>grant animals rights
>have to become a vegan weed-shirt wearing hippy utilitarian scum
>don't grant animals rights
>have no arguments against shitskins abusing animals out of sadism
How the fuck do we solve this
>>1112754
by being somewhere in the middle?
>>1112764
There are no middlegrounds in philosophy
>>1112754
Arbitrarily decide that purposeless cruelty shouldn't be allowed, and still utilise plants and animals intelligently.
Also granting human rights has never meant it's universally enforced, imposing these spooks either way will not result in the complete elimination of the opposing view.
>>1112754
By going with whatever suits your tastes. Personally, I think animals should be granted a proportional sense of consideration of their rights based on their relative intelligence and sense of self-awareness. Goose barnacles have no rights, cows some rights, crows more rights, none get anywhere near full rights beyond a basic consideration of "don't be pointlessly cruel."
>>1112754
Grant animals some rights but not the same as humans. Rights are just arbitrary bullshit anyway, just make them as pragmatic as possible
>>1112754
Just don't care if shitskins abuse animals out of sadism. There, solved. Now go care about something that is actually relevant to human advancement.
>>1112848
Why should humans advance? It doesn't improve our happiness, in fact at this point it probably hurts it.
*tips utilitarian top hat*
>>1112754
Animals are property?
>>1112754
You just don't give a shit about the problem. Eat meat, fight shitskins and stop masturbating to some unattainable consistency. That's the ultimate spook.
>>1112918
Found the degenerate
>>1112865
Because a man dying of disease and starving in his straw hut is happier than he who lives in an economy advanced and mechanized enough to provide him full sustenance with actual free time for entertainment, yes? If you insist on being a utilitarian, please at least try to be one that applies your assumptions to reality.
>>1112943
1) "Degeneracy" is also a spook.
2) How so?
>>1112999
1) yes
2) thinking that not giving a shit means it's irrelevant
>rights
There's your problem.
>>1112754
You posted Stirner
But haven't realized rights are a spook
There is no reason to have any sort of duty ethics. You can pick and choose what you do with animals without needing any reasoning other than Egoism.
Have you considered not being extreme about everything?
>>1112948
>free time
>wage slavery capitalism
Pick one (literally posting this on my measly 15 minute break at my overnight stocking job fml f@m)
We can treat animals kindly while still recognizing that we need to kill them for food. Also animal cruelty towards dogs needs to be severely punished as they are the Aryan of the animal world.
