EAT LESS MEAT AND DAIRY - THE REDPILL WITHOUT ANIMAL PRODUCTS

EAT LESS MEAT AND DAIRY - THE REDPILL WITHOUT ANIMAL PRODUCTS
A lot of you aren't redpilled on the Meat and Dairy Question. We on average eat way to much
meat and dairy. It's been increasing ever since. We lost connection with how it's produced, we
just go to the supermarket and buy whatever is cheap or tasty. There are three big reasons to start eating less meat:

>1) HEALTH: There have been many studies done on mortality and (processed)meat and dairy, consumption and there is a positive association between lower mortality of cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes by people who eat a lot of meat and dairy in comparison with those who eat less or none.
Still not convinced that meat and dairy is bad for your health? Watch this documentary for further redpills:
WHAT THE HEALTH
youtu.be/hJAKWQ6dDpQ
>2) ENVIRONMENT: The livestock sector may be the largest source of water pollution (due to animal wastes, fertilizers, pesticides), and it contributes to emergence of antibiotic resistance. It accounts for over 8% of global human water use. It is by far the biggest cause of land use, as it accounts for nearly 40% of the global land surface. It is a significant driver of biodiversity loss, as it causes deforestation, ocean dead zones, land degradation, pollution, and overfishing.
Still not convinced that animal agriculture is one of the biggest environmental threat? Watch this documentary for further redpills:
COWSPIRACY
dailymotion.com/video/x2zuhks
>3) ETHICS: Animals are sentient beings, they feel pain and suffering. Putting them into death camps, taking away there children and killing them is unethical. Animals are not property or a commodity. They have a will to live.
Still not convinced that eating meat isn't morally justifiable? Watch this documentary for further redpills:
EARTHLINGS
youtu.be/BrlBSuuy50Y

So bad for health and environment + unethical.
Do you eat meat and dairy Sup Forums?
If yes how much and will you try to eat less?

>Brainlets will try to argue against this

Great documentaries.

Oh look, it's this thread again.

Fun fact: Repeating #3 over and over again won't make it true.

What you mean all the three arguments are solid.

Except that they aren't, as has been shown time and again in these threads.

Are you hallucinating? Everytime I've made these thread, all the three arguments keep standing. But I'll bite, tell me how the arguments are wrong.

This but I agree with one and especially two, something does need to change with the way we breed and raise animals

#3 is just an assertion. You merely declare that that it's unethical. Whenever you try to justify it in these threads, you fail.

We can't, we need to eat less.
Sigh... where you the retard that couldn't see how he was contradicting himself? Here let me type the argument in full so you understand.
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 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 absence 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.

Ahh but you forgot the "meat tastes good" and the "no one cares" arguement

Either P2 is false or C1 doesn't follow from the premises, depending on how you define "trait". It is not the presence of intelligence, feeling, etc. which gives humans moral value to humans, it is that we are a society of humans.

Eloquently put, well done sir.

Same-fag

Not OP but if you need to skip every point in an argument except the last one and then nitpick it because you can theoretically argue that ethics are just subjective (which btw is true but what the fuck is the point of discussing anything ethics and morals related because it's all just ASSERTIONS right? You sound like a 16 year old who just heard about nihilism for the first time)

I eat meat sometimes, it's the carnal lust that gets to me every once in a while, but I can recognize all of these points have infailable logic at the same time because I'm not a literal retard who needs to be right about everything I do.

If you eat meat or drink dairy then it's whatever but people who feel the need to be in denial to justify their eat habits/addictions are dumb as rocks.

In the 1950's people who smoked tobacco convinced themselves it was healthy too.

Brainlets is a good expression as well. Also if anyone calls me "mad" or "triggered" for putting together a coherent response on the internet then they are as retarded as the guy I'm responding to

>Not OP but if you need to skip every point in an argument except the last one and then nitpick it because you can theoretically argue that ethics are just subjective
You never finished your statement.

eat more meat faggot its what animals are for its inhumane to not eat them

Animals are social creatures they live on the same planet, Jesus.
Nope

You forgot the 'self-respect' argument.
As one grow's older, a process I can tell you've only just began, you are able to gain a more holistic view of the world and the way in which you are connected to your surroundings.

