/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>9648342
Three are company advertisements, one is an instruction of lifestyle choice. There is actually a difference.

>>9648342
ok, i will do it after i finish this one last cheeseburger.

>>9648343
I can't get behind veganism so long as they keep advocating for anti-violence angle. It's a super pathetic appeal to emotion that only works on women and soy-fueled numales. Humans have killed for 99.99999% of our existence, please fuck off

>>9648406

>>9648387
This

You're a fucking moron if you can't tell the difference

>>9648414
pathetic

>>9648414
These things are so fucking lame jesus whatever shithouse facebook page you dug them up from, burn it to the ground

>EATING ANIMALS IS LIKE SLAVERY BASH THE FASH

>>9648414
>omg why is the apex predator so mean to other animals, like wtf
>stop being at the top of the foodchain, like srs guys
Facebook was a mistake.

>>9648414
weak b8

>>9648343

1. We couldn't produce enough food to feed the world on a Vegan diet'

2. Billions of people are employed farming, slaughtering, processing, and preparing animals

3. Most wildlife it is actually legal to hunt in the United States is legal to hunt - under regulations - due to the fact these species come into conflict with humans settlements and destroy property

4. Humans always have, and always will wage war over resources. Also, war over all has dramatically decreased compared to any other era in human history, we're still waiting to see if it's an outlier or the start of a new legitimate trend. This is the most peaceful era on earth in it's history

5. The planet sustains itself quite fine, it's humans that fuck shit up. As for us, see #1

6. Textiles are the number one cause of fresh water pollution in the Unites States, though Farming IS climbing way way up there.

7. Corporate empowerment is a complicated subject and there is no one effort that will resolve

The stuff about deforestation is true though. Good job?

>>9648418
>>9648428
>>9648432
It's more effective than saying 'veganism is better for you healthwise and better for society/the planet' because they've been saying that for years. Reactionary shit like this gets attention much better

>>9648414
Animals would eat the shit out of you if they could

>>9648440
They've been doing the cruelty appeal to emotion angle since the 60s, anon, before they could even go "but science says".

>>9648452

>>9648414
>be fair
but we are fair with the, we consume them, not just kill them for the lulz

>>9648466
Okay if we both know nothing why bother making this argumentative/confrontational thread

Went vegan for 6 months in my early 20s. Went from 155 to 130 (I'm a 5'9 manlet) and was constantly starving and exhausted. 3/10, never again.

>>9648479
Just eat healthy. Having principles in life is bad enough; eating out of principle is unhealthy autism.

tldr
just another thread where some insecure meat eater tries to debate the merits of needing to slaughter innocent animals every morning so they can have bacon bits on their pizza

>>9648496
you're going to die in your next sleep

I don't even know if these threads are made by trolls baiting vegans because nigga, everything here ins retarded

>>9648496
This. I see more meat eaters triggered by vegetarianism (actually, usually by their own misconceptions of vegetarianism) online and reeeeing about it than I see vegetarians being annoying.
I suspect that many of these meat eaters, deep down, actually themselves believe that vegetarianism is morally superior to meat eating, so they react against it with over-the-top bluster.

>>9648553
it's not like they have subleddits dedicated to being triggered by people going on with their lives and eating meat
also it's not like while we are just circlejerking some mormon-like faggot comes swinging about how meat is murder and then overreact when confronted with facts

>>9648553
>I suspect that many of these meat eaters, deep down, actually themselves believe that vegetarianism is morally superior to meat eating

personal bias alert

Vegans don't understand the food chain.

>>9648439
I have a question about #1
I'm not vegan or vegetarian myself but isn't it true that a lot of crops are grown just to feed cattle to turn into meat? So if all that land was used to grow crops for direct human consumption it would be theoretically possible to produce enough food to feed the world on a vegan diet?

>>9648574
It is you who does not understand

>>9648635
I like the left one to be honest

>>9648629
The land we give to animals is not fertile land, if it was it's more profitable to grow other things in it. Only city kids don't know this basic fact.

>>9648342
give me a complete vegan meal plan

>>9648629
We already produce enough food to feed the entire world, but we generally don't just give it away, and we waste a lot of it.

But other than that, yes, most crops are consumed to produce meat, and a more (not necessarily entirely) vegan based agricutlure would allow to produce more total calories and/or use less natural ressources.
Insects are another plausible ecological alternative to cattle.

>>9648635
Like I'm going to let a starfish think it's on my level

>>9648475
because people here unironically have nothing better to do.

>>9648649
Bruh, most cattle is fed grain that's perfectly usable for human consumption these days, and tons of it.
The issue isn't that they take up space in what would otherwise be fertile land, it's that they eat tons of what we produce on actual fertile land.

>>9648657
Forgot pic

>>9648645
i want to see you being ecological with a hungry lion or a viper.

>>9648666
Again, we produce more than enough food. If Africa didn't shit the bed completely from the 1960s onward, there would be even more than enough food. It's an issue with logistics and bad economies, not production.

>>9648652
yeah its called eating a plant based diet its that simple

>>9648666
Grain is used as a finisher to the cattle.

>>9648671
What do you mean "again", I'm the one who said that we produced enough food in the first place.

The question rises whether it's sustainable on the long run, with how some forms of intensive agriculture fuck up land on the long term, and humanity constantly growing in numbers.
I don't personally believe it's a real issue because we always find ways to get by, but I can understand why it would concern more pessimistic folk.

As for Africa while they did shit the bed, without going into too much detail, they aren't exactly helped by the circumstances.

>>9648678
That depends on who feeds it. US cattle is fed more grain than what's typically the norm.

>>9648342
>"Fucking vegans! Always telling me what to do!"
But she's completely right though. The vegan poster is the only one actually telling her to do something. Maybe if vegans ate meat they would get the nutrients needed to understand this.

Did you know people who castrate themselves are less aggressive, happier, and live longer lives?

Go eunuch.

Honestly, I feel like so many people believe that you have to be vegan 100% of the time, and if you can't, you should just quit and eat meat every day
If everyone ate a vegan or vegetarian meal once a week or something, that would make a huge difference

I personally would love to eat vegan more often, but I think one problem is that vegan food can be pretty easy to make, but then it's often pretty expensive, and if you try to make it cheaper it can be kinda difficult and time consuming, especially when you're just getting into it and everything is kinda new

>>9648666
But Beef tastes much better. The picture forgot to calculate that.

If we were only concerned with maximum efficiency, we would've invented human photosynthesis by now

>>9648703
>If we were only concerned with maximum efficiency, we would've invented human photosynthesis by now
Ironically photosynthesis isn't energy efficient enough to be used by large moving animals. Not that I disagree with you on the principle.

>>9648700
They've come up with a -arian for people who only eat meat occasionally and try to consume less of it without going full vegan, can't remember it now though.

