He's actually been the focus currently in my ethics class and it seems to me that he basically just takes utilitarianism to its logical extreme.
That its our job to worry about the feelings and well being of every current living thing on earth, and that we as first world nations should throw our lot in with the third world nations because preferential feelings is racist.
His whole argument for never eating animals hinges on the idea that preferential treatment of any species is speciesism, which is equivalent to racism and sexism, which is bad.
This fallacy of begging the question about any ism being bad cannot be addressed because to do so is to go against the orthodoxy of the 21st century. If you don't accept that premise though then he doesn't actually have any argument.
>>7329135 Fun fact: I buy ethical meat. I buy locat meat from the butcher. So yes, it does. A cow is shot in the head, and dies. There is no excess pain to be suffered when animals are being killed. Others get bolted through the head. Stop implying there's no nuance in the killing of animals. Some of it is done in a good manner, others are not. If anything, don't be a vegan and only buy ethical meat to support the business of slaughtering properly. Being a vegan is being a useless null-factor in how animals will be killed.
>>7329135 >If you don't want to die of cancer or heart failure then you'd better stop eating animal products Also completely false, and no support from any sort of science but the falsely reported "meat causes cancer" media-hype articles.
What I never understood about animal rights movement is: why does nobody give a fuck about insects?
Everytime you walk/drive outdoors you run the risk of murdering multiple insects. If a person runs over a dog they feel sad, but when 10 bugs get splattered on their windshield, they just ignore it and wipe their windshield.
>>7329276 From what I've seen, most of the focus is on farm animals/exotic animals. Isn't it hypocritical of calling yourself an animal rights activist and at the same time being selective on WHO is more important to protect?
Animal liberators grant exceptions to fish and insects (since they grudgingly admit that human life forms need some form of previously conscious flesh in their body to be healthy) because they have a lower form of consciousness than farm animals and other living things. This hinges on the possibility that fish and insects don't have the nerve endings to experience pain as other animals do, however, its self-evident that insects and fish wish to preserve their life the same as other animals do so they're actually making the same sort of speciest divisions that meat eaters do just with a pushed back goal post of standards.
>>7328956 But I am, OP. And I have read Singer's book, amazingly, in a graduate level Literature course focused on animal-based literature and its influences.
I'm mostly vegan, I just have a weakness for pizza sometimes. If factory farming wasn't a thing, I wouldn't be nearly as bothered by the practice. I just don't think the satisfaction of eating meat is worth the suffering and enormous strain on our environment (which is predicted to have bad repercussions in a couple of decades).
>>7329030 Just so you know, cage free eggs is a bullshit term akin to "natural." They're as miserable, just with slightly different housing.
>>7328956 I am actually. Never tried to convert anyone or even started myself a debate about it, on the contrary, carnivores always appear shocked when I say I'm a vegetarian after being asked if I am because they see I don't touch meat, and then they start to lecture me about the "hierarchy in nature" and that eating meat is the purpose of life. My retarded workmates bother me with their le very funny jokes like "lol anon why won't you come and eat a dead cow mooo mooo XDXDXDXD".
>>7329328 >and then they start to lecture me about the "hierarchy in nature" and that eating meat is the purpose of life. My retarded workmates bother me with their le very funny jokes like "lol anon why won't you come and eat a dead cow mooo mooo XDXDXDXD".
>>7329320 Shit, yeah, I'm so tired of people throwing the same five arguments at me. Typically it's just me saying, "oh, no thank you, I don't eat meat" which turns into getting badgered as if I'm offending that person's moral code by refusing meat. Lots of people throw the "loud and self-righteous vegans" title around, but I don't preach at people yet get shit for it anyway.
>>7329340 I don't know any vegans/vegetarians in person, and those around me are very stupid, and they are pissed at animal rights activity they see on social networks telling them what to eat so they need to say "umnumnum meat is so good fuck you".
>>7329327 So then all life below our degree is negligible? And what is the difference between an insect and a rodent? Both are small "unwanted" lifeforms. Its not impossible to not kill insects, it just wouldn't be convenient never using a car and carefully walking everywhere.