You'll be able to establish a link between your own behaviour and the environment. As you form an opinion on how you would like your environment to become, you learn to tailor your own behaviour to suit it. As this is a prerequisite for self-respect, aka regard for your own standing, position or affect on your environment.

>Animals are social creatures they live on the same planet, Jesus.
Some are social creatures, sure. This is irrelevant to the point.

the moral/ethical argument shouldn't even matter when the first two points provide mathematical and scientific proof that it's not benefitting our species to keep consuming animal products the way we do.

Many scientists and physicists go vegan simply because it would be a logical fallacy to ignore the evidence. Not accepting these facts makes you as dumb as flat earth faggots, because you're literally employing the same psychological functions of denying flat out science

we dont need to deny it to not stop eating animals you dumb cunt

sorry I meant to end the brackets at the question mark, hope that clears things up

You can fully accept the first two and continue eating meat, the same way you can fully accept that many of the things we do are unhealthy for us and the environment, yet we continue to do them.

So you would argue that humans not part of our human society aren't of moral value?

moral is subjective and humans are made to eat both meat and vegetables, its part of our nature

Correct, though such humans are extremely rare (e.g. humans who are brain dead).

I didn't say I don't eat animals you dumb cunt, just that I don't go into denial about it when I do.

If you're not in denial about what you're doing to the earth by contributing to the animal industry then frankly I think you're smart enough to deserve some fucking steak every once in a while.

let me wreck the moral/ethical shit
>subjective
>we dont have to be ethical/moral
>we dont need to reason it
>dubble standards

There's literally nothing in that post implying you can't do that, it's was just iterating facts. The post was clearly about people who can't recognize that and go into denial about it, retard.

#3
Nature called, they want their feelings back, go fuck yourself. Reality is brutal, get over it, or get fucked.

>moral is subjective
so you have no argument against me killing you, or raping your sister or whatever horrible thing we can dream up. You've got nothing, because it's all just made up, right?
What about a person that rejects society, lives in a self made hut and provides his own food. Would it be okay to skin him alive because he's not part of human society?

False, the post was implying that the only way to not go vegan is to ignore the evidence and not accept the facts. This does not follow.

Fuck that malarkey, I'm a meat eater. So are you, even if you choose not to eat it. Deal, chump.

what you mention is part of a social contract we all make to live as a community, that is why if you do those things you go to jail or whatever, of course that moral is subjective just look at politics for example

no but you can go to jail and get the death sentience and I have no argument that there really was anything objectively immoral we will just have our choices of metaphysical preferences

>“Nature is brutal. After all, lions kill their food and even house cats will torture a mouse before eating it.” (The old “I am a troglodyte, hear me rawr.” argument.)
Yes, nature is brutal. Cats (and other animals, such as orcas) who “play” with their food do so as training and reflex-sharpening in their repertoire of hunting skills. However, as humans, we have risen above this and other animal behaviors. Furthermore, we don’t judge our behavior and morals against animals in other contexts, so why should we do it with regard to eating? After all, male geese gang-rape female geese too. Does that justify such behavior in humans? Should we roll on a rotting animal and eat excrement? Dogs do this, after all.

A person who declares that they reject society is still a part of society, and relative physical isolation also does not cause a person to no longer be a part of society.

Interesting thing here is that if it was a societal norm to do those things then no one would have a problem with it.

yes it dose you actually have to participate in in to be part of it

No, you do not. A human who sits doing nothing is still a part of society.

I'm red pill enough (not "redpilled", thanks--sounds adolescent) that in don't need you to tell me how to eat.

if they are in society and either are productive or suck benefits from it if you move to a remote location out side of a county for x years you are no longer a citizen and no longer take part in one dictionary and legally not part of society

You're out of your depth, Donnie.

So you guys don't believe in good or bad and morality is just a spook?
Define society
Societal norms can be ethically wrong.

Blissful ignorance it is then.

yah i dont believe in a objective morality you cunt

I keep a jar of meat bluepills around for when people like you show up.

you can be aware of things with out changing your mind retard

good or bad dont exist! its like time, there are things that humans use to understand the world, other examples could be km or numbers

Saying ethically wrong assumes that's there is a physical law called "Ethics". Im pretty sure there isnt. Ethics are essentially societal norms and vastly vary. Otherwise we would all just do the "ethically correct" thing right?

