/lit/ - Literature

Humanism

veganism is superego chatter and derision

>>10780157
Plants have sentience and respond to stress
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

>>10780168
>>10780170
So, in other words no.

>>10780177
Right that's it, I'm starting No Eat. Who's with me

>>10780177
That's not an argument against veganism unless you complement it by an argument that voluntary extinction through global starvation is a better alternative to eating plants.

>>10780157
Isn't this a literature board?

>>10780157
Eating locally produced meat and dairy from small producers who treat their animals humanely

First and foremost it's a privileged first worlder diet, that alone refutes it.

>>10780157
soyboys

>>10780177
Although this is an indication that plants may have some kind of subjective experience and it is possible that suffering is possible within that experience, we are not at all certain of it. Even if they do possess subjective experience it may be quite different from ours. Until more is discovered, insofar as it is possible to discover such things, ethical veganism has not been undermined.

>>10780157
Yeah its tastes bad and farmlands take away from animal lands

>>10780194
>Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

You're right, but I posted an image of Peter Singer who's book Animal iberation is pretty well known in this subject area.

>>10780189
It absolutely mitigates the vegan's claim to moral superiority. Jains would eat only fruits that had fallen from trees. They would eventually starve themselves out. Jains were authentic. Vegans are just lifestylist virtue signallers.

>>10780197
But aren't most Indians vegan?

>>10780210

No, they are vegetarians, which is a GOAT diet.

>>10780202
How can we be certain that farm animals suffer? We are inferring it competely from its behavior, and possibly from other clinical indications of pain. We are about as sure of animal subjectivity as plant subjectivity. Plants are simply looked at as lower lifeforms even though in many ways they are superior, more beautiful than any other. It is most probable that harvesting and eating plants is just as unethical as factory meat production.

>>10780227
Because lobsters suffer friendo :^)

>>10780194
https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Singer/e/B000AP88PO

>>10780196
an analogy:
>any good arguments against murder?
>"yes, murder without torture"

>>10780206
>It absolutely mitigates the vegan's claim to moral superiority.
Killing a chicken is still worse than killing a fucking cactus.
>Vegans are just lifestylist virtue signallers.
Some of them, probably. But I believe OP meant specifically the ethical claims of veganism so I that's a non sequitur.

>>10780239
>Killing a chicken is still worse than killing a fucking cactus
That is just your opinion

>>10780157
No, veganism is great. I like to rape the plants before I eat them.

>>10780227
We cannot verify any suffering other than our own. The simple point is that plants are distinctive enough from humans and most animals to such an extent that we may treat the hypothesis of plants possessing subjectivity within them as a point to be further investigated rather than outright believed or disbelieved. We are not equally sure of plant subjectivity as we are animal subjectivity. Don;t overstate your case.

>>10780157
morality doesnt exist so who cares lol

>>10780177
I think this is stretching the concept of experience. But even so are you proposing that since there isn't a perfect solution then there is no solution?

what you eat is not that important to change the scenario, because there is no ethical consumption under capitalism

that is, even if you agree with the urgency and necessity of the well being of the animals, eating or not eating animals won't do much

when you simply demand from the provider to provide you with something different ('companies, stop selling meat, farmers, stop producing meat'), that provider is still in power and whatever change that might occur will be hijacked by those who are at the top level

in other words, it's easier for mcdonalds to have some veggie burgers on the menu while using that to continue its expansion and actually killing more animals, than to actually have it shut down

it's easier for vegan restaurants to open because of vegans than to butcheries to close for the same reason

a few years ago there was some extreme imbalance in the price of meat somewhere and it was not worth transporting it, so they just slaughtered some thousands of cows and threw them away, like what sometimes happends with some vegetables

charging people with being vegans is like saying you'll save the world by closing the tap water, while huge corporations and governments water use in industries and farming is close to 95% of the total

it's counterproductive to adopt a individualist strategy, it disguises the problem, one should accept that it's possible that a vegan does more harm than good to his own cause simply by the way he preaches it and it's possible for a non-vegan to fight for animal rights, as contradictory as this may sound at first glance

observe none of this has to do with morality or health, or whether or not it should be done, just that nothing will be done this way

>>10780264
>>10780286
Don't assume that because something is alien that it does not have a right to life. You will kill something to live. There is no way around this. Sentiocentrism is just another form of the same problem.

Farming peactises of local crops require anti pest measures.
Harvesting plants still kills the wildlife.
-The maddox rebuttal

The thought experiment " the pig that wants to be eaten". Implying we cabn get at the subjective menctal states of others

>>10780313
>a right to life.

Spook

>>10780333
>Implying we cabn get at the subjective menctal states of others

That's assinine

>>10780346
>spook

Meme

>>10780354
>meme

Spook

>>10780306
>in other words, it's easier for mcdonalds to have some veggie burgers on the menu while using that to continue its expansion and actually killing more animals, than to actually have it shut down

And if 50% of the population is on plant based diets then why would mcdonalds expand its meat industry?

