You rage you lose

you rage you lose

YRYL

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/QAPlmeGSeRY
youtube.com/watch?v=AglYrEjOn30
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5417583/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Any story to that?

not that im aware of. I'm pretty sure the old guy was shot for being black

Same shooter that killed the reporter and camera man minutes later when they were doing a live interview... Let me find the yt link

youtu.be/QAPlmeGSeRY

The dude snapped because his girlfriend was a bitch or something. If you watch the version of the video with sound, he's just driving around looking for someone to kill and blame on his girl. He uploaded it to facebook after he did it.

Not the same guy

steve stephens from cleveland. butthurt nigger cuz his hoochie cheated on him with a superior white man.

That was all over the news a few months ago.
Nah its not because he was black. A black guy shot him in the first place.

His wife cheated on him and he went on a live fb temper tantrum. The dude was totally uninvolved. Just a random he picked to shoot.

Conversation was along the lines of

"Do you know *wifes name*?"
"No"
"Well shes why this is happening to you.."
"Come on man i dont know no *shot*"

Cant remember if he shot himself after or got arrested but he didnt get away much longer after that before they found him.

is it the same guy though?

No.

I remember it being the same guy but who really cares? Also they say the black guy video was staged fakeandgay.jpg

Im.not one for staged news conspiracy but seeing the video shot by the shooter where he walked up and pointed a gun at them for a solid 10 seconds and he was wearing a different shirt and his hand was white...

That one was fishy for sure.

whats the rage here

You, not having pizza. Rage.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

You do realize that there are animals on this planet that consider you food, don't you? It's called a food chain. And the only reason you can pontificate your point is because we switched to a high calorie meat diet that facilitated the rise of civilization. If we had to spend 20 hours a day eating grass to fuel our bodies, our brains would have not developed as fast nor would we have had time to think about anything beyond our next meal.

Fuck off you vegan faggot

Also, the thing I love most about animals is how they taste. I'm not so lonely and incapable of connecting with another human being that my only solace is to find company in another being that is of a different species.

You lost.

>But I love animals thats why I'm vegan
>Plants can't feel pain
>get your science out of here, you're hurting my feels.

Lost

Nigger stole my bike

...

>hurr durr

What? You make about as much sense as tits on a bull. Maybe you can clarify a bit more for me?

Joy lane was his hookers name. And he an hero'd after being recognized at a McDonald's drive thru. The workers stalled him while the cops arrived.

...

I'm not mad. But I realize I probably responded to bait anyways.
To rebut, I won't go vegan because I'd like my species brain to continue to develop at an accelerated rate. I *can* go vegan. But it's a conscious choice not to do so for the betterment of my species.

Can't blame you. All niggers look alike.

>To rebut, I won't go vegan because I'd like my species brain to continue to develop at an accelerated rate. I *can* go vegan. But it's a conscious choice not to do so for the betterment of my species.
The ability to cook food is what actually correlates to increased development of the human brain. This enabled us to eat not only meat, but also starchy vegetables and other foods. It is commonly believed that this had more to do with a combination of an evolutionary need for an increased mental capacity along with overall increase in calorie consumption. These days most people consume too many calories and being intelligent no longer provides a significant advantage when it comes to passing your genes on to the next generation. In fact, I would wager that stupid people are more likely to pass on their genes and also more likely to have more children. Come back to me when you start to grasp how evolution works.

>planet
Opinion discarded. Everybody knows we live on a plane, albinonigger.

...

lost :(

yep, BLM didnt have much to say about this issue
"he dinin do noffin"

...

...

...

...

...

try this one niggers

...

...

...

>Let's make a bingo card of their arguments, that'll show 'em
Foolproof!

So you honestly think those are valid arguments? Be careful, your stupid is showing.

...

>Vegans have to manufacture the most dramatic strawmen possible to make their beliefs palatable

O I am havin a laff

I hope the vegan troll is self aware enough to know that he actually believes the stuff he posts and isn't being unironic.

i like how the lion has an upside down cross on it's forehead,

you are such a slut for posting this, you whore,

i bet you eat cocks

They aren't strawman arguments when we have to deal with these same arguments repeatedly. Feel free to present your own personal argument so I can show you how retard you are though.

However, unless your argument is "I don't care about ethics", you are just going to make yourself seem like an idiot.

...

...

