Thread 5046140

Vegan gains dodged a scheduled debate on moral realism
He called into a Livestream https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B_eZZGxlbA4
And had a short debate about moral realism in which he obviously did very poorly it starts at 01:47:00
At the end of the video they agree to a separate longer full one on one debate and they exchange discords and discover they were already friends.

In the comments of the video someone else commented
>Nice stream. Looking forward for the upcoming debate with Vegan Gains.

To which deliberation under ideal conditions/Matthew/Benjamin's bulldog replies
>After saying he was going to do the debate and agreeing on a date, Vegan Gains ghosted me, including on the day of the debate.

I confronted vegan gains in one of his Livestream chats ( I didn't super chat because I don't want to give him money because he's a scumbag) I spammed his regular chat with something like "vegan gains why did you dodge a debate with deliberation under ideal conditions/Matthew/Benjamin's bulldog. You ghosted him on day of debate "
I believe I was banned at least once. I engaged with other people in his chat and explained this to them

Eventually he replied to one of my comments. I should have screen recorded it but I guess it's in the Livestream archives
He said basically said he has no idea who he (deliberation under ideal conditions/Matthew/Benjamin's bulldog) is and no idea what I'm talking about. But that's obviously not true, he's lying and playing stupid

Debating morality is a waste of time. Morality is MEANT to be mere survival instincts.
Apply it, and see what happens

Vegans have a near-zero birthrate, are often deficient in "non essential" nutrients that support brain function and growth, and the only way they manage to be healthier than anyone else is by not combining fried and cured shit with a high sugar diet, and then putting themselves as a statistical group up against people who eat fried cured red meat, candy bars, white bread, and donuts daily and say "look, vegans are healthier than meat eaters" (-the same person who says veganism makes him smart when it's just richer people are simultaneously more likely to be smarter, and more likely to be mentally ill and terminally unwise aka vegan)

You know who does excellently? Ethical carnivores. AKA farmers and ranchers. They are extremely healthy. They don't overeat. They prefer fresh food, usually raised on their own land. They are highly likely to be kinder to animals and live in a way that results in less overall animal and human suffering than any vegan short of a weird pagan cultist. And because they tend to be christian, they have lots of children.

>>5046144
>Debating morality is a waste of time. Morality is MEANT to be mere survival instincts.
Apply it, and see what happens

I don't think that's all morality should be. If I am dying of organ failure and I can save my life by killing a baby and harvesting it's blood I think that's immoral. Even if I'm an extremely high IQ PhD scientist working on a cure for cancer

>You know who does excellently? Ethical carnivores. AKA farmers and ranchers. They are extremely healthy. They don't overeat. They prefer fresh food, usually raised on their own land. They are highly likely to be kinder to animals and live in a way that results in less overall animal and human suffering than any vegan short of a weird pagan cultist. And because they tend to be christian, they have lots of children.

How is a rancher living in a way that results in less overall animal and human suffering than any vegan other than a pagan cultist? You might say "crop deaths" but you'd have to show there's more suffering on an acre of wheat fields then an acre of wild forest and I don't think you can. I'm a vegan and I'm not a pagan cultist and I think I'm doing much better then the average rancher. I donate to effective altruist charities which help humans in developing countries like against malaria foundation and I donate to effective altruist charities which help reduce animal suffering like humane league and shrimp welfare project.
I do think vegans should have more children because the more human beings and human infrastructure the less wild animal suffering their is especially insects. https://benthams.substack.com/p/long-run-human-impact-on-wild-animal?utm_source=publication-search

>>5046140 (OP)
>>5046144
>>5046149
Oh debate me man. Debate me I'm ready for the debate. I'm master debating.

