/ck/ - Food & Cooking

Or to put it another way, how can eating meat be immoral when tons of other animals do it as well?

To say that humans should stop eating meat, but not other animals, is speciesist.

>>15758998
>>15759002

That's like their opinion man. Like all special needs, just agree with them.

>>15759078
What, agree with vegans? I don't agree with them, because their diet doesn't make any sense.

>>15758998
Animals in the wild suffer a harsh life and a gruesome death, but yeah lets complain about the few wrong slaughterhouses.

>>15759235
That's my point. Killing other animals for meat is part of nature. If vegans were TRULY against meat-eating, then they would have to advocate for the culling of all meat-eating animals - all carnivores and omnivores.

>>15759324
which would lead to overpopulation of their prey who would then reproduce until resources are stretched too thin and 80% of them starve to death

>>15759361
In France we have wild boars infestation to the point that school canteens have boar meet on the menu, for free.

>>15758998
>then why don't they advocate for culling all the carnivorous and omnivorous animals

they do, I remember seeing some dumbass article posted here about some people wanting to stop the entire ecosystem

vegans are retarded and I laughed at my vegan friend when he had to eat normal food cause he couldn't get any triple fried carbs during the first few weeks of the pandemic

They unironically do call for killing all animals. That's what PETA does. That's what 'animal shelters' do.

>>15759796
>title, picture, and subtitle all say the same thing
fucking hell

This is probably a bait thread, but here we go anyway:

Non-human animals are not capable of moral reasoning, so they cannot be held accountable for their actions, nor can they be expected to change their behavior for rational or moral reasons, especially animals who are obligate carnivores (i.e., they HAVE to eat meat). Vegans/vegetarians recognize that as humans, we have the ability to change our behavior to avoid causing unnecessary harm, and with the current food availability in most western countries, we have the ability to eat healthily while avoiding causing unnecessary harm to other beings. Thus, we have a moral obligation to do so, while non-human animals do not. Keep in mind also that animals eat wild animals in modest quantities only as needed, while humans raise huge numbers of prey animals for the purposes of consumption and raze habitats to make room for growing crops to feed those animals, wreaking havoc on the environment and climate in the process.

>>15759002
>how can murder be immoral if people murder? come on
you shouldn't hurt yourself trying to think like this

>>15759935
>we have a moral obligation
We would still be sharpening flints if we were stuck with "moral obligations", no medicine, no tech, no culture, no cuisine, nada. You can post on internet because we waged wars against each others, where is the moral?

>>15759935
It's not a bait thread, it's a genuine question, to expose the idiocy of vegans.

>we have a moral obligation to do so
No, we do not. Go and stop a lion from eating meat instead. And good luck with that.

>>15759935
Also, humans HAVE to eat meat in a natural environment - meat and dairy are the only natural sources of vitamin B12.

Yes you can get artificially fortified foods these days with B12, but that's just artificial garbage.

>>15759986
Murder isn't very common, whereas eating meat is extremely common for many, many animals.

>>15758998
If you cull the predators the herbivores population will explode. They will exhaust their food supply and they will starve en mass. Save animal lives, eat meat.

>>15759986
Well "murder" is a subjective when it comes to different species. What is murder to one species (in an abstract way) is not murder to another.

In fact, I would go as far to say that those "murdered" understand the reason for why. Do you not think the humble mouse understands why the hawk chases it? Or why it would give birth to so many if it believed it were justified to live as much as said hawk? Nature is above your definition of murder, and as such we as humans have only taken natures process and used it to great progress. Even if you were to reset humanity to the very last 5,000 people, we would domesticate and farm animals all over again.

are carnivorous animals using machinery and destroying forests to eat other animals?

>>15758998
Because their dislike of meat consumption has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with childish emotional response and control.

/thread

>>15760393
Yes.

>>15760393
If they could, do you think they would?

>>15759002
Same applies to rape and murder, right? Animals do it, so it can't be immoral.

>>15759002
>how can eating meat be immoral when tons of other animals do it as well?
because animals don't have morals
I think they believe that as humans, we agree on certain conventions (don't murder, steal, rape, etc) because we have the mental faculties to plan, reason, empathize that other animals don't.
They believe that some of the responsibility for having such advanced intelligence is caring for the ecosystem and environment in a way that a lion can't even comprehend.

>>15760430
>childish emotional response and control
No, that's you retard.

>>15760430
>source: dude trust me

>>15760393

>>15760543
Guess I hit close to home. Unsurprising.

>>15760539
>because animals don't have morals
Then why apply morality to them?

>>15759935
>we have a moral obligation
No we don't, you are a fanatic listening to a guru, and bowing both knees to their authority, there's not "we" there's just "I" when you talk, cultist piece of shit.

