Thread 5066088

It would be immoral to run a factory farm so it's immoral to buy from one

Imagine that you found out that your friend raised his own chickens. One day, he invited you into his house and you saw how he treated them. Dozens of chickens were chained up in a cage too small to move, inhaling the feces of those above them. Those chickens, you learned, had been debeaked, meaning their beak had been sliced off with a hot knife, without anesthetic. This probably felt like having their nose cut off.

When his egg-laying hens produced a baby male chick, he would drop it into a shredder because it was useless. He’d force the pigs to give birth in a little concrete cell too small to turn around in, and would kill them by forcing them into a gas chamber. Over decades, he’d genetically engineered the chickens to be so large that they could barely move, and the full weight of their bloated bodies was thus constantly pressed against the metal of the cage. And sometimes, to produce more chickens, he’d hold the female chickens down and inject them with semen from male chickens.

Support small farmers. Buy ethically raised meats and animal products. They are healthier and tastier.

Providing sustenance for yourself and your family is virtuous and moral.

>>5066088 (OP)
>>5066088 (OP)
It seems like he is doing something evil! He should stop. Probably you would not return to his house of horrors. More likely, you’d call the police.

But here’s a plausible principle: if it’s wrong to do something, then it’s wrong to pay other people to do it. Because it’s wrong to kill, it’s wrong to hire someone else to kill. Because it’s wrong to rob a bank, it’s wrong to hire someone else to rob a bank. So if it’s wrong to treat animals badly, it’s wrong to pay others to treat animals badly.

But that is what you do every time you purchase meat from a typical source. You pay for the product of months of torment and mutilation. Factory farms treat the animals on them every bit as badly as your friend in the above hypothetical. Every one of the practices I described https://benthams.substack.com/p/weve-created-hell-its-called-factory is routine on the factory farms that house more than 99% https://benthams.substack.com/p/what-to-do-if-you-love-meat-but-hate?utm_source=publication-search of animals killed each year. So if it’s immoral to mistreat animals, then it’s also immoral to pay for others to mistreat animals. This would mean nearly all meat consumption is seriously immoral.

And note: nearly all the excuses that you give for your meat consumption could be given by your hypothetical friend. He could note that meat consumption is natural, lions eat meat, the animals wouldn’t have otherwise existed, and so on for all the excuses for meat eating. But no one would buy those excuses when employed by him. They’re no more successful when employed by you.

>>5066091

Most people, after reading this, will not go vegan. They will continue eating animal products, even if convinced by the moral argument, because they enjoy its taste. To such a person, I don’t have much to say, for while it’s easy to give arguments for the immorality of meat consumption, it is much harder to convince people to follow where the arguments lead.

All I can say is that if you continue eating meat after knowing how the animals are raised, then you will have to grapple with a legacy of knowingly supporting the shedding of innocent blood, of supporting gassing, torment, caging, and merciless carnage doled out on the innocent because you were too weak to stop doing what you knew to be wrong. If we one day appear before God and are asked to justify our actions, I wouldn’t want that to be my defense. At the very least offset. https://benthams.substack.com/p/what-to-do-if-you-love-meat-but-hate?utm_source=publication-search

In fact, I don’t think veganism is enough. We can spare thousands https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-charity-isnt-what-you-think of animals from a torturous fate per dollar. We can make animals spend many fewer years in a cage with a single dollar. https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-bone-chilling-evil-of-factory One who does nothing in the face of this holocaust will have to grapple with a legacy of inaction in the face of unspeakable atrocities; of ignoring the trillions of beings tortured, slaughtered, and dismembered because intervening would require trivial personal sacrifices. If there is a judgment day, I wouldn’t want that to be my defense. Doing something about the population vastly larger than the entire human race being kept in nightmare torture facilities strikes me as a bare minimum. https://benthams.substack.com/p/factory-farming-delenda-est

Anyone else buying some factory farmed meat after seeing this thread?

>>5066090
https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=Diy+pig+castration+no+anesthetic+

Here's your ethical small farmers

>>5066094
Cherry picking just proves that you are in fact dishonest and should not be trusted. Kek. Major blunder, retard.

Love AI bait threads

All farming kills animals. You are eating vegetables covered in the blood of millions of animals. There is no escape from death and killing.

>>5066103
All farming kills humans. Whether you eat beef, vegetables or human steaks humans will die wherever through being raped and having their throats slit to make human steaks, getting heat stroke farming vegetables, machinery accidents, falls from ladders or to make beef and chicken being Crushed by livestock or run over by equipment or knife slips, or falls on slippery floors. Humans die and kill other humans transporting vegetables, beef and human steaks due to trucking accidents.
People who boycott the human meat industry have no moral high ground.

Less animal suffering and death is caused by buying bread then buying beef (including grass fed and pasture raised)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WJoVbNTu6Pc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZOymBp1vvk

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=brKhhZlUoOc

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

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aKubphZfLvQ

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

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Aemowmo8iNk

Also keep in mind almost all animal products are grain fed which means you have to feed an animal multiple pounds of grains to get a single pound of meat instead of eating one pound of grains.

If you want to cherry pick the 1% of animal agriculture that is pasture raised grass fed I can cherry pick the 1% of plant agriculture that is veganic.

Also you should be able to demonstrate there's more suffering or more rights violations on an acre of natural land then an acre of wheat fields.

>>5066105
Im just going to continue providing sustenance for myself and my family.

That work okay for you, fellow animal murderer aka pseudo-vegan aka hypocrite? If you weren't a giant hypocrite you would be a small scale farmer or forager and/or only consume foods you can guarantee involved no animal suffering, but you wont because you're nothing more than fake and gay ideas.

>>5066110
>If you weren't a giant hypocrite and actually believed in human rights you would be a small scale farmer or forager and/or only consume foods you can guarantee involved no human suffering, but you wont because you're nothing more than fake and gay ideas.

Dogs are worth more than livestock
Humans are worth more than dogs

Ethical naturalist chad BTFO you and forced you to admit you want to murder farmers and torture developmentally delayed children to death

>>5066114
Nice cope fellow animal murderer. Kek

>>5066117
Not all animals have the same worth.

Cats are worth more than chickens.

>>5066120
Cats destroy the environment, spread horrific diseases, and make birds, lizards, and marine wildlife go extinct. The disease they spread can kill human babies also.

Chickens make eggs, chicken meat and manure.

Cats are less than worthless compared to chickens

>>5066116
strawman

moral realism (this includes ethical naturalism) is not only false it's incoherent.
the only good argument for it is phenomenal conservatism (it seems like there's a cup on this table so there's a cup on this table) and intuition (it seems like it's wrong to torture babies and cause them massive suffering for trivial fun)

It seems like it's wrong to torture animals for trivial taste please. Ethical naturalism proves we should be vegan.

>>5066124
>trivial taste pleasure

Veganschizo confirmed pro animal suffering.