>>5046149
>If I am dying of organ failure and I can save my life by killing a baby and harvesting it's blood I think that's immoral.
If you think it's moral other people will think it's immoral for you. That's the glory of man.
>he thinks suffering he does not directly cause has moral relevance
lmao. Especially animal suffering... which is already theoretical.
>wild animal suffering
Absolutely morally irrelevant. Not in the human moral sphere. Zero concern without a religious framework.
>developing countries
It's contradictory, but leaving them alone is the most humane course long term. They are not as evolved as us. They will only evolve to our level by experiencing the same hellish selective pressures, which we can not replicate, only suppress so they remain retarded. "Racism is wrong" because it's an average and there are still good men among below average groups and they deserve fair consideration, not because there are no group level differences. It is in fact entirely fair if whites are incarcerated more often than asians, for instance, because long term the incarceration rate will drop naturally, until we have the technology to simply erase maladaptive phenotypes.

There is zero benefit to wild animals not suffering

It’s literally life’s only functional drive to improve. No suffering means no life. Just decay.

>>5046144
>Vegans have a near-zero birthrate
it's easy to knock someone up
veganism is a belief system and can easily swallow any 'group' including your own children. non-sequitur tier point

>>5046159
So you're saying its in everyones best interest to persecute vegans? I agree.

>>5046160
actually i'm saying that wombs will never win ideological wars or point towards the greater truth of a belief system - the amish are going to stay a retarded inbred hick cult 50 years from now

>>5046154
>>5046140 (OP)
He is a theist

>>5046154
>If you think it's moral other people will think it's immoral for you. That's the glory of man.

I don't know what you mean by this
>lmao. Especially animal suffering... which is already theoretical.

I must assume other humans can suffer. I also assume other mammals can suffer

>>5046161
wombs are winning ideological wars right now.

>>5046166
a guy raised in a normal conservative home planned and executed the murder of one of america's top conservative voices in cold-blood like yesterday. not saying tabula rasa here but persuasion or simply wanting to rebel against what you were raised with is something humans are known to go through

>>5046170
>>5046166
I don't care what's popular I want truth and logical consistency

>>5046170
>persuasion or simply wanting to rebel against what you were raised with is something humans are known to go through
If you think that's the reason why you are lost. You can be conservative and oppose individuals like Kirk, but realistically, this kid wanted infamy first and foremost.

>>5046422
>I want truth and logical consistency
You mean ethical naturalism?

You wont find that among vegans because it both refutes them and easily explains their behavior as dishonest - peacocky, even
>No, I am most compassionate and thoughtful monke! I deny myself even more pleasures as well! ADMIRE ME MORE!

>>5046554
>ethical naturalism
>Causing massive suffering for trivial benefit/taste pleasure is bad
>Therefore you should not purchase factory farmed meat

>>5046562
Suffering real or imagined doesn't have moral relevance by default.

Factory farming is bad because it's a hotbed of disease creation, a fragile centralized food supply, a source of contaminated and low quality meat, and necessitate dirty industrial abattoirs that force mans predatory nature beyond its limits and correlate with psychological issues that are prone to harming innocent bystanders.

A suffering based value system is not needed, nor is it feasible because a life with suffering for the right reasons can be objectively better to live than a life with no suffering.

>>5046562
>random words
>begs question
>agree with me you fucking white male

>>5046562
The virgin "stop buying it"
The chad "keep buying it, buy much of it, book a tour, and then ivan is when you plant the tactical nuke, i mean, hidden camera"

>>5046563
>what is utilitarianism

>>5046699
>what is utilitarianism
an inherently nonsensical system if applied outside of humanity by a non-christian

it was a christians thoughtwank not a feasible standalone system of ethics because he literally could not comprehend someone stupid enough to go against God (whom atheists call anthropomorphized common sense)

>>5046701
>says it's nonsense
>doesn't point out a contradiction

>>5046709
It's nonsense because it does not align with reality. Put utilitarianism into practice without a pre-existing and unquestionable christian moral base and the end result is a nightmarish dystopia.

Put ethical naturalism into practice and you just arise at a christian moral base with less local semitic culture mixed in if you are not a semite.

