User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-02-22 at 6:43 PM UTC
-
2018-02-22 at 6:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by 哈哈你看不懂中文 Is nobody going to address the video I posted?
Let me rephrase it: Would eating meat be ethical if there were a sentient being that WANTED to be eaten and was fully capable of telling you so? In this instance, nothing would suffer, even though they are genetically engineered to be this way. Nothing that doesn't want to die or be eaten would die or be eaten.
Reminds me of these guys
-
2018-02-22 at 6:50 PM UTCHaven’t read the thread but we have a biological imperative to eat meat. Animals do it to each other so there’s literally no reason for us not to. Life is not special or sacred.
Basically, who gives a fuck about animals (other than Bill Krozby I mean) -
2018-02-22 at 6:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by A College Professor Yeah but the human creature is designed to eat meat and plants. And a basic part of the human creature is making and using advanced tools ie hammers, axes, jackhammers, or even phones and cars etc
You've mentioned design several times now. Are you using "design" in the "divine creator" sense, or the "I don't really understand evolution" sense?
In either case it's simply wrong to claim the institutions of modern life are somehow more natural than not eating meat. Veganism has been around for a lot longer in human history than electricity.
Originally posted by Issue313 I think like a lot of people I have grown tired of Zanick's post-Christian moral framework which assigns us endless obligations but no rights.
uhh, OK I guess. That's a claim you're making about the psychological response of "a lot of people". It's a pretty weak claim because it's pretty much untestable and the group you claim it pertains to is immediately vague. But fine, so maybe some group of people somewhere numbering "a lot" have grown tired of some moral framework. That's irrelevant, since what we're discussing here is a moral claim, the claim that it's morally unacceptable to eat meat, not of what "a lot of people"'s response to that claim is.Being a sucker has no place in nature. What we have in this thread is the wolf being lectured on morality by the sheep.
Lol, you're comparing yourself to a wolf because you pay money you receive by alienation from your labor to a massive industry that raises livestock in captivity, slaughters and butchers it, processes and preserves it extensively, ships it hundreds to thousands of miles to you to be sold, ready to eat and bearing no resemblance to anything found in nature.
Not only is it hilarious how quickly fairly well socialized people revert to these animalistic self-descriptions in discussion of the politics of meat production, but how utterly detached their lives are to that of any of their hunting ancestors coats it in a delicious layer of irony. -
2018-02-22 at 7:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Haven’t read the thread but we have a biological imperative to eat meat. Animals do it to each other so there’s literally no reason for us not to. Life is not special or sacred.
Basically, who gives a fuck about animals (other than Bill Krozby I mean)
There is no biological imperative. There's the ability to eat meat, but that doesn't give us a positive reason to do it.
You're a nihilist edgelord yeah? There's not much to say on the subject except that you can't find any objective reason why we should eat meat, by your own standards. Sure, you have no reason to endorse a prohibition of meat but you can't claim there's any particular reason to eat it either. If you do you'll have to step out of "everything is meaningless, there are no moral truths lol" and I don't think you're up to that. -
2018-02-22 at 7:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny There is no biological imperative. There's the ability to eat meat, but that doesn't give us a positive reason to do it.
You're a nihilist edgelord yeah? There's not much to say on the subject except that you can't find any objective reason why we should eat meat, by your own standards. Sure, you have no reason to endorse a prohibition of meat but you can't claim there's any particular reason to eat it either. If you do you'll have to step out of "everything is meaningless, there are no moral truths lol" and I don't think you're up to that.
If everything is meaningless then he should eat meat if he wants to. -
2018-02-22 at 7:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny There is no biological imperative. There's the ability to penetrate pussy, but that doesn't give us a positive reason to do it.
lannys closet homosexuality revealed.
edit : thats it, every non-meat eaters who could, have the ability to eat meat but claimed to have no biological imperative to do it are actually
closet homosexuals. -
2018-02-22 at 7:38 PM UTCI try to skip over as many of Lanny's posts as I can. He has a very small mind.
-
2018-02-22 at 7:45 PM UTC
-
2018-02-22 at 7:46 PM UTC
-
2018-02-22 at 8:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind If everything is meaningless then he should eat meat if he wants to.
There is no unconditional "should" statement he can affirm. To make the claim that he "should" do something would be to admit morals of some kind.
Originally posted by 哈哈你看不懂中文 I try to skip over as many of Lanny's posts as I can. I'm tired of being looking stupid when he calls me on my bullshit.
ftfy -
2018-02-22 at 8:36 PM UTCIt's so obvious you are an angsty little boy from California. Philosophy and computers. Real original.
-
2018-02-22 at 8:38 PM UTCLanny aren't you an existential nihilist yourself?
