What is the moral/ethic counter argument to veganism?

Because I'm a registered dietitian.

Meat is murder, Morrisey is vegan, We cause pain to living beings for our gluttony

>Meat is murder
Care to support the claim?
>Morrisey is vegan
Morrisey is also shit.
>We cause pain to living beings for our gluttony
So what?
I see 3 premises, no conclusion, as part of 1 long sentence without enough verbs.

This is in reference to eating meat sacrificed to idols, not a statement that the eating of meat is in anyways immoral. At least quote Singer or somebody like him instead of pretending others share your viewpoint.

>Morrissey is vegan
nice meme

I don't bother discussing personal philosophies and ethics with them so I say that the consumption of meat and therefore its industry is never going away. People will always eat meat while it's there no matter what so I might as well blend into the huge majority demand and enjoy it.

That being said they could still up the industry standards when it comes to animal suffering in my opinion.

>Why are you not vegan user?

I can afford proper food.

Not my opinion tho, it's the vegan argument with a bit of memes here and there

That isn't an argument, though, and the memes certainly don't help you. You're trivializing the vegan position, which doesn't help us arrive at any conclusions w/r/t the validity or soundness of serious arguments by vegans.
How about you go look at what Singer has to say, at the very least?

We are a carnivore species and need animal protein to develop our intelligence, specially in our growing stages.
However I agree a big part of the meat industry have become horribly cruel. We should give animals a decent quality of life according to their needs and a quick and painless death

What reason do I have to be? I need vitamin b12 just like everyone else.

You take your self a bit too seriuosly.

>We cause pain to living beings for our gluttony
The fact that we kill living beings when we don't need too (because we can find other sources of food) seems enough of an argoument.
We kill them because we enjoy meat (this is valid for me too) without thinking about morals and shit, then we call vegans a bunch of pussies

Strict vegan is doable, but incredibly hard. B12 is very hard to get for them, and getting complete proteins is also difficult. If you lack just one amino acid, you can't build any protein, and your body suffers horribly.

I agree with user here
This too

Dolphins are smarter than africans, so dont eat them.

The OP is about arguments against veganism. You don't decide what an argument is. I've taken logic classes. I know what an argument is: it's a series of propositions (premises and a conclusion) in one of several valid forms.
If you aren't interested in arguments then don't mention them in your OPs or tell people who ask you to make one and then tell you you've failed to do so that they're too serious.
You're not serious enough, is all.
>The fact that we kill living beings when we don't need too (because we can find other sources of food) seems enough of an argoument.
Argument*
Are you saying that nobody should ever do anything that they don't need to do, or if an alternative action can be taken?
I don't know who 'we' are, either-who are you talking about?

ITT
>subjective morals
>it's in X's nature

Animal treatment is an ethical matter. If the animal is capable of complex feelings and intelligent enough/capable to experience suffering, mentally and physically, the consensus is that we should avoid inflicting suffering on them, because we agree that suffering is bad.

That's all cool and nice and proper.
And then here come the vegans.
>No honey because the bees are slaves for their honey
>no silk because silkworms are slave labour
>No eggs because the poor hen..whatever
>No milk because the poor cow feels objectified???

Improving the living and death conditions of animals farmed for their products is one thing.

Advocating for the rights of a bee whose nervous system can't even generate a concept more complex than "go by the hardwired stimuli and keep moving" is another.

>What is the moral/ethic counter argument to veganism?
"Nice spooks nerd"

works 100% of the time

All you seem to have taken from that class was a whole lot of pedantry and little logic.

Clearly, he's proposing that causing suffering in instances where it's easily avoidable is unethical. I don't think it's necessary for him to specifically argue that inducing suffering is a negative, is that something you want to deny?

>muh feelings trump biological need

Best post ITT, essentially why I stop at vegetarianism

>Biological need
>By losing energy at successive tiers of the food chain we can't feed as many people
Right...

