There is no argument against ethical veganism unless you're sustainably hunting wild animals

There is no argument against ethical veganism unless you're sustainably hunting wild animals

stop buying animal products

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Your feels
>An argument

What if I am not interested in ethical veganism but rather in preserving my national cuisine for me and my descendents to enjoy.

>Disregarding the entire discipline of ethics with a meme face

I recognize how ethical veganism is, but my palate is so limited that I think I would become extremely malnourished without animal products. I am aware of the hypocrisy and it makes me a little sad

I have more meme faces than just the one.

Veganism is unethical.

You don't understand how the universe works. You will when the world falls away but just remember what you said here. You are doomed.

you can still get the ingredients by hunting wild animals.

what's ethically wrong are modern farms (how 99.99%> of the population gets their animal products)

>You will when
I suppose you know how the universe works, user.

>what's ethically wrong are modern farms
Wrong.

why even answer if all you're going to say is 'wrong'

this literally can't be anything other than a bait response

Why even answer if all you are going to say "modern farms are unethical"

Your retarded post can't be anything other than a bait response.

>reject the premise that animals are worth considering in terms of ethics

because you have to be a brainlet to not have read anything about modern farming techniques

besides the concentration camp tier shit going on in them, taking away the naturally given right to freedom of a conscious being that is able to feel suffering for the purpose of your own sustenance shows you have no morality

Go be a faggot on c/k. Sage.

>don't talk about philosophy on the humanities board, I want more threads on 'did the holocaust happen?' and 'look how cool this armour is!'

He thinks animals have rights

Lay out the arguments for veganism in plain language, so that we may discuss them.

There's nothing more unethical than murder. The moment you've accepted that hunting animals for food is ok you've lost all the right to pretend that there's something wrong with modern farming techniques.

>naturally given right to freedom
Doesn't exist.

why are they not worth considering? what if a monkey is smarter than a 2 year old or a mentally disabled person?

>There's nothing more unethical than murder

>killing something instantly that has lived its whole life free is exactly the same as birthing a creature capable of suffering into an entire life of torture

>modern farming techniques

What about the pasture farms that are common in Australia and New Zealand?

>killing something instantly that has lived its whole life free is exactly the same as birthing a creature capable of suffering into an entire life of torture
It is significantly worse. The life of a creature born in the wild has much higher value.

>retarded fad diet debunked by billions of years of evolution
>"philosophy"

any kind of restriction on an animals ability to go where it pleases is wrong. 'farming' should consist of incentivising animals to stay around through food/shelter. People seeing animals as property is the first obstacle they need to overcome

>The life of a creature born in the wild has much higher value

why? they can feel just as much pain? is a human born into prison less entitled to rights?

>90% of the posts of this board
>history

are you me?

>is a human born into prison less entitled to rights?
A human born in nature establishes personal connections, develops hopes and dreams. On a personal level he's got more to lose and he understands what he loses with death. More people feel the impact of his death.

If a human was born into a breeding pens and got slaughtered the loss of his life would have little to no negative impact.

>any kind of restriction on an animals ability to go where it pleases is wrong.

On what grounds?

>'farming' should consist of incentivising animals to stay around through food/shelter.

That's how they became domestic in the first place.

>People seeing animals as property is the first obstacle they need to overcome

On what grounds?

You still haven't bothered to lay out the premises of veganism so that we can actually discuss them.

>If a human was born into a breeding pens and got slaughtered the loss of his life would have little to no negative impact

so you're arguement is that if you give someone a drastically lower quality of life it is then acceptable to kill them because they won't be taking as much of a fall? Wouldn't you see how birthing them into breeding pens to be slaughtered is ALREADY morally wrong?

(animals) have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference- and welfare-interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, logically independently of their utility for others and logically independently of their being the object of anyone else's interests

this gives their life value and means they should be treated as such

>taking away the naturally given right to freedom
Men, all the "naturals rights" are an invention to preserve all the things that are beneficial for the human development. If there's nothing to understand the concept of a right, the right doesn't exist, it isn't natural, you fucking hippie.
The value of every animal consist in the use that we give to him, or the job that they do for maintain some kind of balance in the nature for our survival like specie.

on the same grounds that any human does you retarded nigger

a baby doesn't understand the concept of a right either

natural rights aren't an invention they are a result of a common human morality which we have the imperative to bestow on any other creature that can feel pain and suffering even if they don't understand it (schizo old people etc)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

>hunting wild animals.
Ain't never been no such thing anytime ever anywhere as a "wild cow."

