Guily free gains?

I can't afford waygu every night for now so how can I find a good source of cruelty free protein?

In whole foods it says the animals are treated humanly on the stickers but idk if I can trust them..

I honestly can't fucking handle the immorality anymore, escpaically now that I'm eating even more for the gym..

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is it even possible for society to even go cruelty free? Won't packing in animals always be cheapers?

    No one has the land of time to be giving all of them massages and petting them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >read nietzsche
      >learn about slave morality
      >the animal is too weak to enforce it's will
      >and done
      also reddit spacing btw

      https://i.imgur.com/hWp54ir.jpg

      I can't afford waygu every night for now so how can I find a good source of cruelty free protein?

      In whole foods it says the animals are treated humanly on the stickers but idk if I can trust them..

      I honestly can't fucking handle the immorality anymore, escpaically now that I'm eating even more for the gym..

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        "I watched a YouTube excerpt from a smart looking goy that convonetitly fits my world views, this somehow means I won the argument bescuxe I'm low iq and don't understand how logic works"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >No need to change my world view or have any convictions. Just find a philosphy term that lets me keep doing exactly what I want
        Why is something being to weak to enforce it's will not worthy or consideration? If I'm stronger than you does that mean I can do whatever I want to you, ethically speaking?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's not what slave morality is, at all. Stop getting your interpretations of Nietzsche from people looking for excuses to be controlling, destructive shitheads.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Is it even possible for society to even go cruelty free?
      Cruelty is a rather broad term so I will just assume you meant animal cruelty.
      If technological progress doesn't stop then we will hit a point where lab meat will become commercially viable.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but it involves not packing immigrants into Commie block cities to solidify political influence away from current citizens.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You need to tie it in to a religion if you ever hope to establish such a relation to animals among the populace "on its own volition".
      But as always with non-social issues: the solution is just tech. Don't trust people to be ethical or otherwise non-egoistic. Trust that we can literally force them to not have a shitty effect on the world via inventing something better (i.e. synth meat, meat replacements, etc.).
      Also it's very possible that governments just ban egregious shit like factory farms. That's the case in some countries. You don't need wide support for it, just a gov with a spine.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's important to understand that humans need animal products to survive, but the meat industry is plagued with issues. https://certifiedhumane.org/whos-certified-2/

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Raise your own chickens/rabbits, learn to hunt and fish, and eat more seafood.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fish actually have more nerve endings than mamals so it's more painful for them..

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yet wild caught seafood lives their entire life completely separated from industry until their final moments. Which is better, to live a good life until your final moments or to live a poor life and die a poor death anyway?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not about pain.
        It's about personhood.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's about consciousness, our soul is the same as theirs and yoy will reincarnate into an animal if you don't give up the meat

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >yoy will reincarnate into an animal if you don't give up the meat

            Source?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And you'll reincarnate into a plant

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Plants are living things. Why are you eating plants, you vile creature? How many more living beings have to die for your sake? I expect you'll only be eating rocks and dirt from now on.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fuck off, jeet

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and yoy will reincarnate into an animal if you don't give up the meat
            you are already an animal

            anyway I can tell ur some mentally ill nonwhite, probably indian, so just do the needful and eat grains

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you also require many times more fish than pigs or cows to feed yourself

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but fish don't have souls. They're like plants, not animals.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the oceans are already fucked from over fishing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nerve endings =/= pain

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There is literally zero evidence that fish dont feel pain
          it's just a folk myth that predates modern biology that fathers told their young sons so that the kids wouldnt feel bad about hooking the damn things in the throat.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is this some sort of shilled ad campaing? you would that that IST, a site filled with racists, pedophiles, degenerates, discord trannies would give 0 fucks about something like animal cruelty, like 99% of people here lack empathy even for basic people

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Animals are cute, people are scum.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      People here are 99% just trolling, if you are too retarded to see that maybe it's time to rope yourself

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >99% trolling
        I must be the 1% I guess because I’m legitimately racist as fuck

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Own ducks/chickens, learnt to hunt/fish. Animals die, that is normal and natural. Keeping them jammed in cages is pretty messed up though

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Rice + beans
    Quinoa
    Free range eggs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Free range doesn't mean what you think it does. Free range means there is a tiny door in the big shed for the chickens to use to go outside. Chickens don't know about doors so they stay inside. You want organic eggs. That's the chickens running gayly through the fields image most people think free range is.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cattle raised in the EU is generally quite well treated, and this reflects in the general quality of the produce. Call me a europoor as much as you’d like, but the agricultural policy of Europe is just better than the USA’s.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You are so retarded, cows were demesticated by some kind of European homosexual, but cows were not perfect until America came to be. You’re steak fell
      You’re

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You are so retarded
        >You’re steak fell
        >You’re

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It was one of them that sucked on a cows titty, it didn’t happen in the USA Becsuse were not preverted. But as USA does what it always done, made the invention superior. Cow was not perfect until an America existed

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Unless you bought poultry and meat from specific farms Id guess the only other long term option would be seafood as at least they are wild until caught compared to animals raised and killed in factory settings ?

    The only other option is switch to a mostly vegetarian diet and eat enough protein to hit your target so meals would likely be three quarters veg and fruit to reduce the overall amount of animal you might be consuming

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Most seafood is farm raised when u don't live close to the sea

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't consider Uncle Bub's Catfish Fritters as seafood.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pasture-raised eggs

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I honestly can't fucking handle the immorality anymore
    if you think eating food is immoral then you are saying your life is immoral, you know what to do

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He isn't saying eating meat is immoral. He is saying the way the animals are kept during their lives is immoral. I wouldn't expect a simpleton like yourself to grasp the difference though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        animals give 0 fucks about stuff like that, to them its feed and sneed repeat 24/7, atleast we humans are humane enough that when we kill them we atleast do it quickly and painlessly, unlike in the wild where a bear would probablly just pin them down and eat them alive

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I buy beef from a farm about 10 miles from me, I see the cows just graze , they have a nice barn. Really their only shitty day is the one they go to the buthcer,

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just don't eat birds then. Or buy free range raised it's healthier anyways

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pigs and cows get treated no better. Especially dairy cows. They are getting raped on the reg.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        cattle just chills and grazes for most of their lives - until they get old enough and are sent to meat processing plant to get fat but that's a small portion of their life.
        And pigs there's a lot of variance but it's common that they just live in normal pig pens with plenty of space. Just look up where the meat you're buying is sourced from, it's a good idea to do it anyways if you're gonna eat pig because in some places what they feed pigs is so mad their flesh turns poisonous

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's literally so easy, just eat pea and rice protein. Full amino acid profile like whey.
    I pay 50€ for 5kg.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This, I'm not even vegan but this shit is so damn underrated. My stomach thanks me every time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What is bioavailability

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not as different as you would think.
        Plant protein powders have very high bioavailability due to being powdered in advance and essentially pre-digested, ready for your body to absorb.
        The issue with plant proteins is amino acid profiles, but as anon said, mixing pea+rice gives you the full set of essential amino acids, in a highly digestible (bioavailable) form.
        You need to stop uncritically regurgitating buzzwords you've seen on IST

