It's time to talk about moral consistency. FUCK YOU NONVEGAN NIGGERS GET IN HERE

If you have a personal belief in human moral value, it is inconsistent to deny animals moral value. There is no trait absent in animals that if animals would justify human exploitation. Reference pic related. What's your justification for eating meat?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
m.youtube.com/watch?v=iF4r85luJuo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's tasty. There's my justification.

I like the way it tastes.

Would you accept the justification of "you're tasty" for a human murdering you. If not, why not?

Because then I'd be dead and I don't want that.

Because I follow social convention. Let me know when eating humans becomes socially acceptable. Then I'll begin eating humans. I'm sure they're tasty, too.

F1. retarded assumption
F2. Retarded assumption, also consciousness would be the standard reply

I wouldn't. I'd shoot the nigger.
I don't have to justify shit to you, you stupid little faggot.

If cows tried to eat me then I'd genocide their species.

Do you reject the fact that animals have a will to live then?

Why the fuck are we supposed to pretend we're better than animals?

I don't see these assholes pleading their case to lions, tigers, and bears, though I wish they fucking would, smothered in honey.

Because i value all life equally, and don't privilege one life form above another just because it has cute eyes and makes little noises.

Next question.

Social convention does not equal morality. Social convention can be used to justify rape and murder of humans and if you would not accept these things being done to you, you cannot levy social convention as a justification for eating animals as it produces inconsistency.

Are you rejecting human moral value? Elaborate

A will to live is irrelevant in a situation where one is human and the other is not

Humans are fully sapient and self aware, capable of complex abstract thought and decision making. The fact we're able to have this conversation is entirely unique to humans. This fulfills the exceptional human characteristic required for moral coherence in your argument.

Dead on first principles.

I will assume you value logical consistency, and am trying to point you in that direction.

This. OP's arguement tries to establish some equivalency between animals and humans, but then ignores the fact that some animals would most definitely eat humans if given the chance.

Animals arnt self aware like humans and they probably don't have souls ether if you belive in that kinda stuff ,which is probably why the taste so good

Has a cow ever tried to eat you? (Ps I realize self defense is justified)

>We are human
>Humans have a vested interest in the survival and safety of other humans
>Therefore, humans will not eat humans because we ourselves would not want to be eaten
>What animals may or may not want is irrelevant because they are neither human nor party to this basic social contract of not eating each other

Cool. Well, I just follow social convention. Let me know when social convention permits cannibalism, and I'll begin eating tasty humans. I haven't much "consistency." You think reason produces morality. Morality is whoever has the most power - whoever has the ability to make other conform to a particular set of values, whether they're arbitrary or not. This is the nihilism you created. Sorry.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to eat a tasty animal.

>What's your justification for eating meat?
It's nutritious, it tastes good and I'm an omnivorous animal.

The day cows and shit stat to evolve and invent shit is the day I'll question eating them. And that still won't stop me

I am a little confused as to what you mean by "fully sapient" (are you appealing to species?) Some humans are not capable of abstract thought. Do you support raping and murdering these humans?

see
>Therefore, humans will not eat humans because we ourselves would not want to be eaten
>What animals may or may not want is irrelevant because they are neither human nor party to this basic social contract of not eating each other

There is literally nothing with species exceptionalism.

nothing wrong with*

but you could construct the same argument without species exceptionalism, leveraging the concept of social contracts and game theory

>Do you support raping
Nobody said anything involving rape. Why are you doing it now, my degenerate friend?

I fully understand that bears (read: carnivores) will eat humans given the chance. The distinction here is that these animals do not have moral agency, nor can they conceptualize logical consistency, and are therefore "off the hook" so to speak. Humans (most ((you))) are moral agents and can conceptualize moral agency, and should act accordingly.

And? You're implying there's anything inherently morally wrong with killing lower beasts. In fact, your entire argument hinges on that unsupported assertion.

Livestock isn't sentient. They're lesser species. They don't care about helping refugees or painting a picture, they just want to eat and screw. And if they can eat and screw a lot before the slaughterhouse then it sounds like a pretty decent life if you had their brain capacity

Some humans are not self aware (due to severe mental handicap). Do you support killing and raping these humans? If not, then a justification other than "lack of self awareness" must be levied to justify animal killings.

Why would I give a flying fuck about his justification? All I care about is that he grills me on a BBQ, not boiled.

>The distinction here is that these animals do not have moral agency
So these animals are, in fact, fundamentally different from us. I thought species equality is what you were basing your argument on in the first place. Which is it, now?

Hey fuck face, why don't you reply to where that same argument was rebuked? I'll recap if you need it!

>As a social primate species, humans have a vested interest in the safety and survival of other humans
>Loss of human life should be avoided, and a social contract of mutual non-violence makes humanity stronger
>Animals are not party to this contract, nor are they humans

>animals are of moral value
?????

Crows have the indicators of being capable of this as well. They can deduce logic puzzles, communicate with each other, etc. For this reason, I suggest increased rights for crows and relatives.

Yes, I support removing these humans.

>moral value

Lost me there. Morality is vacuous. It's just feels armed with mental gymnastics. In any consistent moral system, everyone is a terrible person.

