Eating animals is mur-
Eating animals is mur
Other urls found in this thread:
It’s not. Murder refers to the unlawful killing of another human being. Eating meat constitutes none of those things.
da wild aminals do it so we shud 2
Terrible strawman. Try again.
jesus christ you are dumb.
This looks shopped. I can tell by some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.
Except my post argued none of those things. Try again troll
good for the bald eagle man, it took so much shit from poachers over the years and still hung in there, let it tear a few faggoty ducks to pieces. I mean this is America god damn it.
Who's trolling? You lack empathy towards sentient beings. That's your argument. At least you admit it
"Because it tastes better" is a valid and excellent argument. If one's purpose in life is the pursuit of happiness, I should be able to enjoy a good steak once in a while.
It isn't illegal to kill animals, and it's not "unjust," since animals are not innocent, respectful of others negative rights, nor do they even make an attempt to observe the ethical maxims of reciprocity. The treatment they give animals is exactly what they bring upon themselves. They are inconsiderate beasts, so we do not regard them with consideration for their nonexistent feelings.
They're below me.
No you’re making a claim that eating meat is “murder” when that is objectively false. You can make an argument about the morality of eating meat, but you can’t call it murder. You’re either trolling or are retarded and have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.
Country bird. Can't kill it, watch it devour.
Happiness isn't a purpose. It's a subjective idea most people never truly understand how to attain
The vast majority of our species won't experience empathy for child rapists or serial killers, despite the fact that every last one of them is "sentient," and on a level far greater than any animal--with more capacity to do good in their lives than an animal could ever even possibly conceive, even if an animal EVER desired to do something generous or kind for anyone else. Yet, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who considers it a flaw to lack empathy, or at least to not care about how they treat people who are obviously evil. Why should we regard animals any differently, when the lower species aren't just evil--but wholly incapable of even aspiring to follow ethics?
I never stated eating meat was murder.
muh reading comprehension
Is that a strawman? looks more like ET.
I fucking hate eagle. I'll kill one if I found one
Check out this evil cow
Yes but every post you made was a shitty response to posts pointing out eating meat isn’t murder, so you are a retarded troll
A cow in chains. Yep, here's a human--who is better and more ethical than a fucking cow in chains. He's in a worse situation, despite the fact that he deserves more kindness than a fucking cow could ever dream of.
Animalism (disguised as veganism or w/e) is a moral extension of pathological altruism, i.e a mental disorder. (((Some))) push it because promoting this spiritual poison weakens the will to power of people, they eventually become trapped in this disorder and apply this logic to everything, this leads to the demise of the subject and the things he is in charge of.
The subject becomes a self-sacrificing messiah for the "good" of "others".
E.g. of the disorder in action:
we should make brown people live a carefree life on government bucks while our own young people become starved vagabonds that will never be able to own a house and will be drown in debt (they sacrify the wellbeing of their own kind and put other races above them, since these other races are allowed to live without working as if they were some kind of aristocracy)
we should stop eating meat at all costs even if it means we will get a worse nutrition and feel subpar for the rest of our lives (they self-sacrify and put animals above them, since they are allowed to eat other animals and have a proper nutrition)
Do you notice the pattern?
what causes this disorder?
Brainwash and pavlovian conditioning at an early age.
I didn't say it wasn't. I said you lack empathy if you can whimsically decide one sentient being deserves to be needlessly slaughtered for another
"Deserves" doesn't come into the equation, though if it did, those "sentient beings" would certainly have brought it on themselves. We're willing to cooperate and avoid harming other humans because other humans are willing to reciprocate. Animals are not willing to do so, thus, we do not grant them favours they don't deserve. The treatment we give to animals is karmic justice for the treatment they give to humans.
appeal to morality
you either aren't capable of eating an animal for susteinance or are a twisted psychopath
welp, time to buy some Ted Bundy memorabilia.