Also:
>hurr durr my biology says I can club my rivals to death and rape women if I can get away with it
>might makes right amirite lads??
>fucking moralisers denying my biology
You might think these things. If you do, I'm not sure why you're bothering to post in this thread.

I have thought a lot about this. I used to be a vegetarian, but the only valid argument I can provide for my current carnivorous position is my own pleasure.

I care more about the pleasure eating meat gives me than the suffering of animals that is required for it's production.

>ignores the essential vitamin and whole protein arguments

>pedantry
All I'm asking for is a valid argument. I haven't gotten one. I've gotten unsupported premises that don't follow from or imply each other.
>Clearly, he's proposing that causing suffering in instances where it's easily avoidable is unethical
Then he should have said so.
> I don't think it's necessary for him to specifically argue that inducing suffering is a negative,
Well, that would be a good thing for him to argue for.
>is that something you want to deny?
Christ's suffering on the Cross led to the redemption of mankind. I do most certainly deny that all suffering is bad.

Requiring supplements isn't that strange though. Literally everyone in the Western world takes them whether they realise it or not.

>Dat iodised salt

Morals does not exist. It is only determined by circumstances. So there are no reason to refute veganism with morals.

...

I agree that small invertebrates are a bit weird. I would actually say a vegan who ate them could still legit consider themselves a vegan.

The dairy industry involves the slaughter of calves though, it's an inherent part of it. The egg industry also, but to a lesser extent.

>philosophy
>arguing morals
>anything but pedantic

And where does the B12 in the supplement come from? Also, that doesn't account for getting whole proteins.

Correcting someone's spelling on a Finno-Ugric pistachio appreciation blog is pedantic.

All suffering is bad. Jesus suffering on the cross was bad. The good bit you associate with Jesus's suffering (the redemption) was not one and the same as his suffering, it was an outcome of it. The net result of the entire scenario may have been positive, but that does not mean that the suffering component was good.

What you are trying to argue is "suffering towards the end of an ultimate gain is not bad". This is a non sequitur to "unnecessary suffering is bad", as the unnecessary part directly implies either no ultimate gain or an ultimate gain which can be achieved without suffering.

In this case, the suffering of animals is unnecessary because the gains (energy, vitamins, so on) can be at worst equally efficiently gained from other sources. As such, a "we need to do it for the greater good" point is moot.

There are numerous legume, bean and vegetable whole protein sources.

Literally all the organisations whose opinion we should care about say B12 is the only thing you have to worry about.

I imagine it comes from fermenting stuff? Or from seaweed? Dunno, happy to be educated.

It's also worth pointing out the average vegan diet is healthier than the average non-vegan diet. Although admittedly not any "ideal" diet.

Correct. However, I guarantee many vegetarians, let alone vegans, do not get a varied enough diet to meet their bodies amino acid needs.

You base this on?

I'd probably argue the same of meat eaters in fairness, I can't speak for your country but if you saw the quality of meat products people consume in mine...

>B12 is very hard to get for them
Yea man heading to your local pharmacy is such a hassle

>It's also worth pointing out the average vegan diet is healthier than the average non-vegan diet.
That's largely because if you're going to be a vegan, you have to pay lots of attention to your diet just to avoid animal products, not to mention needing to worry about deficiencies for things usually not found in plant-based food. And of course, then you have to factor in the fact that people who become vegans tend to be more health conscious in general.

>fermenting stuff

Scientists actually ferment microorganisms for B12 supplements, because neither plants nor animals are capable of making it by themselves.

>average vegan diet is healthier than the average non-vegan diet

Sure, if you compare it to the people who consume fast food and other shit regularly.

How the fuck did you came to that conclusion?

not an argument

I've had to treat a few.

>quality of meat

Hell, even milk and eggs have everything you'd need.

Simple: if we didn't eat them, they'd be extinct.

Cattle take up far too much valuable land, and are far too destructive, to be running wild. We'd wipe them out, either deliberately, or through simple expansion. There's very few wild cattle in the world, and they exist almost exclusively in developing nations.

Really, vegans just want all the cows to be dead.