>>5046719
>it's nonsense because I don't like it
>black licorice is nonsense

>>5046721
It is nonsense because an ethical system must be applied to reality, and applying utilitarianism as a pure ethical system creates a garbage world to live in where men are murdered to spare herds of cattle.
>I-it was the option that resulted in the least suffering!
Utilitarianism assumes God.

>>5046726
>Utilitarianism assumes God

no

>>5046727
Yes. Maximizing happiness and well being for individuals is a piss poor system unless individuals is limited to humans of the nation only, and even then, what maximizes happiness may not maximize fitness and minimize fragility. Some negativity is required for a resilient life. People MUST suffer somewhat.

atheist utilitarians be like
>yes, i might be eating a 12 year old girl, but she didnt suffer and her parents consented and think she's also delicious. as long as the slaughter is humane you can eat anything. if you have a problem with this, you must admit we need state enforced veganism, speciesist scum. there is no difference between your goyi... an undefinable "human" and livestock. name that trait.

>>5046732
some utilitarians care about things other than suffering and wellbeing like relationships.
You have no idea what you're talking about

>>5046738
>True utilitarianism has never been tried
What utilitarianism seeks is achieved more elegantly and effectively with ethical naturalism and dystopian missteps in the name of consistency are thus eliminated, as ethical naturalism inevitably converges upon christian/western morality with some old local culture omitted.
>/an/ - animals and nature
>What do you mean nature itself is the best system?

"suffering" is overhated

>>5046753
some suffering is objectively good. even lifelong suffering. should we do away with hunger, pain, and the fear of death? should we free ourselves from the constant suffering of knowing we are mortal? pass the joint

>>5046757
>feeding starving children is bad

>>5046758
sometimes. which children and why are they starving?

over time the population may maximally benefit from being forced to figure out how to feed their own starving children or perish. if they are a distinct group that is distinctly stuck at a certain, lower developmental level and has a natural enmity with us due to actually having more ingroup bias than even we, then we should apply the prime directive instead.

>>5046758
Feeding starving africans that rape babies to cure AIDS when there are children starving at home because their parents got conned by debt traders is bad.

Every ethics discussion with Christians on 4chan ends up boiling down to
>we can't understand anything about humans or nature without the Trinity DLC
>you have 5 fingers on each hand, therefore Christianity
Pointless.

>>5046772
Yeah
It's pretty clear the "trait" that they named was "made in the image of God" but that's meaningless.
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/40952000/#q40957139

The case against Christianity is very strong.
The case against their type of Christianity is overwhelming
>>>/x/41084998
https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-im-not-a-christian?utm_source=publication-search

>>5046773
Human is the trait

And it is definable and valid

Veganism has no real basis. It is so reliant on things that do not exist that it is a masochistic and potentially dangerous religious cult.

Also, you are on the record saying, multiple times, that you would murder and even torture to death conscious human beings to protect animals. Ergo any anthropocentrist has reason to remove you from society. And anthropocentrists are consistently in the right. They can never NOT be right in the absence of an anti-human god power, because they prioritize the existence of their extended bloodline and it would take metaphysical bullshit to prove that is wrong. There is no value in consistent symbolic logic without material application. The order of the day is not to disprove solipsists or disprove vegans, but to ask why even listen to them in the first place when reality itself flies in their face and they cope by manipulating data harder than a race realist.

>>5046791
Vegans are buddhists that dont want to subscribe to the difficult and crazy beliefs because that would mean giving up 4chan, porn, gay sex, weed, etc.

>>5046791
all morality that deviates from natural ethics is principally formulated to make room for an evil such as homosexuality, bestiality, avarice, etc. Its top down.

"Natural law can not be right because i like cocks up my ass and uhhh freedom, liberty, consenting adults, you must let me be or enact absolute tyranny because uhhhh consistency"
"Hows your doubled chance of incontinence and prolapse coming along? Would you like to submit to a measurement of your resting anal pressure?"