Already did, my man. Been vegan for 6 years.

feral cattle exist mate sorry

cattle were also only domesticated 10k years ago, humans have been around for 200k

>There is no argument against ethical veganism...
>...unless you're sustainably hunting wild animals[.]

YOU ARE COGNITIVELY DISSONANT.

THERE IS NO REASON, NOR ANY JUSTIFICATION, AT ALL, TO KILL, AND/OR CONSUME, ANOTHER ENTITY'S BODY.

they do not have souls, hence, they cannot suffer. So, it follows, that since animals do not suffer, there is no problem in farming/eating them.

>... [TO KILL AND CONSUME] ANOTHER ENTITY'S BODY.

>natural rights aren't an invention
>they are a result of a common human morality
Kek
Just what I said. The concept need someone who understand it to exist. If the meaning of "naturals rights" is that the rights doesn't have to exist in the nature, then it's a stupid name for it.

>they do not have souls...

YOU ARE PROJECTING YOUR OWN LACK OF SOUL —ONLY A SOULLESS INDIVIDUAL WOULD CLAIM THAT ANIMALS HAVE NO SOULS, SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THEY DO.

>... hence, they cannot suffer.

ANIMALS DO SUFFER.

>So, it follows...

... THAT YOU ARE A PSYCHOPATHIC SCHIZOPATH.

if they had souls, they would be human or higher being. Since they are neither, they do not have souls.

1.retarded people and infants don't understand rights either

2.the people who do understand those natural morals and rights are being hypocritical if they do not apply them to all who should received them i.e living beings that are conscious

you meatcucks really are getting btfo

is that you destiny?

YOUR PSEUDOARGUMENT IS NOW DEGENERATING INTO TAUTOLOGICAL NONSENSE.

what definitions are you using? mine are from Judaism and Plato.

>because they won't be taking as much of a fall?
It's acceptable to kill them because others won't take a hit. We value human life because we feel emphatic connections to other humans and do not want to lose them. Quality of life doesn't enter the equation.
A value is bestowed to you by your family, you generate more value as you grow and establish more connections thus making the potential loss of your life more. And on a personal level you have more to live for.
All of this can to a (much) lesser extent be applied to wild animals.
An animal bred just for slaughter skips most of the steps and therefore there's very little lost with its death.

I would have accepted your position if you were against animal killing as a whole. It's not something I can agree with but it's understandable.
But the moment you've arbitrarily decided that it's ok to murder animals but farming practices are icky, you've lost me.

>Wouldn't you see how birthing them into breeding pens to be slaughtered is ALREADY morally wrong?
There's nothing inherently wrong with breeding things for slaughter.

>Hur dur hypocritical people, doesn't go with my ideals.
The question is why we need to apply a concept with a name who isn't appropriated for it?
That would confuse those who don't understand the concept as well and let them go with a wrong idea of what it mean. Also, still a stupid name you fucking hippie. Who could take this seriously?

so do you think humans should be given scaling rights depending on how many people care about them?

>There's nothing inherently wrong with breeding things for slaughter

we shouldn't even be involved in the breeding process

There aren't any wild animals in my country, except for small birds and insects. Every mammal living on my island nation was imported from elsewhere. These animals are free-range and grass-fed. Am I supposed to feel guilty for eating them when without me they wouldn't be here?

>The question is why we need to apply a concept with a name who isn't appropriated for it?

I don't know why don't you argue with the scholars who came up with the terms natural rights and natural law?

I don't care what you call them or if you are confused by their names; the meaning is what is important

they can't eat it without crying corcodile tears so people will pay attention to them. This movement is the same

yes i'm sure they'd rather be "free range" (this only legally requires them to not be in a body size cage 24 hours a day, they can literally be allowed to walk inside a shed for 1hr per day before being put back in their cage where they can't even move) imprisoned on a farm than be in the wild in their natural habitat

>natural habitat
but they get eaten alive and slowely in their natural habitat. Whereas there is medical care and occupations on the farm,.

