Maybe I'm just cold, I honestly don't care about killing animals.
Chicken is not linked to any disease and it's low ecologic impact, you can grow them in your back yard just like vegetables even. Vegan shills have nothing to say other than "killing is mean," or "factory farming is mean," but I don't care about any of that. What now?
Thank you based bird of gains
>Chicken is not linked to any disease
Bird flu?
subhuman
I'm a racial aryan
oh no, I'll catch a cold!
yes amorality is the only argument against veganism. so well done op
By being amoral I fail to understand the outrage against amorality. That puts us at a stalemate I guess
>I'm a racial aryan
that's what he said
loaded with phthalates
subhuman mentality
U mad you'll never wake up with blond hair, blue eyes, a natural chad face and high IQ?
only white people are good.
"I don't care" is literally no argument, it's the lack of an argument, so you don't deserve discussion.
Guess what rhymes with page.
thank you based bird of gains
mage you fucking virgin wizard
lmao at these mad niggers and their pathetic lives
> You should share my moral outrage, and change behavior accordingly
> Well, actually I don't share your moral outrage, so I will not change behavior
> NAWT AN ARGUMNENT!!!
I wonder what the macros are on your flesh
Kek seen that
>Thunderbolt!
>Thunderbolt!
>Thunderbolt!
kek
>loaded with phthalates
Don't buy Chinese chicken.
You have natural law on your side, the vegans have bullshit they pulled from their ass which boils down to "my feels".
Except the OP started the discussion, not a vegan, so the entire premise of your post is wrong
I am the OP as well as Gonna have to start becoming a namenigger when I make threads
I am the same, and its fucking fine. The world is too bothered about feelings.
They're fucking nugget fodder. They've slightly more intelligent potatoes.
I don't think they should be treated badly but come on.
carnist death camps when
You're still wrong, being the OP doesn't change anything lmao
guess what rhymes with age, gauge, rage, page and mage
Broiler chickens won't even live much more than a month beyond their kill date anyways before they'd die anyways. They've been bred not to be interested in doing anything other than eating and sitting to maximize growth. Even if ordinary chickens are interested in doing shit broilers ain't.
I just looked it up, 5% of america is vegetarian, only 0.5% are vegan (i.e. believe as fanatically as you do).
You retards would be against 95.5% of the population and it would be easy to polarize them against you.
Show us your death camps.
Well, no, I am still right. "X is intrinsically distasteful" is the primary argument against eating chicken, as the health risks are nonexistent and the environmental impact only slightly higher than plants.
If your argument is "X is distasteful so you should stop doing it," the burden of proof is on you.
>math is hard
this is your brain on meat
I dont understand the feelings meme. What else matters but sensation, experience and emotion?
What is the differentiating trait between a human and a chicken that makes it morally unacceptable to kill a human for food but morally acceptable to kill a chicken for food, that if true of a hypothetical human, would make it morally acceptable to kill that human for food?
Nothing. But it is.
Why cant the fact that it is nature and its what we do be reason enough?
Humans eat chickens, tigers eat indian people, its all natures balance.
When did I say I think it's morally unacceptable to kill a human for food? If not for how diseased and unhealthy they are, POCs would be perfectly morally acceptable as a food source.
Humorously, almost all vegetarians are white people, because whites are the most morally fanatical race alive. I am almost certain you are white, and if you are not, all of your vegetarian friends are.
>Nothing.
It is exactly at that word where you admitted defeat, and had 2 paths to take: either go vegan or say "I don't care". You did the latter. Of course that doesn't change the fact that you're the one in the wrong, since the burden of proof was shifted on you and you immediately said "I can't prove jack shit".
So, as I said like 25 posts ago, conversation is over, what rhymes with page.
Yea, i dont care, i really don't, i want to eat meat, i see no problem with it.
This is reason enough is it not?
Nothing was "proved" by you though, he just expressed indifference.
In what logical framework does proving his apathy prove a moral imperative to veganism? Think it through and explain it to me.
>appealing to natural law
Chicken is shit though, fish is better, has a ton of omega 3 fatty acids, vitamin D, and is almost always leaner than chicken.
Dhallow fried codfish with garlic and pepper and salt tastes like heaven alongside some olive oil and vinegar, way better than chicken.
Just because you don't care about something doesn't mean you are in the right
If I rape your mom, I don't care if she consents to the rape but that doesn't mean I'm not immoral for doing so
Okay look bud, you are deficient in one key error that's screwing you up: you cannot distinguish between "subjectively, morally right" and "objectively, factually right."
