Hey vegans? (VHG-vegan hate general)

>give me one reason for why it's ok to be a serial rapist
>freedom, personal choice
here's your (you)

Rape is a crime and you are violating another person's rights. Eating meat is not

Murder is a crime and you are violating another being's rights.

not yet motherfucker, when I take power all you niggers are going straight to jail.

>gets his morals from laws, and not the other way around

Are you differently abled? Is murder wrong just because it's illegal?

What rights? What are rights? You'e an adult, buddy. You aren't entitled to anything in this life. But if you want to survive, you have to consume. No matter where you draw this arbitrary line between what organisms are too complex to kill, the fact is that life feeds on life.

Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another human. Animals are not human

Murder has been unjust for longer than laws have been codified

Ah, yes. user drives his car to an air--conditioned supermarket where survival is on his mind, and buys his packaged meat for survival reasons. These are the rules of nature.

Murder has non-anthropocentric definitions. If you're intent on dodging the issue by being pedantic, then maybe calling it "unnecessary killing" will make you feel better.

No it doesn't.
You can theorycraft whatever dumb fuck argument about it all you want but it won't have any meaningful correlation to how things in the real world work.

Humans killing animals is not murder. Open a dictionary.

Killing animals is necessary if you want a delicious fucking meal.

Because it's easier to eat now, I have to stick to your arbitrary line between what lifeforms are and aren't simple enough to eat?

There's no such thing as souls or free will, kiddo. We live in a deterministic universe.

thefreedictionary.com/murder

You can stop dodging the question now.

i'm mostly vegan and only eat meat if someone offers it to me but i want people like those in that pic to get cannibalized
nothing is weird about eating meat it's just unnecessary in the first world you condescending retards

If your only goal is survival, then stop eating saturated fats and cholesterol.

Lmao what
Thanks for proving my point
Every single definition provided in their has an anthropocentric derivation.
Ya played yourself

My goal is complete proteins. That, and not being a delusional little shit addicted to the righteous indignation I get from my food religion. "Life" is not sacred. It's not divine. And pigs aren't more valuable than carrots. People aren't more valuable than cabbages. We agree not to kill eachother because that suits us all, and generally killing isn't effective problem solving. That does not mean that all these metaphysical assumptions of souls and free will and "rights" have any actual substance to them. I'm a vegetarian, but not because pigs and cows have more right to live than any other pile of organic matter. I don't eat meat because eggs and milk have all the nutritional requirements i'd get from meat and then some, and they're leaner. Killing animals is UNNECESSARY in the first world, sure. But not morally wrong. "Morally wrong" doesn't mean anything.

Murder is illegal because it's wrong.

Rule of law doesn't tell you if something is inherently good or bad. Slavery was considered legal.

>People aren't more valuable than cabbages.

Yes we are. You sound like an edgy high-school nihilist. Do me a favor and screenshot your posts and look back at them in a few years if you want some good cringe material.

Every single plant you find at a grocery store has a complete amino acid profile. Sounds like you just have an emotional attachment to your tendies.

>yes we are.
Based on what? Where is this imaginary line that you seem so confident on that makes one life form more valuable than another?

>Every plant has a complete amino acid profile.
They really don't.
Source: Any nutrition/exercise science textbook.

>claims to not have righteous indignation over his food religion
>believes he shouldn't do anything that is unnecessary
>is still raving on a Vietnamese sweet chili sauce review board about why he's a vegetarian

Wouldn't posting here be seen as unnecessary ? I can understand it if you feel some moral need to convince us that you're correct but that would also mean that youre lying about not being an indignant righteous twat.

It seems to me you're not being cogent in any way because you're either trolling or you're actually just a fucking retard. So which is it pal?

I didn't say anyone should or shouldn't do anything. I said why I didn't eat meat. I'm not the guy here trying to push my habits on anyone, or imply any "ought" about how people behave. I'm simply saying that the lines people draw between what organisms are and aren't okay to eat, are arbitrarily drawn lines. The only real line you need to draw is "how similar to myself am I willing to eat. For me, I generally am content with eggs because they're lean. But when you beer batter some fish I'm all over that.

>Raving
Nope. I brought up being a vegetarian to cast some light on where I was coming from. I don't eat meat, generally, so when I denounce veganism as childish, unhealthy, and delusional, it's not out of some love I have for meat, or some other arbitrary line i've drawn about what animals are and aren't okay to eat. It's actually out of a total lack for such a line, because I don't have ridiculous assumptions about souls or consciousness. I don't see any reason to call "life" anything other than a pile of molecules because i've never seen or heard of anything that isn't explainable in those terms.

