Is not being a vegan immoral?
Can a person be called moral if he causes a whole industry of suffering just because he likes the taste of a product that has no dietary necessity whatsoever?
>>271232
I don't know OP. But I do know that being a vegan makes you an unlikeable douche bag doesn't shut the fuck up about being a vegan.
>>271232
Can a statist be moral?
Singer explicitly defends infanticide.
Is lion immoral for eating an antilope? Is antilope immoral for eating a flower?
Eating meat is not really a problem, it is how the meat is produced, can we produce meat in a way where we don't throw away humanity.
>>271263
>lions kill baby lions so it's okay for humans to kill baby humans
>>271266
Apples and oranges mate, that has nothing to do with food, but rather survival of the fittest.
>>271279
>Apples and oranges
No, that's literally your argument.
>that has nothing to do with food
Your argument doesn't appeal to food, this is an ad hoc distinction.
>Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?
>A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
>Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.
http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html
This guy cares more about a bunch of cows than humans. It's wrong to kill new-born babies only in-so-far it negatively affects the parents' feelings. Amazing.
>>271243
Project more
>>271288
Eating meat itself isn't anything weird, it is just one species trying to make ends meet. Eating plants could be argued to be no less morally right than eating animals, as very few plants (I am sure there are some) want to be eaten, that's against their best interest. Nobody can be blamed for wanting to live, that's basic principle of nature. However as an advanced species, we have the possibility to affect the conditions in which we create our food. Thus it isn't about eating the meat itself, but rather how we produce it. If we created an industry where every cow is allowed to die gracefully to old age, would eating that corpse still be immoral?
I love meat .It's nature. In fact, it is extremely arrogant of Vegans to think they are above nature.
If you don't eat meat for health reasons, or you think the meat industry is unsustainable i have no problem with you. But if you moralize other people because "muh cute animals!" you're a retard.
>>271334
>it is just one species trying to make ends meet
We don't have to do that.
>as very few plants (I am sure there are some) want to be eaten, that's against their best interest
Some? More like most of them. Getting eaten and defecated elsewhere is how a shitload of plants spread their seeds.
> If we created an industry where every cow is allowed to die gracefully to old age, would eating that corpse still be immoral?
That's fine and all, but that wasn't your argument.
I'm not a vegetarian either, but "animal do it so it's fiiiiiine" is the worst moral argumentation you can come up with.
>>271342
>most of them
Not at all. In fact, very few considering all the plants and trees that exist.
some other animal would eat whatever i was eating
veganism is pointless
>>271246
Yeah, I agree with Singer about nearly everything else, but his "Darwinist Left" shit really put me off being able to say I support him. The only justification I can see for euthanizing a baby would be if it were living in chronic pain with no possibility of recovery, but the idea of killing a baby just for being disabled is fucked up.
>>271304
Fuck off.
Being a vegan is like wearing a food fedora. You think you're so above it all but in reality you're just a faggot.
>>271345
>trees
How do you think appleseeds get spread? You eat the apples and shit the seeds elsewhere, it's in the genus best interest.
>Muh animal cruelty
>Muh appeal to nature
Both sides are full of insufferable cunts. Only plebs still eat.
>>271334
We have the possibility to eat no animal products, which causes the least suffering.
>>271337
>I love meat .It's nature. In fact, it is extremely arrogant of Vegans to think they are above nature.
I agree with the rest of your post but this is literally the appeal to nature fallacy. If humans have naturally evolved their moral capacities, ethical veganism is an "natural" as anything else we do. It's literally impossible for a human behavior to be unnatural. It's just an emotive word that expresses dislike of something.
>>271337
>appeals to nature
>calls others r*tard
>>271361
Why does caring about animal cruelty make someone an insufferable cunt? I think most people with a shred of empathy at least object to animals being tortured needlessly, even if they don't object to eating them.
>>271372
>Cares about animal cruelty
>Doesn't realize that the cruelest act is bringing a person into existence and devote his whole life to spreading the Word of Antinatalism
Just wow I can't
>not eating game
>not feasting on the low-fat high-protein meat of an animal that has spent its entire life in the wilderness before suffering a quick death by shooting
>not doing your part to cull a species population that has grown to unsustainable sizes due to the elimination of natural predators from its environment
Not eating game is immoral.
