Vegans are objectively RIGHT about the moral part

Attached: bl.jpg (800x450, 37K)

Explain how vegans are right morally? Does that mean every carnivore in the animal kingom is morally wrong? You can eat meat and still be against animal cruelty.

Might is right.

Literally just observe any fish, it's not hard to tell.

>morals
>objective

hehe

This, and shellfish, which hardly have nervous systems

>I care about what a flounder thinks and feels
There's a reason why your bodies are cannibalizing themselves. Nature is culling the herd.

This.
Philosophy major here, this is literally what we concluded when the subject came up: yes it’s wrong, no I don’t care.

it is ridiculous to assign moral judgements to something as ubiquitous as eating animals for sustenance

vegans like to argue animals are just like humans and therefore eating them is morally the same as cannibalism. yet what follows from that is that humans are also just like animals. and animals kill each-other, sometimes even cruelly, without a second thought. i really like my dog, he's a real good boy, but i also know that if i were to get a heart attack inside my home he would be chewing my face off in the next half hour.

there are more and less ethical and ecologically friendly ways of doing animal husbandry just like there are more and less ethical and ecologically friendly ways of growing crops. but claiming an activity, that has allowed humanity to spread to previously inhospitable climates instead of staying confined to a shitty subtropical jungle, is immoral? nah

Attached: 1491488943241.jpg (1080x1080, 107K)

Morality isn't objective

goddamn, always the guys with the degrees being stupid and arrogant.

moral relativism is the biggest evil and most damaging concept post modernism has ever produced

>he would be chewing my face off in the next half hour
Sounds more like a cat

Keep struggling with it until lab-grown meat becomes the norm in

We have a moral responsibility to be the best versions of ourselves.
You must eat meat to be the best version of yourself*.
Objectively, that means eating meat must be moral.

*Being vegan for a few months up to maybe a year seems fine, after some point around 2 years in your health will suffer for it.

This is a great moral responsibility due to the personal nature of control and the potential impact to self/community/country/society/world.
The balance is far in favour of this as opposed to eating vegan which does not from a personal amount of input alter animal welfare, does not help people (apart from new vegan food/clothing businesses) or animals, does not reduce land degradation, despite the vegan propoganda. If it is coming from a corporate/policy level input then there might be some change to the above, however the land degradation would likely be neutral or worse since a lot of pastoral land is simply not suitable for growing food crops.

The best balance is to have your own land, grow your own produce, rear slaughter eat your own animals. Outside of that, yes eating meat is still the better moral choice because of the above, it is just less obvious and you won't be able to virtue signal the way vegans do because people don't see it this way. But they are wrong.

Yes it is.

all animals will eat meat if necessary, even herbivores

Attached: file.png (340x407, 271K)

If you eat synthetic food your muscles will be synthetic. You might as well be a robot and have s microchip in your head so the government can tell you what to do.

I don't think you actually fucking understand what synthetic meat is

Attached: 1537642420810.png (803x652, 629K)

Lmao nigga you think a lion give a fuck about what the fuck an antelope thinking lol white people

Imagine studying philosophy and not understanding that the most basic principle of live on earth, eat or be eaten, is morally acceptable.

It's like onions, you turn into a degenerate because it disrupts all kinds of bodily functions.
Eat your lab-grown meat and become lifeless

>self improvement is the only basis for morality
>everyone else is wrong
So convincing.

No because everyone has different morals which have changed over time. There is no perfect moral. If you would be starving and the only thing to eat was human meat you would eat it.
You are just a soul in a body that tries it best to survive. It will do anything it can to survive, morals won't prevent you.

>morality
>objective
wew lad

There's a reason why protein shakes say on the back of them that it's not supposed to be your primary source of protein. The molecule is different.

this level of broscience, kek

>from a selfish, ego point of view I value my health and longevity over everything else
Stop being autistic.
You can go vegan and supplement the shit you can't get from your diet. It's not "pure 100% natural vegan", but who gives a fuck?

good thing I'm neither a lion, nor an antelope

Vegans are NOT necessarily right about the noral part.

It's NOT immoral for a species to kill other animals to eat if their bodies demand it for optimal health.

You could say they're morally right about the ammount of meat some people eat, which is way too high (to the point of being unhealthy) and therefore doesn't have a necessity aspect to stand on a miral judgement. But claiming "eating any meat is immoral" is not different from the Buddhist extremism "killing ANY living beings is wrong", which ignores the fact that our immune systems kills millions to billions of invading lives every single day just to keep us from rotting away.

It's who we are, user. We are an omnivore species. No ammount of moral righteousness will change that fact.