Country != society.
Not an argument.
A large social group sharing the same geographical or social territory, where human social territory covers the entire planet.

i quit meat about month ago.. not any real reason,..maybe health? donno just i dont eat it anymore

if your going to disregard laws of countrys and not be anal about it then simply being remote from people = not being part of society you dipshit

False, as the actions you take still impact other people. You are still a part of society whether you like it or not.

>muh health
I don't want to be on this gay planet forever. Earth's complete shit. You'd have to be some kind of masochist to try to live as long as you can like that. If I'm not dead by 40, I'm killing myself. Until then, I'm going to eat delicious things.
>muh vironment
Even if the environment WAS going to be irreparably ruined by human action (it won't be, it's all fear tactics invented by libtards and any damage we could possibly cause can easily be fixed), I won't be alive by the time it is. Why should I care?
>muh ethics
Fuck outta here. Any given animal would eat us if they could. Humans even kill and eat each other sometimes but I don't see you speaking out against that shit. Why would I go out of my way to lessen another species' pain when my own species can't even show the same courtesy? It's kill or be killed here. You don't have to like it but that's the world we objectively live in. There's no room to be this concerned about morality. This idealist bullshit is going to put you and probably others six feet under.

no it dosnt unless you actually directly affect it thats such a nonsensical holistic shit to believe

Yes, it does. Indirectly affecting someone still affects them, by definition.

you actually have to effect them theres plenty remote locations any society wont directly or indirectly be affected by

Like where?

remote islands places in russia remote locations where wild life dont interact with wild life of society the ocean you want more?

>remote islands
>oceans
Water is interconnected, pollution of oceans and fishing affects others.
>places in russia
Places in Russia are fundamentally owned by the Russian people. Anything you do to those places will affect their property and thus them.
>you want more?
I want one, yes.

So morality is subjective? Then why do we as a humans tend to have the same moral principles? We have morals stemming from our rationality and our capacity to emphatize thus we can argue whether things are morally good or bad and can come to conclusions.
>A large social group sharing the same geographical or social territory, where human social territory covers the entire planet.
So animals are part of society, thus you're contradicting yourself.

>So animals are part of society
How so?

Nice, I definitely recommending the documentaries in the OP, you'll be suprised.

So to do animal actions, so you agree that animals are of moral value
Edgy, you must be such a great person to hang around with.
They are a large social group living on the planet.

First off tl;dr, also..

1.People are never going to stop
2.Some care, vast majority don’t
3.There are humans alive with little to no rights that lead shitty lives, nobody is giving animals “rights”

>yah youre retarded if you think being in the middle of the ocean would actually affect some society's fishing there are places where there isnt pollution you pollution wouldnt effect any one and you could fish with out also effecting any one you have gone of the edge with you holistic views and wouldnt matter since your views serve no practicality or would be held up by any one out side of philosophy

>So to do animal actions, so you agree that animals are of moral value
So to do the actions of non-living things such as volcanoes. The point is contingent on being a potential member of society in the first place.
>They are a large social group living on the planet.
They are many social groups livings on the planet, but not part of our social group.

Nice inappropriate use of greentext, newfag.
>or would be held up by any one out side of philosophy
Right, it's not like we have maritime laws covering what people can do out in international waters or anything.

nobody cares

>They are many social groups livings on the planet, but not part of our social group.
So farm animals and pets are not part of our society of humans spanning the entire globe?

No, they are not.

Okay so your "human society" is just basically again differentiating humans from animals in an arbitrary matter. Let's look at a hypothetical scenario where we have a non humanoid society of aliens that lived on the moon. Would those aliens be of no moral value? And would those aliens be just by treating us of no moral value? No!
Your definition of "human society" is an arbitrary filter to filter non humans as containing no moral value.
Our society does consist of human and animal groups and we are involved in persistent social interaction between the two species, not to forget that we do share the same geographical location. Just admit it, veganism is a valid morall stance.

No

No