Animals created a well balanced ecosystem together. Humans actively destroy it every day while constantly at war with one another
Because his whole life doesn't amount to the limited instances in which he chose to break the law. He leads an existence as complex and multi-faceted as your own, and has done innumerable things which were ethically appropriate and regarded other humans with consideration for their freedom and will. Whereas the cow has never done such a thing, and never will, because the cow is a mindless, selfish beast that won't even be kind for its own benefit. Like all other animals, it will torture and destroy you whenever it can, and the sole reason why it doesn't do more harm to our species is only due to two factors, either:
1. The beast is too weak and thus lacks the agency to do serious harm to humans--likely due to size or stupidity--such as chickadees and butterflies.
2. The beast has been broken and is enslaved to the will of our species, thus making it a non-dangerous entity, just like a criminal in a prison.
Humans created a well balanced society together. Animals actively ignore it every day while constantly hunting eachother.
Animals did not create anything, as every animal is only out for themselves and harms all other forms of life at a moment's notice, without EVER considering the rights or welfare of any other species--including humans and their own kind. Humans are the only ones who create well-balanced ecosystems based on law, decency, and ethics, and it is called human society. Animals are able to a part of that, if they bow down to our rules and regulations--but you'd be hard pressed to find an animal that was ever willing to embrace an ethical life. The closest we get is with pets--which are our property, as even the most loyal dog is still a dangerous unknown that will rip off a toddler's face the minute it gets too hungry or riled up.
No you didn’t. You made shitty halfhearted trolling responses
Are you confusing animal torture with eating animals?
well balanced society
Yeah those world wars were a prime example of our well balanced society
god I wish that were me
I'd say they are, considering chimpanzees--the most developed, intelligent, and considerate species on earth other than humans have warfare on the daily and practice cannibalism. That's not even considering how they treat other species, such as monkeys and even humans themselves.
Yes they were. The reason those wars were fought was shifting balances
When was the last time an animal wiped out 200000+ of its own kind?
Humans have the biological and mental capacity to be able to choose not to eat meat for moral reasons. It just feels wrong to condone killing so many animals for nothing but pleasure, especially when farm raising animals is worse for the environment in many ways than farming the same calorie count of vegetables is.
Don't recall, as even if an animal did, they wouldn't keep a history of it to reflect on, since they don't practice philosophy or think about the morality of their decisions. If an animal kills 200,000 of its own kind, you can be rest assured it'll do it again, and again, and again until the end of time without ever feeling remorse, and the only reason why an animal would not kill 200,000 members of its own kind is simply because it lacks the agency to do so--due to being too stupid or too weak. It's the same fact as, "Why hasn't this spider killed me if it's so inconsiderate and selfish?" The answer is because the spider is too small to overpower you, and that is LITERALLY the only reason. If the spider was as large as you are, it would kill you in a heartbeat, and your entire family, and every single family it could kill until it was killed itself.
There is no reason to be worried about the environment, as future generations will be more suited to handle environmental problems than you ever will be. They will be able to fix more problems than we can fix now, for cheaper. You may as well wait, rather than try to restrict the freedom and happiness of the entire species because you want to be the "saviour of the environment." Pathetic.
That's a terrible argument. By that logic, no one should ever do anything because the next generation will be able to do it better. If fewer people thought like you, there might not be as many problems to fix and the next generation would be able to make advancements instead of simply repair damage.
And humans have done the exact same thing since our existence came to fruition. We kill without discrimination and even attempt to wipe out entire ethnicities. We are no different than a spider. There are exceptions that are few and far between. A minority group of American soldiers objected to slaughtering natives. Didn't matter. A majority group of people around the world objected to the slaughter of millions during world war 1 and 2. Didn't matter. Humans are animals. We can sit back and study philosophy and biology, but at the end of the day there's a primal gene itching to get out and fight/murder a male for looking at our breeding partner. We are the domesticated pig. Give us a week or two in the wild, fighting for survival and were back to square one
he doesn't know about how most crops are inedible to humans thus have to be fed to animals and eat the animal instead
How are you going to fix this? Overfarming specific pieces of land on proper climates that can grow edible crops and turning the earth into a fuel gas chamber trying to export it to feed billions of people?
Stop thinking with le feels.
the next generation
Sorry but, thirld worlders are going to be the "next" generation. These issues will hardly matter to them.