>>15759935
>we have a moral obligation
Do we? What if I believe I have a moral obligation only to myself, my friends and my family to live as happy a life as possible? What if the consumption of animal products greatly contributes to that happiness?

Because as a higher species we can choose what we want to eat. There's nothing instinctual about the foods we consume.

>>15760569
a child doesn't have morals -- doesn't mean you can morally grind a bunch of them into paste on an industrial scale

>>15760617
A child can grow into an adult with morals. Can a cow?

>>15760544
see? you will never address the real problem, you want control and obedience

>>15760569
i don't think vegans apply morality to animals.
They may use morality as the reason they hold certain beliefs and practices regarding animals and meat consumption, but it's pointless to ascribe morality to a creature that can't reason, empathize, plan in the medium to long term, etc.

>>15760162
I agree that immense progress can be and has been made via immoral actions. However, just because out starving, primitive ancestors had to engage in certain behaviors to get us to where we are now, and just because there are populations around the world who still have to engage in similar behaviors, does not mean we should continue to do so. We now have access to technology, infrastructure, food, etc. that enable us precisely to avoid many of the things our ancestors used to do. We can look back on those behaviors and be grateful for what they produced without wanting to emulate them.

>>15760276
>go and stop a lion from eating meat instead
To stop lions from eating meat would effectively be to eradicate lions from the face of the earth. Only the most radical or deluded animal rights folks would advocate for the prevention of carnivorous animals. That's like saying that instead of trying to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we should try to stop animals from farting. We can only do so much, and at the very least, we are responsible for our own behavior, not those of other creatures.

>>15760281
>in a natural environment
I agree, and I think that people living in areas where they cannot get adequate nutrition through entirely plant-based sources are under no moral obligation to do so (see Kant's "ought implies can" notion). However, if you live in a developed Western country, you almost certainly can obtain all your necessary nutrients, including B12 sourced from algae, etc., from plant-based sources, and doing so prevents unnecessary suffering.

>>15760572
I'm not even vegan, and I have no idea what "guru" you think I am bowing to. You should take your own advice and try to engage my reasoning as an individual rather than a "we" that you seem to be projecting onto me.

>>15760617
it does

>>15760591
What if murdering or raping others brings someone happiness? Is that a moral justification for them to do so? You could say yes if you want to take the side of moral subjectivism (which I think is convincing from a philosophical perspective, btw), but I doubt you would want to live in a society that was run that way.

>>15759935
If you're morally obligated to reduce suffering then why are you not growing your own food? Why are you taking it all from third world countries that struggle to feed their people? Why is that harm necessary but it's not necessary to produce as much of your own food as possible? Is it because you know without imports from 3rd world countries a vegan diet would be virtually impossible?

>animals are just as intelligent and have emotions just like humans and therefore should be treated with the same respect and rights humans get
>oh but also they can't be held responsible for anything they do and are blameless creatures because that's just nature (^:
one or the other faggot, you can't have your animal's are people cake and eat it too

>>15758998
Go outside and at least TRY to talk to a girl

The goal of vegans isn't to completely eradicate the consumption of animal flesh by all animals, it's to not physically put money in the pockets of people who torture living creatures to death. You need some SEVERE brain gains, maybe try eating a vegetable?

>>15760699
You can't murder or rape an animal. That's an anthropomorphism. And the happiness of raping or murdering a person does not outweigh the negative consequences of a society that allows the murder or rape of its citizens. In a society like that, I or my loved ones could just as easily fall victim to rape or murder. It's not so much a moral question as much as a practical one. In the end, all morality boils down to is a set of agreed upon preferable values that allow a society to function to the benefit of its citizens.

>>15760721
What about people who like... you know. DONT torture their animals to death? They literally prioritize the health and well being of their animal before quickly and painlessly slaughtering them?

Maybe try growing a vegetable goofball

>>15760705
>animals aren't as intelligent as humans and shouldn't be treated equally
>oh but also we shouldn't torture them and they should live relatively healthy happy lives while under our control/care
3/10 bad strawman

>>15760551
>Guess I hit close to home.
Wrong. Not a vegan. Try again, retard.

>>15760702
I'm not a vegan or anything, but my country only has a population of 17 million and is the 2nd largest exporter of agricultural products, in absolute numbers, in the world. We are actually feeding 3rd world countries and I wish we would stop.

>>15760666
Not retarded children.

>>15760702
First of all, nothing I said implied that you should buy your food from 3rd world countries or that you shouldn't grow your own food. Secondly, I would advocate for eating locally and seasonally as much as possible in order to minimize dependence on unsustainable production methods as well as imports, so I am in agreement with you. Finally, nothing about eating locally and seasonally makes being a vegan difficult. You could quite easily eat a whole-foods plant-based diet consisting entirely of foods grown in the United States.

