What are your thoughts on animal liberation?

What are your thoughts on animal liberation?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23988511
youtube.com/watch?v=fGLABm7jJ-Y
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22854410
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18926128
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20042525
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390963
baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22968891
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Animals are free to be tasty!

Corporate meat production is shit, though.

Less animal consumption in communism. Recreate old migrating patterns of animals we pushed to endangerment with cattle and shit. No more corporate farming (all-around terrible to the animals, plus the product doesn't taste as good and might not be as healthy). Animal testing solely for actual human progress, not bullshit like chemical warfare testing and make-up.

Outlaw hunting.
All meat production must be sustainably farmed.
Maybe move to meat replacements/vat meat in the future.

It's dank, but the people who care about it are nice folks who aren't class-conscious and probably a little muh privileged and thereby don't consider themselves proletarians

It's the same thing as people caring more about stay (pet) animals than homeless people. A feel-good dead-end

Maybe for you guys, I will continue to eat as many livers and as much fennel sausage as I damn well please.

What color are you huffing right now, son?

Nice quads, but why?

Suure… Let's have some meat, that we don't know how it was made, without any tests on long term consiqunces and be happy that poor piggy didn't die…

SUCH SUPERIOR SECIES, HUMANS!
NOT EATING ANIMALS, LIKE OTHER ANIMALS DO!

Either they're living beings whose lives should be seen on an equal level as humans or they're worthless machines with no more rights than a computer, there is no middle ground. I'm not even really a vegetarian but I am for ending the killing of animals.

Arent most urban outdoorsmen the byproduct of capitalism? By your own spooky definition, Helping the homeless is feel-good dead end if you dont resolve the root cause.

If you need meat, raise it and feed it and shoot it yourself. The government keeps painstaking track of thousands of animal populations to make sure none of them get too small and it's just unnecessary.

On what grounds do you claim equality between man and beasts?

Certainly not, they provide nourishment, entretainment, company, useful goods, inspiration for the arts… They might be moist machines, but they are far from worthless in a general spectrum. To ensure their existace is certainly within our best interest because we can use them.

Synthetic meat is the only serious way to continue omnivorism as the population grows.

Sports hunting for the sake of sports, where no nourishment is obtained is rather wasteful yeah, however straight up outlawing hunting -besides being statist shit- without making a distinction between sports and subsistence hunting is foolish, specially because it puts a greater stress on production for other areas.

If anything, we should be encouraging more subsistance hunting along with breedinng programs for game animals.

This.would reduce the impact of agricultural practices and industrialized, corporate meat production.


Those depending on that particulsr bureaucratic aparatus would like to dissagree, lol.

By-product of capitalism yes and unfortunately yes it is. I can't shy away from that fact.

Pardon wonky formants and so on, im Mobile.

You don't own nature. What gives you the right to shoot at it? Are you a propertarian?

Nobody fucking subsistence hunts for survival in developed countries in 2016. Maybe like a few thousand or hundred thousand people. And certainly not in fully automated luxury communism. It's a meme. Our technology is incredible.

So we can push the problem out into the ecosystem where we can pretend it doesn't exist? Fuck off. You shoot at it, you're responsible for it.

Implying those people aren't also unnecessary

Yes I do. If i use it Its as mine as it is yours.
I do, the minute I load one into the chamber. Lol why do I need some giant spook granting me permision to do something so simple?

Are you an evader of Questions? Because I asked you first and you refused to give an explanation for your reasoning.

I should probably specify here that I don't mean "subsistance hunting" in a "people hunt to live" scenario, but in the clear sense of hunting done not just for spor but for eating and using the animal. Hunting just to decapitate a deer and hang it on the wall is a sad waste of perfectly good, tasty meat.

And in any case, I said that maybe, it should be encouraged.

I never said that, I never even said it would be a solution, just an idea that could maybe help with the environment issue and what not. And I'm not even claiming its a good Idea, maybe its horrible but I wouldn't really know about its feasibility, scope or impact, I'm not some expert nor am I claiming to be one.

Perhaps its worth looking into it, I cant be the only person who's ever thought of that.

I'm fine with that tbh, don't not if I'm supposed to get angry or something.

bigger issue is how much fucking energy we use to feed cows

this tbqh and how powerful the cattle industry is. killing that poor ol lady in south america and whatnot

cultured meat is already here. soon there will be no need to slaughter animals. unfortunately the meat lobby will likely hold out as long as possible.

i find it hard to justify eating pork or beef since it's so unhealthy. fish is the only meat we really 'need,' and even then it's easy to get by without it as long as you have supplements.

this line of reasoning could be used to justify killing a human.

where the fuck do you think you are

never said killing was always wrong. stop making strawman arguments.

by your logic you shouldnt have any problem with killing innocent people.

First of all, different user. Second, you just modified your statement precisely because it wasn't a strawman, and perhaps you just weren't as clear as you intended.