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          my bro

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Damn, didn't know plant protein was this close to whey efficiency.
          I'm seriously considering a switch since plant proteins don't have purines so there is no risk of having kidney stone with them

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pea rice protein blend (50/50) has a PDCAA score of 1.00, same as whey or egg. Even if it were .9 or .8 or something, it doesn't matter because you can eat loads of this stuff without stomach issues, and it's as cheap as it gets. Only texturized onions protein is cheaper per g of protein I think, but not that tasty. I always mix it with almond "milk".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bioavailability is a meme the PcCasS shit or whatever rates the protein as if it was your only source, but everyone eats different sources of protein so it doesn’t really matter

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is not one aspect about how techno-industrial society functions that is cruelty free, as the only way to sustain the modern urban lifestyle is through the perpetual exploitation of both humans and nature. The only way to stop animal cruelty is by fighting against technology.
    Going vegan is to being based what going vegetarian is to being vegan.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nature itself is literally full of extreme suffering. It is just part of life and completely impossible to eradicate

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't see how your post contradicts or disproves mine, as I never said that the objective of the fight against technology was to erradicate suffering or that it's somehow not inherent to sentience.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because what's the difference if the animal dies so we can eat it or so a wild predator can eat it or a parasite eats it from the inside or it starves or whatever else? Everything in nature exploits everything else, we are no different apart from being mostly better at it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Because what's the difference if the animal dies so we can eat it or so a wild predator can eat it or a parasite eats it from the inside or it starves or whatever else?
            You're a retarded imbecile, that's the difference. There is nothing wrong with killing an animal to eat it, I've literally never said anything remotely close to that and I don't know where you got that from. What is wrong is the neverending cycle of destruction that is inflicted upon this planet, which has resulted in one of the biggest mass extinctions in the Earth's history, accelerating by the day.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              They're all going to die anyway, how is different if we kill them. Even entire species almost all go extinct

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Lol everything dies anyways so there's no difference between an animal dying in nature and the irreversible, man-made destruction of the planet.
                It's astonishing how even in what's effectively a minute in the entirety of human history, the distortion of reality for the average civtard has turned to a point where you see "nature" as an abstract, alien concept that one is forced to interact with, a price to pay for the modern commodities instead of the source of all life and the gift of God to humanity.
                If you're unable to care, you're an NPC.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nature is something to be manipulated, which is what we are doing. It doesnt matter if there are only 300k species of beetle now instead of 600k, please remain serious.

                This is just you fantasizing about killing billions of humans, it isnt about muh planet. Which is fine, we all have our tastes, but just be honest about it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It doesnt matter if there are only 300k species of beetle now instead of 600k, please remain serious.
                Every medicine you will ever use in your life is derived from a plant or animal compound we found in the world. We didn't "construct" any of them. We just copy shit.

                What if one of those extinct beetle species contained the cure for cancer?

                >"but they don't lmao"
                Probably not but there's a good chance one of them contains something.

                I hate retards so much.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Probably not but there's a good chance one of them contains something.
                This is about as fun a fallacy trope as the magical Black or the wise savage.
                >nature is so metal, we could have been living so much better if only were hadn't killed that heckin' beetle!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Every medicine you will ever use in your life is derived from a plant or animal compound we found in the world.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for restating the obvious, dipshit. It doesn't make the appeal to nature fallacy any less annoying or somehow confer value to species for whom medicinal value is not known.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >appeal to nature fallacy
                This doesn't mean what you think it means.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >not my heckin dictionaryino
                Continue failing to convince anyone

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why would I need to convince you? The world is already taking important policy steps in the direction that I want it to and things will continue to improve. Your asshurt is a product of your anger that you cannot stop this from happening, no matter how much you try to pretend to be victorious in this thread.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What will happen is that people like you(serfs) will be forced to eat bugs in poverty while the powerful continue to use as many resources as they like. Some incredibly dumb people like you will feel righteous about being this cucked

                This probably wont happen worldwide though, only some countries will implement full green communism(the ones who really really fucking hate their populace). Enjoy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah anon and I'm sure that subscribing to your conspiratorial authoritarian worldview where we cut out the middleman and just directly appoint a dictator to rule over all of us like a God will totally prevent that from happening ;^)

                I'm tired of cryptofascists.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Actually I suggest we decentralize as much as possible by allowing civilians to own machine guns, heavy artillery, tanks and bombers. You're a complete spiritual slave and would never dream of allowing this

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We're talking about meat, friendo. Stay on topic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We were, but you refused to have the conversation because you don't understand what the naturalistic fallacy is and refuse to learn, so I stopped caring about something that you were only ever pretending to care about anyway.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Here, let's make this simple: why is eating animals unethical?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In principle, or in practice?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Either.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I mean I'll answer your questions but it sounds to me like you don't actually have one.

                If my answer doesn't matter then why would I believe it's worth the effort of giving to you? You're (attempting to) presenting yourself as someone who's going to argue seriously so any answer I give would have to be backed up by at least a modicum of articulated rationale and I'd rather be playing Workers & Resources on my other screen than writing a wall of text that you will just ignore.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I mean I'll answer your questions but it sounds to me like you don't actually have one.
                I literally asked a direct question - why is eating meat unethical? You can fuck off if that's you want.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah and I asked you whether you were concerned about the principle of eating meat or the practical consequences of eating meat and you said you didn't have any real concerns, don't give a fuck what my answer is, and just want to regurgitate talking points you got off of YouTube.

                You don't care about this argument, as demonstrated by the fact that you literally do not care what argument we have. Why would you expect me to care?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >you said you didn't have any real concerns, don't give a fuck what my answer is, and just want to regurgitate talking points you got off of YouTube.
                Wow, that's a nice dish of projection. I said "either", because I want to understand your thought process on the off chance that there's a nugget of actual reasonable discourse there. In that view, what matters is what you want to talk about, not what I want to talk about.

                But thanks for demonstrating you see wrongthink boogeyman around every corner.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I want to understand your thought process on the off chance that there's a nugget of actual reasonable discourse there
                Exactly. You don't care what we talk about because you're interested in me, not the argument. Your entire pretension at wanting to have "discourse" is a thin veneer for what will inevitably just be you engaging in dollar store psychoanalysis in the vein of "you're just a weak gay which is why you have all the wrong beliefs xD".

                Of course you disagree with this, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. People often don't understand their own motivations.

                If you cared about the argument you'd actually have an argument you were trying to make and you don't. All you care about is attempting to prove - if only to yourself - that I have personal flaws that mean you don't have to listen to my arguments no matter how reasonable or correct they are. It's the classic "you may be right but you're ugly!" dressed up by a pseudointellectual who thinks he's being clever.

                Go ahead anon. Prove me wrong. Tell me your sincere and well-reasoned thoughts on why eating animals is justified. Surely you have some, right? You seem to care so much about this issue 😉

                Or actually don't bother because you're obviously a high-schooler and, although this may be a hard lesson for you to learn, being the smartest kid in a public school doesn't make you actually smart. You're not competent to have any kind of discourse. Stick to the youtube comments on Ben Shaprio videos, they're more your speed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You can actually be both disgusting in appearance(likely given your personality and opinions), and completely wrong about the subject at hand(evident based on your shit tier arguments and avoidant posturing).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Jesus dude. A
                >nugget of actual reasonable discourse there
                Is about the theoretical nugget of discourse, not about you. At best its about you insofar as you claim to be the one with the superior knowledge. But really, its about the alleged knowledge.

