/ck/ - Food & Cooking

“without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel”

You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means

>>11576914
>tfw to unspooked too be vegan

What are arguments for making the conditions better? The only thing I care about is if the place they process the meat is sanitary, why should I care about how animals "feel"?

this belongs on /pol/

Why don't you eat eggs?
>Vegan: Because all life is sacred and cruelly murdering a potential chicken fetus is wrong.
How many abortions have you had this year?
>Vegan: cLuStEr Of CeLLs

>>11577961
When will this public display of sociopathy meme end? Nobody cares or is impressed by how little you feel, doomer.

>>11576914
Nice selfie OP, lookin good

>>11578005
I'm autistic and I never understood why happiness of an animal matters.
I wasn't trying to impress anyone.

>>11578019
When will this public display of autism meme end? Nobody cares or is impressed by how little you feel, autist.

>>11576924
>>11576927
>>11577961
>>11578013
>>11578019
>>11578029
I don’t want the animal to be treated cruelly, which is also why I’d like its death to be swift and as painless as possible.

That said, animals clearly AREN’T human.

The problem is when vegans elevate animal life importance to even higher than a human.

>>11578005
It’s not sociopathic to eat animals, it’s not even sociopathic to kill animals generally speaking. It’s sociopathic to torture animals for fun.

>>11577997
This 100%

>>11578071
look up "humane definition" on google

>>11576914
Why have the anti-vegans become more obnoxious than the vegans?

>>11578071
You just don’t know what inhumane means m8, it’s ok. Its definition as normally applied is not “un human”

I'm mad...and that's a fact
I found out...animals don't help
Animal think...they're pretty smart
Shit on the ground...see in the dark.

>He doesn't even know what "humane" means

>>11578073
how do i do that

>>11577997
That's not the reason vegans don't eat eggs. Most eggs you buy are unfertalised and have no embryo. The reason vegans don't eat eggs is because only female chickens lay eggs. The egg industry kills males while they are still chicks. The standard and most common methods for this are maceration or suffocation.

Now it's up to you if you care about that or not and nobody can say that you're right or wrong. I don't see where you got your arguments from as I've never heard a vegan claim those reasons for avoiding egg. Also abortion is a bit irrelevant here as people that are vegan might or might not be pro choice. It's an entirely different argument.

>>11578262
Based reasonable poster

>>11578262
>>11578316
samefag babykiller

>>11578319
No I’m just an actual pro-life vegan who likes his post so FUCK OFF BUDDY.

>>11578330
>pro-life vegan nutrientlet posting on a christian meat board
no u.

>>11578359
Pro-life is the typical Christian stance, my man.

>>11578330
>pro-life
>vegan
Pick one.

>>11578376
>>11578384

>>11578416
>vegan
>Christian
one (1)

Can someone tell me why the suffering of plants doesn't matter to vegans?

>>11578384
>>11578416
I choose...both

>>11578628
Because they don't think wheat is cute and cuddly with little eyes and a snout and baby can we get a micropig and name him Kevin Bacon even though we're vegan and don't eat bacon because it's ironic, see?
Vegans truly are despicable.

>>11578628
plants can't give them puppy eyes

>>11578628
They don’t have a brain :)

>>11577961
The whole point of domesticating animals was to form a symbiotic relationship, so there should be a little respect given. And how people criticize vegans for putting animals over humans, people who are indifferent to how animals feel could also extend that to other people.

I think a lot of people try to not care about how animals feel because it'd be too overwhelming to care because of what it would mean if it mattered.

>>11578701
>The whole point of domesticating animals was to form a symbiotic relationship

No, the purpose was to create a steady supply of animal products. We have no obligation at all to animals.

>>11578724
Domesticated animals had easier lives than the ones in the wild. It was especially common in dairy cultures to have great respect for the animals too because they required more care but gave more in return. Animals that are treated well and are happier and healthier give it back in better quality meat, more milk or eggs, etc.

>>11578724
No, not an obligation. Just a capacity for empathy and the intelligence to act in accordance. Except for the psychopaths, obviously.

>>11578724
Normal people feel things for animals, anon.