>>5046791
>Also, you are on the record saying, multiple times, that you would murder and even torture to death conscious white people to protect blacks. Ergo any white nationalist has reason to remove you from society. And white nationalists are consistently in the right. They can never NOT be right in the absence of an anti-white god power, because they prioritize the existence of their extended bloodline and it would take metaphysical bullshit to prove that is wrong. There is no value in consistent symbolic logic without material application.

>>5046795
https://wollenblog.substack.com/p/catholic-sexual-morality-a-new-theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPen831EkYg

>>5046851
BASED!

>>5046853
>Thumbnail is a rabbi, a mop head village idiot, and an overgrown 12 year old
Yeah not listening to these fags. Physiognomy W.

Sticking stuff up your butt is bad and causes bad things to happen
Fucking animals is bad and causes bad things to happen
Fucking kids is bad and causes bad things to happen

Don't do it

pic related its me

>>5046140 (OP)
He’s still active? Nobody cares about that guy anymore

>>5046144
> Morality is MEANT
Well, we don’t really know. It’s become so many things. But I agree that it began as lessons for survival.

>>5046851
If you would torture white people to protect blacks anyone sane would put a bullet in you faster than you could run to africa ye
Are you saying that since you’re vegan you're going to fuck off and live with the cows? Try not to become burger lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s91z2a4obPI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ya4aRtFXsI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCyexb8rVAo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54FhgNxnXE0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGdFZn03oJk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZEu9B67MBI

>>5047194
Stop shilling your youtube channel moshe. No one is watching that shit.

The great philosophical question is not what's wrong with your views but why anyone should care

>>5047196
Because some people care about logical consistency
Here's an example
>a man exists
>man hates infants getting circumcised
>man wants people who circumcise infants to be punished
>man wants laws to be created and enforced punishing circumcisers of infants
>man says circumcising infants is immoral
>if someone believes circumcising infants is immoral, believes animal agriculture is moral and values logical and internal consistency then there's a contradiction
>if contradictions are acceptable and or if not being logically or internally consistent is acceptable then you can justify literally anything (including circumcising infants) and morals may as well not exist
>if someone instead believes circumcising infants is immoral, believes animal agriculture is also immoral and values logical and internal consistency then there's no contradiction
>This position is clearly better for being anti infant circumcision
>To maximize anti infant circumcision-ness this man decides to also be vegan

>>5046791
Yes, this is a valid and commonly used strategy in the Name The Trait (NTT) framework, particularly when an interlocutor names "species" (or specifically "being human") as the trait that justifies denying moral value to animals while granting it to humans. The vegan advocate can probe the definition of "human" or "species" to expose potential inconsistencies, arbitrariness, or reductio ad absurdum outcomes. This aligns with NTT's goal of forcing logical consistency in ethical views. Below, I'll break it down step-by-step based on how it's handled in NTT discussions.

### 1. **Why "Species" or "Being Human" Comes Up**
- In NTT (especially Version 5, which is structured as a modus ponens to avoid formal fallacies), the argument challenges non-vegans to name a trait that humans have and animals lack, such that if a human lacked it, it would be morally acceptable to treat them like we treat animals in agriculture (e.g., breeding, harming, or killing for food).
- "Species" or "being human" is a frequent response because it's intuitive and speciesist—essentially boiling down to "humans matter because they're humans." But NTT treats this as circular or arbitrary unless fleshed out, prompting the vegan to ask: *What does "being human" actually mean?* This shifts the burden to define the trait more precisely, opening doors for counterarguments.