And finally, there are no such things as "rights". It's about ability. Whether something is right or wrong is subjective to each individual. You ask if killing "innocent" people is justified, and I ask "in what context?"

More interested in humans tbh. But I mean sure, once we have socialism and all the human exploitation is over, we should probably think a bit about how we treat our furry friends.

hurhruhrurhrururu so original

I don't support it. I find the entire idea of "animal liberation" ridiculous and juvenile. I don't support animal cruelty but I don't think all animals deserve the same rights and muh privileges people do.

Some basic animal rights are good because it prevents people with psychopathic tendencies from indulging in hurting something that can feel pain but isn't a person. Domestic animals like dogs are also interdependent on humans to thrive, so we should do well to protect creatures we spurned into existence.

However, it makes me fucking angry when some well-off liberal douche compares animal liberation to racism. Animals are not like blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, etc. They are not people. They cannot think, they cannot judge.

Meat consumption, like the captial, is unfairly distributed around the world. The first world will overprodouce, overconsume and still throw away a lot of meat, while third world countries don't have enough meat. This is also the opinion of the only vegeterian I have ever agreed with, who told me that she doesn't eat meat because "she disagree's with the way that meat is consumed in the western world". And she's right. Unlike most vegans (and some vegeterians) who don't eat meat (in the case of vegans not even other products of animals), I don't think that eating meat is "unethical" or "cruel" because "they are living creatures". As if plants are not alive.

The other reason of the need of meat production is that, if we actually hoped to feed all the world with vegan products only, it probably wouldn't be possible. Not all of earth is fertille enough to be used for cultivation.


Not all plants can be cultivated in green houses, like field crops for example. Also, greenhouses are very costly (if you want them done right).

What we could do is make life for animals that are raised as future meat better. By that, I mean that we can still produce meat without essentially torturing animals.

t. agriculturalist student.

Hunting is way more humane than any form of "sustainable farming".

On what level? My dog understands lots of what I say and understands good and bad treatment. That they understand less means we have greater moral responsibility. I like dogs more than a lot of people.

Meat is unsustainable as well so we should crack on with producing a replacement in the lab.

Good luck with that while we're still under capitalism. It's why I don't bother to avoid going vegetarian myself. No matter my personal consumption, it wint decrease the suffering in any sense whatsoever.

It's also why I am against things like stricter hunting laws. It's easy to forget that there are many people that rely on hunting in order to eat, for economic reasons, and not just richfags that do it for sport or the tasty meats. Meat production as an industry is still a means of production that the capitalist has, and we should be careful not to get carried away with making ourselves beholden to them for food out of empathy for the animals.

I was generally speaking. Dogs are the exception because they literally evolved to be our buddies. They are probably more trustworthy than most human beings.

Gee thanks """"""philosophy"""""""

Yeah, no. Unless you're a veggie it's hypocritycal to refuse deny someone killing the animals they eat.

Just limit animal's rights to "quick and painless death when you slaughter them". Problem solved.

Meh. Humanity is doomed so i dont care about little pig porky.

all animals should be free to live a full and happy life. except chickens, fuck chickens.

Ban hunting when it is not for food.Trophy hunting mimics the same behaviour patterns as serial killers. That is nothing that should be promoted.

Make wasting food to a certain quantity a punishable offence. First world countries like the US and UK are extremely wasteful with food both on the corporate and individual level.

People should not kill animals for food that are intelligent enough to understand pain. Where that point is would be pretty debatable though. I think fish are dumb enough at least for sure. Poultry is next likely candidate for stupidity. Pigs, lamb, and cow are smarter than they seem though so dumber similar tasting alternatives should be preferred.

Painless government sanctioned slaughter method required. No religious exceptions.

To all comrades, hunter and non hunters,
To be a good hunter, as not being a complete monster, there is only two things to know: knowing to shoot, knowing not to shoot.
One must know if and when an animal can be killed, and more importantly.

ONLY SHOOT TO KILL
DON'T SHOOT IF YOU CAN'T KILL IN ONE SHOT

Things gets ugly only if you can't grand a quick death.

I have never met an animal other then humans that had class consciousness so fuck em( figuratively not literally).

Cats are already liberated. They run around under the sun in my neighborhood and I feed and pet them tbh. How cozy to be a cat.

I fucking hate bourgeois liberals

stop worshipping >muh working class culture
hunting is wrong no matter who does it and so is meat farming

Full Metal Spook

...

Unironic image from somebody who thinks other shouldn't be able to cultivate meat for consumption.

Ironic*

animals deserve the same rights as people

The stirner shit is just a meme to me but you're using it as an argument

there's no reason for meat consumption at all, except that you can suck on mine

Except proteins?

It tastes good.

If humans have rights, animals have rights.

But do they have the same rights?

you can get that stuff from other means, the only argument for meat eating is the hedonism of

which, at least is honest, but if you just want to oppress others for your own satisfaction why are you even a leftist

I can't blame bourgies for oppressing the proletariat. I'm sure with all their money they can afford really top-quality lives. But as part of the proletariat I'd like them to not.