>>9648342
IF YOU DON’T EAT YER MEAT, YOU CAN’T HAVE ANY PUDDING

>>9648674
nice deflection fuckwad

now tell me what foods that are vegan that satisfy all my daily intake of vitamins and minerals/fats, proteins, and carbs.

give me one of those an I will do the job of calculating the price out.

bonus: try to make it DASH diet acceptable,
Gluten Free, low-acid would help as well for those with GERD

THIS JUST IN: APEX PREDATOR EATS MEAT!
>IN OTHER NEWS, WATER IS WET AND PLANTS LIKE DIRT!

>>9648708
Yeah it was just to make a point

>>9648343
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

>>9648713
100%-arian

>>9648635
>man is above woman
but women eat men's cum and abuse men for their wealth and are in general above men on the food chain, both figuratively and literally??

>>9648629
And if we did that all of those cattle that needed those crops to survive would die.

And that would be okay to you?

i had deep thoughts recently aboot faggot vegans

their whole argument in simplest terms is KILLING living things to survive(eat)

well guess what dumbfuck vegans, plants are living things aswell, the only argument you can even come up with to counter this is "animals" can feel pain, how do we know plants cant FEEL pain? what if they can and we don't know?

how is cutting up veggies any different then cutting up meat?

checkmate

>>9648745
That's a thing veg-something always ignore: being useful to humans is a big evolutionnary advantage. There wouldn't be close to as many cows, pigs or chicken if we didn't eat them and their byproducts.

>>9648754
In fact it's been demostrated that plants can at least feel stress, like the accacia that renders itself toxic when one of his neighbours gets eaten.
Lots of plants don't want to be eaten any more than animals do, but things like fruits are legitimately made to be eaten, and the animals who eat those fruits are a key part of those plants' reproductive system. Of course this doesn't really work when you shit in a toilet rather than in the woods, but still.

>>9648754
you know, since they are retarded city kids they get cucked by animals putting cute faces
i mean, if they saw a fucking skinned cow when kids they wouldn't give a fuck. Hell, PETA founder is a guy that discovered where the meat came from very well into his 20's

>>9648760
and cats basically scam us, don't be fooled. Animal servitude is voluntary.

>>9648343
And I will accomplish all this by smoking weed and posting on 4chan

>>9648666
This fucking loon wants us to eat fucking bugs so that cows everywhere can have the freedom to shit in a field and eat grass to their heart's content. And what about the feelings and freedom of the bugs?

Unironically kill your fucking stupid self as soon as possible. That will benefit the human race AND wildlife more than your brainlet ideas ever would.

>>9648731
Young women would be at the top of the foodchain while old women would be near the starfish.

>>9648414
The animal relationship with other animals is also based on power, even in the same species of animals, have you ever wondered why some monkeys live in absolute luxury around ripe fruit and the talles trees to hide in while others have to look for anything edible for hours?

>>9648635
>Obvious sex-baiting

>>9648496
Vegans get triggered because other people don't care about animals and they absolutely need people to care about animals if they want to have any real impact

>>9648666
Let's just kill are the worthless animals we can't eat instead so they stop consuming out earth reaources

>>9648826
Yeah man. Good idea. Completely destroying the ecosystem sounds reasonable.

>>9648794
No, the argument is about ressource efficiency, not anything ethical. It's also not my idea, nor am I even advocating for it.
You need to chill and step away from the computer for a minute.

>>9648666
>1kg meat
>40% edible

>>9648784
Cats used to be useful to fight pest, but yeah we only keep them around for company these days.

>>9648666
BUGS LIVES MATTERS YOU HYPOCRITES

Go fuck yourself OP

>>9648826
They don't consume anything that we would, except for pests, and we've tried pretty hard to exterminate those, with little to no success.

>>9648844
40% of a cow is edible, but I agree the chart presents it poorly.

>>9648717
Hope you like eating eating 33 pounds of mushrooms everyday to meet your rda for b12.

>>9648830
let's destroy all the forest and shit too, it consumes our water
>>9648851
that's because people aren't willing to poison the shit out of everything

>>9648841
So why even post it you fucking idiot?

Cows are awesome, and bugs are not. That is all the "resource efficiency" that matters.

Dumb piece of shit. Ya just try and act all cool now that your nonsense gets called out. Fuck off back to You-Know-Where.

>>9648876
>people aren't willing to poison the shit out of everything
I don't think we live in the same world. They're just Zergs, reproducing faster than we can kill them.

>>9648855
Even then that's only 40% meat most people will eat. I've eaten cow marrow, stomach, liver and used the intestine for sausage lining. Was about 70% of the cow. The bones got given to a local animal shelter for the dogs.

>>9648885
Because I was sharing information on a topic that another anon asked about: ressource efficiency in animal husbandry. Not everything is about trying to convince others to think like you.

Are you brain damaged though?

>>9648888
Fair enough, I imagine it's how much of a cow is typically consumed not how much you can actually consume.

>>9648886
i doubt it
if pests became a serious world ending problem we would come up with a solution within a week

>>9648714

>>9648666
Why does that matter? Is it a goal to breed the maximum number of humans that will fit on Earth?

>>9648466
That's the dumbest statement in history, there are tons of things humans know.

>>9648895
Pretty much, I'm Mexican so I'll eat nearly everything from an animal (not brain though, never could eat that). The only people that eat more of the animal than I do are Asians. Of course this is strictly from a western perspective.

>>9648342
>you could live longer
steve jobs died of cancer at age 56, you can stop your lies now

>>9648901
I don't know what makes you think that there's any way we could rid the world of rats, birds, and especially insects that have survived multiple extiction events, all without killing ourselves in the process. They're way too well integrated in our world.
There are more termites alone than people on Earth, and I don't just mean more numerically, but total weight. It would be a collosal task to even get rid of one major invasive pest species.

>>9648891
Oh just fuck on outta here already, Encyclopedia Brown. Nobody gives a shit about your garbage "info" that recommends we eat grasshoppers because we are apparently "wasting" too much water and grain... ya, fuckwad, according to whom?

>>9648909
>Is it a goal to breed the maximum number of humans that will fit on Earth?
Pretty much, yeah. And then space colonies.

>>9648923
Nobody recommended anything to you or made value statements about what one should or shouldn't do. Jesus how insecure are you in your beliefs that you have to lash out at people who aren't trying to make you think different from what you think.
>we are apparently "wasting" too much water and grain
Nobody said that, just that insects are more efficient food sources regarding consumption those ressources. That's just a statement of fact, not a judgement on whether we consume "too much" ressources.

>>9648343
We should ban vegan threads since this is werving to /his/ and /pol/.

>>9648921
do you have any idea how easy a new disease can spread and kill every single human on earth? there is no reason we can't modify some new disease to target only termites and not affect anything else and that's just one way of doing it, we could also genetically modify some termites to outbreed every other termite but also have some major disadvantage that made them die easy

>>9648944
So you made all these posts, shared all this info, for no reason. Just a really bored faggot, I guess.

>>9648342
To be fair, the burger ads aren't literally telling him to do anything, while the vegan image literally tells him to "Go Vegan".

>>9648991
>do you have any idea how easy a new disease can spread and kill every single human on earth?
It's so easy that it literally never happened, ever. Stop believing fearmongers.

