Is morally wrong to eat meat?

Is morally wrong to eat meat?

Attached: 827.png (680x638, 250K)

Other urls found in this thread:

psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201412/84-vegetarians-and-vegans-return-meat-why
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6299329
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16219987
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12816782
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087975
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12748410
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1435181
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118604
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25076673
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8442642
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748244
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3948463
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18293883
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Animal suffering didn’t exist before your birth and won’t after your death. There’s no arguing this.

Attached: 9378F1BC-8E8F-4F00-A328-282CDAF0B1DD.jpg (358x352, 35K)

i dont think it is and i dont know why its not. enlighten me on why its bad please

unnecesary suffering is morally wrong.
decreasing unnecesary suffering is the moral thing to do.

that's basic ethics 101.

define morally correct

imo you are morally retarded and, physically, a dyel.

Chickens and cows could not exist without humans. They are crops and should not be considered living.

Yes, unless you can confirm that the animal died quickly and humanely.

Attached: WeirdBarrenLcont.webm (640x800, 2.66M)

>spooks

You haven't actually answered the question with this, you've just shifted the argument. Now instead of arguing whether suffer is inherently bad, we're arguing about what the definition of necessary is. I'd consider the suffering of cows and pigs to fill my tummy to be entirely necessary.

That's a stupid argument, and there's literally no point in talking to you about it

>I disagree with you because you're stupid and I can't explain why
Another veganfag btfo, next?

Attached: 60322efae35794a7b9d80bf4afff4942.jpg (448x300, 40K)

morality is a spook

No user, its not wrong...its delicious

we can now grow meat in test labs and make plant based meat that is indistiguishable from real meat, even having B12 suplemented naturally.

The real question is if you still support unnecesary suffering when technology can make meat replacements.

probably but I don't have the will or inspiration not to do it

once artificial meat becomes common, cheap, cleaner and healthier than real meat I'll be the first the to jump ship and look down upon the filthy natural savages

Gott ist töt

yes, the same way is immoral to lie, but who cares, most people are too busy caring about themselves to care about ethics

I don't want meat replacements, I want meat. If you want to eat test-tube meat that's fine, but I'd rather not.

it means "God is dead", plebs.

You'll want to once it's better tasting and better for you, which it inevitably will be

>I'd consider the suffering of cows and pigs to fill my tummy to be entirely necessary.
It's clearly not necessary, since there are innumerable ways to fill your stomach that don't involve murder. This is just a fact.

lab meat is healthier than industrial livestock.

You're literally not worth discussing with, that's why you get insulted and ignored. IRL too

Yes. Not only is meat consumption directly predicated on the murder of innocent animals who can and do feel pain, it is entirely unsustainable and one of the largest causes of deforestation.
The majority of deforestation occurs as a way to clear land for farming. Most farmland is used to feed livestock, as it takes 100x as much land to feed enough cows to feed one person, rather than simply feeding one person off the produce of that land.

Its morally wrong to mass farm and mass slaughter animals, making them suffer their entire lifespan.

Theres absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat besides that though.

The only thing that bothers me is when people say they dont want to eat meat that still has bones in it, or fish that still looks like a whole fish because they dont want to be reminded that its an animal. If you arent mentally capable to hypothetically kill an animal in the wild and then eat it you shouldnt eat meat.

(You)

Attached: 1482749528800.png (216x271, 61K)

>i want to do it, therefore it is necessary

Is it morally wrong to rape hoes?

This man is correct

Attached: 1522168502236.png (1080x1920, 953K)

yes

Attached: 1522818296992.png (684x983, 884K)

I don't eat steak because it's the best thing for me or because it's the tastiest thing out there, because it's neither of those things. I could sit around eating creme brulee all day if I wanted something that tasted good and I could sit around eating nothing but kale and unflavored chicken if I wanted to be healthy. I eat steak because I want a damn steak. I'm not going allow myself to be turned into a labmeat-eating pleb. I bet you like soy milk and capeshit too.

Nobody's ever been murdered to put a steak on my table, as far as I'm aware.

>WAAAAHHHH THE BIG BAD MAN KILLS ANIMALS AND EATS THEM
;^)

What? No, animals suffering is necessary to a certain extent for me to eat meat. It's not necessary for me to eat meat, it's necessary for animals to suffer for me to eat meat, so they will suffer.