-
2018-02-22 at 11:01 PM UTC
-
2018-02-22 at 11:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny uhh, OK I guess. That's a claim you're making about the psychological response of "a lot of people". It's a pretty weak claim because it's pretty much untestable and the group you claim it pertains to is immediately vague. But fine, so maybe some group of people somewhere numbering "a lot" have grown tired of some moral framework. That's irrelevant, since what we're discussing here is a moral claim, the claim that it's morally unacceptable to eat meat, not of what "a lot of people"'s response to that claim is.
Lol, you're comparing yourself to a wolf because you pay money you receive by alienation from your labor to a massive industry that raises livestock in captivity, slaughters and butchers it, processes and preserves it extensively, ships it hundreds to thousands of miles to you to be sold, ready to eat and bearing no resemblance to anything found in nature.
Not only is it hilarious how quickly fairly well socialized people revert to these animalistic self-descriptions in discussion of the politics of meat production, but how utterly detached their lives are to that of any of their hunting ancestors coats it in a delicious layer of irony.
I'm sorry but I honestly don't understand what you are talking about here.
Anyway, since I am too dumb to understand, your morals obviously don't apply to me, the same way they don't apply to a dog or a cat. -
2018-02-22 at 11:49 PM UTCHow many of you that think eating meat is immoral still eat it anyway? Do you consider yourselves pieces of shit? If I thought that animal lives had value but I still ate meat, I would consider myself morally bankrupt. Literally supporting murder because you like the taste. That shit is fucked up.
-
2018-02-22 at 11:52 PM UTC
-
2018-02-23 at 12:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by 哈哈你看不懂中文 How many of you that think eating meat is immoral still eat it anyway? Do you consider yourselves pieces of shit? If I thought that animal lives had value but I still ate meat, I would consider myself morally bankrupt. Literally supporting murder because you like the taste. That shit is fucked up.
Me. Like I said, I definitely think I'm compromising on my morals when I eat meat. But while I am being immoral on a deontological level, I think I'm alright on a consequentialist level. For example, I'm not directly causing a cow to get slaughtered when I eat one; if I eat it at a restaurant, that slab of meat has already been purchased and it's already basically going to be sold. Even if I stopped eating meat 10 years ago, I wouldn't really have saved any animals' lives. And even if we completely halted the meat industry tomorrow, then what? Should we release all the cows and chickens and stuff into the wild?
It's a problem that really needs a wider scale wind-down. There's always going to be some inertia from people who think we should absolutely have some meat. I think the only real way to morally end factory farming and meat eating is to economically disincentivize it/incentivize the alternatives. That's where my point about lab grown meat etc comes in. I would love to eat meat that is free from that moral guilt. I wouldn't look back. I also think it would probably be of much higher quality than normal meat; every steak could be made of kobe beef, we could buy "beef" or "chicken" in long rolls that you can just snap or cut off and cook, no preparation needed and perfect every single time. It could probably also be cheaper and more efficient: you really don't need to keep a whole fucking cow alive and fed, with its nutrition and health subject to its biology. We can just grow meat off a pile of tissue with exact nutrients pumped in. I think it's the way of the future. -
2018-02-23 at 1:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Human industry is the wild. Stop pretending we aren't just wild ass animals just because you can philosophize some shit. Plus, having your throat torn out by a wolf isn't less horrifying than any of the methods we use to kill animals. Subjecting animals to industrial farming is almost noble by comparison to what other animals do to eachother in the wild. Which you're okay with.
wanted to thank this post a hundred times.
zanick, you talking about not killing farm animals because its cruel, but but everyone stopping eating animals is crueler. there are billions of domesticated farm animals the world over. without the financial incentive to slaughter them for food they no longer have any value to the farmers. if they suddenly have no value then do you think anybody is going to spare any expense to continue looking after them? of course they wouldn't, nobody could afford to. which means they would either have to be needlessly slaughtered, which would come to more expense so unlikely with most farmers, or they would just get released to the wild to fend for themselves. which of course they would be unable to do. those that didn't get torn horribly to shreds and possibly even eaten half alive would slowly starve to death. whatever their fate it would be pretty grim. meanwhile there would be even more millions of humans starving on top of the millions that cannot get food now.
also, these farm animals get a good life while they are on the farm. they get it far far better than any life they could live in the wild. and what's more they owe their whole existence to us humans. if we hadn't have bred billions of livestock for food then they never would have existed in the first place. we made them, we literally are their gods, their creators. we have every right to take that existence away whenever we see fit. and what life they did live up until slaughtering was 100% pure bonus for them. i seriously doubt they are complaining, even if they could. they get a great life, they're regularly fed, they get any medical treatment they need as they are worthless if they are sick, and they get a nice easy life free from the stresses of having to evade predators on a 24/7 basis. most of them only ever experience the emotion which is fear only one time in their whole lives, that's pretty fucking good going, how many humans get to live a life like that?