Most animals do not posses even remotely the same mental and emotional capacity as humans do, thus making their moral reservations significantly less important.

And before you ask, yes dogs and cats are covered in this. Killing an eating a dog is no different than killing and eating a pig or cow, and both are perfectly fine.

Not all of them but some, if you reword them so they're not strawmen.
>Most farm animals wouldn't survive on their own
>Moreover they exist solely because we created them to serve our purposes
>Animals do not have equal moral significance to human beings, not all humans are even equal to each other
>Vegan diets require a lot of effort and attention to get right, omnivorous diets don't
>The meat industry also provides important resources for many other industries
>Not all meat comes from poorly managed factory farms
>At least one study has concluded that early homo sapiens could never have evolved brains as large as ours on a vegetarian diet
>Vegans are at an enhanced risk of certain health problems, such as rickets

It was despicable to kill that old dude like that.

Okay so let's pretend the whole world goes vegan tomorrow. What of all of the animals being farmed right now? Have any idea how many cows, pigs, turkeys, chickens, alligators and etc are being farmed right now? Some of these animals are entirely domesticated and can't survive in the wild, will starve to death or be killed far less humanely than humans would do the job.

So what's your plan for them? Just let them roam the streets wherever they happen to be? Force the ranchers to feed them until they all die of old age? Execute them all?

Imagine thousands of steer roaming the streets of small towns across America. You may be obsessed with those animals, but they are incredibly dangerous and will kill people. Freeing them is really not an option.

What every white woman was secretly hoping to get for christmas

well, i didn't think i would lose to something so stupid, but then again,

DO YOU KNOW WHAT AN OMNIVORE IS?

>Most farm animals wouldn't survive on their own
They shouldn't exist then. They only exist because we breed them, which I am against.

>Moreover they exist solely because we created them to serve our purposes
And that justifies causing unnecessary suffering? No.

>Vegan diets require a lot of effort and attention to get right, omnivorous diets don't.
Yeah, it takes so much effort to consume a B12 supplement once per week. Because we all know that nonvegans never have to supplement anything and are never deficient in any nutrients.

>Animals do not have equal moral significance to human beings, not all humans are even equal to each other
If something can suffer, it is unethical to unnecessarily cause it to suffer. If something can feel pleasure, it is unethical to unnecessariliy deny it the opportunity to feel pleasure. You are pretending that you don't understand how ethics work. Ethics are derived from empathy which is an extension of some of the lowest level functions in the brain (avoidance of suffering and pleasure seeking). It's really not complicated. This also applies to >The meat industry also provides important resources for many other industries
Yes conveniently you haven't provided any supporting statements.

>Not all meat comes from poorly managed factory farms
Most does, and even if factory farms didn't exist that would not justify inflicting unnecessary suffering or unnecessarily denying pleasure to others.

>At least one study has concluded that early homo sapiens could never have evolved brains as large as ours on a vegetarian diet
Show me the "study" which concluded this. No, random bullshit articles don't count. It better be a link to a peer reviewed study published in a medical journal or you can fuck off. Also, see >Vegans are at an enhanced risk of certain health problems, such as rickets
Rickets is caused by vitamin D deficiency. You can easily get vitamin D from the sun, fortified foods, or supplements.

Is this part of the game?

just got here and this thread was already ruined by the veganfag

Found the butthurt vegan lul

>Do you know what an omnivore is
I didn't make the image. If I made it I would have used the word "carnist", which is the term used in psychology to describe people who consume animal products in contrast to people who do not.

>Okay so let's pretend the whole world goes vegan tomorrow
Let's not do that because you just described an unrealistic scenario that has a near zero chance of ever happening. In reality, the shift to veganism will be gradual. As the supply for animal products decreases, the suppliers will breed less animals. If everyone went vegan, there would be no more animals left by that point because that's how supply and demand works in a capitalist economy. They only produce enough product to meet the demand of the consumers.

>Imagine thousands of steer roaming the streets of small towns across America
If this is a serious argument you are really retarded and don't understand basic economics.

Nice argument bruh. I was considering veganism but you just changed my whole world view. Fuck vegans.

Wasn't aware your definition of ethics were so fucking delicate
I guess in your view my reply really is "fuck ethics" because I don't think there is much besides the human mind that is even worth having the ethics discussion about.