Right so if that’s the case you admit there is no moral difference between a human killing a deer for sustenance and a wolf killing a deer for sustenance
Except it isn't, because eventually problems will be able to fixed in a heart-beat. For example, if you bought solar panels twenty years ago, you would be thousands of dollars in expenses for buying them and suiting up your house to run on them, and would only save a tiny amount of energy cost in the long-term over those decades. Whereas, if you buy solar panels right now, they're far far cheaper, and can save the same amount as the older panels could over twenty years in a single month. The fact is simply that developing technology will make it easier to solve environmental problems down the line, and the potential expenses in the present compared with what you could "save" just isn't worth doing.
Yet, not every human kills without discrimination or attempts to wipe out other ethnicities. The vast majority of humans alive at this moment, do not do so, not because we're too weak to do so, but because we have no desire to do so. We desire to do good, and to avoid evil. Can you show me a spider which is unwilling to harm other creatures out of the goodness of its heart, out of consideration for their rights?
Some humans act like animals, and MOST humans BY FAR observe ethics; but no beast ever observes ethics. Serial killers, rapists, thieves... the worst of the worst in our species, is a tiny minority which doesn't even amount to 10% of our entire species. But killers, rapists, and thieves make up the ENTIRE species of every single nonhuman species on Earth.
I don't understand context
Many humans would rather die than harm another member of their species. Few among us would even steal to protect themselves, and fewer still would kill or physically assault another person--because we have a system of ethics and law. There is no animal which would do this, because animals are not ethical creatures--they are evil creatures who deserve to be treated like shit because they are FAR FAR shittier than any human could ever possibly be. Want to know why? Because even the most depraved genocidal dictator still has moments of moral consideration, of reason and thoughtfulness, and will do good things once in a while. An animal never experiences remorse, and never even stops to reason whether their behaviour is appropriate or acceptable--they're lower than psychopaths.
-rikan! God Bless the USA.
The fuel and energy savings from not farming meat more than make up for the greenhouse gases released transporting it. Cows grown for meat are the single biggest greenhouse gas producer currently. Now you're just trying to confuse the argument by redirecting it towards global warming for some reason.
And on the point of inedible crops - you know we choose to grow those because it's more profitable to use them as animal feed, right? We would just not grow those crops and direct GMO effort towards them instead of dent corn. And granted, I could certainly be proven wrong in the long run, but all current data points to, at the very least, vast amounts of acreage freed if we stopped raising animals for meat.
The only reason solar panels have gotten that far is because of those early adopters pumping money into it. If no one bought first generation solar panels, all the companies would have gone bankrupt and there would be no second generation solar panels. And there would be no solar panels at all if everyone thought like you and thought "Why bother since someone else will just make a better advancement and render my input moot?" Every little bit helps. If you can predict the future, you can say it's not worth it. I'd rather do something than just hope someone else does it better later on. I vote, I donate money to charities, and I volunteer at animal shelters. Why bother caring for that stray cat when it's just going to be dead in ten years anyway, right?
Many humans would rather die than harm another member of their species. Few among us would even steal to protect themselves, and fewer still would kill or physically assault another person--because we have a system of ethics and law.
Have you gone to africa, friend?
And yet, it is still illogical for you to harm yourself wasting time on such frivolities if you're intelligent enough to weigh the costs and benefits--especially when you aren't going to be alive in the future anyway. Even if it wasn't solar panels, it would be something else, just like how we can save so much on nuclear energy. The potential expense of destroying innumerable industries, whether it's in factory farms, dairy, culinary arts, breeding, medicine, etc., is far too high of a price to pay for the sake of some child's virtue signalling. There is no reason to be whining about this for ethical reasons, since animals do not deserve to be treated ethically, and there is no reason to care about the environmental impact as the environment is a passing blip compared to human achievement, and a blip which can and will be manipulated in the future with ease.
When it comes to taking care of worthless animals, it's stupid to waste your efforts caring for them. If you want to fix the problem of a stray cat, then you should kill it. The expense is cheaper.