Plants are not sentient, this is not an imaginary line my high-school friend. Sentience gives you the ability to have a subjective reality. If your sentience was stripped from you, you would not have a problem with being killed.

Define sentience and the point at which an organism becomes complicated enough to gain it.
Then, explain why that entitles one to life.

You might not consciously be aware of being killed in the sense that you're aware that you're about to die, but that doesn't mean you don't suffer.

>Eggs and milk
>leaner
I get that you're arguing with nutrient deficient vegans but really nigga
>inb4 comparing bacon to eggs or some other high fat meats

>Sentience
Like I said, arbitrary lines and undefined terms framing an imaginary worldview. Plants and humans are both biochemical engines and nothing more. Sometimes they consume eachother. Nothing was lost. Matter and energy change forms. I don't see where morality comes into play or why one "ought" to behave differently.

Not going to address most of your points because I can already tell that you're incapable of competently applying your own assertions so that they're all coherent with one another. Really not worth arguing with a person that can't do that. Anyways I'm a just a meatcuck that enjoys pointing flaws in anyone's argument if you're wondering. Don't really give a shit about what you're saying at all.

The one thing I will say is regarding the bit where you stated this.
>"Life" is not sacred. It's not divine. And pigs aren't more valuable than carrots. People aren't more valuable than cabbages. We agree not to kill eachother because that suits us all, and generally killing isn't effective problem solving. That does not mean that all these metaphysical assumptions of souls and free will and "rights" have any actual substance to them.
Pretty sure the majority of well adjusted folks in the west would consider this "raving" much like a crazy person.

Muh gains. Also: I love a good steak.

Sentience cannot be proven deductively. I can't prove that people around me are sentient (the problem of other minds). I can use inductive reasoning that since we have brains, and nervous systems that we have sentience.

>Then, explain why that entitles one to life.

If you don't agree with the concept of human rights this won't apply to you.

What quality is present in animals that if present in humans would make it okay to kill them unnecessarily? A typical answer is lack of intelligence. If a human is as dumb as an animal would it be okay to kill and eat him?

>Sentience can be proven inductively.
Shouldn't you define it first?

>bro don't drink estrogen filled water!
>eating hormone filled meat is totally cool tho

LOL! enjoy falling for the meat jew meat cucks.

>I don't know what you said but fuck you anyway
Okay, buddy.

Strawman. Argue with what is said, not whatever other thing you can imagine someone saying. I'm not drawing any lines between what is and isn't okay. I'm asking you and anyone else who draws those lines to subject them to adult level scrutiny. Those lines do not survive adult-level scrutiny because they all rest upon assumptions of souls and sentience and all kinds of other terms without definitions, terms that don't exist in a deterministic universe. I'm sorry if it makes people feel bad feelies that there's no moral laws in the universe, but that won't make such laws exist.

I'll recognize animal's rights when they ask for it themselves

should I be achieving micronutrients RDV% daily?
>tfw wanna stop tracking my shit
>wont achieve my proton goal of 2g/kg and micronutrients minmimum %

thank god I only have 3 meals per day and one is just putting oats in the microwave

Already did. The ability to experience a subjective reality.

Inductive reasoning.
What features of behavior could not be done by physiological hardware and necessitate some transcendental, undefined thing?

Asking a question is not a strawman argument. I'm not going to argue with why sentient life should have moral consideration unless you demonstrate that you are consistent in your beliefs about sentient life.

This

There's two gaps you need to close here.
1. Why does a subjective reality entitle one to life?
2. At what developmental point in nature does one's neural and sensory equipment become sophisticated enough for subjective experience?

Have you heard that in material science it's generally accepted that since we cannot pinpoint any structure in the brain or body that houses the "self" that awareness, whatever it is, must be a property of matter and energy at large, and anything you point to is really only either the apparatus, or contents of awareness?

Because all these lines between what is and isn't acceptable to eat beg further questions that none of us are capable of answering.

>1. Why does a subjective reality entitle one to life?

This is axiomatic for me and I imagine for most people. Causing harm and suffering unnecessarily to beings with sentience is a bad thing.

>2. At what developmental point in nature does one's neural and sensory equipment become sophisticated enough for subjective experience?

Again, we can't prove this deductively. But inductively we observe that beings with a nervous system and a brain have a subjective reality.

