Why does vegetarianism piss people off so much?

Why does vegetarianism piss people off so much?

Other urls found in this thread:

gutenberg.org/files/44929/44929-h/44929-h.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It's mostly people trying to have some sort of moral highground + superiority over meat eaters. Vegans are this with extra autism.

Why did you post that thread on /v/ you faggot?
Also because it goes against the principles of utilitarianism

>Also because it goes against the principles of utilitarianism
How?

The painless death of an animal can be turned into a delicious meal for hundreds of people to enjoy. The net pleasure of the world would therefore increase.

You're forgetting the painful life.
Would it be ethical to snipe a coworker that everyone else dislikes and who has no friends or family?

>you're forgetting the painful life
If we aren't talking about factory farms, the life of a cow who lives on a nice little farm with every basic need provided for it and hundreds of acres to roam freely cannot be described as "painful" in any sense of the word, especially when you cknsider that they have been bred for thousands of years to enjoy bejng dimesticated, or at the very least to be ambivalent about it.
As to your question, ethical? If it brings about more pleasure than it causes pain, yes. We just din't do it in modern society because things aren't very stable when everyone goes around killing each other for no reason.

>it's ethical to shoot someone you dislike

>other systems of ethics don't exist if they go against the notion that meat is murder

Same reason religiousfags who impose their morality on others piss people off. Nobody actually gives a shit what their morals are.

How does pleasure relate to utility ?

In the end utility relates to nothing else.

I'm using Bentham's defintion (utility = sum of all pleasure resulting from an action - all pain/suffering caused by an action).

It triggers their inner being. They cannot let go of eating meat so they think others are doing it to spite them, so show them who's morally superior and such. Its a feable reasoning but thats what the mind of a weak individual is like

I like picrelated because that thought in Jainism made the monks literally wear shawls to avoid inhaling tiny organisms in the air

Trying to argue against a moral framework without a shared axiom.
I'm not a utillitarian but you need to shut up.

it's not as if vegans don't have the moral high-ground in pretty much all cases, and having the moral high-ground makes you a superior person.

vegans are fucking deranged

>moral high ground
sweetie we've been over this, morality is subjective

Because if it's your choice to eat only grass, fucking do it but don't come bothering me about it.

meat consumption correlates to cognitive decline. Get on the wagon

correlation != causation. Get on my dick.

The same reason people hate mormons.

epic post my 101 psych friend :)

>causation? it has no associaton to correlation. Correlation NEVER is causation

>we haven't actually studied the proposed mechanism by which meat leads to cognitive decline, but i'm sure this correlation is significant!

what is lipid dysregulation, blue region consumption patterns, china study...

nuh uh
In an ontological or epistemological sense?

It’s because when meat eaters are presented with the fact that they might have been doing something immoral and disgusting their entire life without seeing it they immediately go into panic mode and the only response they can muster is anger.

>ctrl f "soy"
>0 results
impressed desu

>omnivorous diet
>western crudity and barbarity
I wonder when he will realize that everyone in the east doesn't follow strict Mahayana Buddhism/Jainism
this, too much proselytizing and "living by example". I had a friend in high school who often adopted a vegetarian diet to maintain his weight for wrestling, and he never talked about it/no one cared.

almost all societies historically ate VERY LITTLE meat or animal products after the agricultural revolution. Like 70% or more of most plebeian diets were grains and vegetables, with meat being for special occasions. It's also worth noting that butchering was entangled with tons of ritualism, if not downright social exclusion (barukumin in western japan), because slaughtering is indeed a vile business experienced up close and a lot of religious intercession and "distancing" is needed to distance oneself from the brutality of the act.

moomoo you are a dumb moocow and I hate you

This

But the same could be said of the live of a cow, of the life of a baby. You could kill the baby for its meat, or to save yourself from taking care of it, which would produce more happiness, than unhappiness (like in the cow example). Also, it isn't because cows have been bred like meat, that they ought to be meat (facts cannot determined what ought to be, aka is-ought gap or naturalistic fallacy).

Also, claiming that cows are ambivalent about it is a big claim : how do you know how a cow thinks?

...

>immoral
under your ethical system, maybe.

:C

I'M SORRY MADDIE

you better be
m**cows BTFO

I'm pro vegetarian myself but I want to boil the person who wrote this alive and eat his flesh.

Probably because they're inadvertently advocating the genocide of the same farm animals they're supposedly so opposed to killing

This, why else would it inspire such venom and spitefulness?
You don't see such butthurt if a religious person claims masturbation is immoral etc.

>morality is subjective

Similarly to atheism in the USA it challenges notions people take for granted which makes people start to realise their unquestioned biases. As it's easier to lash out against the thing that makes you uncomfortable than to reevaluate your position on the subject most individuals choose to get mad at the ones that question the status quo.

There is no compassion in denying other's their enjoyment. True Compassion is submission of ones will to to another's perception.

Thus the compassion is just submission, which is antithetical to life in general, if you want to exist then you are against compassion, if not you are for it...

>my axioms > your axioms

please explain how it would be any more ethical to stop eating meat entirely, since that would require the very same same industrial level slaughter of the very same animals

>since that would require the very same same industrial level slaughter of the very same animals
???

if no one ate meat, we would have to dispose of 25 billion domesticated animals that would now be useless with no natural habitat.