Yes, I have. And even the majority of African niggers still observe ethical principles animals are unwilling to even entertain for an instant. A nigger who at least thinks about whether it's moral to steal or to kill will always be worth more than a dog or a rat which steals and kills without a care for anyone but itself.
Nature hates equality
Correct. But the people buying a pack of chicken from the grocery store aren't doing anything close to similar
Please don't post a picture of yourself here this isn't Facebook.
That's the thing. There is no cost to stopping eating meat in my life. The benefit of not feeling bad far outweighs the pleasure that comes with the taste of meat.
animals do not deserve to be treated ethically
I honestly do not believe we have anything further to discuss if we differ on such a core piece of this argument. There is no way either of us will ever influence the other one if that's what you believe versus what I believe. Though it seems to me that you're picking and choosing what 'matters' in the world with no rhyme or reason. The environment isn't worth putting effort into protecting because it will fix itself next generation, or after humans are gone, but it's childish virtue signaling to destroy industries and potentially leave some people jobless - people that will be dead in less then a hundred years anyway?
Yeah, you pretty much know nothing about "african niggers".
Luckily I'm here to bring you some light from someone who has actually dedicated her life to learn about niggers, their culture, language and psyche.
I am not the guy you responded to but I lived in Chicago for a decade and I can tell you without a doubt that niggers are gorillas on PCP. Around blacks never relax, it will literally keep you alive.
Not just that, we have original sin, we are fallen. Life is suffering and happiness is merely a temporary remedy, man's purpose in life is to be good, no matter how much you uplift humanity you'll never deserve happiness more than anyone else, its arbitrary thing, more people need to understand and come to terms with that and maybe we could start moving forward again
I know, I'm trying to get other people to be aware too.
I always find it funny that most nigger enablers/lovers/supporters are white people who have never seen or lived around blacks in real life and thing niggers are oppressed einsteins that would never dindu nuffin wrong.
I've had a friend who was a liberal self-hating cunt, you know, the usual package and mindset. He had to live in a black neighborhood for a while and now it's full on 14/88.
There's really a difference between what media portrays blacks as and what they really are.
Most people have to learn the hard way. Some are so brainwashed they can get raped, mugged or assaulted by a nigger and will say it's because of white male patriarchy.
Negative rights are the only rights to observe, as positive rights are built upon slavery. Nonexistent people who may potentially exist have no protections, as compared to humans who actually do exist. Especially since harming the "environment" does not interfere with any negative rights of people even in the present, let alone the future--while preventing humans from using their property as they like, whether it's an animal or not, inhibits their freedom.
There is no benefit to involving animals in our ethical systems, especially as the beasts do not want to participate, thus they are disregarded. As I've said, it is karmic justice.
The good part is that those "people" leave our genepool by racemixing.
The bad part is our race is nearing extinction.
A civil war must be definitely in the making. We just can't keep our eyes closed to so many rapes, murder and robbery the shitskins are doing in europe and america. I believe accelerationism is the answer, instead of letting the frog die in the water due to the temperature being slowly raised so it doesn't notice, turn on the fucking dial as a last attempt to wake it up.
I prefer balkanization. Within a generation, the left will wither on the vine and their land can be retaken without a shot fired.
Or balkanize and immediately invade. Either works for me.
Sounds pretty much like the Varg plan. Get to the countryside and stock up, let the dindus cull the soyboys and retake the cities. Both are compatible I believe.
Picture related, even fucking arabs know about the eternal nig.
the beasts do not want to participate, thus they are disregarded
We are forcing them to participate by raising them and interacting with them. As such, I believe it is 'karmic justice' to treat them properly. If they don't want to participate, great. Leave them alone when and where that's possible. We have not done so, so how is it reasonable that we are not willing to treat them ethically after forcing them into our system in the first place? Kill a charging bear. Go out hunting. Put down a dog that bit someone. That's all fine. But if you are forcing the animal to participate in your system, you don't then get to say they deserve no rights or protections because they didn't want to participate in the first place. You forced them to participate. What protections and rights its deserves are certainly up for debate, but saying that it deserves none is ridiculous.