>>271232
I don't know, but I don't care. Meat tastes good
>tfw my cousin and I tortured tadpoles when we were kids
>>271342
More like, you are trying to create this moral dilemma where humans aren't part of natural world. But we are part of the natural world, we do eat meat, so why would it be immoral?
>We don't have to do that.
We'll I don't know about you, but I want to live
Also seeds/fruits =/= plant. Not to mention we have gone to such lengths we produce many of the fruits without the seeds, so it's not even necessary for the plant to be eaten then. Or have you gone to such lengths that you make sure you only eat the part of the plant that the plant willingly gives?
Who /kangaroomeat/ here?
>>271394
Anti-natalists project their own depression onto a humanity that doesn't agree with them. Disregarding that, your post is a total red herring and doesn't explain why we shouldn't object to animal torture. It's not like the two are incompatible as a certain misogynist would say.
>go to local supermarket
>they have sale price in the wrong section
>I don't realise
>point it out to them at the checkout
>mfw walk out of there with 1.5kg of kangaroo steak for $10
>>271426
It's like a sweet beef, but I can't eat it often. That, and I'm afraid of parasites.
>>271232
We don't need to give a shit about animals, and it's 100% okay to abort or euthanize a baby that is completely disabled and unfit for human life (and which is going to be suffering constantly)
>>271354
Fruit trees aren't the majority of trees. Most trees spread their seeds by the wind.
>>271445
And vegans and vegetarians project their morality onto a humanity that doesn't agree with them. Disregarding that my first post was a complete joke which is obvious since it advocates not eating at all.
>>271425
>But we are part of the natural world
Yeah so let's just kill the babies of other males, it's all naaaaatuuure, man.
>>271464
>Most trees spread their seeds by the wind.
We also don't eat most trees.
>>271370
>>271371
It really wasn't an appeal to nature though. I didn't make a statement, or try to prove any point.
I didn't say eating meat is good because it's natural. My point was that humans who think they are above nature, are retarded.
Most of pro-vegan arguments boil down to "we are above nature".
Next time, please read my post.
>>271475
When did i claim that we did?
>>271469
Why the hell you bring the baby killing though?
>>271486
When did I claim that you did claim that?
>>271509
Because it's the logical conclusion of that retarded appeal to nature argument.
We aren't animals, we can reflect on our actions, our moral responsibilities are different.
I would literally die without meat.
>>271483
>Most of pro-vegan arguments boil down to "we are above nature".
so would any moral claim by your standards
>>271519
>We aren't animals
Everything else you said was right, but this is just indefensible
>>271568
You have a point to make that isn't pedant?
>>271303
actually I understand his reasoning
HOWEVER the same reasoning can also be used to justify eating anything that's not a dolphin, chimp, corvid or elephant given that other animals are not fully self-aware
>>271519
We are animals, however we don't need to act like animals... FOR HEAVENS SAKE.... this is why eating meat itself isn't immoral, its a way for us to get energy (which is basic foundation of life). But how and where we get that meat might be immoral... Two completely different things, it's like claiming electricity is immoral because coal pollutes.
>>271401
its interesting that hunters tend to be far more involved in wildlife conservation than your average person or heck even average wildlife activist
>>271483
>It really wasn't an appeal to nature though. I didn't make a statement, or try to prove any point.
You're not backpedaling that easily, nigger. As if trying to paint opponents as arrogant and retarded isn't meant to discredit them.
>I didn't say eating meat is good because it's natural. My point was that humans who think they are above nature, are retarded.
>Most of pro-vegan arguments boil down to "we are above nature".
Saying humans should be held to higher ethical standards than non-human carnivores due to the human capacity for reason is not calling yourself "above nature". Now you're just repeating your original appeal to nature fallacy and adding a strawman to it. Good job fuckwit.
>>271594
>We are animals, however we don't need to act like animals
Nonsense. If you're an animal, literally everything you do is "acting like an animal".
>But how and where we get that meat might be immoral
The lion doesn't care about the gazelle suffering, so it's fine if we don't. Ready to give up your appeal to nature yet?