>>11578746
>muh emotions
bivalves like plants can't suffer pain because they don't have the necessary anatomical parts to be able to yet vegans don't eat them. what makes it "ok" in this case to kill a plant and not the bivalve?

>>11577970
No it doesn't. You deserve to be banned.

>>11576914
Why does a humane society collect stray cats and dogs?

>>11577997
Not going to look for it to post it but I saw a fuckton of live baby male chicks thrown into a grinder and I think that mightve been to feed other chickens or some shit. And there were some photos floating around for a while of live male chicks literally just thrown in a dumpster to die slowly by the hundreds. We eat eggs in my house cuz my wife keeps hens but sometimes when it's cold af we don't get many but I'd rather just go without for a while desu.

And now I'm off before someone finds any of that shit and posts it.

>>11576914
"Humane" / "inhumane" is meant to refer to us and the ways we set up for handling animals in these cases rather than referring to the animals. The animal isn't the one you're debating the lack or presence of compassion for, it's the people acting towards the animal. So that fits with your expectations about the word having something to do with "human" just fine.
>>11577961
>why should I care about how animals "feel"?
>>11578019
>I'm autistic and I never understood why happiness of an animal matters.
You understand how debt works, right? If someone gives you some money to borrow, you eventually pay them back and then your obligation to that person is fulfilled and you don't have to think about it anymore? Or outside of money, if someone does you a favor like take the blame for some mistake you were responsible for at your workplace, you might feel obligated to do them a favor in return in the future so you're both "even?"
You can continue extending that concept to different sorts of animals like cows. They're not exactly the same as humans, but in the grand scheme of things they're pretty close given they and we are both a couple closely related mammalian species who one way or another emerged on the same lone planet floating around in the vast emptiness of space, with no non-Earth lifeforms known to us for unfathomable expanses of distance in any direction we can look at to date. Just the fact so many of us drink their milk should tell you they're very similar to us, fulfilling a nutrition source we first know from the nursing of our own mothers. So as long as we're getting milk from them and killing them for meat, a reasonable conclusion is we owe these animals a debt of respect and decent treatment as the bare minimum to paying back their ultimate sacrifice.
>>11578628
>suffering of plants
There's debate on where you draw the line for what does or doesn't suffer, but outside of rhetorical sophism almost everyone agrees the line starts well past plants.

>>11578772
>bivalves like plants can't suffer pain because they don't have the necessary anatomical parts to be able to
You're saying that about bivalves like it's an agreed upon, well established fact when really it's a contentious topic with about as much evidence for as there is against. So that's the main problem for starters. More reasonable arguments around this topic would involve citing the specific anatomical parts you *believe* indicate or don't indicate some component of the capacity for suffering and your reasons for tentatively falling on one side of the fence or the other.

>>11578628
Well I'm not vegan but I'm guessing even if it did matter they'd still be vegan since it probs takes a fuckton more plant matter to feed an animal and then eat the animal than the human would eat alone. Also factory farming wreaks havoc on the environment so there are even more plants "suffering" because of that.

But also because THEYRE PLANTS ANON

>>11578865
>debatable
no brain no awareness can't feel pain. the debate is with more complex organisms not creatures with only two ganglia and only capable of reflexive reactions

>>11578898
>no brain no awareness can't feel pain
What makes you believe that's not debatable? They still have this thing called a nervous system. And people who professionally research this topic debate about it.

>>11578912
because pain has an emotional element and we have no reason to believe the primitive ganglia of bivalves are capable of such. more complex molluscs like cephlapods (octopi, squid etc.) sure but not bivalves.
and before you mention opioid receptors, they can serve regulatory functions that don't necessitate emotional faculties.

>>11578970
Does pain necessarily require an emotional element? Further, is ‘distress’ something contained within the concept of ‘emotion’? It seems to me that one could have distress (feel an aversion to some current situation) whilst lacking emotional faculties. Not the anon you’re arguing with btw

>>11578970
>before you mention opioid receptors
So why are you pretending there isn't debate when you're completely familiar with the existence of the debate and are aware of what those who disagree with your position often bring up? That's just dishonest. You could just state your case without pretending nobody disputes it next time.