>it's necessary for animals to suffer for me to eat meat
>hey here's an alternative to suffering
>wow hey man i dont want the alternative i want a damn steak

Attached: stupid.png (358x342, 21K)

I follow the morals of the bible.
It is not morally wrong to eat meat and desu you are an idiot if you actually think it is given humans evolved to our current condition thanks to cooked meat and there are lots of benefits to occasional meat consumption (emphasis on occasional).

But animals are God's creatures and keeping them confined the way we do is morally wrong. Things will never change because most people want what is cheapest and mass farming animals the way we do is cheapest. So the only thing you can do is give up meat or only support local farmers (actually easier than you imagine). I usually just buy half a cow from my cousin and freeze it. If you have a backyard, free-range chickens are super low maintenance and easy eggs/protein. They are just as happy as your house cat.

>I eat steak because I want a damn steak

because it tastes good and is good for you. If steak started tasting like shit to you, you'd stop eating it.

>It's not necessary for me to eat meat, it's necessary for animals to suffer for me to eat meat, so they will suffer.

Let me break this down for you:
Performing Task 1 is unnecessary.
Performing Task 2 is necessary to perform Task 1.
Performing Task 2 is unnecessary as Task 1 does not need to be performed.

There's your basic logic. Anyway nice b8 fatass. Why don't you actually go lift for a fucking change instead of downing 10 big macs a day

Name an alternative that isn't shit

>plant based meat imitation
Highly processed garbage

>lab meat
We're not at that level yet

>I follow the morals of the bible.
>forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Nigger cuck

Attached: 1517306336217.jpg (1536x2048, 369K)

No

>Here's a subpar alternative that will only ever be used by the poor and mentally ill

There's a lower bound to what I'm willing to eat but steak is nowhere near it.

It doesn't matter whether Task 1 needs to be performed, property has no agency of its own. If I choose to perform Task 1 with my property, where Task 2 is the only possible outcome, then Task 2 is necessary.

Why can this board only think in black and white. Its not that simple you dumbfucks. Vegans arent right, and neither are meat eaters.

The most moral and responsible thing for humanity to do, would be all cut down on meat consumption. It would be better for our overall health and we could switch to smaller farms only where animals can live good lives.

Prove me wrong

>If I choose to perform Task 1
You are CHOOSING to perform an unnecessary task. Any task that is necessary to perform an unnecessary task is also UNNECESSARY.

Have you never heard of a fucking syllogism?
You literally sound like a fucking middle school drop out.

>There's a lower bound to what I'm willing to eat but steak is nowhere near it.
Right, which means whether or not you eat it is dependent on it being tastier than that lower bound. If an artificial steak were created to be better tasting than any steak you've ever had, better for you, devoid of crazy bacteria and chemicals that are involved with mass farming, and you still wanted regular steak; that would be the most caveman brained cuck bullshit I've ever heard. Wanting the objectively worse tasting and worse for you literally just because it's what you're accustomed to

That being said yes we're no where near artificial meat being at that level. It will be a long time but it will inevitably reach that point, and once it does you have no excuse

He wants to eat meat therefore it's necessary for the animal to die

Not sure what you're arguing about

It's still not necessary for the animal to die. He wants the animal to die because he wants to eat meat.
Eating meat is not necessary, and therefore the death of the animal is not necessary.
It's basic logic and this retard simply can't grasp it.

hello mr vaginasteinsberg

>Eating meat is not necessary
says you. I don't want to supplement my diet with jew pills that still don't give you the same results as a well balance diet that entails meat.

Nobody argued that eating meat is necessary

However, he wants to eat meat
How would he eat meat without the animal dying?

It's my property, I decide what is necessary and unnecessary. If I choose to slaughter my cow, it is necessary by virtue of the fact that I have done it, otherwise why would I have done it?
>You literally sound like a fucking middle school drop out.
Why are vegans always so bitter when you don't conform to their crazy worldview? It's like a schizo getting mad that you're trying to argue against his delusions.

This is kind of a silly argument. I don't always eat what's healthiest for me and I don't always eat what tastes the best. I'll eat anything above the lower bound of what I'm willing to eat and steak is nowhere near it. If I want a real steak instead of a fake steak then that's what I'm going to get. I like wholegrain bread more than white bread, and it's better for me, but sometimes I just want white bread.

>better for our overall health
why stop at smaller farms when meat and animal products are unhealthy? the same goes for morality, if you can acknowledge that killing an intelligent and conscious being with a will to live is wrong, why do it even on a smaller scale?