>>271232
>Utilitarianism
>ever
IT'S 2015
>>271232
It depends.
Do you want to cause animals the most suffering as possible, by supporting the most heinous practices against them? If so, I think it is unethical.
However, I think anti-meateaters suffer from a very absurd point of view, in that simply because they have the money, and capability of being healthy without eating meat, means that eating meat is immoral.
Besides, I could use the same argument that they use for plants(i.e that plants don't have nervous system and can't feel pain), and say that one can remove pain from the equation when slaughtering animals as well, by knocking them unconscious, or finding some other medical way of making sure they don't suffer.
>>271613
>Nonsense. If you're an animal, literally everything you do is "acting like an animal".
Yeah well that is my bad, savage might be a term I should use. We don't need to act like savages.
>The lion doesn't care about the gazelle suffering, so it's fine if we don't. Ready to give up your appeal to nature yet?
I doubt lion even knows the gazelle is suffering (not well versed enough in lionology to know about their brain functions), but we do how nerve systems work.
Wouldn't best choice be to fill ourselves with chemicals, it doesn't hurt animal or plant kingdoms.
>>271642
>Wouldn't best choice be to fill ourselves with chemicals, it doesn't hurt animal or plant kingdoms.
How do you think chemicals are produced?
>>271232
>moralism
and to extend my point, if you believe in moralism you would never be vegan because vegan industries under employ, under pay, and overwork a vast amount more PEOPLE than meat based industries do
>>271627
the biological meaning and incorrect meaning.
>>271635
>IT'S 2015
Exactly, hippie.
>>271654
What?
>>271641
>or finding some other medical way of making sure they don't suffer.
Eat Kosher.
>>271661
>incorrect meaning
For someone who pays lip service to science, you don't realize that linguistic prescriptivism is an age-old fallacy either. Semantics are defined by usage and context, and the colloquial use of "animal" is much older and more common than the biological kingdom of animalia. How do you enjoy being out-autismed, you pretentious faggot?
>>271232
Life is taking life from others that's all to it. Plants, animals, humans all the same worth.
>>271692
>Eat Kosher.
I'm pretty sure hanging an animal upside down and slitting it's throat, letting all the blood flow out while they are conscious, analogous to the Islamic slaughtering to get halal meat, is not reducing suffering.
In fact, it's amplifying suffering.
>>271232
Being a vegan is immoral.
>>271735
>letting all the blood flow out while they are conscious
It's how everyone kill cows, hallal or not.
>inb4 the electric shock maymay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzvsS17ptzE
>>271708
>the colloquial use of "animal" is much older and more common than the biological kingdom of animalia.
Highly unlikely. Animal comes from anima, which means soul. Aristotle defines humans as rational animals in 300BC
>>271232
>no dietary necessity
Liar.
>>271735
Slitting the throat like that causes a massive drop in blood pressure, causing the animal to immediately lose consciousness.
>>271754
Yeah so? I don't support that at all, and how does adding a fucking religious ritual to the whole mix make it any better?
You're trying hard to be retarded.
>>271761
What's necessary about it?
>>271790
Vegans have to take certain vitamins and shit, and watch their diet very carefully, because humans are not meant to be vegan.
>>271758
>durrrrr the root meant something different before the English language existed
My argument wasn't contingent on age determining correctness. Anyone with an inkling of education in linguistics knows colloquial usages are no less valid than their technical counterparts, and distinguishing between this is important to reduce ambiguity between speakers.
Anima isn't a Greek word anyway, it's Latin.
>>271799
Humans aren't "meant" to eat anything in particular, it's just a lot more difficult to acquire complete nutrition without meat.
>>271799
You're talking about B12 I suppose
vegans:
>eat B12 from a pill box
omnivorious:
>the producers feed animals with B12 pills, then you eat the animals
Not really a big deal.
>>271799
So take those vitamins. Do you not use modern transportation because you are not 'meant to' either?
>>271799
[citation needed[
>>271232
>Is not being a vegan immoral?
Yes.
Plants and fungi have feelings too yet vegans eat them
>>271877
]citation needed]
>appeal to nature
>muh B12
>carrots suffer too!