>>11579002
yes by the most widely accepted definition. From the International Association for the Study of Pain:
>An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.
this is important to distinguish from just nociception (the sensory part).
>It seems to me that one could have distress (feel an aversion to some current situation)
the fact that you 'feel' aversion already qualifies it as an emotional response.

>>11579023
because it's been done an dusted and the hypothesis doesn't hold water. the debate will come up again only if and when some new evidence comes up that warrants a rethink but for those looking at pain in mollusc, the focus is more on cephlapods because of their weird decentralized complex nervous system. The probability for finding evidence of emotional capapbilities is far higher.

>>11579051
Huh, interesting. I certainly misused the word ‘feel.’ I suppose what I was more getting at is (and this is tangential) if all things have a will to survive (something ingrained that compels them to some self-beneficial action), then all living things also have some sort of built-in, very basic capacity for ‘distress’ (‘distress’ in this case being an ingrained aversion to death). Of course, this argument operates under the axiom that things strive to survive, and I take that for granted. Also, it assumes that things strive to survive due to some unmeasured, almost metaphysical ‘distress’ capacity that compels them to avoid death. I wonder, then, if anything could feel ‘pain’ allowing that ‘pain’, in this strictly-defined sense, is an inability to carry out whatever helps avert death/survive.

Completely tangential and not closely related to what you guys are talking about, I’m just thinking.

>>11579083
Yes even single celled organisms try not to die. At this point it becomes such a broad concept that it ceases to have any value for moral reasoning.

>>11579083
it might be more beneficial to take this to /sci/ or even /his/ anon. but I'll leave you with a thought: many of what you mentioned can actual be explained by evolutionarily derived reflexive responses and does not necessarily need a higher cognitive function, especially in very simple organisms.

>>11579135
Undoubtedly so, though this is precisely what I meant; those evolutionarily-derived reflexive responses must have had basis in a being that, too, strove to survive. The will to live seems inherent in all life that’s ever existed (otherwise life wouldn’t exist). It’s just a bit remarkable that all life contains some unmeasurable, metaphysical impetus to live. I suppose I just don’t ponder that a lot. Maybe Christfags are on to something...

>>11579176
I think it's better to think not so much as a will to survive but a will to replicate. biases are just selective pressures on whatever will help the organism to maximize propagation of their genes. It's why if you buy the UV as the driver for skin tones in humans, the main selective pressure is not skin cancer vs vit D but folate vs vit D. skin cancer doen't necessarily prevent you from reproducing, but folate is needed for healthy babies and is affected by UV.

>>11576914
>>11577961
>>11578019
>>11578071
>animals don't have feelings
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
It's a universally accepted fact that animals have feelings and sentience.
>they're animals and not humans so I don't care
But you'd still care about people dying and being used for food.

Justifying the inhumane treatment of animals by saying "they're not human" is a nebulous, flawed argument which relies on the outdated belief that humans are utterly superior and separate from all other animals. The reality is that sentience and the capacity to experience existence in an aware fashion isn't unique to us.

If you want to treat animals poorly, that's your choice, but don't try and justify with that bullshit, baseless pseudo-intellectualism.

>>11579230
Fair enough, interesting point

Well at least none of you here complain about stupid bugs dying on youtube videos.

>>11579293
Who the hell does that? Also, vegans against eating honey are a bit asinine in my opinion, just throwing that out there.

>>11578694
Lobsters also doesn’t have brain and vegans don’t eat then.

>>11579255
>humans are utterly superior and separate from all other animals
>flawed argument
Proofs?

>>11576914
V*GANS BTFO

>>11578694
So do mussels, never seen vegans eat shellfish

>>11576914
OP is mainlander chink
Get back in the factory, Chang Wang Zhang

>>11578071
You dont want an animal to be treated poorly, but want it to be slaughtered. Huh.

>>11579721
Vae Victus
We in the 1st world at least give them a quick clean death

>>11578694
Neither do mussels and clams, but they won't eat those.

>>11579734
>quick and clean death
Ah yes, in the slaughter house surrounded by death. Raised in shit conditions for months or maybe 2 years, just to be killed.
By that logic, the jews should be happy the germans killed them so quick and clean. It was a show of humanity and how much we care :')

>>11579761
>anon gain one whole IQ!
I'm not so poor I need to buy factory meat. Also not a fan of cannibalism.

