Serious question, how the FUCK do people think this is acceptable?

>Thinks its ok to eat dogs
Slit eye, slope, chink spotted

Attached: 3068536254_fca1a9f187_b.jpg (1024x576, 157K)

>keeps going and thinks really hard
>souls aren't real

Attached: brainlet.jpg (645x968, 55K)

No particular reason to believe that any soul other than your own exists.
Only barometer which comes remotely close is an examination of how close certain entities come to referencing that part of them which cannot be properly referenced (for it isn't a phenomenon)

thats what we said about niggers 200 years ago

looks like it's impossible for certain opinions to be right and others to be wrong woah

Agreed. Animals do have souls.

well i think that subatomic particles have souls so what does it matter if i kill a chicken not destroying any upquarks am i

>the same way we look back on slavery
Fondly?

>thinking what you have is a soul
fucking brainlets I swear

So can I kill you?

i try my best to eat ethically
i am on track to make plenty of money longterm and have already contributed heavily to charity (both in my profession, and financially) and i plan to open an animal shelter

B&R

Fellow vegan fren, just dropping in to show support and to keep fighting the good fight. It's a sign of the changing times with most news finally reporting on the negative effects of factory farming and outright saying to reduce meat consumption to reduce climate change. You even have Canada removing dairy from the new food pyramid, and all these fast food establishments bringing on the Impossible patties and Beyond patties because they want that vegan money.

Dairy sales have fallen over 10% the past two years alone. We're making a difference, so anyone that tries to get at you by saying that it doesn't, just laugh at them.

Not bothering to stay in the thread though because I find that it's just a waste of time and energy to try and change someone's opinion when everyone is user and it's the wrong board for it too, but I see you.

Also B&R. Good luck user, I will donate to your shelter once I make it.

>sollip...
stopped reading

we're going to think it was a huge mistake because now we have the support all these worthless chickens via the welfare state?

probably not good for your own soul

well?

fuck are these?

slugs that you're meant to feel guilty about

Peasants.

Attached: Chicken_hi_vis_jacket_yellow_chicken.jpg (400x352, 17K)

Attached: 5b8022702154a320008b54b4-1136-852.jpg (1136x852, 139K)

It's okay to eat people.

What's that? Are they milking horseshoe crabs for horseshoe crab juice?

Kek I know there are suppose to be comma in there but it’s still funny

Its fucked

Beyond meat looks like it had a decent correction, should I buy now? Factory farming is gay like ur dad

Arbitrary rule swine eater

Their blood is very important for testing the purity of medicines

Based

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THE AIR HAS BACTERIA IN IS STOP FUCKING KILLING ITA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

mmm thanks op im going to macdonals now, thanks

Wait so they want caged chicken again?

>i try my best to eat ethically
i am on track to make plenty of money longterm and have already contributed heavily to charity (both in my profession, and financially) and i plan to eat an animal shelter

How else would you produce enough food to feed everybody living in cities?

Imagine feeling bad for chickens

And letting them free was a terrible mistake

OP is right. This is an animal holocaust

so just a holocaust then

Protip: Kill poor and retarded people.

you guys are beyond retarded. dogs obviously have souls. chickens very likely do as well.

but it's not that bad. it's better to live a life of suffering than no life at all. when a chicken is born to a mother whose entire life / entire specimen is evolved for torture, it'll have a soul that needs that suffering

>screeched the furious preteen.

The only problem with slavery was that the farm equipment wasn’t forcibly sterilized. Fight me.

theatlantic.com/amp/article/559229/

Wrong. Factory farming is a million times worse than slavery.

can you define what a soul is?

at least they're not killed, they just take a small portion and then release them back to the ocean

i can define my idea of soul but i don't want to define it on Jow Forums

nigga pls

chances are your grandpappy (and half the burgers on this board) lost a job to a slave. In you guys couldn't stop bitching about mexicans and indians from stealing your jobs, why would you think for a second that no one bitched about blacks stealing jobs?

it's impossible to prove that anyone but you has a 'soul' because such all historical phenomena have a physical precedent and the only way to observe another soul as present phenomena is to be that [other person's] soul, which means that they are you regardless

*great great great grandpappy

>everyone's going to look back on factory farming the same way we look back on slavery
Will we be paying spics to stuff chickens full of fried nigger?

>it's impossible to prove that anyone but you has a 'soul'

you're very wrong.

why would you make an assertion about who has a soul and who doesn't and then refuse to define what a soul is?

would you mind defining "soul"?

a soul is nothing more than a platonic/dualistic conception based on the false premise that the physical world and spiritual world are two separate entities. there is no difference between the physical and the spiritual. these are absolutely out of date categories. it's all process, there isn't 'stuff' on the one hand and 'form' on the other. it's just pattern, life is a dance of energy.

It’s beyond fucked.

If we didn’t have central banking subsidizing brain dead hoardes of retards eating this shitty meat, we could subsist entirely on organic farming.

Instead...we have corporatists defending their profits through lobbying at all costs

The world is beyond fucked, and it’s all thanks to globalist central bankers

well why don't you give it a shot
the soul which proves that a person is an actual ethical entity is that which makes a thing conscious of itself in the way that you are presumably conscious of yourself. this cannot be observed.

Something along the lines of apperception. That which underpins all of being from the phenomenological perspective; or that which is requisite for a phenomenon to actually exist as such.

unironically the most buzzword filled bluepilled post i've ever read on this website
do you even know what you're talking about

you need to define vague words like soul cause I guarantee nobody else thought thats what you were talking about. it is not impossible to prove that a soul exists outside of your own based on your definition btw.

I think it's the best definition of the soul because it's the only one that gives things ethical merit, which is supposedly the function of introducing soul into this discussion at all.

