All throughout history -hundreds of years of intellectuals- not a single one argument has been made in favor of exploiting animals. In fact, the environment, ethics, and (arguably) health, all point to the contrary. Those who get offensive about this topic simply are avoiding the truth. This is not comparable to religion, this is not comparable to politics, this isn't a matter of choosing red or blue, it's simply a matter of facts, that the only consequent behavior for someone who doesn't want to inflict pain in others (which I believe is accurate for most human beings) is to be vegan.
http://www.godfist.com/vegansidekick/guide/
Discuss.
>polish intellectuals
>not a single one argument has been made in favor of exploiting animals
Wrong. Jesus Christ, aka, GOD, made men and created animals for men.
>>289501
>not a single one argument has been made in favor of exploiting animals
Because it's pretty self evident. Having a beast of burden to pull shit around is damn useful, as is having a bunch of birds that give you food every day from eating worms and shit, or a cow that gives you liquid food every day that also pulls shit around and will feed you for a month when it dies. In modern times it gets more questionable, but taste and profit justify it inna practical, if not a moral context.
>>289617
Same self evident as enslaving others. Having a human to slave away would be pretty good for me. They're smart enough to follow your direction and if they try to run away, just shoot them.
>>289627
It did work out pretty well for millennia. Only difference is that human slaves will occasionally communicate to each other, rise up and try to kill you.
>>289501
>not a single argument
Except, you know, a very famous one, supported by a lot of historians and anthropologists
>>289636
Of course it's "resource-efficient", the point has never been about just that, but about the cost of it in moral terms.
>>289659
So you're trying to measure a completely subjective thing here.
Kind of a waste of time desu, the only point of that sort of discussion is to get to know your peer better, and we're not going to knowingly talk to each other after this discussion. To sit here and espouse your views is just kind of egotistic and masturbatory.
>>289659
Sure there's a moral cost, but it's small enough compared to the gains that there is no hesitation to make use of animals.
>>289687
How the fuck is it subjective? Everyone agrees that enslaving beings is wrong. How to measure it doesn't matter, we all know it's sufficiently big that it does critical damage to the living being.
>masturbatory
Drop that expression man. Just earlier today I made a thread about how overused it is.
>look mom, I'm using big boy SEX words, and not only that, it's in a discussion! I'm such a big boy!
>>289710
How is it small? It's fucking gigantic. They suffer the worst kind of tortures possible, and, fuck, let's get that out of the way, just the enviormental footprint is titanic (I know we were talking about morals, but I had to bring it up because it's true and you can't judgue this just on the ethical canvas).
>>289787
There's not much point to trying to discuss something if you're just going to get buttmad and irrational about it. Whether it is wrong is subjective simply because it existed and still exists. Slavers then and human traffickers now certainly don't have a problem with it.
We are evolved animals, our methods of exploitation of other animals likewise have evolved. From the mere hunting and eating all animals share, to workforce usage, breeding for food and even companionship.
There was never a deliberate argument in favor of animal exploitation because wasn't needed, we domesticated animals long before we were seriously worried about morality. The question is not why should we do it, but whether, why should we stop? And the follow-up question for your answer, Why would human suffering be equal, or at least morally comparable to animal suffering?
Genesis 1:26
/thread
>>289501
>being right is about arguments in a moral framework
how convenient for you
>>289501
>this is what vegans actually believe
Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat a gazelle?
>>290358
No because are hunters and carnivore and will die if they don't eat meat. However it is morally wrong to feign intelligence in debates and ask to be treated the same as lower cognitive functioning members of the animal kingdom.
>>290358
Yes.
>>289501
>not a single one argument has been made in favor of exploiting animals
"They're tasty."
"They can pull more than a human."
Ta-da~!
>>289787
Animals are not on the same level as humans. Does that mean you should mistreat them? No. Does that mean you can use them or eat them? Sure. It's no more than natural. Regardless of what you vegans say, meat is a necessary part of the human diet. Humans are omnivores.
>>289787
>They suffer the worst kind of tortures possible
Actually it's far healthier for sheep to be regularly sheered than to allow their wool to just keep on growing.
Most domesticated beasts of burden like sheep and cows, as well as animals like chickens, also are nowadays dumb and docile and wouldn't survive on their own wild anymore.
>>289894
>my book of goatfucker fairy tales says so
>/t-thread
>now I'll respond to him with a picture of le fedora man because only neckbeards don't believe in my particular religion xD
>>290450
The universe does not care.
>>290503
Since the only thoughts that the Universe has are the thoughts of the conscious beings that are part of it and some conscious beings do care this is a false claim.
>>289501
Animals lack true agency and thus are unworthy to consider as "someones"
>>289904
Yes, how convenient! I love to be right about a world that systematically tortures animals, I so do not wish there was a valid reason to do so.
>>290448
are you really implying we actually serve good to the animals with factory farming? jesus christ this is the most delusional thing i've ever read. at least people who eat meat acknowledge the damage, but disregard it by putting animals below their consideration, while you actually believe you are doing them good.
>>290528
>Animals lack true agency
So do humans.
What exactly are the arguments for preserving animals? What will naturally living cows ever bring to this world?
>>289501
The only arguments that Vegans have on their side is that today's farms and generally the meat business does more wrong than good.
The beasts suffer a lot, have to live an unhealthy life which causes them nervous breakdowns so that they have to be mutilated, like chickens who get their beaks cut or completely immobilized like pigs.
That of course leads to the meat being terribly low in actual nutritional quality and usually ridden with refuse of various pharmaceutical products that of course go into our bodies, which is never a good thing.
Not to mention that the vast majority of that meat is wasted due to the problems of modern society, more demand than what is actually needed generates huge amount of leftovers which are punctually thrashed, also due to various market rules about not being able to sell products after a certain expiring date even though they're still perfectly edible, this creates a tremendously inefficient system which does more harm than good.
