Leftists:

I tried to joke with you, because I didn't think you were serious. But since you are: grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/

And what I'm trying to say from the beginning is that it's a shit metaphor.

...

Ok then m8 go to animals and explain class consciousness to them to get your revolution.
I swear vegans are sociopaths that can't understand the basic differences between men and animals.
Before you sperg out about disabled people: disabled people are unfortunate people that could have bben intelligent as humans. Animals will never be as intelligent as humans. They are of less value.

I wanna hugg titoanon

Attached: 1425004904830-2.jpg (390x340, 49.29K)

What if we hunt our own meat?

Animal Farm proves animals can be revolutionary.
Yeah, animals should get voting rights.
Who said anything about disabled people? Are you calling disabled people animals? haha
True.
Depends on the metric.

Attached: 1274472685919.png (404x404, 92.77K)

Why not? "Of what use is it to sheep that no one curtails their freedom of speech? They keep on bleating." – The Spookman

Wow, that's a lot of implications! Fair enough if you have a problem with eating animals but veganism is not a subversive life choice in and of itself. It will eventually be completely subsumed into the capitalist spectacle as it gains more mainstream popularity.

Also:
fugging bathetigg :DDD

Carnism is 100% porky as of right now though, so what are you even arguing.

Also
Do you want poltards? Because this is how you get poltards.

What does this even mean? Most large food chains, at least where I live, are implementing vegan alternatives as it grows in popularity. This trend will only keep growing. The point being that it doesn't really matter what you're eating, but how that food is produced and the economic structures that govern that production.

Do you want poltards? Because this is how you get poltards

Easy - m&b lie about most of those things, but there's usually some truth to it. I mean, not about the WMDs or Saddam planning to attack (lmao) but a bunch of shit… even related to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and those more recent fiascos. Like, when they said Saddam was fucking awful, they were right - but the thing is context. Saddam might be bad, but Iraq without Saddam would be worse and America's motivations for taking him out were not pure. Also around this time, America was moving in an increasingly authoritarian direction anyway so a lot of the stuff they said about Iraq was nonsense - Saddam's wiretapping capabilities never matched America's, so America could hardly "liberate" that country from what was ultimately only a lesser dictator.

Things like the FDA and EPA are (or were, at least, in the case of the EPA) a balancing act. They're absolutely corrupted, but they operate within conventions wherein they were supposed to maintain a veneer of credibility. For the EPA that's been totally abandoned - they're straight up lead by a guy who has zero interest in curbing even the most basic pollution now. So it wasn't just an "everything they say is the opposite of true" situation, that's bad for propaganda.

OP is a fag

Attached: 1d8.png (541x267, 101.72K)

I don't have a problem, everyone has a problem. It's very unhealthy to eat meat every day gor breakfast, lunch and dinner. And who relies on cheap processed meat to survive? The working class. Add meat and dairy to cigarettes and alcohol. Or let me guess, smoking cigarettes is OK too?

So what does it tell you that every meal in food chains used to be meat-based? Meat is a cheap ingredient, and low quality meat is even cheaper. Food chains sell you garbage because you're just a consumer to them.

I rarely eat out. In fact, in Europe eating out doesn't happen often. Most people buy ingredients and cook at home. Grocery stores and supermarkets have had vegan alternatives for centuries, they're called fruits and vegetables.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29689357/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22081693/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483430/
wcrf.org/dietandcancer/exposures/meat-fish-dairy
sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180402085853.htm
health.harvard.edu/blog/new-study-links-l-carnitine-in-red-meat-to-heart-disease-201304176083
pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/ask/ask-the-expert-dairy-products

Why should the corporations grow food that is expensive for them to grow, has a short shelf life, is at the mercy of the weather, can't be transported far and there's lots of loss? Growing meat is cheap, it can be frozen and kept for years and it can be transported anywhere in the world. Keep siding with pork-y.

Animals cannot have rights, because they're not sapient beings, nor do they have own judgement. If you're talking about animal welfare, that's an entirely different story.