Likewise animals are tasty. But if I was a farm animal I'd probably think these vegetarians are on to something.

tbh it's more oppressing to force human morality onto nature
if you don't eat the cow some lion or crocodile or something is gonna do it anyway so really who gives a fuck
like veganism causes no harm, and it's probably better for you since you have to be more conscious of what you're eating, but enough of this silly anthropocentric moralism

Stupid, but they do have a point that meat-producing factory farms should probably be ended. We should still raise livestock, but they should be extensions of normal, plant-growing farms and used for animal products (milk, eggs, manure) and slaughtered when they reach old age.

The only argument for not eating meat is purely emotional. Unless you decide to feed exclusively on pills, another living being must die to sustain youself. Killing a deer may revolt you, but what about fishes, maybe they suffer, too. What about oysters, you can't tell for sure they don't feel pain. And thoses poor carrots ripped from the soil, what makes you sure you don't hurt them as hell? This is endless.

(checked)
This pls. 🍖🍗🍖🍗🍖🍗🍖🍗🍖

Most livestock would die in the wild. There's a full and happy life for you.

If you think might makes right, it's a lot easier to fuck over others to get rich than create communist revolution


Animals do as they will do, but we have more advanced brains and the capacity to understand the consequences of our actions, we can't plead ignorance and we can do better


I don't eat fish etc either, and there's no evidence that plants have any kind of cognition even at the most basic level. Even if you think plants can feel they certainly feel less than animals so it's harm reduction.


Livestock aren't natural so what kind of argument is that. Just stop them breeding and let 99.9% die off, keep the rest in zoos, that's better than being butchered for infinite generations.

Animals should be farmed in regions where they produce the least strain on the environment. Don't farm beef in one of the driest countries on earth, Australia, when to produce a single kilogram requires 15,000 litres of water.

Factory farms should be abolished and other sources of protein used instead. Mushrooms, for example, don't suffer in dark, cramped, and smelly conditions; they thrive.

Abuse of animals, especially domesticated species, should be held with the same contempt as abuse of children.

Just as spooked as suspected

I know, but what in this makes it worse for humans to eat meat than for other animals to? If you follow this line don't we need to act as the great moral messiahs of the animal kingdom and do some weird genetic shit, because prey animals don't suffer any more whether it's humans or tigers eating them? How can you reconcile this with conservationism? Isn't this a greater oppression, seeing as this line of reasoning gives humans the obligation to be the masters of the entire natural world?

...

We can't even respect the most fundamental rights of other humans. It will be a long time before our species is civilised enough to take animal rights seriously.

"Nature" doesn't exist.

Or, more precisely, everything is nature. The "Nature" that is a Big Other separate from the "artificial" world of man doesn't exist. The Big Other doesn't exist.

I agree


Animal liberation is way too idealistic

oh put a sock in it. the word 'natural' is useful to distinguish man made from non man made, don't be such a smart arse about it


I agree it's not likely to happen soon, people are too self centered, but that doesn't make it wrong


What animals do to each other is not really the responsibility of humans, obviously we can't disrupt the animal food chain at least at this stage of our own development regardless of whether we should, but managing our own impact is not some impossible dream. I mean, there's a reason we see a fire caused by random chance and arson differently.

And what does it matter if something is or is not man-made?

I didn't say natural was inherently better, so don't put words in my mouth, the point is of course livestock can't survive in the wild, they didn't evolve there. That's not some ludicrous argument that farming is somehow moral.

So we should look into how much meat is sustainable for us to eat or proudce. Why not just say this and cut the moralism?

Why do we need to eat meat at all? I fail to see how 'sustainable' doesn't also appeal to morality, why is destroying the natural world wrong without using ethical arguments

Farming is how we eat, fam. Livestock play a very important role in traditional farming.

it tastes good
The natural world has the subjective value given to it by people, I find some things in nature beautiful or interesting so I wouldn't want to see it all go.

Now who's being spooky.

Why do we need livestock exactly? We can meet our food needs without them, with the benefit of technology and advanced methods.

I don't have any love for tradition. I mentioned traditional farming because it's generally more sustainable, and produces healthier products, than modern factory farms.


Why do we need livestock exactly?
Manure to create organic fertilizer, for one.
Until the artificial fertilizer runs out. Which we are getting alarmingly close to.

Even if you think plants can feel they certainly feel less than animals.
They may be feel differently but it doesn't neccesarly mean they feel less

I'm not saying might makes right. I'm saying from their perspective it's perfectly right. From my perspective it isn't.

If everyone acknowledged they're being fucked over then a communist revolution would be as easy as 123.

Don't mind Europoster, he's clearly suffering from a B12 deficiency. Keep thinking supplements have the same absorption rate as animal products.

Right is right, there's no 'from X perspective'.