>>7329345 Saying that humans can rise above nature is complete and utter bullshit, because everything humans do is a part of nature because WE are part of nature.
You need to try harder with your criticism faggot. Just because something humans do is unprecedented(i.e civilization and space-travel), doesn't mean it's "unnatural".
It's as natural for humans to eat meat as it is for a fucking lion. We have eaten meat for millennia, and just because a bunch of hippie tree loving faggots like you find out that you want to eat the grass that the cow eats instead of the cow, changes literally nothing.
>>7329328 >>7329340 Oh you are fucking wrong. Different veg-anon. Even my friends have Moo'd while eating their burgers in front of me. Here's the thing, if vegetarians/vegans are all loud and forceful assholes, no one would actually do that for fear we'd start lecturing. I get it because I don't actually vocalize that I find it disgusting and disrespectful.
>>7329351 >Lots of people throw the "loud and self-righteous vegans" title around I never got this. 90% of the time when discussion arises about meat-eating it's never a vegan or vegetarian starting it. Meat-eaters for some reason feel personally attacked by the fact that I believe eating meat is a poor decision, when in fact all I'm doing is defending my point of view.
>>7329356 It's been sixteen years too late for me then.
I think it honestly goes back to hunter and gatherer bullshit ingrained in mankind. Or for a /lit/ example, in Lord of the Flies, Simon handing over his meat to Piggy and Jack being highly insulted that Simon didn't appreciate his kill and the meat he supplied.
>>7329358 >because everything humans do is a part of nature Are you stupid or something lol I'm not even the guy you were arguing with either, I just stopped reading your dumb ass post immediately after that
>>7329362 I feel anonymously bonded to you via experience. I hope you have it better than me, none of my friends are veg. Some have said they'd like to but it's just "too hard." One of them gave me shit for purchasing a blush compact that didn't have a "no animal testing" image on it. Bitch, please.
>>7329374 >Animals needlessly suffer in a system that's barely a century old >We don't have to eat meat to survive, most of the world's healthiest cultures eat very little meat >On average, in most ways people who are vegetarian tend to be healthier than non-veg.
I mean, I find the entire system horrifying and barbaric and I wish people would take ownership in their participation in it... but I'm not one to think that preaching on high changes people. I'm far too agnostic to shove sanctimonious shit at people and expect it to change anything.
>>7329387 [source needed] [source needed] [source needed] No popscience junk articles, please. Sourced studies. Animals do not needlessly suffer, but if this is the case, it should change. I am talking about the meat I buy, which I make sure are killed humanely.
>>7328956 Because I am. Trying to slowly become vegan after reading that book but it's hard when my diet is mostly quorn products
No, I never mention it to people unless they're about to feed me meat.
When I do, people tend to probe me with a hundred passive-aggressive questions. I'm never the one to start that debate.
>>7329328 This is very true. People tend to see the diet as an indirect moral criticism of them and they go into defense mode. I've never met a vegetarian or vegan who pushed his or her beliefs on others, though I don't doubt they exist. If I would ever try to sell vegetarianism to someone, I wouldn't focus on any moralistic aspect because ultimately it's redundant and people will not change their diet for moral reasons. They won't do anything for moral reasons.
The biggest reason to go veggie is to curb your environmental impact. The agricultural industry is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases and if everyone stopped eating meat we would not even be considering the idea of global warming.
Aside from that it's generally a healthier diet if you do it right.
>>7329410 "I didn't experience these people, therefore the chance of them existing is probably quite small" Grow some braincells if ya will, thanks. If I'd go to a house of a vegan, I wouldn't expect them to serve me meat. If a vegan comes to my house, they do expect to eat only vegan.
>>7329403 You legitimately go out of your way to get local/humane meat? If so, good job.
I've learned in the past it's not worth my time to look up articles because despite how legitimate the study, people who are straight up pissed about vegetarians in general will always find something "wrong" about it. If you look at the average meat eating American vs the average vegetarian, try to tell me who tends to be more healthy. That's just straight up logic.
For the environment, the US government just funded a huge study on it and the results came out this year if memory serves.