Wow, it's a bingo, we got all the stupidest arguments for meat eating ITT.
>>271894
You haven't provided anything against meat eating yet.
>>271845
You're correct, but you neglect to mention that this train of thought leads to the conclusion that we're not "meant" to be vegan, nor eat meat. Ethics are just an attempt to dress up wishes as reality.
Doesn't matter OP, morals are a spook and animals are my property
Support the industry or else you're immoral.
Sounds like republican moral authority.
>>271911
That would be because I'm not against it.
>>271412
I remember torturing a frog with my best friend at he beach by his family's cottage. Why the fuck did we do that?
>>271232
Why is suffering the measure of morality.
Can't you cause just suffering?
Why does animal suffering matters?
>>271303
So I can eat meat as long as its from baby pigs?
>>271934
Oh, well problems of anonymity, hard to keep track of people who post what.
But back to topic. Basically eating meat isn't immoral, otherwise would lab made meat be immoral? I doubt people would go that far. So eating meat itself can't be the problem, then it must be how we produce the meat. And that can be problematic, how do we feed the mass consumerist McDonalds audience in ethical way (whatever that is).
>>271917
Agreed, fellow maxposter.
>>271917
>Ethics are just an attempt to dress up wishes as reality.
Why is that bad again?
>>272014
"good" and "bad" are spooks. There's only what benefits me the most personally.
>>272014
>implying he said it's bad
>suffering is bad wah
So do you agree that we should end all life to erase any suffering? Because all sentient beings WILL suffer, this is a fact. If you desire to rid the world of suffering, rid the world of life. Killing the animals to eat them will prevent any future suffering they may have.
>>272031
Perhaps a web of collective morality is beneficial to you
>>272039
Nietzsche pls.
>>272014
It's not. It just removes any pretense of objectivity your opponent spouts so you can tell them to fuck themselves.
![150px-Stirner02[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/V0bi88r.jpg "150px-Stirner02[1].jpg")
>>272055
Need i tell you what a "web of beneficial morality" actually is?
>>272055
It is, but it's still an agreement and not some intrinsic feature of reality.
>>271917
Is it weird, that as a Thomist, I love Maxposters?
>>272078
No, because I don't care what it is, only what it does :^)
>>272067
>Nietzsche
You're so unintelligent. If you're going to compare me to a mainstream philosopher, at least call me Schopenhaur.
>>272090
>weird
I respect Aquinas despite being an atheist. I invite you to warmly embrace my underwhelming reciprocation of approval.
>>272039
>Killing the animals to eat them will prevent any future suffering they may have.
No, because they are bred to be killed. Not breeding them at all will prevent the most suffering.
>>272115
>This level of pretentious
>>272039
>Killing the animals to eat them will prevent any future suffering they may have.
Except demand supports an industry that continues to create more of them in said suffering conditions.
>>272146
>>272168
Then go out and kill chickens to save them. Your inaction is just as immoral.
>>272157
>>>/r/eddit
>>271232
Moriality is an illusion created to hold back the strong from their rightful rule over the weak minded and fools.
>>272184
>Then go out and kill chickens to save them. Your inaction is just as immoral.
I never claimed to be a vegetarian or a vegan, I was just highlighting how your reasoning is faulty.
>>272198
Can you give me any purchasing tips for katanas? I'm in the market for one.
>>272184
>I was being pretentious when I really know nothing
>He called me the fuck out
>quick, call him a redditor to reassert my 4chan cred
>>272198
>Moriality is an illusion
>rightful rule
>>272232
Kek, this. Might is right is a fine approach, but that would imply that those who 'hold back the strong' are actually mightier and therefore rightfully hold back 'the strong'.
Who ever is on top is literally superior, by whichever method possible.
>>272229
Reddit.
I don't see any reason to deprive myself over a huge industry that I can't do anything about.
Since most animals bred for food ended up being huge balls of meat, wont the end of their exploitation equal in the long run to a total extinction of their race?
>>272263
>Kek, this. Might is right is a fine approach, but that would imply that those who 'hold back the strong' are actually mightier and therefore rightfully hold back 'the strong'.