MOM!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>basis for morality
It's relatively greater than the impact you might make by going vegan (minimising impacts). The ultimate form of going vegan would be just offing yourself. Becoming a better person and so making the world a better place seems more powerful than that.
But for retards that can manage to construe such bullshit as you did out of statements with completely different meanings to what you read, maybe not. You do you, no one cares. Claim the moral high ground, good for you.

>It's who we are, user. We are an omnivore species.

Attached: 1425497189588.jpg (251x242, 37K)

it's about deliberately causing suffering

Why not kill yourself then? That way the less people will suffer.

Prove me wrong, retard shill.

based and redpilled
i hope WWIII will be about vegans killing meatlets to end all suffering

nothing to prove wrong, it's just a pointless statement.
humans can eat shit, therefore we are a shit-eating species? having the ability to do something doesn't mean you have to do it

Deliberately would imply "causing suffering for the sake of it", like in bullfights and such.
Killing for food does not cause deliberate suffering if done properly. The suffering is just an unavoidable aspect of a basic necessity, even though we can (and should) minimize suffering as much as possible.

Again I was vegan for a year and a half. I was stuck a 6-8 pull-ups. I have been eating loads of meat since August. I can now do 13.

I was also slowly losing stamina on a vegan diet.

and it is possible to live without deliberately causing suffering to other beings

And how exactly will you do that if you are too weak to hold up a gun? Morality doesn't exist. It is just a dogma, which means that veganism is actually a religion. If you look at the behaviour of vegans it is very obvious. I mean look at you, wanting to kill everyone who doesn't follow your beliefs.

did you get all micronutrients? how many calories did you get? how much protein?

We have a NECESSITY to eat animal sources. Go 5 years fully vegan *without any supplements* and I give you my house if you come alive after that. No cheating with supplements though.

Eating shit is not only unnecessary, but also unhealthy to humans.

They aren't the Depletion of top soil world wide is because of grain production.

youtu.be/QPW3rbqWNu4?t=45m7s (Mono-Agriculture is destroying the planet. Not Meat farmers)[Goto 45m7s]
youtu.be/QPW3rbqWNu4?t=51m42s (Industrial Agriculture kills the soil)[Goto 51m42s]
youtu.be/QPW3rbqWNu4?t=54m48s (Herbivorous Animals and Humus. Grain and monoculture Agriculture is what leads to high Carbon levels)[Goto 54m48s]
soilcarboncoalition.org/files/JONES-Carbon-that-counts-20Mar11.pdf

Watch them spazz out on the actual science.

misworded it then, not a native speaker, what I meant is causing avoidable, unnecessary suffering and knowing about it

>No cheating with supplements though.
how the fuck are supplements cheating?
this is the thing, you brainlets are always arguing about something else entirely. i can be vegan and still take supplements and have a balanced diet.

imagine being so butthurt you can't take a joke

No you can't. The supplements is so you won't FUCKING DIE. You'll still be malnourished if you avoid any animal sources your entire life, regardless of supplements.

Suffering is just a part of life and every sentient being experiences it. The problem with vegans is they are weak pussies and don't understand this. They think that everyone should hold hands prancing around being happy all the time, that isn't what life is about. They are afraid of pain and death. Maybe if they experienced some actual hardship then they would toughen up. Living sentient beings suffer, that doesn't mean that they are devoid of dignity. The most practical way of eliminating suffering in the world would be to detonate nukes across the planet so suffering is no longer possible.

Like eating foie gras?
I agree, that shit is not healthy and way more brutal than almost any form of meat eating.

BASED

i can tell you have no clue what you're talking about.
i'm getting the same shit you're getting just through different methods. my body doesn't give a fuck if i get my B12/creatine/whatever from meat or from a pill.
if you want to continue this discussion, i propose you bring out a proper study to support your argument, because you're just pulling shit out of your ass right now.

foie gras contains high amounts of vitamin K2, which helps prevent heart disease, osteoporosis, and a host of other things.

>Suffering is just a part of life
agreed but that doesn't justify causing suffering to others just because "well its part of life who cares"
>everyone should hold hands prancing around being happy all the time, that isn't what life is about
this is what we've been progressing toward though in the last 500 years, and we are getting closer and closer
> They are afraid of pain and death
everyone is, and it's normal

"ending" suffering with causing as much suffering as possible sounds like a very interesting "solution"

Are you for real ? That's the easiest dilemna.
Just eat quality meat or hunt and don't eat """"""meat"""""" that came out of a tube or some chinese slaughterhouse.