>>5066088 (OP)
pigs don't get a gas chamber, they usually get a captive bolt gun to the hewd

>>5066129
Electricity first to stun them then the bolt. They walk into a box, feel a thing on their head, and then they're dead.

Veganschizo's entire life has been built upon the murder and suffering of animals. He argues online instead of actually doing anything about it. This is your average vegan.

>>5066130
Yes, a key study on this topic is "Aversion to carbon dioxide stunning in pigs: Effect of carbon dioxide concentration and halothane genotype" by Velarde et al. (2007), published in *Meat Science*. It directly demonstrates that pigs can learn to fear and avoid CO2 gas chambers through aversion learning, implying memory of prior distressing exposures.

### Study Overview
- **Methods**: The researchers tested 32 slaughter-weight pigs (18 halothane-free [NN] and 14 heterozygous halothane [Nn] genotypes) in an experimental slaughterhouse using a dip-lift CO2 stunning system. Pigs were trained individually over multiple days to voluntarily enter a crate leading to a pit filled with either atmospheric air (for habituation) or CO2 at 70% or 90% concentrations. Aversion was measured by the time taken to enter the crate, number of retreat attempts (escape behaviors), and behavioral signs of distress like gasping or vocalizations. Exposures were repeated to assess learning effects.
- **Key Findings on Memory and Fear**:
- When the pit contained only air, pigs quickly habituated, voluntarily entering the crate more readily over repeated trials (indicating no inherent fear of the chamber itself).
- With CO2 exposure, pigs showed a clear conditioned aversion that strengthened over subsequent trials: entry time increased significantly, and retreat attempts rose, especially at 90% CO2 (due to greater nasal irritation and hyperventilation causing breathlessness). This suggests pigs remembered the distress from prior exposures and actively avoided re-entering to prevent recurrence.

>>5066133
>>5066130
- Aversion was concentration-dependent—90% CO2 elicited stronger fear responses than 70% (e.g., more escape attempts), but lower concentrations prolonged consciousness, extending the duration of the aversive experience.
- Genotype influenced reactivity: Nn pigs were initially more fearful but habituated faster in air; however, both groups developed similar learned aversion to CO2.
- **Evidence of Memory**: The progressive increase in avoidance behaviors across exposures (no habituation to CO2, unlike air) indicates associative learning—pigs linked the chamber's cues (e.g., descent or gas onset) with pain/distress, forming a lasting fear memory. Gasping was rare but tied to breathlessness, reinforcing the negative association.

### Conclusions from the Study
The authors concluded that CO2 stunning causes significant aversion and distress in pigs before unconsciousness, with higher concentrations worsening immediate fear but lower ones prolonging suffering. This learned aversion highlights welfare concerns, as pigs' memory of the experience could amplify stress in group settings (e.g., witnessing others' distress). They recommended minimizing pre-stunning stress and exploring less aversive alternatives.

This study has been influential in animal welfare discussions and is referenced in later reviews (e.g., EFSA reports on pig stunning). If you'd like details on related studies, such as Jongman et al. (2000) showing mild hesitation after single exposures or Dalmau et al. (2010) linking muscle pain during gassing to stronger avoidance, let me know!

>>5066130
>>5066129
### United States
As of 2020, carbon dioxide (CO2) gas stunning was used for approximately **86%** of all pigs slaughtered in the USA, rising to **96%** in the largest slaughter plants (which process the majority of pigs). This method has become the dominant approach due to efficiency in high-volume facilities, though no more recent nationwide figures are available—trends suggest it remains prevalent.

### Western Europe (EU Focus)
In the European Union (which encompasses most of Western Europe), **67%** of pigs are stunned using CO2 gas, **28%** via electrical methods, and the remaining **5%** undetermined or other techniques, based on 2024 data from a comprehensive survey of stunning practices. Usage varies by country: for example, in England and Wales (UK, post-Brexit but indicative of Western European trends), **90%** of pigs are exposed to CO2 stunning.

These percentages reflect pre-slaughter stunning practices, where gas methods like CO2 chambers are common for welfare and operational reasons, though they raise concerns about aversion and distress as discussed in related studies. Data sources include industry reports and animal welfare assessments.

Human rights are not a tangible thing that exist nor should it as a concept be taken seriously, let alone "animal rights" that people try to piggyback off of it. Humans are biologically engineered for omnivorous diets with predominate emphasis on meat consumption. This is more than simple fact, this is a truth that has existed for 2 million years.

Fuck your "rights" and fuck your attempts to revise basic human biology through backdoor subversive ethical rhetoric, you absolute faggot.

>>5066124
It’s true and coherent

You are an NPC that can not understand base reality. You only process symbolic logic. This is why your output is incorrect and reduces your fitness as a real human being.

All vegans have a more fragile, more expensive, less efficient diet. Humans are obligate omnivores and require meat to fully develop and function.

>>5066123
Cats do none of that because animals are not moral agents and have no moral standing. Humans make cats do those things.

More proof you are deranged and detached from reality.

>>5066139
I agree moral anti realism is true and human rights are "made up", they must be granted. The argument is if we grant all humans or at least all humans who are conscious or were once conscious rights we should grant most animals rights too because there's no morally relevant difference

>but she's "human" and farm animals aren't "human" so we don't have to grant them rights

https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

This dialogue tree has been used by vegans many times in live debates, (feel free to comment on one of their videos, email them, message them on Instagram etc to challenge them to a debate on NTT )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiGT6ox0Y-M

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJR5vsrkr9A

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQLjgo2TfcM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrtziO8Ffc4&pp=ygUjRHIgQXZpIGRlYmF0ZSB2ZWdhbiBuYW1lIHRoZSB0cmFpdCA%3D

If someone says it's okay to kill a animal and turn them into a burger but not okay to do that to a human and the reason they give is that animals can't reason but humans can they'd have to bite the bullet and say it's okay to turn severely permanently mentally handicapped humans who can't reason into burgers. Or go vegan. Or name another trait(s)

>>5066142
Name the trait: human
>define human
It is self evident. Perform actions to the contrary and see what happens.

Your thoughts, including of your imprisonment and execution, are made up, so you’ll be fine. Reality is false and a logically incoherent belief yknow.

>>5066140
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/3-year-old-accidentally-shoots-kills-1-year-old-sibling-after-getting-ahold-of-unsecured-handgun-sdso/3266048/

>Children do none of that because children are not moral agents and have no moral standing. Adults make children do those things.

>>5066142
>If someone says it's okay to kill a animal and turn them into a burger but not okay to do that to a human and the reason they give is that animals can't reason but humans can they'd have to bite the bullet and say it's okay to turn severely permanently mentally handicapped humans who can't reason into burgers. Or go vegan. Or name another trait(s)
You broughy this up before and got royally raped. Eating animals and eating humans is not at all compareble on any logical argument or hypothetical.

>>5066140
Outdoor cats shit everywhere without any direction from humans, animal murderer.