>>5047206
### 2. **Counterarguments by Questioning Definitions**
- The vegan can dissect the proposed definition to show it either fails to consistently differentiate (leading to contradictions) or implies absurd moral conclusions. Common angles include:
- **Biological Definitions (e.g., "Homo sapiens")**: If "being human" is defined by membership in the species Homo sapiens (based on DNA, evolutionary lineage, or taxonomy), the vegan can argue this is arbitrary. Why does a specific genetic marker grant moral value? Reductios here might include:
- Hypotheticals like a "human" with animal-like DNA (e.g., due to genetic engineering or evolution) still deserving rights, or vice versa.
- "Species normalcy" critiques: If value is based on what's "normal" for the species (e.g., high intelligence in humans), then if most humans were made less intelligent (e.g., via environmental factors or a sci-fi scenario like factory farming on Mars), they'd lose moral value—implying it's okay to harm disabled or marginalized humans.
- "Species maximum": If value comes from at least one member of the species having a trait (e.g., advanced cognition), it leads to eugenic implications, like devaluing entire groups if they don't meet the "max" threshold.
- This exposes speciesism as no better than racism or other -isms, as it draws moral lines based on group membership rather than individual traits like sentience.
- **Religious or Supernatural Definitions (e.g., "Made in the Image of God")**: If "being human" means having a soul, divine favor, or being created in God's image (from religious texts like Genesis), the vegan can challenge this by:
- Asking for evidence or consistency: Why assume only humans have souls? What if animals do too, per some interpretations (e.g., certain theologies view animals as part of creation with inherent value)?

>>5047208
- Pointing out theological inconsistencies: If God's permission justifies animal exploitation, why not human exploitation in hypotheticals (e.g., if God "permitted" slavery or harm to certain humans in scripture)? This can lead to debates on divine command theory, but NTT is noted as weaker here because it risks derailing into unfalsifiable beliefs rather than logic.
- Reductios: If the trait is "having a soul," what about humans without one (e.g., in philosophical zombies or atheistic views)? Or if it's "God's image," defining it vaguely (e.g., rationality) loops back to non-species traits that some animals share partially.
- **Other Angles (e.g., "Not Human")**: Simply saying the trait is "not being human" is critiqued as tautological—it doesn't explain *why* species matters. This can justify unlimited harm to non-humans (e.g., torturing billions of animals is morally neutral), which most people intuitively reject when applied to aliens, AI, or hypothetical intelligent non-humans.

>>5047209
### 3. **Effectiveness and Limitations**
- **Strengths**: This approach strengthens the vegan's position by revealing hidden assumptions and forcing the interlocutor to either refine their trait (often leading to more contradictions) or accept veganism to resolve inconsistencies. It's especially effective against rational, non-theistic audiences, as it highlights how species-based ethics can justify atrocities if applied consistently (e.g., harming "non-human" outgroups like infants or the disabled in edge cases).
- **Weaknesses**: Against deeply religious or supernatural claims (e.g., "God's permission"), NTT can struggle, as these are hard to disprove without shifting to theology, potentially making the argument less persuasive. Some critics argue it begs the question by assuming traits must be non-speciesist, or that hypotheticals aren't binding. In rare cases, opponents might bite the bullet and accept harm to certain humans to avoid veganism, which could backfire ethically.

Overall, yes—this tactic is "true" in the sense that it's a core part of NTT's toolkit for debunking speciesism. It ties back to your original scenario: To maintain consistency against infant circumcision (non-consensual harm), extending that to animals via veganism avoids hypocrisy, and challenging "species" as a trait helps defend that extension. If the opponent clings to an undefined or arbitrary "human" trait, it often exposes their position as inconsistent or faith-based rather than logical.

>>5047198
Internally consistent nonsense is still nonsense

>>5047206
"NTT" as internally consistent as it is, still operates on the premise that all lifeforms have moral value until proven otherwise, and that suffering and sentience are supreme determiners of morality.

This is patently nonsensical. It is a degenerate shred of a religion. Go write your godless bible somewhere else.

Ethical naturalism, again, is the only thing that actually makes sense. Your logic must not just be consistent with itself, but be consistent with REALITY. There is no "is ought gap". Values are facts. There is a such thing as a wrong belief or an inferior culture.

>>5047216
And now some pseud will go "uhh why OUGHT nature be obeyed? Why is being alive and thriving good? what logically and ethically consistent reason do we have not to die? durrr"
But he will never experiment with his nonsense because it's performative, not practical. It's pseudointellectual peacocking. Trying to appear smart and trying to exude socially accepted virtues to an extreme in order to gain status that the individual lacks in actuality.