Either way, even if most of us are not vegans, most lefties agree that animal abuse must be stopped. In fact, do you wanna drop the hammer on the big farming industry? Let's do that. The farming industry is the prime contributor of CO2 and the greenhouse effect (duh).

I eat eggs. That is moral and just yet according to vegans it's not. They are spooked beyond belief.

Your funeral.
pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/ask/ask-the-expert-eggs
You're the only spooked one here.

Unless you're arguing that nonhuman species deserve equal voice, you can fuck right off.

C for both.

Or A, because he has to experience the trauma of seeing a animal/pet getting killed while the animal is getting the sweet embrace of death. In the end the one who wins the most in this position is the animal.

Literally where?
Every mainstream media outlet, medical firm, government agency, and international organization up to the UN has for decades pushed vegetarianism as healthier and better for the environment. On the flipside, the predominant opinion among "fringe" anti-establishment groups like alt-med and self-help gurus also shills for vegetarianism.

Rational arguments against vegetarianism right now mark you out as persona-non-grata among basically every major political group.

What does Zig Forums think of cultured meat grown in labs?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat

Attached: culturedmeat.jpg (2989x2912, 586.58K)

it's not the same
I don't feel satisfied unless at least some kind of animal has died for my nourishment
should be banned, if not the labs bombed by radical carnists

Nobody is saying this.

It's not an excuse. It's the truth.

Doesn't exist. Animals are not moral agents.

I can and I do.

Yeah, and because it tastes good and it's easy to diet with. So what?

And you certainly wouldn't know what a vegan is.

Not exercising is worse. Many people don't. Personal choice, fam. Meat tastes good, and the health dangers are overblown. If I make it to 60, then I'm good. I don't want to be old.

No, they're just animals. I kill them for the sake of killing them sometimes. Why? Because it's fun.

No. They're just animals we enjoy having around. I could eat my dog if I was hungry enough, no problem.

Because they're cute. People don't actually care about animals, and neither do you, for that matter.

Animals are not moral agents. And they also eat each other all the time. You're a fucking retard and a species cuck.

Pic related. Got this hoe and ate it. Shared with my dog, because why the fuck not?

Attached: fb95babaee7c0ed80e051a4e1382b8838627a1c3-1S_1280.jpg (960x1280, 101.5K)

That's where you are wrong. The vegans care about animals because their emotional reality is fundamentally separated from other human beings. Vegans unironically say shit like that they empathize better with animals and are ready to do violence on human being for the stupidest shit. Not a coincidence a lot of vegans do martial arts, they see humans as total evil agents while they glorify and project goodness on animals. Notice how vegans also act as superior for every choice they do: if they don't smoke, people who smoke are subhumans, if they don't drink, people who do are subhumans, etc. They are fundamentally disconnected from other people and rely on animals to create the inner feeling they are not complete sociopaths and that they are fighting for some higher cause. There is like a 5% of vegans who can actually relate to people and not see every person that does not comply to their lifestyle choices as literally satan, the rest are completely unable to see past their nose in their misanthropic and sociopathic worldview were the very basic act of eating animals is denied. One should disregard their junk studies and their deception tactics because they are like nazis, they do not search for truth and reach their conclusions, rather they nitpick every facet of reality that seems to agree with them and blow it up to the definitive truth, they are fundamentally propagandists and liars.

express.co.uk/life-style/health/874747/pork-red-meat-men-trade-for-poultry-risk-testosterone-levels

In your mind is buying products of slave or extremely low paid labour (like prison-made stuff in the US) the same as buying products made by union labour or a coop?

Do you think that the current mode of large scale meat production could continue if there was no wage labour? If society's dietary needs are better furnished by a vegetable-based diet while also using less resources and being easier on the environment (they are, they do and it is) then to continue eating meat is reactionary.

I bet you pride yourself on knowing history. Go read about the effects of grazing on the environment, especially during the early 20th century America.

