Socrates was vegetarian

We very well do need the protein, idiot. There are just plant sources of protein available for us. Learn to argue your own point properly.

>tfw vegan
>tfw still 20lb overweight because I'm addicted to dark chocolate

>it is environmentally damaging

We don't need animal protein to survive. Protein deficiency is only an issue in diets with a severe calorie deficiency. We produce enough plant crops to provide enough protein for the world's population.

I don't know what retarded point you were trying to make, but you're wrong. Kindly do not post in my thread again.

The fact that the middle Plato's mouthpiece argues in the Republic that eating luxury foods will make the soldiers indolent and decadent does not mean that the historical Socrates was a vegetarian.

beimg vegan is a product of the radical expansion and corruption of egalitarian ideals brought upon by the movement of history. its historically contingent, to say the least

by the way, if youre a meat eater, you ought to thank the animal being eaten as well as god, if you believe in one, before you eat

>if youre a meat eater, you ought to thank the animal being eaten
why??
talk about a radical expansion and corruption of egalitarian ideals!

it's not that it's natural, it's that nothing stands in opposition to it when considered outside the paradigms of philosophical antiquity.

but i still eat it, though

>Why is eating meat considered acceptable?

Gee, why do most humans consider what most humans consider acceptable, acceptable? Because eating food is a personal matter of taste not ethics and morality. I have sovereignty over my body and what goes into it. Even Siddhartha Buddha ate meat, even died of poisoned meat. If you really think meat or animals matter in this world of literally endless HUMAN daily slaughter and suffering you are suffering from a sickness in your head. Your fellow man is being brutally butchered by governments and criminal organizations, children starving and dying of every disease, and you take your time and mental focus to worry about the livestock. Western sickness of the mind is best displayed by vegetarianism. We haven't even freed humanity from the slaughter and you worry about chickens.

Hmm. I guess the same could be said for fraud, criminal harassment, illegal finance activities, malpractice, and other crimes that are hard to prove. Eschewed by good men, that is.

What about all of the objective benefits regarding the environment, energy and freshwater use, health, et cetera?

There could be a natural right kind of theory - that it's a fundamental right that comes with being human (like, say, procreating).

I certainly think it's wrong in the case of intensive farming. Animals are given growth hormones, artificial insemination, never go outside or even have natural light, pigs scream and smash themselves against their narrow confines.

>I have sovereignty over my body and what goes into it.
Do you really? Isn't this contradicted by the existence (and enforcement) of laws governing what you can do with your body and what goes into it?

It mustn't be considered an argument! I cannot attend to those who in being solicit rules for conduct despite freedom lying before them. He is weak who falls prey to greater men's falsities; he is frail who cannot establish a method of his own. I'd urge you to transcend these ideas of ancient, to commence the creation of individual reconstruction.

>Your fellow man is being brutally butchered by governments and criminal organizations, children starving and dying of every disease,
This only happens in nigger/Asian countries, and those people are no better than animals.

>Eating meat is morally acceptable because there are much worse things going on in the world
>Raping people is morally acceptable because there are much worse things going on in the world
>Being brutally butchered by governments and criminal organisations is not morally acceptable because there aren't any worse things happening in the world

i was vegan for 10 yrs until it gave me heartburn and now GERD.
doctor told me to switch to a paleo/keto diet or i would be on ppi's for the rest of my life

>objective benefits
I fail to see their objectivity. Are we past the millennia old problem of human subjectivity? I must have been asleep when this occurred.
To some I imagine the benefits invoke a desired pleasure, both in political spirit, and in heath, but to assert these as objective is something of undeserved application. The fact we live does not include that we must endure. Nor does it entail rights beyond that of the states. Neither do animals, nor fellow humans, have to them a law promising their existence continuation. From this we can do and modify their existence as we please. Or not, perhaps... But that is a discussion of negation and authorization.

Hey, I've been suffering from gerd. Has this paleo diet helped you?

>For example, it takes some 10+ pounds of feed to product a single pound of beef,

But user, feed is shit-tier nutritionally and completely inedible for humans.

yeah it has. i can eat meals now instead of barely finshing a pea protein shake because of the pain
i still have to take shit like this amazon.com/AbsorbAid-Digestion-Stomach-Distress-Capsules/dp/B000VYXDIQ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
turmeric
before meals. tho

>i was vegan for 10 yrs
Why would you ever do that?

>post is literally incoherent
>Learn to argue your own point properly

Well, the post isn't literally incoherent, since it just states that there are plant-based sources of those same essential proteins, but some fundamental miscommunication is clearly happening.

>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?
Tastes good

Better to first ask yourself why eating meat is bad. I don't see any arguments provided by you against it. But you are implying that animal life is somehow more valuable, or is valued more, than plant life, which seems unconsidered. Why would an animal, such as a chicken or cow, be less deserving human consumption than the fruit of a tree or the roots of a plant? To eat is to kill, in some manner, and it seems trite to distinguish one life from another.