>it is not impossible to prove that a soul exists outside of your own based on your definition btw.
I'd be happy to learn how
The most I can arrive at is highly plausible logically and necessarily believed in behaviorally.

>I think it's the best definition of the soul
In the context of this thread.

well lets start by you telling me how you are able to recognize your own soul

Do it pussy

>Math degree from Caltech
>do I know what I’m talking about

Don’t know, do you? The problem is this is an as above, so below situation just like link. Boomer doomsdayers whosay retarded shit like this actually are correct, but for more complicated reasons than they know. Brainlets in the Middle who think they’re smart (like you) don’t see the full board. Pic related, this also implies to link

The problem here is corporatism (viewing corporations as people) and giving the government the teeth to defend corporations like this and subsidize brain dead masses who live off welfare and work shitty jobs that wouldn’t exist in a high IR env

Attached: 20B53177-B6F7-4854-8785-5CCD17877AB3.jpg (800x600, 58K)

I'm not capable of directly looking into it, but it's a presupposition of all phenomena; and my experiencing of phenomena is a necessary truth.

First of all you need to define “soul”. Second of all dogs are can be the most amazing things on this fucking planet if you raise them right. The love and protection I’ve received from dogs in my lifetime is something I don’t think I’m worthy of.

Of course central banks are (one of) the giant evil(s).
Firstly, saying that anything is all thanks to x is reductionist nonsense aimed at insulating the psyche from any actual thinking
Secondly, there's literally no reason to believe that central banks cause everyone to eat more meat.
Qua hypothesis central banks make us poorer and make things more expensive. Jews at the top don't just buy billions of chickens and throw them in holes. One would expect the demand for meat to go down from our gradual impoverishment.

I've defined soul further up. I understand the thing which you're pointing at, but I don't think it's the ethically relevant category. Your category is only relevant insofar as people (or you, even) care about dogs.

Animals are unambiguously sentient. They are capable of experiencing both pleasure and pain. Animal agriculture causes immense suffering to these creatures and contributes more to climate change than all transportation combined. On top of this the vegan diet is better for one's health than the western diet by a remarkable margin. With the advent of lab grown meat and the increasing number of plant-based alternatives becoming available veganism will inevitably become the norm. Our ancestors will look back on us with disdain and astonishment while lauding those who had the insight and integrity to realise that this is one of the most horrendous follies of our time and argued against the abuse and slaughter of innocent sentient creatures. Go vegan.

so your evidence of a soul is that you've presupposed that the soul exists?

>They are capable of experiencing
How so. Did you look at their nerves?

>
>I think it's the best definition of the soul because it's the only one that gives things ethical merit

what no
also you can make an algorithm that emulates ethical merit, that won't make it have anything to do with souls

There's a difference between a presupposition and an assumption. In order for phenomena to exist there needs to be that to which the phenomena is a phenomena. That is I.

The eternal divine soul is universal, shared by everything and can't be measured. Your earthly spirit is material and measurable. Chickens have both but it's irrelevant. Factory farming hurts the human spirit not the chickens.

>also you can make an algorithm that emulates ethical merit, that won't make it have anything to do with souls
That's true; and that's the point. There's no way to ultimately (not probabilistically) differentiate emulation from the real thing.

I agree that there is a difference, an assumption is based on information you already have. A presupposition is an assumption without any prior information. you can make any argument you'd like as long as you use a presupposition and you have yo hope that others presuppose your idea as well, or they will find the presupposition to be the critical flaw in your logic.

This argument has nothing to do with "souls" only whether animals have the ability to experience pleasure and pain, which they do. Causing suffering is wrong, as is depriving a sentient entity of pleasure.

there is.

Dogs are just another animal. I'm glad they are generally treated well here compared to other animals, but other animals should be treated humanely also. Just because we don't want it as a pet doesn't mean we should be ok with treating it like garbage. People who can't treat other living creatures with respect are not worthy of breathing.

You’re missing the point. The entire reason why we have populations as large and brain dead as we do is BECAUSE elites keep importing immigrants and subsidizing the brain dead shitty existences of los ogres americanos etc. they need this perpetual pop growth to keep the fiat ponzi going. They’ll start feeding people insects to keep the populations growing, it’s already being discussed

Central banks give the government enormous power to enforce shit like this also, not just to force the populations to multiply. But to defend the corporate personhood legislation that’s protects these meat farms from legislation

I guarantee you if 1. Corporations weren’t legally people 2. Central banks didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have this bullshit. They would be legislated away, the masses wouldn’t be multiplying like rats, civilization would be better off in every regard

I have looked into this, yes. They are mammals and share much of our neuro-anatomy including nociceptors which we know are used to perceive pain.

>Causing suffering is wrong

morality is generally based on the goal of promoting the wellbeing of humans. most humans haven't gotten to the point of adjusting the goal to promoting the wellbeing of all life.

>Soul is self-consciousness
Mirror test. I don't think that everything that doesn't pass the mirror test doesn't have a soul, but certainly everything that passes does

> Causing suffering is wrong
if i want to nitpick, is it unethical to put a murderer in prison?

but i assume it's not what you meant.
so let's say someone built a robot that was capable of reacting to pain and pleasure. would causing pain to this robot be unethical? is it unethical to run over a random pedestrian in GTA?

Why only humans? Aren't we primarily concerned with human welfare because others are sentient and capable of pleasure and pain? If so it is logical to extend our concerns regarding welfare to all sentient entities.

Can I go on an African safari and hunt trophy hunters?

Attached: human-filth.jpg (570x428, 148K)

no. societies are concerned with human welfare because -despite much reason suggesting otherwise- caring about human welfare is somehow beneficial to societies in the long term. democracies became far more powerful than monarchies.
you're raised to be concerned with human wellfare because those societes that raised their children otherwise are now marginal / don't exist