                >Tell me your sincere and well-reasoned thoughts on why eating animals is justified.
                The availability of nutrients and human quality of life afforded by eating other animals is worth the trafeoff of killing non-human life forms.
                Judging that true or false relies on a series of moral beliefs, all of which are subjective value systems unable to be quantified.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The availability of nutrients and human quality of life afforded by eating other animals is worth the trafeoff of killing non-human life forms.
                Without putting some sort of bounds around when the tradeoff is worth it - without quantifying the value of an animal life - this argument is just a blank cheque to kill whatever you want whenever you feel like it.

                Not unsurprisingly considering that it was the first argument to come up this is actually just the framework that we operate under at the moment. Animal lives have no inherent value - any value they have is imbued on them by human interest. Endangered animals aren't valuable because their lives are valuable, they're valuable because of the human interest in conservation. Farm animals aren't valuable, their dollar value is. This is the other half of the criticism of this argument - although it SOUNDS like it values animals, as if killing them is a necessary evil, this argument actually precludes valuing them at all in practice. Any human benefit at all is more important than the genocide of entire species, even if that benefit is as unworthy as being simply the pleasure of killing animals for fun.

                In short this isn't an argument. It looks like one, it sounds like one, but it doesn't operate like one because the people who expound it deliberately do not hold themselves accountable to it. The value of an animal life is subjective and so is the trade-off, sure, but in practice we see that the value of an animal life is irrelevant because nobody is doing moral cost/benefit analyses before firing up the crab killer 9000. This is a rhetorical rearguard action to defend the status quo because if you actually believed it you'd be on my side in advocating for changes in farming practices because the only way industrial farming works is if killing animals is not any kind of evil, necessary or otherwise, which your argument precludes.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Checked. Your “morals” are gay though

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                God has declared my morals victorious in trial by dubs, anon.

                >this argument is just a blank cheque to kill whatever you want whenever you feel like it.
                Do you disagree that there are distinct differences between animals and humans? Do you mount the death of insects? Fish? Vermin? Where do you feel moral compunction? What's the line?

                >any value they have is imbued on them by human interest
                This may surprise you, but there's no practical way to escape human interest when developing moral systems.

                >Do you disagree that there are distinct differences between animals and humans?
                It depends on your scale of analysis. Humans communicate in English. Dogs communicate by sound. Colonies of coral polyps communicate with each other. If you're looking for differences at the scale of language use then humans are unique; if you're looking for a form of life that does not communicate at all then it probably exists but it would be rare.

                The question here is what scale of analysis is appropriate when deciding whether or not it's okay to kill. It's not intelligence because unintelligent humans cannot be killed. It's not consciousness because unconscious humans cannot be killed. What makes human life valuable that is unique to humans? Merely their humanity? That's self-serving, obviously, and also objectionable - not just to me, but to all society. Everyone knows that cruelty is wrong to animals and humans alike. We do inherently value animal lives. But we also value cheap meat, so we have to convince ourselves that obvious cruelty is not cruelty - like the farmers in feedlots who have pet dogs that they love and then say cows don't want shade when all you have to do is fucking look at them and how they cluster under the tiny shadecloth provided to escape the blazing sun.

                >Do you mount the death of insects? Fish? Vermin?
                Yes, unironically, but I still kill them.

                It's not that your argument is wrong. All lives have value and that value is not unlimited. I value the life of a cockroach less than a lot of other things I care about, some worthy and others not. What I'm saying is that you don't believe your argument - because nobody in the meat industry is considering the value of animal lives and making trade offs. They are committed to a system where animal lives have no value at all and there is no trade off.

                If you believed what you were writing you'd be on my side.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What makes human life valuable that is unique to humans? Merely their humanity? That's self-serving, obviously, and also objectionable
                Why? And what is wrong with it being self-serving? Again, you're going to have a hard time escaping the human lens when discussing morality because its a human construction. Even your own moral dilemma here is self serving - you discuss it and agonize over it because it makes you feel bad and you don't want to feel bad.

                >What I'm saying is that you don't believe your argument - because nobody in the meat industry is considering the value of animal lives and making trade offs.
                See

                >nobody is doing moral cost/benefit analyses before firing up the crab killer 9000
                They absolutely are. That cost benefit is happening at scale through pricing systems, by people choosing between higher cost more "humane" meat vs lower cost less "humane" meat.

                Small independent and subsistence farms make that tradeoff in how they balance the line between "livestock pet" and "food" and how they establish quality of life before butchering (if they ultimately decide to butcher at all).

                You seem to not like that tradeoffs discussion because in most if not all cases everyone decides that eating the animal is an acceptable conclusion no matter the quality of life variances. In other words, you reject the result of the discussion and negotiation because you don't like it and instead construe it as status quo defense.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Why? And what is wrong with it being self-serving?
                It's self-serving in the obvious way that humans are saying that only humans get protection under law. It would be as self-serving as saying you get to murder anyone you want but nobody can murder you because that is almost literally what you're saying except at a species level.

                >And what is wrong with it being self-serving?
                The """platonic form""" of self-service isn't inherently wrong but the phrase has pejorative connotations which I intended; the argument is insincere and exists as a rhetorical justification for actions you want to take rather than as any kind of reasoned worldview - "putting the cart before the horse", "first the verdict then the trial", etcetera. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny but you continue to believe it because it's convenient for you even though it's wrong. Those are the pejorative connotations which I intended; proving it is the subject of the argument.

                >Again, you're going to have a hard time escaping the human lens when discussing morality because its a human construction
                I won't but you might. Consider the veil of ignorance stuff I mentioned somewhere and see how you go. Truly dissociating yourself is hard, I agree, but things aren't right just because they're easy.

                >Just imagine you were designing a system where you could be born into it in any position within that system
                Himans are currently the only animal that can imagine or design such a system.
                >In such a condition the only possible system that you could rationally design is one where the only inequities are those which leave everyone better off.
                Incorrect. You can rationally design nonlevel and unequal systems. Your argument is a moral one, and it's because inequity makes you feel bad and concerned. And you want to solve that because you don't want to feel bad about it. A human emotional driver.

                >Himans are currently the only animal that can imagine or design such a system.
                Relevance?

                >Incorrect. You can rationally design nonlevel and unequal systems
                Then try it. People have and I found it pretty unconvincing.
                https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

                The fundamental strength of this sort of enlightenment liberalism is proven by the fact that it underpins our entire society - imperfectly, sure, because the powerful hoard their power, but nobody seriously disagrees with it. Even the fascists of our time still pretend to be liberals - consider Orban's "illiberal democracy".

                But hey, if you do smash Rawls somehow you'll probably be able to get tenure.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >this argument is just a blank cheque to kill whatever you want whenever you feel like it.
                Do you disagree that there are distinct differences between animals and humans? Do you mount the death of insects? Fish? Vermin? Where do you feel moral compunction? What's the line?