>>7329416 Actually, I and my friends do a cooking night each month. Most of my friends will always have something vegan for me, or if they can't manage it for a main dish, they'll let me know so I can bring something to go along with salad. When I cook, I do cook vegan sometimes with their consent, but I'll cook meat for them as well. It's their decisions.
>>7329423 Ah right, probably means the studies are indeed faulty in some aspect. If not, post them here. I'm sure the oh so well studied things that you mentioned in your post are very clear and concise. Just because the average american compared to the average vegetarian is healthier, does not mean you found any causation. It might correlate, but that's about it. Again it is evident that you do not fully understand how logic works.
>>7329430 I never said that humans can't do astounding things. The point is that writing a book or building a rocket is natural when you are human, just like natural means killing a gazelle for a lion.
Separating humans in to a category for themselves "outside" of nature, makes zero sense at all.
>>7329435 I don't deny that. But as a whole, they tend to be healthier. The young vegetarians aren't typically decent at handling cooking yet. I did a lot of grilled cheese my first couple of years. Now I have a garden and eat mostly veg.
Averages are how we even have statistics, how do averages not matter?
>>7329416 I was sharing my anecdotal experience, not making a claim. I'm just suggesting that the amount who are dicks is greatly exaggerated because, like I said, some people see the diet as a personal attack on them and some of that perceived dickishness might be illusory.
>If I'd go to a house of a vegan, I wouldn't expect them to serve me meat. If a vegan comes to my house, they do expect to eat only vegan.
Yes, because you are not abstaining from plant based foods, so why would they think you had any objection? Peter Singer actually accommodates others and occasionally dips into dairy when he's in company, which I think is a fair minded thing to do. Removing meat from a meal is simple and really no fuss. Besides, if you don't want to eat/cook vegan then don't invite them or accept invitations. No-one is trying to dictate your diet. You make your own decisions.
>>7329432 Hmm possibly, but it's also something people can relate to themselves. Animals might suffer, but as long as we don't see it, we really don't care. We don't see meat as the flesh of an animal; we see it as a neatly packaged food-product. Global warming can and has had devastating effects on humans, so it's something more tangible for people to grasp onto.
>>7329456 >Hmm possibly, but it's also something people can relate to themselves. Animals might suffer, but as long as we don't see it, we really don't care. We don't see meat as the flesh of an animal; we see it as a neatly packaged food-product. Global warming can and has had devastating effects on humans, so it's something more tangible for people to grasp onto.
I don't agree with that at all. I think part of the reason there even exists skeptics of global warming is precisely the reason they are not affected by it, just like when they go to the store and buy a steak and they don't see the process it took to get it there.
>>7329447 Tell me how factory farms follow the "natural" order then? They're anything but natural. I never said they were entirely outside of nature... if anything, from my perspective, man's goal should be to excel beyond base desire.
>>7329456 Rather generalizing to say "People tend to.." but if it was only what you mentioned it to be, fine. Vegetarian health isn't healthier, at all, as a regular well-rounded balanced diet is quite a lot healthier than sitting on your ass all day eating pizza's and vegan-chocolates day in day out.
I know you can just as easily point out a study that says the opposite of that.
My main point is that even if it was definitive that all vegans die 5 years younger from eating like this, I'm fine with it because I would have spent decades not adding to the torture and death of thousands of animals just to feed me. It's as simple as that.
>>7329484 Why don't we take it to the next logical step and see Oryx and Crake essentially become the reality of the meat industry. I mean, you can go to all levels of horror if morality or ethics don't eventually step in.
>>7329488 Indeed, you add to nothing. Whereas people supporting and buying local & properly butchered animals, support the humane killing of animals, rather than sitting on a fence shouting (or keeping silent) about how bad it is that this is happening.
>>7329491 Yeah, seeing videos of chicks flung into the grinder and calves dying, in some cases, only because the forced separation from their mothers is devastating for herd animals. It makes it hard to not go fully vegan. I've struggled lately because I'm having a shitty time with my job and it's difficult to find good grocery access where I am, so when I eat dairy here and there I feel like utter shit for it.