Only even more disordered because it's doing it on 4chan.

>>5047216
consistency itself is a false god. logical consistency in ethics appeases no supreme being and no karmic machine. applying standards inconsistently with a value system, so long as they are applied predictably, is perfectly fine. the ends do justify the means so long as the means are justifiable to the people.

to deny consistency's value is to deny man's ability to formulate a supreme guiding principle for morality.
which is also, completely fine, because man evolved irrationally and thus must live irrationally to reach his peak.

The most dangerous conclusion of purely abstracted morality, with no attention paid to the real world or man's true nature, has been prophesized many times and the prophecy has been fulfilled many times as well. From communism, to capitalism, to the natural conclusion of "veganism with broad ethical consequences" (rather than veganism as a harmless feel good weight loss diet)
>my conclusion directly contradicts the original idea I start from. Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism.
There is almost no value in being right according to the rules of a game you made up, ahem, "reasoned" (in a backwards fashion)

OP mistakenly believes his morals are more valid than others because they are based in "realism". Ironically despite only seeing value in reproduction and immediate circumstance. Simultaneously he claims morality only matters in a human frame, and also that there are inherently right and wrong things...
If I do not like the suffering of animals then that is my morality. You can only contribute one person's worth of meaning to the word because morality is designed by humans. I am a human who morally opposes careless and short-sighted exploitation, regardless of how you feel.
The natural trend of everything is to break apart and die, and as a human you are the only creature that can help control that flow and make things last longer and die easier.

>>5047647
anthropocentric morality still requires preventing unnecessary manmade animal cruelty because of its various knock on effects (nature can and should be be left alone)

its just superior to vegan bullshit and feelsies. yes morals based in reality are more valid and yes prioritizing your own species and your own people your own family etc is better than not.

>>5047647
"Morals" that are based on metaphysics are useless. In order to be intellectually honest you must be either a theist, a utilitarianist, a utter amoralist or a complete hypocrite. Internal consistenchy of a system does not mean validity of a system. Tolkien's work is internally consistent, still we do not use it as historiography.

>>5047657
Ethical naturalism is based on being correct and isn’t purely utilitarian.

>>5047657
My own moral view is based on trying to live as kindly as possible and encouraging others to do the same. I think that altruistic behaviour that seeks to minimize both animal and human suffering is fulfilling enough to easily make up for sacrificing convenience and dominion. The rate at which things both living and dead are processed in society is far too quick and wasteful, no matter how you feel about economics or animal rights. If I decide not to eat meat it is to represent and live by the idea that they are my friends, not food. I know the problem goes beyond just what's purchased

>>5047659
Sounds (and smells) faggy desu.

>>5047661
>and encouraging others to do the same
Yeah, sorry. Shove it up your ass. No one likes to be called a murderer by preachy unwashed hippies for enjoying a juicy succulent steak.

>>5047661
Livestock are food, not friends. The benefit of man > your vague feelings and bitching based "morality".

There is a such thing as an animal that is meant to be eaten. I have more problems with hunting than I do with ranching.

>>5047667
>Livestock are food, not friends
He doesn't have any friends anon.
That's the problem.
He is so starved for social contact that he thinks animals are his literal friends.
He doesn't know what friends are.

>>5047657
>"Morals" that are based on metaphysics are useless
I can smell the pseudointellectualism on you for pointlessly mentioning "metaphysics".
>In order to be intellectually honest you must be either a theist, a utilitarianist, a utter amoralist or a complete hypocrite
Theism is just telling people to do something just because... That's the opposite of "intellectual honesty".
Utilitarianism is a form of proto-communism. So also bad.
>a utter amoralist
A Christian's unbaptized baby will go to hell if it dies. A Christian mother who kills their baby will go to heaven if they repent.
A utilitarianist would argue that the mother and father should kill their baby if it results in a net increase in happiness.
You fundamentally don't know what "moral" is because you're an autistic psychopath.
>Tolkien's work is internally consistent
No it's not anon. It's a fucking fantasy story with magic. Just like your bible.
>still we do not use it as historiography
You shouldn't use it, or the bible for deciding what is moral either.