                >any value they have is imbued on them by human interest
                This may surprise you, but there's no practical way to escape human interest when developing moral systems.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                *mourn

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This may surprise you, but there's no practical way to escape human interest when developing moral systems.
                On the contrary, there very easily is. Just imagine you were designing a system where you could be born into it in any position within that system - i.e. you know that you are going to be alive but you don't know whether you're going to be a rich man, a poor man, a single mother, a dog, a cow, or a carp. It's an expansion of the Rawlsian concept of the "veil of ignorance".

                In such a condition the only possible system that you could rationally design is one where the only inequities are those which leave everyone better off.

                The problem isn't designing the system, the problem is convincing other people to implement it. But that's a failure of human moral character, not a failure of imagination.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Just imagine you were designing a system where you could be born into it in any position within that system
                Himans are currently the only animal that can imagine or design such a system.
                >In such a condition the only possible system that you could rationally design is one where the only inequities are those which leave everyone better off.
                Incorrect. You can rationally design nonlevel and unequal systems. Your argument is a moral one, and it's because inequity makes you feel bad and concerned. And you want to solve that because you don't want to feel bad about it. A human emotional driver.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >nobody is doing moral cost/benefit analyses before firing up the crab killer 9000
                They absolutely are. That cost benefit is happening at scale through pricing systems, by people choosing between higher cost more "humane" meat vs lower cost less "humane" meat.

                Small independent and subsistence farms make that tradeoff in how they balance the line between "livestock pet" and "food" and how they establish quality of life before butchering (if they ultimately decide to butcher at all).

                You seem to not like that tradeoffs discussion because in most if not all cases everyone decides that eating the animal is an acceptable conclusion no matter the quality of life variances. In other words, you reject the result of the discussion and negotiation because you don't like it and instead construe it as status quo defense.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >marital rape isn't wrong because everyone's doing it :*~~)
                Moral progress often has to be imposed in a top-down manner because moral issues that hurt other people but not you are rarely issues you care about fixing. This isn't groundbreaking stuff.

                Secondly, is=/=ought is day 1 stuff in any study of ethics.

                And lastly implying that people have an actual free choice between moral and immoral products of any kind in the current system is not an argument worth entertaining.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >And lastly implying that people have an actual free choice between moral and immoral products of any kind in the current system is not an argument worth entertaining.
                They have the choice to not eat meat, no? So if we assume your conclusion about meat in general, there exists moral choice in consumption.

                Taking away assuming your conclusion, many people have the ability and means to raise their own fowl even on a postage stamp lot and provide better QOL than the worst industrial fowl farmers. There's an obvious method for moral consumption.

                >Moral progress often has to be imposed in a top-down manner because moral issues that hurt other people but not you are rarely issues you care about fixing. This isn't groundbreaking stuff.
                As you should be well aware, the problem with top down driving is just the same as bottom up driving - both can press for something that ends up being immoral.

                It doesn't change the fact that you are experiential unable to step outside your human perspective - even your motivations for trying to do so are human. So let's cut the crap on "animal value is assigned by humans so therefore its invalid."

                Contd

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They have the choice to not eat meat, no?
                Sure, but that choice is constrained by many things foremost of all being that humans in practice are not transcendental beings of pure reason who consider all their decisions. Maybe they're just wrong - wrong in a way that they would agree that they are wrong if they had all the information and the benefit of a fancy private school education. Some people are just ignorant or weak, not bad.

                Otherwise, consider that a man who works in a slaughterhouse cannot think that slaughter is wrong because his paycheck depends on doing it and he depends on that money. But the same man in a different place could reason differently. Forget "I can't afford to raise my own chickens", that's a real argument but subject to all kinds of quibbling. Consider "I can't afford to think about what I'm doing." - can't afford to think about it not because it's expensive, although it might be, but because not doing bad things would require a sacrifice of any kind.

                It's not important that this point carries in its entirety. The point is simply that people have biases that affect their ability to reason. That's why you can't draw lessons about what ought and oughtn't from what is and isn't.

                >both can press for something that ends up being immoral.
                Then it's a good thing we're having this argument to decide what is and isn't moral. The question here isn't how to implement the right thing to do - we know how to do that and the answer is violence, which is why cops carry guns. And we know that violence can be used for good or for bad. What we're asking here is what is good and what is bad.

                >animal value is assigned by humans so therefore its invalid
                That's not the basis of the criticism. The basis of the criticism is that animal value ISN'T assigned by anyone. The animals don't have value. Only the human interests embodied in the animals have value. The animals themselves are worthless.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Only the human interests embodied in the animals have value. The animals themselves are worthless
                All things are worthless outside of human interests. Because "worth" is a concept invented, defined and wholly contained by human interests. Even where those human interests want to be eco-friendly.
                >What we're asking here is what is good and what is bad
                Good and bad are sets of tradeoffs inherently grounded in a human lens.

                To accelerate, "eating animals is unethical" is a statement without a possible assignable truth value. That's because the core premises arent rooted in logic or shared premises. They're rooted in subjective beliefs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, but this is essentially relativism in which case I just say "do what I say or I'll fucking kill you" and we all go home. Incidentally this is how the government works and why activists don't need to convince you specifically.

                Relativism is obviously correct but we need to construct a sort of fiction around it to give it structure. We put our values in a hierarchy and we agree to be bound by a procedural determination of what should take precedence when instead of just acting on moment-to-moment impulses.

                You can put "being cruel to animals" at the top of your list of things you care about and nobody can stop you, although they can stop you from actually being cruel to animals; you haven't, don't, and won't, though, because you value other things like your right to life more. The problem becomes that you cannot articulate a difference between you and others which gives you the right to life but not others, and so you have constrained yourself from murdering people. And the logic continues to flow, until you get to the point where you can't be cruel to animals while being consistent with your values.

                At that point you either accept the implications of your own rules or you give up having rules at all, which is where you've landed at now - "only human interests have worth" inevitably becomes "only my interests have worth" once you realise that the interests of other humans are immaterial to you.

                You have to accept fundamental shared values like life and liberty for moral discussion in a policy context to be meaningful; you don't have to accept the values, but then you can't have the discussion because the positions can't be reconciled by logic when the premises are different and yet we can only have one law so the matter has to be decided in another way. But you DO accept the premise - everyone does. You just don't like the conclusion, and the chain of logic is long enough that you can't see all the links.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >case I just say "do what I say or I'll fucking kill you" and we all go home. Incidentally this is how the government works and why activists don't need to convince you specifically.
                Like the holocaust, that was a good example of activists not having to convince everyone and just using force

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Sure, but this is essentially relativism in which case I just say "do what I say or I'll fucking kill you" and we all go home
                It's actually not relativism. It's accepting a limit to truth values to things within the human experience, and considering all other things to be undecidable. Empiricism and science does exactly this, where what's in scope is "the material world" and what isn't is "everything else."

                In other words, "do what I say or I'll fucking kill you" between humans is derivable as wrong based on shared human principles we can understand and agree on. "I'mma eat this animal bro" or not is not.

