Has there ever been any good arguments against veganism?

Has there ever been any good arguments against veganism?

Other urls found in this thread:

pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants
amazon.com/Peter-Singer/e/B000AP88PO
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871675
youtube.com/watch?v=oRZRUJs9_7g&t=21s
psmag.com/social-justice/vegans-obligated-eat-insects-93767
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Humanism

veganism is superego chatter and derision

Plants have sentience and respond to stress
pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

So, in other words no.

Right that's it, I'm starting No Eat. Who's with me

That's not an argument against veganism unless you complement it by an argument that voluntary extinction through global starvation is a better alternative to eating plants.

Isn't this a literature board?

Eating locally produced meat and dairy from small producers who treat their animals humanely

First and foremost it's a privileged first worlder diet, that alone refutes it.

soyboys

Although this is an indication that plants may have some kind of subjective experience and it is possible that suffering is possible within that experience, we are not at all certain of it. Even if they do possess subjective experience it may be quite different from ours. Until more is discovered, insofar as it is possible to discover such things, ethical veganism has not been undermined.

Yeah its tastes bad and farmlands take away from animal lands

>Philosophical discussion can go on either Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on Veeky Forums should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

You're right, but I posted an image of Peter Singer who's book Animal iberation is pretty well known in this subject area.

It absolutely mitigates the vegan's claim to moral superiority. Jains would eat only fruits that had fallen from trees. They would eventually starve themselves out. Jains were authentic. Vegans are just lifestylist virtue signallers.

But aren't most Indians vegan?

No, they are vegetarians, which is a GOAT diet.

How can we be certain that farm animals suffer? We are inferring it competely from its behavior, and possibly from other clinical indications of pain. We are about as sure of animal subjectivity as plant subjectivity. Plants are simply looked at as lower lifeforms even though in many ways they are superior, more beautiful than any other. It is most probable that harvesting and eating plants is just as unethical as factory meat production.

Because lobsters suffer friendo :^)

amazon.com/Peter-Singer/e/B000AP88PO

an analogy:
>any good arguments against murder?
>"yes, murder without torture"

>It absolutely mitigates the vegan's claim to moral superiority.
Killing a chicken is still worse than killing a fucking cactus.
>Vegans are just lifestylist virtue signallers.
Some of them, probably. But I believe OP meant specifically the ethical claims of veganism so I that's a non sequitur.

>Killing a chicken is still worse than killing a fucking cactus
That is just your opinion

No, veganism is great. I like to rape the plants before I eat them.

We cannot verify any suffering other than our own. The simple point is that plants are distinctive enough from humans and most animals to such an extent that we may treat the hypothesis of plants possessing subjectivity within them as a point to be further investigated rather than outright believed or disbelieved. We are not equally sure of plant subjectivity as we are animal subjectivity. Don;t overstate your case.

morality doesnt exist so who cares lol

I think this is stretching the concept of experience. But even so are you proposing that since there isn't a perfect solution then there is no solution?

what you eat is not that important to change the scenario, because there is no ethical consumption under capitalism

that is, even if you agree with the urgency and necessity of the well being of the animals, eating or not eating animals won't do much

when you simply demand from the provider to provide you with something different ('companies, stop selling meat, farmers, stop producing meat'), that provider is still in power and whatever change that might occur will be hijacked by those who are at the top level

in other words, it's easier for mcdonalds to have some veggie burgers on the menu while using that to continue its expansion and actually killing more animals, than to actually have it shut down

it's easier for vegan restaurants to open because of vegans than to butcheries to close for the same reason

a few years ago there was some extreme imbalance in the price of meat somewhere and it was not worth transporting it, so they just slaughtered some thousands of cows and threw them away, like what sometimes happends with some vegetables

charging people with being vegans is like saying you'll save the world by closing the tap water, while huge corporations and governments water use in industries and farming is close to 95% of the total

it's counterproductive to adopt a individualist strategy, it disguises the problem, one should accept that it's possible that a vegan does more harm than good to his own cause simply by the way he preaches it and it's possible for a non-vegan to fight for animal rights, as contradictory as this may sound at first glance

observe none of this has to do with morality or health, or whether or not it should be done, just that nothing will be done this way

Don't assume that because something is alien that it does not have a right to life. You will kill something to live. There is no way around this. Sentiocentrism is just another form of the same problem.