Then there's the usual problem about gases, which is no joke either but the vegetable industry has it too.
What's even more scary is how everything ties into the general food industry as a whole, The Omnivore Dilemma is a good preliminary read about it and I suggest you guys to read it, Consider the Lobster is also a funny little book with a few very good points.
>>>
>>290862
On the other hand, IF and only if the animal leads a good life and then dies to satisfy a healthy, non wasteful human necessity I don't see any problems at all, meat is very tasty and can be a good source of general nutrients if carefully used in a diet, fish is generally even better from a nutritional point of view, much higher quality of both fats and proteins.
Worrying about whether it's acceptable to eat something is an unhealthy form of thought created by societies based on guilt, sin and repression, animals are useful and we can live in harmony with them, eating them is also part of that harmonious relatonship and is to me, a form of deep respect when no part of a living being goes wasted, granted that again, a lot of things in modern society are fundamentally wrong and harmful, not just to animals but to society and humanity as a whole.
I for one am proud of being an omnivore, I like to eat good meat once in a while and am lucky enough to have a few contacts who can give me quality meat of animals treated with love and dignity, one of the little advantages of living in a rural area, I don't buy meat from markets and I don't support the meat industry, but I'm also not that shortsighted to think that eating a living being or using its byproduct is for some reason weird, otherwise I'd go eat a rock.
By the by, mushrooms are still unclassified organisms, they're neither fully vegetables nor animals, and while some of those kill us others taste damn good, what am I supposed to do about them?
Is it right to drink wine, a product that comes from vegetables but has microorganisms in it?
You know how many bacterias and viruses are in the air you're breathing right now?
Do you really think you should give a shit about those?
Might as well stop existing right here and now son because you're passively killing literally thousands of beings every damn minute.
I don't endorse the vegan lifestyle. However you can still compromise. By eating less (better for your own health as well) and supporting more humane treatment of animals in the meat industry.
Doesn't have to be 100% vegan or 100% unethical meat industry.
>>289501
Why should animals be moral subjects? No conduct towards an animal is unethical.
>>290914
humans are animals.
>>290914
Last time I checked causing any kind of gratuitous suffering to a sentient being was not only unethical but a clear sign of mental problems.
Take that as you will though, you're part of the animal kingdom too, y'know?
>>290661
that's an argument in favor of veganism though. animals keep being bred just for human consumption.
>>289501
No reason to make an argument, it is self-evidant, faggot.
>>290868
>if the animal leads a good life and then dies to satisfy a healthy, non wasteful human necessity I don't see any problems at all
What if the animal is an enslaved human? I assure you, human meat is just as tasty and nutritious if needed.
>whether it's acceptable to eat something is an unhealthy form of thought
How so?
>eating them is also part of that harmonious relationship and is to me, a form of deep respect
This is absolutely delusional. The animals have no saying in this "harmonious" relationship, and they sure as heck don't want it. It's completely loaded to our side: they get fucked, we win. There is no harmony, nor respect, only the opposite.
>I don't buy meat from markets and I don't support the meat industry
This is still appropriating a living being, which I'm sure you wouldn't do with an hypothetical human farm. In any way, are you absolutely sure these animals live a proper life? Have you visited the farms yourself? Do you only buy meat from these places? What about eggs? Almost the totality of self-proclaimed "humane" farms are absolute lies because there is no regulation for what constitutes them, so they take advantage of that and assure you that the animals are treated "properly" (wow, 10 chickens live in a cage instead of 20, such progress!).
>what am I supposed to do about them?
Eat them, of course. They aren't sentient.
>microorganisms
This is ridiculous. No vegan cares about these because they are too primitive to feel pain or have any impact on the environment (controllable, that is).
>>291895
>What if the animal is an enslaved human?
reductio ad absurdum, are you really arguing that beasts are on the same level as humans?
>How so?
Because we are the only species who get their pants in a tist about what other eat and why they shouldn't
> The animals have no saying in this "harmonious" relationship, and they sure as heck don't want it.
Tell that to the birds your cat eat or all the animals a lion preys upon, that's literally nature there man, and we're part of it as much as stupid victorian gentlemen got eaten by tigers in returns, would you blame the tiger?
>This is still appropriating a living being, which I'm sure you wouldn't do with an hypothetical human farm.
Only because I still think my species isn't that appetizing and I actually root for the home team like most humans do.
>In any way, are you absolutely sure these animals live a proper life? Have you visited the farms yourself?
The shepherd is a long time family friend and I've visited his farm since I was a little kid. I can assure you he is extremely human with his animals.
> Do you only buy meat from these places? >What about eggs?
Absolutely, if you want to believe my words on the internet, I also buy most of my vegetables from him. the other half I get it from my relatives, the ony thing I buy from markets are pasta and basic first necessity goods such as salt, sugar and flour, can't even drink milk because I'm intolerant to lactose.
>Almost the totality of self-proclaimed "humane" farms are absolute lies because there is no regulation for what constitutes them, so they take advantage of that
I agree with that but again, I live in a very rural area where traditional shepherds still exist so I'm able to break out of the circle luckily.
>they are too primitive to feel pain or have any impact on the environment
But bread exploits the action of microorganisms too, that undermines your point, pain or not.
>>290941
>Last time I checked
I am in need of proofs.
>>289501
Did you get tired of shit posting on /pol/?
>>289501
Except saturated animal fats are proven better for your heart then vegetable fats
>>289501
oh, its this thread again.
>>290450
*tips fedora
But I value meat-eating more than I value the happiness and life of animals.
>>291895
>What if the animal is an enslaved human?