>>5047727
This is my first post here in over a year because I have better uses of my time than arguing on 4chan.
For what it is worth I'm a different lad than whoever else you debate.
But do try and argue without using ideas of inherent superiority or calling me things you cannot know, like lonely or unclean.
Why should I go with your way, which I believe is selfish and cynical, rather than my way, which I can observe having an impact, even if small, which I prefer.
Again I am involved in more than just eating greens
>>5047667
Most animals can be eaten, and due to breeding, some are easier to eat than others. We didn't make them, we coveted and warped them.
Try spending a day around farm animals, you might see them as more than food, by the end. Unless you think humans are meant to be eaten as well? The flesh is edible if you use it right.
If I'm a tree hugger, then what is the alternative? Tree-not-carer?
If I ever catch you in my woods I'll tear you apart and eat you alive with my large hands and strong crushing jaws

just to clarify
>>5047647
>>5047745
are me
thanks for engaging, I am not gonna be ruder to you than I am being now because I do wanna know what other perspectives use to justify themselves, and what they think of my own justifications

>>5047745
>This is my first post here in over a year because I have better uses of my time
Complete and utter bullshit.
You are the unemployed childless vegan nutjob OP.
You're a pathological liar with autism and no friends.
You ARE selfish and exceedingly stupid.
You're a deer feeding its offspring to a starving wolf because you feel sorry for the wolf.
You're a wolf starving to death because it refuses to hunt.
>Try spending a day around farm animals, you might see them as more than food, by the end.
Anon is so mentally ill that he thinks animals are his literal friends and lovers. Because he has no actual friends or a partner. Sad.
>If I ever catch you in my woods I'll tear you apart and eat you alive with my large hands and strong crushing jaws
Literal zoophilic furry roleplaying insanity.
>>5047746
No shit captain obvious. This whole dumb thread is you. You're so autistic that you think people don't already know that? You've never successfully lied about anything in your life because you're so dumb.

>>5047745
>vegan concludes their bullshit spiel with a death threat
classic. they really are performative virtue signaling narcissists.

i have spent lots of time with chickens and cows. they are just food. nothing else. people who eat dogs on the other hand have something wrong with them and even the chinese agree.

>>5047755
Desperate grasping strawman at every corner of your argument. You are so deluded and obsessed with an imaginary manifestation of your enemies that you think I am the same schizoid you've obviously been arguing with for years.

Life is not a zero sum game unless you force it to be. I don't need to feed the wolf my offspring, but I'm not throwing anyone else's and I'm not damning the wolf for its nature.
I have sex every day :) (with humans btw (female))

>>5047764
I do my job as a large male primate to protect my tribe and raise my young kindly.
I am sorry you get so upset when a vegan throws a bit of violent banter in. I'll give you a warning first, before I kill you, if that's any nicer?

>>5047773
>my young
>vegans are only 65% straight
>tries to brag about straight sex he doesnt have like a coping homo
>most have no children
>me big strong man!
>vegans are overwhelmingly anti-gun
lol

>>5047775
>assumes I'm American
lost ya, you can't conceive the natural order because you have not been where you should be for over 500 years
I'm gonna drag you up and down my yard because you seem to be so upset at the idea a vegan might wanna hurt you? There are plenty of humans, why shouldn't I kill a few, if I enjoy it?
What does your moral view have to say on this?

>>5047781
Behold, the temple of intellectual vegan morality crumbles and reveals its foundation.

A bitter little narcissist that wants to hurt others and proclaim himself their better. To no one's surprise, he has more violent power fantasies than deep set empathy.

Veganism has always been chest thumping. Nothing more. Nothing less. 1:1 with "carnivore diet" fags.