Farming peactises of local crops require anti pest measures.
Harvesting plants still kills the wildlife.
-The maddox rebuttal

The thought experiment " the pig that wants to be eaten". Implying we cabn get at the subjective menctal states of others

>a right to life.

Spook

>Implying we cabn get at the subjective menctal states of others

That's assinine

>spook

Meme

>meme

Spook

>in other words, it's easier for mcdonalds to have some veggie burgers on the menu while using that to continue its expansion and actually killing more animals, than to actually have it shut down

And if 50% of the population is on plant based diets then why would mcdonalds expand its meat industry?

...

At this point the only thing keeping me from veganism is /deenz/, they just can't be beat

this fucking cartoon character is our president jesus fucking christ

Yeah...Trump is the problem

because you see, we don't just jump to a vegan world and then wonder why mcdonalds is still around

my point is that when 10% of the people are on a vegetarian diet, mcdonalds will have a veggie burger and that will settle down some vegetarians, not others who will still boycott it and so on, but by the time you get 20% of plant eating people, mcdonalds has already expanded enough that it makes eating meat more popular to counter balance, not because of any particular preferece about it (companies don't care either way, mcdonalds could go full vegan if the market called, but that never will happen), but because it's already on their menu

of course, this is just a little silly example, but the point is that the very position of consumer makes it so that your goals of change are secondary to the profit of those who are already in power (profitting with something you disagree on) and will eventually lose power or get increasingly more lost in its goal

Dude you could have just pointed out how McDonald's serves fish sandwiches during Lent instead of typing all that shit..

show a vegan over 40 who doesn't look like an aids patient

...

No, where did you get that idea?

Veganism is like castration. It's better for the environment, it's better for your personal health, it greatly reduces the amount of suffering in the world, but you wind up half a man.

It's very inefficient and costly.

Fuck off back to pol.

So how is castration better for the environemtn, personal health and reducing the ammount of suffering?

Yes, the argument of anyone with a basic grasp of how the human body works.

Mike tyson

>. The market research company Mintel reports the non-dairy milk market leapt from 36 million litres in 2011 to 92 million in 2013, making it worth over £150 million.

soy is big business my friends

Meanwhile the actual dairy market is worth trillions

All life has a right to life irrespective of sentience? I completely disagree. I see no reason to believe that. Might as well say water has a right to flow and rocks a right to rest.

He eats human flesh

i'm just saying veganism is simply lifestyle marketing

Meat tastes good. If you want to be a faggy utilitarian: The pleasure I gain from eating meat outweighs the pain the animal suffered from death.

Saying this is not being honest. Some vegans I am sure just complete pieces of shit, just the way you picture them, but we havent meant nearly close to most of them, so you just have a baseless claim to offer when you have no counter argument

I eat meat but fuck

Alright edgelord, leave the moral questions to the big people

>have there ever been any good arguments for veganism?
ftfy

>they are vegetarians, which is a goat diet

You're not wrong.

he just made a moral argument

>soyboys who don't eat meat are "big people"

if peter singer doesn't drive an electric car then i'm going to be fucking pissed

>Vegetarian diets confer protection against cardiovascular diseases, cardiometabolic risk factors, some cancers and total mortality. Compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets, vegan diets seem to offer additional protection for obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes, and cardiovascular mortality. Males experience greater health benefits than females.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871675

Appealing to positivism is not a good argument kid

these studies are always gay shit like comparing someone who eats a two cheeseburgers a night and bacon for breakfast with someone who eats no meat, well of course not eating that will be healthier, they never compare a guy who eats tuna and milk with a vegan who guzzles mountain dew and doritos for some reason

if you actually read through the methodology of the review and the studies it looks at you'll find that's bullshit

>The attitudes towards vegetarianism have gained better acceptance;

can't even go two sentences without biased wording, "better" should be "wider". you wouldn't say the "alt-right has gained better acceptance among white americans" would you?