>>15760705
>[animals] should be treated with the same respect and rights humans get
Show me an animal rights activists who advocates that animals receive the SAME rights as humans. The right not to be unnecessary confined, tortured, killed, and eaten is not the same as "the same respect and rights that humans get." Come on.

>>15760728
You can't murder or rape an animal. That's an anthropomorphism.
I never said you could.
>And the happiness of raping or murdering a person does not outweigh the negative consequences of a society that allows the murder or rape of its citizens.
Is it immediately obvious that people's desire to consume animal products outweighs the negative environmental and moral impact of doing so?

>>15760746
The mentally disabled should be euthanised, unless their family objects.

>>15760753
>environmental
The environmental impact on my country will be marginal.
>and moral impact
There you go again, what moral impact?

>>15760688
>We can look back on those behaviors and be grateful for what they produced without wanting to emulate them.
I don't think so, we would still need at least competition, if not adversity, to progress. And I don't get the point, why should I stop eating meat ? I like it and it's healthy. My parents had chickens, they lived a good life and one day they were in our plates, how is that "immoral" ?

>>15760742
Yeah idk after reading "Can Life Prevail" it sounds like the nortic countries are absolutely fucked. Everyone is focused on the Amazon but like Finland has lost something like 90% of it's woodlands. I know Holland isn't anywhere near Finland but I have to imagine all of northern Europe is fucked.

Don't you think it's kind of weird that a country with a hardiness zone of 6-5 is feeding countries with a hardiness zones of 8-9? And then those countries then feed hardiness zones of 6-4? Something is off here.

>>15760753
>You could quite easily eat a whole-foods plant-based diet consisting entirely of foods grown in the United States.
You couldn't be vegan doing that.
Rob Greenfield already tried it. He ended up almost failing despite being in florida where he had coconuts, bananas, starchy tubers, you name it. He had to resort to honey, fish, squirrels that were eating his crops, and finally roadkill deer.

You clearly live 100% off of other peoples hard work.

>>15760770
>The environmental impact on my country will be marginal
Maybe in the short term, but to think that significant environmental changes are only local is very short-sighted.
>what moral impact?
The moral impact of unnecessarily inflicting systematic suffering on innocent beings.

>>15760779
>My parents had chickens, they lived a good life and one day they were in our plates, how is that "immoral"?
I'm not personally inclined to say that that would be immoral, although it's worth considering whether if the act of killing for consumption can every truly be "humane" when it's not necessary to eat animals at all. However, the larger issue is that very little of the meat humans eat is produced that way. Almost all restaurant and grocery story meat is produced on so-called factory farms where animal conditions are abysmal by design, and even if someone thinks they're buying meat ethically from a local place, unless you are very familiar with the farm, you can't really be certain of the animals' treatment. Moreover, even if someone raises all of the meat they eat and treat the animals as kindly as possible and then kills them as painlessly as possible, the human race as a whole, at our current population, could not do so. There simply isn't enough land and resources to support ethical animal husbandry to feed 8 billion people, and this doesn't even address the environmental impact.

>>15760742
>ik ook
Your country is also the most destroyed by human presence, thanks for the wildlife bro. Covering the land with greenhouses is eco friendly now ?

>>15760833
Damn you moved the goalposts all over the place.

Sorry but it can be universally argued that we need meat way more than we need cell phones. But for some reason sweatshop workers dont need as much moral consideration than a chicken.

And as for your "we can't feed the world" You know what we can't support? Billionaires. Did you know it takes 250,000 acres of farmland to support just one bill gates? But sure, keep buying his impossible burger.

>>15760832
I wasn't familiar with Greenfield before this, but I just watched his video on his experience, and he said he harvested honey "to satisfy [his] sweet tooth," not out of necessity, and he did not mention growing beans or other high-protein crop that would negate the need for deer and fish. His purpose was not to be vegan on home-grown foods; his purpose was to show that you can get the food you need without relying on the grocery store.

>>15760854
>for some reason sweatshop workers dont need as much moral consideration than a chicken.
They do, probably more in fact, and I advocate for better working conditions worldwide and fundamentally disagree with corporations shipping their production out to countries just to avoid regulations designed to protect workers' rights.

>billionaires
Agree 100%, and I don't eat fake meat.

>>15760833
>There simply isn't enough land and resources to support ethical animal husbandry to feed 8 billion people
We have a point of agreement, it's not possible. But I won't stop eating farm meat just because gvts can't stop running after the holy GROWTH.

>>15760813
>Something is off here.
I'll tell you what: we allowed brown people to breed out of control. Everything would be peachy if the industrial and agricultural revolutions were contained to the West.

>>15760890
You don't have to eat fake meat in order to support them. Basically anything from the supermarket puts dollars in their pockets.