Diseases mutate and jump animals all the time, and there is enough diversity of termite species that we probably couldn't find something that affects them all and no other animal.

>>9649016
Yeah, I only answered a question that an anon asked, no reason.
Remember kids, if you're not using other people's genuine questions to aggressively push your own views on other people, might aswell just shut the fuck up!

>>9649017
You need to learn more about the power of the subconscious mind

>>9649045
That's why I said literally. The vegan image could leave off the "Go vegan" command at the end and there would still be a subconscious suggestion, but people wouldn't mind it as much.

>>9649050

>>9649054
>implying anyone watches tv anymore

Get with the times gramps.

>>9649040
>It's so easy that it literally never happened
it almost happenned a couple times
now we have developed or technology and science to the point we can avoid it, how good is termite technology?

>>9649064

>>9649069
>it almost happenned a couple times
Not really. 1/3 of *parts of the *Northern Hemisphere of the *Old World was as bad as it got, and that was long before we even knew how the fuck the most benign diseases spread.

>how good is termite technology
Not as good as ant or bee technology, but pretty decent by non-human standards.

Again I stress the point that while modern humans are all 1 species, there are 3106 different identified species of termites, and God knows how many unidentified ones. The epidemiology can't work the same.

>>9649095
>while modern humans are all 1 species

Only retards believe this, unfortunately most of you are retarded

>>9649135
>nuh.huh
>no argument
>insults
Like clockwork.

>>9648432
I don't get this from a moral standpoint. We have the ability to reason. We know we could live a healthy life without eating animals. Does "might make right" to you? I am not vegan but I can't argue with it. I only say I don't care.

>>9649135
>giving a single fuck about niggers and abbos

>>9648666
im not eating fucking grasshoppers so some retarded africans can have 50 more kids

>>9649154
I don't understand how what you're saying is any different from what he's saying.

>>9649154
Which moral view do you subscribe to? Morals don't objectively exist.

>>9649154
>We know we could live a healthy life without eating animals.
So? We could also live a healthy life without art or the internet. That in itself is no reason to stop doing something we enjoy.
That argument only holds weight if you think there's value in not eating animals in the first place.

>>9648439
>1. We couldn't produce enough food to feed the world on a Vegan diet'
How So? Raising animals for food is way less efficient than eating those foods directly. There is a point about them being raised on land that is not suitable for farming but the vast majority of animals are not, and they are fed grain and other feed.

>2. Billions of people are employed farming, slaughtering, processing, and preparing animals
I don't think that number is accurate. Even if it was those people could be employed doing other things. It's happened throughout history.

>3. Most wildlife it is actually legal to hunt in the United States is legal to hunt - under regulations - due to the fact these species come into conflict with humans settlements and destroy property
I don't think this is true. Could you provide a source for it? I've heard of hunting for conservation and recreation but rarely because they are a threat to human property.

>4. Humans always have, and always will wage war over resources. Also, war over all has dramatically decreased compared to any other era in human history, we're still waiting to see if it's an outlier or the start of a new legitimate trend. This is the most peaceful era on earth in it's history
This just sounds defeatist. There are plenty of examples of societal change which I won't bother to enumerate.

>5. The planet sustains itself quite fine, it's humans that fuck shit up. As for us, see #1
K

>6. Textiles are the number one cause of fresh water pollution in the Unites States, though Farming IS climbing way way up there.
I don't get this point against veganism.

>7. Corporate empowerment is a complicated subject and there is no one effort that will resolve
I don't get this point either.

>The stuff about deforestation is true though. Good job?
Agreed about deforestation. It does sound like a contradiction with #5 though

>wanting to live a long life

>>9648713

Flexitarian, I think

>>9648635
>on the left
>man at the top
>woman on same level as a whale
>is that cell-divison on the lowest level grouped in with a tortilla?

>>9649190
>I don't think this is true. Could you provide a source for it? I've heard of hunting for conservation and recreation but rarely because they are a threat to human property.
fucking seriously? you've never heard of pests? like a coyote or a fox killing some chickens? rabbits and shit ruining crops?

>>9648713
Pointlesstarian

>>9648635
>man above woman

Ego had it right I tell ya.

>>9648692
If it was proven that I would be happier castrated, I would do it. I'd have to be damn sure though.

>>9649190
>You are wrong but I won't bother to tell you why
Every time
Goddam fundies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFF30jfTubU

Vegans degenerate.

>>9649225
This video is a work of art.

>>9648910
It's relative anon

Alright, you cu/ck/s, cease your shitposting for a minute and let's do some real talk here.
I don't give a shit about the moral aspect of your movement/religion/whatever you call it but I do give a shit about money, time and the taste of my meal.
So what are some vegan meals that are comparable to your average every-day anon meal?

>>9648342

Vegan are this decades gay hippies. And boy do I want to bash them over the head with a batton.

>tfw you will never be a MP in the 70 beating hippies up

>>9649164
Well unless I misread, he seems to be suggesting that it is ok to eat animals because we are apex predators. Either that or he is disregarding a moral system. If it is the former, I disagree.

>>9649166
I think most common morals are derived from being cooperative since it makes survival easier. Most people would regard socially benifitial actions as moral. It's also why empathy exists. Most people would regard causing suffering to animals as immoral as well.

>>9649170
Great point. The value in not eating animals is to not cause suffering. Art usually doesn't cause suffering. And if it does you would have to weigh it against the benefits. So judge if the enjoyment you get out of eating an animal is greater than the suffering it causes.

>>9649203
Yes I have heard of that. You (or he) was stating that it WAS the reason that it is legal to shoot animals. I am contesting that

>>9649278
Okay is subjective, I don't think he was saying the former.

>>9649207
Which part is it you want me explain? Societal change?

>>9649190
>this nigga doesn't know how gangsta boars are

>>9649250
There aren't. It's a choice of morals over pleasure and convenience, which I'm pretty sure is why they're so smug about it. Well that and soj poisoning their brains.

>>9649281
i wasn't the original anon, it was just the line
>but rarely because they are a threat to human property.
sounded like you were acting like pests aren't really a thing, when they're generally a constant issue for farmers

>>9649286
Ok. It is subjective. It's just not generally approved of. I could rape and kill babies and you could not objectively prove it was wrong. It's just something people agree on. So yes, I agree with you. If he was disregarding a moral system, I also agree with him. Sort of a fruitless conversation though

>>9649278
You can do suffering-free animal husbandry, granted it's not the norm now, nor is it convenient.

It could be argued that art/media/etertainment does cause a lot of suffering.

>you would have to weigh it against the benefits
Kind of hard to quantify and eminently subjective.

>>9649301
Oh. No I wasn't trying to say that. I can see how that could have been taken that way though

Veganism (and vegetarianism to an extent) should be classified as an eating disorder.

>>9649314
More like self harm.