                >And the logic continues to flow, until you get to the point where you can't be cruel to animals while being consistent with your values.
                Quibble aside that I don't concede slaughtering animals is cruel, there are clear and enumerable distinctions between humans and animals that allow right to life for humans but not animals. You simply don't like them and construe them as "irrational" - ironically
                >You just don't like the conclusion
                is self-implicating here.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >positivism isn't relativism
                The 1800s disagrees with you anon.

                Whether things have a truth value or not we have to make decisions on them. The purpose of fundamental values is to assign a truth value to things that don't have one. "Is it right to kill disabled people?" has no truth value but it's an important question that needs an answer, or at least people think it is and does. And that answer changes over time as the people change but that doesn't diminish the utility of the answer.

                >In other words, "do what I say or I'll fucking kill you" between humans is derivable as wrong based on shared human principles we can understand and agree on.
                On the contrary, the defence of the coercive violence of the state has occupied a lot of political philosophy and is pretty much a settled question at this point. Rights are better protected inside a coercive violent system than outside of it on the whole - when certain allowances are made. Even illiberal systems are still markedly preferable to no system at all for most people most of the time. I'm not an anarchist lol.

                >I don't concede slaughtering animals is cruel
                I don't argue that it is. It's everything before that point that's cruel.

                >clear and enumerable distinctions
                Name some.

                >its a great example of why society needs to
                Society doesnt need to do anything. It's just one group winning after another and imposing their will. Gang warfare, that's it. There will be another holocaust as sure as there will be another famine, another revolution, another war. Technological evolution produces new patterns of development but not "moral progress". Absolutely not real and never will be.

                >Society doesnt need to do anything
                Then I'll rephrase: if you want your society to survive you need to do certain things.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >: if you want your society to survive you need to do certain things.
                Killing off your garden gnomes is perfectly compatible with survival though. That's not what did the Nazis in, so I dont see the relevance to the holocaust or morality. In fact a lot of actions that seem immoral like genocide and widespread looting of neighboring peoples can be very beneficial for your country.

                It doesnt matter anyway because all societies go extinct, empires collapse, and new ones arise. Eventually humanity in general will presumably die.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >so I dont see the relevance to the holocaust or morality
                I was speaking specifically. If you want your current society with its things like respect for your right to not be gassed for some arbitrary nonsense reason to persist (better word than survive in this context, I agree) then you in specific need to do actual specific things.

                I agree with your view on Whig history btw.

                >And that answer changes over time as the people change but that doesn't diminish the utility of the answer.
                Counterpoint - in the absence of a solid answer an option available is to make no overall decision and let people do what they choose without moral judgment or rules. In other words, what we have today. Choose to eat or not eat meat.

                >Rights are better protected inside a coercive violent system than outside of it on the whole
                That is certainly true, but rights don't need enforcement to be moral truth or not.

                >Name some.
                They've been listed in thread by myself and others already. The most obvious and direct one is, "animals are not in fact human, and that's all the separation needed."

                >an option available is to make no overall decision and let people do what they choose without moral judgment or rules. In other words, what we have today.
                On the contrary, that's not what we have today - your argument is that it would be wrong me to choose to try and impose a rule against cruelty to animals because people ought to be free to choose to be cruel to animals if they want.

                "Just do what you want" is always a hollow argument because the things we do affect others but in this case it's particularly hollow because me personally not being cruel to animals does nothing to fix the issue that I am actually trying to solve which is the systemic cruelty to animals caused by current production methods. If my problem is what other people are doing then letting people choose is always a non-starter. Your response is that I have no right to impose rules on other people - we know this is wrong because we all agree that rules can and should be imposed on people and even, in some cases, where they don't even consent. Even, in some cases, at gunpoint.

                >rights don't need enforcement to be moral truth or not.
                Sure, but as there are no moral truths and we are just assigning truths per our whims those assignments do need to be enforced.

                >The most obvious and direct one is, "animals are not in fact human, and that's all the separation needed."
                Only if you can establish that your right to life is derived from something about you that is uniquely human, which I said and which was ignored.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >we know this is wrong because we all agree that rules can and should be imposed on people and even, in some cases, where they don't even consent
                That's a fallacy. Rules can be necessary for some cases even under compulsion without your preferred rule being one. Your options are to abstain yourself and voluntarily attempt to convince others to your view without compulsion.

                >establish that your right to life is derived from something about you that is uniquely human
                I don't have to establish anything, just as you don't have to establish why animals are more similar to humans than different and deserve similar categorization. That's the beauty of a premise.

                >as there are no moral truths
                Ironically, that's your judgment, not mine.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Rules can be necessary for some cases even under compulsion without your preferred rule being one.
                Sure, but we're not discussing the merits of my rule we're questioning whether I'm even allowed to make rules - "just let everyone choose".

                No, I won't, because that doesn't solve my problem. I want to impose a rule to solve that problem, now let's discuss its merits and whether it meets the standard. Moving on.

                >That's the beauty of a premise.
                You are lying about your premises (or ignorant of them) so that you can avoid being forced to follow logic to its inevitable conclusion.

                If you told me where you thought your rights came from you would then have to accept that they don't derive from anything that is unique to humans (or confess to a retarded construction of rights that exists only in this argument). Then you would have to conclude that those rights by necessity must be extended to all things which share the characteristics from which human rights are derived. Then you would have to conclude that current factory farming practices breach those rights, and you would have to conclude that I am right.

                Your dishonesty is already established in the way that you continue to insist I want to ban meat when I have repeatedly said I only care about cruelty in the production of meat. I expect this dishonesty to continue so I won't post again. Also, I have to go to work.

                Goodbye.

                No, I specifically don't need to do anything and neither do you. A very small number of people have the power to make meaningful decisions about these things and they dont hang out here.

                Like garden gnomes in the 30s, the only option you or I would have for survival is fleeing the country when the warning signs appeared.

                >No, I specifically don't need to do anything and neither do you.
                Lmao I remember being 15.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Lmao I remember being 15.
                Name a single thing you could do that would meaningfully impact the likelihood of a holocaust occurring in your country then. If you matter then there should be something you could do to change this whether for or against

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Just as I go to shut down the computer this thread updates. Of course.

                How do you know I'm not already doing it and that's why there isn't one happening now? Simply believing that there shouldn't be one is a meaningful contribution to stopping one from happening - meaningful, not decisive, and don't get the two confused.

                >Your dishonesty is already established in the way that you continue to insist I want to ban meat when I have repeatedly said I only care about cruelty in the production of meat. I expect this dishonesty to continue so I won't post again.
                Thanks for revealing your fragility. I hadn't brought it up again and the multiplying was due to staggered posts in time. But continue framing yourself as a victim I suppose. Don't forget that it was practically pulling teeth to even get you to answer the question and begin this discourse, but I let that go as soon as you engaged.

                >If you told me where you thought your rights came from you would then have to accept that they don't derive from anything that is unique to humans (or confess to a retarded construction of rights that exists only in this argument).
                Holy cope. In other words,
                >the correct derivation of rights is the one that inevitably leads to the conclusions I want to see, and I'll brook no others and claim them retarded

                >Goodbye.
                See you anon. Have fun at work and have fun in future guiding and constraining conversations to feel morally superior!