What do you grow?

>>15760908
Fair enough, and you are certainly better off, both healthwise and in terms of your impact on the planet, for doing so. However, I'm curious what you mean by governments encouraging population growth?

>>15760833
>There simply isn't enough land and resources to support ethical animal husbandry to feed 8 billion people
I agree with your premise, but not with your conclusion.

>>15760934
What conclusion would you draw?

>>15760945
Stop feeding the 3rd world. Stop fighting disease in the 3rd world. Stop trying to end conflicts in the 3rd world. Stop 3rd world refugees from entering the civilised world. Enforce a max of 2 children per woman (forced sterilisation after the 2nd) worldwide.

>>15760933
>I'm curious what you mean by governments encouraging population growth?
Economic growth. It needs consumers, again and more, hence we don't do anything about the population explosion, because it's the easiest way (from a business point of view).

>>15761027
Is this the real reason why it's illegal to euthanize people even with their consent? Because some rich asshole will lose a few pennies?

ill stop eating meat when vegans stop having kids

Here's what I don't get. The animals that we domesticated made the best deal in the entire world. They get fed, housed, bred for longer than they'd expect in the wild for the cost of eating them at the end of their artificially elongated lifespan. The pig, chicken, cow, and lamb could not have ever hoped to have become so lucky if they weren't so tasty and pregnant human females hadn't needed the calories to get us where we are today. There's nothing wrong with this. There's nothing immoral about eating meat unless you're a child, believe in fairies, and think that unicorns are coming to save you.

>>15761036
Globally yes, as long as you're alive you contribute in a way or another. But it's not especially for rich people, it's for the entire society, it's a vicious circle, the holy growth...

>>15761065
I'm not even a vegetarian and you are retarded. Battery chickens and pigs don't have good lives by any measure. There's ways to raise and kill animals in a good way (which we should support) but modern industrial meat production is by far not animal-friendly.

>>15761065
Your conception of the "deal" animals made is only true as a description of small-scale or personal farms. The problem is not with those animals living long and peaceful lives in a green pasture before meeting with a swift and painless end; the problem is with the infinitely larger number of animals who's artificially elongated lifespans are eked out in nightmarish conditions of confinement, mutilation, stress, and slaughter.

>>15761065
>the cost of eating them
In the wild, they'd either get eaten while still alive, starve, or die of a horrible illness. Even the death we grant them is a blessing.

>>15761121
This. They can't even trust their own kind.

As long as I can raise my own meat and egg-laying chickens, I dont really care what vegans think. I think that practice is pretty sustainable and better for the environment, while giving chickens a fulfilling life.

>>15761153
This but with ducks

>>15760393
>using machinery
So are washing machines immoral to you? Literal moron.

>>15761185
Why not both and we can all be happy.

>>15760430
True

>>15760543
>>15760739
>>15760544
Look at this seethe

>>15761207
I'll tell you what, add some geese to the mix and you got yourself a deal.

>>15760533
Animals rarely kill each other apart from in acts of what is essentially war, and humans kill each other in war too.

>>15761237
>Animals rarely kill each other

Please go outside.

>>15761105
Ok. Deal. I've made it. And it is still moral to kill animals for food. Now what.

vegan food is tasty, non vegan food is tasty, I just eat all of it regardless of any political stance

>>15761105
If vegans actually gave a shit about factory farmed animals, they would find a middle ground and encourage people who won't go vegan to find and support small scale, transparent farms. But they don't. They are "all or nothing" And nobody wins.

>>15758998
Like lefties say...if you dont want an abortion, dont have one. Same would apply to eating meat, if YOU dont want to eat meat, then don't. Killing is killing...like love is love. Amirite?

>>15761339
Imagine being this confused.

>>15761355
Yet you refuted nothing

>>15761273
Well, presumably the conversation stops because you have declared that what is being done on an industrial scale to billions of animals is moral, so I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

>>15761328
I'm not really concerned about what "vegans" advocate for. Anyone not supporting factory farms is doing a good thing as far as I'm concerned, and for the record many vegans have said similar things. Other middle ground propositions have been made, such as "weekday vegetarianism," where you only eat meat on the weekends, and I fully support these ideas while still believing that full-on veganism is the least harmful way to live your life.

>>15761373
How are animals even worthy of moral consideration, when they can't reciprocate or revolt? Do you believe in objective morality or something? Newsflash, morality is just a system of agreed upon values that allow a society to function, established through a process of cultural evolution. Morality is literally a meme.

>>15758998
Eco systems are zero sum games.
If you save the gazelle, lions die and vice versa.