>>9649306
I'll refer you to
>>9649304
I don't think vegans would be against a truly suffering free enjoyment of meat. Would a vegan be against eating a dead deer they found in the woods? That's an honest question

>>9649304
Despite morals being subjective, there exists something called the Golden rule that is shared by most societies and individuals that's basically "treat others as you wish to be treated", however that really only covers humans, and really mostly your group of humans. There's very minor history of societies frowning upon animal consumption altogether.
You can apply "might makes right" in interspecies or even intertribal conflicts, and the Golden rule when with your fellow humans/tribesmen, and it wouldn't considered weird by most human societies in history.

>>9649304
>Sort of a fruitless conversation though

Kind of like discussing subjective morals.

>>9649306
I forgot to respond to
> It could be argued that art/media/etertainment does cause a lot of suffering.
Agreed. So you would need to weigh it like an other moral decision. If art was ruining your life, you should not look at it. If it was making people kill other people then (subjectively) you would need to weigh it against the lives being lost.

I also want to make it clear I am talking in theoretical absolutes. Such a cut and dry situation doesn't exist in real life.

>>9649319
I'm sure that depends on each and individual vegwhatever, there's a reason they created all those subcategories.
Some vegans just find meat and animal products gross.

Surely people who argue for more animal rights and see animal husbandry as slavery would still object to it if it was suffering free.

In your example some would probably tell you to leave the carcass there because the other animals need to eat it more than you do. Some would probably join in and enjoy the meal.

There are so many reasons people do that shit at this point, pinpoiting what all of them would do in a hypothetical seems impossible.

>>9649329
>Such a cut and dry situation doesn't exist in real life.
If we want to argue in relatives instead of absolutes, I can think of a number of pieces of media that have "caused" death to varying levels of causality.

>>9648342
If it were an ad for a vegan restaurant he'd probably think it looks delicious. The problem is the negativity in the messaging, and the self-righteous idea that you don't have to actually compete with meat.

>>9649323
Yeah I would agree with that as far as history goes. I think the big difference these days is we are globally connected to everyone else. So you may say "USA #1" but most people (I would guess) would feel bad about a tyrant that kills his own people or a natural disaster. And to add to that, most people are not trying to struggle for resources. It frees us up to think about morality. That's sort of been extended to animals. And I can't disagree with it personally. Suffering is bad. It would need to be weighed against the good it does if I am utilitarian ( which I guess I am).

And after that wall of text I want to say again, I am not vegan. I just can't disagree with its morality

>>9648342
Just support the development of cultured/lab-grown meat. Plenty of omnivores and vegans both say that they'll switch to eating that when it's available.

>>9649328
You think so? I disagree. If that were the case we wouldn't bother with science. After all we are limited to our experiences. We wouldn't attempt to make laws. Who could say objectively that murder and rape were bad? I can agree with it to an extent, but it is not useful to me.

>>9648414
I agree. In fact, I think We should take it one step further and imprison all carnivorous and omnivorous animals for denying innocent animals of their rights

>>9649371
Can't say I agree with any of that, but to each their own I guess.

>>9649336
Interesting thought. where suffering starts might be hard to define. Although at that point I would think we are too close for me to care. As far as leaving the carcass for other animals, I guess. Makes sense to me assuming I also don't need it to survive or be healthy.

>>9649360
>most people are not trying to struggle for resources
Yeah, I don't know about that. Both on a micro and macro level I'd say the large majority of everything that happens is people struggling for resources.

I don't think most people equate animal suffering to human suffering. When thousands of people are sick we don't line them up and execute them to quarantine the epidemy. Animals who die or are in danger are not treated equally with a human.
With this in mind you could say: suffering is bad but happens to a lesser creature, pleasure and nutrients from eating meat is good and it happens to a human.

I really don't think you can make most people agree that animal life/suffering is to be treated equally as that of a human. Even in western societies that's still a pretty niche view, and really only applied to cute cuddly animals for most people.

>>9649374

>>9649190
Nigga if you knew anything about hunting you'd know wild boats and deer reproduce and tear shit apart like monsters, boats especially will destroy farmland, and kill other animals in territorial disputes, they're invasive due to lack of other natural predators, and if we let them go on they'll run parts of this country apart

>>9649371
Science ultimately tries to be objective and doesn't really function on the same level as moral discussion.
Laws exist mostly for practical reasons more than because we think morals are cool.

>>9649353
I think I didn't make clear what I meant. I was posing an extremely cut and dry hypothetical. Some art made somebody kill people without any other variables that came into play. I think we agree. If not give those examples.

>>9649398
Fucking wild boats.

>>9649278
Using your phone, internet and your car causes and supports suffering.

>>9649414
Dude, that's not cut and dry, that's just completely unreasonable. You're asking for an example of someone who had no influence on their life except 1 specific piece of media.
You're asking for a practical example of something that can only "exist" as an idea.

You're trying hard to precisely and objectively quantify "bad" and that's just not happening. Most of the time society goes by earshot and utilitarianism, not clear cut causality and clear cut morals.

>>9648714
HOW CAN YA HAVE ANY PUDDING IF YOU DON'T EAT YER MEAT

>>9648754
Even if someone believed that, veganism is still a better choice because there are more plants killed in feeding livestock than there are in growing food plants for the same amount of calories and nutrients on your plate.

>>9649393
>>most people are not trying to struggle for resources
>Yeah, I don't know about that. Both on a micro and macro level I'd say the large majority of everything that happens is people struggling for resources.
I guess it would depend on your definition of resource. If status (for example) is a resource I would need to agree with you. But things required to survive are not "struggled" for in the sense that there are physical struggles for those resources. Granted governments do it, but not the average person. I think this gets a bit off topic though.

>I don't think most people equate animal suffering to human suffering. When thousands of people are sick we don't line them up and execute them to quarantine the epidemy. Animals who die or are in danger are not treated equally with a human.
By the definition of "equate" I would have to agree.

>With this in mind you could say: suffering is bad but happens to a lesser creature, pleasure and nutrients from eating meat is good and it happens to a human.
Not necessarily. Again it's a moral judgment call. We are greater creatures capable of much more than a cow. The question is, since we could live a healthy life without making them suffer, is it still moral?

>I really don't think you can make most people agree that animal life/suffering is to be treated equally as that of a human. Even in western societies that's still a pretty niche view, and really only applied to cute cuddly animals for most people.
Agreed

>>9649411
Why can't morality try to be objective in the same sense? Obviously there is more wiggle room because it is difficult to test. And you would need to agree that something "harmful" is bad. Harmful itself may be difficult to define but most people can start from the basis that killing somebody for no reason (for example) is harmful. So many edge cases would be ambiguous. Still, this type of questioning is useful to me. To throw up my arms and say "we can never know" is not

>>9649449
What? I don't understand what you are saying assuming you read my post. I am saying that the hypothetical I posed is not something that exists in the real world. It sounds like we agree completely yet you are saying we disagree. Do you want me to explain the value of a Hypothetical? Do you disagree with using a hypothetical?

>>9649527
>Why can't morality try to be objective in the same sense?
I'm not sure you understand what morality is if you're asking this.

>>9649545
Enlighten me. What about what i said was wrong? Keep in mind science is observed through imperfect means.

>>9648342

Go buy an ad then you dumb cunt.

