Vegans can't get hu-

Nah hes like 230 now. To be fair he has put on some size in the last 3 years (albeit most of it is fat).

nice fatcepts.

Argument for animal moral value:
> p1 - Humans are of moral value.
> p2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
Therefore without establishing the absence of such trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless.

Argument for veganism from animal moral value:
> p1 - Animals are of moral value.
> p2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to consider anything short of non-exploitation to be an adequate expression of respect for human moral value.
Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by considering anything short of non-exploitation (veganism) to be an adequate expression of respect for animal moral value.

>sterilized nigger tells you to eat no animal products
>>you can get all the nutrients you need from plants
>>takes nutrient injections monthly

how can vegans ever recover

>no trait absent in animals which is absent in humans

...

This reasoning seems fishy.
Even if there is no difference in traits there is a difference in pronunciation of traits: Even though there are animals with proportionally big brains, Our brains are the biggest proportionally to our body size. Even though some animals can run for long amounts of time humans can run for the longest time, ect, Humanity can also be defined by many traits because many of them can cause synergies to two appear. We could say that since we
have hands and we have very big brains we can combine those two traits to create fire. To my Knowledge no other animals can create fire. so If I deem humanities value on the ability to make fire then your argument does not hold water

~humanities's

ge without steroids

Naah i don't want to be a moral fag, so i'll never be vegan, the extreme i'm willing to try might be plant based.

t. lying, cheating, steroid-using veganfags

>Nah hes like 230 now

LMAO, nope, total curl chimp/bench monkey/no legs. ~200 is more accurate.

P1 is wrong tho

DAILY REMINDER THAT MODS HAVE BANNED VG'S NAME FOR A REASON

MODS MODS MODS

VEGAN GAINZ SELF PROMOTION THREAD

MODS MODS MODS

Morality isn't a fact.
Sentience is attributed in our own minds to others. Can't prove or quantify it.
You don't understand logic.

someone post the triceratops back one.

So a person that can't make fire has a small brain small hands and can't run very long, is okay to exploit and kill?
?
t. solipsist

That explains alot, I was making a post and it kept saying it was spam. FUCK YOU MODS!

The commonality between humans and animals is the most important. They're both sentient (meaning they have emotions, can experience pain, have brains, nervous system etc) so that automatically grants them moral value. Sure they're dumber and can run for a shorter time than humans, but they still have that trait of sentience like humans that should give them moral value.

>not addressing the argument

So in your little pea brain, murdering humans is also fine since morality doesn't exist.

Straw-man. I never claimed that.

By saying morality isn't a fact, that would lead to the murder of humans also being okay, since morality isn't real.

nobody ever said that virgins cant get hummus

Factually, there is nothing wrong with killing humans. There is no fact that tells you otherwise.

Which of the persons I replied to was you?

Would you accept being murdered then?

>By saying morality isn't a fact, that would lead to the murder of humans also being okay, since morality isn't real.

Appeal to emotion. Literally instinct of survival is not logical. So it can't be used as an argument.

Stupid carnist. I spit on you! Pew!

Okay, would you accept your mom or dad or other family being murdered then? You don't need them for survival anymore, right?

If i was a 100% logical, yes. But i am not 100% logical so i don't. This can sort of count as na appeal to emotion.

Double standards are not logical either, dumbass carnist

This

Straw-man. Ad hom. I never said they were logical.

>this is what atheists actually believe

>So a person that can't make fire has a small brain small hands and can't run very long, is okay to exploit and kill?

no I was poking holes in your argument. I was pointing out three things:
1. even if we don't have a unique trait we have certain traits more pronounced than other animals
2. we have can combinations of traits that could be considered to be more valuable than the sum of their individual parts.
3. the fire point wasn't really touched on very well. the purpose of it was to say that any individual could define specific traits or trait combinations to say that humans are "better"

It seemed you were confusing my examples for my argument. sorry for confusing you I hope this list made it easier to understand
This is true. I think the most common response to that is: Because the it is likely that sentience is an emergent property of intelligence we can consider humans more sentient than other animals and therefore more valuable morally speaking.
I'm not sure how I feel about this argument because It is very hard to Determine a creature's intellect and even harder to determine a creature's sentience.

I'm really not an expert on either of these things. I have a hard time understanding morality, Quite frankly I think the only reason I think It's wrong to kill people is that I'm a person and It would be in my interest not to allow others to kill people lest it be me.

Morality is what we make it. You can choose to kill something less intelligent. It's not the same as murdering humans. You'll understand when you get some more testosterone.. I assume you guys work out..?

> instinct of survival is not logical
So suicide is logical? How is survival not logical, we are humans and and have a will to live. Survival is logical.

>implying I'm atheist
>It seemed you were confusing my examples for my argument. sorry for confusing you I hope this list made it easier to understand
Oh well, you're right you should be able to use multiple traits and combine them.

