Would you say its unethical to eat an animal you havent killed yourself?

Would you say its unethical to eat an animal you havent killed yourself?

I think it is. It shows zero respect and reduces a complex creature to little more than a tasty afterthought.

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/
biology.stackexchange.com/questions/1093/do-cows-produce-milk-excessively
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Would you say its unethical to eat an animal you havent killed yourself?
No.

why do I need to show respect? also, in order to avoid trivializing other complex creatures into nothing but a tasty afterthought, should I shoot my own porn too?

It's unethical if ethical alternatives like fruits and vegetables exist user. Animals are sentient just like humans, both have a heart, brain (central nervous system) and feel pain. Thus, if killing animals is alright, then so should killing humans, since they're both sentient.

I can only eat chicken and fish and even then only rarely.
The idea of eating red meat sickens me.

Not gonna lie a rotisserie chicken and an actual real live chicken are two completely separate concepts in my brain. It's kind of creepy how far removed we are from the actual animals we eat.

>should I shoot my own porn too

Watching pornography is self-cucking. You're watching another man have sex with a girl you would want to fuck.

Would you pay to watch a live sex show?

Try no fap

Go vegan user

humans live in a community of other humans and have special privileges as members of that group. it has nothing to do with sentience, only what is convenient. Killing my neighbor might be nice, but it's far from convenient. Nor is killing my neighbor's cat convenient, since in a way it has joined the community

...

solo or lesbian is superior my man

It certainly desenitizes people from where their life really comes from.
I have followed this for a while now, I really don't like eating plants I didn't know alive.
People think everything is great because they think meat comes from the supermarket, they don't know that the world that stocks their shelfs is running out of places to exploit. It's a sociological-ecological mismatch, and all signs point to human extinction along with most complex living systems and their organisms. buying hell with heaven 7-11 Armageddon, no snacks where we're heading

>you can get protein from plants
true, but it is much harder to get all the various proteins you need from plants. it's much easier, and cheaper to simply eat meat. there's a reason even the poor in India aren't strictly vegetarian

...

I wouldn't even say it's ethical to eat an animal you kill.
And here is where I get called a faggot

Just when I had forgotten that Vegans were cunts.

Thanks user, I saved this pic

the ecological disaster comes from what meat we do eat and the levels that we eat it at. if we could convince people to eat less beaf and eat insects instead we would be perfectly fine

>Animals are the same as people.

>Eating your own species is the same as eating others

*beef

...

And you're ignorant?

...

>Thus, if killing animals is alright, then so should killing humans, since they're both sentient.

This rationale is only valid if you think "sentience" is the sole reason we don't kill or eat other humans.

I probably should just embrace it.
I have heard though that veganism is a Pandora's box of sorts that can lead to homosexuality and transgenderism.

No need to be rude

we're not talking about convenience. We're talking about moral actions and searching for a valid reason for which aimals are not moral sujbects

You're confusing veganism with drinking from pet bottles.

these seriously use the same level of argumentation and strawmanning of the creationist comics

It's trying to point out a appeal to nature fallacy. In the first pic, the guy said its alright because lions do it. Well, if it's fine if lions do it, the other guy killed his kids and fucked his wife, because that's also what lions do. So the point is, just because lions eat meat, that doesn't mean we should and have to, as well. Appeal to nature fallacy.

He did nothing wrong to be honest

that's exactly what I'm saying: there is no objective morality. Morality is a social tool for a community of humans and doesn't have a universal application

>completely disregarding the moral dilemma

Ahhhhhhhhh I do that too!
Just take my meat and potatoes already!

NO they don't and you know it

fuck off greg

It's funny, the conservatives in India think that eating meat is fucked up and the liberals think you're a pussy for not eating meat. But in America the liberals think eating meat is fucked up and the conservatives think you're a pussy for not eating it. Literally the only reason why people think you're a pussy is because they grew up in a society that has been eating meat for millennia and the men have been the ones who go out and kill the animals/take care of the livestock. In the beginning this barbarism was done out of necessity, but now that is hardly the case. In India they haven't had to eat meat for thousands of years, maybe forever, because of the fact that India is so fertile and basically all year round. I would say it's been a while since we haven't needed animals to live in the West, but things like this take a long time, especially when a society has been used to eating meat for such a long time.