I eat meat for fuel. My dietitian reccomended it to me because fruits and vegetables cause horrible stomach pain. Not that you care, since you're just looking for excuses to call me a horrible person and feel oh so good about it.

I was responding with the fact that animals do have a live to a specific person bringing this up. Would you call the killing of a human by an alien morally justified because "Aliens have a vested interest in survival and safety of other humans"? I think you are appealing to species to justify the killings of these animals (if this is not the case please clarify). Unless you would accept aliens killing humans because we are not their species, your argument in inconsistent.

>I suggest increased rights for crows and relatives.
And you'll be laughed out of every audience in the world for doing so. Humans are inherently exceptional, and until you can deal with that fact your arguments are all resting on falsified principles.

Humans don't have moral value. Persons have moral value. If you disagree then I guess you can't be a vegan and pro-abortion.

Many animals follow contracts similar to this, especially corvids and relatives. They form tribal units, which will share time watching young, chasing off predators, and collecting food. They communicate with each other. This is a small example of social contract in place.

Also worth noting: They recognize that some animals are predators, but will generally ignore humans, as they recognize they pose no immediate threat.

Mockery is not a counterargument. I plan to perform extended studies and experimentation to support my claims.

following basic biology is not immoral, humans like many other organisms have evolved to eat meat, at least partially.

the food chain is not a social construct

If you don't value logical consistency, then I honestly cannot argue with you. Perhaps re-examine the concept of logical consistency then take a look at your actions. No bad feelings but some personal development could do some good. I reject the "might makes right" argument as it justifies literally anything if you are more powerful, contradicting my belief in human moral value.

>Would you call the killing of a human by an alien morally justified because "Aliens have a vested interest in survival and safety of other humans"?
Yes, and that's why we need to be fucking careful with SETI programs, because it's possible or probable other intelligent species that evolved as hunter gatherers have come to the same conclusions.

However, insofar as mutual trade can benefit both groups, violence would be avoided. We can see this in human-animal relations in non-destructive livestock practices such as sheering.

>I plan to perform extended studies and experimentation to support my claims.
You go right on and do that, Lord of Crows

Is eating meat necessary for your survival (could be the case if you are an tribes person or live in really rural areas)? If not, then it is inconsistent to eat meat if you have a personal belief in human moral value.

Beats me as well.

>then it is inconsistent to eat meat if you have a personal belief in human moral value.
You continue to argue as if killing animals is inherently immoral. You still have not backed this up in any way. You're taking the argument of a religious fanatic - not bowing to Christ is inconsistent with human moral value (from the perspective of a Christian)

>it is inconsistent to eat meat if you have a personal belief in human moral value
How so?

>Animal moral value

>P1
Humans only have moral value if their existence benefits other people.

>P2
Animals may have moral value if their existence benefits people, but most species lack traits that make them useful beyond being harvested for animal products or just eaten.

>C
Many animals must be domesticated and/or killed in order to maximize their value.

Is your justification for eating cows "Cows are not on human level intellect"? If this is your position, would you accept being killed by Stephen Hawking because you are not on his intellectual level? If you would not accept the justification of "lesser intelligence" when used by Stephen on you, then you cannot reasonably apply it to animals without being inconsistent. (aka applying a double standard)

Veganism and shit is just more brainwashing from the left to convince us to hate and kill ourselves for population control and the earth. It's also a hobby for fucking rich people who have no life

the only winning woof is not to play

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Morality has no absolutes

Sorry could you clarify your justification for killing animals? Want to make sure I have your argument correct and not attack a strawman.

>the only winning woof is not to play
I bet you don't even know about multibark woof.

>could you clarify your justification for killing animals?
It's easier to eat them when they're dead.

...

OP is a little intense and either just went down a vegan rabbit hole or is 15

Justification is as simple as needs, desires, or convenience. I have no more need to justify taking a deer than I do to justify brushing my teeth. The burden is on you to prove a moral wrong is committed.

...

I am building a hypothetical to expose logical inconsistency. If you would not accept a human being raped with the justification of "this human lacks abstract thought" then you cannot apply the justification of "this animal lacks abstract thought" to justify killing the animal. You must either accept or reject both rapings to maintain logical consistency. (ie accepting the justification in one context and rejecting it in another is to create a double-standard)

>killing
Yes, it would be merciful.
>raping
Because civilized human beings find that normal behavior on par with eating/killing(for X reason). Of course you had to go with that as an argument. Jesus fuck, jump in a meatgrinder and have someone donate your remains to be nigger feed. Its evident you're just going to walk around in bullshit circles for the entirety of this thread.
>What's your justification for eating meat?
Survival is the one and only justification. If you weren't such a bleeding heart faggot with an eating disorder like a teenage girl having to rely on (((supplements))) you'd know that the hard way.

We consume life or we are consumed by it. I don't care if i eat tofu or steak or both, i'm eating something that was alive and now is not so i can decompose it into nutriment
>i see no moral contradiction because animals are not from the same species as us and therefore it's predation.
>mass factory of meat is pretty bad and unmoral for alot of reasons, one should kill his prey or eat other things. Just eat what feels natural.

