Veganism is awesome. Admit it.

[Halifax]

I wouldn't know. I am an omnivore

 

[uptheirons!]

They're actually the opposite:

The difference is that beyond the obvious ethics of not basically torturing and killing billions of animals, science shows that raising animals for food is horrible for the environment. Facts.

CrossFit can be dangerous and isn't the best way to get in shape. Facts.


This makes no sense at all.

Animals shouldn't be tortured but there most certainly meant to be eaten.

 

[AgentSmecker]

That's silly. Morality has little to do with it: it's getting told what not to do that bothers. As far as I can tell, vegans are under no pressure to eat meat. Of course they have social pressure and the need to conform. But nobody is telling them NOT to be vegans. Yet they feel the need to remind every one how bad it is to eat meat, how unethical the meat business is. That's everyone's problem with vegans and it's the same with crossfiters.

Morality has everything to do with it. To understand why eating meat or consuming/using any other type of animal produce is bad you have to consider not only the suffering inflicted on animals in the process of making these products but more importantly the fact that enslaving other sentient beings and using them as nothing more than commodities is inherently wrong by it's very nature.

No matter how supposedly humanely they were treated, no sane minded, compassionate individual would ever condone enslaving other human beings and using them as commodities and quite simply there is no rational reason why this same fundamental right, the right not to be treated as property, shouldn't be applied to others just because they happen to born of a different species. It's really no different or any less morally indefensible as someone trying to justify treating other people as having less moral worth simply because they happen to be born of a different skin colour or a man saying woman have less moral worth simply because they happen to be born of a different gender. Bear in mind, in the grand scheme of things it really wasn't such a long time ago that black people and woman were regarded as inferior beings and treated as such and in fact despite the progress made this type of archaic mindset is still very prevalent even to this day.

So you see saying vegans are like crossfitters is not only a grotesque utterly absurd comparison to make but a gross insult to the billions of animals that we as a species, enslave, exploit, torture and kill every year. I don't know any crossfitters personally and I can't comment on why they feel the need to talk about their lifestyle so much but I can say that the reason you will find that many (not all) vegans feel compelled to talk about veganism so much is because we are horrified by the atrocities our species inflicts on animals and we hope that by educating people and encouraging them to give consideration to the part they play in this suffering they may come to realize that not only is it unnecessary but completely unjustifiable. Veganism isn't a fad diet, it isn't a lifestyle choice or any other trivial crap like that, it is a moral imperative.

Obvious ethics? Your ethics are not obvious to others. Do your ethics apply to cattle too? Which ones are worthy? Will you protect pigs but let chicken roast? Will you "free them all and send them back to the forest where they belong"? Where do you draw the line? Which animal is worthy of protecting and which one is worthy of ignoring? Do you extent your ethics to fish and shells? What about game? Will you fight for the right to party for snails?

As I have explained above they are all worth fighting for once you recognize that they are non human persons and not things.

How about hospitality? It's a human custom that has lived thousands of years, back to the Sumerians. A stranger invites you in, you accept and eat what he offers. If you sit at the table but refuses the food, you're not welcome anymore. That's life: sharing with others, trying new things and exploring new way of living. Not refusing hospitality or finding other's customs despicable. That's what you do when you blame a meat-eater: you tell him you find him despicable. He just laughs at your silly custom of refusing food and you find "ethical justifications" for this refusal.

If the hospitality or customs of someone involves inflecting senseless cruelty against humans or non humans then it should be refuted regardless of the awkwardness or any offence caused. Furthermore saying that because something has a history dating back x number of years does not make it morally right or acceptable today. We have being doing many things for thousands of years... enslaving, beating, robbing, bullying, raping, murdering and waging war against our fellow man, surely you wouldn't suggest we should continue to carry on in this way just because we have always done so.

What you call "basically torturing" is a process that has been around for thousands of years, too. Do you think cattle animals would strive alone in the wood without human interference? Natural selection would eradicate them fast. You think chickens would have a long, peaceful life in the woods? You think a cow dreams of freedom and social justice? Talk about morality!

Again see above for my response to your "thousands of years" fallacy and in regard to the rest, well you do realize that cattle only exist in their present form because of our manipulation and purposeful breeding in order to create animals weak and submissive enough to maximize their exploitability and that there are only such huge numbers of them because there is such huge demand for them, reduce the demand and the numbers will gradually drop. We aren't suddenly going to be suddenly overrun by cows and chickens and if cows eventually go extinct then it's better that than the present hellish lives most of them are forced to endure.