>>7329500 Well thanks. I complimented you for making a humane decision in your meat purchases and I'm essentially trash. How are you making a bigger impact on factory farming than I am? Either way, we aren't giving them money.
>>7329493 The only possible solution as far as I see it, is that we manage to grow meat in a laboratory, and thus don't need to kill animals to get it, which would be fine, and I would support something like that.
But until that day, I don't think it's possible to convince enough people to change their meat diets in order for it to have a societal impact.
>>7329503 >"According to Mercy for Animals, male chicks are of no use to the industry because they can't lay eggs and don't grow large or quickly enough to be raised profitably for meat. That results in the killing of 200 million male chicks a year."
There are many conflicting studies, but the majority that I have seen suggest that a vegetarian diet is generally healthier, at least marginally. This is largely because of red meat, which has been shown time and time again to be very bad for us. I'm sure a person could eat white meats/fish and be just as healthy as a vegetarian. But either way, you have to judge each case of it's merits, vegetarian or herbivore.
>>7329513 Oh jolly, how nice of you. Thank you so much. You are not giving them money, therefor never influencing the meat business as you become a null factor and remove yourself from the equation. You are in neither support of ethical slaughter, or unethical, at least if you do hold a difference regarding these two ways of killing it will not show in your groceries. >>7329523 Vegetarians are often people who care about their health, thus usually exercise more, are less prone to be couch-potatoes, etc, etc. Nearly everyone eats meat, thus the chance of having a bunch of fat beer-drinking meateaters that are unhealthy (duh) is purely correlation. It doesn't say anything about the diet itself. Red meat isn't bad either, if you are assuming this from the recent study, it was clearly faulty as the group was way too small to be decisive. On top of this the meat eaters ate A LOT of meat.
>>7329515 Strictly enforced regulations for animal raising is the best chance. But, at least in the US, politicians are owned by corporations so that shit isn't going to happen.
>>7329516 Yeah, what a way to spend your 1-2 days of life. I don't know how people can pick up and throw animals at a grinder all day and not lose it. I know people get desensitized, but damn.
There's a Sanderson Farms one city over from me. I was getting hand/wrist therapy once and one of the workers was there because he basically fractured his hand from breaking necks and breaking down corpses all day.
>>7329529 WTF is your logic. I once was a buyer, then I quit. The youth in parts of Europe like Germany are becoming vegetarians at a high rate lately. That's like saying none of them make an impact for suddenly not buying meat anymore. No, but if they bought humane meat, THAT would make an impact... Your logic is seriously off here. Regardless, a fuck all ton of people would have to stop buying factory farmed meat to actually cause any changes. It would require a huge number of people making enough of an outcry for politicians to step in or the industry would have to be losing so much money to be desperate enough to stop using a cheap efficient method.
>>7329529 >Vegetarians are often people who care about their health, thus usually exercise more, are less prone to be couch-potatoes, etc, etc.
Yeah, I'm not buying this. You're saying that a lot of vegetarians are vegetarian for health reasons, but the only reason they are healthier is because they exercise. Unless you've got a source, this was pulled out of your ass.
By the way, this "study" was one in many that have proved the same thing. The human colon is not designed to store meat, and residual meat actually stays there for several weeks, sometimes months at a time. We are not evolved to eat meat on such a constant basis. It is a biological observation, not something learned from a few individuals.
>>7329303 Why wouldn't they be morally relevant? You just said the reason we can preference ourselves over animals is because they can't reason. If that's the only factor why wouldn't you apply it to humans who couldn't reason?
>>7329546 It needs to just go up in price too offset using more ethical practices. If the western world didn't shove huge amounts of meat down their throats all day, they could just treat it like a fancy delicacy that they just buy sometimes, like some expensive scotch.
I would never presume that prohibition would work in this case.
>>7329557 Yeah people can debate about heart problems and diabetes and shit, but colon cancer is pretty well tied into meat consumption. My own grandfather was a hell of a meat eater and died of colon cancer.
Again, vegetarians can still get colon cancer, omnivores can still not get colon cancer, but I'm talking averages again. It's like lung cancer and smoking.