>>10780358

>>10780157
At this point the only thing keeping me from veganism is /deenz/, they just can't be beat

>>10780375
this fucking cartoon character is our president jesus fucking christ

>>10780390
Yeah...Trump is the problem

>>10780363
because you see, we don't just jump to a vegan world and then wonder why mcdonalds is still around

my point is that when 10% of the people are on a vegetarian diet, mcdonalds will have a veggie burger and that will settle down some vegetarians, not others who will still boycott it and so on, but by the time you get 20% of plant eating people, mcdonalds has already expanded enough that it makes eating meat more popular to counter balance, not because of any particular preferece about it (companies don't care either way, mcdonalds could go full vegan if the market called, but that never will happen), but because it's already on their menu

of course, this is just a little silly example, but the point is that the very position of consumer makes it so that your goals of change are secondary to the profit of those who are already in power (profitting with something you disagree on) and will eventually lose power or get increasingly more lost in its goal

>>10780415
Dude you could have just pointed out how McDonald's serves fish sandwiches during Lent instead of typing all that shit..

show a vegan over 40 who doesn't look like an aids patient

>>10780435

>>10780194
No, where did you get that idea?

Veganism is like castration. It's better for the environment, it's better for your personal health, it greatly reduces the amount of suffering in the world, but you wind up half a man.

It's very inefficient and costly.

>>10780157
Fuck off back to pol.

>>10780446
So how is castration better for the environemtn, personal health and reducing the ammount of suffering?

>>10780157
Yes, the argument of anyone with a basic grasp of how the human body works.

>>10780435
Mike tyson

>. The market research company Mintel reports the non-dairy milk market leapt from 36 million litres in 2011 to 92 million in 2013, making it worth over £150 million.

soy is big business my friends

>>10780470
Meanwhile the actual dairy market is worth trillions

>>10780313
All life has a right to life irrespective of sentience? I completely disagree. I see no reason to believe that. Might as well say water has a right to flow and rocks a right to rest.

>>10780469
He eats human flesh

>>10780545
i'm just saying veganism is simply lifestyle marketing

>>10780157
Meat tastes good. If you want to be a faggy utilitarian: The pleasure I gain from eating meat outweighs the pain the animal suffered from death.

>>10780556
Saying this is not being honest. Some vegans I am sure just complete pieces of shit, just the way you picture them, but we havent meant nearly close to most of them, so you just have a baseless claim to offer when you have no counter argument

I eat meat but fuck

>>10780597
Alright edgelord, leave the moral questions to the big people

>>10780157
>have there ever been any good arguments for veganism?
ftfy

>>10780222
>they are vegetarians, which is a goat diet

You're not wrong.

>>10780626
he just made a moral argument

>>10780626
>soyboys who don't eat meat are "big people"

if peter singer doesn't drive an electric car then i'm going to be fucking pissed

>>10780647

>Vegetarian diets confer protection against cardiovascular diseases, cardiometabolic risk factors, some cancers and total mortality. Compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets, vegan diets seem to offer additional protection for obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes, and cardiovascular mortality. Males experience greater health benefits than females.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871675

>>10780716
Appealing to positivism is not a good argument kid

>>10780716
these studies are always gay shit like comparing someone who eats a two cheeseburgers a night and bacon for breakfast with someone who eats no meat, well of course not eating that will be healthier, they never compare a guy who eats tuna and milk with a vegan who guzzles mountain dew and doritos for some reason

>>10780750

if you actually read through the methodology of the review and the studies it looks at you'll find that's bullshit

>>10780716
>The attitudes towards vegetarianism have gained better acceptance;

can't even go two sentences without biased wording, "better" should be "wider". you wouldn't say the "alt-right has gained better acceptance among white americans" would you?

>>10780227
How do I know that you suffer? I know that I suffer, because I feel it, but the only way I can know that you suffer is from your reactions.

>>10780157
Our eyes are on the front of our heads for imparting depth perception. This is not a physiological feature of herbivores, it is a physiological feature of predatory animals that hunt for portions of their sustenance.

>>10780870
also because human females ovulate year round (most (all?) other primates do not) they are at greater risk of iron deficiency from blood loss without a steady source of meat

i always find it interesting how india has the most vegetarians and vegans but then the most unequal and cruel social organization for humans, kinda sizzles my steaks

>>10780716
Vegans also lack important vitamins and get crazy eyes à la schizos. Their bodies look sick and malformed.
>Males experience greater health benefits than females.
Female fertility decreases on a vegan diet. Many stop menstruating.

>>10780177
>plant feel
>Grug eat human flesh now

>>10780306
>you'll save the world by closing the tap water, while huge corporations and governments water use in industries and farming is close to 95% of the total
I consider myself an environmentalist but this is basically my justification for taking long showers and whatnot. The world is too far gone to start caring on an individual level now

>>10780913
i wonder if the same people pushing veganism are also interested in the population in (some) countries declining? you have to really ask yourself is veganism in MY best interest? it might be in the best interest of a cow or someone who would like to see the birth rate drop but you only have one life, is veganism spooky?