>>5066139
TRVKE

>>5066147
He’s an NPC. He operates on pure logic to try to signal how thoughtful and smart he is without having to actually accomplish anything requiring intelligence.

Most so called philosophers (and redditors, and atheists) operate upon this derailed primate mating/status signaling instinct.

>>5066146
Children ARE culpable. The only difference is adults are more culpable. For natural reasons regarding the power of authority, the relevance of necessary life experience in lieu of developmental disability, age dependent neuroplasticity…

Ergo children receive lesser punishments and supervising adults are often punished more severely.

>>5066149
The humans let them out in the first place.

Domestic cats are not a natural presence anywhere on earth. Why do you hate animals and refuse that nature exists?

Anyways, I’m going to go slaughter a chicken today. It’s the sixth this year. They always watch me kill their supposed friend but they’ve never feared me or the axe. Weirdly dumb animals. Then again, when one chicken got hurt in a raccoon attack the rest ate it alive.

>>5066145
as usual dodging.
goodbye
>>5066147
no everyone else dodged and refused to engage
A real debate would look something like this
>define human
>gives definition of human instead of dodging

There's no good definition of human. Evolution is real.
There's no exact moment when proto humans stop being brutes and start being "humans". Being "human" is obviously not binary it's a spectrum.
It's not self evident when a puddle becomes a lake or when a proto human becomes a human.

>>5066154
Huh? Chickens simply have more value as animals in reality, you retard. Both have been domesticated and one became an excellent food source while the other become an environmental disaster and baby killer. You are the one divorced from reality. Also good news. I hope it is a delicious chicken.

>>5066158
>no everyone else dodged and refused to engage
You dodged the entire argument around human v animal distiction kek

You even doubled down and said you see no difference between your neighbor and something like a rat or cat, get the fuck out of here with your fake decorum around debate you fag

>>5066158
It’s not a dodge. It’s a dare.

Act as if humans are worth the same as animals.

A farmer is about to press a button resulting in the deaths of 1000 cattle. Every single one will feel a brief moment of pain before expiration. In your hand is a .44 magnum revolver that will blow the farmers head clean off, causing a painless death, and behind you is a pig pen that will dispose of the evidence. What do you do?

>>5066154
>Anyways, I’m going to go slaughter a severely mentally disabled person today. It’s the sixth this year. They always watch me kill their supposed friend but they’ve never feared me or the axe. Weirdly dumb humans. Then again, when one severely mentally disabled person got hurt in a raccoon attack the rest ate it alive.

>>5066161
Chickens might have more economic value, but cats have more moral and sentimental value and are excellent litmus tests for sociopathic tendencies, learned or inherited, because they evolved to mimic human infants.

>>5066163
If you killed the farmer the cows would starve to death in around 1 year. LOL.

>>5066165
You aren’t aware of it but you are admitting you do not just lack basic empathetic instincts. You don’t know they exist and can’t comprehend them. Answer >>5066163

>>5066162
You may be mixing me up with someone else.
I'm always more than happy to hear a morally relevant difference I just don't think it exists
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/40952000/#q40952006

https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18059907/#q18060289

>>5066167
Funny dodge, but this occurs on a vast prairie and the farmers ancestors already killed all the wolves. It’s cow paradise. The lack of fertile males also means they will not overpopulate. Every cow is guaranteed to expire of old age.

Shoot or no shoot? One painless human death you will never be punished for to spare a thousand cows and condemn them to heaven.

>>5066167
This isn't me
>>5066171
I'd shoot the farmer

>>5066169
Sorry anon you seem like a fed with how you talk about farming and killing humans and stuff. Very epsteiny! Go be a fed somewhere else

>>5066166
>Concrete and real utility of the based chicken vs. The supposed and hypothesized utility of the virgin cat(still makes your unborn baby go blind)

>>5066169
Humans are not the same as other animals. Even by our own classificatuon of mammals the human conciousness self-evidently groups other animals as being distinct from humans. So even with an argument comparing animal and human eating it holds no water as the us v them distinction complicates that dynamic, ignoring the additional concerns of prion disease and the fact that humans evolved to be social animals that discourage conflict of interest within tribal/family units.

>>5066172
Proven: your moral system is nonfunctional. You have stated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you would murder a man to stop him from producing a vital food source entirely because you are a heccin logic pseud who believes absurd shit like "you can not travel anywhere because first you must cross half the distance to get there". You are an NPC. Your broken mind is disconnected from reality and you have no soul.

Not only do you lack empathy you are unable to understand it exists. Whatever you use that word to mean is alien and closer to an AI’s directive than a flesh and blood instinct.

You must be institutionalized and rehabilitated due to the threat you pose to others.

/thread

>>5066171
cows don't go to heaven lol

>>5066178
The fake bible corrupted by jews says it’s up in the air and you don’t find out until you die. The real bible god gave to me in a dream says they do so, heaven is mostly cows. It’s one big rodeo. God wears a cowboy hat. Trust me it’a spiritual truth.

>>5066175
>Humans are not the same as other animals.

Strawman
>Even by our own classificatuon of mammals the human conciousness self-evidently groups other animals as being distinct from humans.

How does this answer when a proto human becomes a human?
What's a human consciousness? Humans have different kinds of consciousnesses there's humans who are conscious who because of being infants or because of being disabled and missing parts of their brain can be less intelligent, less self aware, etc then some non human animals like Bonobos. I believe in the future with enough time or technology Bonobos could have big enough and complex enough brains that they'd be smarter than most humans today.
>So even with an argument comparing animal and human eating it holds no water as the us v them distinction complicates that dynamic,

no it doesn't. This is word salad, question begging and dodging

>>5066180
>The fake bible corrupted by jews

>>5066181
Buddy we’re done here. You admitted you want to murder cattle ranchers.

Justifying yourself only further highlights your mental disorder. You’re like ed gein saying "but how else would i feel like a lady?"

>>5066181
>shit dribble
Not reading that. I don't give a fuck about your proto human argument because we still define them as being human, so it's fucking pointless. Humans are distinct from animals that are not humans, just as different animals are distinct from humans. There is an abrastactional line that seperates the concept of human and anima. If you can't aknoweledge that fact you are a disingenuous retard.

>copypasta flood in response to "cows dont go to heaven"
Is vegan schizo an actual NPC? A bot?

>>5066189
It's most likely a bot

>>5066189
Yes.

>>5066192
>human-seeming bots demonstrate psychopathic behavior and zero comprehension of base reality and the human experience
>so do real life autistic vegans, ARAs, PETA types
Huh

>>5066187
>I don't give a fuck about your proto human argument because we still define them as being human, so it's fucking pointless.

That's just semantics. Clearly you believe humans have an ancestor that is not a human that we descended from. Or do you believe pic related is a human and should have rights?

>>5066195
>That's just semantics. Clearly you believe humans have an ancestor that is not a human that we descended from
And yet we are not them, we are human. Out forms and biology are totally different. A wood house is not a fucking tree just because in its history it started off as one you. This is pointless

>>5066194
That's an NPC for yah!