                >it was practically pulling teeth to even get you to answer the question and begin this discourse
                For reasons which have proven true - you didn't care about this argument then and you still don't care now. You don't care about arguments at all because the mistakes you're making are entry-level. Forgive me for bragging but I've failed undergrad essays that were more competently put together than some of your posts are.

                >>the correct derivation of rights is the one that inevitably leads to the conclusions I want to see
                But you still didn't answer the question. That's fair - I said I was leaving and now I actually am so I get not wanting to bother so it's unfortunate it will never be answered because that's the crux of the issue. You agree with every other aspect of rights-based law but say that the logic doesn't hold up here. When asked why, you say it's because animals don't get human rights. When asked to justify that - explain what rights are and where they come from and why they don't apply to animals - there's no answer. I've asked for it a couple of times now because it's the whole argument in one question - no answer. Just some meaningless line about "similarity" as if that's not just literally rephrasing the initial statement: "only humans get human rights because duhhhh it's in the name". Worthless.

                And thus we go back to WHY I didn't want to have this argument - animal cruelty is obviously wrong and factory farming is obviously cruel. This argument is a massive waste of intellectual effort born of your immature desire to own the lefties with facts and logic. In a word, contrarianism.

                And nothing more.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >How do you know I'm not already doing it and that's why there isn't one happening now?

                You cant name an act you would do that would make a difference because there are no such acts for people who arent in the upper echelons of power. Now you're mumbling about "meaningful vs decisive" but you know nothing you do is going to affect the outcome any more than your vote does(statistical rounding error).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I did, specifically.

                ok and? you just prooved that nature is to be exploited by humans because we are smart enough to do it. Lets take ravens or any corvid and look at them, ravens have been seen taking nuts, putting them on roads, waiting for a car to crush them, then eating the insides. Naturally, ravens shouldn't be doing this because according to you they are exploiting nature, or how about some apes using tools like rocks. Your argument is literally just "oh well im 17 and i think modern society BAD, now let me go buy vegan protein powder on my iphone while talking to people on IST.

                >ok and?
                If you destroy nature it won't be there anymore to exploit?

                Turn on your fucking brain anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I've asked for it a couple of times now because it's the whole argument in one question - no answer.
                I'll put an answer here that you're not going to like but you can read should the thread archive and not get deleted.

                The decision for whether to categorize animals along with humans or not isn't logical. Neither you not I are engaging in logic when we do so. There's trappings of argument around it, but at the core its entirely subjective value premise for which we have no possibility of common ground to rectify on. That's the point. It's also the whole point in engaging in this conversation, as well - to see if there was anything else in your thought process besides this fundamental difference in premise. For you, it's obviously animal cruelty. For others, it obviously isn't. If I need to harm a chicken or a cow to increase my survivability and enjoyment in this world through nourishment, I'm absolutely going to do so, and if I need to do it en masse at industrial scale to increase the benefits for humans at large, I will. The fact that we are not the same and do not require the same shape of rights obvious, just as the opposite appears obvious to you.

                No matter how deeply we go, we (and others just like us) are going to disagree without a reliable means of resolution other than coping and calling the other party retarded or dishonest. See below for a direct example of your own need to do just that:
                >This argument is a massive waste of intellectual effort born of your immature desire to own the lefties with facts and logic. In a word, contrarianism.
                >Forgive me for bragging but I've failed undergrad essays that were more competently put together than some of your posts are.
                This doesn't cut nearly as strongly as you might hope it does, btw.

                So what's the solution? To let people make their own choices within the limits of voluntaryism. It doesn't immediately get you what you want, but it doesn't bar you from getting there either.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The decision for whether to categorize animals along with humans or not isn't logical.
                Yes, that's my point. Your decision is not logical and neither is the conclusion that follows from it. You cannot articulate a difference in this context and yet continue to insist that one exists. That's not logical. Accepting that no articulable difference exists and thus these two things which are not different therefore are the same is perfectly logical. You can argue that the decision on whether a difference is relevant in this context is subjective - incorrect. If you cannot connect a difference by logic to the shared premise of the origin of rights then it is objectively irrelevant. We are not doing the same thing.

                You have already conceded that animal cruelty is wrong: "the TRADE OFF between meat and cruelty justifies the cruelty". Whether or not animal cruelty is wrong is not subject to debate here - even if someone doesn't think it is, that someone isn't you. So why have you constructed this fake persona and why do you persist in pretending to be it?

                I'll tell you why: contrarianism.

                Animal cruelty is bad. Factory farming is cruel. Thus it is proven. Now tell me what conceivable trade off exists that could justify the scale of cruelty that occurs? The answer is you can't - that miniscule changes in practice could alleviate 99% of the suffering at a cost to the consumer that we could barely even detect, and that the only reason these changes don't happen is because the 0.1% loss of profit margin in the meat industry is worth more than all the animal suffering from here to Hell - that animal cruelty, in practice, has no cost associated with it; that animal cruelty is not wrong. That's the only way that industrial farming in its current form makes sense and that's not something you agree with except when you're being a contrarian on the internet.

                Relativism is for pseuds anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes, that's my point. Your decision is not logical and neither is the conclusion that follows from it. You cannot articulate a similarity in this context and yet continue to insist that one exists.
                The point that you missed or ignored anon is that both positions aren't logical. That includes your own personal choice of categorization.

                >Relativism
                Once again, it's not relativism. It's recognizing the question of the value of animal rights relative to human benefit as outside of what's practically answerable.

                >trade off
                The tradeoff is industrial efficiency.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'll tell you why: contrarianism.
                If you believe that why do you compulsively keep replying?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Your dishonesty is already established in the way that you continue to insist I want to ban meat when I have repeatedly said I only care about cruelty in the production of meat. I expect this dishonesty to continue so I won't post again.
                Thanks for revealing your fragility. I hadn't brought it up again and the multiplying was due to staggered posts in time. But continue framing yourself as a victim I suppose. Don't forget that it was practically pulling teeth to even get you to answer the question and begin this discourse, but I let that go as soon as you engaged.

                >If you told me where you thought your rights came from you would then have to accept that they don't derive from anything that is unique to humans (or confess to a retarded construction of rights that exists only in this argument).
                Holy cope. In other words,
                >the correct derivation of rights is the one that inevitably leads to the conclusions I want to see, and I'll brook no others and claim them retarded

                >Goodbye.
                See you anon. Have fun at work and have fun in future guiding and constraining conversations to feel morally superior!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, I specifically don't need to do anything and neither do you. A very small number of people have the power to make meaningful decisions about these things and they dont hang out here.

                Like garden gnomes in the 30s, the only option you or I would have for survival is fleeing the country when the warning signs appeared.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >And that answer changes over time as the people change but that doesn't diminish the utility of the answer.
                Counterpoint - in the absence of a solid answer an option available is to make no overall decision and let people do what they choose without moral judgment or rules. In other words, what we have today. Choose to eat or not eat meat.

                >Rights are better protected inside a coercive violent system than outside of it on the whole
                That is certainly true, but rights don't need enforcement to be moral truth or not.

                >Name some.
                They've been listed in thread by myself and others already. The most obvious and direct one is, "animals are not in fact human, and that's all the separation needed."