Morals you see are subjective, as evidenced by different people having different moral beliefs and failing to share your outrage. You do not share a muslim's moral outrage at drawing a picture of Mohammed, for example, but to the muslim, it is "objectively bad." He too cannot separate subjective feeling from objective reality.
What I'm trying to tell you is, you cannot "prove" morality because morals are subjective feelings, no "proof" can be obtained.
>Maybe I'm just cold, I honestly don't care about killing animals.
>Maybe I'm just cold, I honestly don't care about killing golden retrievers
>Maybe I'm just cold, I honestly don't care about killing children.
>Maybe I'm just cold, I honestly don't care about killing your family.
Unfortunately "I don't care" doesn't hold up as a justification. As other anons have said, the result is that you are by definition immoral or at most amoral.
The only reason you can get away with your immorality in this case is that the animals can't fight back and enough other people are immoral so to let you get away with it
Meant to say "you are making one key error," retyped a few times and it got slurred together.
Also forgot to add:
Since morality cannot be "proven," that means you can't prove me "wrong" either, because "wrong" is an infantile delusion floating around in your head, not a physical finding you can demonstrate objectively.
I never intended to justify myself morally to you, as I never accepted your moral authority to begin with
right and wrong are 'vague predicates', with a meaning and a definition, but some degree of ambiguity/vagueness. In which some things are objectively wrong and some things are objectively right, but there are borderline cases/grey areas. Similar to the question 'is a heap of sound a mound? If take away grains of sand when does it stop being a mound?'. There are cases where it's objectively true that a heap of sand is a mound, others where it's in a 'grey area'.
To establish veganism you just have to establish that it's objectively wrong to treat humans in that way and establish that there's no basis for discrimination against animals
Anyone who says otherwise is a brainlet who doesn't realise moral terms have a meaning.
If I were to say morality is about the number of rings on a tree stump I would objectively be wrong
I didn't ask you to nor am I claiming moral authority. The point is that your own morals are inconsistent if you would support the killing of one sentient being and not another.
Never take anyone on the internet that uses the phrase "burden of proof" seriously.
That being said, veganism is a false diet.
Based upon primates eating habits:
"The diets of nearly all monkeys and apes (except the leaf-eaters) are composed of fruits, nuts, leaves, insects, and sometimes the odd snack of a bird or a lizard (see more about chimpanzees). Most primates have the capacity for eating sugary fruit, the capacity for eating leaves and the capacity for eating meat."
Chicken is a bird
Based upon anthropological research/discoveries:
"UC Davis anthropologist Teresa Steele studied animal bones from the site, showing that our ancestors ate lots of gazelle and other game as well as ostrich eggs."
Lots of meat
Based upon "health" for the eating habits of old nippons:
"It is surely no coincidence that Ikaria only got its first supermarket three years ago, while, in contrast to the centenarians, the generation of Okinawans born since the arrival of the US airbase and its accompanying fast-food outlets have demonstrably declining health.
The Okinawans eat three servings of fish a week, on average.
"All of these diets work on similar mechanisms," Mather tells me. "One hypothesis is that the secret about ageing is to avoid accumulating molecular damage, and eating fish, beans, nuts, seeds, legumes, whole grains, and not so much red meat, dairy or sugar may help us to reduce that kind of cellular damage." Sadly, the professor is dismissive of silver bullets: "In the early days we did try to link health with specific foods or nutrients, but now we look more holistically at dietary patterns."
Veganism is a false diet because humans evolved to be able to outrun any animal on the planet given a suitable amount of time, old people in japan aren't vegetarians and monkeys eat birds and lizards.
>arguing with a greentext meme picture
>false diet
I do not care about the rights of anyone or anything except aryans, and then the most eugenic 50% trumps the least eugenic 50%
Well wait a minute, this rabbit hole goes deeper.
Case A: is it wrong to kill the most immoral human ever to exist? Is it wrong to kill in self defense? If not, then killing humans isn't categorically wrong.
Case B: If morals are subjective, they are just private feelings. If they are objective, they are external to the self, and our feelings are just perceptions of that external thing. Immoral people therefore are people who simply misperceive what is objectively true, just as a schizophrenic misperceives daily life.
That being said, on what basis are you sure that /your/ objective morality is /the/ objective morality? Wouldn't it be possible that you could be right about morality itself being objective, but wrong about /which/ morality is objectively true?
What if it turns out that it was objectively justifiable to eat meat every single day, and you were just wrong the whole time?
