any arguments that make eating animals ethical, regardless of their suffering?

>>17854646 (OP)
>POOP SHIT FART frog
Enjoy Hell.

>>17854646 (OP)
No, but atheists can't reason, can they?

>>17854646 (OP)
I ascribe near-zero importance to the "suffering" of non-sapients, especially lower lifeforms like insects.

>>17854646 (OP)
To be an atheist you must be pro-cannibalism or a vegan, there is no in-between position possible.

>>17854646 (OP)
Domesticated animals only are born in the first place for the purpose of consumption. They have no "lives" taken from them, and don't posess the capacity to "hope" or "dream" regardless. Cows, Chickens, Sheep, etc have literally no purpose other than to be bred and harvested. So what's the ethical issue? Humans perceiving their "pain" and anthropomorphisizing their thoughts/"feelings"? Hogwash. Wild animals however deserve respect as they actually have a purpose in their lives and in their ecosystem, and that's why hunting is so well regulated. Other animals like pets/work animals like horses and so on are more valuable as companions than food so of course we don't really eat them and assign value differently.

Bottom line is morality is a human experience subject to human preview, it doesn't concern animals in their own right, as they have neither the ability to conceptualize ethics, or the breadth of emotions/thought required for ethics to matter in the first place

>>17854646 (OP)
Humans just don't give a shit because it's not them. Most animals that we've studied have turned out to be far more intelligent than we originally gave them credit for. Pigs are extremely intelligent and we still slaughter and eat them en masse.

>>17854646 (OP)
I don't think there's an argument for it being MORE ethical than vegetarianism/veganism
But nevertheless it's important to understand that cooking and eating meat is the simplest way of getting protein, zinc, vitamins and other essentials into the human body
The vegan and synthetic meat market is still deep in development, and there are several other factors that affect it, questions of price and infrastructure.

If we were to move away from food and expand the questioning to the entire animal kingdom, that's when things get really interesting. Because nature is horrible. If animals are capable of experiencing suffering the way we do, then the natural world is a fucking constant nightmare for everyone involved. Are we to lock every single animal into a safe environment and just let them live out their days? You can't eliminate animal suffering any more than you can eliminate human suffering. People just wanna look for stuff to feel bad about, I guess.

>>17854646 (OP)
Animal suffering is not morally equivalent to human suffering. Simple as.

>>17854802
>>17854836
>seethe about atheists out of nowhere
EVERY TIME

>>17854902
It's not my fault that you're so unreasonable.

>>17854902
this

>>17854646 (OP)

>>17854646 (OP)
they're tasty

>>17854848
well if pigs don't like their conditions maybe they should take up arms and overthrow their human masters?
Oh, pigs aren't capable of fighting for labor rights you say? Then why shouldn't I eat bacon?
tl;dr pigs are not capable of unionizing.

>>17854836
>To be an atheist you must be pro-cannibalism
cannibalism is impractical because you can't breed people just for slaughter(because they'd revolt) and people who die a natural death would make low quality meat(and their relatives would feel bad)

>>17855027
what i'm saying is cannibalism is inefficient for meat production, if you have worthless humans you're better off using them for forced labour in other food production

>>17854646 (OP)
>any arguments that make eating animals ethical
meat tastes good and is nutritious

>>17854990
irrelevant

Say a Christian accepts evolution. How does a Christian justify hundreds of millions of years of life, suffering, and death of animals before sin even enters the world? Why do animals deserve to experience pain when they have no cognitive ability to understand why pain exists?

>>17854646 (OP)
Its your diet, do you deserve to exist? The answer is always yes. Even animals that normally prey on each other can relax at times if food is not an immediate necessity, the problem is when you are hungry, as everything is organized in everything that exist, which exist so things can get better, no just stagnate when one stage decides to just not do their part, the part that is necessary for things to get better is not immoral. The next stage always has a multiplier of improvements. Do you go around judging animals?

>>17855544
Consumption is due to ineffeciency. The objective is to starve higher entities of the resource of suffering likewise. Wean them of their addictions. Research in means to accomplish this should be done.