But it's not
>>290868
>Do you know how many bacteria and viruses are in the air you breathe
Viruses are already dead retard
>>289501
> In fact, the environment, ethics, and (arguably) health, all point to the contrary
You know the health contributions we get from animals are a hell of a lot more than just dietary, right? There are plenty of important medical procedures that required animal products. Pigs are used for skin grafts, for example. The first blood transfusions were performed with animal blood, and still today we use pigs blood when suitable human blood isn't available.
>>293599
animals transmit deceases to mankind. PANDEMICS have started because people eat meat.
and animal agroculture is the number one cause of climate change.
those are facts.
>>293599
and also i dont approve of this at all. more research and investments should be done in replacements of animal testing.
this argument is like saying that meat is tasty. just because it benefits us doesn't mean it trumps the enourmous damage we do to them.
>>289501
>not a single one argument has been made in favor of exploiting animals.
This is retarded. The entire modern world is the result of humanities strategic exploitation of animals. Had we not domesticated animals such as pigs, cows, sheep, chickens, etc. we would never have been able to maintain populations large enough to allow us to specialise our roles in society. Maths and science wouldn't have got so far if all the mathematicians and scientists were out foraging for food or ploughing fields instead of developing maths and science.
The ethics of eating animals must surely revolve around the idea of relative suffering, and capacity for suffering rather than death/ killing. Death is not a big deal in nature. The one thing that everything that has ever been alive has in common is that it's either dead or dying. Suffering is what we must endeavour to
reduce/ end. Granted there are a lot of shortcomings of the modern meat industry and far more suffering than there ought to be, but that doesn't mean that eating dead animals is fundamentally wrong.
>the only consequent behavior for someone who doesn't want to inflict pain in others (which I believe is accurate for most human beings) is to be vegan.
Simply not true. This view only serves to alienate the wider public who simply stop listening and call you a faggot when you say stuff like this. Could you persuade people to pay a bit more for their meat and have it suffer less while its alive? Yeah probably if you make the case right. Could you persuade people to give up a major food group (and arguably the best one!) to conform to your simplistic ideals? Not likely.
>>290524
1) Prove to me that the universe has no consciousness.
2) Alternatively, Prove to me that a majority of the sapient life care about sentient ones.
I'm sorry OP, I'm against animal exploitation, but you're just such a massive faggot that it makes wanting to be on your side nearly impossible . Come back when you have actual arguments, it will be better for the cause and your personal development.
>>289501
I follow the Golden Rule and respect all sentient beings. All animals can think and feel, and have a live worth living. It isn't ethically justified to exploit animals. There is no reason to eat or use animals other than for personal pleasure. Veganism is a moral imperative for humans who wish to follow the Golden Rule, regardless of race, class, or species etc.
>>289886
>Naturalistic fallacy
>Appeal to tradition
Is my suffering comparable to your suffering? What a pointless question to try to equate the subjective suffering experience of two individuals. Animals do feel pain and do show signs that they suffer for their pain, so why would we continue to inflict harm on them for a mere taste. And it's irrelevant to the present issue whether or not we evolved eating meat or if we couldn't have gotten to the top of the food chain without exploitation; it says nothing of the ethics of doing so now.
>>289894
>And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Sounds like God wants man to be vegan.
Also, Genesis says we have dominion over the animals, meaning stewardship over the care of animals, because we bred them to depend on us.
>>296676
Man, this is some good material for a pasta that shits on man's dream to reach the stars, everything we achieved and civilization.
>>293599
Yeah, and baby foreskins are used for treating ulcers, but it doesn't make it justifiable to violate another person's bodily liberty.
There are some non-frivolous uses of animals, but for the most part it's all about the pleasure we derive from killing and eating them.
>>289501
>hurting animals is bad!
>we should eradicate all domesticated farm animals because they will serve no purpose in my vegan utopia!
>>296740
How does this shit on mankind's space quest?
Human beings have done a lot of questionable things to get where we are. Someone could easily make the argument that we couldn't've gotten here without human slaves either, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the morality of the issue.
>>289501
Animal exploitation? Slavery? Genocide?
All covered by pic related.
>>290626
Where exactly did he say he was in favor of factory farming he merely said many species have been domesticated to the point they couldn't survive on their own.
Which is correct
I agree that ethically it's not alright to put animals through undue suffering, be they human or otherwise. Also past and current meat production is a pandemic factory.
Most daming of all is the inefficiency of meat production. It takes 10 times as much land to produce one serving of meat than it does to produce one serving of human crops. That's hard to justify even if the land isn't ideal for most human crops.
>>289501
Humans are omnivorous. Our species has eaten meat since the dawn of time.
Vegans have serious nutritional issues, and I genuinely feel sorry for their offspring will actually suffer developmentally from their parent's delusions.
>>290460
If you're a good athiest, you'll point out that animal rights are spooks.
>>297399
Vegetarianism is great though.
>>289787
>enslaving is bad
They are not sapient so fuck them. We don't even give full agency to human children, why would we give a shit about beings that aren't of the same species as ours and most often don't give a shit either?
No problem with using them as long as it doesn't harm us.
>>297561
It's ok, literally a peasant diet.
I know iron deficiency is a real thing though.
>>297589
nobody cares what you think.
>>297399
Veganism is perfectly healthy for all stages of the life cycle. Omnis can have serious nutritional issues as well. There is nothing magical about animal foods that you can't get from plants.
>>297589
Fuck off retard.
>>297582
>iron deficiency is real
And so it's heart disease.
desu that cute cow wouldn't exist without the meat industry and dairy industry.
>>297582
Peasants ate nothing but bread and cabbage. Modern vegetarians have access to to every fruit, vegetable, grain, and fungus on Earth. Kind of a shit comparison desu.
>>297589
>VEGETARIANISM IS TO VEGANISM WHAT "SOLUBLE COFFEE" IS TO AUTHENTIC COFFEE.
Except vegetarianism is great.