Factory farming is for meat, and anyway of course modern crop farming is unsustainable and sucks, it's for profit. That doesn't mean there's no other way, crop rotation, better use of human waste, evolved plants, and so on would all help create a better method, and that's without considering hydroponics and so on. There are a lot more options when you're not going solely by what's cheapest.


Well, who can say? We have little understanding of plants but certainly they don't think, and even if we eat meat, that involves a lot more crops than simply feeding them to humans does, so plants win even if we eat them directly. Maybe we will discover that it's cruel to eat plants but then we'll just have to try to use bioengineering or something, that's no reason not to reduce the obvious harm now.

The proletariat needs meat and proteins.

Fuck your liberal bourgeois veganism

veganism is a liberal, bourgeois doctrine

But there is. Morality is inherently subjective.

declaring everything to be liberal and bourgeois is liberal and bourgeois

fuck off europoster

after a day of hard work, any respectful person is entitled to eat meat, and other protein-enriched, natural food

...

Indeed. Porky isn't wrong to place zero value on the happiness of workers. It's just a difference of opinion.

Just like we aren't wrong to want to overthrow him. It's just a matter of interest.

Yep. There's really no logical reason for anyone to support socialism unless they personally benefit from it. I'm glad we had this conversation, Holla Forums. Careers in investment banking are certainly looking appealing.

...

That is correct.
Because that's totally a career path you can go into without any connections.

You just have to not be thick as shit, which is apparently too high a bar for most of this board.

...

I'm all for getting rid of factory farms and even switching from eating animals to lab-grown meat and all that.

But

What the fuck are we going to do with all the livestock, just release them into the wild?

How about just stop breeding them? Hell the meateaters can have a last hurrah when they die.

"The meateaters".

We are not "meateaters". We are normal people. You are the ones who decided to be "special" and "better humans".

Might makes right.

If cows, pigs, chickens, etc could enslave us, they would. Lucky for us, we're apex predators and we're on top.

lol

also
As soon as I can eat my own children like a hamster and my mate's head like a praying mantis.

I'm not even vegetarian, these are just stupid fucking arguments.

Nature says that the strong will always devour the weak.

At least for now, we are the strong. Why should we purposely cripple ourselves?

I really don't get why people like you aren't aynclaps. If you're a socialist only for self interest, honestly and truly, 'not my comrade'.

I'm not talking about the future. I meant the ones that we have right now, which is fucking millions. If we stop slaughtering them for food, their population will shrink a lot slower. If we're moving them out of factory farms to somewhere more humane, they're going to require a lot more space to live. If they're no longer generating profit by being sold as meat, they're going to cost a lot more to maintain.

I'm not saying it's bad to stop eating them. I'm pointing out serious real life problems that have to be solved in doing that.

Purposeful self-handicap will lead to your sort getting overrun by another sort that refuses to do so. You're either on top and proud of it or you're on your way out. There is no middle ground.

When you're on top, you can take the initiative and take advantage of your influence to support worthwhile causes. Crippling yourself in some sense of "fairness" leads to a worse outcome for everyone involved.

Not everywhere. I you lived in a country that borders the arctic circle you would know that there are regions on this earth where people cannot survive without eating animals.

Livestock only have lifespans of 10-15 years, which is a while sure but not that long. As for where to put them I don't know, I doubt the ones from factory farms would last that long in the open anyway.


Stuff can be imported but I don't see why all the regions of earth need to be inhabited on a permanent basis when humans are a temperate/subtropical species

Shit, nigga. I live in the suburban American South and if I wanted to eat a healthy vegetarian diet, I'd have to spend more money than I have and/or spend time I don't have driving to where I can buy that shit. Vegetarians are typically SoCal bourgie faggots who can actually afford to get the expensive shit that will keep them healthy without eating animals.

You don't have the internet or vegetables in the South? Stop making excuses, I'm far from rich and I've never been near California

So you're not just demanding that people disrupt their diet plans (and thus economies) but also to relocate on a massive scale.

Mate, I have been on a vegetarian and a vegan diet. The supermarkets where I live just plain don't have the shit I would need, and I can't shop at fuckin whole foods. I couldn't keep that shit up for more than a week at a time because I was getting such little protein.

'a massive scale'? How many people live in the arctic regions exactly? And add Dubai et al to that list, it's really not very many people. And hell, maybe living there is perfectly possible, I'm just trying to be economical (Dubai citizens consume even more fossil fuels than Americans now, for example).

But can you guarantee that will remain like that forever? And then there are trade deficits to consider. What you suggest is unsustainable.


And that is a whole another argument against OP. I did mention the trade deficit this would cause for regions that cannot farm all year round. Veganism is a luxury only the rich can afford and then they go all holier then thou on the struggling poor. Fuck em. And if they really are this concerned about causing pain to other living things they should kill themselves.

oh fuck off, you dont need to shop at eco organic gentrified hippie foods or whatever, christ. holier than thou, how about stop pulling this poorer than thou shit

You said

There are probably at least a billion people who live outside of that part of the world.

