Is it morally acceptable to eat and kill animals, Veeky Forums?

Is it moral to even eat living tissue or fiber?

killing an animal when hungry is ok but animals as personal property is not

Is it moral to drink piss?

If you have some kind of MRSA infection no, if you have strong aryan sterile urine, yes

It is our moral imperative to establish dominion over all mater, living or dead.

>steals pic from the sffg thread
New low.

Yes, but I suppose it would be more moral to kill them before eating them.

Is it moral to even eat

>morality

Pic related. In Mandarin underneath it says "Died of a Spook"

Odd. I translated it as "Too cool for gruel"

if you're in poverty and killing animals is somehow your only viable means of getting food, then yeah - otherwise no. if you're buying food from a store, a plant-based diet will almost always be cheaper and healthier.

only if you use your poop as fertilizer

Yes, it is. As a necessity, quite so, but for the sake of indulgence, no.

Just because morality is a spook doesn't mean y'all can't answer OP's question.

You have two types of faggots ITT: you got the "spook" faggots who regurgitate their bullshit on reflex. Their like vultures that vomit so they can fly away from predators.

Then you got the faggots who want to get on their high horse and say it's wrong to eat meat or kill animals. Obviously these faggots are just boring trash heap people.

I strongly encourage these faggots to really examine themselves. Ask yourself: is this really what I believe, based on my own experiences and personal principles?
Or am I just regurgitating some shitty memes that I barely understand?

To answer your question OP: yes, it is morally acceptable to eat and kill animals.

nothing is morally acceptable, nor morally unacceptable
moral categories do not real

No but I really like Ravenous tebehe.

>x action generates utility for yourself
>therefore you should do it

guess slavery is ok then too

tell that to the Jains, redditor

>i want to eat animals therefore its ok

why is Veeky Forums such a trash board

sort yourself out

i think it's not immoral to eat meat, but it helps the enviroment if you lower your meat consumption and eat quality meat. It applies to other foods to, but humans could easily consume less meat if we weren't so spoiled.

Why is slavery wrong? I don't understand

>why is slavery wrong
Are you that stupid? Can't you see why someone would be against slavery? Do you think you'd like being a slave? Do you think you'd like for your child or family to be a slave? People see slavery, understand that it is not something enjoyable for the slave, don't want for them or their relatives to experience this state and decide against it
It's not rocket science

No. There's nothing wrong with eating meat from a creature you've killed yourself, as long as you only kill as much as you need and don't waste it. But purchasing meat is not only morally objectionable, but aesthetically. Eating factory farmed meat is no different than jerking off -- it's a no-effort method of reaching excess to feed your dumb addicted lizard brain the stimulus it craves. The animal sits in a filthy pen its entire life and 100 other people do all the dirty work of killing and preparing the meat for you so you don't have to even imagine it came from a living creature, all so you can get the reward with no effort, work, or conscious acknowledgement of what went into getting that meat to your table.

>Eating factory farmed meat is no different than jerking off
To porn maybe, we should all rather jerking off than buying "factory farmed meat"

Hierarchy is the foundation of civilization and the ancient world would never have advanced if extreme egalitarianism existed. Right now millions of slaves exist in coercive labor in all first world countries, I believe it's better to coerce by force and abandon pretext. Only landowners over 25 should vote, if at all.

so then the only thing that is stopping me from supporting slavery is the non-restriction of slavery to a certain group that doesn't include my or my relatives?

no dun u get it? slavery is bad because it dunt make me feel good

What is the vegan argument against domesticating animals without enclosing them and then using their meat once they've died naturally?

What I enjoy the most is eating animals while they're alive. As you're biting into their flesh, their death throbs only make you hungrier.

It's a kind of sexual thrill, isn't it? I did that to rabbits as a kid, first erections I ever had

Not now that we are so advanced that animals actually stand no fucking chance.

It's okay for people to kill animals if they have to actually use their brains and bodies to do so, like hunting in a group, outsmarting an animal, physically exercising, giving the animal a shot to run away.

But most animals we consume are literally bred and contained solely for our consumption. They don't have a chance for any sort of life. It's fucked up. We have engineered entire species solely for our ownership. Fish are just caught in huge fucking nets they have no hope of escaping. But the worst part is, most people have no part in the harvesting of animals. They just sit around, getting fat, while another beings life is taken, for just a little bit more over indulgence, to make your hedonistic lard arse even fatter.

We are too advanced and organised as a species for it to be ethical. It is too easy for us. Its unfair to those we consume. We also have the ability now to consume lower order animals, like insects, or even be completely vegetarian. So any meat we consume is solely for our own, lazy, hedonistic pleasure.

That said, I eat meat. I'm a hypocrit. But I do many things I'm ethically against. Humans are complex, okay.

Tldr; either be a primitivist hunter, or go vegetarian.

You're stupid, I'm not saying it is bad/good or you should be pro/against or that slavery end with people hating on it, I'm just explaining to a brainlet why it is "wrong" or why people can be against slavery
Stop trying to be edgy and educate yourself

>outsmarting an animal

what the heck do you think inventing a gun is?