This is why I don't get /pol/. If white men are really ruled by Jews, they can't be the master race.
>>271583
Just because humans cannot sense an animals sentience doesnt mean they aren't sentient.
>>272417
Yes, it's "we was kings" whitey edition.
>>271232
Humans are omnivores, so no eating meat is not immoral it's in our nature to do so when possible. The industry's treatment of the animals is immoral, but it's not immoral to still eat that meat.
>>275135
Synthetic meat is actually becoming commercially viable. Whether people take to it is another thing, the "yuck factor" is strong.
>>275142
I've had synthetic meat and it's not too bad, but it's still in human nature to eat the food that provides the most energy and protein
ITT cognitive dissonance.
ITT liberal intellectuals whose spines become shocked suggesting that they are immoral for doing something that society has raised you to ignore and desensitize.
ITT people who have never shot a pig in the head with an electric rod because muh bacon
>>275135
humans are not omnivores, since both meat and vegetation can supplement our diet but we cannot live off of either exclusively..
true omnivores can live off of both meat and vegetation.
Carnivores make their own vitamin C, which is an essential nutrient for example.
Humans do not and require consumption of fruits in order to get a reasonable amount in their diet.
Humans are rightly frugivores; we can live exclusively off of fruits and nuts, like our primate cousins.
Regardless, that's actually completely irrelevant. As long as we have the power to avoid doing something immoral (without having to do something more immoral in order to do so) the immoral act is still immoral.
The intention to not cause suffering is important but it's not enough to completely dispel the immoral value of the action.
>>275155
does it taste much different?
>>271232
Sonic Says: Ethical Consumption is impossible in Capitalism.
Your production and consumption circulates through child rape slavery, dark satanic mills, coffee shops, research labs, pedophile churches and media establishments.
>>271841
What food sources contain b12 naturally?
>>275135
Honestly, if the meat industry were more ethical I imagine a few vegans would eat meat and the rest would whine about muh meat is murder even if the cows led happy, fufilled lives.
>>275406
Not him but I think the texture is the bigger issue.
>>276342
Hm I could get through the texture as long as the taste is the same.
Still don't think anything synthetic could beat a perfectly grilled steak.
I don't think I'd ever be able to make a complete transition.
>>271232
We're still part of this planet, so I don't see why eating meat is immoral per se. I understand how vegans etc want to passively fight cruel animal breeding and I root for them a bit, but I just can't do it.
Then again, if you follow that "human lives are no different to animal lives" to the end, you end up with cannibalism of some sorts. I like to be a hypocrite there though. Unless you're not alone on a far away island with no food or something, you don't need to kill someone.
>>276340
When I was younger, I worked on two farms with animals. First, a dairy farm and beef farm, where the cows had pretty ok lives. They ate corn and hay morning and night, wandered out to the pasture to eat grass in the day, and pretty much minded their own business except for milking time.
Another hog farm was worse, they were more confined in barns. Pigs are assholes, though. The reason for confinement crates for mother pigs is that they don't care if they lay on babies and crush them. The animal rights activists whining about this either don't know, or more likely, are just trying to destroy the industry anyway.
>>271232
>no dietary necessity
Vegans need to supplement their diet with Vitamin B12 or they can cause permanent damage to their cognitive functions as well as nerve damage.
Normal people diets do not have this issue.
You should cease pretending it's a question of rationality rather than one of "feelz".
>>271232
Logicalish argument that has probably already been posted go!:
If you're a vegan you eat lots of plant products, for example many vegans eat wheat to replace the lack of meat in their diet. In these wheat fields there is at least one bread of mice that inhabit the field, and the collecting of the wheat ruins their habitat. Therefore many vegans are by proxy killing mice which have been proven to be one of the most intelligent animals on earth. I can't remember where I heard this idea recycled but it seems fairly condemning for vegans that eat wheat.
>>276662
You make it seem like this is hard to do.
>>276550
I could see it working with Asian and Mexican food better than Western food with large serving portions of meat.
>>276674
But farm animale get fed food that has to be produced in fields, so you probably kill more mice by eating meat.
>>276758
Yes but meat eaters aren't necessarily opposed to killing animals, whereas vegans are.