> Causing as much suffering as possible
Do you equal death to suffering? Because if all nukes were very strategically deployed, almost everyone would die nearly instantly with minimal suffering.

>Do you equal death to suffering?
yes

>causing as much suffering as possible
As long as future generations will continue, suffering will continue. It's simple mathematics that nuking the world now will result in less net suffering

that's fucking stupid

lol fag

This
It takes a bit of googling to come to a conclusion.
For me, I have a chicken farm (Inglewood) where I know they are free range and organic so I only eat chicken from there. I don't eat beef, or pork for both health purposes and moral reasons. I don't eat halal because Muslims are immoral.
It's very fucking easy OP

>Because if all nukes were very strategically deployed, almost everyone would die nearly instantly with minimal suffering.
wat
just because nobody's there to feel the suffering anymore doesn't mean you didn't cause suffering
imagine living a happy life and then suddenly someone pulls a switch and it's over, is that desirable?

You realize then that, by your standards, killing everyone instantly causes no more suffering than letting people live, since eventually they'll all die and will all have had the same ammount of suffering (their deaths) PLUS the extra suffering they accumulated through life?

By your standards, if the death is nearly instantaneous, nuking humanity is the morally right thing to do.

We're not talking about desire, we're talking about suffering.
The switch will be pulled anyway, no one can avoid that. What changes is the method.

Stop believing fads like vegan and carnivore diet.
Have a varied diet full of vegetables, fruit, legumes, grains, starchy veggies, eggs, dairy, fish, quality meat and you are all good.
Obviously don't eat meat or SÓÝ everyday.
Eat meat 2-3 times a week, 1 day full vegetarian, 2 days fish, 1 day whatever.

>We're not talking about desire, we're talking about suffering.
great job arguing about semantics buddy but you're missing the point

>What changes is the method.
no, the time frame changes. sure we'll all die at some point, no shit sherlock. imagine you're 34 and you just got a nice job, married the girl of your dreams, got a couple of beautiful children and you're just generally happy to live your life. would you want it to end right away? no, you wouldn't. if you were 82 and ready to die, sure.

I'm not vegan but a lot of the industrial farming is probably done to feed the billions of animals needed to provide so many people with dairy products, eggs and meat regularly. Certainly treating animals well is better than cruelty and cages, as the food is healthier and tastes better and is morally better, but to provide a lot if animals with space and exercise and food takes up more land than would be needed to simply support people on grains and fruits and vegetables regularly. If that would be the case, that the numbers of domesticated animals were less and people ate mostly a vegan diet, then it would surely more expensive than currently to eat meat but for the Christmas goose or a steal at a good restaurant all sourced from humane farms occasionally wouldn't be impossible. And aside from grains and vegetables people should still be able to eat responsibly hunted fish and game meat. The problem right now is too many people who all want meat and animal products regularly which means land is used to cater to them. A sustainable diet for a civilisation, I guess, would be mostly vegetables and fruits. Then fish and legumes. Then grains and shellfish. Then game meat and finally minimal domesticated poultry dairy, eggs and red meat. Finally I'll admit I'm doing a Physics degree so not an expert at all and phone-posting so assuming a lot without sufficient research.

The optimal situation. Thanks user

the end doesn't justify the means
everyone has the right to decide whether they want to suffer or not, you don't have the right to decide it for themselves
what you can do is NOT cause suffering if its avoidable
somehow with philosophical wording you came to the conclusion that the biggest "do not cause suffering" move would be to cause the biggest suffering in history of everything
nice job

Nice. Shit meat is sin even from a culinary point of view. Never came back when I saw the difference between shit and quality products. That's less meat but it actually is.

this isn't about nutrition you retard

Do you believe we evolved for millions of years ?
How do you think evolutionary pressure worked on our dietary routines ?
Do you think that we just ate a little of this and a little of that for millions of years ?
Nope we ate meat and in late fall we ate fruit that fattened us up for a long winter.
Fruit isn't "fruiting" all year round.

>Culling
This city must be purged

they are not ebjectively right about the moral part.
not killing stuff is part of modern weakness

>le food pyramid maymay
don't be a cuck to the nwo. All your ancestors ate meat in large quantities, not to mention organs. Look at some old cookbooks. Nothing wrong with eating meat everyday. Fish is meat btw.

> Suddenly someone pulls a switch and it's over, is that desirable?