>>5047743
>pointlessly mentioning "metaphysics".
Then what is your "morality" based on if not arbitrary abstracts?

>Theism is just telling people to do something just because.
Which is in no way different than your line of thinking.

>Utilitarianism is a form of proto-communism.
It's quite the contrary to communism (You.) because the whole goal of utilitarianism is for things to work.

>A Christian's unbaptized baby will go to hell if it dies.
Based. Fuck them children.
>A Christian mother who kills their baby will go to heaven if they repent.
Stupid rule IMO since women obviously have no souls regardless of one's specific religious eliefs.

>A utilitarianist would argue that the mother and father should kill their baby if it results in a net increase in happiness.
Sure, if total increase in happiness is what you aim for. Problem with your line of reasoning is that it rarely does unless you are turkic or something.

> because you're an autistic psychopath.
I do have a visceral reaction to violations of morality like homosexuality or tattoos, I just do not think that has any inherent value past its selective advantages for social hygiene.

>You fundamentally don't know what "moral" is
Morality is a system of darwinically selected social instincts formed specifically by adaptive filtration. Your vegaynism and blatant homosexuality are almost by definition the polar opposites of that since we would had died out in the Palaeolithic if we practiced them at any significant scale.

>>5047784
Can't wait for cultivated meat just to deprive them faggots of their imaginary high horse.

>>5047841
We have vat meat. Its called beef. With every generation the brain is reduced. Soon they will be sponge tier animals.

>>5047842
Maybe we should GMO them with vegan sequences to make them even stupider.

>>5047837
>Then what is your "morality" based on if not arbitrary abstracts?
Biological reality...
>Which is in no way different than your line of thinking.
Well no. You think donkey's can talk in ancient Hebrew because it says so in the bible.

But I'm smart enough to realize that donkeys don't talk and never have talked. Nobody has actually observed them speaking a human language and Donkeys don't have the vocal cords or neuroanatomy required in any case.

>It's quite the contrary to communism (You.) because the whole goal of utilitarianism is for things to work.
You don't even know what Utilitarianism is then.
"utilitarian ideas encourage actions that lead to the greatest good for the greatest number."
Which is exactly how communism justifies itself.
It's Utopian fantasy levels of thinking. Trying to establish a "garden of Eden" on Earth.
>Based. Fuck them children.
?
>Stupid rule IMO since women obviously have no souls regardless of one's specific religious eliefs.
?
>I do have a visceral reaction to violations of morality like homosexuality or tattoos
At this rate, I highly doubt that.
>Morality is a system of darwinically selected social instincts
Ok, so why did you say this not that long ago?
>>5047657
>In order to be intellectually honest you must be either a theist, a utilitarianist

?
Seems to me like you're suffering from some kind of multiple personality or Dissociative Identity disorder unfortunately.

>>5047857
>Seems to me like you're suffering from some kind of multiple personality or Dissociative Identity disorder unfortunately.
No. You simply are stupid hippy nigger. Just pointing out that every other stance you oppose has more intellectual consistency than yours. Religious thinking openly admits its logic and/or contradictions are based on supernatural authority (just like your "MEAT BAD", you just rename your supernatural superstitions into "metaphysics" and pretend it's not an arbitrary outwordly fiction).


>Which is exactly how communism justifies itself.
The problem with your comparison is that communism has VERY SPECIFIC metaphysical goals, namely equality and social justice, both being unnatural hegelian abstracts in their context. Utilitarianism emphasizes on methodology, the end goals are malleable.

>At this rate, I highly doubt that.
Have not a single doubt. If I ever saw your cock-stretched orifices anywhere near me I'd throw up my intestines out.

>You think donkey's can talk
>said the faggot that not only equates non-Homo animals to humans but makes it the core of his lifestyle and identity

I used to be a vegetarian for a while because i felt bad for eating animals, thank God i came to my senses and realized I'm also an animal that needs to eat before succumbing to veganism and eventually its logical consequence (that is, starving to death)