Creophagy in the Western World

THE FACTS: The consumption of meat is unnecessarily in the western world

THE ARGUMENT: Being unnecessary, it is therefore also unethical

THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT: N/A

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/future/story/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian
youtube.com/watch?v=_xzXOzYhRTM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

How does being unnecessary make it unethical? You being a giant faggot is unnecessary. Is your level of latent homosexuality therefore also unethical? If so, you should end yourself ASAP.

>fags gonna fag

THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT: I don't like vegetables.

>ad hominems

don't really know what else I expected. It is unethical because it causes unnecessary suffering. this is not a difficult logical progression to follow, user

Fact:OP is a worthless cock sucking faggot
The Argument: OP, being worthless, is unnecessary. keeping him alive is unethical
The Counter: nothing

> COUNTER-ARGUMENT

Why is it unethical just because it's unnecessary?
Art is unnecessary, is art unethical?

see still waiting on a counter-argument

>I don't like vegetables.

Your claim is that suffering is unethical. My counterclaim is that suffering is not always unethical.

my claim is that unnecessary suffering is unethical. nice strawman attempt though.

>*TICK-TOCK*

FACT: bacon lol

If everyone only ate plants, there would not be enough oxygen to breathe so we suffocate and die. Your move Sherlock.

humans are not necessary for the planet, in fact we are making it worse, does that mean we should kill ourselves?

Vitamin B12 can only be obtained from animal products.
In nature, a vegan would die from vitamin deficiency
Kys and your shill thread.

>"Unnecessary suffering is unethical"
Then I am right here, that art is unethical. Why? Because art requires resources, money, and labor, which could all be sent towards ending extreme poverty in the Third World. This would reduce the amount of human suffering in the world, and therefore any activity that does not go directly towards funding and feeding the Third World is unethical.

THE FACTS: Shitposting is unnecessary
THE ARGUMENT: Being unnecessary, it is therefore also unethical

art serves a purpose in elevating the human experience. not to mention the gradations of suffering we are discussing here are severely disparate. I will consider this a non-argument. care to try again?

you were saying?

pay attention to this comment thread. I'm not repeating myself because you are too lazy to read, sweety

Animals don't have rights.
Its not that difficult of a concept.
Mousetraps, flypaper, mosquito zappers, pet neutering, round fishbowls, small terrariums, caged birds.
If we did everything in our power not to be an inconvenience to animals, leftist hippies with zero kids, three dogs and a cat, would be whining about not being allowed to enslave a dog for amusement.

>the soy boy argument again

KYS faggot, take your liberal shitting posting with you

rights do not exist in any objective sense for anyone or anything but but this isn't about rights, it's about suffering. do you believe that animals are incapable of suffering?

So creating additional suffering is fine when it's for your arbitrary reasoning, but not for other people's arbitrary reasoning? It's obvious that you're nothing but an intellectually dishonest hypocrite. Bye-bye. You can accept this as your loss, by the way.

ad hominems are not arguments. read the sticky, sweety

your line of reasoning suggests that any action taken causes suffering to something somewhere. While I do not deny this, I do not believe it is a reasonable objection to my main point.

>THE FACTS: The consumption of meat is unnecessarily in the western world
>THE ARGUMENT: Being unnecessary, it is therefore also unethical
>THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT: N/A

autism too

>an argument devoid of any of the functional mechanics of the real world

Nice one faggot, again KYS

if unnecessary suffering is unethical, then yes, all humans should kill themselves, after all, we are the source of all suffering, if no humans were alive, no human would ever suffer

DAILY REMINDER that spherecuckoldry is not tolerated here and all spherefags should kill themselves

>Western world fucks everyone up with technological advancements and exploration
>western world colonizes fucking everything
>western world subjugates fucking everyone
>western world shows dominance over fellow man and mother naters
>western world eats a fuckton of meat because the western world wants to eat a fuckton of meat
Everyone seems so willing to betray human nature, hell, animal instinct to dominate everything we come in contact with. And now people seem to vilify this basic fact about ourselves.