>so do you think humans should be given scaling rights depending on how many people care about them?
We already scale rights of humans.

As far as "right to life" goes I do support reinstatement of death sentence.

i'd rather live a free life and then get eaten by a lion then live in a prison where my death at a certain age was garunteed and I have no freedom. There is no medical care beyond where it is profitable. many animals are drugged and bred so that movement is even painful for them

ye xD

william wilberforce was just LARPing as an abolitionist for the pu$$y

I'm arguing with you retard. You can't even present some for your own and had the necessity of quote someone else.
The fact is that there's nothing like a "naturals rights" for animals, the argument falls only for the definition of natural and right. And idk what your "scholarships" had to say, I'm talking to you.

what right do you have to say what animals want? most animals love their farmers, and could not survive for five seconds outside of them.

>you can't draw on other peoples ideas

have you ever read an academic book in your life

do you even believe humans should have rights? if you do i'm assuming it's based on their sentience, their desire to live, their ability to feel pain. These things apply to animals too

>stop buying animal products
I've seen a girl like you on tv saying we should stop to wear wool clothes because shearing sheep is cruel.

he failed and killed hinmself for attention. He admitted this in his obituary

animals don't feel pain.

>what right do you have to say what animals want?

there's empirical evidence as to what animals prefer, e.g. no pain over pain

>could not survive for five seconds outside of them

that's because they've been born into captivity so obviously they have never developed those abilities

>animals don't feel pain
they have all the biological features to allow them to feel pain, and react to stimuli in a way that shows they do. Just because they can't literally tell you they feel pain doesn't mean they can't.

That's like assuming babies can't feel pain because they can't communicate with you. And nobody can remember being 1 year old so who knows if they feel pain right? they might just develop the ability to feel pain when they can form lasting memories and communicate?
you're retarded

it is cruel to breed them into having massive amounts of wool so that they'll overheat and die if you don't shear them just for clothes

>muh spooks
>muh being in platos cave is good
>thats humans fault even though it doesn't change the fact that you'd be sentencing literally billions of animals to a slow, painful death to prove a point
everything you said is false. And you are impious to a fault, that you start claiming scientists said animals feel pain, when their pain receptors are a dead circuit because they don't have souls.

But we already bred them to this state.

>allowing animals to live freely in their natural habitat is sentencing them to a slow painful death
>pumping them full of criplling hormones and caging them in battery farms to be slaughtered at the opportune moment isn't

>because they don't have souls
oh it's just a bait post

deport them all to antarctica

they can also be reverse bred you know

>have you ever read an academic book in your life
Yes, and that's why I'm telling you that they don't have any natural right
>do you even believe humans should have rights?
Only for the social contract. There's literally no other reason. And that's why I'm telling you that the animals doesn't have any other purpose except to guarantee the development of men.
It isn't me

people have to deal with the fact that a new disease would crop up from all of those corpses, along with a shitton of invasive species flourising from the increased wildlife. An ecosystem is very delicate, and only works when it is completely under human control. Which is why it is cruel to let them be free.

Veganism is a bourgeois construction. I can't afford being a vegan.

you definitely should be vegan if you wouldn't be able to kill and skin/prepare an animal. Otherwise buying meat is just paying for someone else to do a job you could have done yourself.

>An ecosystem is very delicate, and only works when it is completely under human control
>thousands of species extinct because of humans and thousands more are threatened
>millions of acres of natural habitats destroyed
>all other life developed to this point independent of humans
hmm

infants and mentally retarded can't adhere to a social contract. if you don't have any moral value for human life beyond society though there's not much I can say

this is true for some, but as long as you see that it's the morally right thing to do.

it will hopefully become more accessible in the future

it is possible to eat cheap and healthy as a vegan but it does take some dedication

them being dead is a benefit to humans because they're ugly to look at at and get into the way of consumption. Also, they're usually not extinct, just rare and hard to find.

I'm sustainably fishing..
>Fish for lobsters
>Throw back females that have been v-notched, or ones with eggs.
The supply fluctuates. sometimes we catch
a little, sometimes we catch a lot. Either way, it's done sustainably.