>>10780177
So basically we have to wait until we invent some kind of photosynthesis device for nourishment to truly become 'vegan'

>>10780918
that's why singer is full of shit and i don't pay attention to his arguments no matter how tricky they get, he's always saying that through individual charity we can somehow stop inequality or suffering or something, has he ever advocated for any state intervention even something as simple as raising taxes on the rich and/or spending money on social welfare programs? no, well then he can fuck the fuck off

>>10780926
>implying some uber-SJW in the future won't propose that photons have feelings

>>10780196
Humane meat is an oxymoron. I've never had any problem with "animal cruelty" in slaughterhouses, because they all end up dead anyways.
Now if you wanna talk about cruelty to hens or milk cows or sheep, I can see the value in opposing that. But if an animal is being raised for the slaughter it all seems pretty pointless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRZRUJs9_7g&t=21s

I don't understand how people aren't disgusted by the violence they can't help but desire. Needing the pleasure of a tasty food so badly that you lend your implicit or explicit sanction to e.g. the above video is weak and pathetic.

It's not even a matter of morality, I don't care if eating vegan makes a difference or not, and I generally accept that there's nothing an individual to do. But if you aren't disgusted with your own desire for flesh, you're probably willfully blinding yourself to the violence that goes into it's production. There's nothing more decadent, voluptuary, or unerotic than meat eating. It's unfeminine in women and unmasculine in men.

The strongest argument for veganism isn't moral but aesthetic.

Simply put, meat is disgusting to the point of cosmic horror; carnists can only avoid choking on it through a sort of mass sleepwalking.

To those less brainwashed to human herd sensibilities, even the mildest of meat has a vile animal must, reeks of blood, lymph, pheromones, and a touch of feces/urine. Naturally it's a breeding ground of bacteria and parasites. Anything not fresh out the abattoir is liable to be in some intermediate stage of decay.

Yet these most manifest sensual aspects are nothing compared to the libidinal aspect. Imagine an ample-bellied man smacking his lips as he scarfs down an Arby's sandwich, the dead stinky flesh folded out like an old whore's vagina vagina with syphilitic yellow cheese sauce oozing out; or, if you prefer, a cute-but-just-slightly-plump girl "mmm"ing in pleasure as a big fat phallus of a hotdog has its way with her.

If you asked such people if they loved animals, they would no doubt answer yes, unhesitatingly. Perhaps baby-talking with a dog or cat furnishes their nihilistic lives with some small happiness. But they've seen glimpses of the videos. Cowards, they hide their faces before the truth of what they are--the sunless mausoleums of soft, pink, feeling flesh, writhing and screaming to die; evil that would humble the holocaust, equal only to Lovecraftian horror. It is this foul secret that powers their brains, that makes its home in their thighs or bellies, that moves their lips as they say "I love you" to their lovers, meat on their breaths, before their mutual rape.

You disgusting faggots.

Vegans probably squash cockroaches in their home and swat flies, like hypocrites; they probably wash the demodex from their eyelash or step on ants.

>>10781667
>you can't have pets and eat meat

except humans domesticated dogs to help hunt

>>10781674
wow it's almost as if mammals posses vastly more complex nervous systems

>>10781682
How much complexity until it's wrong?

>>10781682
and it's almost like humans have language and self-consciousness that animals don't, but i should apply the same ethics to humans and chickens, kys

>>10781649
There is nothing inherently wrong with violence.

>>10781682
Are vegans against killing animals or only against killing 'high enough mammals' that coincidentally fit my subjective feeling when it's wrong to kill them?

>>10781681
That's irrelevant in the modern world. Dogs obviously don't serve the same function anymore.

To avoid any misunderstanding, there was nothing wrong with our ancestors eating meat; it's not as if they had a choice. To the extent that hunting made civilization and hence the overcoming of primordial cruelty possible, it's in fact quite glorious. But now there's simply no reason beside pleasure to eat meat.

>>10781674
Okay lets kill all the jews because if we kill flies it's pretty much the same thing right?

>>10781689
I readily agree, but there's something wrong with violence conducted only for carnal pleasure

>>10780157
Eating insects kill less animals than being vegans. So by their logic they should go full insect.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/vegans-obligated-eat-insects-93767

>>10781704
This I think misses the point. The argument for veganism isn't that we should stop lions from hunting in africa because it creates cruelty. Lions need to hunt to survive. However we have the capacity to sustain ourselves without meat. in the first case a lion needs to hunt to survive and in the second we are farm producing animals in horrendous conditions for the sake of cheeseburgers. not to mention the effect it has on the environment.

>>10781687
Just because we can't draw some perfect scientific line in the sand doesn't mean that obvious gradations don't exist.

>>10781688
Of course you shouldn't apply the same ethics to non-human animals. It would be fine, for example, to grow human livers in pigs and harvest them for medical treatment, thought less so for humans. It's just fucked up to eat them for no reason other than our pleasure. Anyway, there's no evidence to support your implicit contention that language/"self-consciousness" (a poorly defined notion from a scientific standpoint) is relevant to capacity to suffer.