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Name one nutrient you need that you can only get from animals.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That wasn't my argument. Can you survive only on plants? Sure. Does it lead to the same quality of life and is it as easy to raise and ingest? No.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Vitamin b12. Real, bioavailable protein. Lack of antinutrients.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                B12 comes from bacteria and algae, but you were close.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The world is already taking important policy steps in the direction that I want it to
                Sure, thats why you feel the need to screech about it constantly.
                You'll eat the bugs and soi for free while everyone else around you laughs and eats meat.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Sure, thats why you feel the need to screech about it constantly.
                It's almost as if screeching about things is how you make them happen.

                >complain about activists doing activisim
                >also complain because the activists are winning
                lol lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It's almost as if screeching about things is how you make them happen.
                Why do you need to screech if it's a done deal and you've already won?
                I'm gonna eat a steak tonight anon, see you later.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Why do you need to screech if it's a done deal and you've already won?
                It's not a done deal and we haven't already won. I just don't need to convince you to win. I'm not sure why you think IST is the high stakes battlespace where the future of society is gonna be determined but I guess it's important to believe in urself.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Believe it or not, minus the schizoposting, anonymous forums indicate what the population actually believes in aggregate.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes and no. IST suffers pretty badly from self-selection. It's a good indicator of what a subset of the population believes but if that subset is itself a minority then the relevance of their beliefs will scale with the degree to which they're in the minority, obviously.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're not winning. You are cheering your masters as they make you into a slave because you're a retarded coward

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Please point me to the plant that makes acetaminophen anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Okay.

                >Acetanilide was the first aniline derivative serendipitously found to possess analgesic as well as antipyretic properties, and was quickly introduced into medical practice under the name of Antifebrin by Cahn & Hepp in 1886.

                >Aniline was first isolated in 1826 by Otto Unverdorben by destructive distillation of indigo

                >Indigo dye is an organic compound with a distinctive blue color. Historically, indigo was a natural dye extracted from the leaves of some plants of the Indigofera genus

                Next question?

                Paracetamol isn't acetanilide but it's just an alternative aniline derivative. I can't be assed doing more than this for such an asinine attempt at a gotcha.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ok and? you just prooved that nature is to be exploited by humans because we are smart enough to do it. Lets take ravens or any corvid and look at them, ravens have been seen taking nuts, putting them on roads, waiting for a car to crush them, then eating the insides. Naturally, ravens shouldn't be doing this because according to you they are exploiting nature, or how about some apes using tools like rocks. Your argument is literally just "oh well im 17 and i think modern society BAD, now let me go buy vegan protein powder on my iphone while talking to people on IST.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Medicine is mostly dysgenic anyway

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                [...]

                [...]

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >waa waa the animals, i cry
    Shut the fuck up, you goddamn genetic waste. Nature is actually insane, and crazy, and constantly brutal. Most animals in the wild are in a constant state of alert and fear, and every water buffalo knows that every sip of water it makes could be its very last, as the crocodile lurks to grab it with its teeth and by the neck and pulls it underwater.
    Sissy loser that you are, you lack the perspective to realize a lot of what you call "cruelty" is actually better generally than most of these animals will ever experience or could ever experience in the wild. And you have the gall to cry about how an animal died to give you a delicious meal that night. You are less than human. You are nothing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      lmao @ ur life

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        but is he wrong?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Their pain, your gains, anon. Export the suffering to them, and dare them to bulk themselves to rise up and stop you. The weak should fear the strong.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    since you're not guilty being a cuckold, you shouldn't be guilty about factory farms.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Guilt free? Who cares. If those morons didnt want to get eaten they'd evolve into being an alpha predator, untill then they are lunch.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Also check em

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >treated humanly on the stickers
    unless you're volunteering to roll up to a farm to be personally executed, it's impossible to have humane meat. go vegan and ignore the meat industry shills on this board who are too weak to change their eating habits because muh steak

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Vegans are the weak ones. Imagine changing 100 thousand years of diet just because you're sad an animal died. That shit is frail and weak and, frankly, insane to me.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it's impossible to have humane meat
      Humane meat is not something that anyone should care about. Eating animals is ethical, full stop.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Raise your own if it's such a concern. Even postage stamp lots in the city can raise meat chickens or ducks.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Me not eating animals won’t stop the cruelty so fuck it. I’m not giving up my gains while 400lbs Billy next door eats three burgers for lunch.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the guy next to me is doing bad thing, so i can keep doing bad thing too
      brilliant take, i bet you also ate crayons in preschool because billy next door did it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah. Your greentext is exactly my point. If my decision had an impact I would definitely stop.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Buy from your local farmer, fuck. It's not a hard riddle.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just live in a civilised country. You can't even buy cage chicken here as far as I'm aware. Even the cheapest home-brand chicken available in our biggest cheapest supermarkets is RSPCA approved.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can't eat guilt-free under global capitalism. Period.

    That doesn't make me a "communist" or a "socialist" necessarily, for example, I think local capitalism can work so long as there's a clear and fair international order (as opposed to a pax Americana or, increasingly, a Chinese peace), but there's not, so even most vegan and vegetarian diets rely on deforestation and displacement of native populations.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Humans don't need to eat animals. You kniw what to do next.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can you hunt or get cheap other types of meat? In Australia kangaroo is usually pretty cheap for example as it’s a pest.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just hunt your own game or raise livestock.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Grow a nutsack

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It would be as self-serving as saying you get to murder anyone you want but nobody can murder you because that is almost literally what you're saying except at a species level.
    Once again, that pulls the abstraction layer too far out. We decide that murdering each other is unacceptable because we see more likenesses in each other than differences. We see more differences between animals and us in comparison. We accept that animals are inferior in context to their uses.
    >I won't but you might.
    I don't think you understand me, anon. You cannot have strong knowledge of a nonhuman perspective because you cannot become a nonhuman. You may believe that you can escape human motivation, but thats a delusion that I won't be joining you on.

    >Then try it. People have and I found it pretty unconvincing
    Here's a rational yet randomly unequal society - inequality to degree X is tolerated on account of the net value the upper end produces for society at large. A perfectly fine system. You may decry it as "rationalizing", but again, equality and its tradeoffs aren't logical positions, they're belief-based moral ones.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Once again, that pulls the abstraction layer too far out.
      I disagree. Humans saying that only humans have rights is either correct or incorrect; I say it's incorrect. In that context continuing to believe it even though it's wrong is self-serving in obvious ways. If you think it's correct then believing it is not self-serving it's just correct. Whether or not it's self-serving is a consequence of where you fall on this argument - the issue of self-service is just a downstream irrelevancy imo, it's not really a point I'm trying to make.

      >You cannot have strong knowledge of a nonhuman perspective because you cannot become a nonhuman
      You don't need a knowledge of a nonhuman perspective. The question is "what kind of society would you design if you could end up anywhere in it?" You don't need to know what a nonhuman would think because you're not being asked to imagine being one - you're just being asked to use your reason, which should be identical for everyone and everything. Reason is a process of going from assumptions to conclusions.