I highly encourage you to read the sticky and brush up on your logical fallacies. I am not here to mud-sling or "win" as I do not believe arguments are meant to be, or even can be, won. I am here to learn and I am looking for a dance partner who can keep up and possibly even show me a few things. So, if I may...

life is suffering

imo if you're anti-suffering you're also anti-life

It is necessary. You need animal fat, certain amino acid combinations and vitamins only absorbable in animal fats.

It your soy boy. That way you will be steril.

>appeal to nature

>ad-hominem
>non-sequitir

>false-equivalency

this is actually, dare i say it, quite fun. *giggles*

seesource?

i feel like vegans should focus their attention on Halal meat before attacking the wests methods of animal slaughter.

you literally just linked to what i was responding to lol

so is that just an obstinate, "no i will not be putting in the effort to respond to criticisms"?

If something is unnecessary, that does not imply that it must be unethical you mongoloid. Additionally, it is necessary to consume protein, even if alternatives exist, eating meat does serve a purpose.

>>false-equivalency
but I thought we understood this wasn't about meat anymore, this is about suffering and how we, humans can minimize it

what's wrong with an "appeal to nature"? if we don't have our nature, what DO we have? a self-loathing rejection of it? or maybe choosing a single human value to uphold ("try not to hurt others") and not balancing it with our other values and instincts?

>life is unnecessary suffering

my premise is that unnecessary suffering is unethical. I'm still waiting on an argument as to why that might be incorrect. I never stated that eating meat does not serve a purpose, I do, however, believe it is a purpose that can be fulfilled by other, more ethical means.

>unnecessarily in the western world
Wrong. It is till the best source of
protein and brain healthy minerals.
Chicken is regarded by most nutrition
experts to be a perfect protein.
>Being unnecessary, it is therefore also unethical
see above
>N/A
see above, also, your a faggot.

well how are you defining "necessary"? is it "necessary" to be alive? if not, why not commit suicide, or wipe out all life on earth, in order to prevent all of our unnecessary suffering?

>If something is unnecessary it is bad
Who are you to decide what is and is not necessary you dirty crypto Communist?
Also
>The consumption of meat is unnecessarily in the western world
Who taught you grammar? Fucking kill yourself

>anti-life

existence alone outweighs any suffering it may cause

>what's wrong with an "appeal to nature"?

it is a logical fallacy. see sticky.

your other questions delve into the realm of metaphysics and are not the topic of discussion. Perhaps create a post of your own to get some answers.

...

I agree. We should simply switch to bugs

who are you quoting?

and user.... typos? please, I come here in good faith, the least you can do is show me the same respect I am showing you

the joy of existence is worth the price of potential suffering it may or may not cause

Define unnecessary, because what you define as "more ethical" also create unnecessary suffering, soy production is destructive ecologically, the production of nuts uses an insane amount of water, both use pesticides and herbicides which cause unimaginable amounts of damage to the environment.

Economics is the only thing that matters, you are preaching nonsense.

People are not moral, ethical but economical.

Meat is a superior high value source of sustenance and a mainstream commodity affordable by the geopolitical occupation of the massive tracks of American land

The consumer pays for what they want, and processed soy junk food is an inferior, low quality and disgusting food past like all the other processed foods.

It is not only natural for man to desire meat, but more specifically the blood of living creatures. The only way man would ever forsake meat was if some retard piece of shit establishment were to empose an all encompassing fascistic technocracy that disabled people from doing so

Even the pedophile ruling classes love to eat people, consume blood and harvest humans, especially virginal young blood for transfusions to restore vitality.

>ie Peter Thiel

"I'm looking into parabiosis stuff, which I think is really interesting. This is where they did the young blood into older mice and they found that had a massive rejuvenating effect," Thiel told Bercovici. "And so that's... that is one that... again, it's one of these very odd things where people had done these studies in the 1950s and then it got dropped altogether. I think there are a lot of these things that have been strangely under-explored."