>>10781692
I don't know about vegans in general. I'm not against killing per se, merely against useless and preventable pain. It would, to be honest, perhaps be better if many or most animals were killed. The ideal biosphere would consist of as few non-human animals as possible to prevent ecological collapse. Nature is as cruel as animal agriculture. But I think most vegans are sentimental and won't follow their thinking this far.

>>10781711
I feel like you are describing the mentality behind vegetarianism and not veganism. I had the understanding that veganism's goal was to reduce the pain afflicted to animals as much as possible, leading to insectism being superior.

>>10781717
So killing an animal without suffering is okay.

>>10781727
I don't understand the difference. I think even cows used for milk and chickens for eggs are still living in pretty awful conditions. Vegetarianism seems like a comprise to me but still accepts the same premise that vegans do.

>>10781739
It's obviously better to kill as painlessly as possible (though livestock deaths will never, on average, be painless so long as there's no economic benefit for slaughterhouses in preventing pain.) But most of the suffering of livestock takes place during the animal's life, not during its death. What would be far better would be if the animals were never born. Animal agriculture ensures that suffering will be prolonged indefinitely.

>>10780168
>ywn espouse chauvinistic humanism, finding spirituality and meaning in the ritualised human form and existence, dying in a thousand-year battle for brethren from across the stars

>>10780306
>No ethical consumption under capitalism
Where does this meme come from? Even a lot of my normie friends actually beleive it

>>10781695
>Dogs obviously don't serve the same function anymore.
'dogs' never did, that's why there is different breeds. Each breed was developed for a purpose. Hunting a certain type of prey, in a particular environment, for example. Many breeds still do this.

ITT:

>muh humanism
>b-but plants can suffer
>vegans aren't nice. They hurt my feelings
>but muh tasty tasty tendies

>>10781695
>But now there's simply no reason beside pleasure to eat meat.
What of culture and pragmatism?

>>10781765
Just as valid reasoning as pro-veganism.

>>10781755
Is it okay to keep an animal unconcious from birth then kill it off for fun?

>>10781763
I don't know why you're so stuck on this point. I agree that many dogs were bred to hunt. But it's a marginal function in today's world. Most dogs are used for companionship. If you value a dog for companionship (as was implicit in my first post), and don't view it as merely a functional tool for hunting (i.e. 99+% of modern dogs) then it's hypocritical to eat livestock.

>>10780271

t. relativist

>>10781766
>culture
>muh ancestors ate meat, so I need to do as they did for all time
This is just sentimentality. Even if culinary "culture" matters beyond pleasure in the same way literature or art does(debatable), it's not as if your people's entire culinary tradituiion will collapse without meat. Anyway, traditions aren't stable; evolution is part of traditions. Uncritical repetition of tradition spells its death and irrelevance.

>pragmatism
Eating vegan is approximately 0% harder than eating meat, if not easier. Just to excerpt from my own diet, peanuts are nutritious, cheap, and don't need to be cooked. Legumes are absolutely dirt cheap and less fussy to cook than meat. Fruit doesn't need to be cooked. Silken tofu doesn't need to be cooked. Meat is messier, fussier, and more expensive than all of these things, plus you need to worry about undercooking and bacterial contamination a lot more. Meat also goes bad quickly, so you lose flexibility w/r/t when you have to cook.

>>10780597

"Other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things. ... The day has been, I grieve it to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated ... upon the same footing as ... animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?... The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes... "
Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

>>10781588
but anon
we all die

>>10781771
>muh highly improbably thought experiments

also
>kill it for fun

might want to get on some meds senpai

>>10781769
Just look at enough videos of pigs being castrated without anesthesia. Their screams make a pretty articulate argument.

Discussions about vegetarianism should be canonised. I can't think of a better illustration of all the faults of humanity than an argument about eating meat. You can not follow this thread and still believe salvation is a possibility.

Go take a look at vegan or "carnivore" communities online and you'll understand why there is so much suffering in the world; why wars take place; why millions die every year. A public debate on this topic is a microcosm of the entire world, and once you look at it this way, all the pain, anger and hatred in life starts to make sense.

You have two groups of people who bubble themselves into echo chambers to ensure they only hear what they want to hear in order to justify their views. There is no middle position: you're either with or against. People criticise the two-party system but they need to realise it's human nature to think in binary, since people like simplicity.

Once they meet, they present their narrow and biased "proofs" to each other in the most obnoxious way possible. A school psychology student would see this is all an act to resolve their cognitive dissonance. Their internal struggles lead to a frustration which they violently take out on others, verbally and sometimes physically.

I can't even begin to dissect the actual arguments. The scientific illiteracy, the fallacies, the biases are just too many. The whole thing is a crime against reason, logic, and everything else that is supposed to separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

A plague on both your houses!

>>10781838
>*descends from heavenly plane of perfect neutral indifference*

You're the biggest faggot in the thread; nobody asked you.

>>10781846
op did

>>10781846
Imagine you're a teacher in a school for medically retarded children and in your classroom a group of them are fighting over who gets to eat the last crayon. Now imagine trying to explain to them basic nutrition.