I wish I could smash your face with my fists until it turned into jello.
Lifestylist retards like you are the reason why the left has turned into a fucking joke.

Attached: 12758655999.gif (1920x1200 1.79 MB, 617.78K)

Herbivores get B12 from bacteria in their stomach. Much like humans have developed lactose intolerance in the last 6000-7000 years it is not crazy to think that the increasing prominence of meat in our diet has had an effect on the B12-producing bacteria in our stomach.
That argument was not made in this thread.
Haha! Yes! Supporting rampant capitalist exploitation and destruction of our environment is the only true leftist position!

I guess not polluting our seas, destroying the rainforests, keeping our waters clean is all lifestylism as well?

Bitch, we ain't herbivores.
We need to eat meat to get that B12 V. It's also possible to extract it from bacteria that live in the guts of living beings, so it would be necessary to kill some poor animals to extract it anyway even if we didn't eat their meat.

Guess what ya genius?
Agriculture alone does the exact same thing, even if everybody stopped eating meat the environment destruction would continue.
This is a civilization problem, not a "carnist" problem.
Unless you propose we get rid of our industrial farms model altogether. Good luck feeding all the heavily populated areas with only tiny organic hippie cultivation.

Oh, also, protein doesn't come only from meat but it is much easier to get protein from meat and "animal derivatives" like eggs and milk than it is to get it from vegetables alone.

You fucking shitlord I am an otherkin and I demand you let my people go!

I bet you are the kinda person that is #vegancat #herbivore #peta

>express.co.uk/life-style/health/874747/pork-red-meat-men-trade-for-poultry-risk-testosterone-levels
Yes, a tabloid is proof that the scientific community is saying this, you know, the people that actually know shit.

Yeah, pretty much. I buy what's best. Incidentally that means most of my stuff is made in first world countries.

No, but neither could agricultural production, so this is a stupid question that has nothing to do with eating meat. You don't need industrialization to eat animals.

Nope. It's a personal choice, and you trying to paint it as anything other than that makes you a lifestylist faggot.

Oh yeah, I forgot that animals only graze on farms and populations never need to be controlled. It's not like tens of millions of buffalo roamed the plains or anything.

Except that Socrates was discussing a utopian idea. Great argument, retard. Now we know you're not exactly on board with scientific socialism.

No u

Yeah, so? I don't care about them. They're not moral agents. You haven't told me why thinking or feeling are inherently things to be protected.

I think this makes you a weirdo, but I don't think it's somehow immoral. I've left rabbits to be attacked by coyotes so I could kill coyotes, so I don't really see a difference if it's a dog or cat instead. Dogs and cats just happen to be useful and it's a waste to do this to them.

Be that as it may, you're arguing from the law, but the law can change. Meat eating pre-dates animal cruelty laws, and I think if you own the animal, you should be able to do as you wish. It's property.

Yeah, and some niggas fuck fat chicks. So what?

It's called hypocrisy. Killing an animal isn't the same as murder. Those laws exist because of people's fee fees, not because it's an objective truth that the whole society gives a shit, else stray animals wouldn't get euthanized.

They are future moral agents. As I wouldn't like to have been killed as a baby, I do not kill babies. Animals offer humans no such consideration, therefore cannot warrant the same either.

Yes, strict carnivores. Humans are omnivores, as well as many other species not included in that list. Nice lying by omission, faggot.

Species.
Cuck.

I'm a modern human, which means I know how to cook meat. I know it's hard for your primitive soy brain to understand, but do try to keep up.

Dog loves her some squirrel. I might go out and kill another just because I'm talking to you. Organic, free range, non-cruel meat. Yum.

Humans have been eating meat for fucking ever, more than dairy, and the increase of meat consumption happened in the last fifty years in the western world. Kill yourself, soycuck.
I bet you're the type of idiot to get a cat and try to make it vegan.

Antivegans are the worst

Attached: lollipop.jpg (750x757, 50.42K)

...