Is suicide logical? No, never claimed that.
Survival can be done by logic, sure. For instance, if you are on a deserted island, you can use your known facts to improve your chances of survival, sure (just a small example, how to make fire or how to build a temporary shelter).
Instinct of survival is an emotion and not logical.

Ah okay, but you're still a retard, correct?

>Ad hom
Kek

Ad hom.
Next.

How is survival not logical? Aren't we human beings and isn't logic an extend of our human reasoning?

That's not what i said. instinct isn't, survival maybe done with logic. The second part i'm fine with i guess. We are emotional creatures that use logic. Yeah, i guess so.

>It is very hard to Determine a creature's intellect and even harder to determine a creature's sentience.
Not really, if something has a brain and central nervous system, then it's sentient guaranteed. That's why vegans have a harder time being empathetic towards bugs than cows and pigs.

>Because the it is likely that sentience is an emergent property of intelligence we can consider humans more sentient than other animals and therefore more valuable morally speaking.
Sure, humans do have more moral value. But, animals still have a moral value enough for the right to life since they are sentient.

>Quite frankly I think the only reason I think It's wrong to kill people is that I'm a person and It would be in my interest not to allow others to kill people lest it be me.
Sure. But if you were an animal, wouldn't you like it for a human to treat you nicely and not slaughter you though since the human has moral agency and can decide that it's wrong to needlessly kill you?

So if that's true and we recognize this self-preservation in other humans isn't killing them morally wrong?

>lift for 10 years
>never get anywhere
>start hanging out very closely with someone who roids
>suddenly explode in size

but hes been training for 10 years. The difference in size between 8 years and 10 is not big at all in normal people, he literally wasted 10 years on bullshitting around.

He wasted 10 years being natty. He jumped on roids a year ago in case you have your head completely up your ass.

Got tired of all the internet bullying calling him out for being a tiny fucking vegan.

>Morality is what we make it.
You can use this argument to justify any behavior. You can use it to justify murder, rape, child molesting etc.

>You can choose to kill something less intelligent
So killing humans that are less intelligent than me is right?

>It's not the same as murdering humans.
When we use the ecocentric definition of murder, it can be applied to animals as well since it's needless slaughter of innocent sentient beings.

>You'll understand when you get some more testosterone
Vegans have higher testosterone on average :)

You are obviously retarded since you cannot distinguish an ad hom from an insult.

Your argument is wrong because you're short= ad hom

Your argument is wrong because *insert argument*, *insult*= insult

Got it?

Now provide an argument to mine or gtfo

No, again, morally wrong or right doesn't exist. There is no objective morality or factual morals. That is why this is also called argumente from autority. I don't believe a 100% in your morality so we can't use it in na argument. I could give you exemples like, i believe rapists should be killed, be them sentient or not. You by your "logic" believe they shouldn't because they have sentience and "they want to live" and "they feel pain".

What are you talking about? What argumente did you provide?

Nope, rapists have harmed someone else, despite having moral agency not to rape. This is not the same as slaughtering a cow because it tastes good.

The soyboy himself even said "humans are superior to animals in virtually every metric."

Well I hope he knows roids are vegetarian at best

vegetarianbodybuilding.com/vegetarian-bodybuilding-steroids/

Oops

But then aren't you the one being inconsistente with the logic you made? Even if they harm someone? Isn't that a double standard? The second part isn't morally wrong or right, again morality is not a fact.

when piano told stains that he would "need to take the helm soon", it wasn't just shooting the shit and messing around.

the only missing piece is Jasmin getting those employment gains

Your first argument was:
>Factually, there is nothing wrong with killing humans
Then it lead to my question:
>Okay, would you accept your mom or dad or other family being murdered then since you don't need them for survival?

Now you haven't provided an argument for that, but instead pussied out with a double standard. Either admit your first claim is wrong or provide an argument to my question.

If you have no religious bases the morals argument you presented has no bases
>le why I can still be moral and be an atheist
Yeah but you have no reason to, just as meat eaters have no reason to justify eating meat. They could kill an animal and not even eat it and they’d have no obligation to justify it
>b-but muh moral code!
If you are an atheist you accept the fact the sun will die out, earth will cease to exist and there is nothing you can do about it
>we’ll just inhabit another planet!
And repeat the process of having that planets sun go out as well and endlessly prolonging a pointless existence
That’s all animals life is if your an atheist, it’s pointless

So long soyboy

I did provide na argumente.
I'll say it again. factually yes, i would accept them being killed since i don't need them for survival. From a logical standpoint, yes, i would accept it.

>So a person that can't make fire has a small brain small hands and can't run very long, is okay to exploit and kill?

If you belive in natural selection, yes. There is no reason to prolonge weak genes. That’s why medicine, hospitals and the like have religious foundations

Only if you’re an atheist

>But then aren't you the one being inconsistente with the logic you made? Even if they harm someone? Isn't that a double standard?
No, the legal system IS a basis for morality. Humans have moral agency, they can decide what's wrong and not. Putting a rapist in jail or even killing them can be justified since it's a punishment. It would be immoral to not punish them imo, since that's a punishment for an immoral crime. You cannot say this is the same as killing innocent sentient animals needlessly. Not a double standard. Now if I said it's okay to keep dogs alive, but cows should be slaughtered, then that would be a double standard. You really don't see the difference between killing a rapist for breaking a moral code and killing a cow needlessly?