If the objective is to "avoid suffering", yes, it's desirable.
If the point is having a fulfilling life experience, which includes suffering and the understanding that suffering is and will always be an inherent part of life, then no. But that would also imply that killing animals for food, thus cause some suffering, is not morally wrong, but rather a part of life.... assuming you at least try to keep their suffering at a minimal (pasture raised, quick and painless slaughter, no hormones, etc)

You need to watch the video. Cows can live in symbyoisis with the land. They shit, the grass grows with deep roots. It locks water into the hummus layer and regrows. Vast amounts of carbon are held in the hummus. That's how topsoil is made. No animals, no top soil. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Modern grains are grown on land with no top soil or very little top soil and pumped FULL of chemicals just to grow. Nature abhors a mono culture. Show me where in nature you find one ? You don't.
Please watch the videos, they are very short.
Or at least read this.
soilcarboncoalition.org/files/JONES-Carbon-that-counts-20Mar11.pdf

waste of an education

The point is, not eating meat at all isn't exactly the healthiest option, same with having meat with every meal.
You should know where and how your meat was raised and avoid all industrially raised animals, because they had an awful life in cramped places eating s*y exclusively.

what you don't seem to understand that suffering being part of life, and individuals experiencing suffering doesnt fucking give you the moral right to cause avoidable suffering to other beings

>muh billions of people
you expect me to care about billions of poos, nigs and chinks? White people have a negative birth rate and we are supposed to reduce our net land usage. Lol. None of this would be an issue of those races stopped breeding like rabbits. They can all go vegan for all I care.

So low IQ

common low IQ strawman of DERP VEGUNS FINK A COW IS THE SAME AS A HOOMAN DURRRRR

Animals dont even know what morals mean. Why are you so concerned?

The selfish thing to do is always the morally good thing to do.

By your standards I can invade your home, shit on your bed, masturbate in your kitchen, and all you can do is stare and politely ask me to leave.... after all, shoving and punching me out of your home is not NECESSARY (since I'm not threatening you or anything), even though it's not the optimal situation for you.

Or do you feel you have the right to cause me some suffering so you'll be in an optimal situation home-wise? Sure you don't have to KILL me if a broken nose does the trick, but you're still causing suffering for a selfish reason.

>All your ancestors ate meat in large quantities
Except they didn't. Do you have any idea what the diet of regular farmers in Europe looked like 100, 50 or even 30 years ago?
Even my mother remembers they had meat tops 2 times a week.

>Do you believe we evolved for millions of years ?
If you do believe so, why do you neglect the last several thousands of farming crops?
>Do you think that we just ate a little of this and a little of that for millions of years ?
Do you think people ate their daily required dose of iodine even 100 years ago? Should we stop eating iodine and let kids become cretins and have goiters? Because sure as hell our ancestors had these.
>Nope we ate meat and in late fall we ate fruit that fattened us up for a long winter.
Except my ancestors did the exact opposite, I don't know as yours. When it started to get colder and flies stopped flying, it was time to kill animals you raised. You then proccessed meat for winter.
>Fruit isn't "fruiting" all year round.
And if you store an apple it can be eaten a year after.
You are also implying people didn't use primitive fridges like pear shaped holes in the ground. They had usually temperatures around 2°C in them. They stored potatoes and whatnot in there.

Ex vegan here
There is nothing immoral about eating meat, you are not directly intending to kill something. If you drive, you kill 1000's of bugs (sentient life) everyday, does anyone care? You run over animal life (lizards) does anyone care? You step on ants everyday killing 1000's. Yet when they get big you suddenly care?

Animals were put on this earth to be used by humans. They are here to be eaten by humans.There is nothing immoral about eating meat. Actively killing/hunting animals I can see the immoral argument there, but just eating meat? Not immoral.

To take a spiritual stance, Buddhism allows the eating of meat because there is nothing wrong with it.

You should look up bivalves in the context of veganism. Mussels and oysters have no brain or central nervous system, they're incapable of suffering, yet have huge concentrations of nutrition, moreso than any other "meat"

>gouys vegan diet is healthy
>let me supplement my diet though with animal product supplements

retard, don't get caught in the vegan drain mate. Lots of peopel fall in love with veganism in the first year, but look at anyone past 2+ years vegan and they look like shit, or they take steroids.

it is absolutely necessary, and this is the cornerstone of our jurisdiction system
we are not animals, we are conscious beings, which means we are capable of being evil
and evil must be stopped
in one way or another you are causing me unnecessary suffering with your actions, this gives me the right to stop you even if it means causing you suffering
if you were legit retarded, a mental case, and did the same, then obviously causing you suffering for these actions would be unethical
I dont think killing a human being is ok under any circumstances, but some people do deserve life sentences spent in complete isolation
your false analogy has nothing to do with killing animals because "why not life is suffering lol"