Godly trips of truth

Vegans are pathetic.

OP here. I'm traveling at the moment and cannot respond in the next few days. But expect a reply next week.

Did a vegan steal your SO or something?
Or do you feel personally offended everytime you see someone give a homeless person some change?

...

You came into a vegan thread to attack vegans. How is that me evangelizing you?
My only post in ITT was that antiveganism is the worst, because it is. You people constantly go out of your way to be a dick to us for basically no other reason than our existence offends you.
You're like the USDA goon squad.

Name not withstanding, smarts is not differentiating factor between homo sapiens and immediate progenitor homo erectus. The difference is shorter arms, longer legs and springy tendons that h sapiens adapted to live in the savannah rather than the trees. He survived through endurance hunting – forcing faster prey in successive bursts to run to exhaustion. Meat is why we are what we are.

So is rape, murder, war and inbreeding.

in the case of cats i wouldnt be too sure, user

Micro plastics,dropping Sperm rates, lowering T scores (also probably why so many more mtf trannys then ftm trannys)
Anyone responsible to any of these will enjoy the worst hell possible.

Animals aren't people.

Cry about it.

People are animals. Animals below humans still deserve rights.

Attached: F243AB30-3C8B-4E8C-9504-DBC0D20D7130.jpeg (1007x1200 165.85 KB, 366.06K)

Some of them are, actually

Attached: B3A3ECADCEED46AB80CDED5D133F061B.png (1588x1214, 3.62M)

Why?

Why shouldn't you hurt other people for your enjoyment?

Are you a sociopath?

farming and human manipulation of nature for food production is bad whether its semi-sentient animals or non-sentient plants. both are extremely destructuve in the long run for their own reasons. the trick is to curb population size and especially the first world population. the third world creates very little compared to first worlders in terms of carbon footprint

Why do animals deserve rights, but the equally nonsapient plants and rocks don't?

Without human civilization exploiting the world's resources to found a permanently interstellar civilization, the sun will swell up and boil the entire biosphere off our piteous ball of mud in ~3B years, leaving no trace of life.

The choice between humanity and nature is the choice between life and suicide.

Animals still have feelings. If you don’t believe this, you’re either dumb or a sociopath.

What I said doesn't preclude the continued exploitation of nature. We'll certainly invent interstallar travel within a 1000 years or less, but in the mean time we need to reduce levels of destruction and consumption of nature. That's all that 'sustainable' means. I do not mean to idealize nature as 'the good', only i mean to prevent our destruction of it coming back to destroy us in turn.

Plants and bacteria have feelings as well, does that give them rights?

Ah, so you're not a VHEMTcuck.

Wut
Man, your perception of what vegans are like is really inaccurate. Most vegans are not like what you describe. Maybe you just notice the ones who are.

Because I don't want other people to hunt me.

That doesn't mean anything. Justify your opinion.

No they don't. They don't even have nervous systems at all, the system responsible for our sensations.

So you would have no problem torturing people or punting an infant you found in front of a church and leaving it in a dumpster if you had a pretty good idea that you wouldn't be caught?

I mean, you'd have to give me a reason to do that first. I kill animals because a) they're delicious b) some dig up my land c) It's a challenging animal to hunt, and I can brag about it while it hangs in my living room.

None of these apply to a baby in front of a church. The more challenging thing would be adopting that infant and turning him into a world-class hunter.

Actually, I hear not get caught for dumpster babying is quite the challenge and baby meat is better than veal.

Not really. I've dumped more hazardous waste in bigger quantities.

Looks gross. I'm not saying I definitely wouldn't, but probably not. Not for moral reasons. Just doesn't look tasty.

You still haven't answered the original question, though. Why do animals deserve rights?

I did though.
Humans are animals, so if humans deserve rights at least some animals do.
What I'm asking you is why do you think humans are the only animal that deserves them?

Humans only deserve rights because they don't want to be harmed by other humans. That is what rights are. I don't murder and support a ban on murder, because I do not want to be murdered. This is not the case for animals.