>>11579773
It doesn't matter if it's factory or not. There's no such thing as ethical slaughter m80.

>>11579780
I call bs. We knock them unconcious so they can't feel pain. how can they suffer?

>>11578019
maybe because if we are creating a hell on earth for a sentient being and maybe we dont want the same for us so how moral is it to cause something else to suffer from it?
imagine if aliens find us and they see what we did to these poor animals and they do the same to us. Would it be fair?
Maybe you dont understand compassion and fairness but I will tell you something: it is not because you are an autist, it is because you are stupid.

>>11579791
So if I knock someone unconscious and then slaughter them, its okay? Or even a dog or cat? As long as they're unconscious it's okay. Got it. So far you seem morally bankrupt.

>>11579799
no because :
1 that's a human being so murder
2 the kill is for food and not the sake of killing.
I'm not into cannibalism except as THE last resort. Now explain why bankrupt plants and fungi are ok to kill. how is it any different once we taking the suffering out of the system?

>>11579809
inb4 you point out word i forgot to delete

>>11579791
>how can they suffer?
They don't suffer. Vegans just love to anthropomorphize animals to justify their eating disorder/mental illness and to pretend they have some 'moral high ground' over anyone that eats meat.

>>11579809
But we don't need to kill a SENTIENT creature to sustain ourselves. plants and fungi aren't sentient. The animals suffer and their entire existence is based on, and surrounded by, death for needless consumption.

>>11579817
so why don't you eat bivalves? clams and oysters aren't sentient by any sane definition.

>>11576914
Vegans don't even exist.

>>11579824
I do. I also eat eggs from my brothers chickens.

>>11579817
so are crops. we sow the seeds and harvest them. the only difference is sentience, which automatically makes their life worth more for some reason.

>>11579831
oh thank fucking god you're not deranged

>>11579832
If you can't see the difference between a cow and a stalk of corn, you might be retarded.

>>11579840
well then great one, what makes the worth of a sentient life inherently worth more? why what make plant life so worthless they are ok to exploit? We already taken the suffering out of the equation with modern methods.

>>11579840
The difference is a that cow provides the entree and the stalk of corn provides the side dish.

>tfw buy all your animal products from local farms in a country where low care standards is illegal
Feels good not being a batteryfag or a vegan cuck

>>11579736
The don´t eat them, because they look like icky goo in a shell. and they aren´t adveturouos enough to overcome that disgust to eat them
Mussels aren´t that bad anyway, they taste like fish.

>>11579255
Good point. He should just eat meat because he can, and leave the vegans to wallow in their equally arbitrary equivalences.

>>11579855
>We already taken the suffering out of the equation
m8....

>>11579996
They taste like salt water and whatever else you put on them. Not complaining, but that’s how it is

I love watching when Vegans btfo dumb burgers. Only reason I come to /ck/.

>>11581275
Burgers are an easy target for anyone to destroy, not just vegans.

>>11581275
>>11581509
>tfw vegan burger...

>>11581513
Leave it to vegans to turn something delicious into something vile.

>>11581513
Quinoa burgers are pretty good.

>>11581569
stop appropriating my culture veganfag

>>11581610
You should give it a try, anon.

>>11581562
It looks good desu

>>11579893
>i pretended to be friendly with the cow before i slit its throat isn’t that better?

>>11581704
>not mistreating an animal before slaughter is the same as mistreating it before slaughter
i don't think that's really going to help the animals bro

>>11581716
His point was that there's really no difference. That's just some carnist double-think.

>>11576928
>Tfw too unspooked to grammar

>>11579827
You misunderstand the point of veganism.
>Being vegan is about helping animals, not maintaining personal purity. Boycotting products that may contain trace amounts of animal products can actually be harmful to animals in the long run. For example, by refusing to eat a veggie burger from a restaurant because the bun may contain traces of milk or eggs, you are discouraging that restaurant from offering vegan options because it is seems too difficult a task.
from peta.org.

>>11576914
>posting your selfies
>>>/soc/