>>9649556
If morality is subjective by nature, science in practice being imperfect is irrelevant to that.

>>9649572

>>9649578
How so? Could you explain in more words? I'm genuinely curious

>>9649287
Explain to me how you have the right to change society and act against the wishes of the people who integrate society making life worse for everyone just so you get to live in a world that's better for you and only you

>>9649598
Well, I genuinely don't understand how it COULD be relevant to that, so I actually can't.

>>9649486
>If status (for example) is a resource
Status is largely influed by money, which is THE ressource.

>But things required to survive are not "struggled" for in the sense that there are physical struggles for those resources.
Again I wouldn't say that. Most jobs are somewhat of a physical struggle, and any of that is magnified in the 3rd world.
>Granted governments do it, but not the average person.
People work (spend time and effort) to acquire money that they pay taxes with. Indirectly it certainly trickles down.
>The question is, since we could live a healthy life without making them suffer, is it still moral?
And I'll say again that just circles back to whether you think there's value in not eating animals in the first place.

>>9649543
You asked me for a real life example that disproved something that you admit can't exist in real life. What the fuck is the point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

>>9649599
Sounds like a bit of a loaded question. Let's talk about it point by point.

>Explain to me how you have the right to change society
Societal changes are based on ideas. I will not enact a law to tell you that you cannot eat meat. I don't have that power. And I do not think that I have that right. Only that people have a moral obligation to at least consider the harm they might be doing.

>and act against the wishes of the people who integrate society
It sounds like you are against progress which I will not denigrate you for. I will say that many good things came from progress though. I will provide examples if you want.

>making life worse for everyone just so you get to live in a world that's better for you and only you
Well it wouldn't be for me alone. It would be for all people agreeing with the idea. And would it make life worse for everyone else? Good question. That is something that should be explored. So far the evidence that I have seen has pointed in the opposite direction.

And finally, understand, I am not a vegan or vegetarian. I just can't disagree with the logic

>>9649527
>it is difficult to test
It is litterally impossible to test, because it doesn't really follow questions of causality. It's only testable within its own system (boolean logic), which holds little to no value to real life applications of the concepts it examines. Because literally everything that needs to be examined for questions of morals have no tangibility, they are ideas, not things, and as such cannot be objectively defined in both a useful a consensual manner.
You can't have an objective and finite definition of concepts like "bad" or "liberty", so you can't go premise->argument->conclusion in an objective way. At least laymen like you and I shitposting on 4chan can't.

Most arguments are based on the idea that we can, but that's mostly people who pretend their subjectivity is objective.

We can never know what "bad" is objectively, but that doesn't fucking matter, what matters is that some authority decides on what helps and doesn't help society, and establishes a set of rules that function.

Out of curiosity, have you ever had a philophy class?

>>9649609
Science is viewed through the subjective lense of observation. It's silly that I would discount it simply because of that. Although right off the bat I would agree that morality is magnitudes beyond science in subjectivity, I would still need to ask what the defining characteristic is that makes it different.

>>9649671
>And would it make life worse for everyone else? Good question. That is something that should be explored. So far the evidence that I have seen has pointed in the opposite direction.
Really, do you just completely ignore the pleasure aspect that has been brought up multiple times?

Fuck you. I will beat you severely if you interfere with what I eat.

why isn't this thread pruned or deleted?

>>9649615
>Status is largely influed by money, which is THE ressource.
I don't think this is necessarily true. People can have high status without money and vice versa. For example I make a lot of money but I don't think it has increased my status. Money is a tool. It's what you do with do (with or without the tool) that gives you status.
>Again I wouldn't say that. Most jobs are somewhat of a physical struggle, and any of that is magnified in the 3rd world.
Most jobs are physical... that is probably true especially from a world wide perspective. I guess you would need to define "physical" as well. The physical struggle I was talking about was was "war" with other people for resources. You have an apple, I must mill you to get that apple.
>People work (spend time and effort) to acquire money that they pay taxes with. Indirectly it certainly trickles down.
I am not sure I get the point of this.
>And I'll say again that just circles back to whether you think there's value in not eating animals in the first place.
There is certainly value in eating animals. You have to decide if it is worth it

>>9648387
Anon is right you know

>>9648387
fast food can be a life style choice.

>>9648342
>Go Vegan
No thanks, I'm not mentally ill.

>>9649633
I didn't ask for that. I asked that you (or somebody else) answer a hypothetical. I don't get it. Can you try to explain more fully? It still sounds like we agree

>>9648910
>when you too dumb to understand Socrates
Daaamn nigga I pity yo stank ass

>>9649689
>It is litterally impossible to test, because it doesn't really follow questions of causality. It's only testable within its own system (boolean logic), which holds little to no value to real life applications of the concepts it examines.
It might be testable but it would need to be built off of first principles. Which is obviously weak. I am concerned with what is useful to me. As a side note could you explain how Boolean logic pertains to this?

>Because literally everything that needs to be examined for questions of morals have no tangibility, they are ideas, not things, and as such cannot be objectively defined in both a useful a consensual manner.
I don't understand the significance of this. Are you saying it cannot be completely objective? I would agree on that point. I would refer you to one of my previous posts.

>You can't have an objective and finite definition of concepts like "bad" or "liberty", so you can't go premise->argument->conclusion in an objective way. At least laymen like you and I shitposting on 4chan can't.
Indeed. I would not argue for a completely objective argument. Nothing really is.

>Most arguments are based on the idea that we can, but that's mostly people who pretend their subjectivity is objective.
I would not claim such a thing. I confused at this point. What exactly are you saying?

>We can never know what "bad" is objectively, but that doesn't fucking matter, what matters is that some authority decides on what helps and doesn't help society, and establishes a set of rules that function.
Agreed again. The letter of what you are saying makes logical sense. It's what I feel like you are implying that I disagree with. I will not speculate. I agree with you.
>Out of curiosity, have you ever had a philophy class?
No. I've read a few books and listen to s podcast but it's all just for fun. I am not a real student

>>9649819

>>9649710
I have not. I am getting annoyed with typing this out again and again. You have to decide whether the suffering of animals is worth your pleasure. That is all. If there is no suffering of animals and you eat meat, no problem.

>>9648754
Yo retard, I can eat a piece of plant without killing it (stem, fruit leaves, etc). What piece of an animal do you eat without killing it?

>>9650004
You could eat an arm but not kill it. I don't think this is your point though

>>9648974
Here here!
>>9648342
Go fuck yourself vegan shill troll. Nobody takes you serious. Less than 1% of the population is vegan yet 25% of the fucking threads here are vegan so you're either a bunch of trolls or some exceptionally spergy vegans.

>>9649981
I'm not the guy you're responding to but I did want to ask, why the fuck should I care about the suffering a bunch of cows and chickens and pigs. They certainly aren't concerning themselves with my own hunger, so why would I extend those delicious slabs of meat any sort of special treatment?

>>9650052
You will sat seeing us more and more

>>9650078
I really hope we don't because this board is inundated with shill threads on a daily basis and frankly it's bad enough here as it is.