>my feelings!
I was asking for a legitimate argument you stupid faggot, that's literally the only argument I've ever heard against it

Oh and I forgot :
>Hierarchy is the foundation of civilization
Nah that's just a theory, theories of the foundation of civilisation will vary between fields
>sign
>language
>math
>society
Etc

>Only landowners over 25 should vote
I think people should vote on a philosophy that politics should then apply, it'd get rid of all this hypocrisy

File: Herodotus.jpg (2.58 MB, 1739x2100)
2.58 MB
Welcome to Veeky Forums - History & Humanities Anonymous ## Mod Mod Icon 11/01/15(Sun)08:36:48 No.27939 Sticky Closed [Reply]▶
This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc. Please use Veeky Forums for discussions of literature. Threads should be about specific topics, and the creation of "general" threads is discouraged.

For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere. General discussions about international culture should go on /int/.

Veeky Forums is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates. Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.

When discussing history, please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts.

Draco did nothing wrong

Right, but what I was saying is that at a certain point, we are too advanced, we have used too much collective energy over years to make the advantage too unfair.

If you're a world class professional boxer, you don't get in the ring and beat 12 year old amateur bloody senseless.

Hunting animals in small groups with basic technology is fine, because the animal can still outsmart you, use their wits, use their physicality. But if you use technology you personally had no hand in creating, that makes killing incredibly unskillful, is that ethical or fair?

You can make the argument that our technology and methods of agriculture etc are just a natural conclusion to our build up of collective knowledge, but does that make it right, while other animals are just left in the dust, our advantage far outstripping theirs?

Fuck, you guys must be the edgiest guys at school.

>Hierarchy is the foundation of civilization and the ancient world would never have advanced if extreme egalitarianism existed

So? Who the fuck wants to live like they're in the ancient world, where even wealthy people had awful constipation, and poor people just ate grain.

Despite the fact that morality is a spoop most people will, by their own moral standards, disagree with killing animals for food and prefer to distance themselves from the process as much as possible. They're also quite selective about what animals are ok to eat. Generally people just try not to think about it too much and are put off when people talk about it. That or they pretend they're so amazingly rugged and spectacularly cool and eat pigs right out of their mothers wombs.

Not that user and I disagree with his argument but what's your argument for slavery? Do you believe there is a justification for treating a person as property?

>morally acceptable
What do you mean by this? It's an incredibly vague thing to say.

Why should you not treat a person as property? Do you know why everything is made in Asia? It's because they have an enormous amount of industrial serfs. Coerced labour brings prosperity and liberates the citizens of the state to more worthy needs or wants. I wouldn't say that indiscriminate enslavement is a great idea, but class needs to be defined very clearly for a stable society. Just imagine what the middle class upwards could be doing with their burden taken by a subclass. There is so much we could be achieving but aren't, which can be resolved by a base labour class with broad shoulders on which we can ride. Slavery doesn't have to be so cruel and pointless as most people believe, either. There is no reason it can't invite entirely tolerable or even comfortable circumstances. A pair of hands is worth more than gold.

I have awful constipation right now, so I might as well have a few slaves to make up for my misfortune

>It's because they have an enormous amount of industrial serfs

They're still not slaves though. They're free to go work other places, leave the country, etc etc. Their pay is something they are free to use however they want. They essentially work like westerners, just for a lot less money. By your logic, everyone who works is a slave.

>I wouldn't say that indiscriminate enslavement is a great idea, but class needs to be defined very clearly for a stable society

Tell that to Africa, and those third world shit holes you're referring to, which are often less stable than say, more classless societies like the US or Australia.

>Just imagine what the middle class upwards could be doing with their burden taken by a subclass

That subclass would allow a smaller group of middle class people to achieve more, but there would also be less middle class people achieving at all.

Slavery doesn't make any sense. If you own slaves, you still have to pay for their food, housing, etc etc for them to be eficiently productive, but they are completely unfree, and you have to deal with the threat of insurrection.

If you pay the people on the bottom, but allow them freedom, it basically works the same way. They still do the same jobs etc, but they also at least get to decide what they want to do, and generally people are better at deciding their strengths and how they can best contribute to society.

If someone owned slaves, they wouldn't necessarily have the best slaves for the job.

I'm using 'slavery' pretty loosely as you pointed out, notice I use the word serf. Don't think I'm advocating niggers in irons picking cotton. The existence of this lower class would entirely transform every aspect of modern function.

what if you sell yourself to slavery

depends on massah

No and it's not unacceptable either, moral facts do not exist.

>murdering animals for absolutely no reason isn't evil

>permitting people basic freedoms like self-ownership is extreme egalitarianism

there's literally no ethical reason not to, so yes, yes it is

heh... you catch on fast kid... the trick is to restrict citizenship to free men and restrict slavery to non-citezens... see you around... if you survive, that is... heh...

out of interest have you any reason to believe you'd be made a "citizen" and not a slave?

of course, I'm the superman. You might describe my existence as "sublime", I am impossible to enslave.

i wanted it too. the source is...

reddit

...