>>15759935
I eat meat because i enjoy it and i don't care about killing animals as long as they don't suffer needlessly i.e boiling them alive or beating the shit out of them.
It always seems to be faggots from well off backgrounds who have access to expensive luxury items and such that are brow beating people like working class Barry for having a chicken curry and a pint at the end of the working week.

>>15761237
>animals rarely kill each other
OHNONONO

>>15761373
Wouldn't it be least harmful to produce your own food and eat animal products than to be an urban vegan who gets crops produced in sketchy ways from all over the world?

>>15761461
Morality exists entirely outside of society. My personal morality is that ensuring biological survival is paramount. It is the only sensible moral basis.

>>15759002
>>15760533
Both of these arguments are baseless and bad.
Humans can eat meat because it provides nutrients that most plants cannot immediately provide.
The basis on which if humans should be allowed to is subjective and based on an individual's understanding of life and morality. I do not have faults with eating meat, not because I enjoy murder, but I enjoy the nourishment and tastiness it provides.
The whole "you like murder because you like meat" is just an outlandish proposition, and you can suck on my meat for thinking as such.

>>15761235
Hehe..duckc an chikn an guse would be pretty kino desu.

>>15759002

As for point 1, predators form a normal and long standing part of the ecosystem. The system of factory farming, where most meat and animal byproducts come from, does not. I actually support and participate regulated hunting for similar reasons.

For point 2, it's because humans are omnivores capable of making moral decisions, and can have a balanced diet through non-animal products by using synthetic proteins and supplements. A lion can't, and we have no expectation for them to do so.

Ultimately, though, our entire deal is using our personal dietary habits to effect change, and we don't have any expectations of you other then to reflect on your own diet and make your own decisions.

>>15759002
True, since they usually always have the belief that humans are just animals.

>>15761926
What even is morality? Is it inherently in all of us or is it taught to us? I keep leaning on the latter. And honestly this taught morality is nothing but a way to impose control over the masses and it ultimately continues to weaken our species and reinforce the modern issues we currently have (overpopulation, pollution, etc)

We keep leaning on killing=bad. But is it really bad? We won't even euthanize an old person in a hospice begging for death while their body continues to deteriorate. Is that really moral? Killing is bad. Unless you are rich and you are slowly killing your employees. Killing is bad. Unless you don't get caught. Killing is bad. Unless it's "not intentional".

Give me a break. Morality isn't real. It's like money. It's just a tool imposed upon humanity to control them. It's a made up concept. At least money makes more sense.

>>15758998
Many animals MUST eat meet, its a requirement of life
Humans have been shown that a vegetarian diet is usually one of the healthiest for most people, and with supplements, plant based food, and cloned meat getting better eventually we simply wont need to kill animals for food(eventually, i am well aware we are not there yet).
So if you're intentionally causing pain and suffering by killing it for food you don't require, then there's no justification for it and it makes it an immoral act, you treated that animal as a mere means to temporary bliss.
I think this is why vegans treat humans as separate from other animals, we are able to think of ways around the issue and not get anyone hurt while a tiger has no such capability.

Obviously theres so many smaller arguments too
>is it moral to raise a cow in a trapped pasture as a slave, but its safe from predators and never runs out of food
>how do we build a system of harvesting enough plants commercially that doesn't involve killed thousands of completely innocent rodent lives during harvest
>is soy bad for you or not
>whats the most humane way to slaughter an animal in the first place, is there one at all?
>what life is sentient and worth protecting? does it stop at rodents, or perhaps fish and insects? what of bacteria and fungi?

>>15761833
That's not morality, that's just some subjective bullshit you made up.

>>15759324
>ends animal cruelty by killing all animals

Can’t argue with that

>>15763746
Isn't all morality subjective?

>>15763773
Not entirely. Like I said before, morality is achieved through a process of iteration. If a meme spreads through a society and increases its fitness, like "thou shalt not murder" or "thou shalt not steal", it becomes objective. That said, even objective morality is transient, insofar as morals that are held now may change if that results in the betterment of society.

>>15763839
I mean, is our society actually getting better? Aren't we literally destroying and overpopulating our only home?

Hate to break it to you. All morality is subjective. Just because something becomes popular doesn't make it objectively true.

>>15758998
What a stupid argument.

>>15758998
eat them carnivores!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2c9q6zVp-I

>>15763839
I don't think you know what "objective" means

>>15764045
I'd say the survival of a civilisation is a reasonably objective unit of measurement. Objective means not subject to opinion or reasoning, but based on measurable criteria.

>>15763873
It's not a question of popularity, but of societies holding certain values outcompeting and outliving those that don't. We are living in a universe utterly devoid of morality, if we use Kant's definition of the world. The true nature of objective morality, insofar as it exists, is an evolutionary adaptation that facilitates group cohesion. Any moral values we dream up through philosophy is purely subjective, until it has passed the test of natural selection. And even then only to the point where it is replaced by the next evolution, hence the transient nature of even objective morality.

