
                Where did I say I follow a religion, moron?
                The challenge, again for those too stupid to read, was
                >a received religion
                That isnt just Christianity, no matter how much you want to b***h about it. Revelations happen all over the world, with as much validity as yours.
                I dont give a shit about any of them, but it's trivial to find a revelation and interpretation of such as advocating for vegetarianism.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The hindu god is not God
                This is correct, because God EXPLICITLY stated that he is no other Gods, especially not any that there are idols of, and then the messiah Christians believe in EXPLICITLY stated that anyone who has not come to God through Christ has not come to God. The matter is settled. Christianity has hard exclusion clauses for anyone else claiming their god is God. You can not reject them without rejecting the whole belief system because they're scripture.

                >I don't follow a religion
                Then you don't have non-aribtrary morals again. You lose. All you accomplished was outing yourself as too stupid to read.

                >That isn't just christianity
                He told you in advance, bro.
                >and if you're not christian, you are a servant of satan, according to my only-rational-basis-for-ethics, the Bible. repent.
                >All revelations are equally valid
                The entire reason there are multiple religions is because people do not accept that they are, and Abrahamic faiths inherently REJECT ALL OTHERS, PERIOD.

                Hindus have been claiming christ is krishna and christians and hindus follow the same spirits forever
                Christians, israelites, and Muslims have always rejected this because it is rejected from the start in their religion.

                He told you in advance, that if you found it anywhere but Christianity, it was a false prophet/fallen angel/spirit/demon/etc. As the bible also says this. You lost on his terms. You lost on your own terms. You failed to play by the rules from step one.

                All we've learned here is that vegans are painfully stupid.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >God EXPLICITLY stated
                Yeah, He did.
                In every single book all around the world.
                God say a lot of things to a lot of people.
                Funny, that.
                And what was asked for
                >a received religion
                has God saying to be vegetarian
                And I see you ran like a little b***h once again from the Christians saying God says vegetarianism.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, he didnt. You tried to argue on religious terms without reading shit. You’re also trying to argue from a religious position that you dont actually follow, and dont even know why seventh day adventists are often vegetarian. Protip, its not because the bible says they must be, its because they think it reduces their chance of eating blood as forbidden (which is why kosher meat is drained of blood and thoroughly cooked to destroy remaining blood). It’s semantic and spiritual, not moral. They still eat dairy, eggs, and fish as they are easier to keep free of blood. They arent vegan. It is wholly unrelated to your hindu shit, which is not strictly god. Brahman is not Yhwh is not the demiurge. You fail. Hard.

                You are generally ignorant. Like every vegan. Lets not forget vegan standby arguments like
                >mubpointyteethdoe
                Kek.

                You lost on his terms, their terms, everyones terms. Veganism is not a defensible position unless you ARE a hindu/jain, or an egoist. Not just if you know they exist. You lose. Lose lose lose. Sucker. Quit.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No, he didnt.

                animals are not people. people are not animals. next.

                >BUT I HAS ETHICAL CONSISTENCY! LIFE IS LIFE! KILLING IS WRONG OR NOT!
                your ethics based on what? why is all life equal? why is killing always wrong or always right? why is ALL suffering bad? who said so? if it's not a received religion, it's arbitrary in the end, and consistency with nonsense is just pure nonsense. and if you're not christian, you are a servant of satan, according to my only-rational-basis-for-ethics, the Bible. repent.

                you really should because two infamous godless religions are egoism and darwinism. both of these allow selective killing, but don't draw the line at species if you just want to, or if it spreads your genes in particular further. christianity does draw a line so you will never have to admit someones decision to murder your parents may have been ethical. or accept that the state has a right to attempt to end your life. however, you will have to put up with people eating brainless bovines that can't even understand their own mortality. 🙁 oh noe

                furthermore, don't your ethics conflict with themselves because plant agriculture necessitates the deaths of animals and the destruction of habitat anyways? the lifestyle that causes the least killing is in fact exclusively eating meat, specifically meat that has expired naturally. you MUST eat animals if you "love all animals" (in your sick and twisted, defective way)