The cows would just moo, shit on the grass, and eventually get eaten by something else if we didn't eat them
I'd rather be the one eating it than some faggot animal
It also tastes good, and nothing you vegans say will ever change that facr
https://youtu.be/1FYZHkjgwdc
>>297616
*fact
>>297593
>perfectly healthy for all stages
you're gonna need some fucking evidence, cause it sounds like brainwashing to me.
How do you reconcile the fact that humans have eaten meat and bred livestock since basically forever with your "philosophy"? There's a reason that is the case across basically every single human culture.
please tell me you're not a paleo vegan.
>>297593
B12
1
2
How are you enjoying your supplements, my vegan friend?
>>297573
We don't enslave children and use them for food and clothing.
Sapience is clearly not the important factor for inclusion in the moral community. Retards are not forced to give up their rights. They don't make coma patients give up their organs. Sentience is all that matters. Rights are not based on intellect, but feeling.
The usage of animals absolutely harms us and our environment. No doubt, they are also extremely useful to us, but there is much bad taken with the good in the form of disease and pollution.
>>297616
>If we didn't raid the planet Earth and devour humans then they would just live and die on Earth anyway. Humans also taste good, and nothing can change that.
>>297600
>heart disease
Not really. Correlation =/= Causation, and I'd argue that the sedentary lifestyle is more likely to be the root of the matter.
>>297602
>Peasants ate nothing but bread and cabbage
This is supposed to be /his/.
>>297609
faggot
>>297616
Not to mention they wouldn't even exist in their current form without us. It's a symbiotic relationship. We ensure their genetic continuance, help feed them, and they feed us.
>>297642
>This is supposed to be /his/.
It is, because it's true.
>>297631
Coma patients and retards are treated differently because they're humans
If they were cows, we'd be doing all of that
>>297624
>Appeal to tradition
It says nothing of the morality of doing it in the present, even if it was somehow necessary.
You don't have to put philosophy in quotes, it's not that big of a deal.
It's perfectly healthy according to the ADA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
>>297646
http://people.eku.edu/resorc/Medieval_peasant_diet.htm
please
>>289636
>slaves will occasionally communicate to each other, rise up and try to kill you.
Implying we wouldn't just end them.
>crassus intensifies
>>297660
>dentists knowing anything
You berate me for appeal to tradition when I simply point at the history of our species as evidence for the counter claim, and then you immediately commit an appeal to authority.
>>297648
They're treated differently, but they still have the right to their bodily liberty, which animals do not.
>>297661
>only two images on the page are bread and cabbage :^)
>>297669
You asked for a source. They aren't dentists you moron.
>>297661
Doesn't that essentially supports his claim?
>For the majority of the of the people, peasants, a large portion of their daily diet was made up of grains
>Protein was usually provided legumes such as beans, peas or lentils, fish where available, or on very rare occasions, meat such as poultry, pork, or beef. Additional nutrients were provided by seasonal vegetables and fruits. The peasant's diet rates high on modern nutrition standards.
>Meat was expensive and usually only available on special occasions.
Here's an argument: I like eating it for the same reason yer mum loves cock--because it's tasty, senpai.
>>297683
The Hannibal Lecter argument, I can respect that.
All the best crops were from the Americas. Medieval peasants had miserable diets.
>>297694
Prove it.
>>289501
Tell me why is it against ethics to kill, eat and dominate?
>>297698
>Not essentially, because he's arguing for Veganism as opposed to Vegetarianism.
I don't really see it
>>297708
Why is it unethical to enslave people?
I'm genuinely asking the question.
>>297637
I see nothing wrong here
>>297712
You haven't even read the thread.
>ctrl-f vegan
>1 of 26
>>297703
>Grains: Little barley, maize (corn), maygrass, wild rice
>Pseudograins: Amaranth, knotweed, goosefoot (quinoa), sunflower
>Beans: Common bean, lima bean, peanut, scarlet runner bean, tepary bean
>Fiber: Agave, yucca, long-staple and upland cotton
>Roots and Tubers: Arrowroot, jicama, Camas root, hopniss, leren, manioc (yuca, cassava), mashua, oca, potato, sweet potato, ulluco, yacon
>Fruits: Avocado, blueberry, cherimoya, cranberry, guava (guayaba), huckleberry, papaya, pawpaw, passionfruit, peppers, pineapple, prickly pear (tuna), commercial strawberries, tomato, tomatillo
>Melons: Chayote, squashes (including pumpkins)
>Nuts: American chestnut, Black walnut, Brazil nut, cashew, hickory, pecans, shagbark hickory
>Other: Achiote (annatto), canna, chicle (key ingredient in chewing gum and rubber), coca, cocoa, cochineal (red dye), logwood, maple syrup, poinsettia, rubber, tobacco, vanilla
>>297734
So?
>>297716
I think the main disconnect vegans and nonvegans have is that vegans view animals the same way as people
I agree with the health element and the fact that it's good for the environment, but I can't take your "boo hoo ur killing da animals" arguments seriously at all
I'm driven to eat more meat just to piss peolle that use that sort of argument off, in fact
>>297764
So the best.
>>297629
It's a problem for everyone, not just vegans. In the past, we got our B12 from bacteria in the dirt, but due to cleaner farming practices there's less of this good bacteria. Everyone should likely be taking B12 supplements.
>>297798
But most people do, anon
Does spirulina have the bioactive kind of B12 or the useless kind?
>>297825
The useless kind
>>289627
The difference is unlike a slave, a beast of burden is generally taken care of well, because it discourages stubbornness in them.
>>297852
>unlike a slave
It depended on the owner and the purpose of the slave. Also the culture and general context.
>>297812
Animals get it from the bacteria in the dirt of which there is less of. Omnis also have b12 deficiencies. And everyone drinks fortified milk.
>>297849
Are you sure or is it simply untested?
