Vegan plebs

>Kantianism implies veganism
>being this much of a spastic

I said it in the last thread and I'll say it again: EAT A STEAK AND GET OVER IT. Vegans are almost as bad as antinatalists.

>mfw

>the categorical imperative only applies to people

Why?

What definition of utalitarianism are we going for here? Last I checked giving people more meat maximizes their happiness and gives them more energy for work and thinking.

It doesn't maximize the happiness of the beings you eat, obviously. I'm a different user and not sure I agree, but don't play dumb.

If you let the animals you slaughter sleep in with an injection they won't feel pain. I'm not sure where you're trying to go here.

Because the guy who formulated it fucking said so

>Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

>There's far more utility in eating meat

Wrong. Animals can feel happiness too. And even if we killed them in a way that they didn't feel pain- so that they lived a happy life all the way through- they're more costly to grow and that money/resources could be spent on saving starving children or children dying of curable/preventable diseases. Utilitarianism demands we save the resources and use them for the greater good- which would be saving the lives of children. You'd know these things if you actually read books on utilitarianism.

>Yes, they can because the categorical imperative only applies to people

Wrong. Once you unpack what it is to be a person- you either include most of the animals we eat or you disclude babies, severely retarded humans, and coma patients. While true Kant himself didn't take this position- the newer Kantians with better arguments than Kant do take these positions on ethical veganism.

Humans are worth more than animals.

If someone doesn't agree with that then they are fucked in the head. That's just basic common sense and decent human morality.

If you don't think a human is worth more than an animal then you don't meet basic human morality levels.

If you want to get all God about it quote the fucking Bible where The Lord gave us all the plants and animals of the world to do with as we see fit.

/thread

Just as a matter of fact, animal agriculture is more resource intensive than plant agriculture. Utilitarians would argue we get more overall happiness by saving the resources we'd spend on growing/eating animals and give those resources to - say oxfam to purchase inexpensive medicines to prevent curable diseases for children in third world countries.

>Utilitarianism demands we save the resources and use them for the greater good- which would be saving the lives of children
Children raised on meat are healthier than children raised solely as vegetarians. Many children in the West have died of malnutrition because of their idiotic vegan parents. Pretty sure dead kids don't hold much utility.

>While true Kant himself didn't take this position- the newer Kantians with better arguments than Kant
So Neo-Kantians and not Kantians which dismantles your entire argument.

Eating meat is the ultimake Spookifier. Once you understand that veganism is a spook and the only reason you eat meat is because you don't have any justification for it outside of it being yummy, you're on the path of realizing everyone else's just your property.

Yeah ultimately the only way to win a moral discussion is with the Bible. Otherwise you're both just stating your subjective preferences. Might as well be arguing Kirk vs. Picard.

(Although keep in mind that God doesn't totally disregard animal welfare in the Bible - he expresses concern for the lives of the people in Nineveh as well as the "many animals" there in Jonah 4:11 for example)

>Children raised on meat are healthier than children raised solely as vegetarians.
Source?

lmgtfy.com/?q=vegetarian children malnutrition

>children raised on meat

Shitty argument. There's no solid empirical work that points to this conclusion. The main problem of vegetarian diets is balancing omega 3's with 6's which can be done with a few tsp of flax per day. Even without the flax vegetarians/vegans are less likely to have the cardiovascular/obesity/cancer rates as omnivores.

>many children in the west
false. You saw a news article or two. Negligent parents aren't a norm, but they are a necessary condition for your weak argument. Getting the nutrients right isn't a real problem we can't fix with education.

>So Neo-Kantians and not Kantians which dismantles your entire argument.

nope. Are you retarded? or just pretending.

>Because the guy who formulated it fucking said so

That quote doesn't say it doesn't apply to non-humans. And if it did, that still wouldn't be an argument.

>There's no solid empirical work that points to this conclusion
Outside of the, you know, malnutrition of vegetarian children.

>Are you retarded?
Are you? Neo-Kantians aren't Kantians. There's a reason there's a distinction between the two. They apply the categorical imperative in places where Kant never intended.

Animals aren't humanity.

>Humans are worth more than animals.

Are animals worth nothing?

I study animal behavior but for the last few years I've gotten a huge kick out of studying plant behavior.
Forget specisim, what about neuronism? Why is the neuron,ganglia, and nerve the sole thing that can bear pain?
My plants respond to bugs, to light, to other plants. They do it slower, but they respond. They may even be able to 'remember' pests or favorable conditions and prep accordingly.

If I'm right about plants, that they can feel, what do vegans pursue...voluntary extinction? Would that even be good on utilitarian grounds because even without us life suffers?