>>15760539
The jump from "we have the mental faculties to plan, reason" to "responsibility... for the ecosystem and environment" is a non sequitur.

>>15760606
>There's nothing instinctual about the foods we consume
What? Our choices of what to eat are absolutely driven by our instincts.

>>15760688
>we are responsible for our own behavior, not those of other creatures
That's like saying "we should make murder legal and not have any punishments for it, because I'm only responsible for my own behaviour, not that of others".

>>15760688
>I agree, and I think that people living in areas where they cannot get adequate nutrition through entirely plant-based sources are under no moral obligation to do so (see Kant's "ought implies can" notion). However, if you live in a developed Western country, you almost certainly can obtain all your necessary nutrients, including B12 sourced from algae, etc., from plant-based sources, and doing so prevents unnecessary suffering.
That's like saying "if you were born on the West side of the train tracks we'll allow you to murder people, but if you were born on the East side then you're not allowed to murder people".

>>15760705
EXACTLY

>>15760708
Literal vegan seethe, LMAO.

>>15760721
>The goal of vegans isn't to completely eradicate the consumption of animal flesh by all animals
If they're to be consistent, then it has to be.

>it's to not physically put money in the pockets of people who torture living creatures to death
Factory farmed animals are not tortured to death, they're killed in a way that is as effecient and humane as possible. Torture would be inefficient.

>>15760738
His post was actually a very accurate portrayal of the vegan position.

>>15760742
The Netherlands? I can't think of what other country it would be.

If it is the Netherlands, the amount of agricultural exports is probably inflated by the Rotterdam Effect. That is, lots of exports from across Europe leave the continent via Rotterdam, because it's the continent's largest port. So then the Netherlands appears to have more exports than it actually does.

Read about the Rotterdam Effect here if you're interested:
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36229579
>https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Global_economics/The_Rotterdam_effect.html

>>15760753
>The right not to be unnecessary confined, tortured, killed, and eaten
Factory farmed animals are not tortured, because torture would be ineffecient.
>Is it immediately obvious that people's desire to consume animal products outweighs the negative environmental and moral impact of doing so?
Yes.

Seethe, vegan.

>>15760833
>The moral impact of unnecessarily inflicting systematic suffering on innocent beings.
What about the moral impact of lions inflicting systematic suffering on innocent prey? Fucking idiot.

>it's not necessary to eat animals
Yes it is. Vitamin B12 is necessary for humans, and the only natural source is meat and dairy. And meat is the best source of protein - nutritionally complete protein, with all the essential amino acids that humans NEED.

>>15764465
This. People jerk off over stats they don't understand.

>>15761253
>>15761785
>apart from in acts of what is essentially war
You're both illiterate aren't you?

>>15761833
>Morality exists entirely outside of society
No it doesn't. Morality is literally just a code of conduct for society, made by humans, to enable society to function and, importantly, survive.

>>15761884
>you like murder because you like meat
I (the first one you responded to) did not say that, you moron.

>>15761926
>As for point 1, predators form a normal and long standing part of the ecosystem. The system of factory farming, where most meat and animal byproducts come from, does not.
Naturalistic fallacy. "Hurr durr it's natural so it's good." I'm just as justified in saying "humans eating meat is natural because it's happened for tens of thousands of years, therefore it's justified".

You are literally a moron.

>>15761948
>True, since [vegans] usually always have the belief that humans are just animals.
Do they? That is true, though. Humans ARE animals. That's a biological fact.

But surely vegans DON'T consider humans as animals, because vegans think humans need to do something that animals don't, namely to stop eating meat.

>>15762020
>to control them
No, it's to allow society to function and thereby SURVIVE.

Do you think Bill Gates is "controlled" by the system of money? I'd say he uses money to control others.

>>15762245
>Many animals MUST eat meet, its a requirement of life
Yes, including humans. Humans REQUIRE vitamin B12, and meat / dairy are the only natural sources.

>>15763887
Seethe, vegan freak.

>>15758998
Most vegans do not work highly physical soliciting jobs. They are mostly the "woke" kind working cushy jobs sitting on their ass. Such a human does not need meat in their diet.
Give a builder/miner/or any other person that has a physical demanding job a bowl of vegetables for lunch and he will probably choke you right the fuck out.

It is easy to take a moral stance when you do not know the whole picture. Those "woke" individuals think that they think outside of the box, but actually they are limited and cannot see the bigger picture.

But as a society we should eat less meat, not renounce it completly.