>>276786
Yes, but there's also a practical side to it. I think most vegans try to minimise animal suffering without going completely overboard by making their own food or something, although I don't doubt some do.
Veganism as a concept can only really hold water if you're a utilitarian, and a particularly strict one.
What if you're not a utilitarian at all?
>>276822
I am interested in the argument around this. I'm not a vegan, but I have had a great deal of cognitive dissonance lately about meat eating.
>>276847
Argument around what, specifically?
>>276852
How utilitarianism is in favor of veganism. I would tend to think the opposite would be true
>>276819
Surely the real way to reduce animal suffering in this case is just to not eat wheat. Although I do accept that there is probably no way to completely eliminate any animal suffering in your diet. But I don't give a shit about animals so fuck it.
>>276861
Well, utilitarianism has many different "flavors".
Some variants place human suffering and animal suffering on the same level, others make a distinction, some only concern themselves with human suffering only.
>>271351
>Not immediately reviling Singer.
I have the perfect flag for you.
>>271371
Human nature is fixed and immutable. Either accept this or accept that no one cares that you think that you're qualified to tell them how to live.
>>276879
There's so much wrong with your post that it is easier just to shoot you.
>>276326
Animal flesh amd quinoa.
>not honoring the animals that allow so many human beings to live comfortably
If you eat animals, you appreciate them on levels vegans and vegetarians never will.
>>271232
All animals eat some form of life or another, what morality is there in killing plants instead of animals?
Not being a vegan is not only immoral, it is also incredible foolish of us as individuals, and as a society.
Plant-based diets have been clinically proven to be the only diet that can prevent and reverse heart disease, the world's top killer. The research is out there, and the most renowned figures in medical/nutritional research acknowledge this.
Factory farming, from the meat and dairy industries, is the number one cause of pollution and CO2 emissions in the world, also the top source of deforestation. In fact, factory farming makes up for more than 50% of all man made pollution, far more than the automobile industry.
Finally, eating meat is supporting the greatest display of human cruelty in the world. If you don't believe it, sit through this movie, the whole thing, and try to argue otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibuQ-J04eLQ
>>277098
Assuming everything you said is entirely true and valid (which it isn't, but thats another argument) and I take everything said at face value: I'd like to point out another flaw here.
How, exactly, do you figure you're going to go about the absolutely radical and massive change in dietary habit of over 7 billion people, many of which do not have the luxury of living in first world countries and have only animals as the source of many important nutrients and proteins? Let alone, how would you even enforce such a thing? How would you even factor in the staggering economic implications of such a thing?
Or is this just another idealistic perfect-world fantasy where if we all just believe really hard then all of humanity will stop in its tracks against the face of this terrible injustice and hulbhughlbughlb.
>>277115
I'd also like to add - Good fucking luck convincing anyone who is not a white, middle-class, European/Anglo, first worlder living in a democracy to accept this idea of "Veganism". The entire concept is something that can only exist in our sheltered, coddled society. Go up to a Chinese peasant farmer or one of the Jihadist dhurkas in Syria, see how well talking to them about this goes.
>>277098
>If a being suffers, here can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration
Dropped only 2:35 in, it already implies that you agree, rendering the entire argument futile if one does not agree with that statement. The statement doesn't even make sense anyways, all vegans would have to be semi-Jains and refrain from hurting anything with pain receptors.
>>277115
>>277153
Funny you mention that Chinese peasant farmers wouldn't go Vegan, because they practically are. Famously so, in fact, that they were used as the basis of why plant-based diets are so healthy, in the foundation China Study. In general, the poorer the nation is, the more likely they are to eat plant-based diets. And in these cultures that eat primarily plant-based foods, like rural China, Africa, India, we see extremely low instances of heart disease, and in some cases, like Kenya, absolutely zero cases of heart disease, not one bit of indication that anyone there would ever develop it in the first place.
The truth is that it is not a matter of choice, sooner or later we will need to abandon our traditional diet because it is not sustainable. If we took all the food that we used to feed these massive factory farms in the first place, we would have more than enough food to feed the entire planet plentifully. To get the important nutrients is not a big deal either. B12 vitamins come incredibly cheap, and most of the time are put into plant-based foods anyway. Omega-3s come in a wide variety of plant sources. This is no issue.