I don't see anything wrong with keeping a milk cow. You have to keep them healthy, and they get sore if they're never milked.
>>297768
did some research, veganism isn't healthy
vegetarianism is ok because of fish and milk
ignore this senpai
>>289501
>the only consequent behavior for someone who doesn't want to inflict pain in others (which I believe is accurate for most human beings)
These are some spooky implications
>>297899
>vegetarianism
>fish
I think you mean pescatarianism.
>>297768
They aren't the same or equal to people, but all sentient beings have the right to not be the property of another, or be tortured and killed. I don't view animals lives as mattering more because of this basic right, just as I don't view random humans as mattering more than my family.
>>297637
But we'd fight back. If we lose, we lose. If the cows want to fight back, let them.
The only point I concede to you is the environmental footprint. I eat certified non-"factory" meat, so you leafshitters can go fuck off with your "torture" angle. Meat tastes fucking fantastic and I've put up with so many shitters feeding me processed grass while squawking that it tastes the same. Shit doesn't.
>>298024
Human civilization is predicated on humans respecting rights of others that go beyond "I won't kill that person because they might kill me back".
Regardless, you must recognize that eating meat is horribly inefficient. You can produce 10 portions of vegetables or fruits for every portion of meat.
>Thinking cows are a natural animal
they woudn't even exist without us, at least not in the state you think they would
>>298120
>arbitrary distinction between natural and "artificial"
I hate hippies so damn much.
>>298120
So you are totally fine with asians eating dogs?
>>290388
>those aniamls are inferior and we shouldn't stoop down to their level
>but we should tottaly treat them equally
it works both ways you know
>>298123
yes
>>298123
Sure. You aren't?
>>289501
Animals are not others whose pain I need be concerned with.
Oh fuck, I stopped reading at "in favor of exploiting animals." Jesus Christ get out of my board. This isn't /his/
>>298053
You silly ass hole alway do that measurement by weight when you should be doing it be calories.
>>298053
Yes other humans.
>>298168
Why not? They are living, breathing, conscious beings. They've evolved over the past 4.5 billion years the same way you have, just in a different direction. Being concerned with your own species' wellbeing is fine, but when you can easily remove your contribution to the suffering of other species, why wouldn't you?
>>298199
>They've evolved over the past 4.5 billion years the same way you have, just in a different direction
not domesticated ones, those were evolved by us ;)
>>298187
First, learn English. Second, who said I wasn't talking about Calories?
90% of the energy produced by animal feed is lost by cows producing their meaty flesh.
>>298199
Non of our food animals are self aware. The did not evolve like we did or they would be like us. I don't believe non self aware beings can suffer.
One cannot feel woe is me when there is no concept of 'me'.
>>298191
What makes humans special?
I'd say there are a spectrum of rights going all the way from Jupiter sized supercomputer minds to humans to amoebas.
>>298216
I know you weren't talking about calories. That the problem
That's not accurate.
>>298217
While they may not be able to have the thought "I am in pain", they can still feel pain. A self (which is a vague and wishy-washy concept in itself) it not necessary to suffer in the slightest.
>>298217
>making bold unsupported claims to justify eating meat
There are plenty of justifications to eat meat but your argument is really stupid.
>>298226
Yes it is accurate. 90% of the energy is lost as body heat from the cow. Chickens are more efficient though.
>>298225
We confer and abide by rights we set up. That is what makes us special.
Animals do not understand nor can they appreciate rights given.
>>298236
No food animals are self aware. That's not unsupported in the slightest.
>>298234
Feeling pain is a very low bar. Your argument us suffering something they cannot do.
>>298241
Even so the animal is still efficent. Not tome tips the types of protein and vitamins you only get from animal flesh.
Comparing calories is the better way to do it.
>>298263
All necessary protiens can be obtained from plants and I WAS TALKING ABOUT CALORIES!
What is your first language?
>>298253
"Self aware" is a poorly defined and arbitrary line in the sand.
>>289501
>is raised in a civilization built upon animal exploitation
>exploits animals for their meat in order for survival
>indirectly exploits animals for their labor in order for survival/convenience
>probably exploits dog/cat for shits and giggles and/or loneliness
>"le exploitin animals is wrong!!1 :D:D
Your life depends on animal exploitation. Deal with it.
>>298298
Cat videos on the internet are a crime!
>>298271
You were not talking about calories you were talking about energy conversion. Compare a pound of broccoli to a bound of meat. A pound of meat has 10 times the calories of a pound of broccoli. 90% may be lost but it is still an efficent way to gain calories. If it were as ineffective t as you seem to want to claim the is would be untenable.
No you don't bet everything you need from plants b12 for example.
>>298274
No its pretty defined. Some tests may not be the greatest but that does not matter since food animals fail spectacularly on all fronts.
>>298317
D-Do you know what Calories even are? They are literally energy. Cows consume 10 times the Calories they produce. That means the land used to feed cows could have been used to feed 10 times the people if it was just growing corn or oats for humans.
What is your first language? Or are you dyslexic?
>>298319
The mirror test is not a definitive test for being "self aware" and as I said, it's fucking arbitrary. There is a nearly unbroken spectrum of "awareness" from humans to amoebas.
>>298342
No because it would take 18lbs of broccoli to do that we can't get that much down in a day we would be very ill.
Even by your own 10 times we lose nothing in the long run except having the calories in a smaller more Convenient package.
It's not horrible efficent that's why we still do it and profit from it.
I blame Disney.
>>298349
Yes and the massive gap is animals we eat.
They sim are not worthy of consideration.
>>298234
When you say they still "feel" "pain", what do you mean?