How do I know that you suffer? I know that I suffer, because I feel it, but the only way I can know that you suffer is from your reactions.

Our eyes are on the front of our heads for imparting depth perception. This is not a physiological feature of herbivores, it is a physiological feature of predatory animals that hunt for portions of their sustenance.

also because human females ovulate year round (most (all?) other primates do not) they are at greater risk of iron deficiency from blood loss without a steady source of meat

i always find it interesting how india has the most vegetarians and vegans but then the most unequal and cruel social organization for humans, kinda sizzles my steaks

Vegans also lack important vitamins and get crazy eyes à la schizos. Their bodies look sick and malformed.
>Males experience greater health benefits than females.
Female fertility decreases on a vegan diet. Many stop menstruating.

>plant feel
>Grug eat human flesh now

>you'll save the world by closing the tap water, while huge corporations and governments water use in industries and farming is close to 95% of the total
I consider myself an environmentalist but this is basically my justification for taking long showers and whatnot. The world is too far gone to start caring on an individual level now

i wonder if the same people pushing veganism are also interested in the population in (some) countries declining? you have to really ask yourself is veganism in MY best interest? it might be in the best interest of a cow or someone who would like to see the birth rate drop but you only have one life, is veganism spooky?

So basically we have to wait until we invent some kind of photosynthesis device for nourishment to truly become 'vegan'

that's why singer is full of shit and i don't pay attention to his arguments no matter how tricky they get, he's always saying that through individual charity we can somehow stop inequality or suffering or something, has he ever advocated for any state intervention even something as simple as raising taxes on the rich and/or spending money on social welfare programs? no, well then he can fuck the fuck off

>implying some uber-SJW in the future won't propose that photons have feelings

Humane meat is an oxymoron. I've never had any problem with "animal cruelty" in slaughterhouses, because they all end up dead anyways.
Now if you wanna talk about cruelty to hens or milk cows or sheep, I can see the value in opposing that. But if an animal is being raised for the slaughter it all seems pretty pointless.

youtube.com/watch?v=oRZRUJs9_7g&t=21s

I don't understand how people aren't disgusted by the violence they can't help but desire. Needing the pleasure of a tasty food so badly that you lend your implicit or explicit sanction to e.g. the above video is weak and pathetic.

It's not even a matter of morality, I don't care if eating vegan makes a difference or not, and I generally accept that there's nothing an individual to do. But if you aren't disgusted with your own desire for flesh, you're probably willfully blinding yourself to the violence that goes into it's production. There's nothing more decadent, voluptuary, or unerotic than meat eating. It's unfeminine in women and unmasculine in men.

The strongest argument for veganism isn't moral but aesthetic.

Simply put, meat is disgusting to the point of cosmic horror; carnists can only avoid choking on it through a sort of mass sleepwalking.

To those less brainwashed to human herd sensibilities, even the mildest of meat has a vile animal must, reeks of blood, lymph, pheromones, and a touch of feces/urine. Naturally it's a breeding ground of bacteria and parasites. Anything not fresh out the abattoir is liable to be in some intermediate stage of decay.

Yet these most manifest sensual aspects are nothing compared to the libidinal aspect. Imagine an ample-bellied man smacking his lips as he scarfs down an Arby's sandwich, the dead stinky flesh folded out like an old whore's vagina vagina with syphilitic yellow cheese sauce oozing out; or, if you prefer, a cute-but-just-slightly-plump girl "mmm"ing in pleasure as a big fat phallus of a hotdog has its way with her.