It's not that we deserve them. It's that they're necessary if we are to live in a society with other humans. They are unnecessary to interact with animals, as animals cannot reciprocate rights. We need not have moral consideration of them.

Animals want to be murdered? Are you a retard?

Animals do not obey human laws. You cannot tell a bear not to maul you, and no prohibition against lions eating humans will ever be viable. Therefore, humans have no incentive to care about what animals want. If they cannot reciprocate our value system, then they are not covered under it.

Yes they do. Plants and bacterial colonies react to damage, feel pain from it, have this response dampened by painkillers, and can even become traumatized if repeatedly tortured.

Of course, just like animals, and unlike humans, any one individual is entirely disposable and replaceable to their population, meaning they have no individual rights whatsoever.

In order to maintain their position in the ecosystem? Yes, since they have no conscious capacity to control their own population, they have evolved with a certain rate of murder as necessity.

You're saying that morality boils down to social contract. That is, you only have moral obligations out of vulgar self-interest. This is based off of a lot of confusion about what moral obligation is, a wrongheaded view about human predispostion and natural order, and ultimately advocates a reduction to fascism (which Hobbes understood).

What is self-interest? If the good is equal to the law, and the law is based on self-interest then it might make sense for you to say that those who do not reciprocate our contractual terms do not deserve moral consideration. However, I reject the notion of self-interest is the foundation for an ethical system. Further, I reject that law is equal to the good.

First, ask yourself what self-interest is. Why should someone pursue a particular end? You might say, well because it's good for me. Do you believe this is the case? Perhaps you don't see a problem for this, but when asked to provide what the good is if you reply with self-interest and then when asked what self-interest is you reply with "what's good for me" you've merely given a circular definition that evaporates on scrutiny. That's hardly useful to us.

Our moral obligations do not end where others stop recognizing their own. Do you believe we owe nothing to the developmentally disabled, catatonic, those with dementia, and so on? But by your logic we don't.

[Citation needed]

You can call it that. I say it's basic reciprocity.

Of course. Morals are a spook, after all. And this isn't vulgar self-interest, but enlightened self-interest.

Fascism is disadvantageous to myself and most humans, including any potential leaders. I highly doubt that this self-interest results in that.

Yes, if you cannot reciprocate my value system, you are not covered under it. If you were a goblin from Goblin Slayer, I would have no problem killing you. If you are a human, though, there stands to reason that you can be made to obey my value system and you are not incapable of it. You would be protected.

It's a basic axiom of my moral system. I do not need to justify it.

The only reason to give those people right is that I myself would not want to be terminated if I fell under those conditions. I will never become an animal, therefore animals do not deserve rights.

You already are an animal.

In irgend einem abgelegenen Winkel des in zahllosen Sonnensystemen flimmernd ausgegossenen Weltalls gab es einmal ein Gestirn, auf dem kluge Tiere das Erkennen erfanden. Es war die hochmütigste und verlogenste Minute der "Weltgeschichte": aber doch nur eine Minute. Nach wenigen Atemzügen der Natur erstarrte das Gestirn, und die klugen Tiere mußten sterben. – So könnte jemand eine Fabel erfinden und würde doch nicht genügend illustriert haben, wie kläglich, wie schattenhaft und flüchtig, wie zwecklos und beliebig sich der menschliche Intellekt innerhalb der Natur ausnimmt. Es gab Ewigkeiten, in denen er nicht war; wenn es wieder mit ihm vorbei ist, wird sich nichts begeben haben. Denn es gibt für jenen Intellekt keine weitere Mission, die über das Menschenleben hinausführte. Sondern menschlich ist er, und nur sein Besitzer und Erzeuger nimmt ihn so pathetisch, als ob die Angeln der Welt sich in ihm drehten. Könnten wir uns aber mit der Mücke verständigen, so würden wir vernehmen, daß auch sie mit diesem Pathos durch die Luft schwimmt und in sich das fliegende Zentrum dieser Welt fühlt. Es ist nichts so verwerflich und gering in der Natur, was nicht, durch einen kleinen Anhauch jener Kraft des Erkennens, sofort wie ein Schlauch aufgeschwellt würde; und wie jeder Lastträger seinen Bewunderer haben will, so meint gar der Stolzeste Mensch, der Philosoph, von allen Seiten die Augen des Weltalls teleskopisch auf sein Handeln und Denken gerichtet zu sehen.