I have no time for modesty when this is the world I have to live in day by day.

>>10781838
>Discussions about vegetarianism should be canonised
>canonised (not a word)
>canonized? I guess
>made a saint?

t. posturing retard

>>10781838
broke: carnism
joke: veganism
bespoke: subsisting on nothing but the smell of your own farts

>>10781871
This is further proof that I live among retards. You have access to an online dictionary but you'd rather talk out of your ass.

>>10781882
At least you're funny. The conversation would be more bearable if everyone employed some humour.

>>10781897
You thought it meant "shot out of a cannon," didn't you?

qq pussboy

>>10781897
Still waiting to hear your argument

>>10781808
>emotions are arguments
oh boy

>>10781667
>a cute-but-just-slightly-plump girl "mmm"ing in pleasure as a big fat phallus of a hotdog has its way with her.

I am so turned on right now...

>>10781907
You can't read. It says right there, "placed in the canon". Yes, there is a Biblical Canon, but there are also others. In general, a canon is any collection of works formally accepted to be representative or authoritative. If you can't see past the given, specific definition, you have a poor grasp of language.

>>10781933
How about "needless suffering is bad" ?

>>10780197
>meat is for poor people

Check out "A Critique of the Moral Defense of Vegetarianism" by Andrew Smith. He makes a number of arguments, some of which have already been put forward (plants may not lack a form of sentience, as we have assumed). But one idea that I haven't heard yet is that veganism is impossible, due to the fact that we are embedded in a nutrient cycle along with the plants and animals we consume - a "closed-loop" food system. http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=7685

It's worth noting that this is an argument against typical arguments for veganism, not an argument against veganism/vegetarianism. Not exactly what you asked for, but I thought it was relevant.

>>10781950
It took 126 replies to get a good response lmao

Veganism is just a distraction to keep people's wokeness away from the corrupt capitalist model and instead focused on a smaller equally corrupt system.

Controlled opposition. Wake up SHEEPLE.

>>10781956
>I can't be vegan because I'm too busy larping as a revolutionary for an ideology that in every instance of its application led to pervasive decay of productive capacity up to the point of societal self-cannibalization and mass death

>>10781956
>can't be antifa revolutionary because I'm too busy larping as a revolutionary for an ideology that in every instance of its application led to pervasive decay of animal rights up to the point of societal willful ignorance to the suffering of sentinent beings and mass death of these creatures as well as the widespread illness and poor health of those who eat the flesh.

>>10781808
Their screams make an articulate argument that they are suffering, and would certainly rather not be farmed and killed for our food.

The crux of the argument, though, is yet to be made: a proof that the pig's suffering and the pig's desires matter to the man who intends to eat the pig.

Animal food production is inefficient. It uses excesses of fresh water. If people were vegan more food could be produced and global hunger would decrease. To me this is the best argument for at least a vegetarian diet. Veganism seems to be a niche market which is also inefficient.

>>10781985

See:
>>10781649
>>10781667

Basically, it should matter to him because desiring violence for pleasure degrades him

>>10780157

It's gay

>>10782002
>veganism is inefficient
This doesn't follow. Milk/cheese production are also inefficient, becaause calories and water are lost to animal metabolism. They just aren't AS inefficient. Maybe some forms of high-consumerist Whole Foods luxury veganism are inefficient. But the diet in principle is not.

>>10781972
literally what are you talking about

>>10781667
The strongest argument for veganism is that producing meat is wasteful

>>10782009
The first link is just a restatement of the same claim about pigs, with the same jump in logic. They are suffering from carnism, and we take for granted that it is morally wrong for them to suffer, therefore carnism is morally wrong.

The second is more interesting, but ultimately not very convincing. Yes, from a perspective outside typical normal social norms, eating the dead flesh of animals can be described in a horrifying and disgusting way. But the argument could be applied in just the same way to sex, or to childbirth, or to many other aspects of the world. Surely you wouldn't advocate for abolishing the sewer system after seeing an ugly video of its inner workings?

>>10782014
Well at some point milk and eggs with a high nutrition to resources used ratio would be better for the planet than a purely plant based diet which requires much more resources for the same amount of calories.

>>10782046
Milk and eggs are terribly inefficient, since they require an entire animal to be kept alive to produce them. Still not as inefficient as meat, but surely far worse than plant-based foods.
In the future we may have more techniques for creating "lab-grown protein" of the same sorts found in cow's milk or eggs, and as the world becomes increasingly overpopulated these non-animal based options will necessarily become more popular -- at some point there just won't be enough land left to grow cows for every human.

>>10780157
Its the reason human brains so big, no herbivores are as intelligent as the apex predators and higher level prey animals.

>>10782057
You are not looking at how many people can be fed from eggs vs. plants. To produce as many calories with plants as eggs have you would need to use a lot more land and water. The obvious solution is insect eating but that is difficult to catch on.

>>10780157
Humans are omnivores. This is fact. But keep stunting yourself and taking your supplements while on your moral high ground.