You're still hung up on the first principle that killing an animal is morally wrong. Prove it. Without that, you have nothing.

You're equating raping a person to killing an animal. It's not even the same action you're using, buddy.

...

My argument hinges on whether you personally have a belief in human moral value. If you do think humans have moral value, then you cannot justify killing a "lower beast" in such a way that does not produce a double standard when applied to humans. For clarity, I would ask that you clarify your justification for killing animals so I can better understand your argument.

What the fuck is moral value?

>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless
An IQ above 70

The entire argument presented in your image for ants boils down to a logic puzzle

>What trait can be absent in animals but never in humans, that gives humans innate value?
Humanity.

>a belief in human moral value
Then define it, retard. Your "moral values" are neither universal nor assumed. You keep waving "human moral values" around, but without definition it holds no more value than a sealed holy book.

If you are contesting animal sentience, I have nothing to say other than use google to resolve the dispute. This is an objective, impirical reality, take a look at some of the evidence suggesting that animals are sentient. (this is a little grey when approaching ants, but for livestock this is very clear.) I would ask you resolve this before continuing.

>Valuing your own species above others is "logically inconsistent"
lol

Veganism is simply an attempt to evade the fact that life feeds on life, that the universe is a vast web of creation and destruction. A vegan is just a person who spares his own feelings by killing creatures that can’t scream. Vegenism is an attempt to remove man from nature, rather than to embrace nature and plunge into it. As such, veganism is nothing more than an ascetic retreat from life.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=iF4r85luJuo

>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
I disagree with this proposition. Just because you say it is so, doesn't make it so.
It also is a narrow, nongeneralized case. If we accept the proposition as "reasonable" albeit not fully developed, it is also conceivably reasonable to presume the proposition would be true if we replaced "animals" with "plants" or "fungi" or "bacteria".

>Quads of truth

Ah, I see where the miscommunication is. I keep assuming you're referring to value as in morals in your later posts, and that's false. In that case, see

Humanity is unique because we are human. Humans have intrinsic value to each other that we do not share with (most) animals because we are a social species. We uphold a social contract to which only humans are party. ALL OF THOSE are exceptional characteristics that no animal can hold (with the exception of pet animals holding companionship value)

>human moral value
What does that even mean? Define your terms. Morality isn't universal and we have no idea what you're talking about in this case.

>producing double standard when applied to humans
It's not a double standard because it's not even the same entity. It's human v not-human.

If you do not accept the justification levied in a human context, but accept the exact same.justification in an animal context, you have created a double standard. This is the definition of logical inconsistency.

Because it's a slippery slope. First you support the killing or retards, next thing you know they're hunting down anime watching basement dwellers like yourself.

>slippery slope
Really makes me think.

To clarify, I DO NOT believe in species equality. Do you agree that some humans lack moral agency?

>he values swedes
KEK

Great argument, except you could also apply it to plants

Starve yourself my m8

>chicken harvester
Neat.

Is your arguement that because animals are not in our social contract their killing is justified? (Im really not trying to strawman you im sorry) You may be deploying both a species justification and a social contract justification at the same time, but this will be resolved if we can just stick to a single justification at a time.

I would ask, what is your justification for killing animals?

It should, Adolf, because dark-haired Germans are next in line.

>I DO NOT believe in species equality
And yet you insist in equal treatment of the unequal.

>do you agree that some humans lack moral agency?
Yes. Keyword being "some". They're still humans, though.

Now I'm thinking twice as much.

If you do bite the bullet and suggest that these humans lacking in moral agency can be raped and murdered (not sure what "removed" means exactly) then you are maintaining logical consistency which is better than most. The debate becomes much more drawn out as I now have to convince you that retards have moral value. Thank you for at least being consistent.

If your conclusion is wrong, look at your premises

P2 is false, because the trait which is absent in animals that is present in humans, is 'being human'. 'To deem ourselves' implies social convention. Social convention states that eating animals is ok and eating humans is not.

>Is your arguement that because animals are not in our social contract their killing is justified?
Again, I don't feel any need to justify killing an animal. The moral burden is to prove it's wrong. Your argument rests on the idea that animals have no distinguishing traits which, absent a human, would make the human fair game for hunting. I've pointed out several, among which is the human social contract, that cannot by definition be absent a human but can certain be absent animals.

Without your argument that no such distinguishing trait exists, there is no moral reason not to kill an animal.

>can be raped
You really are fascinated with rape, aren't you? Are you jewish or black, perchance?

I'm sorry if it comes across that I am attempting to shame anyone, I am merely trying to rectify logical inconsistencies. So ill take it you do not have a belief in human moral value?

Fuck off NWO cunt. We know that Agenda 21 promotes veganism and so does WHO. We're not falling for it.

>equal treatment
No one is insisting we put clothes on cows, so treatment is not equal. It's simply a respect towards animal life.

>respect
What an empty word. What does "respect" entail?

What traits do humans have that grant them this exceptional status? If a human was lacking in whichever trait you choose, do they still deserve the right to life?

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, could you clarify what you mean by "persons". Dont want move further until I understand your argument.