I couldn't give less of a shit if a lower life form suffered to make my meal, their incredibly skewed perception of life and death leaves no burden on my mind.

...

Okay well the only way your position makes any sense is if you do not experience empathy. If you don't experience empathy then you are not qualified to be considered a moral agent and you have no place taking part in a debate about ethics. Ethics are pretty clear cut. The only part that is subjective is what constitutes "unnecessary" since we don't have the ability to accurately measure suffering and pleasure.

Your rigid definition on something as nuanced as ethics is the only problem here.

Your feelings on the subject of right and wrong are not law. Get over yourself, pussy.

i applaud your honesty, yet i couldn't help myself, it just made me so batshit ratshit dirty old twat

that i just want to tie 69 assholes in a knot

then yell Hurray!

lizard shit

fuck

youtube.com/watch?v=AglYrEjOn30

>Your feelings on the subject of right and wrong are not law
Well it's a good thing that the law doesn't define ethics. Anyways, go ahead and keep pretending that you don't understand the basic principles of ethics.

...

Taking words and phrases too literally and not understanding their context is a pretty strong indicator of autism

Figured I'd point that out before going back to eating my salami and crackers

>They shouldn't exist then. They only exist because we breed them, which I am against.
Wow, you sure do love animals.

>And that justifies causing unnecessary suffering? No.
If anything me not eating meat is unnecessary suffering.

>Yeah, it takes so much effort to consume a B12 supplement once per week.
You forgot all the amino acids, minerals and other vitamins that meat is high in. Don't forget that plant proteins are generally less chemically complex than animal ones and therefore provide fewer amino acids.

>If something can suffer, it is unethical to unnecessarily cause it to suffer.
Not if it gives you an equal or greater amount of pleasure, as meat easily does.

>Yes conveniently you haven't provided any supporting statements.
See pic related.

>Most does
Irrelevant

>Show me the "study" which concluded this.
Here ya go: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5417583/

>You can easily get vitamin D from the sun, fortified foods, or supplements.
But vegans disproportionately don't, which is the point you just evaded.

...

...

DAMN that guy would make a good cop

hillary 2016

part 1/2

>Wow, you sure do love animals.
I don't need to love animals to understand that it's unethical to cause them unnecessary suffering.

>If anything me not eating meat is unnecessary suffering.
So you think the amount you "suffer" by not eating meat is greater than the combined suffering of all the animals you eat? Yeah, sure...

>You forgot all the amino acids, minerals and other vitamins that meat is high in. Don't forget that plant proteins are generally less chemically complex than animal ones and therefore provide fewer amino acids.
If you knew anything at all about nutrition you would know that all 9 essential amino acids are found in abundance in plant foods. The World Health Organization and the Dietary Reference Intake put our recommended protein intake at 0.36 to 0.38 grams per pound of body weight for someone with a healthy body fat percentage. Less than that for someone with excess body fat. That is very easily obtainable without even trying (and yes, that statement applies to all 9 essential amino acids).
>minerals and vitamins
Such as? You haven't provided any supporting statements for this assertion. I tracked my micronutrients for about 1 month after I first went vegan and didn't see any deficiencies so I stopped using the nutrient tracker.

>Not if it gives you an equal or greater amount of pleasure, as meat easily does.
Pleasure and suffering are two separate things. They are associated with separate neurotransmitters entirely. And no, generating pleasure for yourself does not justify causing others to suffer. That is a pretty weak argument and could be used by a serial killer to justify killing innocent people as long as they enjoy doing it and don't inflict a great amount of suffering in the process.

>Irrelevant
I like how you only commented on the first two words of the sentence and conveniently ignored the more important part that specified that it is still unethical even if factory farms are not involved.

part 1/2

god i hate niggers whats the point of killing an old man

>Work at processing facility
>Read all these posts laughing
>Wipe tear away, will drive to work tomorrow past sickly looking hippies
>Laugh as I remember all this and literally smell death
>Go home and pet my dog Chuckles
>Good boi

Nice b8 btw. It has them ragin all right

>when mistaken for b8

it's okay, you are alright, we are all dead here

FYI plants can feel pain. It has been proven with aura cameras. They also have phantom limbs after you pull off pr cut a leaf or limb. Their colors change when they believe they are in danger. They also work in groups releasing chemicals that make others taste bitter to other animals. And you eat them alive. At least our animals are dead when we eat them.