As for
You are still talking about millions of people at minimum. Clearly you don't live in anything approaching reality if you think that's

my god it's full of pork

You ever been poor?

Okay okay, Temperate and Tropical then. I wasn't saying the tropics are inhabitable but that we didn't evolve to live there. Certainly not for the arctic.

I'm still poor. Why don't you attack my argument instead of just circlejerking about trust fund babies. Do you really think bread and so on is that expensive

We evovled to live everywhere.

And veganism is mostly a bourgie trend. The fact that you can afford to choose means you are not poor. :^)

You werent doing it right then, I'm a boxer and vegan.. Get 100+ grams of protein a day ( I weigh 130lb), and could easily get 200g

I spend just as much being Vegan than I did prior. If not less. Its not more expensive at all.

Are you recommending that the poor live on bread alone?

Meat has much more calories per unit than veggies.

Look up; tempeh, tofu, saitain, and wheat gluten. Vegans don't just eat green vegetables.

Good god guys

No shit retard. That's the point. I couldn't do it right because I don't live in an area where I can buy the food you need to do it right. You can fit the list of food that are free of animal products in my local grocery store into a single aisle, and if you narrow it down to actually healthy foods (ignoring beer and potato chips and shit) it's down to like one shelf.

I can't buy any of that shit at my local grocery store you pampered fuck.

it's also much more energy intensive to produce so it should be much more expensive, farm subsidies notwithstanding. even so it's somewhat more expensive. wheat and potato products are the primary components of my diet anyway, plus dairy (never said i was a vegan, you guys just sperged out)

Shit sorry, completely misinterpreted your post.

You're on the internet you dumb shit, it's probably cheaper to get it delivered than to buy it in a store

… I don't think it has anything to do with being pampered, its literally an ingles grocery chain, nothing special about it

It isn't. That food is not cheap to begin with, and getting your food delivered to your home has not reached the point that it's cheaper than a grocery store yet.

You guys really don't get it do you. When you're making minimum wage, you are lucky to be able to get enough food to eat regardless. Extra expense means your food budget has to cut into your rent budget or gas budget.

I don't even have a job you fucking cock, I live on welfare, I don't have a fucking car either, when I need food I take a backpack and walk to the shops. Yet somehow being a vegetarian doesn't cost me $100m a week. Good god.

Here's the other thing that bugs me, people act like 'well if I went vegetarian/vegan I would have to carefully structure my diet and buy such and such supplement and this exotic foreign import', yet I bet right now you put no care whatsoever into your diet, probably just think in the morning 'hur, bacon tastes good, i'll eat some'. You're no healthier right now than you would be as a vegetarian like me who takes no care about their diet

Dumbass, rice, cabbage, fruit, broccoli, etc. You can get all of this at your grocery store and when you learn how to actually cook, it's much fucking cheaper than buying meat everyday. 3 cups of uncooked Rice lasts me like a week after I cook it, add shrooms and soysauce, and that shit is delicious.

Are you disabled?

I consider total liberation, including animal liberation, to be a logical extension of radical leftist thought. As far as I'm concerned, radical leftists who don't support total liberation are basically the right-wing among the radical left and should be both criticized and, in some cases, opposed as such.

There is simply no tenable argument for the consumption of animal products, whereas there are numerous arguments—moral, ethical, environmental, economic, spiritual, and otherwise—to not do so. Upholding the spooky carnist culture in which we live is a ridiculous position that no serious radical leftist should take.

I'm American you fucking mongoloid. Our welfare benefits are shit. I can't afford specialty shit that's not on my way home from work.

I track my meals with myfitnesspal to make sure I don't get a fucking deficiency.


None of that shit has a significant amount of protein or a number of important micronutrients. Cooking is easy as fuck. You just throw shit in a pot and put some heat on it. You are just making shit up to try and make someone you disagree with sound like a retard to yourself.

Not physically, I just have mental retardations like depression, adhd and aspergers. I feel like I could do something useful if someone gave me a chance but in the modern world where there's a huge labour surplus I just can't cut it.

Oh well. Lately I think about dying.

I was taught in high school (about year 10) that Orwell was against socialism. Animal Farm was supposed to be his big critique of Marxism according to my English teacher.
2016 - I find out for myself Orwell was actually an avid socialist/anarchist. How many lies did they teach us in school?

I like it how so many posts read as if the author had their index finger raised and was breathing heavily while saying to himself: "but thou must!"

I can't tell you purely logically why killing children is wrong, does that mean we should just give up on all ethical judgements?

nigger, unless you're Dwayne Johnson back when he used to wrestle, you don't need that much protein and if it's that important, you can get it from beans or frozen tofu at the grocery store. Or fucking have a protein shake. Meat is literally the MOST expensive protein you can buy.


What are you talking about? I never said cooking wasn't easy and you are a retard for wasting money on dead animals when there's simply no need whatsoever. Eating vegan is loads cheaper.