>>7329571 The health aspect isn't really one I'm particularly worried about to be honest family. It's just my go-to benefit when I try to convince people to go vegetarian. Failing that I just spam their facebook profile with photographs of slaughterhouses.
>>7329577 It's pretty much the same for me. To have a somewhat "Buddhist" view on oneself and other living beings is so damn alien to most westerners. No, eat this meat, joke about the dead animal, feel like the mightiest being on the planet with God's support to do heinous shit.
Do vegans own dogs? Or is it immoral to own an animal which must be fed by some sort of industrial slaughter to support the amount of domestic dogs which exist? They don't force their morality on an animal which has a radically different biology do they?
>>7329686 Dogs are pretty good at mediating themselves if they have sufficient freedom, love, and exercise space. When you confine them inside and coop them up or stay away from home for very long periods of time is usually when they begin overeating.
>>7329667 Dog's can function perfectly well on a vegan diet, I would however think it moral to completely eradicate the species from the planet if it would raise overall well-being.
I accept the principle of hedonist utilitarianism and deal the conclusions it leads me to. There are, however, certain actions such a framework demands of me that I might not be able to carry out myself.
>>7329626 My cats still eat regular cat food. One has dietary issues, a very touchy stomach, so they're on a special dry food. I'd like to eventually convert to humanely raised raw meat, but my vet tech friends say they see a lot of complications coming from that.
I'm not going to make my cats go vegan until there's an absolutely healthy way to do it... they're omnivores who are heavy on the meat side... I'm not going to feed them against nature, but I don't want to buy food from factory farmed animals to feed them.
If the animal liberation movement were to succeed, who would be paying for the euthanizing of every farm animal? Naturally nobody would pay for the animals food/water, nor would nature be able to sustain such unnaturally large populations, but the other option of killing them is extremely expensive. Do they have any doctrines on this?
>>7330272 Do they just expect every person to suddenly stop eating meat? Don't they realise how futile that is? How do they expect to hold the attention of the entire population when around 99% of those sympathetic to their cause will stop at improved conditions for farmed animals? Honestly the only way it would work out is through violent revolution and subsequent legislation.
Did you see that no one expects it happen over night?
What part of my post leads you to believe that I think any change will be sudden?
I'm not even a vegetarian, I was just giving you the answer to your dumb ass question. When your dumb ass question is answered, don't immediately follow it without an ever dumber question without reading the answer to your first.
>>7330293 >Did you read my fucking post? yes >Did you see the word gradual? yes >Did you see that no one expects it happen over night? yes >What part of my post leads you to believe that I think any change will be sudden? Sudden as in over a few lifetimes.
>>7330287 >I drink 2 gallons of skim milk a week, and I've never broken a bone because I have calcium like woah. Hahaha oh my. Hey, I have this rock that keeps tigers away, for as long as I've had this rock I've never seen a tiger. I'll sell it to you real cheap.
>>7328956 Because I don't believe in morality for the sake of morality. Peter Singer seems to think he's an insightful thinker because he points out that some things are "immoral" by a set of rules that exist nowhere but in his mind.
>>7329464 Why not? Because it disagrees with your preconceived notions?
The fact of the matter is, the more people there are, the more harm that's done to the planet. It doesn't matter if you eat meat. It doesn't matter if you are vegetarian. It doesn't matter if you're the strictest form of vegan and only eat synthetically-produced nutrient pills and water. The problem is not what you eat: it's the species producing and consuming it all.
>>7330752 He says cattle graze on native pasture for 70% of their food and he mentions kangaroos as sustainable in a similar way. That ignores every other animal we eat and the grain required to feed them. I don't know what the stats are for pigs, chickens, ducks, etc., not necessarily disagreeing with the overall message, but interesting he cherry-picked cattle.
Also, fruit and vegetable farming could be innovated in a way that protected mice and insects from getting killed in the process. There's no way to reform the production of meat so that no animals are killed in the process. (Except lab-grown meat which vegans would be fine with anyway)
The guy's overall argument might make sense from a utilitarian perspective, but if you're interested in the morality of individual acts, defending your food from mice and factory farming cattle are worlds apart. Farming cattle is an active act of aggression against a sentient being that hasn't harmed or threatened us in any way.