You're not a pussy, you've just grown up in an unethical society. At least relative to animals. Hell, Christians don't even think animals have souls.

yeah, I ignored the subjective part and went to the only real argument in it. vegetarianism is simply inconvenient for everyone and not possible for the poor

They're just poking fun on how some people argue regarding why they eat meat and react to vegans since eating is a very personal thing for a lot of people.

>Inconvenient for poor
You can buy more vegetables for 5 bucks than meat and you'll be healthier off

>vegetarianism is simply inconvenient for everyone and not possible for the poor
Sorry about you being a poor person in Japan. For your average poor westerner this isn't the case.

Its only moral if you ascribe some inherent value to the life of the animal you are eating. I love my dog but I understand in some parts of the world they eat dogs and a dog is in no way equal to a human

If you ascribe to the idea animals have the right not to be killed for food/goods. than yes using tires with beef parts is just as bad as eating a steak

You don't have to be equal to someone or something to not be a dick to them.

getting the neccisary calories and proteins without meat is actually more expensive

No actually its not, you need tires for your car. You dont need steak as there are better alternatives

If you wan't to hear real arguments, then the meat industry is the single most damaging one to the environment, not only producing an enormous ammount of nocive gas, but being a major cause for deforesting.
The single best thing you can do for the environment is not reciclying or saving water, but modifying your diet.

That's another false claim

No, it has to do with us trying to supercede socio-ecological systems with industry. People would not eat so much beef if it was raised in agro-ecological systems instead of industrial farms.
Even the way we produce vegetables, large scale mono-culture is ecologically devastating and has lead to massive losses in soil fertility, habitat, and both wild and agricultural biodiversty.
Europes wheat is threatened by rust right now because the free market decided that 1 species of plant was the most economical way to do things.
Commercial society needs to go. Which would be good riddance because it is a shit hole. Our subservience to markets has caused us to vastly exceed our means while at the same time greatly underaccomplish our potential. Potential we no longer have, the best potential we have got now is surviving with the knowlege of civilization in tact.

The point of the comic is because he can't avoid using tires, he may as well eat bacon.

That's like saying that since you once slandered someone online you may as well rob a bank since you're already doing criminal activities.

Of course, a dog has countless differences with a human, but there's no reason whatsoever you should evaluate a dog is any less of a morally considerable being than a human. I recommend this article if you want to read I guess
plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/

I've already addressed this. the issue isn't meat itself, the issue is what we eat and how much of it we eat. we eat way too much beef than is even neccisary for us to get the protein we need. if we ate less beef and started eating insects we would be able to eat meat without harming the evironment.

>Eating insects

Fucking trolls

Dried soya beans is the cheapest source of protein you can get. And if you're talking about pure calories then it's wheat and rapeseed oil.

not trolling at all. insects are a good source of protein that don't require the same amount of resources as cows. they're commonly eaten outside of the West

It's not about harming the environment it's about putting a helpless animal who experiences pain inside of a cage all its life and then cutting it short just so that people can taste something "good." No one wants to die. No one wants to feel pain.

Let's just stick to not eating anything that walks and just eat plants

and they don't have all the amino acids that you need. you have to eat a variety of plants in order to match up with the proteins you need

Aww man, you gotta eat a variety of plants. boo hoo. go cry in a corner

i just like big bacon cheeseburgers sorry dude

Yeah, and are you even trying?

why? I feel no reason to adopt your moral position. I only stick to my own moral position because it's how I'm wired thanks to my environment. I will only stop eating meat if there is an objective reason not to that that outweighs the pleasure I get from it, not your personal feelings

That wrong tho.
Paying for food is unethical, just like paying for anything else, and just plain retarded, shits free yo. go plant some seeds on someone else's "property" if you don't have the privilege to freely interact with the world you came from.
Commercial society doesn't work, and will never work, so do yourselves a favor and get out while you still have the chance.

you ruined the plans of all those vegans that wanted to exclusively subsist on dried soya beans

>Paying for food is unethical

Did you even read the objective reasoning above? How does your rectum smell user?

Okay it works.
It just works in a ways that is fundementaly unsustainible And at odds with complex life on earth.

That means it doesn't work, retard

Yeah, hearing that your entire life has been lived using values that are just plain retarded is hard for most people to accept.
U can take t red pee or the blu poo,
U have no choice in which one you decide to take

But it works very well.
It's just a little malfunction.
It not working would imply that it has the possibility of being fixed.