                >who said so? if it's not a received religion, it's arbitrary in the end, and consistency with nonsense is just pure nonsense.
                The Christian requirement you are screaming about was claimed very explicitly to be "according to my" and thus arbitrary. I have also made an "according to my only-rational-basis-for-ethics" choice, as per the challenge stipulation of being revelatory.
                >its not because the bible says they must be
                Quote where I said it was, moron. It IS sourced back tot he Bible. And you ran from that. Like a b***h. A little b***h.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                ascribing your hindu shit to God is literally incorrect. there is only one God, and he’s in the bible, not the gitas or vedas or whatever. your gods (lowercase G) name in english is “brahma” or “the devil”. calling your god God is like calling marx God, it’s incorrect language. in English, capital G God is the proper name of only one god, and that god, God, is the only true god. just ask yourself why western civilization keeps prevailing, why israel is invincible, why try atheist asians never have much happen to them, but hindu lands and the anti-theist chinese are constantly experiencing plagues. japan is also very dense, but they dont directly worship the devil so nothing bad happens to them.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                "God permits"... the lamest excuse ever for man to slaughter other men.

                I ate your so called god and I shitted so the the brainless worms could be fed.
                also, shitted a unicorn. rag.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            By your logic, even the strictest of veganism is equal to pure carnivorism.
            Plants are living, so they are equal with all other life including animals.
            Plants show physical signs of distress when damaged, so plants experience suffering just as animals do.
            The only way to eat plants is to cause them suffering and kill them, therefore eating plants is the same as eating animals which must also be caused suffering and killed in order to be eaten.
            Therefore, there is no moral difference between killing a cow for food and cutting down fields of corn and wheat for food. If all life is perfectly equal then killing one type of life for food cannot be seen as morally different from killing another type of life for food.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the lifestyle that causes the least killing is in fact exclusively eating meat, specifically meat that has expired naturally.
          I dont mind this. If all meat-eaters want to be carrion-style, go right ahead. It'd be interesting to consider whether only eating fruit a la the Jains or only eating corpses does less harm.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >people are not animals.
          You haven't met many people, have you?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          NTA, first post
          >your ethics based on what?
          Generally the idea that suffering should be reduced where possible.
          >why is all life equal?
          It can suffer.
          >why is killing always wrong or always right?
          Did someone say that previously? I disagree with this.
          >why is ALL suffering bad?
          Because I say so. Good and bad are subjective judgements, and I have judged suffering bad.
          >if it's not a received religion
          Oh you want God's word, okay.
          >Gita 6:32 - He is perfectly connected to God who, by comparison to his own self, sees the true equality of all beings, in both their happiness and their distress, O Arjuna!
          >but that's not the right received religion!
          Tell that to God. Seems he likes to say a LOT of things to a LOT of people.

          So muuch mental gymnastics, to avoid admitting you are doing something bad to another living thing

      • 5 months ago
        God Hates Fags, Western Women, Bankers, Federal Agents, and Socialists

        Most vegans are totally fine with the mass murder of unborn innocent children. What the hell would they know about morality?

        Only a demoralized and deranged freak would think slaughtering animals for food is identical to serial killing.

        It's hilarious when you Godless heathens try to virtue signal over something, you get so outraged over something that isn't even a sin, but sin you celebrate. I bet you support baby killing "abortion" or sodomy "homosexuality" too, most of you vegan nuts do.

        animals are not people. people are not animals. next.

        >BUT I HAS ETHICAL CONSISTENCY! LIFE IS LIFE! KILLING IS WRONG OR NOT!
        your ethics based on what? why is all life equal? why is killing always wrong or always right? why is ALL suffering bad? who said so? if it's not a received religion, it's arbitrary in the end, and consistency with nonsense is just pure nonsense. and if you're not christian, you are a servant of satan, according to my only-rational-basis-for-ethics, the Bible. repent.

        you really should because two infamous godless religions are egoism and darwinism. both of these allow selective killing, but don't draw the line at species if you just want to, or if it spreads your genes in particular further. christianity does draw a line so you will never have to admit someones decision to murder your parents may have been ethical. or accept that the state has a right to attempt to end your life. however, you will have to put up with people eating brainless bovines that can't even understand their own mortality. 🙁 oh noe

        furthermore, don't your ethics conflict with themselves because plant agriculture necessitates the deaths of animals and the destruction of habitat anyways? the lifestyle that causes the least killing is in fact exclusively eating meat, specifically meat that has expired naturally. you MUST eat animals if you "love all animals" (in your sick and twisted, defective way)

        >you really should because two infamous godless religions are egoism and darwinism. both of these allow selective killing, but don't draw the line at species if you just want to, or if it spreads your genes in particular further.
        In the materialist/evolutionist world view, rape and mass murder is just "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection".

        what the frick is this question, honestly
        of course suffering is fricking bad. its literally feeling bad.

