Libertarian vegetarian here. I haven't eaten meat for 2 years...

Libertarian vegetarian here. I haven't eaten meat for 2 years, if any user makes a solid and logical flowchart that shows why animals can be killed for non-survival reasons (i'm not dying), I would be extremely grateful (my favorite foods contain meat).

Here´s your stupid flowchart:

>Does it taste good?

Yes?

>Eat it you fucking faggot

>Will it trigger hippies
>yes
>Go for it

+1 for you, adding you as rational individual C
Though that's pretty much where I'm at, I either don't care bout anyone and become dead inside, or I care about humans and animals, which is fucking hard.

My problem in doing any of those is that I have many debates with people I know, in which I call for them not having that atitude and being rational, Libertarianism for example, relies on people caring for others' rights enough not to steal from them, I can't ask someone to be rational about that, and then when asked why I aprove animal genocide, me going ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Animals are a resource. The fact that something has a nervous system and can feel pain doesn't mean it should be treated on par with humans. I swear, egalitarianism is one of the biggest cancers conceived by Marx that this world has ever seen. Seeing other races as equal, let alone seeing other species as equal, and giving them equal rights is nonsensical and baseless. If a pig could prove its worth in matters other than providing bacon then it wouldn't be used for fucking bacon.

I never mentioned equal rights...
But I take it you would be down with black slavery and it would be ok, because they would be resources? Or ok with white slavery (if anyone managed it), for the same reason?

>Yes
>Definately not

Pls stop

All I defend is the principle of non aggression, many people also defend it, although they set a limit different than mine, usually, people's limit seems to be either arbitrary or for convenience, while mine has to do with what wrong is actually being done, meaning, the nervous system.

Sorry, I didn't understand to what you are referring, I might have messed up in an arrow, is that it?

Yes, I'd be okay with anyone or anything being enslaved and treated as a resource.

def·i·nite·ly.

Also, your argument implies that you value life objectively, but it doesn't set definitions or end points.

Ok, then you fall on the rational and consistent category, I just don't share your first principles.
I imply no such thing, if your logic is consistent, I have no problem with it.
Some of the arguments for eating meat in my diagram are consistent, they just come from different points and arrive at different conclusions. Please tell me your logic.

THERE'S NO 'A' IN 'DEFINITELY, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE

All I mean to say is that you can't arrive at inconsistent double standards, meaning, I follow basic rules from a starting point and arrive at the conclusion that I can't eat meat.
Other people start from a different point, follow some rules and conclude they can, but they still want to value life and defend rights, which it inconsistent. If you have a way of doing both in a consistent manner, I would want to know it.

Not my first language, straya

Specie double standard in your flowchart, but let me reverse this a bit.

Why do you eat root vegetables?

I only eat meat. Manlets btfo

I follow the flow chart about pain. There may be grey areas, but there are definite black and whites.

Quantify pain.

This is a "specie doublestandard" because you're using human perception to define the validity of feelings of non-humans.

Or in short
>muh feelings

How would you survive if you got lost in the wild?

What do you think of the fact that horned ruminants (sheep, goats, cattle, deer) Contain literally EVERY nutrient necessary for survival (even muh vitamin c) if it is eaten the way humanity has historically eaten it, with all the organ meats(the most nutrient dense food on the planet)?

pic related is the nutritional profile of beef liver.

And when you decide not to harm blacks, you are using a white perception of pain to define the validity of feelings of non-whites.
By this logic you should be a solipsist, there is no way of proving to one that people other than one's self feels pain. You can hear their screams though.

If I got lost in the wild, I would eat whatever I got my hands on, problem is, I am not willing to get lost in the wild so I can eat meat, I want to eat it now, but I find no logical justification.

surprising how many people(?) are satisfied with being primitive niggers

but it doesn't. why create a fantasy world?

marx...lol i bet he cared about animals
not killing = on par with ???

Let's avoid racism because we're on Sup Forums and it's quickly going to get ugly fast. Let's assume equality reigns.

Eitherway, I'm glad you pointed out that your perception of others is bullshit. Can you eat the brain dead? Already deceased humans? Those that lack the ability to feel pain?

You really don't have an end point for this argument. If you asked me with my argument why I should eat people, my argument is really just

>I don't want to start a precedent of eating people, because I am a people.

You can reverse this and apply it to non-humans, but it doesn't hold a convincing weight when you deal with non-humans as they cannot harbor the same sort of responsibility you expect in kind.

You'll find none if your argument is
"killing animals is bad"

Thank you for participating in a rational way.
>I don't want to start a precedent of eating whites, because I am a white. though I have no problem of eating blacks
Anywhere you split the group, you are always part of a smaller group that the others don't belong to.
If you're ok with eating innocent people, but just don't do it because you would get caught, then you also fall in the rational category, I just don't share your values.
My argument isnt killing animals is bad, it's killing animals for reasons other than surviving is bad, I don't eat animals, and I'm surviving just fine, I want to do it for pleasure, and I find no justification.

Eat placenta, you can harvest it without killing the animal.

Why?
I'm ok with you wasting your precious time on this earth participating in something completely meaningless while depriving yourself of one of the most basic pleasures in human life.
Why would I stop you

Cannibalism causes some weird wasting disease.

Hello! Are we living in the same world? Just because people dont have collars around their necks doesnt meant there are no slaves

>I don't want to start a precedent of eating whites, because I am a white. though I have no problem of eating blacks
I get what you're trying to do, but the definition of human is human. It's not really debatable in this context, and let's say it is. Then you're on Sup Forums.