Quite frankly the rest of what you wrote makes no sense whatsoever so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Metal_Daze]

Morality has everything to do with it. To understand why eating meat or consuming/using any other type of animal produce is bad you have to consider not only the suffering inflicted on animals in the process of making these products but more importantly the fact that enslaving other sentient beings and using them as nothing more than commodities is inherently wrong by it's very nature.

No matter how supposedly humanely they were treated, no sane minded, compassionate individual would ever condone enslaving other human beings and using them as commodities and quite simply there is no rational reason why this same fundamental right, the right not to be treated as property, shouldn't be applied to others just because they happen to born of a different species. It's really no different or any less morally indefensible as someone trying to justify treating other people as having less moral worth simply because they happen to be born of a different skin colour or a man saying woman have less moral worth simply because they happen to be born of a different gender. Bear in mind, in the grand scheme of things it really wasn't such a long time ago that black people and woman were regarded as inferior beings and treated as such and in fact despite the progress made this type of archaic mindset is still very prevalent even to this day.

So you see saying vegans are like crossfitters is not only a grotesque utterly absurd comparison to make but a gross insult to the billions of animals that we as a species, enslave, exploit, torture and kill every year. I don't know any crossfitters personally and I can't comment on why they feel the need to talk about their lifestyle so much but I can say that the reason you will find that many (not all) vegans feel compelled to talk about veganism so much is because we are horrified by the atrocities our species inflicts on animals and we hope that by educating people and encouraging them to give consideration to the part they play in this suffering they may come to realize that not only is it unnecessary but completely unjustifiable. Veganism isn't a fad diet, it isn't a lifestyle choice or any other trivial crap like that, it is a moral imperative.



As I have explained above they are all worth fighting for once you recognize that they are non human persons and not things.



If the hospitality or customs of someone involves inflecting senseless cruelty against humans or non humans then it should be refuted regardless of the awkwardness or any offence caused. Furthermore saying that because something has a history dating back x number of years does not make it morally right or acceptable today. We have being doing many things for thousands of years... enslaving, beating, robbing, bullying, raping, murdering and waging war against our fellow man, surely you wouldn't suggest we should continue to carry on in this way just because we have always done so.



Again see above for my response to your "thousands of years" fallacy and in regard to the rest, well you do realize that cattle only exist in their present form because of our manipulation and purposeful breeding in order to create animals weak and submissive enough to maximize their exploitability and that there are only such huge numbers of them because there is such huge demand for them, reduce the demand and the numbers will gradually drop. We aren't suddenly going to be suddenly overrun by cows and chickens and if cows eventually go extinct then it's better that than the present hellish lives most of them are forced to endure.

Quite frankly the rest of what you wrote makes no sense whatsoever so I'll just leave it at that.

I'm sorry if I offended your beliefs. When you use catchphrases like "inflicting senseless cruelty" and "enslaving sentient species", your morality bias shows flaws. What you call enslaving, others call mass production. What you call cruelty is in fact lawfully regulated and common practice all around the world. I don't deny it can be considered "slavery" but it's a matter of perspective, and yours sounds very self-righteous.

The crossfit - vegan comparison was more of a joke, an illustration. It doesn't mean I consider them the same, it's just an image. A stereotypical meme that is funny to reminisce. I can see how it's weak, but you don't need to deconstruct it with a post-modern approach, it was just an image...

 

[MikeMcMann]

Morality has everything to do with it. To understand why eating meat or consuming/using any other type of animal produce is bad you have to consider not only the suffering inflicted on animals in the process of making these products but more importantly the fact that enslaving other sentient beings and using them as nothing more than commodities is inherently wrong by it's very nature.

No matter how supposedly humanely they were treated, no sane minded, compassionate individual would ever condone enslaving other human beings and using them as commodities and quite simply there is no rational reason why this same fundamental right, the right not to be treated as property, shouldn't be applied to others just because they happen to born of a different species. It's really no different or any less morally indefensible as someone trying to justify treating other people as having less moral worth simply because they happen to be born of a different skin colour or a man saying woman have less moral worth simply because they happen to be born of a different gender. Bear in mind, in the grand scheme of things it really wasn't such a long time ago that black people and woman were regarded as inferior beings and treated as such and in fact despite the progress made this type of archaic mindset is still very prevalent even to this day.