>I was asking for an argument
You said you don't understand why slavery is seeing as a bad thing, I gave you the answer, now stop embarrassing yourself

>MY FEELINGS
>I DONT LIKE IT
>WAAAAHHHHH WAHHHHH WAHHHHHH

Any more, the times when it would be necessary to do this are very rare since so many other options now exist
Factory farming methods introduce additional problems regarding living conditions and humane procedures for killing, in addition to the hazards for people like slaughterhouse workers
Also, consuming meat consumes far more resources (such as water and feed) than eating a plant-based diet and produces more byproducts like methane
For me, I find the raising and killing of food animals to be morally problematic

If you read closely you'll see that I never shared my feelings, you should stop memeing and start thinking
>why is slavery wrong
That's a meme and you know it but you don't see that by building your discourse in opposition to another that you find flawed you are just absorbing the exact same flaws, stop that manicheism, open your eyes and see that there isn't just 2 ways of approaching problems

not an argument
is slavery wrong and why
Where is your third leg now?

>wrong
You should define that term then we could talk

>there are objective moral facts
Two can play this game.

No. It's morally repugnant to eat animals.

Cannibalism is fine though

Morality boils down to your spiritual(otherworldly) values, your value of your life, and your social(worldly) values. There is obviously no correct answer then.

But as it stands, it's proven that most animals only kill other animals purely for survival. Yet most modern humans do it primarily for indulgence. Which means there's a good chance that of the three levels of morally, at least one of them may cause you to think that killing animals is(mostly) an unnecessary luxury. But that ultimately leaves the majority of people believing that it is okay to eat animals due to a lack of importance on 2 levels of morality (usually otherworldly, and self). Next would be those who in no way believe it is immoral to eat animals, for it is their god given right. After, those who still may indulge in eating animals but much less than the previous two, are those who believe it is immoral on two levels to eat animals (worldly, and self). And lastly, those who typical abstain from eating animals for any reason (saying it is entirely immoral in modern times), believe so in all three levels (primarily otherworldly) of morality.

There are other combinations also, that operate within those three levels, yet their pattern is less common than those stated. Perhaps also we could consider that there is also a measurable section of people who do not eat animals purely because it is immoral on one level (otherworldly).

Morals are literally a spook. Your question doesn't make sense.
Humans are animals. Animals eat other animals. It's only natural that we also eat animals.

Your post started on a very promising note, trashing both parties posting ITT, but your argument at the end is so retarded and isn't even an argument, it doesn't warrant such confidence with which you began your account. Most disappointing post right now.

I'm beginning to reach a point where I really believe this

Animals are honest and struggle to survive every day never giving up
Even if they're stupid, its difficult to not respect them

Humans are the exact opposite

If I were simply asked who really deserves to be eaten more I couldn't say it's the animals

>Humans are animals. Animals eat other animals. It's only natural that we also eat animals.

Do you take all social cues from cows and pigs?

In the most basic, axiomatic functioning yes. But that's not even the point of the post, the point is, OP should first define what it means for something to be moral. I just wrote down a weak argument, but that's still one argument more than the faggot OP has provided.

>He doesn't eat his books after he finishes them

Hungry? Gotta finish haha

Ask the Lion

Obviously killing animals is not the problem.

The problem is forcing them to spend their entire lives trapped and suffering.

No it's not. You won't miss any nutrients being a vegetarian as long as you manage your diet.

First world humans are the opposite of desperate. None of us need to eat food to survive. It's purely for pleasure and convenience.

>as long as you only kill as much as you need
>need
So I'm assuming this example doesn't apply to anyone on Veeky Forums?

My gang gon' roll up on you when you least expect it, bootlicker.

not really

Nigga's gotta eat

I only eat humanely sourced, grass-fed organic cow! There's N O T H I N G wrong with that..

yes factory farms are an entirely different problem than killing animals

>niggers are animals
this is what your argument is lad

Naturally, they're here, we're here. We're adapted to eating them.

You do the maths.

It's far from necessary for that food to be meat

Go eat some grass, faggot

No, but neither is being a vegetarian or vegan and whatnot

"Humans" and "animals" are just terms to differentiate ourselves from them but in reality we are all the same, mere living beings. Saying that we are different is just as ignorant as saying God created the universe just for us humans and that everything rotates around the Earth. The only difference is that we have developed our brain and what we call "animals" haven't but those animals have developed other senses to compensate for that.

Also the condition that animals go through in slaughterhouses are just as bad as those of slaves centuries ago.

>just a social construct

"Animals" and "plants" are just term to differentiate ourselves from plants, but in reality we are the same, mere living beings. Saying that we are different is just as ignorant as saying God created the universe just for us humans and that everything rotates around the Earth. The only difference is that we have developed central nervous systems and what we call "plants" haven't but those plants have developed other senses to compensate for that.

You are now condemned to only eat fruit which has already fallen to the ground.