That's what school is about! Propaganda!

For example, in our scool system we never talk about the Greek Civil War. We always stop before WW2.


SEE???? VEGANISM MADE YOU SUICIDAL!

Anyway, my point is the whole veganism thing, IMO, is neoliberalism. Sure, go on and do it, just don't preach to me how glorius it is and FFS, "meateaters" is worse than "normies".

I'm pretty sure its about state capitalism.

Fuck off. I have literally done this with what's available to me, and I could not get the nutrients I needed.

It's about every revolution ever.
It begins noble, and then a Napoleon comes along and fucks it all up.

been a veggie my whole life, and i knew someone would make this argument (if you're serious)

I mean I don't expect to change anyone's mind but it seems to be obviously the right thing to do and I didn't make this topic. Nobody made you post here either

I'm a fucking 6 foot beast who works out everyday and only eats vegan. You're just a fucking dumbass who can't comprehend not eating dead animals. The first to go in the gulags will be the small minded indeed and if I ever find you, I will rape you anally with my 6 inch rod of Vegan Meat.

This presupposes that humans require perfectly logical structures a priory to act "ethically". If it were so, one could say that killing children would warrant you the hatred of society, who would then pursue you until they could deprive you of life or liberty, which is a pretty logically sound incentive for not commiting ANY crimes in the first place.

And in any case, killing children=/=killing an animal for food.

How the fuck could that have been a serious argument???
OFCOURSE AM NOT SERIOUS!


Thanx, no thanx.
Sure we can. Good for you. But am gonna eat dead animals. If needed, am gonna eat dead humans too. IF NEEDED!

some people make that argument, i don't know.

Things have gotten out of hand.

At the end of the day, even if socialism or full communism is achieved, we shall go to civil war over our prefered diets.


Hysterical.

Fuck you nigger. I would be vegan if it were feasible, and I'd work out too. Unfortunately I'm a poorfag due to the lack of jobs. I can't even work full time. Shit, I've even said ITT that I've been on a vegan diet. You people really just cannot handle even a little bit of perceived disagreement.
That shit is borderline useless. Nutrient absorption is far less efficient with supplements rather than actual food.

Also what does height have to do with shit? I am also 6' tall. So fucking what.

Humans 101:

Most people are either stupid or don't want to see beyond their ideology.

fucks sake, being a vegetarian communist is like double political hopelessness. everybody just stop arguing, you do whatever you want the bourgeois will do whatever they want and nothing will ever change. sounds great.

liberation of any kind shall be achieved after the nukes wipe us out

Tired of these meat eating niggers, excuse me for cracking down on a bitch.


You are the nigger and you just admitted you live in a ghetto, that gives me a good area of where you are. Prepare your anus.

Yeah, pretty much.


And we giggled and there was much schadenfreude.

You do understand that the conditions people live in vary wildly, yes?

"If we mistake the part for the whole, (pre)history can be called upon to prove anything. Militant vegetarianism can easily trace social evils to meat-eating, and contrast them with the seemingly better life of vegetal-eating apes. Yet the opposite option is just as well documented. Carnivorism has been seen as the origin of an essential part of humanity: sociality. Like many predators, dolphins have some form of cooperation, hierarchy, codes, etc. Just as you regard hunting as a major source of oppression, others treat it as the origin of society."

"The car industry is not objectionable because it derives from the slaughterhouse. Our critique of capitalism is precisely that value production turns everything, whether meat or poetry, into commodity, and that it's no use asking for more love poems and less hamburgers. As long as both products are profitable, factories will keep on churning them out. It could be a factory of anything. It's the conveyor belt society that has to be understood and revolutionized, no matter if it's manufacturing packed beef, wholemeal bread, or fridges."

"Why is it that the average young urban Western European of the early 21st century hates the sight of khaki dressed men set out to shoot rabbits or ducks? Nature awareness, ecological worries and reactions to animal abuse are not signs of mankind at last getting conscious of its impact on the rest of the planet, but of the necessity for capital to think globally, and to take all past and present into account, from Maya temples to whales and genes. Everything it dominates has to be controlled and classified in order to be managed. What is marketable must be protected. Capital owns the world and no owner can afford to be too careless about his possessions."

"It's no coincidence that an acute sensibility to the condition of animals comes up at the same time as industrialized food and concentration camp style farming. Humanism and modern State power rose together. The industrialization of everything (man, animal, as well as human and animal food) goes with the protest against the wrongs done to everything. For the last 30 years, vegetarianism has developed at the same pace as agro-business, and our feelings too: we eat plastic wrapped ham sandwiches but refuse to wear mink."

"The question itself has to be questioned. The emphasis on 'cruelty' implies that a 'fair' treatment would be acceptable. The insistence on "abject" labor conditions calls for tolerable work. The fight against excesses logically supports moderation. Let us suppose these atrocious (and often plain silly) experiments could be truly painless, and even enjoyable for the animals involved. You and I would still object to 'stress' studies and make-up tests, just as we'd regard 'happy' Ford workers as even more alienated."