I see it this way:

-People with high demanding physical jobs absolutely require meat.
-People that have cushy ass sitting jobs can manage without meat. But they have to take B12 supplements.
-People want free range meat, but that takes a lot of space. A chicken factory is relatively small in comparison to its output.
-Animals suffer, but we also suffer, life is suffering and we lie to ourselves that we can reach enlightenment. Buddha was asked how many people attain enlightenment and the answer was something like this. "Imagine a big bull, its two horns are people that reached enlightenment and all the hairs on the bull are people that did not." So most of us end up suffering in the end.
-Animal farms provide cheap meat to impoverished families and vegan and bio products are more expensive.
-We should invest and be open to eat meat grown in laboratories. This way we will end animal suffering.
-Vegans are usually cunts.

>>15758998
More vegans mean more meat for you. So you should encourage them.

>>15764329
its an opinion that continuing society and allowing it to grow is a good thing at all
its probably good for most humans, at least for a while. in the sense that people are alive and probably eating

>>15758998
wild animal suffering is equally as horrifying as the suffering of farmed animals. the best of all possible worlds will not contain any wildlife. we just can't kill them all though, because that's not only practically impossible right now, but also ethically unsound. eventually we will find a way of culling them all in a way that causes them zero or very little suffering.

>>15764884
I don't have an opinion on the continued existence of society, that would be subjective morality. I just posit a framework for objective morality. A society that would deem its continued existence undesirable probably wouldn't have a very long lifespan, though. This makes a negative view on society's continued existence a rather inconsequential moral belief; you will be replaced by those that do value society and that will become objective morality.

>>15758998
wild animals=live freely in the wild, maybe die of natural causes
meat factories=live short life not free and butchered young

different things are different. any more stupid questions?

>>15761926
>humans... can have a balanced diet through non-animal products by using synthetic proteins and supplements
"Dude just consume unnatural supplements instead of meat like nature intended"

No thanks.

>>15764780
>People with high demanding physical jobs absolutely require meat.
EVERYBODY requires meat because vitamin B12 is literally ESSENTIAL for human functioning, and the only natural source is meat and dairy. Fucking idiot.

>>15762245
>Humans have been shown that a vegetarian diet is usually one of the healthiest for most people
It's absolutely harmful for children.

>>15763957
Based chink, best asmr ever.

>>15759986
>murder
Shut up, stupid vegan. You can't murder an animal. Murder is a term that exclusively describes the killing of a human being by another human being.

Our ancestors evolved large brains because they were able to hunt down other animals and utilize their energy.
Why do you think primates have been around 10s of millions of years without much brain developement like humans have had? Because they have always been herbivores.
>be human
>have one of the most acidic stomachs on earth to handle bacteria infested raw meat
>have digestive tract most similar to carnivores such as cats and dogs
>don't have the ability to ferment food in gut like cows and monkeys or fuel
>prehistoric man was most likely more carnivorous than wolves
We are fucking meat eaters. Yes, we ate roots, tubers, berries and such when we could and when we had to, but those food sources require so much more work and time to gain the same nutrients from as say a wooly mammoth.
A single hunting trip of a few hours back in the stone ages vs days or gathering for not even the same calories. Its a no brainer.
Vegans are utterly retarded.

>>15762245
>cloned meat
Lab grown "beef" requires a lot of food to grow, did you know? What do they use for that? Fetal cow serum. What's that you ask? Its fetus cow blood. How do they get it you ask? They cut open a pregnant cow, stab a huge needle into its baby's heart and suck out all the blood.
Yes, before you ask, this kills the baby cow.
When they come up with an alternative to that, it still won't have the same nutritional values, but that's another topic.

>>15760688
>I agree
>plant based B12
Anon.....you clearly don't agree with what he said. Plants don't want to be eaten, and they have mechanisms in place to stop you absorbing nutrients from them.
Some species have developed fermenting processes in their cecum in order to derive nutrients from fibrous plants, but humans can't do it nearly as well.
You literally can't absorb B12 well enough from a plant source to get what you need in a day.
It has to be meat or dairy, like many nutrients.

>>15760977
You had me until that last one, Chang. If you do the first couple things, population will stabilize on its own.

>>15765405
>stabilize
Not that guy but it needs to decrease.

>>15765334
Huh? Plenty of primates eat meat too. Do you seriously not know this?

>>15765559
They’re chiefly herbivores, by and large.

>>15765516
That’s what I mean, yes. Reduce the nigger population = stabilize.

>>15764910
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YZYkNImuNI&ab_channel=LAVALORDZUNIVERSE2

>>15764910
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wPOHM7vGko&ab_channel=LethargyPeeps

If you aren't eaten alive this is what "natural causes" looks like

>>15765610
Not him but chimps are omnivores. Dunno about other primates.

>>15765648
>>15765655
Rabid fox?

>>15765405
>Chang
If anything, chinks and poos need to be actively culled.