Humans are the only animal that we've seen in the entire universe that can think this way, and I believe that gives us an obligation to the things that can't.
It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with being an impoverished oppressed community. You'll see the same thing in any "ghetto" regardless of race. I totally get that skin colour can be a good indicator in certain settings but on a personal level I disagree with your assessment and think that's a problematic way of looking at your fellow man.
You can really tell that you are either 14 or a troll
ignores the extensive dissertation about how niggers just can't mentally perceive morality the way we do and claims it's just becuz da poverty.
And you will ignore this picture too. You are what this guy describes
Like uh, I can't stand this racism, whites should just fucking die (And That's A Good Thing)
The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity.
The question is not, can they reason, can they talk but can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes, universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.
The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes, universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.
they eventually become trapped in this disorder and apply this logic to everything
that cow would eat you and everyone you love, given the chance.
Because by that logic you’re only extending your compassion to a suffering you personally can relate to, essentially drawing the line at things that look more like you. If the suffering of cows is to be acknowledged, but plants aren’t, then it’s moral to eat things like lobsters and fish. Ultimately the line is completely arbitrary, and since you can’t use photosynthesis and require nutrition from other living creatures to survive, the only “morale action” is to let oneself starve to death, which of course is ridiculous
grabbing something that belongs to something else right out of their hands is ste-
nevermind I guess it's ok because a baboon did it. they are our moral compass after all
You can survive without killing plants.
Go back to /pol/ you racist piece of shit. Always trying to put blacks in a bad light. Not all blacks are thieves you racist pos.
The last pill.
Eat fruits and nuts etc, besides we're teching our way out of the issue by inventing lab grown meat.
create lab grown meat
apply economies of scale
domesticated breeds of animals dissapear because nobody wants to feed useless animals when they can feed themselves with labgrown for cheaper
So genocide instead of just killing them? Genius!
MUH /POL/ BOOGEYMAN!!
Blacks dindu nuffinz!
t. gated community white person
I see an actual /pol/tard wandered in here and failed to get the joke
The beasts force themselves into our societies, just as rats will infest your home and scurry about your walls, no matter where we go, there's always some gross beast underfoot. Since we're the ones who make the property, the entire Earth belongs to human society, and animals have no desire to claim anything, instead they just think it'll be theirs regardless, and thus vandalize, steal, and destroy our property. In that regard, we similarly do not give a shit about them at all.
When a rat is willing to observe property rights, and doesn't just steal food out of your counters, then you can talk to me about how they want to be treated ethically. No animal, ever, in all of history, has ever shown a capacity or desire to respect ethical boundaries.
There is no such thing as an "obligation" or a "duty." There is only those who follow moral law and those who do not. As I said, positive rights are imaginary and authoritarian. Animals do not deserve anything but suffering, because they give nothing to us but grief until they're in chains.
"Suffering" is irrelevant. Animals cause humans to suffer whenever they desire, so they have forfeited any reason to regard their feelings. Animals are no better than criminals, who have forfeited their rights. Just as we have no reason to care about the welfare or the desires of a thief, we have no reason to care about the welfare or potential desires of a rat.
You never know m8, there are nigger loving libtards everywhere and I have had to deal with them for my entire life.
Sounds good to me. I have no problem with replacing animals with equivalents that do not require their meddlesome species to continue existence. The sooner we can destroy all animal life, the better. Animals are unworthy of the lives they have been so graciously provided with, and unworthy of the mercy we have thus far provided.
The sooner we can destroy all animal life, the better.
Kys, you transhumanist cuck.
If you want humans to go extinct, you can start by killing yourself. The instant you die, all of this will disappear--as you will no longer be aware of it. If you love your pathetic, mongrel, subhuman trash so much, then start by sparing them from one of the biggest faggots in the entire species. Even better, you'd be sparing me of your company as well.
Good rebuttal user
You're an illiterate newfag, nothing more beta than that.
as someone who worked in law enforcement in both poor black areas and poor white areas: no.