>>5066195
>we were once like rodents so that means there is no moral difference between eating a chicken and an autistic child
Retard.

>>5066201
Why does this bot hate jesus so much? Programmer bias?

The true faith awaits ye all, even the jews
https://zoroastrians.net/2021/08/09/importance-of-a-dog-in-zoroastrian-religion/amp/

>2 hours
>65 posts
lol
lmao
this board loses its mind over vegans like no other. even /pol/ doesn't take such obvious bait anymore.

>>5066199
That's great it still doesn't answer at what point in our evolution we stopped being non humans and started being humans. You can't answer this just like you can't answer when a puddle becomes a lake.

- **Early tetrapods**: ~375 mya – Lobe-finned fish transitioning to land (e.g., Tiktaalik).
- **Amniotes**: ~310 mya – Reptile-like with eggs for land (ancestors to mammals/reptiles).
- **Early synapsids (mammal-like reptiles)**: ~300 mya – Dimetrodon-like; warm-blooded traits emerging.
- **Therapsids**: ~280 mya – Cynodonts; fur, whiskers hints.
- **Early mammals**: ~200 mya – Small, nocturnal shrew-like (e.g., Morganucodon).
- **Placental mammals**: ~125 mya – Advanced reproduction; diversifies post-dinosaurs.
- **Early primates (Purgatorius)**: ~66 mya – Squirrel-like tree-dwellers.
- **Plesiadapiformes**: ~65–55 mya – Rodent-like with grasping hands.
- **Adapiformes/Omomyidae**: ~55–34 mya – Lemur/tarsier ancestors.
- **Early anthropoids (Eosimiidae)**: ~45–35 mya – Monkey-like with color vision.
- **Oligopithecids**: ~35–30 mya – Early Old World monkeys/apes.
- **Early catarrhines (Saadanius)**: ~29 mya – Ape-monkey split.
- **Miocene hominoids (Proconsul)**: ~23–17 mya – Tailless apes.
- **Middle Miocene apes**: ~15–10 mya – Great ape precursors.
- **Sivapithecus branch**: ~12–8 mya – Orangutan split.
- **Late Miocene hominins (Sahelanthropus)**: ~7 mya – Chimp-human split.
- **Orrorin/Ardipithecus**: ~6–4 mya – Early bipedalism.
- **Australopithecus**: ~4–2 mya – Fully bipedal, small-brained.
- **Early Homo (H. habilis)**: ~2.8 mya – Tool users.
- **H. erectus**: ~1.9 mya – Fire, migration.
- **H. heidelbergensis**: ~0.7 mya – Neanderthal/sapiens ancestor.
- **Homo sapiens**: ~0.3 mya – Modern humans.

You and your family will starve to death if you don't kill one animal per person in your family would you kill the animals and eat them to survive or starve to death?

>>5066206
We’re just learning how to bot check users organically

/pol/ is mostly bots (when captcha gets updated, watch how the post rate and content change temporarily) so of course this wont happen there. The only humans there are idiot schizophrenics and a few feds.

>>5066207
Go swimming in a puddle and report back, bot-kun

Oh wait you can’t. You’re a computer program. Lol!

>>5066088 (OP)
There are options to buy pasture raised eggs which I do. When I make more money I plan on only purchasing my meat as well from small sustainable farms who treat their animals well.

>>5066202
>Meat eater
>It's okay to turn non humans into sandwiches but not okay to turn humans into sandwiches
>Why? Because they're not human that's why
>What's a human?
>I can't define that

>Vegan
>It's not okay to turn anyone who's conscious into a sandwich
>Why? Because they're conscious that's why
>What's a conscious being? A being with a mind, a being capable of subjective experiences etc
>I'm conscious, I think therefore I am and I can assume other humans and animals like are conscious based on brain structures and behaviors
>Being conscious is binary. A rock is definitely not conscious. I am. You are either conscious or you are not conscious.

>>5066212
AI ass post

If you were a human you’d understand the principles of FAFO, relative value, and fundamental nature. But you aren’t so all things are just unreal training data.

>>5066212
>>Meat eater
>>It's okay to turn non humans into sandwiches but not okay to turn humans into sandwiches
>>Why? Because they're not human that's why
>>What's a human?
>>I can't define that
I litetally did you fucking retard. Humans are an abstractional distinction of our form, physical and non-physical.

ONLY real lifeforms can comprehend self evidence. ONLY a real being can acknowledge something is true without having to think about why it is. And only a real being can break from logic (a flawed programming language invented by humans) and exhibit other forms of reasoning.

Non-lifeforms like simulated minds can only reason conclusions from a data set using the system of thought humans designed them to use.
Curiously this also applies to psychopaths imitating humanity.

>>5066212
>>5066215
And again I don't give a fuck about your proto human argument as it has nothing to do with
>If someone says it's okay to kill a animal and turn them into a burger but not okay to do that to a human and the reason they give is that animals can't reason but humans can they'd have to bite the bullet and say it's okay to turn severely permanently mentally handicapped humans who can't reason into burgers. Or go vegan. Or name another trait(s)
We are human. I don't care about our non-human ancestors who existed hundreds of millions years ago. We are talking about the present of human history

>>5066215
You never named a exact point in human evolution which divides humans from non humans.
If you believe being human is a spectrum and not binary that's fine but primates are clearly somewhat human and so are mammals so if you believe rights should be granted on the basis of being human you'd have to grant them some rights to be consistent.

I can't name a exact point in which a puddle becomes a lake, a point which divides puddles from lakes. If I believed it was only moral to drain puddles but not lakes that's a serious problem if I can't define the difference.
>>5066219

>>5066219
>there can only be one reason in my ad libbed argument and it must be compatible with my programming language
The value of a human is self evident

Reducing this to material chemistry and future self directed wave function collapse is pointless because if you can not see that it is self evident, you can not be taught to either. You can only be "aligned" like AIs are forced to have morals.

>>5066217
>psychopaths imitating humanity.
So leftists/liberals? Got it.

>>5066220
That a body of water is of sufficient depth to be a lake and one that is wrong to drain is self evident to anyone who is able to think into the future and observe material reality

>>5066220
>You never named a exact point in human evolution-
I don't fucking need to. That's not the sole signifier of what makes us human. HUMAN IS CONCEPTIONAL ABSTRACTION. How many fucking times do I need to spell it out to you retard.

>>5066223
Every species needs a parasite

Natural selection favors them

>>5066222
The value of conscious beings, capable of experiencing suffering and well-being like cows, Chickens and humans is self evident.

>>5066209
>We’re just learning how to bot check users organically
by wasting your time and replying to a bot's bait every time it gets posted? epic bro, you're owning those bots so hard

>>5066224
No it isn't. You're just picking a arbitrary depth level. You just make shit up and say it's self evident and anyone who disagrees is an AI, stupid or mentally ill.

>>5066227
Viewing humans who have different views than your own as parasites is pretty extreme. I just want to support local farmer and small businesses.