Enough of your soy boy faggotry

if they are ever produced in adequate quantity I would support this

to make this easier for both of us, what do you believe to be the opposite of suffering?

i would argue that suffering, in the right context, and to the right degree, is actually ideal.

ethics are subjective and you are a cunt

well if it says it in a sticky then it must be true in all situations. maybe occam's razor applies to literally everything as well

and I would agree

the absence of suffering

not everyone is as Machiavellian as you, my leaf friend. I, for one, genuinely wish to lessen suffering for myself and others

You're not making an argument. You are making assertions.

At first argue for your assertions before you shitpost.

>the joy of existence is worth the price of potential suffering it may or may not cause
You dodged his first question and responded with sophistry. This line of logic can be applied to eating meat
>the joy of eating meat is worth the price of potential suffering it may or may not cause

you must explain why you believe it does not apply to your previous statements otherwise I am forced into a corner where I have to point out your logical shortcomings. I do not like that corner but it is a place I will continue to occupy for as long as I have to. I am a man of principle and I would be doing you, myself, and this entire board a grave disservice if I attempted to shirk this duty. so, I implore you, nay beg you, to read the sticky, friend

that is a premise. would you like to refute it? I am here to learn

I disagree with your last statement as well as your second statement. These things may enter the realm of metaphysics and my statement may have appeared broad and perhaps a little vague, but that is the nature of metaphysical arguments. I go back to my premise.

eating meat does cause suffering. it is not at all potential. It is unnecessary for survival and even thriving in the developed world.

Why should I refute your premise?

>The consumption of meat is "unnecessarily" in the western world

Ok... so in what way? What angle? Why is it "unnecessarily" in the western world? And why only the western world? Why base it on that metric?

Your so called argument is that it is unethical. Ok well assuming the aforementioned fact is indeed a fact how exactly is it unethical?

Why would someone argue your non-argument when they can't base any sort of counterpoint off an opposing point. You just made a overly broad statement so there is no reasonable angle anyone can come at you from without wasting their time.

so why is the life of a prey animal being ended at the right moment by a predator not ideal, or as close as possible to ideal?

to be clear i'm not arguing in favor of the current state of livestock production. i'm also not arguing that people shouldn't eat less meat for the sake of the environment -- but in the right context, if done sustainably, it seems like eating meat is not only in keeping with our own instincts as human beings, but is also in keeping with the instincts and the essential being of other animals.

You are not fit to be in the same country as the almighty TRUCKASAURUS
GTFO FAGGOT

t. soyboy

where the fuck am I supposed to get protein?

You guys ever research tapeworms in the human body????
Kinda gives you a perspective on why vegetarians and vegans look so weak and pale. Without their regular food source, the tapeworms just suck your blood from inside your intestines.

and just because it is simply in keeping with our instincts does not mean that it is ethical. there are viable alternatives which create much less net suffering

many counter-points were brought up in this very thread. ethical arguments tend to be naturally broad

all values are ultimately derived, as far as i know, from darwinian processes in human beings, as well as from our pre-human ancestors. so when we're talking about ethics, we're fundamentally talking about how to balance all of the often contradictory instincts we have. which means that an "appeal to nature" can't be excluded from a debate about ethics.

vegetables/nuts/bugs

*blocks your argument*

Why should you care if someone or an animal suffers? You aren't them.

>the absence of suffering is the opposite of suffering
>the joy of existence is worth the price of potential suffering it may or may not cause
for the second statement to work a living being MUST be in a state in which isn't suffering at least for 51% of their life.
for the second statement to work we must assume that existing WILL always be better than not existing.
is this correct?

High-powered assault free speech like the internet is also unnecessary.

>Focusing only on the typo part
Typical, you ignore the other half of my post entirely. I'll show you respect when you show yourself worthy of it you faggot

>I disagree with your last statement as well as your second statement. These things may enter the realm of metaphysics and my statement may have appeared broad and perhaps a little vague, but that is the nature of metaphysical arguments. I go back to my premise.
I don't think that what you said was vague, I think what you said was hypocritical and arbitrary.
>eating meat does cause suffering.
I agree. So does a majority of human activities, including the farming which you are arguing is more ethical.
>it is not at all potential
Of course it isn't an animal must by necessity die in order for someone to eat meat. Just like how soil quality must be reduced, forests must be destroyed, and inordinate amounts of water must be consumed in order to make soy viable. Additionally, back to the previous point that you responded to, human existence is guaranteed to cause suffering as well.
>It is unnecessary for survival and even thriving in the developed world.
Unnecessary, yes. Thriving, that depends. Economically soy relies heavily on massive subsidies and ecologically soy causes massive damage.
>inb4 factory farming causes environmental damage too

>Why should you care if someone or an animal suffers? You aren't them.
It's what happens if you aren't a psychopath.