>is the natural order morally wrong?

No, being an apex predator is a great feel.

No; sometimes wanting one or the other kind of bread is a matter of variety, and ultimately a matter of taste. Sure it's not just better or worse tasting, it's a lateral move of wanting different tastes. This does not affect my argument. If there were really this great desire in the population for meat that tastes the same as mass farmed meat (which I doubt there would be, but for the sake of argument) you could still create that in a lab and it would be 100% biologically identical, down to each cell.

>i did something so it is necessary because i did it
?

Well yeah he has to kill the cow for his steak

He's not going to slice off pieces of a living cow you fucking psycho

He's legitimately mentally challenged. Let's bounce

Well that's all well and good, but I don't want the knockoff I want the real thing. I don't need to live, but I choose to not sit motionless in the corner of my room until I dehydrate as a personal preference. Likewise, it's my personal preference that I want real steak, regardless of your off creme brulee-kale-steak crossbreed.

I wouldn't have the steak unless I killed the cow.

>people who disagree with me are mentally challenged
See? You guys are always so salty, it's like your reddit transplants or something

It's not a legitimate preference. Since every aspect of the taste and nutrition would be 100% the same, your preference is basically "I want suffering to be involved in the creation of my food".

>It's not a legitimate preference
This doesn't mean anything, you disagreeing with my choice doesn't somehow make it "not legitimate". Steak from a cow is not "100% the same" as steak grown in a lab, the difference is self-evident in this single sentence.

Morally wrong to use electronics
Morally wrong to non-manual transportation
Morally wrong to buy imported clothes
Morally wrong to use anything factory-made or transported with machinery
Morally wrong to save money instead of giving to needy gibs
Morally wrong to lie, cheat and steal
Morally wrong to eat anything other than spray-free, chemical-free, pest treatment-free, hand-harvested permaculture crops
Morally wrong to eat that anyway because starving 3rd world
Morally wrong to pump and dump thots
Morally wrong to spend time in leisure rather than volunteering for charity

You don't NEED to do any of these things.
Go build a farmstead and log cabin and eschew modern society with it's pleasures and conveniences. But also, devote yourself to improving humanity.
Then, you may be morally right.

nope

You're right, it's not 100% the same. But the taste and nutrition are 100% the same, which is what I actually said. The only difference is that you didn't have to grow a cow in it's own piss, shit, and blood for life and then kill it. The fact that you prefer for there to be suffering is not a legitimate preference, or at least not a morally good one.

eating steak is not something you have to do, since you have countless plant options. wanting steak does not mean you need it. you are choosing to do something unnecessary which causes suffering and death. if you don't see how that's immoral there's no point in continuing this argument.

he probably has mad cow or smth

God says its fine.

Lab grown meat is not at that level, why are you arguing hypotheticals?

>your choices have no legitimacy because I disagree with them
That's just incorrect. If I have a choice between drinking distilled water and distilled water that has been used in an enema in my ass, I'm drinking the former regardless of the taste or the nutritional value. You can drink your metaphorical enema water, that's fine, but I'll stick to an actual steak.

Living is not something you have to do since you have the option to die. Wanting to live does not mean you need to live. You are choosing to do something unnecessary which causes suffering and death. If you don't see how that's immoral there's no point in continuing the argument.

appeal to futility, just because i cause a small amount of harm in does not mean you can cause much greater harm and be morally justified

Because he disagrees with it and we're discussing it?

It's more like preferring to drink water that was created by torturing and killing animals, when 100% identical tasting water is available. You can have that preference, but it's morally wrong.

गलत

That's not an appeal to futility, it's a reduction to the absurd. You're argument is based on the fact that it's not "necessary" to eat meat, but neither is it necessary to live.

It's not morally wrong, what's morally wrong is dehumanizing people and treating them like your little drones by feeding them labmeat. Animals are property and the owner of said property should be allowed to do what he wishes. People are people and should be afforded certain standards. You want to animalize people and humanize animals, it's crazy.

yes, there's no basis for discrimination against animals in terms of moral consideration

Attached: ArgumentFromMarginalCasesPeterSinger.png (744x322, 51K)

>It's not morally wrong
it is

>dehumanizing people and treating them like your little drones by feeding them labmeat
"dehumanize" means nothing in this context and is an appeal to nature

>Animals are property and the owner of said property should be allowed to do what he wishes
If you legit have no regard for animal welfare and are okay with full on just torturing animals for fun, then please let me know so we can stop talking and I can start my workout

>People are people and should be afforded certain standards
good thing lab created meat will be better than natural meat in every conceivable way

Yes, until meat-eaters can name the trait (hint: they wont)

>will be better than natural meat in every conceivable way
well call me when that happens because right now it is not even close. So I will continue to eat meat.

good enough for me

I eat meat by the way so I'm no better than you.