So you see saying vegans are like crossfitters is not only a grotesque utterly absurd comparison to make but a gross insult to the billions of animals that we as a species, enslave, exploit, torture and kill every year. I don't know any crossfitters personally and I can't comment on why they feel the need to talk about their lifestyle so much but I can say that the reason you will find that many (not all) vegans feel compelled to talk about veganism so much is because we are horrified by the atrocities our species inflicts on animals and we hope that by educating people and encouraging them to give consideration to the part they play in this suffering they may come to realize that not only is it unnecessary but completely unjustifiable. Veganism isn't a fad diet, it isn't a lifestyle choice or any other trivial crap like that, it is a moral imperative.



As I have explained above they are all worth fighting for once you recognize that they are non human persons and not things.



If the hospitality or customs of someone involves inflecting senseless cruelty against humans or non humans then it should be refuted regardless of the awkwardness or any offence caused. Furthermore saying that because something has a history dating back x number of years does not make it morally right or acceptable today. We have being doing many things for thousands of years... enslaving, beating, robbing, bullying, raping, murdering and waging war against our fellow man, surely you wouldn't suggest we should continue to carry on in this way just because we have always done so.



Again see above for my response to your "thousands of years" fallacy and in regard to the rest, well you do realize that cattle only exist in their present form because of our manipulation and purposeful breeding in order to create animals weak and submissive enough to maximize their exploitability and that there are only such huge numbers of them because there is such huge demand for them, reduce the demand and the numbers will gradually drop. We aren't suddenly going to be suddenly overrun by cows and chickens and if cows eventually go extinct then it's better that than the present hellish lives most of them are forced to endure.

Quite frankly the rest of what you wrote makes no sense whatsoever so I'll just leave it at that.

Nope sorry you are just wrong.

You are layering human emotions and considerations where they simply do not belong particularly when we are talking about humanly raised animals.

The animals you think you would be protecting do not give a fuck that you think they would be better off having never lived simply because one day they will die by human predation. that is also true of the animals in the wild who also all almost die of predation eventually.

Both sets of animals just want their life and a good life and do not consider the end of their life, how long they will iiver or how they will die.

In order to accept you flawed argument we have to accept their is a difference somehow between a deer that lives free range on a ranch and who dies by the farmer and the deer who lives in the wild and dies by a wolf.

There is NO difference to the animal. Only the quality of the life prior matters along with a chance to procreate and propagate the species.

The entire argument you put forth can be summed up as ...'but...but.. it bothers me so I don't want them to live even if it does not bother them.'

 

[punkmother]

trigger warning

no sound required

nobody should be triggered by that. shrimp barely qualify as anything above a bug. even vegans hate bugs.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'm sorry if I offended your beliefs. When you use catchphrases like "inflicting senseless cruelty" and "enslaving sentient species", your morality bias shows flaws. What you call enslaving, others call mass production. What you call cruelty is in fact lawfully regulated and common practice all around the world. I don't deny it can be considered "slavery" but it's a matter of perspective, and yours sounds very self-righteous.

The crossfit - vegan comparison was more of a joke, an illustration. It doesn't mean I consider them the same, it's just an image. A stereotypical meme that is funny to reminisce. I can see how it's weak, but you don't need to deconstruct it with a post-modern approach, it was just an image...

Yup.

Again it is human's layering their own emotions onto animals wrongly.

You take it a step further and you have Peta saying keeping a dog as a pet is slavery and thus wrong because they are going from an absolute that slavery is wrong therefore...

And it is stupid disconnect of the logic. If a domestic dog that is a pet leads an ideal life for the species in a good home who cares about the human definition of slavery? The dog certainly does not. It does not want to be rescued by those idiots from its life because they are offended.

The question is not whether we can take the strict definition of made up words and apply them to animals. We can. The question is does it make any sense to do so. And in these cases it does not.

 

[AgentSmecker]

I'm sorry if I offended your beliefs. When you use catchphrases like "inflicting senseless cruelty" and "enslaving sentient species", your morality bias shows flaws. What you call enslaving, others call mass production. What you call cruelty is in fact lawfully regulated and common practice all around the world. I don't deny it can be considered "slavery" but it's a matter of perspective, and yours sounds very self-righteous.

The crossfit - vegan comparison was more of a joke, an illustration. It doesn't mean I consider them the same, it's just an image. A stereotypical meme that is funny to reminisce. I can see how it's weak, but you don't need to deconstruct it with a post-modern approach, it was just an image...