I would love to hear your arguments for my original points.
>>277172
You don't have the balls to finish the movie anyway, quit kidding yourself.
>>271288
Are ALL vegans literally retarded like you?
>>277183
M8, i'm still watching it, that's just my first comment, even if I said 'Dropped'.
>>277180
Yes, people who are poor as shit cannot afford to eat meat. This is something seen throughout history, and if you go by that definition, the majority of mankind has been vegetarian (not vegan though) to a large degree, as traditionally meat was reserved for either the reach or for holidays (the exception to this being fish).
And yes, because they don't eat meat, they don't die from heart disease - the number one killer of people in the modern world.
And yes, heart disease is the number one killer in the modern world. Except that doesn't matter. Because all of those Indians and Chinese who are desperately poor and can't afford even the tiniest bit of meat? They die from communicable diseases, typhoid, and other shit that the modern world hasn't had to deal with for over a hundred years due to our development. So no surprise that once those things get pushed out, other forms of death come in to take their place because, shockingly enough, we don't live forever.
>>277205
>shockingly enough, we don't live forever.
Yes, but there is a difference between living a long and healthy life, and living in a chronic state of poor health. There have been studies where people have been told to use a plant-based diet, then switch to their regular diets to see the effects, and most of the participants refused to go back. These were people who had issues with diabetes and heart disease, and who have eaten like shit their whole lives. They refuse to go back because they feel so much better on a plant-based diet. And it makes sense, because people who follow this diet, people who have diabetes, who have taken insulin shots for most of their adult lives, can get off of insulin all together within 2 weeks on a plant-based diet.
The medical community is starting to realize how startling the results are. Endocrinologists are recommending plant based diets to everyone. Except most of these doctors will allow for small servings of meat (like 7oz a day) because they know how irrational people are when it comes to veganism.
>>277233
>Be American
>Eat junk food all day erry day, drink 2 gallons of soda daily, develop horrific weight problem and diabetes
>Try out this new fad-diet that them dirty hippies down the road were talking about
>Aw man the doctor said I have to if I wanna keep my legs
>2 months later
>HOLY FUG I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER :DDD
No
Shit
>>276876
>Literally calling me a communist nazi for not hating the same person you hate as virulently
T O P K E K
O
P
K
E
K
>>276879
>Human nature is fixed and immutable
This isn't even true on a biological level.
>>277098
http://www.ghgonline.org/methanerice.htm
Being vegan isn't perfect either. Rice produces a shit ton of methane. More per calorie IIRC than most meat.
>>277329
I have already addressed these points:
1. Rural China, India, Kenya, most developing countries adopt a primarily plant-based diet out of necessity.
2. America needs to adopt plant-based dieting to treat all of our major killers, so does all of the West. Doctors are acknowledging this, and are beginning to tell their patients to eat plant based.
3. Plant-based foods are much better for long term sustainability and cause much less stress on the environment rather than the harsh factory farming conditions we have now.
In short, most of the East already uses a plant-based diet, and the West is going to have to adopt it eventually.
>>277357
You know there's a difference between "Mostly plant based diet out of necessity with meat and fish whenever you can get your hands on it" that is common throughout all cultures in all human history and...this poofter neo-liberal "EVERY ANIMAL IS PRECIOUS" mentality known as veganism.
The former is understandable. The latter, not so much. There is a huge difference between vegetarianism, especially if by necessity, and veganism, especially if by "moral choice" as you seem to have indicated throughout this thread.
>>277368
I don't understand the point you are making? I have just started posting in this thread like an hour ago so maybe you are referring to posts I haven't made when you say "indicated throughout this thread"?
The moral choice isn't important in the long run, even though it is the correct one. As long as people are able to break free of all the propaganda the meat and dairy industry throws at us everyday, people will eventually see that plant-based diets are superior in every domain, from the ethical to the logical, to the passionate.