>>10782072
You are misinformed. The energy in eggs doesn't pop out of nowhere, it comes from whatever the chickens eat. While some chicken feed isn't vegetarian, ultimately all the energy comes from plants, so you still need that land and water. Some of this energy is lost making up parts of the chicken that we don't consume, or given off as heat. So we necessarily need more calories in the system to support the chickens than we would need if we consumed the plants directly. This is not controversial.

>>10782070
So what? That's evolutionary history. We needed meat to evolve big brains, so eating meat was all well and good back in the day. But we can get on just fine without it now that we have advanced agriculture.

>>10782072
Insects are less efficient than plants, because they eat plants. It's basic thermodynamics.

>>10782072
The chicken must be fed more calories worth of food than she produces, due to the laws of thermodynamics. Much of this food energy will go towards things like metabolism or muscle mass rather than becoming eggs.

>>10782079
Humans are naturally omnivores, so vegetarianism must be morally wrong and omnivorousness must be morally right.
Humans are naturally long-distance runners, so bicycles must be morally wrong and jogging must be morally right.
Humans are naturally tribal, so inclusiveness of strangers must be morally wrong and racism and nationalism must be morally right.

>>10780157
It’s my culture to eat meat you imperialist.

>>10782087
The chickens eat less plants to produce the calories than humans would eat plants to gain the calories. That is how proteins and fats work

>>10782095
Ahhh thermodynamics do not apply to this! Stop being a retard.

>>10782105
the chickens' digestive systems are capable of turning energy into a greater amount of energy, for free?!
you should harness this phenomenon to build a perpetual motion machine
it will solve human energy problems forever, and save the environment besides thanks to its obsoletion of coal and oil

perpetual motion and infinite free could also be used to turn water and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into carbohydrates like sugars and starches, providing an infinite food source and solving world hunger

>>10781808
Fat acceptance faggots and Soyboys give off similar shrieks when denied what they want.

B 1 2 D E F I C I E N C Y

>>10782134
vitamins

>>10782128
So you're the kind of person who laughs at this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRZRUJs9_7g&t=5s

If you are, sure, fine, as long as you don't delude yourself about your depraved nature.

Has there ever been an argument for Veganism?

>>10782101
Finally a post I can get behind. This thread was shit

Make a way for poor people to afford it before you tell them to do it
To tear down the walls a jericho a pickaxe does more than the mightiest trumpet ever could.

>>10782144
D Y S T O P I A N

>>10782154
>laugh
Nope, I just don't think much of it.
Probably because i'm not a sheltered American suburbanite and actually knew about animal slaughter growing up, as well as actual hunger.

What's funny is seeing limpwristed faggots like yourself get all in a tiff about it and then ignore the fact that none of the animals currently being raised would be alive at all if it weren't for farm demand.
No doubt you're one of the indoctrinated teenage brats who buy into the nonsense about "death is better than living with pain" yet would never actually kys if it comes down to it.

>>10782248
>none of the animals currently being raised would be alive at all if it weren't for farm demand.
I don't see why you think this is a good argument. Let's make a race of slaves and breed them and when people say they slavery is immoral we will say that they wouldn't have existed if we didn't breed them for slavery

>>10782264
>slaves
Sapient human beings.
Try again.

>>10782264
I wholeheartedly agree anon. We should stop sending Aid to Africa. :^)

>>10780239
>Killing a chicken is still worse than killing a fucking cactus.
and killing a human is incomparably worse than killing a chicken, pig, or cow
the line is
human > animal
not
> arbitrary animal > other animals and plants

>>10780157
Meat tastes good.

Also it's natural for animals such as ourselves to eat meat. You wouldn't feed a lion a fucking quinoa and buckwheat bowl of porridge, you fucking plant.

Also this isn't literature-related. Suck my dick btw my dick isn't a plant

>>10780205
> discussion on which food to eat
> philosophy

wow thanks plato of whole foods

4chan has a cooking board, go there you absolute tool

FUCK YOU CHIA SEEDS

>>10782248
Okay first let me dismiss your retarded strawman. I eat meat and always have done. I grew up and worked on a farm in Eastern Europe and we slaughtered animals occasionally. I was circumcised without anaesthesia as a teenager with a pair of scissors. Don't tell me I'm sheltered or limpwristed or indoctrinated.

Now onto your "argument" (let's face it, your entire post is you projecting some fantasy about people you personally know rather than the issues at hand). Raw castration isn't classed as slaughter, it's closer to torture and is unnecessary.

>none of the animals currently being raised would be alive at all if it weren't for farm demand.
So it would be totally ethical for me to raise children to torture them because being alive and in pain is better than being dead?

I can't believe I'm even responding to some try-hard angry teenager with his head up his ass. Grow up you dumb and realise you don't know dick about 99% of the world.

>>10782293
>Meat tastes good.
I don't understand how someone comes into a discussion like this and feels the need to chime in with such banal and repetitive platitudes.

So if torture feels good I am allowed to do it?