>>15764440
> we are responsible for our own behavior, not those of other creatures
>That's like saying "we should make murder legal and not have any punishments for it, because I'm only responsible for my own behaviour, not that of others".
This whole thread is a trainwreck but this nugget of retardation gets special mention. We can control what we ourselves eat. We can't control what wild animals eat. Veganism limits itself to what humans do for reasons that should be immediately obvious to anyone with half a braincell. This, conveniently, also answers OP, at least until the next time he copy-pastes this failure of a thread.

>>15758998
>If vegans want to stop meat consumption, then why don't they advocate for culling all the carnivorous and omnivorous animals?
Some unironically do. I was talking with one last week.
She said in order to reduce pain and suffering, we should annihilate all predators. Not sure how and why it started, but sounds retarded.

The analogy she gave was comparing it to how humans would kill off all xenomorphs if they attacked humans even though xenomorphs are incapable of reasoning and moral thinking.
So, we should not discriminate based on species or appeal to nature and eliminate all predators.

>>15766083
Which to me sounds like they're arbitrarily deciding that evolution, an unconscious process, is wrong for evolving carnivores and omnivores.
Nature doesn't give a shit about morals, but no, we must sculpt it to what we think it should have done.

*shatters you're worldview in your path*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdTXaFtDqZE

>>15764670
that's not true, they randomly kill each other for no reason especially bears will just go on a rampage

>>15765014
You are not consuming meat as nature intended. Even something like cooking food goes beyond nature. Natural != good and unnatural != bad.

>>15766091
Basically. If this way of thinking takes off I cannot fucking wait to see what hell nature wreaks on us all as punishment.

>>15764695
It allows society to survive, but could humanity survive without money?

>>15766120
Cooking food was one of the earliest behavioural adaptation found in archaic hominids. Saying cooking isn't natural is like saying the pack hunting behaviour found in canids isn't natural.

>>15766120
Nature intended for humans to eat meat; same with chimps who also eat meat.

Doesn't matter that we cook it.

>>15764699
This is simply false. Where do you think the animals we eat get their B12? From the soil. B12 is a naturally occurring substance produced by bacteria, and there are sources from algae and other plants that are used for certain supplements. In addition, nutritional yeast and other fortified foods offer plant-based B12 that may not be "natural," but who cares if it's natural as long as it's not detrimental to your health? Btw, it's common practice for farmers to feed cows, pigs, etc. B12 supplements to ensure adequate quantities.

>>15764440
>That's like saying "if you were born on the West side of the train tracks we'll allow you to murder people, but if you were born on the East side then you're not allowed to murder people".
No, it isn't like that at all. "Ought" implies "can," meaning that you are only morally obligated to do something if it is the case that you can do it. For example, you can't cure a child's leukemia, so it would be nonsense to say you have a moral obligation to do it because it would be a good thing to do. In the same way, assuming (for the sake of argument) that veganism is the most moral diet you can adopt, if you're in the position of not being able to eat a healthy, plant-based diet (e.g., if you live in a village in Africa with virtually no access to crops/goods produced outside your immediate surroundings and thus have to eat animal products to survive), it cannot be the case that you SHOULD go vegan, because you can't. If, on the other hand, you live in a wealthy society and simply have to choose different groceries in order to go vegan, then under those circumstances you SHOULD go vegan. The selectivity of moral obligation has nothing to do with location or any other arbitrary quality; it has to do with whether or not the given individual is capable of fulfilling the given moral action.

you gotta be some kind of moron to believe any of this shit or post it or argue about it

on /ck/

>>15758998
The usual problem isn't the act of eating meat, it's the unethical means by which humans acquire large quantities of animal products. Some of them truly believe humans have no right to meat but the majority from what I've known just hate the excessive cruelty of factory farming. If you got them homesteading and ensuring the wellbeing of their food animals as well as their quick and relatively painless slaughters, many (but again not all) vegans would be willing to eat meat again.

>seethe about hypothetical vegans with zero provocation
Pathetic

>>15767556
All groceries are unethical. If there's anything the wealthy privilaged should do it's producing their own food.

>>15764910
Wild animals = gruesomely torn to shreds by predators.

Any more stupid posts?

>>15766053
>We can control what we ourselves eat. We can't control what wild animals eat.
That's like saying "if you're born on the West side of the train tracks then murder is legal for you, and you can kill whoever you like, but if you're born on the East side of the train tracks, then murder is illegal and you can't do it".

You're a special sort of moron, aren't you?

>>15766108
There's always a reason, usually territory. Why would a wild animal expend valuable energy without a good reason?

And fights for territory = war, in human terms. That is, war is the human equivalent of animal fights for territory.

So that's the point - humans do kill each other in an analogous way to how animals do.