"Veganism deals with the social and symbolic power of meat. No vegan thinks he's aiming a real blow at the animal industry: he acts against an image. Then why not refuse to drive? (Which is of course easier if you can afford to live downtown than in a remote suburb with inadequate public transport.) Why not abstain from parenthood? But if the criterion is being antagonistic to society (as in ancient Greece, when refusing to eat meat was an offence to gods/men/animals relationships, hence a critique of social order), then in a Catholic country in 1700 or even 1900, it was subversive to eat meat on a Friday (as indeed some militant atheists used to). It is impossible to make one particular behavior or gesture into a norm or anti-norm."

"Communism will alter man's relation to man and to everything, animals included, and therefore the terms, not the existence of the contradiction. In the year 3000, humankind could be down to 5.000.000 people, who would all be vegans. Perhaps… though a single diet seems as likely as love-making reduced to one position and housing to one kind of habitat. Still, after all, why not! The trouble is, nobody knows. Anthropological data would rather suggest the infinite variety and unpredictability of ways and means"

"Wild flower lovers can be more distressed at the sight of cut flowers than when they hear about a slaughterhouse. 'Have you no sensibility?' they ask. A common answer is: 'Plants don't have a nervous system.' This is precisely where the problem lies: where shall we draw the line? On what criterion? To a vegetal lover, it's the plant that's silent and innocent, not the lamb that eats it. Shall we call him a pervert?! Horror against slaughterhouse divides beings between animals and vegetals. Then what about Africans making a feast of ants or termites? Most likely a thousand new classifications would blossom in communism."

"One day, humans will stop treating animals the way animals have been treated for millennia. But men and women won't be acting against themselves and for the animals' sake, out of compassion. Humans won't sacrifice their food tastes, give up meat although they may love it, because they want to put an end to the suffering of animals. They will transform their attitude to the animal world for themselves as well as for the animals, because their overall attitude to the cosmos will change. Likewise, people won't stop working on Volkswagen assembly lines because, although they might like cars, they'd go against their personal preference and give priority to ecology. They'll stop because they'll invent a different life, hence new means of transportation. To take a further example, if rape is unlikely to happen, it won't be because men will refrain from it for the common good or decide not to cause women's pain, but because they won't feel the need for it"

Hunters provide the vast majority of meat served in homeless shelters in the united states.
Are you against feeding the poor?

FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BAD

liberate them to my grill

yeah, these ppl

barely have a penis now

Hunting and farming. Meat and vegetables can be distributed through government allotments only. Private ownership of food sources is capitalist greed.

Even if lab meat reaches the point of being indistinguishable for meat that came from an animal, many people will still angrily oppose it just under the bases that it isn't the real thing (even if it's technically the same).

Normalfags will forever be a thing that I cannot understand.

We can almost print our own meat which is indistinguishable from meat from a real animal now. Give it until the revolution comes and wen won't need livestock anymore.

Cigarette vs e-cigarettes are a bad analogy because it taste differently (according to thoses ho tried both)
With our curent technical abilities, we are far from being able to recreate a vat grown meat undistinguishable from a genuine meat.


Sure, if you put thoses on the same level.

Fucking site ate my pictures

Smokers don't care that it tastes different, they care that it's not the 'real deal'.

Smoker here, can confirm.

But would eat imitation meat beause who fucking cares, as long as I get to eat I'm a happy man.

I didn't say a thing about it being desirable. I said that it was the only viable sustainable option for a widespread meat eating population.

...

moronic and distracting

It's a psychological thing, some people just don't enjoy something if they know it's 'fake'.

Scientific evidence shows that plant-based diet is the healthiest and meat and other animal products are unhealthy and give you cancer.
Also meat industry is bad for the climate.
Also why would you slaughter other beings?

I love this thread in which no one know the basics of the subject, or has even read a Wikipedia page(which is superficial knowledge) on it.

What do you mean by being, you're almost always eating things that had been alive at some point.

Milk and eggs are bad for health? That's new.
Meat in unhealthy only in big quantities. It's a pretty reliable source of proteins, it's difficult to obtain the strict equivalent with vegetalian diet.
Westerners eat too much meat indeed, but this ois no reason to ban meat altogether.

Hope a fucking deer that could've went to food plows through your car window due to over-breeding.