>Animals aren't humanity

What a brilliant insight! Unfortunately it doesn't inform the question of whether the categorical imperative only applies to one particular species for some reason.

As opposed to non-existent malnutrition rates in omnivore children.

Is this the part where we talk about childhood obesity rates? Adult obesity rates? Increased instances of cardiovascular disease? Diabetes, asthma, cancer...

You're trying to suggest worse case vegan diets should be compared to best case omnivorous diets. Which is a fucking rotten argument. if you're going to compare worst case scenarios- let's do that. But not this worst vs best bullshit.

>If someone doesn't agree with that then they are fucked in the head

What a great argument.

Actually it is. The idea that there has to be rational explanation for everything is a modern neurosis.

>Not a single source on the first 10 hits that points towards children raised on meat being healthier than children raised on a vegetarian diet
>Only cases of parents being shitty parents akin to someone killing their kids by force-feeding them burgers
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528709/ suggest it's healthier for kids to be vegetarian than eating meat

Nice work nigger

>vegetarians/vegans are less likely to have the cardiovascular/obesity/cancer rates as omnivores.
Not that guy but this argument is fucking retarded. Yes, vegetarians are less likely to suffer these conditions but there's no evidence that veganism has anything to do with that. Correlation does not equal causation.

Basically if you can pull of a vegan diet, chances are you were already extremely healthy, considering the planning and fortitude it requires to be vegan. If you weren't you'd go back to an omnivorous diet or die of malnutrition. Omnivores seem more unhealthy because lazy slobs can easily survive on such a diet but if the same care and thoughtful planning is put into an omnivorous diet, they can get just as, if not more healthy than the average vegan.

>The idea that there has to be rational explanation for everything is a modern neurosis.
You just said that shitty arguments used to be accepted, not that it's a good argument.

>Considering the planning and fortitude it requires to be vegan.
I'm going to assume you don't live in the western world if you think a vegan diet require any kind of planning outside of just buying vegan versions of ordinary non-vegan products if you're lazy.

You can live in home and drink your coca-cola and eat vegan home-delivered pizza if you're really, really lazy.

>eat meat
>tastes good
Why do I need to justify shit?

>As noted above, a well-planned and carefully followed vegetarian diet can satisfy the nutrient requirements for infants and children, and thus cause no real concern. However, the deleterious effects that these atypical diets can have on infants and children, such as scurvy, rickets and kwashiorkor, are well documented (22). Further, Dagnelie and van Staveren (4) found that infants weaned onto macrobiotic diets were significantly slower in gross motor development, especially locomotion, and to a lesser degree in speech and language development. Moreover, major skin and muscle wasting occurred in 30% of macrobiotic infants.
You're not very good at actually reading, are you?

>kick you in the balls
>your expression is funny
Why do I need to justify shit?

Exactly.

>Neo-Kantians aren't Kantians

Just stop. You're grasping for straws. These terms can be used in any way we want them to be. You obviously aren't following conventions for the use of 'neo kantian' if you interpret all Kantians who aren't Kant as 'neo kantians'.

>the newer Kantians with better arguments than Kant do take these positions on ethical veganism.
You already specified them as being neo-Kantians in your first post. They're not Kantians.

>correlation

Get the fuck out with this inane drivel. Nothing in health related science relies on "cause" to be the foundation for justification of conclusions.

You just wanted to let the world know that you'e learned correlation is not causation. Fuck you, you useless fuck.

>There's far more utility in eating meat than eating veggies.
It's far more energy consuming producing meat than producing veggies.

But this doesn't support your statement that a diet including meat is more healthy than a vegetarian diet. Suggesting something like feeding your kids nothing but boiled vegetables (since that's the kind of cases they're sourcing in the quote) is bad means they should eat meat is like saying that feeding your kids nothing but fried chicken is bad means you should eat vegetarian.

Your quote even say there's nothing wrong with a vegetarian diet as long as you're not retarded.

Meanwhile, obesity is rampant and well-known to be unhealthy, and kids on a vegetarian diet are less likely to become fatties.

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/5/1525S.full

how are you this dumb? how can you get from 'newer kantians' to "they're not kantians"?

newer cars are still cars. newer shoes are still shoes. What neophyte bullshit game are you playing?

Obesity would be the equivalent of your fried chicken or boiled vegetables only diet. People who eat meat but whose main problem is that they eat like shit.

You CAN be lazy and still live of a vegan diet but that is not as likely as being lazy and living on a omnivorous diet. This is the only thing that matters when comparing averages. Not what you can do but what actually happens. Most people who are vegan are more health aware than average and that's what skewing the statistics. This doesn't mean being vegan is healthy for you, it means being healthy is healthy for.