>Human
>All other species of animal

Trying to create a moral and ethical equivalency between animals and humanity is dangerous and foolish. Telling people that they have the same rights as thier food is not going to convince many people that thier food is a person. All that really happens is you drag down the dignity and sanctity of human life to the level of livestock. We already have enough wide spread killing of humans on earth. Why are you trying to push human life down to the level of a farm animal? Humans will not stop slaughtering animals for food, and they will not likely stop killing each other. All you are doing is devaluing human life.

Raping women feels good too

>wah wah everything I don't like is rape

Go back to the tumblr hellhole, cunt.

>just eat this tasteless gruel and you can get *most* of your dietary needs!

OP asked:
>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?

The closest answer he received was from this user:

>wah wah I don't understand analogies!
go back to facebook

I concur, where is the argument?

...is nobody going to bring up the OP's gayshaming in his post?

The part that feels good about rape is the sex, not the rape itself, you forgot that.

>Better to first ask yourself why eating meat is bad
Because sensient life has value.

>But you are implying that animal life is somehow more valuable, or is valued more, than plant life
That's because they don't have senscience.

I've never met a vegan who wasn't fat.

No because we are not on reddit.

your point being?

Your analogy stinks.

>eating meat is ethical because it feels good
>raping women is ethical because it feels good
?

Having sex with women feels good, the rape is accidental.

Rape presupposes sex. Also
>eating things tate taste like meat feels good, killing the animal is accidental
??

You are just baiting at this point, no one can be this dumb. I have better things to do.

ok dude then go away and learn how to make a point
you're embarrassing yourself and don't even realise it lol

What do you mean by "sentient"? It seems your understanding of the word is somewhat narrow. Plants are sentient, in a sense. For example, grass is capable of rudimentary communication through the release of chemicals when cut.

I guess the question is more about how much a nervous system adds to the value of life.

Why would sentient life have value? Where would that value come from?

Wrong board.
>4: masculinity means eating meat and farting¨
See pic related.

This user gets it. Vegetarians are drawing arbitrary lines based on poor understandings of science.

>Why would sentient life have value? Where would that value come from?

Maybe they have value as nutrition for other sentient animals?

Okay, I'll grant you that all life, plant or animal, is sentient and is therefore valuable. As rational humans, then, we should seek to, as much as possible, reduce the suffering we inflict upon other sentient creatures.

Due to energy loss as food moves up the chain, it is far more inefficient to survive by eating animals than it is by plants. To have as little an impact as possible on other life, we should therefore have a plant based diet, although it is still morally wrong.

yeah but eating meat doesn't come with a risk of prison/being killed in self defense etc

>praises greek figures
>denounces homosexuality in the same paragraph

>we should

With what kind of authority do you say we should do anything differently to what takes place today?

Why is cannibalism wrong?

>As rational humans, then, we should seek to, as much as possible, reduce the suffering we inflict upon other sentient creatures
literally why?

Seriously though this logic is pretty poor. See the utility monster thought experiment and other criticisms of utilitarianism.

Muh feels.

So nothing is inherently wrong unless it comes with the risk of being punished? Fuck off, Glaucon

>As spooked humans
Fixed.

>What do you mean by "sentient"?
It just means that animals are capable of perceiving the world around them. I don't know about your example of grass, but I'm pretty sure that grass doesn't have a biological system able to realise the cuts, for example. The grass makes chemical reactions, but it's not different from a rock.

>Why would sentient life have value? Where would that value come from?
To give a proper answer we would have to discuss metaethics, which would make the discussion way harder. But I'd say that most people presuppose that human life has value because humans can perceive the world around them. And the same applies to most animals. Obviously it's hard to determine when a species can perceive the world, but in most cases it's not so hard.

>Fuck off
lmao nice argument. Next you'll tell me how "obvious" it is

really, not even ultra-religious people are that oblivious to reality.

>a lot of people will starve to death
producing meat actually uses a lot more resources than producing plant based food that has the same nutritional values. there would be more food to go around if people ate less meat

>Vegetarians are drawing arbitrary lines based on poor understandings of science.
But a line must be drawed. How does your scientific understanding leads you to the conclusion that killing animals is not wrong but killing humans is? How is your line less arbitrary than mine?

This logic also can be applied to eating women, and cannibalism is negative

so this user going to survive if meat stopped being produced?

>complete ideology is true
... Is not a fucking starter premise, brainlet.

I never get this argument.
You argue that there is no clear distinction between the life of a pig and the life of a blade of grass.
Fine, let's assume that they're the exact same thing: this makes eating pigs even more unethical, since farming a pig implies a large expenditure of vegetal life.
Even in this case the most ethicla thing you could do is avoid eating meat while boycotting thhe dairy industry.

Veeky Forums is truly dead.

That's the only argument I've heard. There's something upsetting about it, for me at least.