If you are eating a plant-based diet you don't eat things which have been sentient at one point. Plants don't feel so that argument is really stupid, but if you insist they do eating plant-based diet is a better option since animal agriculture consumes hell lot more plants than humans.
Not really, milk has no positive effect on bones and it also promotes acne. Eggs have lot of cholesterol. Eating eggs clogs your arteries.
Not only in big quantities, studies show that eating just once a week already has negative consequences(for example increased risk of diabetes).
Not true, according to a large study comparing meat eaters vegetarians and vegans
(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23988511 look at the attached image for a chart of how much protein different diets get, 42 grams a day is the required intake)
found that vegans and vegeterians easily get more than required protein a day(about 70% more, of course meat eaters get even more but still, nobody has problems with protein defficiency)
I may link some more studies if you want to, but its tedious to look through my collection for particular ones.

best girl

Define sentient. From what we know, very few animals are aware of their own existence, or have a rudimentary concept of self (test of mirror). That's not saying they don't have emotions or suffer… But if you go down this road, then plants also react to stress and damaging stimuli, even if this not always visible. So they 're probably not sentient in the human meaning, but they may be have some "vegetal feelings".
youtube.com/watch?v=fGLABm7jJ-Y

The arguments that eating plants is ok because they don't feel is comletely subjective.

Milk bring calcium and potassium which you need not only for bones, but are absolutely vital for muscles and nerves. Lactose is also benefic for intestinal health and absorbtion of other nutrients.
The white of eggs is pretty healthy, the yolk contain cholesterol but also several nutrients (Polyinsaturated fats and antioxydants) which balance the inconvenients a lot. The excess of cholesterol is only a problem if you already have diabete and even that it's waaay less dangerous than other animal components.

It's not impossible to be fully vegetalian and healthy mind you, but you have to compensate by finding specific seeds for vitamine B12, Zinc, iron calcium and omega3 fats.
It's much easier to have healthy diet with a small compsumption of animal products than to go full vegetalian. You must know exactly what you're doing or you'll fuck yourself over.
Beside, quality meat is tasty.

And that only happens because we already killed off the wolves and so on, twat

so you want wolves in your neighbourhood to rip them appart in a fight rather than taking them out with a clean shot?
hippie

the ideology of "animal liberation" is the reaction to alienation from food production and bourgeoise consumer moralism.
some animals are food, the only acceptable question is on establishing quality standards to ensure the animals and consequently the meat consumers health.

Dunno, but I do know that that pig is adorable.

I meant capable of feeling pain, not sentience, sorry.
Plants do not feel pain, they can respond to stimuli but that is completely different, animals have nervous systems, plants do not. Its not subjective, plants have no brains, animals do.
And even if you still insist on the dumb claim that plants feel it would be better for plants if everyone was vegan because much more plant food is used for breeding animals. I already wrote that in a post before.

There are much better sources of calcium which don't have adverse effects of milk consumption( for example green vegetables, broccoli salad and others)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22854410 According to this study 98% of american eat diets defficient in potassium. Its funny you mention it because this is mainly because of people consuming not enough plant-based foods which have much more potassium and no adverse effects like the disgusting milk americans like to drink.
Leafy vegetables and beans are richest in pottasium.
According to this study: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18926128
Those on a placed on a vegan diet experience significant increase in potassium intake, not sure about lactose thing, I'll have to check that but based on what I know so far I'm fairly sure that you should ditch milk.

About eggs, ever wondered why you never see egg commercials about how eggs are healthy or rich source of protein or rich source of omega3? The reason you'll only hear that egg industry claim on websites and TV shows and never in an ad or on an egg carton is because there are laws against false and misleading advertising that don't allow the industry to say eggs contain lutein because there's such an insignificant amount, Can't say it helps people with macular degeneration. Can't even talk about how good lutein is for you since eggs have such a wee amount. Also can't say eggs are a source of omega 3s,or a source of iron or folate. Can't even honestly call eggs a rich source of protein. The USDA Agriculture Marketing Service suggested the egg industry instead boast about the choline content in eggs, one of the only two nutrients eggs are actually rich in, besides cholesterol.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20042525 - eggs increase risk of prostate cancer
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390963
-eggs increase risk of diabetes
Not sure those inconvienients are balanced out

b12 supplements are safe and cheap like dirt, I personally recommend cyanocobalamine as the form of b12 that is absorbed best.
You will probably say its cheating if you supplement with pills but I want to remind you b12 isn't produced by animals, b12 is synthesized by bacteria, only by bacteria.
Humans used to get more of it from contaminated water back when we had no clean water, animals(humans too) get it from gut bacteria but not enough of it.
So how is it possible that meat eaters don't have b12 defficiency?
Shocking fact: baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30
" In order to maintain meat a source of B12 the meat industry now adds it to animal feed, 90% of B12 supplements produced in the world are fed to livestock. Even if you only eat grass-fed organic meat you may not be able to absorb the B12 attached to animal protein. It may be more efficient to just skip the animals and get B12 directly from supplements."
If you are a meat-eater you use b12 supplements just like vegans.

Bullshit, Im too lazy to post sources now but Ive already covered calcium, I will post rest tommorow
Not sure really
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22968891 This study shows omega3 isn't as good as it was thought and doesn't help with diseases people thought it helps with( a pretty large study, 68000 test subjects or so), but Im still not sure, I guess I'll have to read into it some more and return here tommorow

Fuck 'em. That's right, fuck 'em. Animals are only good for two things: eating them and fucking them.