>unethical
Implying I even subscribe to your subjective opinions on morality.

THE FACTS: the consumption of toilet paper is unessacarilly in the western world.

THE ARGUEMENT: By being unnecessary, it is therefore also unethical, and we should switch to designated shitting streets.

THE COUNTER-ARGUEMENT: CHEKMATE ATHIEST

You think like a nigger.

>THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT: FUCK VEGANS AND THEIR IRRELEVANT OPINIONS

THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT:
>I will consider this a non-argument.

bbc.com/future/story/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian
> it could also harm millions of people.

bloodmouth pride

but you have to or his opinion doesn't matter
>oh

>the unnecessary is unethical
False premise. Progress is also unnecessary, so is life. Nothing is "necessary".

youtube.com/watch?v=_xzXOzYhRTM
>VEGAN PEOPLE ARE:
>lighter
>healthier
>happier
>have near zero carbon footprint
>are compassionate by nature due to support of animals
>arteries are free of saturated fat and cholesteral
>consequently vegan cocks get harder
>vegan pussies get wetter
>vegan sex is better
>vegan lives live longer

Sup Forums,
What's your excuse for not yet joining the vegan master race in 2017?

SUPERPOWER BY 1945

There are no ethics. Pleasure is just as worthless an emotion as pain.

If animals didn't provide us with value they wouldn't exist without us cultivating them. Certainly we should treat them well as compensation but they taste better anyway by letting them grow naturally. Animals don't have morality anyways so mutually beneficial slavery is fine.

Calling me a nigger hurts my feelings and I am now suffering. Do you care? If you don't, then you are a nigger/psychopath yourself.

FACT: the consumption of alcohol is unnecessary in the French culture
THE ARGUMENT: being unnecessary, it is therefore unethical
COUNTER ARGUMENT: OP can not stop being a faggot

Animals aren't necessary in this world anymore, the human race is so technologically advanced that we could wipe out every other species on earth and generate the same pathetic contributions with our own artificial systems.

Eating animals isn't unethical, its all that gives them purpose

So what exactly is the level of complexity of the organism that is unethical to eat?
plants and insects still have sensory equipment, but they are fair game apparently according to.....logic?

Just had thyme, chicken, sundried tomato, feta pasta, AMA

he's gone, sad

>have near zero carbon footprint
lie

I tell every vegan that they are stupid for thinking that humans shouldn't eat meat. Look at our mouth. It has teeth that indicate we are omnivores. We have canines and molars. Kitty cats only have sharp teefs. Cows only have molar-type teefs. I tell that to vegans, and they look at me with a blank face.

Then, I really fuck up their worldviews by telling them that predators have forward facing eyes, like eagles, cats, dogs. Prey have side facing eyes, like cows, frogs and rabbits.

We humans, have forward-facing eyes... so guess what? We are the predators.

And, why do Vegans have to eat that awful food? They ruin family dining experiences by demanding separate meals. Meal-time is also social-time, and their insistence of eating separate food because "Me-so-special" ruins the experience and creates an atmosphere of separation. Thus, vegans suck.

BTW, what the fuck are we people doing up on a Saturday night talking to one-another?

Your post causes undue suffering, ergo your existence causes undue suffering, so follow the previous advice.

That's a summary of your Grade 1 tier logic. sage.

>therefore any activity that does not go directly towards funding and feeding the Third World is unethical.
When will you learn? Cancer can not be fought with more cancer.

Why is killing animals so I can enjoy the taste of their meat unnecessary? I'm not going to get the same taste from a veggie. Why am I not allowed to tell you what you can or cannot enjoy?