...

>it's unethical to cause them unnecessary suffering
>So you think the amount you "suffer" by not eating meat is greater than the combined suffering of all the animals you eat?
Yeah, sure! You, my friend, are imposing your own idea of suffering on animals with fundamentally different cognition than you.

Here's a thought experiment for you. If you let a cow into the wild and left it to its own, what would it do? Would it write a great epic, journey over land and sea, build an everlasting moment to the glory of its race? No, it would stand around and munch on grass all day, once in a while taking a break to bonk another cow. That's what cattle on any farm do.

>conveniently ignored the more important part that specified that it is still unethical even if factory farms are not involved.
I bet you're proud you didn't notice where I refuted that elsewhere in my post.

>If you knew anything at all about nutrition you would know that all 9 essential amino acids are found in abundance in plant foods
Abundance is relative, which is important when we're talking about animal versus plant products. If you compare soybeans to steak, for instance, you'll find that chemically soybeans are mostly carbohydrates with some protein floating in it, whereas a steak is almost vice versa.

>I tracked my micronutrients
I never saw the need to do that at all. Your move.

>Pleasure and suffering are two separate things. They are associated with separate neurotransmitters entirely. And no, generating pleasure for yourself does not justify causing others to suffer.
I see you haven't dabbled much in philosophy. Pleasure and suffering are ontological opposites, this has nothing to do with how the brain processes them.

>And no, generating pleasure for yourself does not justify causing others to suffer.
OK, I probably can't convince you on that because I'd have to sell you on utilitarianism first, but the way I see it it's fair to trade suffering for pleasure.

newfags

Taking a quick break from my part 2 response to respond to some of the low hanging fruit in this

>Here's a thought experiment for you. If you let a cow into the wild and left it to its own, what would it do? Would it write a great epic, journey over land and sea, build an everlasting moment to the glory of its race? No, it would stand around and munch on grass all day, once in a while taking a break to bonk another cow. That's what cattle on any farm do.
>hurr durr... that means it's okay to stab them in the neck and eat their flesh

>If you compare soybeans to steak, for instance, you'll find that chemically soybeans are mostly carbohydrates with some protein floating in it, whereas a steak is almost vice versa.
That's irrelevant when we can still get more than enough of all essential amino acids without consuming animal products. Protein is not a "more is better" thing and there are actually studies which show that excess protein is linked to a number of health concerns such as kidney stones and certain types of cancer. Any amino acids you consume in excess of what is needed for protein synthesis either undergo the process of glycogenesis and are used for energy, or (if you already have enough energy from other sources) turned into fat via the process of lipogenesis.

>Pleasure and suffering are ontological opposites
That doesn't mean it's okay to inflict suffering as long as you generate pleasure. If that suffering is unnecessary, it is unethical. This isn't complicated. But hey, go ahead and circlejerk with your friends about how hedonism is the best thing ever.

>I'd have to sell you on utilitarianism first, but the way I see it it's fair to trade suffering for pleasure.
You don't seem to understand the difference between hedonism and utilitarianism. Utilitianism seeks to minimize suffering at all costs whereas hedonism seeks to maximize pleasure at all costs. Your position is hedonistic and not utilitarian.

>that means it's okay to stab them in the neck and eat their flesh
Yes it does, as long as they get to enjoy a bit of life first and I get to enjoy eating them, as well as all the other benefits of cattle products you've been ignoring.

>That's irrelevant when we can still get more than enough of all essential amino acids without consuming animal products.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. It's much less dangerous to overconsume amino acids than underconsume them. An omnivorous diet risks the former more and a vegetarian diet risks the latter more.

>That doesn't mean it's okay to inflict suffering as long as you generate pleasure.
>Utilitianism seeks to minimize suffering at all costs
I don't think you what the word "utilitarianism" means...
>Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility... Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action, minus the suffering of anyone involved in the action.
So yes, I reiterate, it is justifiable to trade suffering for pleasure.

> implying there's anything wrong with doing that

>they get to enjoy a bit of life first
then give them drugs, oh wait

>just because hurr doesn't mean durr
you must be afflicted with soy

>suffering
so explain loving a crazy 3D woman

go ahead, i will wait

I don't get it.

This pseudo-philosophical argument is a bit cringey, but he's right about utilitarianism you know.