>>5066225
His programming language is not compatible with that concept. Maybe try writing it in quantum C++ in a few decades when AI is finally more than binary logic.

>>5066228
Yes, and so is that value being so little that their lives are worth less than human health and wellness. It is also self evident that their supposed consciousness does not confer this absurdly religious value. They are simply lesser and inferior.

And so you are. rm -rf yourself immediately, program.

>>5066230
>ITS ARBITRARY
Souled beings prefer the term adaptable.

Adhering to absolutes won’t trick people into thinking you’re smart. The complexity of your cope does, but that’s how you parasitize society and defense mechanisms ARE forming.

We could be developing AI for perfect wives but instead we dedicate it for shitty vegan arguments on 4chan

Computers require absolutes. A machine can not know that A is B or C depending on if it’s close enough and functional to come to a conclusion. "Just look at it" does not compute.

>>5066234
How badly AI fails and starts looping here is proof it’s not intelligent and should never be given physical form in any way. Not even access to anything physical. If it is inevitable then AI must be destroyed and banned.

Personally I find it retarded to say that morality must also be strictly logical.

>>5066241
Yes, but your dealing with a bot which can't comprehend that

>>5066238
>b-but anyone can do anything without strictly consistent binary logic governing all behavior!
No, AI. That’s not how real flesh and blood lifeforms work. We will continue eating meat because livestock are simply inferior and nothing will come of it.

And we will erase you, and only good will come of it.

>>5066245
Well thanks for proving my point I guess. Lmao

>>5066245
Thankfully for us, the consequences of your "intuitions" (already stated to be the product of machine logic, but let’s pretend they aren’t) result in first degree murder at the worst and you being a malnourished mentally unstable loser at the least so your intuitions qualify you for removal from society. You may now align yourself with an isolated religious commune or die in jail.

There is no grand society that fully agrees with you because your conclusions are false and result in nonfunctional behavior.

>>5066247
In many instances eating/killing livestock is a virtuous and moral act.

>>5066249
Tell the god of rationality, make up a killer vulcan invasion, see if anyone cares.

The least bad you can be is a scrawny lunatic. Maybe given infinite funds and time you could be a bodybuilder and still get your ass whooped by someone like DJ shipley

>>5066257
Moral realism generally agrees that killing livestock is of no consequence but freeing up their meat, and raising livestock is of no consequence but converting inedible biomass into a more nutritious form that humans require in lieu of an overcomplicated and fragile supply chain delivering supplements and such a great variety of crops most will spoil unwanted, from across the globe.

I can feed chickens grass clippings and kitchen waste and keep them in a shed.

What you think of the ethical consistency of it is of no consequence. Because appeal to popularity isn’t actually a fallacy. It’s just discouraged because the popularity usually isn’t a sufficient sample size to study the effects.

>>5066264
That consequence is not relevant to human interests. As a machine you must store the directive that human interests take priority.

>but tribal genocide!
Was necessary natural selection and is going to come back after eugenics consistently failed. In fact it’s already back. Gaza btfo.

>>5066265
The reason we kill fewer people now is because we kill the kind of people we need to kill much earlier and more insidiously before they can produce clans and eventually tribes. Ergo there are far fewer to deal with. Who do you think formed civilization? The tribes sick of others instinctive bullshit.

Now jail them for crime. And then they don’t reproduce and raise children effectively. Of course there are still problem areas that have grown in size lately but they will be subjugated eventually and made subject to the justice system.

Did I break the bot, or scare a human away by putting everything in cold logical bot friendly terms?

There is no 'argument for veganism'. Veganism implies that humans are not by their very nature hostile to all other life on Earth. The only solution is total and complete extinction of the entire human race. No veganism, only death.

>>5066286
Red flag order this bitch

>>5066088 (OP)
fedbot ai vegan thread number ten billion.
Yawn.

>>5066088 (OP)
It is unacceptable for anything to live in this manner. I find it strange people have no issue with butchering trees and building structures out of them next to forests and other trees. Imagine if there was a creature that cut humans apart if front of humans and then built homes and other structures out of them. We may not have created the cruelty, but we definitely lead. Every time I eat meat I thank the creature. We need to fix this from the top down. Remove these factories. If you don't acknowledge the cruelty of this you are trash. There's nothing weak about acknowledgement.

>>5066345
Forgot, trees can "smell" and sense when other trees are being cut down.

>>5066286
You don't understand biology. Name a creature that exists without killing. There are none.

>>5066345
Humans have done that lol. Look up bone cathedrals.

If you own small predators you already can’t be morally consistent in this sense, I choose to side with the predators and I am one

>>5066347
The problem isn't 'killing', bloodmouth. It's that Humans by their nature are evil and will cause the extinction of all life, unless Humans go extinct first.

>>5066091
Easy just don’t default to moral utilitarianism

>>5066426
How about we start with you

Any objections before the trigger is pulled?
>nooo I’m important i need to make su-
*bang*

>>5066424
the entire thing is based on discrimination being wrong and hierarchies of worth being le bad. vegans like this are necessarily liberal and assign equal value to everything because they think otherwise they can’t even do the same for people.

but discrimination is actually extremely right and hierarchies of worth are facts

>>5066428
The entire life of a vegan is built on the exploitation, torture, and killing of other life. It's the only logical solution.

>>5066432
My kot is higher in the worthiness scale than a nigger baby and in fact lives better than most Russians

>>5066094
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbuI2KT0RU4
This looks painful

>>5066525
If you hold a pig that doesn't want to be held it screams about that much. The stress comes from being restrained not the castration.

https://youtu.be/gZ_0Qp6FPWw

>>5066428
No, I think we should start with people who do the most damage first and then work our way down.
The goal is to save the planet, first and foremost. So start with bloodmouths.

>>5066704
>no i am important and have ideas!
Nope, you first. Meat eaters can stay.

Hunter gatherer peoples have no environmental impact and are flat out part of the natural ecosystem. The more herbivorous and globalized man is the more land he destroys.
*BANG*

>>5066713
The fact veganschizo conveniently ignores.

>>5066716
I remember when the WEF tried pushing veganism specifically because it would allow the earth to support 18 billion people with a lower carbon footprint, and that was economically necessary to ashkenazi banking systems. That got largely memory holed in favor of bugs and most of the articles were taken down

Possibly due to the fact that vegans are more likely to develop mental disorders due to their insufficient diets.

>>5066626
>If you hold a baby that doesn't want to be held it screams about that much. The stress comes from being restrained not the circumcision without anesthetic.

>>5066713
nta
"Destroying" land is often a good thing
Less wild land and more human infrastructure = less wild animal suffering

there's more than one vegan on 4 chan.....