It's bloody obvious for everyone it's a question. Are you going to point out it's written in English as well? And posted on Veeky Forums? Or that it's not a statement? Or that it's written after 8pm CET?

you're being indignant at the user agreeing with the user making an argument and not making an argument yourself as to why you feel the latter user is incorrect and shouldn't be agreed with

They'll kill us, if we don't kill them first.

Plus, they're communists:
youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI

>What is the moral/ethic counter argument to veganism?
Meat tastes good, is good for me, and it is my irresistible natural instinct as a predator to eat other animals.

To not eat meat would be a denial of my true self. That said this is not a universal counter-veganism, this is a defence of why I'm not a vegan, otherwise there are valid reasons to be vegan but I would say that morality isn't one of them.

I'm not making an argument for anything because there's a huge jump between what wrote and from that go to merely being a vegetarian instead of a vegan, since it's basically just as bad to be a vegetarian as to eat meat since they 99 times out of 100 are from the same industry.

The numbers of farms that don't kill cows on assembly line in milk production are so bloody rare that I've a hard time believing he gets his non-vegan resources from one. And it's not as if he have claimed he has.

my bad then

Sorry if I sounded like a dick.

Doctor?

If so can we have more details on these cases?

Hahaha!
>It would be unethical to NOT kill them
This is some denial-esque reasoning, user.

ITT: Rich people problems

Poor people eat whatever the fuck they can get their hands on.

t. Noam Chomsky

There are no moral implications of eating meat. Death and consumption are foundations of life. how you procure said meat is the issue.

BLOOD

>muh human nature

Eating vegetables does not contribute enough iron and carbohydrates. Eating vegetable does not contribute enough sugar and calories. We're human beings run by blood and energy, not animals run by only a beating heart. Without meat we will be infected with anemia.

There's plenty of iron in stuff like spinach and kale. Absorption might not be as great, but you get enough. Vegetables are carbs, which are sugars. If you supplement vegetables with beans and such you can get enough cals. Step your game up, user.

This thread is a lot of retarded shitposting, but to answer your question veganism is not sustainable with current levels of agriculture, current nutritional requirements, and current population. The consumption of soy, in particular, is incredibly problematic, as it is destroying much of Southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Northern Argentina, reducing many people there to serfdom, exposing them to a large number of harmful pesticides, and limiting their access to food other than the soy that's produced, which they buy at marked-up prices. Soy is also a highly land-intensive crop.

I believe there are now numerous studies indicating that the most ecologically sustainable diet is milk-free vegetarianism (can still eat eggs). This is because cows are a huge environmental problem, but chickens really aren't (and they're more efficient to raise, especially just for eggs).

i want to thrive, not survive

Your body gets rid of most excess things

There's not one. But the justification is that people are more or less slaves to ther circumstances. Bucking cultural expectations, personal habits and let alone having the economic means to embrace veganism makes proves a great challenge for a lot of people.

84% of the worlds spy is fed to livestock you bellend. Soy is an awful example.

Point to higher vegan consumption of nuts or avocado and you might have a slither of a flawed point, but soy? No.

Are such people, people?

Yeah. I can't pay for it. Also, I don't care about animals.

Sorry, I thought you were asking something relevant. Disregard my reply.

>Because I value humans over animals
Kind of this. Before taking veganism seirously one should probably try to untangale oneself from buying clothes/phones/gadgets and other material goods connected to child labour or just poor working conditions in general.

>but you lynch niggers

I don't get it

Because my morals aren't fucking gay

Yes, the modern morality is hypocritical for meat eaters but the issue here is that modem morality is shit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

huh, that's interesting.

Human nature is inescapable.

Only if you're a cow.

The greatest lie humans have ever conceived is that they're not animals.

Even today, when people acknowledge that humans are animals somehow people still manage to hold onto the trappings of religious nonsense that justifies humans as being "above" the ways of other animals.

Because I can teleologically suspend the ethical.