Do you honestly think you're original? Your post was less than useless and it made zero impact on the world other than the time I wasted in typing this out.

>>10782301
>I was circumcised
>eastern europe
>comparing eating animals to slavery
>being this jewish

>>10782305
Torture is bad because human beings are sapient.

Now try to explain why cutting up plants that feel stress are somehow worse than eating meat.

>>10782305
Torture is bad because human beings are sapient.

Now try to explain why cutting up plants that feel stress are somehow better than eating meat.

>>10782296
Oh you think this is about cooking? Maybe it's best if you sit this one out grug

>>10780157
Ye: I eat meat because I enjoy it and could not care less what you weak virtue signalers think.

>>10780157
ribs desu followed by chicken wings as spicy hot as possible

>>10781838
>People criticise the two-party system but they need to realise it's human nature to think in binary, since people like simplicity.
Not everybody is American

>>10782195
Retard.

Dried legumes are the cheapest food there is. I'm a poorfag vegan, and I spend less than $100 a month on groceries.

>>10782046
Go to highschool kid. If you do you'll learn about entropy in nature during biology classes. Once you do that you can participate in this discussion. Also underage b&

>>10782305
> le smug vegan meme

Keep it up, pal

>live in cold climate
>can't grow plants through several months of the year
Explain how we're supposed to meet our dietary needs without importing mass-amounts of food across thousands of miles without it spoiling and without polluting the environment and i'll be all ears to hear about your fad diet.
Until then i'll keep eating meat.

Fucking vegans shitting up every single board.
Go fuck yourselves, it's your lifestyle choice but morality does not apply to animals any more than it does to objects. There is literally nothing wrong with eating meat from sustainable sources.

>>10782305
You torture plants.

>>10782402
duhhh im vegan buh buh how can u jus not eat plant from food store ????

Sometimes it's better to just realise that the people you're talking to here could well be children or severely dumb, or both. It's one of the problems with anonymity. So yeah, assume they are retarded 10 year olds, makes it easier to read their posts.

>>10780157
by any chance OP is your hair colour dyed and one side of your head shaved

>>10781667
This is just an expression of your own neuroticism, not an inherent property of eating animals. “Cosmic horror” is just an expression of your own overdeveloped and egotistical fear of death.

My only issue with veganism is the rationalization comes after the decision to become vegan, for most people.

If it became evident that incorporating meat into your diet was the best possible thing to do for the planet, they still wouldn't be able to because they are too disgusted/afraid of eating flesh because they attach their subjective experience of consciousness to other beings.

It has nothing to do with doing the right thing, but rather preventing their own feeling of disgust.

It's not natural and the only reason we have brains developed enough to come up with this absurd notion of veganism (among other things) in the first place is because we're actually opportunistic omnivores that are specialized in capitalizing and exploiting all the food sources in any area we find ourselves in. Carnivorous have more developed brains than herbivores on the average, if not altogether and even though we're not exclusively carnivores, we're no exception. I can understand having a strong objection to horrible battery farming and even support that objection but arbitrarily limiting your diet to one food group over another is complete nonsense based on sentimentality, egotism and I believe a certain amount of pessimism and makes about as much sense as something like natalisim when you really get down to it. Just absurd.

It's funny to think about vegans during a famine, I'm sure they'd hesitantly take up cannibalism like everyone else to deal with the severe feelings of hunger.

beings who are actually and potentially incapable of moral considerations have no moral status.

this doesn't apply to retards or babies because they are potentially capable of moral considerations, by their human nature, given the right time/conditions. Animals by their nature can't even in theory.

Chickens would utterly annihilate mankind if mankind was the size of worms, think about it. Cows would eat you if your skin was leafy. Animals don't deserve moral consideration, but we give them some simply because they appear sentient. But we actually owe them none.

Aliens are another topic.

>>10780157
Cheeseburgs taste tastier than salads.

>>10782562
>Given enough time, a retard can be capable of moral consideration

>>by their human nature
Arbitrary and ill-defined. Go more specific and realize that what you actually meant to say was "because they have the kind of brain that supports conscious thought to a degree that makes moral consideration possible". Now you got rid of the human-condition and might as well apply it to other intelligent animals.

>>10782357
>lives in the northern hemisphere
>claims to be poor
Neck yourself

>>10782402

Food preservation doesn't just apply to meat? I also live in a cold climate, and if you don't want to import, there's always canning, growing starchy root vegetables, etc etc...

>>10782615
>muh biological reductionism
animals don't have souls, even if they had big fancy brains they'd still be morally retarded

>>10782615
>arbitrary
It's not arbitrary. Humans as a species are, in principle, able to make moral considerations, even if outliers exist, they still belong to the same class by nature.
Just like heterosexual marriage is procreative in principle, even if some outliers exist (celibate/infertile couples). While homosexual marriage is not in principle procreative. We can't ascribe moral worth to a category/species of beings that are incapable of ever making moral considerations.