You are literally saying that the entire species should cuck themselves for the sake of parasites that would rape and kill your entire family if given the chance. Caring about the welfare of nonhuman animals is the epitome of beta.
But dats rayciss! Jamiroquai was bout to do to cullege! he a good boy! he dindu nuffinz!
Caring about keeping high calorie food sources alive is beta.
Keeping high calorie food sources alive
For no purpose because you want humanity to die off
I'm sure the fucking chimps and wolves will appreciate your sacrifice, y'know, when they get done eating their own shit and cannibalizing each other.
I'm the guy you replied, can confirm, was a joke. Or was it? Is there even a tangible difference between an animal monkey and a nigger monkey?
duh animuhls eet eech utha so wee shud tooo
I never said once in my posts that I care more about animals than humans, you are retarded beyond belief or trolling me.
animals do it, therefore we shouldn't becuz we so smurt and we aint no damn animal muh moralz
Animals drink water, stop drinking water right now or acknowledge you're an hypocrite.
Not him but
You're an hypocrite.
It's not about the animals eating each-other, though it doesn't do them any favours. It's the fact that despite the fact that we are fully willing to practice ethics and respect negative rights, as we do with each-other, that the beasts STILL do not respect our negative rights. The animals eat us, so I see no reason with self-defense. Just as there is nothing unethical about killing a burglar, there's nothing unethical about killing a lower species whose only wish is to rape and pillage without regard for who he hurts.
We should only observe ethics with those who are willing to reciprocate, otherwise there is no point in doing so. The sole purpose is rational self-interest, and there's nothing to gain from rolling over when another creature aims to harm you. It's just a fact that all animals ever do is harm humanity unless they're in chains.
pronouncing the letter "h"
Go shart yourself at wallmart or something, colonial.
The fact is that you would pronounce the sentence, "You're 'AY' hypocrite" and not "You're 'AHN' hypocrite." Regardless, however, since "hypocrite" begins with a consonant and not a vowel, it should still be written with "a" and not "an."
Dogmatic veganism is so weird.
we can't kill animals cuz we morals
uhhh, fuck you, get some empathy u sicko
it's caring about some stuff or ur'e a sicko
Oh, so you're a britbong or yuropoor? Explains your retardation.
Your actual face when.
Also. an hypocrite, a hypocrite, an hypocrite, a hypocrite. Learn English you fucking nigger.
Y2K was 18 years ago
It's just tied into liberalism. "Equality for everyone! Except you and YOU AND YOU REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
Wrong, "a" goes before a consonantic sound, "an" before a vowel sound. If you don't pronounce "h" (i.e. aren't a morbid burger eating american), the next sound is a vowel. It's about phonetics, not grammar.
Go back to first grade pedro, murica won't accept you if you speak no bueno.
Equality and rights don't exist. Nature is the highest law and we are beholden to it.
Literally every dictionary on Earth writes the pronunciation of hypocrite with the "h" making a "hip" sound at the start of the word
But we should ignore that because some fucking morons who live in the gutters of bongland are too stupid to speak properly
OI IS ENRY IGGINS IT IS BLIMEY DUNYU NO HOW TO SPAKE PRAPAH GUVNAH?
wut iz langage evolushun?
u shud be speekin protogermanic or latin u niggurrrr
Classic burger, never change.
You're actually going to pretend that the natural progression of the English language is from retarded chimney-sweeps from the turn of the century, up to proper speech, and then back to the fucking chavs? Get a clue. You do realize you sound like a fucking idiot when you say, "DAMN BLIMEY UR ONE FUKIN' IPPOCRIT AICHYA?"
You have to be 18+ to post here.
me on the right
You convinced me, I can already feel it, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED 9/11 NEVER FORGET *braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap* OH NO I SHART MUHSELF.
Not really. Farmers and ranchers killed them because they eat smaller livestock. Pesticides damaged their ability to breed. Not too many people had any use for them to cause them to be poached, though, mostly just a few American Indians who wanted feathers for craft jewelry like headdresses.
Looks healthy. 10/10 would kill it and grill it.
like America and the French, that eagle fucked up that frog
Veeky Forums - Food & Cooking