>This is axiomatic
I'm asking you why. It's a bad thing because it's a bad thing because it's a bad thing because it's a bad thing?
Why is depriving a carrot of its ability to stay in the ground absorbing nutrients worse than depriving a cow of its ability to keep grazing?
Why is the behavior of one biochemical engine more valuable than the other? Because it's more similar to you? These lines have no actual substance to them.

>the killing of another person
An animal is not a person, I win

In a world where animals are as worth as a human is a world where humans can be treated like animals

It's axiomatic for most people because they wouldn't want it to happen to them and because we are capable of empathy. Social contract maybe?

Exactly. That's what I said like twenty posts ago. We agree not to kill each other. Not because it's wrong. Not because life is valuable in any conclusive way, but because we each individually want not to be killed. This is productive, and encourages problem-solving skills. It is not, however, "correct" or "right" or "moral" and I don't see why we extend this right to animals for any other reason than in the first world, we don't have to. Which is not the same as saying that we have to not do that. Any stance of "ought" to behave a certain way stands upon arbitrarily defined lines of morality and the value of life which have no actual basis in reality.

I'd shoot a thousand Harambes to save one kid

So? I don't live in the ocean nigga

Good post

Morality doesn't exist independent of a subject I agree. This doesn't mean that all acts are equally permissible however. Unless you believe in certain things like that causing suffering and death is morally good.

And even if we were to grant that subjective experience exists wherever something behaves similarly enough to us, AND grant that subjective experience entitles us to life, we would then have to draw the line between where subjective experience is or isn't, and when a lifeform becomes sophisticated enough to be removed from the food chain. Science has yet to do this and probably never will, because as it seems, anything you point to represents either the contents or apparatus of consciousness, not the seat of the experiencing self. Awareness, whatever it fundamentally is, must be a property of matter at large. Therefore, it is impossible to value "sentience" as being the thing keeping you from eating organisms without drawing an arbitrary line where some animal is enough dissimilar to you to be eaten. The reality is that life feeds on life. Maybe it won't one day. That would be cool. But even then, restricting yourself to eating only synthetic pill-proteins wouldn't be "moral", it would just be nice.

>morally good.
I don't have to believe that. I think that "morals" are a fantasy concept we use as shorthand for behaviors that are mutually agreeable or less counterproductive. Just because some people get together and agree to behave a way doesn't mean that that is the way to behave. You people take giant leaps in logic and draw ridiculous false dichotomies. To think that "morality" is an ambiguous fantasy word doesn't mean I think that murder is good. Murder is counterproductive. it's unnecessary. It's bad problem solving. It's shortsighted. It's probably impulsive. It is not, however, "Morally wrong"

Killing non-humans is not murder, it is slaughter.
Please do not misuse terms.

Animal agriculture is the definition of unnecessary and wasteful for our planet if you put the ethical discussion aside. It seems like you're deploying moral nihilism in some aspects but ignoring it for consequentialism in other aspects.

Do you guys have any dummy guide on how to vegan diet? I know the basics but want to know it all so I don't fuck myself up

Interesting on doing a human test on myself
current diet is basically the mediterranean except I eat even less fish, poultry and meat

plan to take blood exams, then undergo vegan diet for around 6 months and then take blood work again

I didn't say that because something is unnecessary that you shouldn't do it. I removed "should" from the equation because any attempts to derive "ought" from "is" are arbitrarily defined and rooted in nonsense. Jesus goddamn christ you're all painfully fucking stupid. I'm done with you.

So moral nihilism then. You realize how terrible civilization would be if everyone adopted your fedoristic worldview, right? Maybe one day you will understand pragmatism.

YAWN are you fags still going at it?
Stop pretending that you care about animals
You are as jaded as the next fag and pretending to be moral wont change how you really are no matter how hard you try
Never met any moral person who thinks that a human is as worthless as animal and I never will

...

Fuck that being

He didn't say one "ought" to be nihilist either. Just because it's productive to behave that way does not make it correct. Veeky Forums has serious comprehension issues.

Have any of you dumb vegan niggers been in nature?

Protip: nature doesn't give a shit about nature, animals don't give a shit about each other. There's dead shit everywhere. Animals fucking die horrible deaths of starvation, getting in fights, falling, etc. Shit happens, and being part of nature I'm gonna be true to my nature and nature the fuck out of some nature i.e. kill animals and fucking eat them cause they're delicious.