>ill defined
human nature is well defined biologically, we aren't fish or insects, we don't have tree nature, etc.
animals have no moral status. It's not about intelligence per se. We might meet super intelligent Zerg aliens who have higher technology than us but have no moral compass at all.
We aren't obliged to give moral worth to things that have no moral agency in principle.

animals have some moral worth, since they are creations of God and God saw that they are good. So we shouldn't treat them poorly. We are their stewards and owners. We named them. Using them as nourishment is actually showing them great respect, their lives are going to fuel something much higher than themselves.

>>10780157
>Has there ever been any good arguments against veganism?
Five minutes in the company of an actual vegan.

>>10780194
There is no conversation that vegans won't derail to talk about veganism. It's literally their only topic.

>>10782558
We aren’t currently in a famine though, so that’s a moot point. It’s like saying “bro, carnists would only eat veggies if all the meat industry died off xD”

>>10780157
Meat tastes good.

Veganism is an ideological disruption of the food chain. Humans and our ancestors have been omnivores for millions of years. If humanity opted out of eating meat/dairy, we would drive cattle and other domesticated livestock to extinction. Without hunting, populations like deer and some fish would go uncontrolled and wreak havoc on their natural habit. There's an ideological delusion about making the world better by "reducing suffering" or whatever disconnected ethical rationalization, when really the balance of ecosystems rely on predators, humans included.

I think it's reasonable to say that we consume meat beyond what's necessary and in a way that veers into environmental irresponsibility, but vegans want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

>>10783502
to be fair to vegans, if you buy their basic premise, which I see as being at least somewhat coherent, then there are basically dozens of Holocausts going on right now that nobody cares about at all.

>>10780454
eunuchs live longer, test is hard on the body. the rest i assume is extrapolated out of population reduction

>>10780177
literal quackery
there's nothing there to suggest sentience

>>10783850
well there wouldn't be would there. There is nothing to suggest sentience in animals or even other humans

Tell me if im tripping but isn't veganism built on a logical contradiction?

Doesn't veganism assume that animal life, regardless of other factors, is a net positive? That would imply that breeding animals(even if they are only bred to be killed) is also a net positive.

I personally don't consider animal suffering to be of importance. But even if you do, veganism built on a stupid premise.

i will give a fuck about animals the day that animals give a fuck about me.
life is suffering, get good scrubs

>>10783807
>reducing suffering = ideological delusion
Eh, whatever, buddy.

>ecosystems rely on predators, humans included
Does that apply to ecosystems without humans? Would the zebra or tortoise population wreak havoc if humans didnt drive them to extinction?
Also, talking about balance of ecosystems, wouldnt the pray population simply adjust to the lack of human hunters?

>If humanity opted out of eating meat/dairy, we would drive cattle and other domesticated livestock to extinction
Gee, its almost like they wouldnt exist in the first place if humans didnt breed them. Youre basically saying
>If I stop buying cheap clothes, all the little chinese kids will lose their jobs!
See, thats the problem. These kids shouldnt be working in the first place.

>>10783874
>These kids shouldn't be working in the first place.
if the kids don't work the families will starve.
>wouldnt the pray population simply adjust to the lack of human hunters?
first of all, it's prey
secondly, when a prey population lacks predators to keep them in check their number will generally increase rapidly until they surpass the carrying capacity of their environment and a huge number of the starve to death. Not to mention the knock on effects that excessive consumption of the prey population's food source can cause.

if your goal is reducing suffering then you should know that farming techniques all kill small animals and wreck their environments. The equation you should be working on is weighing the suffering of your own hungerpains against the amount of catastrophe you are causing for fieldmice and gophers etc. If you eat above absolute starvation levels you are contributing to excessive suffering and have legitimate claim to moral cleanliness.

>>10783867
Sounds like a straw man to me

>>10783976
yeah man i might be missing the point.

>>10783874
>Eh, whatever, buddy.
Your existence begets the suffering of others, vegan or not.
>Does that apply to ecosystems without humans?
There really aren't any. Even one's that have minor/no direct human contact have issues with invasive species, climate change and pollution as a result of us.
>Also, talking about balance of ecosystems, wouldnt the pray population simply adjust to the lack of human hunters?
How exactly? Reduced predators leads to overpopulation which leads to lots of potential dangers for entire ecoystems, like mass starvation and even extinction.
>Gee, its almost like they wouldnt exist in the first place if humans didnt breed them. Youre basically saying
Yes, but you're missing the point. Cattle/livestock are part of a larger food chain/ecosystem that is at risk if we completely take them out of it. See above. And we can still raise cattle/chickens "ethically" for dairy/eggs, as we have for thousands of years.
>>If I stop buying cheap clothes, all the little chinese kids will lose their jobs!
Who are you quoting?
>See, thats the problem. These kids shouldnt be working in the first place.
That's another dumb, reductionist "moral high ground" argument. If these kids are in impoverished environments without access to education, and can work under safe conditions, what else are they supposed to do until adulthood? You're depriving them of an opportunity to help support their family where they have few opportunities. I agree that it's unfair and frustrating, but simply outlawing child labor, instead of regulating it and imposing safety measures, forces it to become a dangerous underground economy.