What does morality have to do with anything? Actions are never decided by morality. They are always decided by what is most effective, and tempered by morality, which is derived from ethics, which is also partially based on what is most effective. We eat animals because that is our natural state as omnivorous creatures. It is effective to eat animals because they taste good and are nutritious. That is commonly agreed on, and so therefore is part of the common ethos. Morality is derived from that, and so we decide that it is moral to eat animals.
In a similar way, we naturally dislike pain because it is a response to damage to our bodies or psyches. Damaging our bodies is not preferable, and so we can commonly agree that it is not preferable to cause pain. That is the common ethos, and so morally we decide that we do not want to cause pain.
Now that we know that animals with sufficient intelligence can feel pain (or at least we think so, we're not sure), we surmise that causing pain to animals is bad. This causes a conflict, because it is moral to eat animals and it is immoral to hurt them. Therefore we can come to two conclusions. We can either decide which is more immoral, or we can strike a compromise.
Vegetarian-leaning cultures (such as the one I was born into) have commonly decided that the bad of hurting the animal outweighs the good of eating it, leading to a net bad, and so they avoid meat. Others, such as Western culture at large, have struck a compromise and decided that pain is bad, but eating animals is still good enough that they want to continue doing it, so they try and slaughter animals in humane ways and cause as little pain as possible. Others, such as Islamic and Jewish culture have come to the conclusion that the good of eating the animal outweighs the bad of hurting it, and so they slaughter it ritualistically, offering it symbolically to their god.
tl;dr you're a fucking faggot, OP. People like different things and you can't stop them.
>>298373
Pigs are just as smart if not smarter than a lot of dogs.
What is your opinion of whaling?
>>298401
Dogs aren't sapient nor are whales. Whaling should not be done wantonly for population sake.
>>298413
Oh! So now the line in the sand is sapience! A term that literally means human level and nothing else!
Have you been trolling me this entire time? Christ.
>>298421
No I am not trolling. Saipence is just easy to use. I don't really give a shit how smart dog and pigs are they are still food and not self aware.
>>298434
>I'm a subhuman Asian who eats dogs
Opinion discarded.
>>298439
I am not asian nor do I eat dogs. I just don't care that they do.
Dogs are not special they are animals like any other.
>>298342
>Cows consume 10 times the calories they produce meme
Not true, although the logic stands.
The difference is that they convert the nutritional value of their meal into meat and milk.
Not all calories are created equal, and attempting to define nutritional standards by setting dehydrated food on fire is a little fucking dumb.
>>298439
>I'm an unironic moral absolutist
You're even worse.
>>298461
the grey area is literally just ignorance as to the truth colored by feelings and irrationality.
It's like saying 1+1 can be 2 or 5 depending on your point of view. Some perspectives are just retarded.
>>298460
>Cows don't waste 90% of the energy they consume before slaughter. Trust me, I'm a random anonymous poster on the internet.
Nah, I think I'll stick with Scientific American.
>Not all calories are created equal, and attempting to define nutritional standards by setting dehydrated food on fire is a little fucking dumb.
>moving goalposts
>>298458
Empathy is part of being human, yo. It's large part of what keeps human civilization together.
>>298506
Yes, for other humans
>>298522
Drawing the line at humans is arbitrary though. There should be a spectrum of rights.
>>298496
>Scientific American
>fallacy fallacy and appeal to authority
I personally know a career dairy nutritionist, and he says you're full of shit.
>>298524
It's not really arbitrary. We are the only being that can understand and confer amd defend rights.
>>298527
I don't usually say this, but you are an idiot. You were just trying to get me to take you merely at your word and then you try to call me out on an appeal to an actual PhD? Fuck that. Fuck this conversation. Have a good one. Please learn how to do it better though.
>>290635
>m-muh deterministic universe
>>291706
What? No, it isn't.
Those animals would die out without us. Humans perpetuate their genes because their muscles are tasty.
>>298524
Sapience isn't an arbitrary line. It is the line at which a class of creatures can recognize that they have rights, what those rights are, and conceive an argument in favor of them. Until a pig starts telling me that he realizes there is an entire industry built around breeding him and his people for the sole purpose of eating his belly and making crispy teats out of his skin I have no reason to believe he would be against such a system.
>>298537
faggot
what's the point in arguing? in like 20-30 years there'll be synthetic meat grown that doesn't even have nerves or a brain any sort of sensory system whatsoever
and then all the domesticated animals will become extinct (except maybe pigs, since people find those cute and keep them as pets)
>>298557
Fuck that, I'm not eating your synthetic crap.
>>298557
>synthetic meat
>>298535
>Why should I respect your rights if you have no language to defend your rights with in the court of law, Mr. Anderson?
It's up to us to confer rights based on degree of sophonce (that is a science fiction term but I like it and we've been using a lot of different terms throughout this thread, sue me).
Sooner or later "human" civilization will have many tiers of intelligence and rights according to those tiers. Giving degrees of rights to degrees to intelligence is logical. Thinking otherwise puts calls the logic of giving ourselves rights in question, in the philosophical sense at least.
>>298575
ok, but what if our system is that you only have those rights which you can understand and fully articulate?
>>298554
>Sapience isn't an arbitrary line
It really is and laughably so. Sapience is nothing fundamental. It's just the literal definition of the degree of intelligence humans have. Using it to define when it is okay to confer rights is as comical as me coming up with a word that refers to my own specific IQ and then not giving the right to live to anyone below my IQ.
There are better words to use than sapience in this discussion.
>>298557
It already exists, and the basic concept is fairly simple, through the processes involved are not. It's really expensive and tastes like shit since there isn't any naturally-dispersed fat, but you can get an artificial hamburger.
>>298524
>Drawing the line at humans is arbitrary though.
It's not, cattle is not part of our society. We are not engaged in societal interaction with cattle. Cows don't get on strike, they don't sue you for having your tree grow over their driveway.
Rights are an element of society, there is no reason for them to apply to what's not in it.