You have no way to challenge what I wrote except to write nuh-uh like child but your using scribbles because your leftism makes you think its intelligent.

i dont care

Attached: 1522609071077.png (657x527, 44K)

>it is
It's not.

>"dehumanize" means nothing in this context and is an appeal to nature
An appeal to nature is no more fallacious than your appeal to morality.

>If you legit have no regard for animal welfare and are okay with full on just torturing animals for fun, then please let me know so we can stop talking and I can start my workout
I've got pets and I certainly don't torture them, but if someone wanted to waste their money buying and torturing animals than that's up to them. I should be allowed to tell them what to do with their property.

>good thing lab created meat will be better than natural meat in every conceivable way
And robots will be stronger, faster, and smart than man in every conceivable way, yadda yadda yadda. Science solves all problems and the future will be great, right? I'll eat steak till the day I die regardless.

I'd say eating meat isn't inherently wrong, however commercial farms are reprehensible

so because i cause a small amount of harm by living you feel it is morally justified to kill and torture whatever someone "owns," arbitrarily drawing the line at humans despite not being able to name the trait

Okay if you don't have any moral consideration for animals and are okay with torture, than we're working with completely different moral systems and there's no use continuing

I gotta start my workout now, I'm upping my bench press and I'm unsure if I'm ready to but wish me luck

Well yes, animals have no concept of morality so I don't really see any sense in attempting to take their moral judgement into account, because they have none. I don't torture animals but if someone else does that's their business with their property. I'm not sure what you mean by "trait"?

I mean I do have some kind of moral judgement for certain animals I guess because I don't torture my pets and they're bros. But at the end of the day actual people certainly take precedence.

retards can't reciprocate morality either

Vegetarians are ~2% and vegans ~0.5% of the population. Twice as likely as omnivores to be politically liberal. The vast majority of them eventually return to eating meat. Almost one-third of them reported specific health-related symptoms and only about one-third of former vegetarians/vegans stated interest in returning to vegetarianism/veganism.
psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201412/84-vegetarians-and-vegans-return-meat-why

High-fiber diets may reduce the half-life of vitamin D3 in blood plasma.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6299329

A study of German vegans shows that their diet is deficient in vitamin B12, which may negatively impact their cardiovascular health.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16219987

Health aspects of vegetarianism should be considered in the light of possible damaging effects arising from vitamin B-12 deficiency and hyperhomocysteinemia.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12816782

Blood plasma levels of omega-3 fatty acids are lower in vegetarians than they are in omnivores.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087975

Vegetarians are more prone to having iodine deficiency.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12748410

Vegetarian diets reduce testosterone in men. This study used a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, and not the more strict vegan diet.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1435181

Supplementation of creatine improves cognitive functions of vegetarians, but does not do so in omnivores, suggesting that the lack of creatine in a vegetarian diet may cause a suppresed cognitive function.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118604

Vegetarian diets are especially dangerous to children and to nursing or expectant mothers. Some case studies:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25076673
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8442642
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748244
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3948463
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18293883

Attached: VeganDiet.png (924x2274, 339K)

No.

>not sure what you mean by trait
to avoid a double standard, you need to name a trait which makes it justified to treat animals as property, and kill and eat them, which if present in a human would allow you to do the same. animals don't have a sense of morality, but neither does a sociopathic human, does that give you the right to kill and eat them?

I don't fuckin know man, I pretty much only eat vegetables and drink protein shakes but it's more for my health than the welfare of animals or anything.

Because meat and animal products AREN'T unhealthy. Lots of vegans love exaggerating, but in truth, meat is fine in moderation and in a balanced diet. If you're diet consists of 70% meat, than yes, of course you'll have an increased chance of a heart attack. That's what's so flawed about these pro-vegan studies.

It is a preference, whether you disagree or not. Healthy or unhealthy. Doesn't matter. His choice regardless.