>Nothing in health related science relies on "cause" to be the foundation for justification of conclusions.
If that's the case, all health related science should be dismissed as pseudo-scientific bullshit.

True but that's not to say that producing vegetables on the scale to provide every American with 2,000 cals a day wouldn't drastically increase the energy and available land required to meet that demand, plus vegetarians eat dairy, fish, and eggs that requirw the raising of an incredible number of livestock. Long term though both are unsustainable with projected population growth and irrigation/fresh water resources being depleted rapidly as can be seen during the hottest months of the corn season which is why we have so heavily invested in lab grown sustainable meat.

>If you want to get all God about it quote the fucking Bible where The Lord gave us all the plants and animals of the world to do with as we see fit.
Too bad Adam was a vegetarian and it wasn't until Noah that God allowed man to eat meat.
lrn2bible

>True but that's not to say that producing vegetables on the scale to provide every American with 2,000 cals a day wouldn't drastically increase the energy and available land required to meet that demand

What? Meat uses several times as much land, water, and energy as vegetables.

Killing other humans is wrong.

Killing animals for our own benefit is alright.

What`s so hard to get about anthropocentrism?

Well, that's one way to look at it. just means you have high standards for science. But your conclusion would also lead to the dismissal of medicine and biology- sense those fields also rely on statistical correlation as their foundation for good results rather than "causation'.

In short, correlation is fine sometimes- and that should be your well informed opinion else you're stuck with physics (and not even all of physics) being the only 'real science'. Good luck with that view.

Also, in the Bible, man gets "dominion," which does not mean "do with as you see fit." Does a good king slaughter his own subjects for pleasure?

It's more than a factor of 10 times greater but I was talking about from a nutritional aspect and then from a soil degradation perspective.

>correlation is fine sometimes
Yes it is.

But it's not fine when you try to reach an unfounded conclusion, using those correlations. Saying that vegetarians are on average healthier than omnivores is a completely valid conclusion to draw from the evidence. Saying that vegetarianism is healthier than other diets is an unfounded conclusion with no evidence backing it up.

Being vegan from a moralistic or ecological position is totally valid but anyone who says that a vegan diet is inherently superior to other diets is being fallacious and idiotic.

The false moral equivalency between human beings and animals is the natural result of the darwinian evolutionary worldview.

Evolutionists will say that they are just animals, yet they will not allow me to hunt them for food. For no apparent reason.

But not decreasing the gen pool is a completly valid reason for not allowing you to kill other humans, since it weakens the whole species.

Why is it always the retards that think that everyone else is being unreasonable?

>what's not fine is something different

Yeah. tell me about it. All these tangential comments. Nothing really to do with my comments.

Here's another tangential comment. The reason veganism can't be said to be healthier is because many more factors go into being healthy than simply diet. Being a vegan doesn't imply you're getting all the nutrients you need- just means whatever nutrients you are getting comes from plant sources- and how can that imply anything about someone's health?

But, it can still be true that getting your required nutrients from a plant based diet tends to be healthier than getting them from animal sources. Why? because you're going to have excesses in both plant sources and animal sources- and those excesses differ in their harmful effects on our bodies. Too much fiber from a plant based diet?- prepare for taking giant shits. Too much cholesterol and lipids from meats? prepare for some cardiovascular problems.

If we're going to talk about health and diet- get all your nutrients and them from plants. Simple as that, broski.

So I can hunt and eat one of any pair of twins, and any woman past child bearing age.

Sweet.

>Why is it always the retards that think that everyone else is being unreasonable?

You kind of answered your own question there.

You lost an argument with a vegan. Your grounds for morality is "if i dont see it as my equal, then its okay to eat it". The vegan used that same logic against you.

lel

That would be true if raising a child wasn`t work shared across generations of humans.

Also twins ≠ identical gens

I bet you went to an american school

>You lost an argument with a vegan.

That always seems to happen. That doesn't necessarily mean that vegans are right, just that people that hate them enough to argue tend to be retards. I've never seen a thread where the anti-vegans make good arguments.

>not a shit post
>Veeky Forums ignores it ofc
Read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_(book)

I think he makes some semi valid points but I am quite sure you will consider it food for thought even if you disagree with him.

I could hunt and eat human beings under certain circumstances with no moral qualms.

You may be a sociopath.

Love how you moved the goalpost from "passing DNA" to "it takes a village". You leftist cunts always out yourselves.

Animals are not people. Thats it.

>Does anyone know how to respond to this?
some animals eat other animals
some animals do not eat other animals

Humans are the kind that do eat other animals (note: OTHER animals)

If you want to deny your humanity, go right ahead.

*bites chicken wing*