Eating meat is bad.
/thread

We as humans already to a lot of things to each other which is worse than that

Most of the arguments in this thread have circulated about veganism and the meat/dairy/eggs production in large scale farms.
What about free range alternatives? Let's say I inherit a dairy cow and supply it with everything neccesary - freedom of movement (to a certain extent, ofc), food, drink and love. Since dairy cows require to be milked regularly, what am I supposed to do with the milk? If I discard it, one could argue that the milk isn't used at all (except by microorganisms or bacteria), so it would be the in the bests interests of everyone that I consume the milk (provided that there are no animals to feed the milk to).
Vegans might pull the physiological arguments for this but i am wondering whether it would be ethical for me to consume the milk.

This is an autistic idiotic thread.

Earth is going to be destroyed in a century or two when AI complexes come up with a plane for extra-solar expansion and realize the materials are a lot cheaper to harvest in zero gravity.

The pretension to being a "moral" being in these times is LARP faggotry of the worst kind.

Either bait or you don't know how mammals work. They don't spontaneous start producing milk out of nowhere.

>Complaining about a subject within the humanities while on a humanities
No user, you're the autism.

biology.stackexchange.com/questions/1093/do-cows-produce-milk-excessively

You know, plants are sentient beings as well.

Reacting to stimuli isn't the same as being sentient.

Look at that, a link telling you mammals don't start producing milk out of nowhere.

Who says it's ethical to eat an animal you have killed yourself?

The autism is thinking that one has fashioned a diamond of eternity when evolving AI complexes will be in a far better position to create far more sensible and beautiful moralities.

Better intelligence is the prerequisite for better morality. Stupidity leads to tragedy.

A sensible man in these days should let loose the burden of moral megalomania where all of the world-systems are butchered into the laxity of human moral calculation.

Hume pls

>would you say it is unethical to sit on a chair you have not made yourself?
>I think it is. It shows zero respect for the tree cut down to make it, and thus zero respect to nature itself. It also dehumanises the craftsman who made it by making all his hard work and ingenuity nothing more than a comfy feeling for your ass.
Specialisation of labour was a turning point in our history that actually allowed us to become more than just animals.

>as a vegan, it is okay to compare people to animals for the sake of argument, like I do here
>non-vegans comparing people to animals is fallacious and fucking stupid though because my only forms of defense is strawmen comics and I refuse to let them take away my right to bear arms

It's food motherfucker.

/thread

If you were able, would you kill a leopard that was attacking you?

If you were able would you kill a human that was attacking you?

Therefore it is humans' duty to eat meat.

> putting a price on sentient life

You are literally worse than Hitler.

You don't need tires for your car, you can walk you lazy faggot.

>Would you say its [SIC] unethical to eat an animal you havent [SIC] killed yourself?

1. "ETHICAL", AND "UNETHICAL", ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH "BENEVOLENT", AND "MALEVOLENT", RESPECTIVELY.

YOU MEAN "MALEVOLENT", NOT "UNETHICAL".

2. THAT QUESTION IS IRRELEVANT; THE RADICAL QUESTION IS: "IS IT MALEVOLENT TO KILL ANIMALS FOR SUSTENANCE?"

THE ANSWER IS: YES.

>You are literally worse than Hitler.
That's not really saying much at all.

ADOLF HITLER WAS A VEGAN, MORON.

This idiot again

you're the one putting a specific value on sentience

Another episode of the caps lock tripfag tries to kill the thread

But they aren't just reacting to stimuli. You got to look at the pragmatics here
They are periceving/interpreting meaning from signs from their external environment through biophysical/chemical mechanisms. how is this not subjective sensation? then they go on to act accordingly to signs, via vascular networks that behave just like simple neurosystems, it's biosemiosis and all life with cells partakes in this kind of minded behavior.
Even DNA /RNA have minds, I'm not sure if they are sentient however.
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM

>Would you say its unethical to eat a vegetable you havent cultivated, harvested and killed yourself?
>I think it is. It shows zero respect and reduces a complex creature to little more than a tasty afterthought.

no
would you say its unethical to use a tool you did'nt make yourself? from your logic it would reduce the hard work and ingenuity put into its creation to little more than a convenient afterthought

>implying I wouldn't eat a human
On a more interesting note though, I remember reading about certain Polynesian tribes that ate people up till the 1930-40s they said people tasted like pork actually, as we're rather fatty. With the obesity epidemic people would probably have a lot more crackling though.