Discussion Veganism

The claims of veganism is that the modern man can and should cut the consumption and usage of animal products, for it is immoral, because of the pain and the immoral aspect of servitude that come with it.
Are those claims coherent or not ?
Does it being in the human nature to hunt make it good for humans to do these things ? Does it not ?
TradeGOD@ said:
There are still traces of our past self left wich are being slowly removed thats why im working on being self sufficient
Click to expand...
 
Nihilma said:
>Philosophy thread
>Schizophrenic answers
Yup, every xingle time
I'm making inquiries about the presence or the absence of logical coherency in veganism, not if muh kikes are for or against it
Click to expand...
It's trve tho. Just look at the kind of propaganda Big companies (mostly from Amerimuttistan) like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are pouring their money into. Going vegan literally does jackshit for the environment and yet helping climate change is considered one of the "main benefits of going vegan" as they put it. They say by not eating meat we can takedown the meat industry which is destroying the environment yet if you look at the statistics you see that it only contributes to a small amount of global warming and their own factories and operations are doing the biggest damage. That is if you look at the statistics of actual researchers that do the research for free with no financial backers and not researchers funded by the big companies themselves or universities that are supported by said big companies. I'm not being a schizo. This is all logical.
 
JC Denton said:
It's trve tho. Just look at the kind of propaganda Big companies (mostly from Amerimuttistan) like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are pouring their money into. Going vegan literally does jackshit for the environment and yet helping climate change is considered one of the "main benefits of going vegan" as they put it. They say by not eating meat we can takedown the meat industry which is destroying the environment yet if you look at the statistics you see that it only contributes to a small amount of global warming and their own factories and operations are doing the biggest damage. That is if you look at the statistics of actual researchers that do the research for free with no financial backers and not researchers funded by the big companies themselves or universities that are supported by said big companies. I'm not being a schizo. This is all logical.
Click to expand...
I've mostly seen the claims of morality laying in the individuality of animals and the morality or the absence of it of enslaving them and butchering them.
I live in france, so the selective filtering of little chicks based on their sex is made in ovo, but in other countries, male chicks are still being mechanically grinded at birth for example, and vegans argue that this is not moral and that you should restrain from eating meat that comes from this industry until it is fixed
 
Nihilma said:
I've mostly seen the claims of morality laying in the individuality of animals and the morality or the absence of it of enslaving them and butchering them.
I live in france, so the selective filtering of little chicks based on their sex is made in ovo, but in other countries, male chicks are still being mechanically grinded at birth for example, and vegans argue that this is not moral and that you should restrain from eating meat that comes from this industry until it is fixed
Click to expand...
The solution is not going vegan and forbidding your body from getting the proteins that it needs. The solution is to reshape the meat industry. Look at someone like Temple Grandin who changed how cows are handled in meat factories. We barely even have meat factories in my country. If you go to the mountains you'll definitely see cattles with their shepherds just eating grass and living how they normally should. And we have some of the world's most delicious meat.
 
JC Denton said:
The solution is not going vegan and forbidding your body from getting the proteins that it needs. The solution is to reshape the meat industry. Look at someone like Temple Grandin who changed how cows are handled in meat factories. We barely even have meat factories in my country. If you go to the mountains you'll definitely see cattles with their shepherds just eating grass and living how they normally should. And we have some of the world's most delicious meat.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.
Also I believe that the slavery concept only applies if the one enslaved has any idea of what enslavement is.
If to the subject there is no tangible difference between freedom and enslavement, then to me it isn't a problem.
Moreover, some animals actually not only benefit from enslavement, but enslaved themselves, as for the wolf. And unlike the human who's capacities and possibilities are diminished by enslavement, an animal's possibilities aren't diminished by enslavement.
 
something something allegory of the cave even doe it doesn't apply to animals because animals don't have an outside to their cave therefore me ripping a lamb open in front of it's mother and eating it raw is justified or however the hellfest is celebrated
 
Nihilma said:
The claims of veganism is that the modern man can and should cut the consumption and usage of animal products, for it is immoral, because of the pain and the immoral aspect of servitude that come with it.
Are those claims coherent or not ?
Does it being in the human nature to hunt make it good for humans to do these things ? Does it not ?
Click to expand...
Would it be immoral to deny the last trace of a primal urge
While this soubnds retarded as fuck i fear that humans would not comply with the baning of meat
 
TradeGOD@ said:
Would it be immoral to deny the last trace of a primal urge
While this soubnds retarded as fuck i fear that humans would not comply with the baning of meat
Click to expand...
I fear humans could be coerced or subtly nudged into it. Manipulation of masses is easy.
But if it is immoral to deny one's own nature is a good question.
 