So, I would essentially just ask
>What do I care what you do with niggers after you hang them?


>Anywhere you split the group, you are always part of a smaller group that the others don't belong to.
But that's really the deal. You need an objective standard of where the cut off is of appropriate to eat. We're not even getting to dietary laws and cultural mores.

>If you're ok with eating innocent people, but just don't do it because you would get caught, then you also fall in the rational category, I just don't share your values.

It's not even the fact of getting caught. It's the fact that if eating people becomes common, you become a menu item.

It does, but assume it doesn't for the sake of argument.

>rational, rational, rational, rational, rational, rational, rational, rational, rational, rational, rational, rational
>making flowcharts to help decide whether something's moral or not

the autism is strong in this one

Nice work OP, going on 6-7 years myself.

>but assume it doesn't for the sake of argument.
let's eat!

Is there any non-taste related arguments for eating meat? My family is completely vegetarian and I don't think we faced any nutrition related problems ever. I drink two glasses of milk a day and protein rich lentils five days a week. Also most Indian wrestlers and weightlifters are vegetarians.

I hunt and try to put at least two deer in my freezer every hunting season.

None of my favorite foods use placenta, fuck that.
Well, as long as you don't deprive yourself or others from doing other immoral shit.
Exclusive cannibalism does, if you mix it up it doesn't.
>the definition of human is human
I agree, I just think that is as much reason to separate what you eat from what you don't as saying bitches be bitches, so we can rape them.
>It's not even the fact of getting caught. It's the fact that if eating people becomes common, you become a menu item.
I understand, pragmatic reasons, not values, we just don't share the same values.
>But that's really the deal. You need an objective standard of where the cut off is of appropriate to eat. We're not even getting to dietary laws and cultural mores.
I separate them by the nervous system.
you're still here? we don't share the same first principles, you're a primitive individual, we know all about eachother's point, no reason to keep on going.
We're discussing values, not pragmatism.

Did you cut out dairy and go vegan? If you didn't your milk, egg, and all that shit still incentives slaughter of animals.

>I separate them by the nervous system.

Then why not eat the retarded?

Killing animals isn't bad. Rule of the strong, law of the jungle, if we are able to kill it we have the right to eat it.

I could not have cut anything and still be putting forth the same argument, as can anyone play the devils advocate to determine what answers there are.
But to answer your question, I try to avoid them, I can't always though.
But I repeat, you can eat meat and still think it's wrong to do so, and defend the other side. Just because you're a flawed human, it does not mean that now your arguments have to defend wrong shit.

The retarded have a nervous system and by all indications, feel pain.
>law of the jungle
It's funny how in other threads people are against primitive mudslimes and niggers, and in other discussions, my family always said we are not animals, that we have values and what not, the very same people who later on said I should imitate animals when talking about what to eat.

OP, you're an over intellectualizing sophist. Thats the simple truth.

Ill take this to the logical extreme which you are doing.

We are against the primitive behavior of mudslimes and niggers because throughout history the Strong, people who have subjugated people through their will (religious figures, govt.), have set up laws and ethics that we as a a people have accepted which condemn that behavior.

I don't understand your point, and I am really trying. You are against shit value mudslimes because your masters have set rules for you?
I don't follow the logic.

>The retarded have a nervous system and by all indications, feel pain.

But that's the thing, pain is completely fucking relative as a concept.

I could argue that turnips feel a sort of pain.

Argue away, the argument for animals has been pretty much established, if you disagree for solipsism reasons, then you should apply that very same skepticism to everyone, including babies, women, other races, other people, dogs, cats, horses, etc.

Just to make sure, would you be ok with me torturing dogs for pleasure?

I'm guessing that you're a natural rights libertarian?

> if you disagree for solipsism reasons, then you should apply that very same skepticism to everyone, including babies, women, other races, other people, dogs, cats, horses, etc.

I have. My point is your line in the sand is stupid. Does it apply to Jellyfish? Sea cucumbers? Plants do have the ability to sense their environment which is how they turn towards light, secrete hormones and otherwise do "living creature responding to stimuli" stuff. Arguably, if a plant secretes an insecticide because animals are eating it, it is responding to stressful stimuli, and thus "feels pain."

Should you be able to eat human corpses? Animals that die of natural causes?

Honestly? It's your property. I really don't give a fuck as long as its yours.

What does that mean? I need no special name for my libertarianism. Many people define it as being the belief in property rights and the non aggression principle.
Property rights has never been "you can own anything" for anyone, for example slaves aren't actually property, and they should be protected by the non aggression principle. Most libertarians agree with that, they simply have different margins to what is a target of the non aggression principle.
I have no line, there are many grey areas where I don't know, but there are specific cases I have no reason to doubt.

>Should you be able to eat human corpses? Animals that die of natural causes?
I wouldn't because they could be ill, but I see no wrong.

Thanks for the conversation everyone, I'm bored and out.

>Libertarian vegetarian...
Stopped reading here.

I'm pretty much asking you if you predominantly support libertarianism because it's morally consistent or because you think it does the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

Natural rights libertarians support libertarianism regarless to if it leads to certain unjust conditions whereas consequentialists only support libertarianism because it leads to just human flourishing.

I'm asking this because it appears that you're approaching vegitarianism from the angle that animals have natural rights.

I am a libertarian that eats meat because I care only for human society and I don't believe human society is damaged by meat consumption.