(We should defend our food from mice in a way that minimizes harm, though, and I hope we move in that direction.)
>>7328956 Plants respond to environmental influences, attempt to avoid damage, and try through their mechanisms to survive. Why is okay to slaughter and consume them? Just because they are sufficiently alien?
I want to kill and eat everyone in this thread, and despite being a hunter and enthusiastic eater of meat, I'd start with the meat eaters for failing to defend such a patently defensible position, on which rests the foundations of hierarchical society.
>>7330904 Oh the one about how Singer's positions rest on a contemporary orthodoxy of anti-discrimination (in the most general sense of the word) that people are afraid to call into question? If that's you, then good job.
>>7330924 Have fun with the massive societal shaming that will follow such a choice of anyone sees or finds out. Morality (and arguably ethics) are just an overgrown social intelligence geared to survival and reproduction. People are gonna feel threatened by someone who values anything over their own lives.
>>7330961 Your own satisfaction, tempered with the wisdom not to do things that will invite negative consequences later. if you don't enjoy anything, you'll kill yourself, and if you'rebtoo much of a psycho or retard to think through consequences, you'll get killed, so this works for most people.
Because utilitarian ethics make little sense to me. Because meat is healthy. Because I care little about how much a pig suffers. Because I eat high quality meat which tastes superb. Because I'm not religious.
>>7330968 That's nice. Doesn't change anything I said though, since it was all about how other people perceive you.
If all you care about is preserving as much unconditional love for yourself as possible (a dog can't love everyone), have at it, but that seems futile. Cultivated, conditional bonds between humans are more complicated and painful, but also more valuable.
The amount of enjoyment I take from eating meat compared to the impact of suffering reduction (i.e. zero because supermarkets will buy just as much meat if just 1 person stops consuming it) that'd come from me stopping eating meat actually makes it unethical from a utilitarian point of view for me to stop eating meat
list of anti-vegan/vegetarian arguments ITT that in the form they take would also make killing people ok >there is no morality >morality is subjective >I care more about my own interests >'isms' are fine
>>7331130 we essentially kill people every day by acts of omission so you and I both care more about our own interests than that. The difference being that I am not directly killing people in the same way I am not directly killing animals
>>7331136 If it makes killing animals ok why wouldn't it make killing humans ok? And also what would be the basis for the ism? Is it arbitrary, or are there other reasons to prefer one group over another?
>>7331142 you're putting the cart before the horse lad the argument was that Singer argues that eating animals is speciesism which is necessarily bad because we have arbitrarily decided all isms are bad
>>7331145 It's not saying all isms are bad, it's saying arbitrary isms are bad. That's why the mental illness analogy is important. Once you've gotten rid of a potential justification for speciesism ('animals aren't as smart/rational') you're only left with the difference of species and that on its own can't justify discriminatory treatment
I am a vegetarian almost entirely because people who dislike vegetarianism are so fucking stupid it's obnoxious.
Like, fine, eat the goddamn meat, no one cares, just please stop sincerely using appeal to nature fallacies, and implicitly packing the presumption that humans are too high up on some spooky gradient of eat-ability to eat into your arguments.
>I eat meat because HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A COW MAKE A PAINTING?? I DIDN'T THINK SO! NO PAINTINGS, NO NOT GETTING EATEN! >I eat meat because it's NATURAL, man! Look, look at my teeth! These teeth were designed to masticate processed cheese slices! I must obey the cosmic toothlaw, the only moral imperative yet proved to exist!
The former argument implies that the qualification for "not deserving to suffer" is some specious, vague, creepy list of notable behaviours, always with zero justification. "Uh well I have theory of mind, so my being flayed into steaks is wrong, but that monkey can't figure out that the other monkey has also seen the banana, so I'm gonna eat both of them and then the banana."
I don't fucking care if you eat every monkey on earth, just stop saying retarded things before and after you do it. Just eat the fucking monkey and stop making remedial logic errors or I'll fucking eat you.