How can you confirm the objectiveness of your morality?
i care when animals i like die. just like i care when people i like die.
animals are on this planet for one reason and one reason only
>food
veganism really is a sad, sad life to live
>"The diets of nearly all monkeys and apes (except the leaf-eaters) are composed of fruits, nuts, leaves, insects, and sometimes the odd snack of a bird or a lizard (see more about chimpanzees). Most primates have the capacity for eating sugary fruit, the capacity for eating leaves and the capacity for eating meat."
Chimps are out closest species-relative and they eat 3% meat. So if we use your argument, we should eat 3% meat, and no dairy.
>our ancestors ate lots of gazelle and other game as well as ostrich eggs."
Out of context. Who, when and where? "Our ancestors" ate everything they could get their hands on, sometimes mostly animal based, sometimes mostly plant based. If this proves anything it's that we need not a specific food to survive and thrive and sent fucking rockets with humans inside to the moon and back
>"It is surely no coincidence that Ikaria only got its first supermarket three years ago, while, in contrast to the centenarians, the generation of Okinawans born since the arrival of the US airbase and its accompanying fast-food outlets have demonstrably declining health.
...so don't eat junk? what's that have to do with veganism?
>The Okinawans eat three servings of fish a week, on average.
The okinawans eat 96% calories from sweet potato and rice. Coincidentally, same number as the chimps above.
>"All of these diets work on similar mechanisms," Mather tells me. "One hypothesis is that the secret about ageing is to avoid accumulating molecular damage, and eating fish, beans, nuts, seeds, legumes, whole grains, and not so much red meat, dairy or sugar may help us to reduce that kind of cellular damage."
>Veganism is a false diet because humans evolved to be able to outrun any animal on the planet given a suitable amount of time, old people in japan aren't vegetarians and monkeys eat birds and lizards.
Yes, 3-4%. Google it.
What about negroes? They are savannah hunters, and they are directly descended from chimps, and the rest of us are further evolved from them.
You can still find wild negroes hunting on the savannah with crude spears to this very day.
How does the existence of apes as specialized plant eaters trump the existence of the negro as a carnivore and a more recent ancestor? Talking about chimps, you may as well talk about what the first animal in mammalia ever ate as though it's our job to replicate that diet exactly.
You brought up the chimp argument, not me
>negroes
I'd rather live a lifestyle closer to the traditional okinawan's than a nigger's, not sure how that argument helps your case
I don't think there is a single 'objectively true morality', hence Gray areas. But if I were to ask the question 'is it wrong to condemn everyone in existence to an infinite amount of suffering for an infinite amount of time for no reason' the answer would objectively be yes, by virtue of the meaning of wrong and concepts intrinsically connected to it, like justice, fairness, non-descrimination etc.
I do not accept non discrimination as a virtue and I'm on the fence on fairness
I work at a place like this. If it's any consolation to animal cruelty SJW's, they are stunned before they are killed so they don't feel any pain. We also keep the room dark so that their internal clock is messed up and they are half asleep.
no I'm serious.
actually DID make a really good point with the notion of an archetypal "worst possible moral act," to support his idea of having objectively true notions without an objectively true complete code. Neglecting the reasons that could still be wrong (i.e. what if what's good for humans is not automatically Good), it was well reasoned.
I like talking shop with people on morality/ethics, and I think it's really interesting how at the end of that otherwise really well reasoned bit, he just threw "fairness, non discrimination" etc in there.
I find it really interesting how many peoples' moral systems are deeply contaminated with liberalism/christianity, and they don't even know it, they never even realized it so they cannot even question it.
it's hard to say it's the worst possible moral act if you allow for unfairness/true discrimination against others, otherwise you have little basis to criticize someone for saying 'only what I want matters'
You mean to say that a person who doesn't accept equality/utilitarianism cannot have a moral system?
nothing I've said necessitates utilitarianism
Sorry, I missed the "otherwise" and misread you
>lmao
please be an hero
>asking to know every single trait existing in a living being with a limited perspective
This is your brain on onions
OP here's something you need to know:
>There ARE NO VEGANS on Jow Forums, just trolls pretending to be Vegan
Seriously they don't even understand what 'vegan' actually is. Don't let them get to you.
Just insist they post body with timestamp. They never will, which is all anyone needs to know.
post body
fuck me that pic just gave me a mild boner dude. Those are some curvy little girlz.
Nope, just 1 please
>being this redditally ill
>seriously discussing with vegans
I appreciate your effort OP but it's time lost, ignore them and go on
>appealing to nature
>give me one argument
>>he's asking about infinite arguments lmao
>no, just one
>>lol reddit amirite
cancer
Any of you Jow Forums bros hunt?