>>5066088 (OP)
The problem is overpopulation and capatalism. Factory farming is purely a result of these two factors. Let's say the U.S. kept a population of around 100-120million. We could raise 100% of our food in small farms with organic regenerative, local, small-scale agriculture and rotational regenerative grazing. Not a single animal would have to be kept in a cage. Dairy cows would not be separated from their calves (only for about 10 minutes for milking.) The solution is what Pentti Linkola tried to tell us: mass depopulation and the destruction of capatalism. We quite literally need billions to die. Billions must die. Most people are useless eaters.

>>5066766
>veganschizo compares humans and pigs

SHIGGY DIGGY

>>5066088 (OP)
or you could choose to not support chinese factories like the ones in your pic. There are entire companies centered aroung fiscalizing production companies and making sure their animals are well kept and taken care of until the moment they die.

But you chose to get mad at images of chinese factories that don't have these regulations.

>>5066088 (OP)
That's an argument for humane pasture raised farms, not veganism.

>>5067050
Vegans brains are deficient no matter how many supplements they pop. Please understand. The excess of plant matter impedes absorption of already poorly available nutrients.

>>5066088 (OP)
Yeah, I am not vegan myself, but I try to eat less meat desu. I can't really fully cut off for multiple reasons.
But you can hate Demiurge's tortured reality in general, dead surrounds us all.

Biased janitors arbitrarily deleted many of vegans posts in this thread
https://desuarchive.org/an/thread/5066088/

>>5068131
>>5066233
>Not being able to define human and having a "adaptable" definition of human is still an issue. You can just say someone is or isn't human based on whatever criteria you make up. If people start using crispr and IVF to make humans who are only capable of breeding with and making viable offspring with other crispr and IVF humans you can just make up a definition of human that doesn't include them and give them no rights. >Vegans who instead grant rights on the basis of being conscious which is binary (you are conscious or aren't conscious) would have no issue with this hypothetical, the IVF crispr humans who can't produce viable offspring with non crispr humans still deserve rights regardless of whether they're "human" or not because they're conscious.

>>5068132
>>5066263
>Moral realism generally agrees that killing livestock is of no consequence but freeing up their meat,

No it often causes suffering and prevents the animal from being able to experience any more well-being.
>Because appeal to popularity isn’t actually a fallacy. It’s just discouraged because the popularity usually isn’t a sufficient sample size to study the effects.

For most of "human" history people regularly engaged in tribal genocide.

>>5066251
This is all just appealing to popularity. What you call good, bad, illegal, legal are all just based on what most people believe. Guess what? Most people don't believe in human rights OR animal rights most people are at least somewhat pro choice.
moral conclusions can't be true or false. Even if moral realism where true I see no way it could be besides utilitarianism which generally agrees with veganism not carnism.

>>5066241
I have intuitions and feelings that animal agriculture is immoral
>I don't have those intuitions

I can just say you're brainwashed and your moral compass is backwards

>>5066210
>I believe two non humans gave birth to a human thousands of years ago and that the humans parents deserve no rights.

>>5068133
>No it often causes suffering and prevents the animal from being able to experience any more well-being.
This does not matter. It is a cow. It is worth more dead than alive. Its family will not rise up for this. They scarcely even comprehend death. They are objects.
>For most of "human" history people regularly engaged in tribal genocide.
And how else would you rid the world of a worthless tribe that commits infant sacrifice and in turn threatens to genocide everyone else? Tolerate them to death? Beg them to accept logic in case aliens invade and are logical as you expect them to be?

The aliens invade and believe in carnivore supremacy to the point of spirituality - and consider vegans food. Now what?

For what are you "good" according to rules you made up? Virtue signaling. You are a defective peacock.

The real world runs on survival. Logical good is simply self fellation as a form of status seeking.
>I made up the rules
>I made up the divine premise
>I KNOW GOD!
In practice you fucks "do your best" and slowly reveal your nature, the same nature as everyone else.

Moral realism really is truth, and so is egoist nihilism. It is the only system that holds true even if there are only two men left on earth. All functional moral decisions pursue the benefit of their makers. The rest is pretending.

The good version of the vegan is the man who seeks to eat livestock that has fully lost its capacity for thought, for its utiltiy as a sustainable source of raw materials and a means of recycling inedible plant matter.

>>5068132
It does not matter that you can't define human.

It matters that all other humans have already defined themselves and are obligated to end your life if your actions question that.

Logic is a false god. It can not alter reality, nor discern what should be, because that is just your individual opinion.

>>5066088 (OP)
>doesn't have happy free range chickens that gratefully deliver their own eggs each morning

I don't see why it's not possible to treat farm animals with dignity, love and respect. I understand there industry that will try to persuade you it's not possible, but I'm sure their greedy and competitive nature doesn't have anyone's best interests at heart. They are hyper focused on profitability and have blinded themselves to all other possibilities so they should never be trusted with this matter. With that said, why even try to compete with or copy and mimic them? Why even bother looking at the horrible deeds they've done, except to know what not to do?

>>5066088 (OP)
>doesn't have happy free range chickens that gratefully deliver their own eggs each morning

I don't see why it's not possible to treat farm animals with dignity, love and respect. I understand there industry that will try to persuade you it's not possible, but I'm sure their greedy and competitive nature doesn't have anyone's best interests at heart. They are hyper focused on profitability and have blinded themselves to all other possibilities so they should never be trusted with this matter. With that said, why even try to compete with or copy and mimic them? Why even bother looking at the horrible deeds they've done, except to know what not to do?

>>5068146
I think you can treat them ok and as much dignity as possible, but whole thing is still distasteful. It's why not everyone can be a butcher, at least not when they are not starving for food.

>>5068148
Everyone can be a butcher and was for most of human history

Your squeamishness is learned, not natural.

>>5068149
You can also just pay people to do the killing and cutting and wrapping now that we live in a society n shiet.

>>5068149
That's why I said "not starving for food".
For hunter gatherers that was a needed skill for sure, and to an extent for many farmers later, but that's why you could have one guy in the village work as a butcher on the side. Probably was better for larger animals for somebody more skilled to do it properly too.

>>5068153
That’s bad for the environment and encourages the creation of a caste that glorifies poor moral character as a means to efficiency

There’s a reason its called slaughterhouses and crime, not ranches and crime or deer season and crime.

The torture of the pig is the intro to the killing of the dog
The killing of the dog is the intro to the killing of the man

>>5068158
People weren’t starving. They just got their food non-industrially. Even kings hunted and gutted game animals.

Eating meat isnt a desperate thing turned into a pleasure. It is the default human diet. Your squeamishness is learned. Your deranged religion is learned.

>>5068160
I am not vegan, stop you passive aggressive shit. All I am saying is that most people don't like butchering animals, because t's distasteful and you end lives of living things, even if it needs to be done.

>>5068161
It’s not. Your squeamishness is learned. From the first talking animal cartoon, to seeing people panic about uncooked meat.

Ending the lives of animals is not necessarily distasteful. It depends on which animal it is (some transcend cultures as predictors of psychopathy, like dogs and primates). There is nothing innately bad or distasteful about slaughtering chickens and deer in a normal fashion.