>>7331245 neither does not murdering children, that is their point
let me help you
>person A: well we've tried all weekend but i don't think we're gonna bridge the is-ought gap and create objective morality >person B: yup that's true, so should we just start axe-murdering old ladies and raping everything? >person A: nah even if we can't prove it, i still have this weird feeling we should frown on being cruel monsters >person B: yeah you're right, me too >person A: i guess we shouldn't murder animals to turn them into hats either right >person B: UH EXCUSE ME THERE'S NO LOGICAL BASIS FOR THAT CAN YOU PROVE THAT USING CALCULUS LOL YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE AN OBJECTIVE COMMANDMENT FROM THE TETRAGRAMMATON TO BACK THAT UP >person A: b-but we just agreed that there is no objective basis for ANY morality but that we're going to try to be nice guys regardl-- >person B: I DON'T HEAR RIGOROUS PROOFS!!! WHERE ARE THE PROOFS????
person A is just being more consistent.
take a hypothetical person C, who just subscribes to "i'll do whatever the fuck i feel like, all the time." he is also being consistent, so he's on par with A. you might dislike him, but you at least can't argue that he's inconsistent or disingenuous.
the problem with person B is that he's claiming to have the nice guy points and moral upstandingness of person A, for having quasi-moral standards, but then he also wants to turn around and act like person C when it's convenient. again, nothing wrong with being C as long as you're honest about it.
this guy >>7331162 is perfectly honest. he says he has those quasi-moral inklings, possibly, but that they are drowned out by pragmatism and ultimately he aligns with person C, even if begrudgingly. the B's in this thread are the ones demanding proof of Intersubjective Rules of Niceness to Animals, but then tacitly accepting equally proofless Intersubjective Rules of Niceness to Humans. whatever your moral stance, they're just dumb.
>>7332220 If you raised a human being for meat you would be giving it food and life, that doesn't really make raising it, killing it, and eating it OK. The issue isn't just about life, it's about harm.
We are currently enjoying being alive during the sixth mass extinction of plants and animals the earth has yet seen.
That means by deduction that there have been FIVE mass extinctions before the one that our precious little lives are witnessing.
Whether or not you eat meat is irrelevant. At least we sort of have a say in this extinction in that we are partly responsible for speeding up the process. And as a bonus to all you vegetarians and environmentally friendly chaps out there it gives you the opportunity to have something to do and feel proud about before you blink out of conscious existence.
>>7332262 just to add to that, I think the problem is with ownership and autonomy. If a sentient creature has its own interests and thoughts/feelings it shouldn't be deprived of that through ownership. Just because you gave something life doesn't mean you can own that life and end that life. The end goal should be the abolition of all sentient beings as property
>>7332178 My mother had a hard pregnancy and risked her life for me before knowing who I even was. That's unconditional. Also people do visit the graves of their friends and family, some daily. I love some people unconditionally and some love
>>7332288 if instantly killing animals doesn't cause harm and raising them for meat gives them life, then what would be wrong with that? If there's nothing wrong with it why couldn't you expand the same principle to humans, and raise humans for meat?
>>7332296 I feel like it's more easy for you to empathize with a human being because you are one. If a dog could communicate with humans and express the pains and sadnesses it feels, I'm sure you would feel just as much if not more of a connectedness towards it than you do for humans.
>>7332391 A dog isn't a human and it's easier to sympathize with a dog because a dog carries little hardship, unlike a son. >>7332395 I'm sorry your mom doesn't love you and you have to find consolation in lesser life forms.
>>7330314 >So why is milk bad for you? It's not. I've drunk 3-6 liters of whole milk every day for the last 3 years. It's not uncommon for it to be the only thing I consume in a day. It hasn't given me any issues. As long as I don't drink more than a liter in an hour, I don't experience any symptoms of indigestion. My stools are always a 4 on the Bristol scale. My bmi sits on the bottom end of normal and my waist-to-hip ratio is so low it likely incites envy in women. I've gotten sick just three times: a cold, bronchitis, and herpes onset.
At first I was worried about hypercalcaemia and milk-alkali syndrome. But it turns out the body is good at ignoring nutrients it doesn't need, and you'd have to consume an alkali with the milk for that syndrome to be an issue.