You're resorting to arguing about semantics. You know that I mean this in the colloquial sense. I will never become non-human.

You will also never become a catatonic schizophrenic, a developmentally disabled elementary schooler, or a child with leukemia

No, but those are just roundabout ways of saying I lack a level of cognition. I could suffer from a TBI and be just as, if not less functional. You're resorting to these examples because you have no argument. Face it, there is no incentive for animal rights. You are arguing out of fee fees.

Also, children with leukemia don't lack cognition. I fail to see why you even brought them up.

vegan virtue signalers are annoying af and I'm a primitivist by nature.

all meat diets are preferrable, if your body can adjust to it. that includes human meat too.

Attached: hqdefault (13).jpg (480x360, 9.24K)

I'm talking about capacity.
If you're talking about how "you must be this tall to ride" they are a valid comparison because many non-human animals are more able than they are.

You're arguing from your feelings. I don't need and shouldn't need to give you an incentive to do good things. You don't do good things because they pay well, you do them because they're good.
Good != lucrative

Oh the horror some people are being ethical over here

Those are edge-cases of humanity, and as such protecting them prevents slippery slope issues.

Distinguishing humans from nonhumans, however, is inherently unambiguous.

If we ever discover or create nonhuman sapience, that will require some kind of finer distinction, but until then there is no reason to bestow rights on disposable and interchangeable nonhuman things.

oh the horror, can't let a man eat in peace. Dahmer died because of his diet. press F.

It's pretty obvious you're just regurgitating talking points. I didn't say animals don't deserve rights because they lack cognition. I said they don't deserve rights because it is impossible for them to reciprocate human values. The only reason I think it's wrong to kill the mentally disabled, is because I do not want to be killed were I to become mentally disabled. You did not address this.

Furthermore, you have mot stated why you think animal rights are a good thing. Human rights are a good thing because it means I get rights from other humans. That's my justification for my stance. What is yours?

Vegancucks btfo.

I would say yes. Then again, I'm not a vegan.
Conversely, I like the usefulness of the "don't kill fellow humans" rule, but cannot find any MORAL objection that doesn't apply to simply not starving to death, whatsoever. It's a social convenience, not a (new) ethical imperative.

Why?

Holy fuck libtard status: OWNED

Yeah, I'm not, but if that's your excuse not to address the points I brought up then go right ahead.

Why don't you want to be killed? Do you know you wouldn't want to be killed if you were mentally disabled, or are you just projecting your own values onto those with developmental disabilities?

I have stated why. I really can't see a coherent set of values where I treat other humans with dignity and respect but where I don't treat nonhuman animals that way. I already explained to you that I reject an ethics of self-interest because it's not a coherent ethical framework and doesn't give me any sort of guidance on what I should do nor really explain why I have the values that I do. If you want to be a terrible person or find excuses for your sociopathy, fine. That's not me though, and you won't convince me with appeals to self-interest. Why would I want to be a selfish asshole?

My trick is that I used to be vegan before realizing that instead of all life being sacred, no life is. Rights are for dorks and more people should die.

The same reason I don't commit suicide.

No, it's about me. I don't want to be killed and as I can only choose now, that is what I pick.

No, you haven't. You've danced around the issue. Other than the retarded excuse of "hurr I see no idea why not", you have fucking nothing.

It does, you just don't like the reason why. That's your problem.

I respect human rights. You may not be "selfish", but you are certainly a hypocrite.