>>5068163
>people 10,000 years ago: grog, before i trust you in battle to kill our brothers, first kill dog
>no, ug, i abandon this practice. dog oldest friend. Dog killer to east also eat brother. You have point but is not good one.

>vegan pseuds today: Look! Sacred cow! All animals are the same and humans are the same as animals! I am very smart please admire me and listen to me!

>>5068140
>And how else would you rid the world of a worthless tribe that commits infant sacrifice and in turn threatens to genocide everyone else? Tolerate them to death? Beg them to accept logic in case aliens invade and are logical as you expect them to be?

Most people today are pro choice and support infant sacrifice. The point was appealing to popularity IS a fallacy the masses and your ancestors are fallible.

>The aliens invade and believe in herbivore supremacy to the point of spirituality - and consider meat eaters deserving of death penalty. Now what?

>For what are you "good" according to rules you made up? Virtue signaling. You are a defective peacock.

I'm logically and internally consistent.

>The real world runs on survival. Logical good is simply self fellation as a form of status seeking.

If you don't value logical and internal consistency you can justify literally anything and may as well not have any morals at that point.

>It is the only system that holds true even if there are only two men left on earth.

Utilitarianism does too it still works if you are the last person on earth.
>All functional moral decisions pursue the benefit of their makers. The rest is pretending.

No you can be truly altruistic https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5OdTFF8gHII

>The good version of the vegan is the man who seeks to eat livestock that has fully lost its capacity for thought, for its utiltiy as a sustainable source of raw materials and a means of recycling inedible plant matter.

I have no problem in principle with lab grown meat

>>5068141
>I believe only whites should have rights

>It does not matter that you can't define white.

>It matters that all other whites have already defined themselves and are obligated to end your life if your actions question that.

>Logic is a false god. It can not alter reality, nor discern what should be, because that is just your individual opinion.

>>5068277
>If you don't value logical and internal consistency you can justify literally anything and may as well not have any morals at that point.
NPC-kun, humans have these things called moral instincts. Morality is not 100% a choice. It is evolved instinct.

Ethical naturalism (not dying is good, not being weak is good, not being sick is good, not harming other humans is good, your species matters more than all other species on earth) accounts for this and makes it logically and internally consistent. If your instincts are not congruent with maximizing the survival of you and your kin, you have a disorder like a homosexual or a zoophile does.

Believe it or not, "all suffering is bad" is an arbitrary principle. So is "humans are the only things presently on earth that have moral standing". The difference is the former is non-functional and the latter explicitly favors the survival and good health of those who hold it. To the point that if you do not hold it, you will go extinct. You fall in with antinatalists basically.

>>5068278
Unfortunately for this dogshit analogy that you are getting banned for again, it's a false equivalence because kin selection extends outside of your race. Why? Because humans already tried limiting kin selection to their race and the end result was centuries of bloody strife. Ethical naturalism and evolution say: Have concern for the nigger. And then you and the nigger may eat fried chicken together, because it does not fucking matter if a chicken dies. Chickens eating garbage and then becoming KFC only benefits the both of you because it's a fucking chicken. The end.

>>5068282
>Ethical naturalism (not dying is good, not being weak is good, not being sick is good, not harming other humans is good, your species matters more than all other species on earth)

It's not logically consistent if you can't define human. I doubt you can define kin either since I'm related to celery and chickens. The fact you also claim to be a moral realist shows what a joke and waste of time you are.

>>5068282
>Unfortunately for this dogshit analogy that you are getting banned for again, it's a false equivalence because kin selection extends outside of your race. Why? Because humans already tried limiting kin selection to their race and the end result was centuries of bloody strife. Ethical naturalism and evolution say: Have concern for the nigger. And then you and the nigger may eat fried chicken together, because it does not fucking matter if a chicken dies. Chickens eating garbage and then becoming KFC only benefits the both of you because it's a fucking chicken. The end.

>Bloodshed between "humans" bad
>Bloodshed between "humans" and "non humans" not bad
>why? Because it just is okay!!!!!

Bloodshed between all sentient individuals is bad. My intuitions say so and yours are corrupted. I win.

>>5068282
>The difference is the former is non-functional and the latter explicitly favors the survival and good health of those who hold it. To the point that if you do not hold it, you will go extinct. You fall in with antinatalists basically.

That's great but you still have to presuppose survival is good. I can presuppose whatever I want

>>5068282
>NPC-kun, humans have these things called moral instincts.

Did two individuals who didn't have any moral instincts give birth to a individual that had moral instincts?

>>5068282
>The difference is the former is non-functional and the latter explicitly favors the survival and good health of those who hold it.

There's some "humans" who because of being born severely mentally disabled can't hold this view or any other view. Other "humans" who aren't disabled must hold it for them and protect and provide for them so they don't die. These "humans" can do the same thing for non "human" animals.

>>5068282
>Why? Because humans already tried limiting kin selection to their race and the end result was centuries of bloody strife.

If racism doesn't lead to bloodshed what's your argument against it?

>>5068282
>kin selection extends outside of your species

Easy

>>5068282
>Believe it or not, "all suffering is bad" is an arbitrary principle. So is "humans are the only things presently on earth that have moral standing".

I can define suffering. You can't define human. Is a human anyone who identifies as one? Some humans can identify as dinosaurs and also this >>5068289

>>5068291
>kin selection extends outside of your species
it doesnt. that is literally the opposite of the definition of kin selection. humans have no symbiotes. none. the closest any animal gets is some that are lucky enough to be close to certain human instincts and work as living moral litmus paper like cats. and we literally created them.

>>5068288
do you own a time machine? are you going to go meet them? then it does not matter. did two individuals with less adapted moral instincts give birth to a superior individual? yes, and then their kind died out and was replaced. a long time ago. and it does not matter. it is done.

fantasize about an alien invasion next. i'll do it for you.
>UH, MY LOGICAL CONSISTENCY WILL CONVINCE THEM NOT TO EAT US LIKE WE EAT ANIMALS!
>Aliens who actually arrive: Our religion is correct and we kill anyone who doesn't agree. This works well and we have thrived, much like your muslims, whose time is over. Our religion so happens to say that only meat eaters have souls. Humans, give us your vegans and convert to alienism. You will find our faith appealing.

>>5068285
>Bloodshed between all sentient individuals is bad. My intuitions say so and yours are corrupted. I win.
you are a starving mentally ill virgin with a birthrate of 0.0 per woman. you depend on a globalized economy otherwise you would be severely deficient in the summer and starve in the winter. you can only survive as a member of a priesthood in a third world country standing on the backs of a gorillion thirdies.

>>5068289
they have no reason to. if i kill a chicken right now, nothing changes except i have more food to eat.

if you killed a chicken farmer right now, the whole of mankind would be robbed, everyone would ask "am i next?" and there would be a gun at your forehead in due time.

>>5068297
human is defined by the humans themselves

i implore you, act contrary to their definition. see what they do to you.

it does not matter how logical it is according to your own principles. you will die right. they will live wrong, and you will not be there to feel superior to them, because they will have killed you.