>>277393
I've been watching the youtube documentary since I arrived in this thread and it is just 100% pure moralism and I'm about 20 minutes into it. So far nothing is convincing to me other than "Some time in the future we will have to survive on less luxurious food than we currently live on" which I've already known for a very long time. I'm not one of those fools who thinks that 50 years from now we're going to be on Mars and have a transhumanist utopia. I know whats coming. And I know it almost certainly can't be stopped.
>>277405
If you are watching it, then I would suggest just focusing on the movie, and not flipping around to post on 4chan. Just try to focus on what your eyes are seeing, give it the attention it deserves, otherwise of course the power of the images wont have its full effect. Yes, its pure moralism, but that is not bad. The entire movie is an argument from pathos.
>>277433
m8 I've grown up on a farm in fucking post-communist Moldova. Do you think I don't know what an animal dying looks like? You and so many other people like you only find this shocking because you grow up completely isolated from how the real world works - comfortable suburban dwellings sheltered away from the harsh realities of this world. Ivory tower intellectuals and professors who've never known hardship. And when you one day find whats been hidden from you your whole life you react with disgust instead of realizing what it is - nature. You are weak if you think this video is "powerful", that is all I can say.
I admit that I eat meat only because I'm too lazy to learn how to use spices to make vegetarian food acceptable. Meat is so simple, just some salt and pepper and it's great. Sweet Chili sauce however has started to become a staple of my spice habits, and it works great for just about any vegetable I've tried it with. Probably gonna go vegetarian soon.
>he's vegan but drives a car
ebin
>>277453
Okay, so you wanna be edgy and throw around that argument like it means anything. Why do we as a collective have to accept cruelty and suffering as a part of our culture, why are we so apathetic toward it?
Yeah, the world is a terrible place, people die everyday in horrible and terrifying ways. Yet, you are saying we should just accept it because it is nature? I am sorry but the naturalist fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. With education we can change the world, we already are changing it. To accept the barbarism that is the current world is to deny the evolution of our morality.
>>277499
>>277499
>Edgy!
>Why does suffering have to exist?
>Naturalist fallacy!
>With education we can change the world!
>Barbarism!
Outstanding, you hit literally every bullet point in only a few sentences. I dont know if I should just pity you for being so naive.
Because you are.
You are a naive, scared little child who has no idea how the world works. And that's it.
>>277499
>dude what if we like, build all this technology and barricade ourselves in the inner city so we completely forget what nature looks like, while our subhuman manual labor slaves carry us on our backs
>polluting the planet is a small price to pay for moral superiority!
10/10 OP, well done.
>>277368
>neo-liberal
Stop using words you don't know, child.
>Is not being a vegan immoral?
Moral choices are not a /his/ topic.
This whole thread isn't /his/, if you want to argue about morals with pseudo high school garbage arguments there's >>>/trash/.
We cannot be held morally responsible for our biology. From my understanding, eating meat brought about bigger brains and smaller guts--in other words eating meat made us human.
If a lamb can convince me that his life is of greater value than a delicious gyro, I will share him.
>>271303
His reasoning makes perfect sense. Why should I be offended by this?
>>272553
Just because they have some form of sentience doesn't imply rights.
Rights aren't based on sentience as is because the line is arbitrary.
>>277453
>i grew up more isolated and sheltered than you, therefore i know more of the real world than you
my god, the ideology of rural mongoloids
>>277557
>Romanians
>Mongoloids
You cannot even shitpost properly you are disgrace
>>277557
But he's shot cows, anon. Imagine the secrets he's discovered.
>>271232
We are designed to eat it, so we do. You can argue that it's immoral, but it tastes good, costs less and no modern first-world pussy can convince me it matters whether or not it's immoral. Fuck off.
The more I read these threads the more I feel veganism is a religion for people who want moral superiority without actual sacrifice. It doesn't require reflection, dedication, an elaborate thought system and allows for all other hedonistic pleasures.
I also see a massive difference in how they treat animals as opposed to people that are actually surrounded by animals that go beyond dogs and cats. They usually have a clear picture of how to treat an animal as an animal and a man as a man whereas vegans obsess over shallow liberalism and flimsy ethics.
>>277533
Why doesn't moral philosophy belong on /his/?
>>277585
Moral philosophy is not the same as "is x moral??"