      You can say that animals would have different assumptions to humans and so would design a different society - I disagree. Animals can't design a society at all. They would do nothing. Even if we invited animals to participate in the discussion they'd just make a mess and add nothing because they're dumb animals, not people. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that all you have to do to know how you think animals should be treated is to ask what kind of society you would design if you might end up being one in it. A battery hen in a cage has no concept that an injustice is being done to it - but we know that doesn't make it "okay" to treat it unjustly.

      Rawls excluded animals from his original position for spurious reasons but it was the 1970s so eh.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Humans saying that only humans have rights is either correct or incorrect
        Technical dispute, that's not the complete set of possibilities. It's also possible that there's no truth value (e.g. "chocolate ice cream is the best") or has unknowable, undiscoverable truth value ("humans shouldn't never have been created").

        >The point I'm trying to make is that all you have to do to know how you think animals should be treated is to ask what kind of society you would design if you might end up being one in it.
        And many peoples' logically valid answer to this question is to say, "if I'm born a chicken and I won't know any better, it's acceptable and morally just in aggregate for those born as humans for me to have a high % chance of being destined for slaughter."

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          *shouldn't ever

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >It's also possible that there's no truth value
          I'd say it's probable, this goes to this post

          Sure, but this is essentially relativism in which case I just say "do what I say or I'll fucking kill you" and we all go home. Incidentally this is how the government works and why activists don't need to convince you specifically.

          Relativism is obviously correct but we need to construct a sort of fiction around it to give it structure. We put our values in a hierarchy and we agree to be bound by a procedural determination of what should take precedence when instead of just acting on moment-to-moment impulses.

          You can put "being cruel to animals" at the top of your list of things you care about and nobody can stop you, although they can stop you from actually being cruel to animals; you haven't, don't, and won't, though, because you value other things like your right to life more. The problem becomes that you cannot articulate a difference between you and others which gives you the right to life but not others, and so you have constrained yourself from murdering people. And the logic continues to flow, until you get to the point where you can't be cruel to animals while being consistent with your values.

          At that point you either accept the implications of your own rules or you give up having rules at all, which is where you've landed at now - "only human interests have worth" inevitably becomes "only my interests have worth" once you realise that the interests of other humans are immaterial to you.

          You have to accept fundamental shared values like life and liberty for moral discussion in a policy context to be meaningful; you don't have to accept the values, but then you can't have the discussion because the positions can't be reconciled by logic when the premises are different and yet we can only have one law so the matter has to be decided in another way. But you DO accept the premise - everyone does. You just don't like the conclusion, and the chain of logic is long enough that you can't see all the links.

          >And many peoples' logically valid answer to this question is to say, "if I'm born a chicken and I won't know any better, it's acceptable and morally just in aggregate for those born as humans for me to have a high % chance of being destined for slaughter."
          Sure but the problem isn't the killing it's the cruelty. Everything dies, and euthanasia of humans is being legalised in many jurisdictions. It seems many people think avoiding cruelty is actually more important than not preventing death.

          We can eat chicken without torturing chickens.

          But can we eat as much chicken? Will it be as cheap? Is this argument really about eating meat, or is this argument just about the ability of some rich Westerners to indulge their obscene gluttony at bargain prices at the cost of enormous cruelty to animals?

          Framing this argument as being about eating meat or killing animals is a way to expand it to a point where we don't have to examine the actual behaviour that's occurring on the ground.

          >case I just say "do what I say or I'll fucking kill you" and we all go home. Incidentally this is how the government works and why activists don't need to convince you specifically.
          Like the holocaust, that was a good example of activists not having to convince everyone and just using force

          Correct, and it's a great example of why society needs to proceed by law and debate and not by ignoring reason and just picking the conclusions that we like out of thin air. We have to bind ourselves with rules, most importantly the rule to commit to the process of reason based on fundamental values and follow that process wherever it leads.

          Otherwise injustice happens.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >its a great example of why society needs to
            Society doesnt need to do anything. It's just one group winning after another and imposing their will. Gang warfare, that's it. There will be another holocaust as sure as there will be another famine, another revolution, another war. Technological evolution produces new patterns of development but not "moral progress". Absolutely not real and never will be.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The only way, the ONLY WAY, is to raise everything yourself.
    If you can't do that it doesn't matter, even if you're pure vegan, even if it's organic, any mass scale farming will have countless deaths due tot eh fact that it must be harvested via machinery and the thousands of animals that make burrows in the crop fields while they grow will be slaughtered come harvest time.
    You can't wash off all the parts which is why the FDA allows for a certain part per million of animal matter on all produce, it's just impossible not to. And that's not taking into effect the ecological effect, even if it's "organic" and they hoenstly don't use pesticides (big doubt) industrial scale farms just destroy the surrounding ecosystem.
    The only real way is to live in a small agricultural community where you raise everything yourself and use methods that don't harm the environment.
    Until I can afford to do that I don't bother much with cruelty free because it's a lie, I accept it as a necessary evil for now, but am working towards overcoming it. If I can do a decade of a good farming life I will have done more to reduce cruelty than my friend who has been vegan for ovre 40 years.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not eve people are treated humanely. You expect corpos to be humane to animals?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Unironically the best argument I've ever heard on this topic and one I enjoy using with my dumb friends.

      >bro animals are no different from people
      >bro
      >brooo
      "sure but you say this means we should treat animals like people. why don't we just treat people like animals? oh wait we already do lmao lmao lmao. no logical inconsistencies here, case closed"

      It falls apart for other reasons but still fun.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what corpos do to animals, that is the aim of the politician today.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Excellent bait, mate

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Animals are here for you to consume them. We are at the top of animal kingdom. We consume everything below.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Í've been on a Wagyu farm in Japan (honestly the word means Cow from Japan) and .. They had virtually no room to graze. It's just a breed of cows.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    just raise chickens and goats

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    get a good supplier of dairy products and eggs, plenty of protein there and if done right the animals don't have to suffer

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You know the vegan protein products, just look for ones that are cheap. I found Söy milk for 55p/L and protein powder for ~£1/100g. pretty neat.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Game meat. You know it lived free and died quick.
    Wild caught seafood is fair game too even if it isn't killed humanely because it's not like animals in die peacefully in nature otherwise.
    If you're still squeamish go for shellfish.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this is better then paying for factory farmed meat, but don't a lot of "normies" think you are a psycho when you show pics of bunnies and bambi that you shot in the face?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Just don't tell the normies about all the bunnies and bambis you eat then dummy

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    pasture raised eggs
    whey

    that's it

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    u are on the right path, buy pea protein instead of whey, beans lentils, tvp and tofu are rich in protein, the bio availability is a meat industry meme.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I will listen to nobody and check it on my own body to see the results, lmao, imagine believing retards just because they bring up some logical arguments that speak for it and never against it. The future is now and it's retarded.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I will listen to nobody and check it on my own body to see the results

        the literature is full of studies heralding plant based diets as a perfectly adequate, often superior, alternative to traditional diets for athletes, and a handful of studies saying talking about shit like bioavailability that everyone spams whenever a serious debate is had about this. the against arguments are largely unsupported by evidence, or outright logical fallacies, so you only really hear about them from idiots and shills

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Poast "literature"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >implying you'd read it

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Roadkill is immorality-free

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just eat anything you find in a store. Cruelty is an action reserved for people.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    kys gay

Your email address will not be published.