>>9650090

>>9650066
Because you are concerned with suffering. If you are not, then I have no recourse.

Hey, I'm back.

>>9650066
You know better than a cow so stop acting like one

>>9650183
Why?

>>9648343
TL;DR: pic related

>>9650004
Milk, eggs

>>9650052
Dood veganism is on a massive rise over the past 10 years.

>>9648439
>1. We couldn't produce enough food to feed the world on a Vegan diet'


WE could, African's can't. But they can't feed themselves period any more, so that's moot.

>>9650250
Math is not your strong suit is it? Ten years ago they were .015 percent of the population. They could grow by 300% and it wouldn't mean jack shit. Meanwhile, pic related was cheese consumption growth in a single year. Ya y'all really making a dent...

>>9650267
They could feed themselves if they stopped killing themselves, but livestock is an important staple if their agriculture and diet so that's another L for vegans to hold.

>>9648690
Jesus Christ, how fucking brainwashed by the corporations can you even be? Of course they're all telling them to do something, they're telling them to "eat our products". The only difference is that the rationale behind the first three is "so we make more money" and behind last one "because it's the right thing to do", and you're infinitely more pissed off at the latter.

>>9650213
Vegans BTFO forever

>>9649821
>I didn't ask for that.
>>9649414

>>9649981
But you obviously ignore it in considering whether making meat illegal to consume would make life worse for everyone who isn't vegan. Leran to follow reply chains or pay attention or something, we weren't talking about morals here.

>>9650277

If we recolonized Africa we could easily put them on a healthy vegan diet with nothing but resources from Africa, that is the power of the white man.

>>9650326
>Let's restart a genocidal institution so that we can implement incredibly harmful agricultural practices in the motherland of humanity

Never lose perspective vegans :^)

>>9650273
The same could honestly be said of any kind of movement you realize. It starts insignificant and slowly gains traction.

yeah .015% turns to .04%, turns to .08%, turns to--do you understand?

>>9650337
So... Two things you've
>1) assumed that growth rate is sustainable
>2)ignored the fact that the premise is growth over 10 years
So how many centuries until they are 10% of the population?

>>9649937
Seriously, take philosophy classes, I'm not your tennis partner and this isn't the place for me to philosophize, in written form, off the cuff, in a foreign language, when I'm stoned, on the fast food board of a taiwanese basket-weaving imageboard, and with someone who obviously hasn't had basic philosophic arguments purged out of his system, or doesn't understand that his "it's all relative" attitude basically ruins his absolutes argument.

>>9650314
I think I might be taking the bait. If not you should learn how to comprehend what you are reading. Please reread the thread. I will lay it out if you want but I don't think that is necessary. Let me know

>>9649190
Not that anon but:
>Raising animals for food is way less efficient than eating those foods directly.
Not if it's insects. Not every country has the same availability of arable land to make pure plant based diet viable. A balance between animal and plant based foods is needed before any transition to plants only can be considered.

> Even if it was those people could be employed doing other things. It's happened throughout history.
And throughout that history there is great unrest because of these people transitioning.

> I've heard of hunting for conservation and recreation but rarely because they are a threat to human property.
Lemme use Arizona as an example: They had a coyote problem with them harming farm animals, eating pets, and injuring people. So their population was culled to keep known populations far from human settlements. End result was an explosion of rabbit population that has become as much of a problem as the coyotes. Issue now is how to control that population without bringing back coyotes and ending back in square 1 again. Hunting for subsistence is carried out at such a small scale it's hardly worth mentioning in most cases.

>This just sounds defeatist. There are plenty of examples of societal change which I won't bother to enumerate.
Maybe you should otherwise you just sound like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.


>I don't get this point against veganism.
The process to make your clothes from plant material creates far more waste than the meat industry. Rendering the point of 'stop the #1 polluter of water' moot.

>I don't get this point either.
Going vegan will contribute as much to 'ending corporate rule' as switching to hemp: little at all.

>Agreed about deforestation. It does sound like a contradiction with #5 though
Planet doesn't 'damage' so much as it changes. Whether than change is hostile to human life or not is for us to see.

>>9650326
>>9650335
Err... African agriculture is more or less "vegan" as is.
>>9649472

>>9650290
>"because it's the right thing to do"
And someone is still making more money off of it. They just have a bunch of pissed off vegans paying for advertising for them. Corporations still benefit.

>>9650356
Oh fuck off with the condescending attitude, Jesus what are you a politician?
You've been bobbing and weaving not making points the whole time. Seriously learn how arguments work.

>>9650359
>Contracts aids from bushmeat

>>9650323
Lol what? Let's quote the original post
>>9648342
>Go Vegan /ck/
Could you quote the text in our chain that says it should be illegal to sell meat? And regardless that is not what we were talking about. Obviously everything in our chain WAS about morality. If you didn't want a conversation on morality you should not have responded. Jesus man. I really hope I took the bait.

>>9648820
umm no, its mostly meat eaters trying to justify murder and living with their insecure conscience
if you really were OK with it, you wouldnt be making threads every 3 hours to tell us why you think its OK

>>9650354
I think you are misunderstanding my argument. What you have said made that very clear. But that's fine. You don't have to talk to me. This board is for discussion. If you don't want to discuss with me then don't bother responding. I think you would agree that your abject dismissal doesnt make you right though.

>>9650367
What is it you want me to say? You critise me for making a point I didn't make. You want to have an actual discussion? Then chat with me. I told you for several posts I was in agreement with you. And it was about the most unimportant shit. And still you persist even though you were obviously wrong. What ya want man?

>>9650386
Kek. Nice temper tantrum. You mad?

>>9650401
um no? insecure much?
make like 19 more threads to tell us why you think murdering animals is okay, so you can have your hamburger, you fatass

all this drama and youre probably a plebeian in terms of food, like people who brag all day about sex, then when having it last all of 2 minutes or cant get it up

>>9649671
>Societal changes are based on ideas
the ideas of a group of elites with dubious motivations
>I will not enact a law
you wont do shit, you are a leftypol shitposter but the people at the top will, you are a foot soldier
>Only that people have a moral obligation to at least consider the harm they might be doing.
thats why you want societal change enforced, not through law but rather persecution, bullying, marginalization, narrative, control of the conversation, etc, im not stupid, there is a direct correlation between high density vegan areas and people pushing for the new world
order
>It sounds like you are against progress
it sounds like you don't understand what progress means, having to rely in a less rich and diverse diet with a bigger risk of having our food supply affected by a plague or disease ir drought or whatever, having less animal protein and evolving to be short and weak like people from nations like india which have high vegetarian/vegan populations doesn't sound like progress to me
>Well it wouldn't be for me alone
yup, you and your little cult who have been brainwashed by ritual viewing of animal torture and long religious lectures into believing that animals are more important than humans
>would it make life worse for everyone else?
yes, absolutely yes, without a doubt, it will worse the lives of everyone who enjoys eating meat.
>im not vegan nor vegetarian
because you believe in indoctrination and that converting people washes you of your sins of consuming flesh

>>9650367
And last thing, I AM making points you just chose not to engage those. Here is my point: making animals suffer is morally wrong. Talk about that instead of some perceived slight. Right or wrong it's worth a discussion.