I only eat meat maybe once every other week because I hunt for it. Usually old deer and fish. I grow my vegetables and purchase vegan protein powders. I only like eating my meat 100% full natty brah. I tried veganism and it wasn't for me long term but I do agree mass produced shit is bad for you.
>
God I want to kill chinks so bad
Btw as a former vegan I can tell you 90% of them are cultists faggots doing it for their own sense of high morality than they do for the animals. They even rip each other apart and try to out vegan each other all the time.
They don't give a shit about your health.
They slightly care about the earth and animals.
They mainly care about their own ego. They get a big release from it.
I've only ever met a few vegan brothers who were full on yoga hippie Buddhists who were prime examples of being compassionate. The rest are massive faggots.
Also
> tigers eat indian people
kek
if theyre killed humanely, I dont think it matters at all.
But if some animals are skinned alive, for fur or some retarded shit like that, then I have a problem, and would gladly beat the shit out of the humans that are conflicting these useless pains to the poor animal.
In my eyes a man who cannot respect a animal is a man who cannot be respected
God put everything on this Earth for us, so long as you're thankful and humble, I don't think we can be judged for eating stuff that is quite frankly beyond our control in regards to modern society
Maybe bait but i'll bite, what made you quit? And if you were in a group of other vegans, how did they react?
Nothing really "matters"
You're just a vehicle to transmit your genes
Not bait. I didn't exactly just woke up one day and"quit." Reason I started eating meat again is because I started going out hunting with my old man and my brother. Just a way to travel and create life experiences. I don't feel 100% nice about hunting old animals and fishing, but it's a very humbling experience honoring every part of them. And my usual hunts are aging animals who stand no chance in nature anymore, they're getting rekt regardless if it's by me or a pack of predators.
A big part of our hunts usually go to the less fortunate locals too. Specially fish.
Hunting connects you with nature.
As far as my old vegan group, the group of vegans I knew were all former highschool friends who turned into leftist DYELs SJWs who chimped out and they'd always shame each other. They were basically stereotype vegans with the exception of one of my friends who's into the whole "spiritual" life. Crystals and yoga and all that shit. He's a prime example of a kind human being and he loves everyone equally but thinks meat eaters and normies are just misguided. He taught me how to meditate.
I still live a vegan lifestyle pretty much 3 weeks of every month and only eat meat when I go hunting once a weekend of the month, but I no longer group myself or categorize with vegans. They are fags who care about their own ego far more than they do about the earth and animals. Ironically, they do not think it's okay to kill animals but will threaten and think about killing you for not being one of them.
Eating meat is just the ugly side of our nature brother. I definitely agree the meat industry is horrible for everyone so definitely avoid mass produced shit.
What a depressing viewpoint. Must suck to be you
Are you saying that those plane crash survivors that ate the other dead passengers to survive were morally wrong for doing so?
Morality is completely subjective
It's something fabricated by humanity
>not eating beef every day
>not choosing fatty cuts and ground beef
>not loving the positive effects of cholesterol and high blood pressure
>caring about the downsides
The best of men died from heart attacks, fucking faggots.
>inbf4 in that situation it would be fine because it was for survival.
You also say that you don't need to eat meat to survive much less thrive. So you don't really need to eat meat in the plane crash situation either.
The law, I'd eat you any day if it wasn't for the law. In fact sometimes I think about how I can circumvent the law just to try human meat gains.
Hey user, just for you being a good sport and not bait i'll raise the ratio of consumption of veggies and fruit on my meals. For real, you are alright man. I would also want to get into hunting or farming my own meat.
based
>t.athiest
Ironically morality, trying to prove youre better than everyone else, is the only argument for veganism
>I think about how I can circumvent the law just to try human meat gains
I'm not alone
>the law defines morality
Stop.
Best of luck bro
>Chicken is not linked to any disease
u w o t
This is just barely fitness related
Youre threatening to sage a thread because you disagree is that correct?
there are very sound nutritional and environmental arguments. but keep memeing
There are sound arguments for why the earth is flat im sure
>environmental arguments
Please user don't tell me you fell for the meme of global war- i mean climate change.
social constraints mainly, and i dont mean "social convention". if you kill a PERSON for food, and PEOPLE find out, they'll come after you because they don't want you to eat them or their relatives. killing a chicken doesn't make you a threat to other humans. and the chickens are... unlikely to revolt agsinst you
It only takes one or two chickens to overpower a vegan, they fear them
It's obvious that's not what I meant, I meant that morally eating a chicken and a human is the same, the only thing stopping me from eating other humans is the law. Dumb cunt.