> p2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.

wew lad do u even kant

I just entertained your idea, as i said. Morality isn't a fact and doesn't objectively exist. There's nothing wrong with killing a cow nedlessly, there would be nothing wrong with killing a rapist and there would be nothing wrong in having an holocaust. From a logical standpoint.

This guy could only bench and squat 185 for 3 reps after 10 years of training and now he’s all of a sudden fucking huge. Yeah, I’m gonna call bullshit.

Appealing to morality is an argument from autority. (forgot to add that)

First of all, I doubt you would actually accept your family being murdered needlessly.
Second of all, using your logic, it would be fine to kill everyone who YOU don't require for survival. That is immoral.
It's funny making you carnists go through these heinous, absurd claims.

>there is nothing wrong with killing humans
This is the original statement.
>would you accept someone you care about being murdered
This statement has nothing to do with the first.
The act of killing a human in general.
Obviously when you change the question of how YOU PERSONALLY will react to a SPECIFIC person dying you are changing the situation from is it logical to get mad about a human dying.
If you try to prevent me from doing something I want to do then there isn't any real reason why I can't kill you to achieve it.
If you are giving me money there is no logical reason for me to want to kill you.
If you kill my estranged brother or my twin that I never knew about then obviously I wouldn't care.

If you didn’t start injecting it’s probably because of vid related

Running with people faster than you made you work harder

youtu.be/XNj_KDPp_iM

t. Regius Professor of Metaethics at Cambridge University

>Not really, if something has a brain and central nervous system, then it's sentient guaranteed. That's why vegans have a harder time being empathetic towards bugs than cows and pigs.
I was talking in quantitative terms not absolute terms.
you also probably don't need to try to derail that because I'm taking apart my own argument.
>Sure, humans do have more moral value. But, animals still have a moral value enough for the right to life since they are sentient.
This is a very subjective type of statement. Some people will consider people different levels of sentience more valuable.
>Sure. But if you were an animal, wouldn't you like it for a human to treat you nicely and not slaughter you though since the human has moral agency and can decide that it's wrong to needlessly kill you?
I have a vested interest to eat animal meat because it brings me pleasure to do it and I am not an animal. that's really about it. I really respect the lifestyle that you are living. but do not wish to live that way myself because I feel better eating meat than I do feeling morally correct.

You didn't understand my argumente at all.
I'll repeat it again. From a logical standpoint, i have to accept whatever happens to my family, first it's certain, being just a matter of time, second, in a logical debate, there is no subjectiveness, no emotion, only objective truth. Using my logic it's fine to kill everyone including me. It wouldn't be imoral, since morality isn't objective and doesn't truly exist.

That was a good one, made me chuckle a bit desu.

I don't know why but desu got auto corrected to 'desu', what the fuck

t b h*, jesus fucking christ

>Being this new

He might be big now, but probably on roids. He was small as fuck for very recent times and then suddenly blew up, even though as a natty the further you get your gains exponentially slow down.
Also, he's a complete nutjob. He's a great example of why to stay away from veganism. Completely insane.

>morally wrong or right doesn't exist.
Are you a moral nihilist?
I'm not an atheist, where did I say that?

not the man you are arguing with but you have reasons not to kill your family biologically because they have your genes. There is also an economic reason not to kill people because it is 129,000$ per year quality of life to the economy. so every time you kill somebody you are indirectly hurting yourself

...

Wonder much money he's lost now that he can't make new videos talking about rich piana

No, i'm not. I just recognize it's nature.
I have my arbitrary and non-arbitrary moral prefrences. But I would never bring them up since it's na argumente from authority. Being a falacy.

You're so full of shit. You would not accept you and your family being murdered. Do you think that stomping on living babies is also fine then? By saying morality doesn't exist, you're basically allowing everything and anything to happen to people. Any sort of suffering and torture would be excusable to you.
If morality didn't exist, we wouldn't live in a society where things like murder, rape, and stealing are illegal. Humans know when something is moral or immoral. Morality is objective. Animals do not have moral agency, so that's why they don't have laws and checks that keep them from killing each other. Humans know what is moral and immoral, again.

Also, i'm not a moral fag.

scientifically wrong, there's even evidence of basic "moral" behavior in lab rats. you can have that edgelord opinion but you can't simultaneously play the science card

Hahaha, pick a fallacy retard. "STRAWMAN SLIPPERY SLOPE FALSE EQUIVALENCY"

"Phew, I uttered the magic incantation that means I'm right you're wrong. I always win arguments!"

Our survival instincts led to overpopulation of the earth, which is making everyone's live worse generation by generation. Yes, survival instincts are illogical