Plants are so much more efficient way to retrieve suns energy for human consumption so when taste problems will be resolved there will truly be no point in having cattle.

And that is not a bad thing. If humans only ate plants earth could sustain so much more humans than when people eat meat.

Religion doesn't enter into it. You'd be hard pressed to find any exact consensus as to the nature of that particular animal, scientific or otherwise. For instance, the most prevailing theory is that we are not predators, but scavengers.

Additionally, we're the most domesticated and trainable animal around. It's quite simple to make any individual human defy anything that might be surmised as his "nature", and only so difficult to apply similar reprogramming to the masses.

Human nature is a spook, and it's actually the greatest lie ever conceived, used primarily as an excuse to control the populous.

>The greatest lie humans have ever conceived is that they are animals.

Don't be a fag and evangelize your diet. I don't even eat meat and I'm saying this.

>Religion doesn't enter into it
It does though. Free will is just social artefact left over from our concept of the soul.

> It's quite simple to make any individual human defy anything that might be surmised as his "nature"
I never said that human nature isn't flexible. I fully acknowledge that human nature is informed by material conditions and can be manipulated. But nonetheless anyone hoping to do so has to work within the pre-existing parameters that lie before them.

And as a matter of fact if humans truly were free-thinking beings it wouldn't be possible to exploit their brains in such a way.

It would be nice if you were informed by anything that was not demonstrably batshit crazy.

Free will doesn't enter into it either, and in some ways, requires a lack of a soul, in addition to generally being core to the construct of the spook that is "human nature".

Yeah, I'll relent there are biological aspects that make some changes harder than others - you can't make man exclusively breath ammonia without some sci-fi level physical alterations, but meat eating isn't really one of them. There's a fuckload of Hindus and other vegetarians out there, and they've been around for much longer than modern farming and shipping methods.

Not that I recommend it, but it isn't even a speed bump, much less a wall, as far as the sort of alterations you can make, survive, and still be considered human.

>You disagree with me
>You are batshit crazy
Like I said, people are not ready to accept the reality of their place in the universe.

>Free will doesn't enter into it either,
It does though. If you're not driven by your own conscious decision-making then what are you guided by? The answer is clear as day, your innate biological instincts and urges (as well as socialized instincts and urges but those are just outgrowths of the former).

> There's a fuckload of Hindus and other vegetarians out there, and they've been around for much longer than modern farming and shipping methods.
I understand that. I never said it's not possible to not eat meat, clearly it is. I just said I personally would rather not be a vegetarian because I don't think silencing my most primordial instincts on this matter would improve my life in any way.

Ok, I'll admit I messed up the details. However, here is the study for you to examine. I'm assuming, of course, that you are not an anti-natalist, and you do believe that generally it is better to support more humans on Earth than less.

elementascience.org/articles/116

As for the argument over soy, while it is true that soy is used to feed livestock, many vegans trumpet soy and soy products as alternatives to meat. I am merely pointing out that this would solve few problems.

If we were driven solely by biological instincts, we'd be eating our babies and throwing poo at each other, in addition to not being able to communicate through language, or even reason with it internally.

We might be a biochemical construct predestined by circumstance and granted only the illusion of free will by the fact that we cannot predict everything our universe or ourselves has done and thus, as a causal inevitability, will do, but instinct doesn't even make up the majority of our gray matter. To even function in this society, or any other, there's a million different instincts being repressed and redirected in any given moment in a myriad of ways, and as a result, human nature is the most amorphous spook around. To claim you even know what human nature is, and that you're going to cling to one supposed facet on the basis that it's somehow indispensable, regardless of the countless other changes you've made to the system just by being alive, is the height of hubris, folly, and ignorance, all rolled into one.

...and, essentially, is the exact same thing the vegans are claiming to do.

>So what?

Well you can't argue with a nihilist. But if you consider that by being vegan you are reducing the experienced suffering on earth by a considerable amount the their is a strong moral argument . Especially as there is no necessity to cause that suffer except for hedonism.

How is painless death immoral? It's not negative in any way.