At least it isn't eating meat.

look if you can afford to eat meatless without having health issues go do it

not everyone has that privilege

>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?
No, there really isn't. It is ESPECIALLY unethical to eat mammals

It's astonishing how much power the animal agricultural lobby wields, and how they've been able to brainwash the public over the last century, especially in North America. Most people have no idea

see pic

The answer is that nobody cares. I don't care. Nobody cares about the ethics or the arguments. Meat tastes good.

What exactly separates plants and animals in you mind?

Both seek to survive. Both can suffer trauma. why is bacteria less deserving of life than a cow? When you mow your lawn, that fresh cut smell is is the plant applying a defensive mechanism and applying first aid to itself.

Really, the only thing that seems to distinguish the 2 in a vegetarian's mind is that an animal can express its pain in a manner that is easier for humans to relate to.

In short, if you are determined to minimize the suffering you cause in this world, a change in diet isn't the answer. What you really need is a rope and a chair.

This.

What I can't accept is the assumption that perception/consciousness = value. That doesn't sound too convincing as an infallible truth. But I'm curious how mathematics plays into the question of value, where would you be basing your method in?

>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?

Tell us user on what grounds do you think ethics are based on?

>But humans are rational animals,

Reason doesnt allow you to derive an ought from and is user.

To be perfectly desu, I don't think it would feel good actually. Sex is great but I imagine rape would (outside of fantasy) be a pretty grim ordeal on both ends of the stick.

>arbitrary

Because humanity is the class that we belong to. Its not an arbitrary line its just every human placing the highest value and protection on every other human. When talking about what humans eat, there is automatically a logical line drawn between "humans" and everything else in the possible category "food" Moving animals into the human category doesn't protect them, it just moves humans into the food category devaluing the human life. If we were making real progress towards ending human genocide and suffering than it would be different. But as it is, with the whole sale slaughter of humans unabated and not even really opposed in any significant way its hard to see vegetarian logic as just another attempt to devalue human life. Suffering and being eaten is the natural fate of animals in the wild. There is nothing immoral about any animal eating any other animal in nature. Its just the natural biological process, ethics have no place in it. Humans are not somehow exempt from that process, we eat animals, and can be eaten by them. Being human does not somehow add a moral or ethical weight to the natural biology of eating and digestion. Humans eating meat is not any more immoral than lions or bears eating meat. It is part of the reality of living organisms. Ethics and morality have no place in discussions of what humans eat while other humans are being slaughtered daily. Its a grotesque perversion of ethics and morality to extend them to animals when we don't even extend them to our fellow humans.

Or you block headed idiot is to show that a pig is not any more morally or ethically significant than the blade of grass and this both valid as food. The point was not that nothing can ever be eaten.

>I don't think it would feel good actually
it does in a way
imaging being really mad at somebody and going thru with hitting them.

The purpose of all known life is the spread of its genes, without us domestic animals would die and go extinct. What we're basically doing is allowing some species of animal to keep fulfilling their instinctual life goals while also getting some benefit from it. What's not to like?

user gets it again. Reducing pain in the universe is not some moral imperative inherent to the process of being alive and eating food. Such a moral imperative does not exist in nature, and humans are not somehow more morally burdened by the ethics of eating than any other creature. Life is a messy, dirty, violent process at all levels. If you want to pretend to be some kind of enlightened being who causes no harm you can pretend to do that, but the reality is you are still causing huge macro levels of death at many scales of existence in the biological spectrum no matter what you do. Besides the fact that you still pay taxes that buy bombs that get dropped on people. Vegetarianism is just egotism and false perspectives of reality.

That's a very different sensation, I think, though I take your point. Although, if the pleasure is more sadistic than sexual, that is a very different approach than the "tastes good" argument about valuing pleasure. I think even most hedonists would draw the line at everyone being able to indulgs in sadistic pleasure for its own sake.

I don't see how can you adopt such a rigid system while demanding from it only answers that are based on reason, recognize that there is no difference between a blade of grass and a pig and still end up believing that there is a difference between a pig and a man.

Now I have to ask you: is it unethical to kill a man? If it is: what are your arguments for it? (when answering please keep in mind the philosophical framework you hinted at earlier on)

>Socrates was vegetarian
And? That's why you're a vegetarian? Socrates also committed suicide, you should follow his examples consistently.
>Abominable acts like adultery, theft, and homosexuality
Jesus fuck.

>Is there a single ethical argument in support of eating meat?
Kant. Vegetarianism follows logically from the utilitarianism/hedonism that we are taught in the modern society, and it seems that you still haven't realized that you were indoctrinated. Consequently, you don't even try to argue for vegetarianism, it just seems so obvious. Read Singer to see your way of thinking taken to its logical and retarded conclusion.

...

Wait, what? You actually believe we need protein from meat to survive? He's right. You must be American, they convince you to eat snickers bars because they contain protein.

We as a species are slaves to the domesticated animals genes, not the other way around. We have to pour so many resources into things like feed, genetic engineering, antibiotics, and transportation in order to meet the demand for nicely presented, ready to consume, familiar, supposedly safe meat. Vegetarianism is unnecessary, but it's probably better than being a supermarket carnivore.