Can you produce a sound argument against ethical veganism?

Recently veganism has become more prevalent and spoken of(both negatively and positively) on the internet. There are probably many reasons for this.
I recently found an argument for veganism that seemingly has no honest logical refutation . Here is the formal version of the "name the trait" argument:

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.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a 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.
C - 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.


I could be wrong though, so /pol do you have any GOOD arguments against veganism or "name the trait"?

-->>Also keep in mind, animals need not be morally equivalent to humans to still deserve a basic right to life.

Other urls found in this thread:

healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Humans are omnivores, not herbivores. If we're built and meant to eat meat, I'm go to eat meat. Fuck whatever ethics argument vegan-cucks present.

You can eat whatever you want to.

You trying to force your bullshit onto me is where the line is drawn.

Also, humans are not inherently valuable
see:
>downies and retards
>fags and assorted degeneracy
>cripples
>criminals

appealling to nature is a nono. rape is natural, should we rape each other too?

What about b12 deficiency

so far we have seen only dishonest and bad arguments. looks like meatfags:0 vegans:1

I'm physically unable to go on a vegan diet without shoving a million pills down my throat because I was born an abomination.

Meatcucks are disgusting

Obtainable from alternative milks like almond milk or B12 supplements. Meat-eaters get B12 from animals that had B12 supplemented in their diet.

Herbivores killed by predators die horrible deaths constantly. This is not a human invention. You're all faggots.

If you want to be a vegan be my guest.

But this is a board filled with people who want to exterminate the jews so eating a hamburger isn't going to be some moral obstacle.

And yet you haven't replied to a single one to refute our points.

b12 can easily be supplemented in a vegan diet by getting fortified foods. actually b12 is supplemented in the animals we eat too. so vegans have no inherent defeciency. all macro and micro nutrients can be found in a vegan diet very easily

Oh look, it's the "well animals do too" guy. I was wondering when someone would argue that humans should model their actions around feral animals.

have anything for this? I think about going vegan every so often but then reality kicks in. If you need to know why, just imagine someone was born without the majority of their gastrointestinal organs usable, and therefore does not have a normal digestive system. I would appreciate an actual solution beyond "just use meds."

You're making a sound argument for cannibalism.

That is fortified food friend. Not naturally found in almond milk. B12 is only obtainable from animal cells generally so does that not defeat the point of being vegan

If you WANT to be vegan, be vegan. Just don't be a mouthy douche bag about it. THAT is what we don't like.

Plus, we are going to keep eating meat either way.

meatfags:0 vegans: 2

not looking good for the meatfags

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

A soul.

But yes. If you are atheist, then there is no logical argument for not being a soyboy

And just like that everybody's magically a veggiefag.

B12 comes from bacteria in unprocessed water, I've never heard this claim in my life before. Where's your source?

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but life must consume life in order to live. All life is sacred - why differentiate between plant and animal? Give thanks to any life you consume and waste not.

dont give me that " dont force veganism on me!! it makes me feel bad!! wahhh wahh" shit

animals are killed and eaten every day by the millions, and you have the audacity to claim victim-hood? fuck you you degenerate piece of garbage

could you take a crack at these?

>vegans say it's bad to kill animals
>vegans kill plants every day
>vegans consider themselves gods with the ability to deem which life is worthy of consumption

If you're using the argument that "life is precious" then what right do you have to decide which type of life is more important?

plants arent sentient and have no subjective experience of anything. they respond to stimuli.

animals though, are sentient and do feel experience pain.

eating animals is unnecessary and therefor the suffering imposed on them is also unnecessary.

while it has many health benefits, there are nutrients that you can only get by consuming animal tissue. a deficiency in these will result in health issues.
link of a quick search.
healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants

>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
What about intelligence and the ability to actually do something other than eating and shitting? Fuck vegans, fuck their half-assed arguments and fuck you for falling for them!

>inb4 niggers and retards have neither of those
Before women took over, nobody cared about those.

if you dont personally suffer from those ailments then you cant use them as an argument for your consumption of animal products.

also the burden of proof is on you to show that such an ailment does exist, and that you suffer from it

>Nature is immoral :,c

Ethical vegans are flat eather tier retarded

>I am a god and can deem which animals are worthy of consumption because fuck you I'm a god and so much smarter than you

Vegan arrogance is astounding

search gastroschesis

Bugs are killed by the billion.

I don't see you giving a fuck.

Fuck you and your false "I care about life" facade.

>plants arent sentient and have no subjective experience of anything. they respond to stimuli.
Prove that less intelligent animals are sentient.

such terrible arguments...