fear is a perfectly normal and natural emotion. there is nothing wrong with making another being feel it, we all experience that emotion many times through life, that is just a reality of existing in this dimension as a sentient being.
suggesting the entire human race starves itself in a vein attempt to remove these animals from the food chain is ridiculous. the modern lives we live in our so called 'civilized' societies is just an illusion which is causing you to feel hyper-empathetic. you need to get up to the fact that no matter how 'civilized' we make our cities and towns, those cities and towns are still in the jungle, and the laws of the jungle trump our silly little man made laws we like to think are so great. animals know and live by the law of the jungle, they undoubtedly realize that life can be long, but for many unlucky individuals it is quite short, and that's just how it is. some don't even make it out of the womb because nature can be cruel like that. if you learned to accept that fact you would find you would actually feel the emotion which is fear a lot less. every living being on this earth is part of the food chain, even humans. there's nothing wrong with that at all, its just how it is in nature, nature that we very much are a part of as well as every other creature/plant/organism/faggot/whatever.
you also could consider the fact that if you end the farming of animals then there would be trillions of animals, because these animals would not be bred any longer, that would now not to get to experience the life that they would have had if their parents and ancestors had been kept and bred for food. you would be denying trillions from the opportunity to experience the wonder of life, even a short life as a domesticated farm animal is experiencing the wonder that is life. you could say it is cruel to take that opportunity away from them. any life is better than no life.
you now got your chance to experience life, so what makes you think you now have the right to take that opportunity away from other beings? its not your fucking call you selfish retarded wanker.
. -
2018-02-23 at 1:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist wanted to thank this post a hundred times.
zanick, you talking about not killing farm animals because its cruel, but but everyone stopping eating animals is crueler. there are billions of domesticated farm animals the world over. without the financial incentive to slaughter them for food they no longer have any value to the farmers. if they suddenly have no value then do you think anybody is going to spare any expense to continue looking after them? of course they wouldn't, nobody could afford to. which means they would either have to be needlessly slaughtered, which would come to more expense so unlikely with most farmers, or they would just get released to the wild to fend for themselves. which of course they would be unable to do. those that didn't get torn horribly to shreds and possibly even eaten half alive would slowly starve to death. whatever their fate it would be pretty grim. meanwhile there would be even more millions of humans starving on top of the millions that cannot get food now.
also, these farm animals get a good life while they are on the farm. they get it far far better than any life they could live in the wild. and what's more they owe their whole existence to us humans. if we hadn't have bred billions of livestock for food then they never would have existed in the first place. we made them, we literally are their gods, their creators. we have every right to take that existence away whenever we see fit. and what life they did live up until slaughtering was 100% pure bonus for them. i seriously doubt they are complaining, even if they could. they get a great life, they're regularly fed, they get any medical treatment they need as they are worthless if they are sick, and they get a nice easy life free from the stresses of having to evade predators on a 24/7 basis. most of them only ever experience the emotion which is fear only one time in their whole lives, that's pretty fucking good going, how many humans get to live a life like that?
fear is a perfectly normal and natural emotion. there is nothing wrong with making another being feel it, we all experience that emotion many times through life, that is just a reality of existing in this dimension as a sentient being.
suggesting the entire human race starves itself in a vein attempt to remove these animals from the food chain is ridiculous. the modern lives we live in our so called 'civilized' societies is just an illusion which is causing you to feel hyper-empathetic. you need to get up to the fact that no matter how 'civilized' we make our cities and towns, those cities and towns are still in the jungle, and the laws of the jungle trump our silly little man made laws we like to think are so great. animals know and live by the law of the jungle, they undoubtedly realize that life can be long, but for many unlucky individuals it is quite short, and that's just how it is. some don't even make it out of the womb because nature can be cruel like that. if you learned to accept that fact you would find you would actually feel the emotion which is fear a lot less. every living being on this earth is part of the food chain, even humans. there's nothing wrong with that at all, its just how it is in nature, nature that we very much are a part of as well as every other creature/plant/organism/faggot/whatever.
you also could consider the fact that if you end the farming of animals then there would be trillions of animals, because these animals would not be bred any longer, that would now not to get to experience the life that they would have had if their parents and ancestors had been kept and bred for food. you would be denying trillions from the opportunity to experience the wonder of life, even a short life as a domesticated farm animal is experiencing the wonder that is life. you could say it is cruel to take that opportunity away from them. any life is better than no life.
you now got your chance to experience life, so what makes you think you now have the right to take that opportunity away from other beings? its not your fucking call you selfish retarded wanker.
.
Didn't read