>>9650415
>Can't even make a coherent post
Ya you mad bro.

>>9649981
>You have to decide whether the suffering of animals is worth your pleasure
that was never up for debate, it absolutely is, without animal suffering humanity would have never make it this far, my ancestors learned to drink cow's milk to survive even tho it was toxic and made them sick and now i get to eat cheese, they learned to raise and domesticate cattle like growing potatoes and now i have burgers that i get to eat with the cheese

>>9648506
Instead of lashing out and making death threats, come to terms with the fact that killing animals to feed yourself is what makes you angry. You'll be a much happier person.

>>9650125
>Because you are concerned with suffering
im only concerned with human suffering because i'm human and that which makes another human suffer can make me suffer thus human suffering is unacceptable

>we don't impose our lifestyle
>keep a shitty patronizing thread alive
seriously people, stop feeding the radvegans

>>9649202
>is that cell-divison on the lowest level grouped in with a tortilla?

Gave me a hearty kek

>>9650417
Lel so many assumptions. You don't sound like you want a logical discussion. You sound very angry. If you'd like me to respond to that though, I will. I am the enemy dude. Must take me out to prevent the new world order. I'm coming for you...

>>9649204
>eats a hamburger for every meal

>>9650433
I think that was the point of the thread.

Now that we have security where in we can go the a grocery store to buy some vegetables or grow them ourselves without people killing us, should we make animals suffer? We evolved a certain way, does that mean we should continue doing it?

>>9650439
Great. That is the type of response that makes sense. You are not concerned with animals suffering or at the very least you don't care enough to do anything about it. This is honest and right around where I land myself

>>9650426
I can smell your fat, meat chugging ass from here.

>tfw no vegan gf

>>9650366
That might be so, but it's telling that people never seem to mind whatever they're being told to do if the rationale is "because gib me moneys".

>>9650443
i already know how you operate, logical discussion? it's impossible to have one with someone who consider language to only be a weapon he can use to get whatever he wants
>>9650460
>Now that we have security
i always had security, i have never felt guilty about eating meat, i never experienced doubt before doing so, i have been to farms and played with pigs, i have seen the videos of mexican farms, i heard about how wonderful pigs are and i owned several pets and i still don't care about animal suffering, i don't love animals, i don't love humans either, i love my pets and some people i know
i don't have any necessity to eat meat to survive and live, i have no desire to reduce the pleasure meat gives me (eating it, cooking it, digesting it and absorbing all its nutrients) or the advantages it has for me, meat if necessary for me to live the life i want to live and i have the right as a human to pursue that life unlike an animal which is barely not property

>>9650484
The first response is again some wild speculation. I'm not sure what you think I get out of this.

The second part is entirely honest. You don't care about animal suffering. I won't try to argue beyond that. It is a logical conclusion to our discussion.

>>9650476
top girl is no vegan

>>9650476
>"The most cherry picked picture i could find in my i'm right you're wrong folder"

I try not to get worked up over politics, but if you vegan fucks ever take away my meat, that'll be what pushes me over the edge.

>>9650514
it's a lot easier to deal with people like you under the assumption that i'm dealing with some sort of psychopath, you can't reason with a psychopath because they think differently than a proper human, you could catch a psychopath lying or prove he is wrong but it would be meaningless because a psychopath is not concerned with being right which is a common human desire especially when arguing, psychopaths only care about getting their way
I spent a lot of time thinking about this only to come to the conclusion that i cant understand you because you are not a human like i am a human

>>9650484
Would you eat your dog?

>>9650546
>>9650514
I think there's something of a language barrier here

>>9650004
Dairy products

>>9650546
Good point :)

>>9650557
i don't have a dog right now, my last dog developed cancer and was disposed off, ly mom had a dog after that which i never considered my dog wich got sick and die so i wouldn't eat her as i don't eat sick meat
There are circumstances in wich i would eat a dog

>>9650579
Ok, thanks

I've been eating vegan for the last couple months. 2/3 meals a day I try to eat totally vegan. If I can't I try to go 3/3 vegetarian. I've found that on the days that I am able to go 3/3 vegan, I feel much better the next day. I'm down to 180 from 192 and my cholesterol and blood pressure numbers are much better. I've also realized that vegan cooking can be even more delicious than any other meal, so long as its done using the right techniques and ingredients. I think most meat eaters just don't know how to cook vegan, and haven't tried healthy food at restaurants because they are probably too poor to get off the publicly funded infrastructure of factory farming. Both my wife and my mistress are vegan and they are hot as fuck. I love the tight, svelt look of a vegan woman.

>>9650577
i had the realization once i figured out something completely horrible.
I noticed the tendency that certain people lie, everyone lies butt this is different, these people lie not wanting to deceive someone, they don't want the other person to think something that is wrong, when they lie they want the other person to know it is a lie but to be unable to say it either because there is a stigma or a lot of fake information or some narrative getting spread around.
This kind of demoralisation, this expression of unjust power gives them pleasure in a way i will never understand, the idea of someone who instead of deriving pleasure from being right derives pleasure from being wrong, i didn't think people could work like that.

>>9650540
Don't lie anon, your 300lbs+ lardass knows nothing about picking cherries, maybe hotdogs.

>>9650617
That looks good as fug

>>9650602
Yes... Go on

What are vegan foods anyway? Is it different from vegetarian? Vegetearians I know have to shit multiple times a day. Is it the with vegans? Is it cost effective on my end? What cant I eat?

If someone agrees to pay for all of my food then I will be a vegan.

>>9648666
just feed insects to cattle

People kill people for petty reasons all the time. We only exercise these concepts of hard morality because we've been afforded it in our luxury. Why does everyone think that if they don't take power, then no one else will? Seems naive, like an excellent way to open up a nice, comfy path of least resistance to the top.

>>9649980
>turning off genes
is there even such a thing

captcha: doctor square

>>9650671
No animal byproducts. So, no milk, cheese, eggs, or (depending on dedication) honey

>>9650674
Show me how an omnivorous diet is cheaper than a vegan diet.

>>9650671
You might have to shit twice a day, but it's the cleanest shit ever. Like, one single ply paper cleanup. The cost effectiveness probably depends on where you live. Produce is super cheap in some places. Rice and beans are a good staple.

>>9650692
You dare question the science in a vegan meme?

>>9650703
Did I say it was cheaper? Pretty sure I did not.

>>9650703
Pretty sure you can get eggs for 2cents per egg if you go full wallmart tier, so that's about 80 cals per 2 cents add some cheapo as fuck veg and you're sorted.

>>9650757
Why would you need someone to pay for all your food then? Who is buying your current food?

>>9649980
Citation needed

>>9650758
You're right. However, those Walmart eggs taste like trash. I totally understand budgeting for food, but I draw the line before Walmart eggs.

>>9650692
There is, but there are a lot of factors that go into what gets 'switched' on and off. Diet is only 1 piece of a very very complex puzzle.