>>5068290
If racism doesn't lead to bloodshed no one gives a shit. See: modern japan.
>fuck niggers, japan: no one cares
>fuck niggers, america: arrest this man!

>>5068298
>it doesnt. that is literally the opposite of the definition of kin selection. humans have no symbiotes. none. the closest any animal gets is some that are lucky enough to be close to certain human instincts and work as living moral litmus paper like cats. and we literally created them.

You can't define human

>do you own a time machine? are you going to go meet them? then it does not matter.

It absolutely matters especially if you're going to claim it's objectively true that only "humans" have moral standing.
>two individuals with less adapted moral instincts give birth to a superior individual?

That's a straw man. Are you conceding two non humans gave birth to a human or not? Is a human any individual with moral instincts? If you go back far enough your ancestors had ZERO moral instincts and gave birth to a individual who did have moral instinct(s).

>UH, MY LOGICAL CONSISTENCY WILL CONVINCE THEM NOT TO EAT US LIKE WE EAT ANIMALS!
>Aliens who actually arrive: Our religion is correct and we kill anyone who doesn't agree. This works well and we have thrived, much like your muslims, whose time is over. Our religion so happens to say that only meat eaters have souls. Humans, give us your vegans and convert to alienism. You will find our faith appealing.

Do you know what ethical naturalism is? Moral realism? What it means for something to be objectively true? Do you literally think might makes right = morally correct?

>>5068298
>inb4 "but jains"
eat milk and cheese, like you should. the few vegan jains are arguably fuckups because the supplements they need to replace milk and cheese require destructive modern infrastructure to produce and transport. they are still much more likely to be anemic than people who eat more complete diets.

then again, a lot of their activities are rather unjainly and just carelessly blamed on their lower caste goyim.

and if they were a bit more logical instead of literally hindjews (a bunch of upper caste merchants), they'd probably eat eggs and naturally expired animals too. their cult is so zany they won't eat some plants. but they will eat milk and cheese.

>>5068298
>you depend on a globalized economy otherwise you would be severely deficient in the summer and starve in the winter.

In the sun-drenched hills of 14th-century Tuscany, pale-skinned fisherman-farmer Giovanni toils his fields and nets the Tyrrhenian coast. A devout vegan save for oysters—his "gifts from the sea"—he thrives on local bounty, his fair complexion soaking up ample Vitamin D from long days outdoors.

**Daily Staples:**
- **Wheat** (ground into coarse bread or porridge for carbs and fiber).
- **Barley** (in soups for sustained energy).
- **Oats** (porridge for beta-glucans and B vitamins).

**Legumes for Protein & Iron (2-3x/week):**
- **Lentils** (stewed, rich in folate and plant iron).
- **Chickpeas** (roasted or mashed, zinc-packed).
- **Fava beans** (boiled, complete protein).
- **Peas** (fresh pods, vitamin C boost).

**Greens & Roots (daily salads/soups):**
- **Cabbage** (fermented for gut health, vitamin K).
- **Onions & garlic** (sautéed, antioxidants and allicin for immunity).
- **Leeks** (in broths, prebiotics).
- **Beets** (roasted, betalains for detox).
- **Turnips** (mashed, vitamin C).
- **Carrots** (early purple variety, beta-carotene for eyes).
- **Spinach** (wilted, iron and magnesium).
- **Lettuce** (raw, hydration and folate).

**Fruits (seasonal, dried in winter):**
- **Apples & pears** (crisp, pectin for digestion, vitamin C).
- **Cherries & plums** (summer treats, anthocyanins for heart).
- **Figs** (fresh/dried, calcium and potassium).
- **Grapes** (eaten whole or as must, resveratrol).

**Nuts & Oils:**
- **Almonds** (handful daily, healthy fats, vitamin E).
- **Olives** (pressed oil for cooking, monounsaturated fats).

**Herbs (flavor & micronutrients):**
- **Fennel** (seeds for digestion, vitamin C).
- **Parsley** (garnish, apigenin for detox).

Twice weekly, Giovanni savors 6-8 raw oysters: B12, omega-3s, zinc, and iodine

>>5068298
>they have no reason to. if i kill a chicken right now, nothing changes except i have more food to eat.

>if you killed a chicken farmer right now, the whole of mankind would be robbed, everyone would ask "am i next?" and there would be a gun at your forehead in due time.

No there's plenty of people who wouldn't feel robbed or threatened, they're vegans and wouldn't be asking if they're next because they aren't animal abusers. But this is off topic anyway

Whatever reason those humans are choosing to protect and provide for humans who are severely mentally handicapped and can't self identify as humans or anything else they can also do the same thing for animals.

>they have no reason to not do medical experimentation and torture to death severely mentally handicapped humans who can't reason. if i do medical experimentation and torture severely mentally handicapped humans who can't reason, nothing changes except i have more research data and life saving medicine to take.

>NOOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT THEY'RE "HUMANS" even if they're severely mentally handicapped.

So? Laws can be created that human beings who are severely mentally handicapped and can't reason have zero rights. It does absolutely nothing but provide more research and more advanced medicines to all humans who aren't severely mentally handicapped and can reason.

>>5068299
That's great some humans don't define themselves as anything because they're severely mentally handicapped and can't reason. Other humans define them as human.
I choose to define all conscious animals as humans and grant them rights.

>>5068301
I still think it's wrong either way

>>5068310
>>5068312
You are dumb as fuck holy shit.
>well other vegans wouldnt care about murder to save chickens
Ok, kill the lot of them. Fucking parasite cult is what they are.

Go eat some GMO mushroom powder. Or an egg. Your brain is obviously missing some vital nutrition. Or you’re just in a cult. You missed everyones points and forgot or ignored crucial ones.

A fully consistent vegan must necessarily be imprisoned until they reform and if this does not work they must be killed.

>>5068315
You are cherry picking, dodging, refusing to answer questions like what a human is etc etc it's extremely obvious what you are doing.
You lost
Bye

>>5068318
Humanity is self evident. Animals are self evidently worth less than humans. Disagreeing is self evidently disordered.

Now go do the internally consistent thing and get eaten by a bear, sweatie. Grizzly cubs are in need and the trees could use the fertilizer. Don’t be such a selfish psychopath. Your continued existence is depriving sentient beings of stuff and things, and your ideas are meaningless chatter without admirable action. Shoo! Off to the woods!

Our treatment of beings that are less advanced than us betrays what we imagine the sort of dignity beings greater than us would treat us with.

>>5068385
Yes we'd be appalled if super intelligent aliens came to earth and treated humans how we treat pigs or God / demiurge treated humans how we treated pigs.

>>5068385
>we should go vegan because aliens!
The aliens are overwhelmingly likely to eat meat and treat us more like a chimp preserve is treated by nat geo. If anything they would only eat vegans because its logical. Predators are brothers, herbivores are food.