>might have been doing something immoral and disgusting
There's nothing in this life more moral and beautiful than a good steak.

From a vegetarian perspective that's like saying "it's your choice to fuck only consenting women but don't bother me if I want to rape."

Saying "Hey bro live and let live" doesn't make sense in this consent. Make a case why animals deserve to be made suffer just so that people can eat meat if you're going to argue against vegetarians.

*in this context

because those animals wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the meat industry in the first place.

>just so that people can eat meat
You've already made the case.

It doesn't. My gf is vegetarian, she respects my decision to eat meat and I respect her decision not to, nobody tries to force their way of life on anyone else and everything is alright.

Would you like to spent your entire life in a big dark place, with a little to no space to move, eating chemicals covered in your own shit, getting your balls cut under a constant noise of millions who are just like you, all to be murdered without a painkiller - would you want to even be born, user?

Your argument is awful mate. Even if we would dispose of the then obsolete animals by killing them the scale of the slaughter wouldn't even come close to the amount we'd get if we'd just keep eating meat. The latter makes the former seem like a piss in the mississippi.

Animals taste great.
Morality is a spook.

Resources are, and always will be, limited. I as an individual am constantly working to assert my will over the will of others: competing for employment, resources, advancement, even affection.

Compassion is a noble trait, and in a society like ours we can easily afford to be compassionate without fear that it will ruin us. However, I would oppose anyone trying to invalidate the infrastructure that feeds us and replace it with an inherently less nutritious and expensive alternative. I am more than willing to change my diet if i find unnecessarily cruel or immoral steps along the path of production, but I promote those necessary actions of animal domestication and humane slaughter that allow me and others a diet of our choosing.

>All farms are factory farms
Thanks but no thanks PETA, the real world isn't your dystopian nightmare, maybe you should encourage people to be conscientious consumers instead of sperging out over one sector of a multi-billion dollar and varied industry

Just let them die of old age.

>Wasting resources on billions of feeding billions of animals that's nobody can even eat

You belong in a gas chamber.

Vegetarian infrastructure would be healthier, just as nutritious, cheaper, and more ecologically friendly.
if you're treating soceity as some fort of sim game than vegetarian or pescaterian is far more optimal.

You would do it literally once.

>encourage people to be conscientious consumers
How given ag-gag laws?

This. Not only are slaughterhouses huge polluters, they're hilariously expensive. The government subsidizes to keep them afloat

>resources spent on behaving morally is a waste
m'Capitalist

Why is there an emphasis on "Western"?

Because mentioning the horrible overfishing and mistreatment of animals in the east is euro centrism ;^)

>I am more than willing to change my diet if i find unnecessarily cruel or immoral steps along the path of production
So your desire for a hamburger results necessary cruelty and immorality?

It's Schopenhauer.
gutenberg.org/files/44929/44929-h/44929-h.htm
If you want his view start reading at
>There is another proof that the moral incentive disclosed by me is the true one. I mean the fact that animals also are included under its protecting aegis. In the other European systems of Ethics no place is found for them,—strange and inexcusable as this may appear.

You told that those animals won't be alive without the industry, I tried to show that no living creature deserves that "life" which most of them are given.
I understand that that's how life works, and that just abandoning the industry is retarded, it's just sad that millions are treated like that while we talk here.

You would only need to be sent into gas chamber once as well.

The proposition is immoral and downright criminal.

Is having a pet immoral and downright criminal?

Ship them out to siberia to work on industrial projects where theyll die from neglect. I call this plan generalplan ost

This is the exact kind of jocular deflection that user is talking about. I eat meat as well but to praising meat eating is akin to southerners calling slavery a positive good. Its delicious but theres no need to deny that its a cruel business to get that meat to the table

You are a babbling retard who doesn't even remotely understand the ramifications of your own proposal and have to appeal to emotional analogies that have nothing to do with it.
You really need to fucking gas yourself.

is this how meatcucks cope with knowing the food they eat is a dead animal?

>painful life
Maybe if you live in the third world lol

>eating meat is slavery
why are vegetarians illiterate?

Oh, in answer to your question OP
People like this. Abject retardation.

Don't live in a shit country

Do you think there's no animal suffering in the western meat industry?

Your argument is moral relativism and doesn't make any sense.

There is no reason to assume that systematically exploiting a species is any more or less moral than systematically exterminating one; by that logic, the holocaust was more moral than slavery.

you're applying 21st century human values to a being that can't even conceptualize such ideas, which is nonsensical anthropomorphism.

Animals have an inherent self-interest in living. Therefore it's anet negative in the equation

When you have no ethical system it's hard to be immoral, true.

Except what we do now is breeding them and THEN dispose of them, just so we can kill their children and grandchildren (etc.) too.
Literally just stop breeding them and eat the ones that are alive right now I guess.

By that reasoning chilren of slaves shouldn't be free since they wouldnt be alive whitout slavery

It's probably more that it's impossible to have a social life if you're constantly telling people that they're doing something immoral so she (and I) choose not to.
She doesn't "respect" your decision to eat meat, she copes with it.

Meat is the single most ineffective way to get nutrition infrastructure-wise. World hunger would be instantly solved and the environment would be instantly much better if we stopped eating meat