I find it interesting that the 19th-century Temperance movement was a major proponent of vegetarianism as well as teetotalism, and that those ideas are now considered pillars of public health science and overall "clean living" in the 21st-century.
What's interesting is that this (highly influential) radical religious movement got both things right nearly a century before mainstream health science did. Crazy coincidence, right? Bunch of Nostradamuses up in here.
>>298565
Why? It'll be great once they learn how to get that delicious marbled fat in.
>>298565
>>298574
>being a luddite
picture a 10,000 BC caveman going "OOGA BOOGA? DOMESTICATED ANIMAL? ME NO EAT THAT CRAP! ME ONLY EAT REAL NATURE EVOLVED WILD BOAR AND WILD BULL!!!"
except this is stupider because lab-grown meat could literally be the same chemical composition as natural-grown meat, as well as opening the door for all kinds of new tasty flavours and foods
>>298584
>the degree of intelligence humans have
all humans, or the average of their total?
Cause some people are geniuses and shit.
>>298591
>because lab-grown meat could literally be the same chemical composition as natural-grown meat
Bull-fucking-shit. We can't even make lab-grown wine that tastes like 20 years old wine. Food chemistry is hard.
Also, game tastes better, city boy.
>>298584
>Using it to define when it is okay to confer rights is as comical as me coming up with a word that refers to my own specific IQ and then not giving the right to live to anyone below my IQ.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that basically how human society already works?
>>298595
that's why i said in 30 years, you retard
[spoiler]also, i agree that game is much better than processed factory farm garbage[/spoiler]
>>298580
It's easy to come up with a hypothetical mind to point out how "problematic" that kind of criteria would be. Someone as intelligent as any human or more so but with an underdeveloped speech center would be just as deserving of rights but wouldn't get them.
It's so much easier to go by the complexity of one's nervous system. That said, different organisms/minds don't necessarily value the same rights. For example a hypothetical human tier AI may be programmed to be perfectly fine with being what to do all it's life. There's a lot of wiggle room when it comes to animals too since they can't communicate, but that doesn't mean we should ignore their rights entirely.
>>298595
I think that's why he gave a timespan of decades. The technology will presumably advance.
As to the thread at hand, I've always wondered why the exclusive focus seems to be on complex vertebrates. Is it unethical to eat animals that are incapable of suffering? Many insects meet this description.
>>298595
It really, really, really doesn't if you don't make a clean kill. A shot animal will release tons of chemicals like adrenaline and oxytocin which will spoil the taste of the meat, that's why farmers worked so hard to create quick kill mechanisms for cattle so they don't get scared while being led to slaughter and spoil the meat.
>>298591
To be fair, game often tastes better than farm-raised meat, but that's just because human selection is not as precise a tool of genetic engineering as directly modifying the genome.
>>298595
See above. With artificial meat products we can take the aspects of meat that you like, game or farm-raised, and raise or lower their expression to the perfect levels custom-tailored to you, and even eliminate every aspect you dislike if you want. Or if you like the challenge we can leave those in.
>>298588
I am extraterrestrial intelligence. Humans fall below my arbitrary criteria of what organisms deserve rights. I am now proceeding to destroy all life on Earth with a solar flare I initiated.
That is unless you recognize there are tiers of intelligence deserving tiers of rights. In which case I must acknowledge your right to exist.
>>298592
Sapience is by definition the intelligence of humans. So, I don't know, it ranges from smartest healthy human to ever exist and the stupidest healthy person to ever exist?
>>298616
>quick kill mechanisms for cattle
>implying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzvsS17ptzE
One problem I have with veganism on the whole is that the death of animals is an inevitable process of human society. Even in a perfectly vegan society, we would still need to kill pests to preserve or crops and stores of food, animals would still die in the process of harvesting our food, and animals would still need to be killed to curb the spread of disease. So unless veganism is also being paired with some sort of primitivist ideology such as cynicism or anarcho-primitivism, it's inconsistent.
>>298624
And they would be right, because all philosophy is derived from the ideas of the hegemons. If we were ruled by intelligent pigs they'd be looking for ways to make rolling in shit good for you because they valued that and they were the ones with the power and means to look into it.
>>298624
I didn't talk about intelligence at any point, I talked about living as a society.
>>298632
You know most people are against that sort of thing, right? A quick kill is a bullet between the eyes or a severed spine, or something of the sort and is what hunters and many farmers do.
>>298630
>Sapience is by definition the intelligence of humans.
I'm pretty sure you're flat out wrong here. Plenty of people make arguments for several non-human animals as being sapient. Some species of whale come to mind.
>>298636
That's just like, your opinion, man.
>>298642
>bullet between the eyes or a severed spine is what hunters do
No, usually a heart and lungs shot is best.
Animal brains are usually pretty small proportionally, so it's a difficult and usually inhumane shot that can leave the damn thing without a face and running for miles.
>>298653
>sapience
>sapien
>homo sapien
Perhaps you are thinking of the word "sentience"?
>>298654
It's a good thing I'm people.
>>298609
>speech center
Writing isn't a thing?
>complexity
Please qualify.
>>298653
this has to be a troll post. there's no way you're this stupid
>im going to argue a point when I don't even know the difference between sentience and sapience
>>298633
>cynicism
>necessarily primitive
Not what the thing is.
>>298656
>bullet between the eyes or a severed spine is what hunters do
Do you have a remarkably well-defined but undiagnosed cataract that caused you to miss "or something of the sort"? The idea is to immediately cause death. At hunting range yes, a heart and lungs shot is the best idea. If you're just shooting old Bessie to make some jerky though you can just put a .308 through her brain.
>>298659
No, sentience is shit like the capacity to learn and such, which is a quality commonly acknowledged in animals. I'm talking about the consideration of animals as having full blown sapience, and being deserving of the same rights a sapient being would be. The classic "whales are people too" routine.