What's NOT sustainable is farming. We're too populated. Regardless of the vegetation we eat (and its transport which undoubtedly fucks up the environment). The population only grows and grows; it doesn't stop. We need abstinence. We need to genetically prioritize the least sexual, that way the next generation of humans don't end up destroying the planet. Industrial agriculture has only aided the destruction of our planet. I could take a wooden boat, load it with twine made from hemp/animal-intestines, and string traps/lines together to sustainably fish ethically.

Your modern diet of wheat, corn, bananas, avocados, etc, is literally worse than industrial fishing.

hopefully some of you are convinced

i'm off

>>they can also be reverse bred you know
That's retarded.

the large majority of modern agriculture is literally just to feed livestock u know

>infants and mentally retarded can't adhere to a social contract.
why do you are still using the infants and the mentally retarded? We're talking about animals.
>if you don't have any moral value for human life beyond society though there's not much I can say
Fucking millennials. You're done when I use the semantics in the words to deny your purpose? Now you're trying to use the mentally retardeds to justify your ideals?
Pathetic.

>breed the ones with less wool

just have a new desirable trait and breed for that

>why do you are still using the infants and the mentally retarded? We're talking about animals

because they are on the cognitive level of animals

>Fucking millennials. You're done when I use the semantics in the words to deny your purpose? Now you're trying to use the mentally retardeds to justify your ideals?
I genuinely can't understand what you're trying to say

>all these unwarranted assumptions

By "free-range" I mean free-range, as in they're sent up into the mountains to graze freely for the whole spring and summer and allowed to walk around the farm in autumn.

Of course.. and if we did away with livestock agriculture, then what?
We're still on fossil fuels. After that, we might use the land to produce corn-based ethanol. Or we could continue to deplete the oil (and our environment).. Or we could use nuclear power facilities and dispose of the waste using those lands...
Or we could set up solar/wind farms, which actually would require MORE land than agriculture already uses.

I love eating cooked animal corpses. Fuck off

Maybe it's a hunterfag meme but the narrative is that hunting is necessary for the environment.

get more products without coconut thank you very much... that shit kills me

then go hunt some wild ones

just don't buy ones that have been born to die in torturous conditions

this doesn't seem to be about veganism anymore but solar panels on the roofs of all buildings would save a lot of land

I don't believe in causal ethics. There's no reason for me to be a vegetarian.

>non homo sapiens sapiens
>any rights whatsoever
Pick one and only one

if that's the case then that's fine

the main problem is the modern farming industry and horrible conditions and lives of animals

the easiest way to avoid it is to just completely abstain from animal products and go vegan as labelling such as "free range" doesn't actually mean anything

would you have rounded up and killed natives of newly discovered lands as animals if you were just unable to communicate with them? even though they show signs of emotion?

>peasants
>any rights whatsoever
>minorities
>any rights whatsoever
>women
>any rights whatsoever
>animals
>any rights whatsoever

t. you through history

take that brave step lads

see ya

I don't know what that has to do with my point. I haven't ever killed an animal to eat it, someone else always did.

>having a bleeding heart for slaughter house animals
only fags give a shit about muh animal cruelty. They end up on peoples plates regardless, doesn't make a difference if you pamper them before placing them on the conveyor belt. Anytime humans give a fuck about animal's feelings its just us anthropomorphising where emotions aren't there. Any positive association humans have with any animal is ultimately done because it is beneficial to us. if cats and dogs had no value other than their meat then they would be hunted down and become a dietary like what we have now. That's nature. Grow up and stop whining faggots.

Stay vegan soyboy

>deport them all to antarctica
t. nazi
There's nothing to eat there.

The point is that sheep, cows etc were breeded for our convenience, they have no place in the wild and in case of SHTF they have zero chance of returning to their primal form, unlike dogs they would simply suffer and die. As long as there are sheep and cows we HAVE TO shear and eat them.

>if i call them faggots and act like i know anything about the isse, theyll see how wrong they are

Whyndo veegs have to be so fucking evangelical anout this, eating large amounts of meat every day is both jnhealthy and unsustainable environmentally, but never eating any ever isnt the only solution, eating 70 percent less is still a 7p0 pedcent improvement

You dont have to steal everyones bacon to fix the problem, and by trying to your only making people angry