If you asked such people if they loved animals, they would no doubt answer yes, unhesitatingly. Perhaps baby-talking with a dog or cat furnishes their nihilistic lives with some small happiness. But they've seen glimpses of the videos. Cowards, they hide their faces before the truth of what they are--the sunless mausoleums of soft, pink, feeling flesh, writhing and screaming to die; evil that would humble the holocaust, equal only to Lovecraftian horror. It is this foul secret that powers their brains, that makes its home in their thighs or bellies, that moves their lips as they say "I love you" to their lovers, meat on their breaths, before their mutual rape.

You disgusting faggots.

Vegans probably squash cockroaches in their home and swat flies, like hypocrites; they probably wash the demodex from their eyelash or step on ants.

>you can't have pets and eat meat

except humans domesticated dogs to help hunt

wow it's almost as if mammals posses vastly more complex nervous systems

How much complexity until it's wrong?

and it's almost like humans have language and self-consciousness that animals don't, but i should apply the same ethics to humans and chickens, kys

There is nothing inherently wrong with violence.

Are vegans against killing animals or only against killing 'high enough mammals' that coincidentally fit my subjective feeling when it's wrong to kill them?

That's irrelevant in the modern world. Dogs obviously don't serve the same function anymore.

To avoid any misunderstanding, there was nothing wrong with our ancestors eating meat; it's not as if they had a choice. To the extent that hunting made civilization and hence the overcoming of primordial cruelty possible, it's in fact quite glorious. But now there's simply no reason beside pleasure to eat meat.

Okay lets kill all the jews because if we kill flies it's pretty much the same thing right?

I readily agree, but there's something wrong with violence conducted only for carnal pleasure

Eating insects kill less animals than being vegans. So by their logic they should go full insect.
psmag.com/social-justice/vegans-obligated-eat-insects-93767

This I think misses the point. The argument for veganism isn't that we should stop lions from hunting in africa because it creates cruelty. Lions need to hunt to survive. However we have the capacity to sustain ourselves without meat. in the first case a lion needs to hunt to survive and in the second we are farm producing animals in horrendous conditions for the sake of cheeseburgers. not to mention the effect it has on the environment.

Just because we can't draw some perfect scientific line in the sand doesn't mean that obvious gradations don't exist.

Of course you shouldn't apply the same ethics to non-human animals. It would be fine, for example, to grow human livers in pigs and harvest them for medical treatment, thought less so for humans. It's just fucked up to eat them for no reason other than our pleasure. Anyway, there's no evidence to support your implicit contention that language/"self-consciousness" (a poorly defined notion from a scientific standpoint) is relevant to capacity to suffer.

I don't know about vegans in general. I'm not against killing per se, merely against useless and preventable pain. It would, to be honest, perhaps be better if many or most animals were killed. The ideal biosphere would consist of as few non-human animals as possible to prevent ecological collapse. Nature is as cruel as animal agriculture. But I think most vegans are sentimental and won't follow their thinking this far.

I feel like you are describing the mentality behind vegetarianism and not veganism. I had the understanding that veganism's goal was to reduce the pain afflicted to animals as much as possible, leading to insectism being superior.

So killing an animal without suffering is okay.

I don't understand the difference. I think even cows used for milk and chickens for eggs are still living in pretty awful conditions. Vegetarianism seems like a comprise to me but still accepts the same premise that vegans do.

It's obviously better to kill as painlessly as possible (though livestock deaths will never, on average, be painless so long as there's no economic benefit for slaughterhouses in preventing pain.) But most of the suffering of livestock takes place during the animal's life, not during its death. What would be far better would be if the animals were never born. Animal agriculture ensures that suffering will be prolonged indefinitely.

>ywn espouse chauvinistic humanism, finding spirituality and meaning in the ritualised human form and existence, dying in a thousand-year battle for brethren from across the stars

>No ethical consumption under capitalism
Where does this meme come from? Even a lot of my normie friends actually beleive it

>Dogs obviously don't serve the same function anymore.
'dogs' never did, that's why there is different breeds. Each breed was developed for a purpose. Hunting a certain type of prey, in a particular environment, for example. Many breeds still do this.