>>9650697
>>9650720
>no milk
Cant do it then. If I get withdrawals and I function a lot worse if I go without it for 2 days.

>>9650763
I am. If you want me to eat the food you want me to eat then you pay for it.

>>9650771
Well we were discussing cheapness not taste I mean I never ate the stuff only heard of it from some college kids on /fit/ but i'm sure you can disguise them with loadsa spices.

>>9650780
What? I don't want you to do anything. You could look into getting EBT benefits for purchasing food if you don't have enough money though. It sucks when you don't have enough to eat.

>>9649980
>total_bullshit.jpg

>>9649980
This isn't true. All it does is restore the telomeres (caps on the ends of your chromosomes) and prevent them from deteriorating.

>>9650809
>All it does
Oh, is that all... Meat causes obesity, cardio-vascular disease, diabetes, gout, chronic inflammation, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol levels... The negative affects go on and on. You think all it does it restore your telomeres? What do you think that leads to you fucking moron? Nothing?

>>9650824
>Meat causes obesity
>Population consume high macros of carbs followed by fat.
interesting.

>>9650824
I'm just going by what I found on Google. I saw nothing about "turning on genes" in any of the papers she wrote. All she talked about was telomeres and telomerase. Please show me where anything besides that jpeg says a vegan diet turns off and on genetic material.

>>9650335
Lil lyin nigglet is back I see

>>9650617
>whipped cream
>vegan

>>9651169
Yes
https://www.thespruce.com/vegan-whipped-cream-1001555

Poorfag here desu
I love rice and beans, pasta and beans, cabbage and lentil soups, etc., but I don't really know any vegan recipes for them (besides minestrone and dal tadka). Do you have any suggestions on what I could use instead of chicken or pork to give a nice, savoury (うまみ) flavour to my bean stews?
Preferably no premade stocks.

>advert
>advert
>advert
>propaganda pisses me off

>>9651878
but for real what's the difference between propaganda and advertisement

both are trying to overtly influence your behaviour
one is for someone else's profit.

>>9648721

At least lurk a little before you shitpost with the most easily refuted arguments known to man.

>>9651886

American life's background noise is adverts, I mind them no more than I do my nearsightedness. Propaganda stands out, it wants me to behave in a certain way and it's giving me reasons to do it as manipulative as any advert but I don't know who really benefits from it and that feels distinctly alien. If it said "paid for by <insert corn or soy lobby here> I would almost immediately feel better about it, it would cease to be propaganda and become an advert once again because I can understand who's thing it wants me to buy.

Stop wanting things from me other than money, it's creepy.

t. America

>>9651989
peddressing but true

>>9648910
It's got the broader implication that there's always more to learn so you can never really "know" anything, and the specific reference to his lecturing style where he would pretend to be completely ignorant and ask you to explain something in increasing detail until you hit a blind assumption or an error of logic.

>>9651989
Animals are the ones that would benefit from it and chances are the ad was paid by people who care about the animal cause.

Although it could also be a stunt from the united tofu makers to take over the world and steal all your freedoms. Good thinking.

>>9652034
>Animals are the ones that would benefit from it

How would they benefit? All farm animals would be killed if everyone went vegan tomorrow.

>>9652112
>All farm animals would be killed if everyone went vegan tomorrow.
I think some people use this argument when people talk about cultured/lab-grown meat, but I don't think it's true. If we stopped eating animals, we would still keep some in petting zoos, or on farms to have a backup supply of their cells and biological information to use for testing or starting a batch of cultured/lab-grown meat. We definitely won't let them go extinct, just their total number will go down, however they'll all be living better lives.

>>9652430
>a lifetime of slavery is better then a lifetime of slavery and getting turned into meat after quick death

Vegan logic. I don't understand who you think is going to fund these petting zoos. Like most liberals, money means nothing to you. If they serve no purpose to man (protip animals will never cease to serve purpose to man even if you grow all the lab meat in the world and thus factory farming industry will never die), they will be culled. You can't rewild them. They're not wild. Aurochs died out 500 years ago. Horses aren't wild. Just about all wild boar and pigeons and junglefowl are escaped rewilded domestics. They should be culled, to protect the native habitat. You don't understand that either though. Too many feelings. Everything you do is about feelings not fact. Not actual environmental protection. Just a meme.

Suffering reduction for non humans is meaningless when we haven't solved suffering for humans yet.

>>9652460
I'm not a vegan or a liberal. People would gladly fund the petting zoos since it's a good informational tool and learning experience for children at least, and people would pay to visit them. The government would still have an interest in funding them too since it would have many benefits not only in safeguarding a food supply but also for education. They'll be treated well in petting zoos or farms if this happens because keeping them happy and healthy will be more important than producing maximum output of animal products.

We can care about the suffering of animals while also working to reduce the suffering of humans too. It's a bit of a fallacy to say that we can't. Everyone has different interests and focuses on different things, if we all just focused on what YOU think is important, plenty of other important things would be ignored.

>>9652472
>People would gladly fund the petting zoos
are you really this delusional?

>>9652477
Not an argument.

I went to a petting zoo multiple times when I was younger. A petting zoo that lets you interact with the animals and then teaches kids about how we started with cultured/lab-grown meat so we don't have to kill them anymore would be awesome.

>>9650474
>Insults me like he knows me on anonymous jack off drawing site
Is there anything more pathetic?

>>9650004
stone crab claws

>>9648342
1.moral is spooks
2.people can be healthy without being vegan

>>9648414
>2017
>Not actually physically dominating a fish
Pathetic

>>9650422
Suffering or not is not quantifiable; it is subjective, based on our judgement. Same with moral, it is spooks.
Your moral standpoint is nothing but subjective viewpoint.

>>9652496
Being a vegan maybe?

>>9648387
why can't the vegan signs be ADVERTISEMENTS for LIFESTYLE CHOICES? either way, none of them are criminal, they're like those billboards asking you to vote a certain way or to dial a number if you need jesus in your life.

>>9648910
You just went full retard.

>>9650386
>you wouldnt be making threads every 3 hours to tell us why you think its OK
Point me to a thread that justifying murdering animals for eating their meat. I'll wait.

>>9650387
Retard, his point is that you understand moral is subjective yet keep asking why it is wrong like it is not subjective at all.

>>9650267
ofc they cant, most food in 3rd world countries is meat and dairy free. Meat is a luxury

>>9651169
What's the obsession with vegans turning non-vegan foods into a vegan alternative and just putting 'vegan' in front of it's name.
'vegan'-burger 'vegan'-pizza 'vegan'-steak.
Sounds to me like these vegan-sites where these recipes are found are just piggybacking on classics because they know they fucking taste good and they can never replicate something as good as the original.
plus these lads have 0 immagination to come up with something original.

>>9648414
is this findom?

>>9648700
>vegan food can be pretty easy to make, but then it's often pretty expensive

Stir fry, rice, pasta, bean, soup and potato dishes are all really ease to make without costing a lot of money.
I know what you're getting at but I think it's mainly an issue if you try to supplement certain things, eg. buying vegan cheese at a store.