Milk is incredibly cheap for the amount of nutrition you get out of it.
Milk is literally the only food that exists for which its entire purpose is to be food. If you're lactase persistent and not allergic, there's no reason not to drink it.
Our ancestors actually milked cows before they could even drink it to make cheese and other products. When the mutation appeared that allowed people to digest milk past childhood, it spread with remarkable rapidity. The trait was too valuable. If you couldn't digest milk, you couldn't compete.
With milk as their food source, Europe was primed to become the center for human advancement. When people don't have to focus on acquiring food, they have lots of time to put their brains to use for anything else.
>>7333366 >With milk as their food source, Europe was primed to become the center for human advancement. When people don't have to focus on acquiring food, they have lots of time to put their brains to use for anything else.
Not sure if bait, but are you saying the reason European agricultural productivity went up so quickly and freed up labour for industry is because everyone started producing a lot of milk? Might need a few sources for that...
Regardless, you completely ignored the ethical argument.
>>7332752 This. I've personally killed and eaten several hundred animals of all sorts (hunter) and fat, sedentary fucks acting like eating processed pork and fat-riddled beef makes them a man when I order a light meal at a restaurant makes my skin crawl. That shit's all marketing, like the idea that weak beer and strong liquor are masculine while women drink wine 5x stronger than beer but mix their liquor.
>>7333396 I didn't intend to address the ethics of milk drinking. I'm not qualified to. I answered what I could.
>Not sure if bait, but are you saying the reason European agricultural productivity went up so quickly and freed up labour for industry is because everyone started producing a lot of milk? Might need a few sources for that... I was reciting from memory what I learned from this Nature article and wikipedia, etc., but it's been a while since I researched so it could be wrong. http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471 >When a single genetic mutation first let ancient Europeans drink milk, it set the stage for a continental upheaval.
>>7333488 Rights and morals don't 'objectively' exist in the sense there's an immovable moral code waiting to be discovered. That doesn't mean rights and morals don't exist. It just means you need to make the case for rights and morals and convince other people to adopt them into their own subjective morality.
>>7333498 If rights and moral don't exist objectively, they're just opinions and feelings. You have no basis to convince any sophisticated person of your position. It's literally just you arguing from emotions like an animal.
>>7333561 objective morality doesnt exist either. its a fabrication. >killing animals is wrong because my feelings say so my feelings say its not wrong. there is nothing that makes me inherently wrong on subjective morality. the conversation is over at this point. have a nice day and enjoy your spooks and imaginary rules that have no basis in reality.
>>7333601 my logic is not adhoc. i apply it to all moral claims. you can say a lot of things about the act of killing a person, but any moral judgements you make of it are just your opinions and feelings about the matter.
>>7333607 Yeah, that's my point, if you're being consistent you can't make any moral judgments about killing people either. What things can you say about the act of killing a human that aren't moral? Are they based on anything objective? If not, aren't they just irrational feelings and opinions.
>>7333619 your point is moot because it assumes im not being consistent when i am. you are making an appeal to emotions which only works on feeble minded people such as yourself. >What things can you say about the act of killing a human that aren't moral? it will make the other person stop living for starters. duh.
>>7333644 >feeble minded people such as yourself Look, at this point I don't know if you're just baiting, or if you're a genuine euphoric stirnerboo, but I was assuming you were being consistent. If you're being consistent morals are irrational and useless and so can't be applied to people. That would make killing people just as fine as killing animals. That's your position, I'm just clarifying so people can see nearly all the arguments here imply it's fine to kill people too
>>7332772 Not actually. I hate vegans because they want to be morality superior without actually doing something moral. They are like those crazy Baptist pastors with mad cars who preach about hell and haven, but their code of empathy ends with irrelevant beings such as cows and dogs. It's a personal moral high ground without any justification, makes them feel superior without any actual superiority. Veganism is a religion for vapid people who want to feel warm inside because they didn't eat meat. But unlike religion it asks no actual sacrifice.
Thread replies: 323 Thread images: 21
Thread DB ID: 72360
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.