>>298661
>writing
Pretty sure a significant part of writing is handled by the same spot in the brain that handles speech. You know what I mean though. You could have an AI that is human level but autistic as fuck.
>qualify
Like I said, there is a LOT of wiggle room, but it's fairly simple matter to get a ballpark estimate of complexity by simply counting nerve cells and keeping track of what kind of nerve cells. For example a fox mind is more complex than that of a toad is more complex than that of a tardigrade. Bonus points go to Elephants and cetaceans for having spindle neurons.
Fine tuning the metric of the complexity of nervous systems would have to be dependent on behavior I guess.
>>298671
oh yeah totally, but .308 is just a little much.
.22LR at point blank does the trick.
>>298681
>significant part of writing is handled by the same spot in the brain that handles speech
I'm actually not sure about that.
Besides it's not really just one area that handles speech in it's entirely, it's more of a node than anything.
>>298695
I was thinking of .223 but wrote .308 for some reason. Does .22 really penetrate a cow's skull well enough to kill her instantly?
>>298703
Just look at people with severe autism though. They can be just as "smart" as anyone but almost incapable of communicating.
>>298708
Yeah, some of them use that shit cause it's cheap and it works.
>>298724
>severe autism
>as "smart" as anyone
I strongly disagree.
>>298732
Have you watched Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex?
>>298736
Not even a little.
>>298740
It's good. It's one of the best thought out cyberpunk science fictions.
Anyways, they literally have an "autistic mode" that cuts them off from all external cybernetic access and there are kids who suffer from a cybernetic disease that makes it hard to impossible to communicate with other people even though all the metaphorical gears are turning upstairs.
>>298731
It's actually more effective at killing the cow than any other round because it will bounce around in the skull and rip the brain to shreds
>vegan c ucks
l m a o
>>298754
I don't think the results would be very standard what with how random the bouncing around in the skull would be.
>>298575
For humans. Beasts need not apply.
>>298873
Humans are animals.
>>298882
I said beasts.
But I will humor you.
Non humans need not Apply.
>>298896
Kind of devalues the reasoning behind giving humans rights though.
Domesticating animals literally caused civilisation to be a possibility
>>298906
No, humans are the only ones who are capable of understanding and applying rights.
The lesser animals only matter insomuch as we deem them of value.
>>298918
So children don't deserve rights because they can't understand them?
An alien race could come around vastly more intelligent than we are and say we don't understand their far more complicated definition of rights and wipe us out.
There are a spectrum of rights in the same way there is a spectrum of intelligence.
>>298992
>But children do t have the same rights as adults.
So you admit to a spectrum of rights.
>Aliens are I relevant since the are obviously intelgent.
I think you are missing the point. I'm saying by your logic humans would have no rights whatsoever to aliens far more advanced than us.
>>299006
I never denied one. And 2 tiers doe not a spectrum make anyway.
No we would have rights we are clearly sapient beings.
>>299023
>And 2 tiers doe not a spectrum make anyway.
A) Why stop there?
B) Doesn't it?
>No we would have rights we are clearly sapient beings.
Sapient is by definition human intelligence. It means nothing to aliens in the same way cow intelligence means nothing to you.
animal friends make life worth living
>>299047
NI 2 tiers does not make a spectrum. We don't need anymore than what we have. Animals have no inalienable rights.
We are fully emotional self aware beings cows are not. The would not even need to be more intelegence than us just more tech advanced. They would easily be aware of our intelect. They may condescend us but would not view us as we view animals because we are clearly above that.
You are just putting words in the alien mouth to suit your purpose it's blatantly obvious.
>>299139
I'm easily aware of cow intellect. That doesn't mean it's my equal. If aliens came they could just as easily dismiss human intelligence as you do the intelligence of a cow.
>>299146
No, They can't we are self aware beings that matters above all else.
>>299155
They are so far above us that humans are little more self aware than cows. The cities we build little more than ant hills. They are aware of themselves and the universe on a level well above humans.
>>299173
No that's not a reasonable asertion. More tech advanced =/= more intelegence.
Especially with advanced tech they would be aware of just how diffrent with brain scans . We can even do that at our tech level. They would se our cities as primitive no doubt but they likley went through the same progeession.
You are just wrong here.
>>299206
I'm not saying they are simply more advanced technologically. You are saying that, I don't know why. I'm saying they are vastly more intelligent.
>>299226
>>299226
If they are vastly more intelegence then these are things they will understand. You are just crafting a niche alien to fit your purpose.
Even if there are more pure intelegence they had to evolve to that point and they would still understand those growing pains. Even bejng of our level get that why would a vastl intelegence not?
>>299250
Your conception of "rights" would seem horribly limited to them. Everything humans do would seem horribly predictable. We would seem like we run off nothing more than instinct. They would communicate with one another on a level well above what we are capable of, communicating all the information entailed by a human PhD in a leisurely afternoon debate with one another. We would be farther below them than dogs are from us. And that isn't even the limit of intelligence. Minds the size of planets networked over Einstein-Rossen Bridges spanning entire arms of the galaxy would be like gods to us.
Sapience is just a footnote on the spectrum of intelligence that exists and may exist.
Look I'm just going to say it
Does she have sex with the cow?
>>299298
no
>>299288
Dude really? You are telling me that they would be super intelegent then in the next breath tell me that they do some stupid shit that we abandoned long ago. You are advocating that they would be engaging in scientific racism. That is asinine and so are you. They are super intelegent they would know the diffrence. They aren't as dumb as you.
In the end it does not matter how we treat cows we are self aware and they are not its that simple.
Any advanced civ would be able to tell the difference. You insert prejudice where the would be none.
>>299308
You're pretty fucking stupid m8.
>>299318
Explain. If you have the intelect.