        >of course suffering is fricking bad. its literally feeling bad.
        It's "le bad" because ... emotions. LMAO.

        It's good that you feel bad after doing something bad. That's your conscience bearing witness against you. And why you sin-loving God haters will never stop crying about feeling shamed for living in sin, but you loons think enough SJW social campaigns and speech laws will cool your conviction.

        Are humans not animals too? Very ignorant to be putting all non-human animals under one umbrella.

        >Are humans not animals too?
        No, you fricking moron.

        >Very ignorant to be putting all non-human animals under one umbrella.
        Said the moron who wants to live like a beast of the field and lower all of mankind to that level. So sick of you subhuman rats trying to bring everyone down to your level.

        If you love animals, why you dont frick animals?

        Because that's an abomination. Just another thing the materialist atheists have no response for, they have no argument for why animal rapists should be put to death, they can't even argue that anything is actually immoral since they don't even believe in good or evil, or they just make their own moronic definitions where slaughtering animals is equated to ending a human life.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Most meat eaters are pro choice

          Most vegans who are pro choice are prl choice because the child isn't conscious until a few months into the pregnancy

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Black person what

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because feelings and because religion are equally invalid.

          The bible is a book of man. The church is a house of man. I’m an atheist and I support zoophile and gay extermination on the basis of kin selection and saving my race from disease.

          >atheists support murder and rape
          So does your god, and of the same people. Rival warring nations. He even says you can rape and buy women of your own loooooool

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >extermination on the basis of kin selection and saving my race from disease
            Why would this be a valid reason then?

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              >you dont exterminate animal rapists and homosex, instead you tolerate and then worship them
              >you suffer epidemics of disease
              >your children see choosing not to reproduce to engage in fetishism as a hip and current choice
              >more men are hampered by blown out buttholes, fewer men exist
              >your civilization is weakened, your fighting forces are small, your people are disordered
              >my civilization can conquer it
              there are only the right and the dead.

              the reason for god being a source of morality is "he'll send u 2 hell!!!! CUZ HE HAS THE POWER OF EVERYTHING AND CAN PLAY WITH UR ETERNAL SOUL!!!" so as a christian you automatically acknowledge that might makes right and strength is the basis of any system of ethics.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                but whats the value of others being alive? why should i care about my children? im stronger than them does that mean i can eat them if i want to and am justified in doing so?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >dont care about your kids
                >your bloodline dies almost immediately as you outcompete your own spawn

                >care about your kids and relatives, AKA your race
                >your bloodline rules the earth

                Are you, a christian, really questioning what was laid forth in the bible AND the origin of species and trying to argue for behaving like an r selected bug? No fricks given, kids are food? Might extends beyond the individual whether or not you are religious. One man dreaming about the day he can make a super bomb and positing it as a hypothetical on Wauf is a nutjob, many men working together because they were all pale developed real life nuclear weapons and subjugated the planet in the favor of the tribes of Israel.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                What about atheist religions like Jainism or Buddhism?
                Someone can reject God but still acknowledge objective morality

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Those arent atheist. They just believe in a higher power that is more integrated into the world rather than personified. They also have gods regardless - devas in buddhism and existence entirely in jainism.

                In either case its still might = right even if its the theoretical passive judgement of the universe. Sin in jainism is defined the same way as stubbing your toe. But with more baseless delusions in some sort of nebulous incomprehensible god.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          What does God think of transfolx?

  33. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's already dead and I didn't kill it, if it was human flesh, I'd still eat it for being delicious.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You fool, do prions mean nothing to you?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe don't eat brains?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          they're in all neural tissue

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's only found on brains, no one who actually ate human meat got sick and they all said it was the most delicious tender meat they ever ate

  34. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    How can you say you love animals if you won't even eat their meat?

  35. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I only love my fellow obligate carnivores

  36. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't eat the ones I love

  37. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    are you really going to make a new new thread every time you get btfo

  38. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I love eating animals

  39. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm at peace with nature.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *