is killing animals wrong?
Nah
RULES OF NATURE
It's unpleasant and we could be more humane about it.
Meat's fucking delicious, though, so whatever.
>>1183044
No
But people doing it for pleasure to certain animals of higher intellect shows a character flaw and lack of empathy in that person.
t. Kantian
It sure is.
But I'm going to keep being unethical until they grow beef in the lab on a commercial scale.
I dunno, maybe.
>>1183064
>until they grow beef in the lab on a commercial scale.
I honestly am super looking forward to this.
If it is okay to eat humans for meat, is it then okay to fuck animals for pleasure?
Both of them involve you doing something to the animal it don't want.
Serious question, no plans to ever fuck an animal or anything.
>>1183054
but ''nature'' dosent have rules
so it cant be wrong
>>1183079
Because human nature is a very finicky thing that needs to be controlled for society to function correctly.
>>1183085
>that one faggot that always says ACKSHYULLY...
Killing for utilitarian purposes is fine. Hurting or killing animals for pleasure I find to be distasteful and a huge red flag
>>1183079
>no plans to ever fuck an animal or anything.
I don't believe you desu
>is it then okay to fuck animals for pleasure?
depends on culture honestly, pretty sure there are a few/many sub-saharan tribes that fuck animals
or just bathe in their urine
also the Welsh
>>1183079
>no plans to ever fuck an animal or anything.
well, thats a relief, just dont get caught killing humans for meat
Torturing animals "fur the lulz" (fucking psychopaths) is wrong. Eating them is not wrong.
I'm finding it harder and harder to think of any very good justification for eating meat, though I still eat it purely out of habit. It seems like it's one of those things that will either be offset by a scientific breakthrough or will just grow until no sane person can deny that it's unsustainable. There are a shit ton of people on Earth and they all want to eat chicken.
Not eating meat is human abuse.
That's up to our descendants to decide, and then chastise us.
>>1183130
>There are a shit ton of people on Earth and they all want to eat chicken.
read that as children for a second
I made the thread because a bunch of snarky faggot vegans keep telling me about the alternatives and how it is morally unjustifiable to eat meat
it'd be easy to just say
>lol whos morals fuck you
but I can't think of an adequate response
>>1183128
But what's the difference though, if the industrial farming of animals causes comparable suffering?
>>1183166
Very, very few people will deny the fact that industrial farming needs to tone down the levels of cruelty usually involved in "acquiring" an animal's meat. The idea that factory-farming is horrible isn't something vegans have a monopoly on.
>>1183109
Meat is demonstratably good for you though so eating it is utilitarian, regardless of whether you enjoy it or not
>>1183181
Yes, but the problem is that there's no way to adequately police the "cruel" actions of the hundreds upon thousands of industrial farms of animals unless you want to spend millions of dollars on it, which nobody would, because most people don't really care if an animal is screeching in terror before it's decapitated.
What's great about this matter is that you can choose yourself not to hurt the animals, stray away from eating meat.
Of course nature is cruel in itself but isn't there something unsettling about domesticating blue belgians through lives of suffering, or the industrial grinding of living small chickens.
>>1183044
Animal conservation is largely funded by hunters. It was Theodore Roosevelt who really kick started it.
Remember the Cecil backlash?
Now parks in Zimbabwe have to cull up to 200 lions because of over population. They call it the 'Cecil Effect'. Without Trophy Hunters paying for the privilege, the parks lose money doing it themselves, which means less money for conservation.
http://www.worldanimalnews.com/content.php?content_ID=659
>>1183077
Finally beef will be cheap again
>>1183233
But what is the problem with the overpopulation though?
>>1183062
I work in the meat industry and this is my stance
>>1183044
yes, killing is morally wrong - no matter what species we're talking about.
unfortunately, killing is what nature is all about, so it's impossible to be part of nature without killing... still, one day mankind will finally release itself from the shackles of nature and be what they think they're today: the pinnacle of evolution and a supreme being.
today we're nothing more than apes with clothes and an advanced system of language.
(but one day we the meat we eat will be synthetic and that's when everything is going to change - no hunger will lead to no poverty in a matter of decades and with money being obsolete we will finally reach our last evolutionary step)
>>1183254
Bait don't touch it
>>1183130
>chicken
naw, people want beef. It's almost a status symbol. If they wanted chicken or goat I feel like sustainability would be a milder issue.
>>1183259
Beef is delicious, I don't blame them.
>>1183254
>people still buy into the meme that mankind can "ascend" above nature if we just think really hard about it
You need to first explain why it would be wrong.
>>1183254
>vegans believe they are the next link in the evolutionary chain
>>1183044
I have yet to hear an animal argue against it.
>>1183308
I dont think you know what the subjective/objective dichotomy is about anon
Yes. But it is a necessary evil in most common cases.
>>1183308
morals are subjective but laws exist based on the idea that morals are objective, so you are prevented from fucking animals
or some shit like that, I don't know
>>1183335
evil in what sense though
>>1183319
The needs of a society is pretty subjective depending on what culture and religion it got, don't really see what that's objective about it.
>>1183338
Yeah, though there is a difference between things like killing in self defense and killing someone out of your own pleasure.
Is there such a big leap between eating and fucking an animal?
>>1183383
How about the one value that is inherent to every culture: ie, survival and self-perpetuation?
>>1183383
>Is there such a big leap between eating and fucking an animal?
for one you are inside of it
for the other it is inside of you
>>1183390
Do animal fucking in any important way limit those two?
>>1183398
So pegging is immoral? ;^)
>>1183405
in many ways yes
>>1183439
Morality is a human construction, it's only value is what we place on it.
We are also animals.
>>1183402
Yes.
>Abdul!
>Yes, what is it Hakeem?
>I have found my one true love...It is...my camel! I cannot contain myself any longer brother, I must be with her always
>NO HAKEEM THAT IS WRONG
>What?! How can it be wrong!?
>HAKEEM WE MUST HAVE MANY BABIES SO CHILDREN MAY TILL THE SOIL WHAT ARE YOU DOING
>OUR CLAN IS ALREADY DOWN TO 4 MEN BECAUSE OF THE RAIDING FROM KAFIRS TO THE NORTH, AND YOU JUST FUCK CAMEL?
>>1183449
animals don't peg eachother brah that's gay
>>1183454
I have seen male dogs fuck each other.
>>1183463
with prosthetic penials doe?
>>1183044
No
I actually enjoy watching bullfights
It's a beautiful display of our dominion over these brutes and the strugle of man and beast
I also feel like it's one of last bits of Roman culture that exist
>>1183480
what about when they drug or abuse them before the fight though?
it'd be nice if they were in their prime for their death struggle
Killing them for anything other than consumption or population control is pretty waste.
>>1183465
does it matter?
>>1183044
Just as wrong as killing plants. And agriculture implies fucking with the enviroment and the indirect death of a fuckon of animals. Vegans are delusional and selective ignorants.
>>1183502
pegging is strictly for strap-ons
>>1183244
Why are you a dumb cunt. If a group of animals over populates an area thent there's less food and they end up dying from starvation in the end so to keep the animals alive you have to kill a few for the benefit of the rest
>>1183532
So instead of just letting nature take it's course, you kill them?
What's the point?
>>1183062
>being humane
>with animals
>humane
>animals
>>1183503
>Expansion of livestock production is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America where the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring – 70 percent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder.
>Millions of gallons of liquefied feces and urine seeped into the environment from collapsed, leaking or overflowing storage lagoons, and flowed into rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands and groundwater. Hundreds of manure spills have killed millions of fish.
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P1009ABO.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2000+Thru+2005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C00thru05%5CTxt%5C00000025%5CP1009ABO.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/neighbors-of-vast-hog-farms-say-foul-air-endangers-their-health.html
>“The way that we breed animals for food is a threat to the planet. It pollutes our environment while consuming huge amounts of water, grain, petroleum, pesticides and drugs. The results are disastrous.”
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/
howsabout all this shit though
>>1183490
Yeah I agree
The bull should be in its peak physical condition but I'm not out there fighting them so I can't complain I guess
>>1183545
Soy production is the main cause for deforestation in the last years, specially in Brasil, same with oil palm in Southwest Asia. I never say that livestock doesn't cause damage, but ignoring the deforestation and animal death due agriculture it's just vegan hypocresy. Nothing wrong with no eating animals if you don't like it, but there's a lot of bullshit and missinterpretation of medical studies justifying that.
No. There is not a single philosophical argument for veganism that is logically sound and doesn't just boil down to hypocrisy.
>>1183587 very much.
No human can live as if they were equal to animals. It's simply impossible. Veganism itself only "saves" those animals that are not slaughtered. Agriculture and crop lands endanger many species and kill several animals.
>>1183587
Southeast Asia*
>>1183063
>character defect
Spooky
>>1183503
Killing plants is also wrong. People doesn't feel an empathy for them but it would be a fucking evil act to kill all the plants of the world for example. Small act of killing only some plants still holds the evil of that one, some percent of it at least.
>>1183079
I think killing animals should be done in a humane manner whenever possible so if you can fuck them in a humane manner, yeah, I guess.
>>1183079
Zoophilia is legal in many western countries. Germany and Finland for example.
>>1183044
no! we only feel empathy towards species that have human features in a way. so apes : very much cows: yeah sorta fish: meh not so much.
plants, ants: who gives a shit. this is the basis of us feeling empathy with non humans.
we are less cruel than nature so thats something we acchieved as humans, good enough. furthermore avoiding to kill other species for food is pointless as long as it doesnt have a negative impact on other humans.
>>1183209
>AYY
>>1183259
What about pork? Why do pigs have to be so smart when they also taste so delicious? It's just not fair.
>>1183759
>we are less cruel than nature so thats something we acchieved as humans
Are we though? sure it might be unintentionally due to humans being quite a powerful species, but we're a main driving force of the wide scale extinction events going on.
>>1183064
>lab-beef
Will vegans protest it?
>>1183044
Yeah, but I will still eat meats.
Absolutely not. Get your testosterone levels checked if you think otherwise.
Animals kill animals, it's natural.
>>1183044
Go ask a predator, OP.
>>1183788
yes thats a problem we are changing the environment faster than would ever happen naturally. thus some animals and plants adapt and survive but many dont and go extinct.
the pace of this is the problem and there are reasons we should be concerned because many of these species could benefit us and are important parts of a functioning ecosystem.
but this has nothing to do with the direct killing of animals by humans.
>>1183799
yes there is no perfect state in "nature" its a constant battle that goes on forever.
>>1183064
cows nowadays are more genetical machines than animals
>>1183833
>this has nothing to do with the direct killing of animals by humans
I don't think there's too much of a difference between direct and indirect.
>>1183254
>muh noble savage
If their population had increased (do to inevitable advances in medicine and hunting technology) they would be slaughtering those fucking bison wholesale.
>>1183840
What is the difference?
>>1183824
But they eat them raw and on the field, humans make massive industries so fat cunts like you can sit around and shovel undeserved food into your gullets.
Its good for nobody, even the vegans are just deluded idiots who dont quite understand how and what farming actually is.
>>1183802
yes i agree but most people do. they dont have a problem squashing an ant or scrubbing of some bacteria but protest the killing of animals for food. And the only reason for this is that animals have more in common with us than a carrot. Everything living is the result of something dying.
>>1183759
Honestly, I think ants are the creatures I sort of 'respect' the most out of all the ones I know. They are pretty cool.
>>1183845
by that logic there is no difference between you yelling to a friend to cross the road and he beeing hit by a car and you driving the car and hitting him on purpose.
>>1183881
there is a difference between thinking of something as pretty cool and feeling empathy. im not saying it cant be done but without pretext people dont.
>>1183882
I mean that demand for a product is intimately connected with the process used to produce it.
>mfw we could already have artificial meat if people would actually put effort and money into the goddamn research
>>1183044
no. giving them a bad life is wrong.
if they have decent conditions sacrifice is morally justified.
Is there anything wrong with torturing animals for pleasure?
>>1183921
It's already happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU7ggZbOR6k
>>1183044
Yes, but we're not developed enough to recognize it yet. One day
>inb4 triggered /pol/cucks
I'm not even a vegetarian, but it's wrong to breed a semi-self aware organism for generations just to slaughter them and I hope we can get past this one day with some kind of vat-grown steak.
>>1183338
>morals are subjective
No they aren't
>>1183967
stirner_face.jpg
>>1183536
Kill yourself
>>1183977
Stirner was wrong about everything he said
>>1183979
Not an argument.
>>1183985
How so?
>>1183988
Not him, but it conserves the wildlife. If they all starve, then you can say goodbye to the lions in that area forever unless they're reintroduced. Same reason why hunting seasons in the US are strictly regulated. If deer hunting for example was completely abolished, yes the numbers would initially rise, but that would lead to overpopulation, starvation, and a massive decline in the long run.
>>1184010
So what you're actually saying is that it's better to kill animals than to let them go extinct?
Well,I don't agree.
>>1184020
And you're worthless trash who's opinion doesn't matter
>>1184020
I'm not saying anything is "better" or "worse" with regards to the morality behind interfering with nature by preserving a species. I'm just saying that's a good way to preserve a species.
>>1184024
Fuck off poacher shill.
>>1183092
If you get pleasure from eating meat aren't you just killing for pleasure by proxy?
>>1184020
https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659
>>1183789
Some probably. Those who will be the maddest, though, are the new agers and the religious fundamentalists.
Wouldn't farm animals go extinct without humans breeding them? If anything, it secures their existence in a fragile world.
Is it better to bring something into existence with minimal freedom and a cruel fate, or not create it at all?
I think the problem with vegetarians/vegans is that they only consider the temporary pain of killing when there is so much more to consider. They also live in an ideological world where they don't appreciate the inevitable cruelty of human civilization.
>>1184081
I could use the exact same argument for enslaving humans.
>>1183503
Supreme bitch detected.
>>1184086
Indeed. Slavery is outlawed because of common interest, not any deep, rigorous moral proof.
>>1183536
>instead of letting nature take its course
>killing them
I don't think you understand what "nature taking it's course" actually means.
>>1184114
Shut the fuck up you pedantic cunt, you know very well what I mean with that statement.
>>1184120
So instead of killing off a small portion of an animal population to use as food and keep their numbers at a more manageable level, for both us and the population in question, you'd allow most of that population to die slow, painful deaths from starvation?
is killing people wrong?
>>1184129
>you'd allow most
How do you even know that this is what happens? Are you an expert on population statistics?
Does every single species on this planet that you don't murder 20% of, automatically go extinct?
>>1183233
There are worse things than hunting
Dying to a hunter's bullet > being eaten by predators > living in a factory farm your whole life
>>1183503
>squirrelkin
That's a funny way to say mentally unstable.
Also I bet she's "Pro Choice".
If you can do it yourself in order to satisfy your cravings:no.
>>1184138
Of course not. But you understand that each species is radically different from one another, and that our approach towards their management must be fundamentally different, yes?
Regardless, the argument I was making can't possibly apply to an entire species of animal, which is why I explicitly went out of my way to say "population," to refer to a specific group of an animal being hunted and managed by human beings.
>>1183788
Countless species have gone extinct before humans were even on the scene.
99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct.
>>1184079
>the religious fundamentalists
They might be troubled about the creation, but they'd damn sure eat it. They justify whatever suits their needs.
>>1184168
And those mass extinction events would be associated with difficult and worsening conditions (partly from ecosystem function degrading and flow on effects from species impacted at various trophic levels) and that the underlying factors leading to this seem to be in our own best interest to avoid.
>>1183044
In this case right or wrong do not matter. We cannot feed ourselves without killing animals as even crop farming winds up killing loads of them.
>>1183079
When people eat animals, it's because it's a survival reason and you aren't doing it just because "lol muh dik". But when you rape an animal, all you're doing is being a massive asshole. Neither would be ideal in a perfect world for any kind of humanistic person, but it's kind of related to a "lesser of two evils" situation
>>1183254
>no matter what species we're talking about
I find it difficult to care about the lives of animals. However I do feel kinda shitty about the suffering we cause to them. Not that it has motivated me to do anything for them though...
>>1183503
How dumb is this bitch? Chicken eggs that you buy at a store aren't "unborn fetuses". They're unfertilized, there's no baby inside there, just an egg. It's more like eating a chicken's version of menstruation than eating a chicken's version of an abortion.
>>1183165
I've come up with many, many, many arguments FOR the consumption of meat that espouses the ideals of an omnivorous diet, and thus, defends the position of the modern diet.
However, I have yet to formulate a debate on the ETHICS of eating meat that would be worth illustrating, and even if I tried, I am almost certain I could not win.
TL;DR
>Meat is very, very nutritious
>Vegan-cucks lose arguments on merits of nutrition
!BUT!
>Meat is very, very painful
>Carni-cucks lose debates on merits of ethos
t. /fit/izen (not vegan)
1pl8 OHP/2 pl8 bench/3pl8 squat/3pl8 deadlift (shut up, I know, I just got out of a back injury)
>>1185522
>anon has become the meat
Isn't human meat the most nutritious?
>>1185528
Unless the brain is rotten, anon...Unless the brain is rotten...
>>1183079
it's OK and there is high chance your lover will actually like it.
Killing animals for meat and fur is essential to our lives. I would try to make it as painless as possible, but morality is a spook anyways.
>>1183587
This.
It's really simple - soy needs good land and cows will live wherever there is some grass.
>>1183044
No, not as long as you make use of them. We're essentially still a part of nature and it's only natural to eat meat for most animals.
If you ask me, putting ourselves above animals and not eat them is kinda arrogant. It's like we separate ourselves from the food chain as if we're not part of it, which kinda contradicts the whole point of the animal lives matter.
I do agree with vegans who say that a lot of animals aren't treated well enough, like chickens being cramped so much together, that they trad each other to death. I'm not going to abstain from meat or eggs though, since they're both fucking delicious and I'm a picky eater.
It's not wrong, but most living standards for animals are garvmbage and need to be changed.
If you were reincarnated, would you accept the standard you had to live and the fact that you were born to be eaten?
I am not a vegetarian or vegan, but it's best to eat animals grown on a farm even if it's nore expensive.
To breed them in tiny factories in large numbers and in poor conditions to slaughter them? Yes
On a farm where they have lived freely and suddenly taken a bullet to the head? Perhaps not
I only would eat meat in the latter situation, which is unfortunately practically never
>>1183607
i don't think you know what 'logically sound' means
>>1183587
but you don't care about animal death so how is it an argument?
>>1183607
>No human can live as if they were equal to animals.
Thinking that killing animals is wrong does not equal thinking that they are equal to humans.
>>1183503
>Just as wrong as killing plants
I wasn't aware that plants were capable of emotions or feeling pain
>>1184086
>implying weak humans aren't secured in their existence by the welfare system
natural selection seems to be a bygone way of thinking
>>1185522
the vegans I'm talking to keep arguing that a higher intake of meat/red meat leads to higher rates of cancer, heart disease and such
I'm not a nutritionist and haven't circlejerked over the topic as much as they have though, so I wouldn't know
How about this one then:
Is there ANY justification for the existence of zoo's that contain high brain power(comparatively) animals? I'm talking apes, seals, dolphins, otters, certain species of birds. If the animal doesn't know it's in a cage and has a life without suffering, then I would argue it would be fine.
The only and huge problem is that we have no clue how conscious animals are, and we even seem to have trouble defining consciousness in ourselves.
This kind of implies that morality is tied to suffering and intelligence, which I'd say can amplify suffering.
It's tough to prove though
>>1185665
Nice argument breh.
>>1185680
>Thinking that killing animals is wrong does not equal thinking that they are equal to humans
No, but pray what then is the reasoning behind the idea that killing animal is wrong. = There is no possible way to live as humans without hurting animals directly or indirectly.
Vegan rhetoric (that i often hear) also implies that vegans think animals are no different from humans (>>1183165 shows that in his second paragraph if i am not mistaken) They always seem to ask "Well, why don't you eat humans then?"
I might be grossly mistaken, if i am please correct me. What is then the moral reasoning behind veganism? You aren't ending animal suffering (not even your own part - your veganism causes animal suffering as well).
its not bout the animals
google "animal agriculture environment"
anyone who thinks this is about the animals feelings has probably never heard a vegan besides tv strawmen. a vegan population would end world hunger and severely reduce carbon emissions since animal products produce more methane than all forms of transportation combined. think how much fewer food one pound of beef is than of rice, corn, carrots, ect. we feed farm animals for their entire life to get better food in the first world then wonder why there is so much starvation.
so its really bout the environment(all future generations), then the starving humans THEN the animals, thats just how many creatures are effected by heavily met based diets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOvwc8_QXiY
THIS.
IS.
NECESSARY
LIFE FEEDS ON
LIFE FEEDS ON
LIFE FEEDS ON
LIFE FEEDS ON
THIS
IS
NECESSARY
>>1183503
> Farming plants kills less animals indirectly so veg*nism is worse
you farm plants for the entirety of the cows life which eats much more than people indirectly killing more on top of the cow death. the argument applies to carnivores tenfold. do you think the cows dont eat? you are selectively ignorant
>>1186195
The one case I'd argue for with zoos is intelligent animals which have huge ranges of territory and travel hundreds of miles a day like Orcas or Elephants. A monkey exhibit which is just a giant tree is probably fine for most apes since they only really travel to find food.
Elephants and Orcas and some dolphins though need to travel in large family groups. You just can't offer that in a traditional zoo. Also Elephants especially are emotionally needy and need a strong family.
>>1186691
Or you could transfer people over to an insect protein based diet. Insects are incredibly efficient protein sources and you could grow tons in an acre.
Is death really a suffering ?
>>1186756
>But muh necessary murican red meat eating culture!
America would never stoop as low as eating bugs. To American palates, the rest of the world is to blame for the consequences of American industrial agricultural decadence. Hank Hill would have an aneurysm if you told him his BBQ culture is destroying society.
>>1183097
And David Cameron fucks pigs
>>1186691
>a vegan population would end world hunger
Ahahahahahahaha. Source? No. Veganism won't remove the reasons why there is world hunger (hint: it's not the lack of food)
>everely reduce carbon emissions since animal products produce more methane than all forms of transportation combined
True, but this does not warrant banning meat consumption as there are possible scientific options to reduce these problems.¨
>think how much fewer food one pound of beef is than of rice, corn, carrots, ect. we feed farm animals
Utilitarianism isn't really that smart. Inefficiency unto itself is not a reason why something is morally wrong or should be stopped. And besides, do you hold your utilitarianist view on food production up to scrutiny? Do you avoid excess waste, are you always the most effective in other matters as well?
>we feed farm animals for their entire life to get better food in the first world then wonder why there is so much starvation.
I'm gonna stress again how wrong this is. If we stopped eating meat, excess agricultural produce would not be going for the starving.
Why? Well, we already produce too much food - and that excess isn't going anywhere. Then there are the other reasons, it's a pointless investment, high costs, unsustainable. Fixing world hunger is done via other means.
>so its really bout the environment(all future generations)
>anyone who thinks this is about the animals feelings has probably never heard a vegan besides tv strawmen.
For several vegans it isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Ethical_veganism
Ethical veganism is a huge movement, probably much larger than environmental veganism. Major organizations like PETA prioritize ethical veganism over environmental.
Only a fool would deny that a chicken is meant to be eaten. Call it intelligent design, or evolution a chicken is a plump bird that can't fly and relies on human beings. And they taste fucking amazing. I don't like the conditions they are kept in because it's rather unhealthy for them(which is in turn unhealthy for us) but frankly I don't think chickens would exist today if it weren't for humans eating them
>>1186691
I majored in environmental sciences so I got the full Michael Polland "Omnivore's Dillema" and "Food Inc" treatment. Its one thing to put in place a community farmers market and start polycropping, but its another to actually get people involved in its operation in the long run. People, especially middle class Americans, are incredibly lazy when it comes to food choices.
Environmentally sustainable food systems are all well and good and desireable, but at the end of the day, people will go for a)What they can afford b)What they are comfortable eating c)What takes the least amount of effort to make.
I'm typing this while slurping my microwaved industrial ag produced Campbell's chicken noodle made with ground up sick reject chickens and GMO carrots and corn. For breakfast I ate some more HFCS cereal with hormone and antibiotic laden milk. The suffering is what makes it taste so good!
>>1186805
Hmm-h. This is one of the point that vegans also seem to forget, probably because they are so metropolitan.
Cows especially are very docile creatures because they have been domesticated for human usage in one way or another.
>>1186805
>Call it intelligent design, or evolution
Neither. It's artificial selection. Humans took wild chickens and selectively bred them to be stupid, fat tasty birds. We made them dependent on us so we could more easily raise them as food, or egg layers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_junglefowl
This is the ancestor of the chicken, while not great flyers, they live in jungle undergrowth so only need to fly a little anyway. Good choice for domestication.
>>1183792
>le meat is manly spook
Literally the gayest shit. By all means eat it but dont expect it to compensate for your micropenis
>>1186812
This is normally my first move in the vegan debate.... My last move is normally to ask them if they are pro choice (I am) I then proceed to ask where one can obtain a vegan abortion
>>1186830
Isn't that both the intelligent design of humans and the coerced process of evolution through breeding?
>>1186805
Bing-O.
There is no "natural" state for the animals we bred for consumption. They exist because we engineered them to produce food for us. Everything we eat has been in some way or another been manipulated or changed by human intervention and corruption. There is no magical fluffy world where chickens and cows live their lives to fulfillment before dying a natural death. Without us, most of our farm animals would go extinct within a few years because there isn't anyone left to fugg cowes with sex toys filled with cloned bull semen. Vegans like to point at industrial ag and say "This is where things went all wrong!" when things have been going all wrong for as long as we have been domesticating animals for their utility or meat.
Especially annoying is when they themselves are in a privileged position to have a choice in what they eat - and talk down to others as if they have reached enlightenment. There is no good scientific or moral reason to not eat meat or exploit animals, so long as morality is a human domain. As you said, there are practical reasons not to treat animals like shit - unhappy cows taste like crap and sick birds waste money and poison sorostitutes at Chipolte (maybe not such a bad thing desu). But connecting the long term implications of specific unsustainable agricultural practices as a judgement for ALL agriculture and for going Vegan is completely retarded. For fucks sake, we can eat meat, we just need to break away from the "Bigger is better" paradigm, not some hippy BS about animal ethology.
>>1186792
>True, but this does not warrant banning meat consumption as there are possible scientific options to reduce these problems
that is like smoking cigarettes nd saying theyll cure cancer before i get it, except youre giving cancer to the earth
> Inefficiency unto itself is not a reason why something is morally wrong or should be stopped
it is when you're degrading the earth ll living creatures share
> If we stopped eating meat, excess agricultural produce would not be going for the starving.
there'd still be less farming done which is good for the environment in itself not to mention the cow shit which is produced in enormous mounts
> Ethical veganism is a huge movement, probably much larger than environmental veganism
maybe its just the ones i know, ill concede this point but the environment is till the most important reason even if it isnt the most popular. i dont care much bout people eating chicken because its not bad for the earth compared to cows.
>>1183824
Forgot your trip, you Swedish bastard?
>>1183864
This to be honest. The toxic thing about industrial farming isn't that it is bad for you but the level of detachment it creates between you and your food. You stop appreciating that a life like your own has to be created and destroyed for you to have your burgers.
For most of history you would have to hunt or herd your animals, interpret their every movement and action, and appreciate them as an equal. Your life is worse for eating meat from a production line because you effectively kill the animal but feel none of the potency of it.
>>1186857
It's a little of both but neither. We weren't designing them as much as modifying them. And I believe artificial selection is part of the overarching evolutionary theory, alongside natural selection and sexual selection.
There's no question that we are superior to animals and that animal life matters very little. However as stupid as animals are they are fully capable of suffering which is not cool. We need to create some kind of philosophical zombie animals we can eat with good conscience.
>>1183864
Another common vegan (poor) vegan argument.
>veganism is better because it's healthier!! meat is unhealthy
Purposefully trying to create a caricature where meat eaters only eat meat, are fat and eat in it excess and vegan eaters only consume a balanced diet of peas, eggplants, carrots and etc.
Well, no. Not actually. The main culprits of the western obesity crisis are all products that a vegan can eat sugar, corn syrup. Even in the Mc Donalds the unhealthiest things are soda and fries (which are made to be addictive by a combination of salt, sugar and fat - all vegan products)
Western food culture is not paleo enough - we are far too hung up on potatoes and bread.
>>1186900
>Watching Food Inc in class
>Part where the redneck polycropping dude is killing his chickens
>Hippy SJW girls are grossed the fuck out
>Even though his chickens lived stress free lives and were slaughtered quickly
>Even though the meat is more sanitary than commercial meat
>Even though the entire process from field to plate has been planned to minimize impacts on the environment
>"Ok but most meat is still horrible and exploitative so we should like ban it"
How do these people live? Do they think their tofu veggie wrap just magically appears and no baby mice were crushed by tractors in its harvesting? Thier quinoa just teleported from a South American plantation ready made for their rich white girl palates? The fuck is wrong with society that we can't comprehend our food comes from living things?
>>1186929
>There's no question that we are superior to animals
>animal life matters very little
Spooks everywhere
>>1186848
Lol some chicks think killing shellfish is wrong but wouldn't bat an eye at killing a fetus
>>1186968
At least shellfish can survive on their own
>>1186929
the Restaurant at the end of the universe had an animal that wanted you to eat it. that's even better
>>1186977
Ok see how long a baby can survive on it's own..... Now try a toddler... Should we be eating infants because they can't survive on their own??? I'm pro choice and I eat meat I just think it's funny that one would care more for te life of a prawn then a human
>>1183254
>no hunger will lead to no poverty
there is no need for either now. We have been producing more calories than the world population requires for a long time and can easily transport food anywhere
>>1183044
Where do you draw the line? A killing bacteria wrong? Is killing sea sponges wrong? Is killing jellyfish wrong? Is killing spiders/ants/mosquitos wrong? Is killing lizards wrong? Is killing fish wrong? If you're not answering all yes or all no, why?
>>1183044
I feel bad for them
>>1187168
at least i know that killing you would be a good
>>1183079
>If it is okay to eat humans for meat
Uh, what?
>>1183209
That's a pretty good shoop.
>>1187344
Read the sticky.
>>1186807
>I majored in environmental sciences
>middle class Americans are incredibly lazy when it comes to food choices
>my microwaved industrial ag produced Campbell's chicken noodle
>HFCS cereal with hormone and antibiotic laden milk
>I am a huge hypocrite and a revolting person
>>1186988
>I just think it's funny that one would care more for the life of a prawn then a human
Nobody thinks this. You are imagining scenarios that allow you to be contrarian cunt.
Why would it be wrong in the first place?
It was never viewed as wrong until the west had a surplus of food, just wait until a major famine hits, if the vegans/vegetarians dont die out first, they will be the first in line for a free meal/meat w.e.
>>1187515
> Why would it be wrong in the first place?
Because suffering is still here. When it was some kind of necessity it was more justified.
>>1183054
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3472Q6kvg0
>>1187549
> Why should I care?
You can go kill your family and I wouldn't care but it would be evil. At this point you can just use, so what if this evil, as your counter argument.
>>1187549
> It still is a necessity
Many people think that you can eat vegetables instead, so it is a more like luxury now. Obese epidemic is also a hint here.
>>1187561
killing human != killing animals
>inb4 humans = animals
>I wouldn't care
Thats the point anon, I cant fathom why you would even care enough to label such a petty thing as butchering animals for food as evil
>>1183044
Disregarding the moral argument, the modern agricultural industry in America is hilariously fucking inefficient. It costs too much to raise these massive cattle and pigs we're so used to consuming on a nigh daily basis, we're breeding antibiotic resistant superbugs in all our animals, their hormones are so fucked up I worry about consuming their meat and milk at all. All this so we can have cheap burgers and steak, it's fucking stupid. The amount of grain and energy that goes into producing a single steak could probably feed an entire family.
I'm not a vegetarian myself, I know meat is an important part of the human diet, but I survive healthily eating only a single pork chop daily as my meat component, while some Americans wolf down an entire pot roast for breakfast, lunch and dinner. We don't need to eat that much meat, we don't need to eat that much at all, the natural human form is lean, not fucking flabby. I kind of like the obesity epidemic in America because it's like a divine retribution for being so disgustingly wasteful, nature's way of telling you to stop being such a slob.
>>1187571
>Many people think that you can eat vegetables instead
They are not wrong; you can survive with vegetables only. Its not optimal, and the health of the population will rapidly go downhill. Even vegans/vegetarians take pills to combat this (which, I find is ironic)
>luxury
meat consumption is a luxury, but to voluntarily give up on it is idiotic
>obese epidemic
yea, meat aint very calorie dense; its not meat consumption thats the culprit for obesity
>>1187582
>meat consumption is a luxury, but to voluntarily give up on it is idiotic
It's not idiotic if that $50 you spend on expensive beef every week goes into a savings account instead.
>>1187587
I think you're changing the topic here
We're talking about people who stop consuming meat not out of necessity/material reasons but for psychological reasons
"Savings account" is totally off topic
>>1187582
> Its not optimal
Food is rarely optimal for many reasons, mainly as people know shit about what they should eat. Of course you can just minimize eating meat as just simply give up on meat isn't realistic option.
>>1183079
>>1183086
>>1183308
>is it then okay to fuck animals for pleasure?
The reasoning is following:
It is necessary to eat animals, because they contain nutrients that can't be found elsewhere, animal proteins are not the same as plant proteins, and so on. However, it is not necessary to fuck animals. That's why the former is morally acceptable, the latter isn't.
I think that the main reason why people think that bestiality is wrong is because they find it disgusting.
>>1187572
> why you would even care
It doesn't work like that. You can't just care about issue and because of it just claim that it is evil or such. What matters here is logic behind why it is evil or not. My logic here is that murder is evil, as suffering is evil. If there was the method to create same amount of meat without killing animals you probably would agree that it is a better option. Of course we can't do this, but implications are here so killing is an evil act, even if neglectably evil as life of an animal worth much less than human life.
>>1187628
>My logic here is that murder is evil, as suffering is evil.
I might be playing the devils advocate here, but citation needed
>culling livestock
>murder
>>1183079
killing (to eat) and sexual gratification are bother lower pleasures. one leaves the animal feeling nothing and the other leaves it tormented and miserable.
fucking a dead animal is more moral then a living one as it only increases happiness.
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than someone who fucked a pig to be satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool fucking a pig. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question."
- John Stuart Mill
>>1186082
The "red meat gives cancer meem" is actually CORRECT.