Nihilma said:
Is veganism morally coherent ? Should the human population eventually try to reach complete veganism ?
Click to expand...
Veganism is sort of a double bell curve. The obvious answer is no, animals don't deserve human rights because they are not human. The first midwit bump says that animals deserve rights because "they are cute and hurting them is mean and makes me feel sad". Then you realize that eating other animals is good because they provide you with nutrients and taste good . However, the behaviour of some animals makes you double think this because they almost appear sentient. They have behaviour that seems emotional yet logical and it makes you question if veganism is actually aryan or something to that effect. But then you realize that animals eating other animals is a part of life so no matter how sad it makes you feel, it's just an inevitability of reality.
 
Canadian said:
Veganism is sort of a double bell curve. The obvious answer is no, animals don't deserve human rights because they are not human. The first midwit bump says that animals deserve rights because "they are cute and hurting them is mean and makes me feel sad". Then you realize that eating other animals is good because they provide you with nutrients and taste good . However, the behaviour of some animals makes you double think this because they almost appear sentient. They have behaviour that seems emotional yet logical and it makes you question if veganism is actually aryan or something to that effect. But then you realize that animals eating other animals is a part of life so no matter how sad it makes you feel, it's just an inevitability of reality.
Click to expand...
One of the most thoughtful answers, and I agree with it, even doe an appeal to nature is also in itself a fallacy, because why would what is natural be necessarily good ? But in essence you've hit what I think is the main incoherency of veganism, which is a humanistic philosophy, itself a philosophy which can only recognize as greatest above all the laws of nature, and not God.
 
@Nihilma
>Maybe someone can answer me here, but if you're an atheist and believe in objective morality, on what ground do you base yourself ?

Objective morality means "I've got the morality answer key right here". Subjective morality means "You aren't going to find an answer key."
The point of subjective morality is that they have no basis. They typically keep doing things they want to do when they are disgusted or angry or ambitious. If they say something is immoral, it is actually an imperative statement: "X is immoral" -> "DO NOT do X"

>In my eyes, if God doesn't exist, isn't the only base for morality the rule of nature and evolution, hence the law of the strongest ?
Libtards try to argue something almost opposite that subjective morality implies "equality" or "tolerance" between cultures or moral frameworks because none are greater than the others. Both of these are attempts to synthesize a basis from the absence of a basis and neither manage to cross the is-ought barrier. Fascism/futurism came closest to pure logical deduction on this matter, albeit their exact actions and aesthetics are not implied.

>If to the subject there is no tangible difference between freedom and enslavement, then to me it isn't a problem.
karmicmaxxing overlord hypothesis naturallawcels... we were right... they don't care... they don't know... the cow accepts the fence...

@JC Denton
>veganism is inefficient
Loss per trophic level would say no but productivity of ranchland might say yes yet I want to eat meat albeit I don't care if most people are made to eat soy lessover there are great men working at target because of society moreunder I want to be a modern day buccaneer smuggler lessunder there are eyes in the sky
 
Nihilma said:
Is veganism morally coherent ? Should the human population eventually try to reach complete veganism ?
Click to expand...
whether someone should isn't equal to morality. Being virtious and following steps of virtue is something that should be done but not demanded. You should do what you freely choose.

Personally, there is nothing objectively good about treating natural necessity as fetish or dessertful pleasant experience, you eat you will be eaten.
 
Nihilma said:
What I'm having a hard time to grasp is humanism as a moral philosophy.
Maybe someone can answer me here, but if you're an atheist and believe in objective morality, on what ground do you base yourself ?
In my eyes, if God doesn't exist, isn't the only base for morality the rule of nature and evolution, hence the law of the strongest ?
Click to expand...
>if God doesn’t exist, isn’t the only base for morality the rule of nature and evolution

Atheists don’t believe that, if they did they would all be running around raping and stealing and killing and acting like niggers because that’s all natural. Most Athiests either claim there is no objective morality or just make up an arbitrary moral code based on what they personally “feel” is “right” or “wrong”

I’m agnostic btw
 
(In)CelibatePsycho said:
>if God doesn’t exist, isn’t the only base for morality the rule of nature and evolution

Atheists don’t believe that, if they did they would all be running around raping and stealing and killing and acting like niggers because that’s all natural. Most Athiests either claim there is no objective morality or just make up an arbitrary moral code based on what they personally “feel” is “right” or “wrong”

I’m agnostic btw
Click to expand...
That's what I meant, mb, when I mean evolution as the only base for morality I mean the strongest wins, aka there is no objective morality because the only one capable of imposing a standard is the strongest.

But a lot of atheists I encounter still argue that there is an objective measure for morality without God, but when I ask on what it basis itself I receive only sloppy answers
 
Nihilma said:
That's what I meant, mb, when I mean evolution as the only base for morality I mean the strongest wins, aka there is no objective morality because the only one capable of imposing a standard is the strongest.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a lot of Atheists claim morality is subjective, but they rarely act consistently with that claim. They will call people bad and evil and wish suffering on those they don’t like, when by their own reasoning since morality is subjective no one can really be “good” or “bad” or “deserving” of any good or bad thing
 
Back
Top