VEGAN DIETS ARE HEALTHY FOR ALL STAGES OF LIFE

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

and if you want to name intelligence as a trait, then you must be in favor of a retard holocaust(retards of the intelligence of cows,pigs,chickens) to remain logically consistent

you can try to be edgy and accept that, but you and i both know you aren't being honest(unless your head is just fucked) if you do

Good for those who do it, I love animal products too much. I still advocate for better and more humane practices involving it though.

fpbp
though I wouldn't mind increasing the life quality of lifestock, I'm going to eat them

/thread
The whole veganism argument implies that living things have value, even though value in and of itself is a subjective belief?
For example, my pets have more value then the drooling Down Syndrome kid shitting himself in a wheelchair.

look up the definition of sentience and then proceed to punch yourself in the face for that retardation you just spouted

and yet you offer no counterarguement

You have to argue P2 in order for this to make sense. Instead, you're making a claim. It is not a verifiable claim, either. It makes a lot of general assumptions about the nature of morality, value, and differences in cognition. As well as variation between species, culture, group philosophies, yadda yadda.

I agree that it's ethical to avoid eating meat. But this is terrible form. Who the hell taught you to make arguments like this?

>of moral value
What exactly does this mean?

>we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless
This is a non-sequitur. Eating an animal doesn't imply it's valueless, it implies that you consider it to have less value alive than as your food.

>implying mills are the majority or even close to being similar to normal farms
Retard.

P2 fails, higher intelligent is a trait absent in animals that would deem us valueless.

Humans should be able to model their behavior around feral animals because the argument is that humans are no different to animals.

If humans are supposed to avoid eating animals because it is "humane" and we need to rise above animal instincts, then we place ourselves in a position above animals.
Which we are. We have reason, morality, and all that. You could argue that part of that morality is choosing not to eat meat, but it is also an argument against meat eating being being innately immoral in itself, since both you and I believe that humans are above animals

Veganism is just like the NAP. I don't eat beings that won't eat me and since animals are happy to eat me I will eat them as well.

P1- Animals have no moral value
P2- In order to possess moral value it must be reciprocal.
P3- If killing you and your whole family meant obtaining food an animal would do it without any moral concern.
P4- We project our morality onto animals
C- We should have no qualms about animal suffering as long as it doesn't erode people's moral character to the point where the harms outweigh the benefits derived from the animal.

(((((virtue signaling)))))

For every "study" in support of veganism I can find you one against it. This proves nothing.

>and if you want to name intelligence as a trait, then you must be in favor of a retard holocaust(retards of the intelligence of cows,pigs,chickens) to remain logically consistent
Back in the day those were either beggars or put to death. Not an argument.
>you can try to be edgy and accept that, but you and i both know you aren't being honest(unless your head is just fucked) if you do
I DON'T EAT THE LITTLE CHICKENS SO I SAY WHAT IS MORAL OR NOT
Learn history, you literal autist

Plants give us oxygen, why the fuck are you eating that you sick fuck

Here's my counteragrument. Animals cannot conceptualize morality. Do not form your morals around animals that cannot conceptualize morality.

You don't eat the dirt or drink the filthy water that the b12 is in. Neither do plants. Animals pick it up and incorporate it into their tissues=meat with b12 in it.

soyboy

Bugs feel pain. Bugs are animal tier creatures. Literally billions die every day.
Try again.

>such terrible arguments...

Morality is subjective you fucking cockgobbler.
If you're not a massive faggot that gets upset over animals eating other animals there isn't anything to argue against.

anyone who avoids eating animals out of concern for the welfare of the animal is a weirdo

Man can reason, most animals can't. I think if you're talking about a chimp that can speak sign language, then yeah it deserves some protection. Animals in general should be slaughtered humanely, if only because it harms the humans doing the slaughtering when they are forced to carry out unending brutalities.

so short Purdue and other meat producers. put your money where your mouth is. force them financially to improve animal conditions. Expand enclosure, improve diet, excercise etc. etc. oh wait, you wont, cause youre a little soy boy bitch.

My argument: bacon

if you name moral agency as a trait, then you must be in favor of a retard holocaust(retards who have no concept of morality) to remain logically consistent

>then you must be in favor of a retard holocaust(retards who have no concept of morality) to remain logically consistent

No, because your entire paradigm is illogical to begin with.

see then kys.

morality is subjective therefor i can rape your mom because its moral to me

see how retarded that sounds meatgobbler? think before you post meatcuck

>In order to possess moral value it must be reciprocal
Wouldn't that mean half the people here could be killed by blacks and jews and it wouldn't be morally incorrect?
Raising cattle is a symbiotic relationship. Animals benefit greatly from well intentioned humans - see dogs vs wolves. The solution is not to cripple your diet, its to put that energy in supporting sources that treat animals well. It is a mutually benefitial relationship for a reason, well raised, relaxed animals that die good deaths produce the best product.

Vegetarian is an old Indian word for Bad Hunter

>internetexplorer temp_saved images
Get your fucking life together

I'm on my phone.

Humans evolved eating animals. Why the fuck would I go back to only eating fucking vegetables like a fucking gorilla?