Red meat IS a carcinogen and MAY possibly give you cancer if indulged regularly.
However, the nutritional benefits of consuming meat far outweighs the 0.16% chance I will receive cancer due to the consumption of red meats.
Heart disease and obesity are not clinically proven to be directly caused by the consumption of red meat, however, those that consume lots of meats and processed meat products (ie. sausages, bacons, hams, fried turkeys) are highly likely to lead a very inactive, unhealthy lifestyle.
Vegans, on the other hand, are generally much more health conscious as opposed to the majority of the meat-eating populace.
TL;DR
>Eat meat for quick natty gainz
>Limit processed meats if you're a lazy couch potato
>Hit the gym, maggot
>>1183128
Why?
>>1183044
Wrong: yes
Fun: yes
Right and wrong is a retarded duality and you should abandon normative morality, but when you kill animals you only add to the violence/suffering of this world (and for what purpose? carnal pleasure in eating meat?), though sometimes you have to kill them for population control or allow predators to do so because that's how the cruel ecosystems of this planet function
>>1183044
No and if you think it's wrong you should be fed to wolves.
>>1187725
>Vegans, on the other hand, are generally much more health conscious as opposed to the majority of the meat-eating populace.
Most vegans i know are fat lazy fucks who eat snack foods all day.
>>1183044
If animals are unconscious and capable of thought, then obviously yes. If they're not then you can do whatever to them.
>>1183939
Of bloody course.
Why ?
>>1183079
farmers already rape their animals, it's how they get them pregnant. People just don't care about animals in the slightest.
>>1183490
>what about when they drug or abuse them before the fight though?
They literally can't, the bull need to be relaxed and on prime conditions to secure the safety of the bullfighter, a vet and a judge check the health of the bull the very same day he's going to fight, animal activists (especially the anti bullfighting) are one of the most deluded persons in the world.
>>1183085
>but ''nature'' dosent have rules
The state of the present is proof that it does.
>>1183044
I think its morally wrong that we end life to give ourselfes energy.
>>1183044
Who cares.
>>1190020
unfortunately that's the only way we can give ourselves energy
>>1183044
No, we need the meat and we're not scavengers.
However, like usual, we do it on such a scale now it's hurting the world. We should try to cut a little of our meat consumption.
But hey, at least we aren't killing entire jungels for, like we do for soy beans.
>>1183044
AYOOOO
1.))) IT'S NATURAL
2.))) THEY'D EAT YOU IF THEY COULD, HUH
3.))) THEY'RE ANIMALS, NOT PEOPLE LOL WHAT THE FUCK?
4.))) DEATH PREVENTS SUFFERING
5.))) ANIMALS ARE FUCKING RETARDED AND CAN'T SUFFER, THEY'RE ALSO KEKS AND KEKS LIKE PAIN
6.))) MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, THE WEAK MUST FEAR THE STRONG
>>1187725
>Heart disease and obesity are not clinically proven to be directly caused by the consumption of red meat
Meat in general causes heart disease, you dumb cunt. Cholesterol is bad for you, what a surprise
>are highly likely to lead a very inactive, unhealthy lifestyle
Meat consumption is generally correlated with bmi regardless of physical activity level. What type of meat is probably an important consideration, but fatty and protein dense foods do not satiate as well on a pound for pound calorie basis. Fibery and hydrating foods obviously physically fill you up more and better induce a physiological sense of satiation.
>>1183044
What's more unethical, killing animals, or the fact that we're causing pain to produce that death?
>>1190702
Humans are opportunists as well as hunters, thus we can be called scavengers
I wanna pet that cow.
>>1183079
>Both of them involve you doing something to the animal it don't want.
You probably didn't watch enough horse fucking porn. Mares are horny as fuck and love getting dicked.
>>1183062
They can't speak your language, you don't even know they exist.
Why are you supposed to feel inhumane about killing them? Are animals even self-aware?
>>1187613
replace 'necessary' with 'common-place' and your argument would be correct
>>1183449
That argument doesn't alter the significance of morality at all. Whether or not something is a human construct shouldn't be an argument, but rather why it has value in the first place. We value planes because they allow for a more efficient form of transportation to expand commerce and civilization. In the same way we value morality because it substantiates order in our daily lives and allows for positive social affirmation which also necessarily brings about the backbone of society.
>>1186963
>Spooks everywhere
What do niggers have to do with anything?
Wrong by what criteria?
Morals are unspoken rules that societies develop to allow humans to better cooperate and interact with one another. Killing non-human animals may not seem bad to some, but neither does killing humans to others. A society that values the lives of non-human animals will have greater precedent for protecting human lives as well, so there is an argument to be made for killing non-human animals being immoral.
>>1183305
Retard
>>1183079
For me I wouldn't get angry unless it was my animals, although I might feel bad for the chihuahua that gets used like a hot god bun.
The other replies are just from people that got spooked bad
>>1185522
babby weights
>>1183044
Depends who you ask. There is no objective answer to your question
>>1185522
>meat is very, very painful
For you.
>>1183305
Try to kill an animal and see if it protests