>There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
There are lots of traits that if absent in a human would make them valueless. Not sure what "morale value" is supposed to mean.

for every study in support of gravity i can find one in favor of flat earth herp derp retard alert

there is such thing as good science and bad science you fucking idiot. i guess you've never used scientific studies to form your opinion on something because another could contradict it. fucking retard anti science meatcucks man holy fuck

>Back in the day those were either beggars or put to death. Not an argument.

Way to dodge the question, bumpkin. The challenge was if (You) are consistent in your belief that lack intelligence is a sufficient trait to kill animals.

any proof on that?

fuk u and the moomooz, we eatin crispy tonite.

>for every study in support of gravity i can find one in favor of flat earth herp derp retard alert
Show me just one study for flat earth.

you're just spewing buzzwords at this point.

we're done here

humans also used to enslave each other, is that moral just because it happened before and there is precedent for it? of course not retard meatcuck try again

As long as such diet is not forced upon me and meat is not banished, its fine.
Otherwise fuck off. Thats my stance.

Animals hold value nutritionally.

>mfw burgers can't read

I can't prove a negative. If you want to prove that animals can conceptualize morality, you would have to solve the problem of other minds.

fall, Or if you like ZN Vector.

>an argument against veganism
It's unnecessary. That's the only argument that is needed.
Apart from that It's unethical and cruel to animals.
Humans and some types of animal have a covenant. Nature is red in tooth and claw and ALL THINGS DIE. For the animal outside this covenant reality means slowly, painfully dying of disease and exposure or being devoured by other beasts. Every single one dies.
But those animals within the covenant with man are cared for and protected from diseases, nature and predators by man. The animal is fed and given a place and its end is merciful compared to what it had faced in the animal kingdom. In return man gets animal products.
Until smart arses came along.
Oh and don't confuse what you are doing with Buddhism. The goal of Buddhism is the negation of all karma good and bad, so they don't go vegan because it's morally correct but because they are trying to escape all Karma.

Best argument in the thread, and that in spite of that I think keeping sentient animals in e.g. 1 sq. ft. cages is unacceptable cruelty. That taken aside, there are nutritional/ecological arguments for raising livestock to eat a diverse diet and be given roaming space, which benefit everyone. You identify the issue of "as long as it doesn't erode people's moral character" separately, it is hard to say, I am not an expert but the correlation between violent human-human crime and animal cruelty seems strong. Is it causative, I don't know.

Have you ever heard bacon cooking??

Yes it was and it still would be if not for muh feels.

That trait would be humanness. Animals are not human, and therefore lack humanness.

>But what is humanness
I'm not really even going to touch this because better man have tried to.
Essentially, the problem with what your logic is is that if it was sound and reasonable than 1 animal life = 1 human life. Yet, most people understand absolutely that it would be permissible to eat an animal if it prevented death. The reverse is definitely not true; a starving animal is really not seen as justified in eating a person, or feeding animals humans would be seen as repulsive.

But, this also becomes interesting because it's logically sound that one human life = one human life. Hence, it's really not justifiable for a man to kill another man to eat to prevent starvation.

It sounds like fat ladies singing through a shimmering curtain of lard.

so far no good arguments from meatcuck perspective,looks like

vegans:3 meatcucks: 0

The first P2 is wrong. The trait animals lack is humanity.

>internet explorer
>phone
Nigga wut

>Applying human morals to animals
Not sure if you notice this but ... nature is all murder and rape all the time. Animals don't apply morals to themselves so they have no concept of it.

That said the common theme in nature is killing and rebirth. So you can look at every meat eating meal as fulfilling the duty of nature in that way.

can you ensure sufficient intake of proteins your body cant produce and nurtrients like iron to stay healthy?

no

can you obtain fat soluble vitamins without eating fat?

no

reducing meat consumption might be better. but if youre a typical leftist you will probably want organic which due to inefficiencies in production is much worse for the environment than non organic

Vegan “science” is almost always paid for by pro-industry interest lobbying, or, is incidental to a specific group studied who exist outside the societal norms in many ways (Hunzas, Okinawans, etc.) and are presented as their diet being the sole factor for their positive traits compared to others while conveniently excluding to note the other factors differing greatly.

Basically, veganism is global warming theory equivalent, pure rubbish.

this.

you can be against the current state of the meat industry and still not go totally vegan. most people, in general, should just eat less meat. you don't need to stop eating meat altogether though -- its about moderation.

people SHOULD eat more veggies and grains than meat. people SHOULD eat less meat. but at the end of the day, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating meat.

there are a lot of god damn things wrong with the meat industry though. holy fuck.

like, no one should be able to get a drive-though dollar burger 24/7. thats just fucked up.

Hey we won.
Guess we can start saging the thread now.

>m-muh animals and shit

Guess what,if we werent meat eaters,cows,chickens and all that shit wouldnt exist as we domesticated them for food.

What would we do to them now if we stopped eating meat? Let them produce methane and die?

Windows phone.

Yes