Your speciesism is glaringly obvious and, I don't know, for all I know I'm talking to a misogynist too so this may not be the best question to ask you but I would like to know your honest view about the fact, that in certain cultures, women are still regarded as second class citizens and indeed many are also still used as slaves. Would you agree that in spite of the fact this subjugation is completely lawful in such cultures it is inherently wrong and morally unjustifiable or do you also write this off as just "a matter of perspective"?

I explained to you why there is no rational reason as to why non human animals shouldn't be afforded the same fundamental rights as we humans and if you still don't get it or refuse to accept it then there's not much more I can really say to you.

 

[AgentSmecker]

Nope sorry you are just wrong.

You are layering human emotions and considerations where they simply do not belong particularly when we are talking about humanly raised animals.

The animals you think you would be protecting do not give a fuck that you think they would be better off having never lived simply because one day they will die by human predation. that is also true of the animals in the wild who also all almost die of predation eventually.

Both sets of animals just want their life and a good life and do not consider the end of their life, how long they will iiver or how they will die.

In order to accept you flawed argument we have to accept their is a difference somehow between a deer that lives free range on a ranch and who dies by the farmer and the deer who lives in the wild and dies by a wolf.

There is NO difference to the animal. Only the quality of the life prior matters along with a chance to procreate and propagate the species.

The entire argument you put forth can be summed up as ...'but...but.. it bothers me so I don't want them to live even if it does not bother them.'

Ah the ubiquitous MikeMcMann. Didn't we just do this a few weeks ago and once again your pivotal argument is based upon a completely false projection of my position. I'll be very brief because just like last time it gets extremely fucking boring repeating myself to you over and over again and having you continually misrepresent my position. I have never at any point tried to layer human emotions onto non human animals as the basis for my argument against exploiting them. This is just your go-to straw man because really if you are to be be completely honest with yourself you got nothing else.

I can't layer the emotions of a healthy fully functional human being onto an individual who is severally mentally impaired and has little to no concept of his own place in the world but that doesn't mean that I should have the right to abuse, exploit or murder retarded people does it?

Finally I never said I didn't want them to live, that's just you projecting again. I do want them to live but live by their own rules, fulfilling their own evolutionary instincts, urges, wants and desires and certainly not as slaves to our wretched species.

 

[Metal_Daze]

Your speciesism is glaringly obvious and, I don't know, for all I know I'm talking to a misogynist too so this may not be the best question to ask you but I would like to know your honest view about the fact, that in certain cultures, women are still regarded as second class citizens and indeed many are also still used as slaves. Would you agree that in spite of the fact this subjugation is completely lawful in such cultures it is inherently wrong and morally unjustifiable or do you also write this off as just "a matter of perspective"?

I explained to you why there is no rational reason as to non human animals shouldn't be afforded the same fundamental rights as we humans and if you still don't get it or refuse to accept it then there's not much more I can really say to you.

I don't want to get into cultural relativism and moral compass discussions. I just don't like orthodox views. I tend to make a parody out of orthodoxy. That's my point of view, if you want to consider it.

 

[AgentSmecker]

Animals shouldn't be tortured but there most certainly meant to be eaten.

Without an explanation as to why you think they are "meant to be eaten" your statement is completely baseless and holds as much weight as someone saying Africans shouldn't be whipped but are most certainly meant to be slaves.

 

[AgentSmecker]

I don't want to get into cultural relativism and moral compass discussions. I just don't like orthodox views. I tend to make a parody out of orthodoxy. That's my point of view, if you want to consider it.

Ok if that's how you want to play it. I just asked you a very simple question, if you don't want to answer it that's fine mate. It's late now and I'm off to my kip.

 

[uptheirons!]

Without an explanation as to why you think they are "meant to be eaten" your statement is completely baseless and holds as much weight as someone saying Africans shouldn't be whipped but are most certainly meant to be slaves.

Top of the food chain brah.

 

[uptheirons!]

Your speciesism is glaringly obvious and, I don't know, for all I know I'm talking to a misogynist too so this may not be the best question to ask you but I would like to know your honest view about the fact, that in certain cultures, women are still regarded as second class citizens and indeed many are also still used as slaves. Would you agree that in spite of the fact this subjugation is completely lawful in such cultures it is inherently wrong and morally unjustifiable or do you also write this off as just "a matter of perspective"?

I explained to you why there is no rational reason as to non human animals shouldn't be afforded the same fundamental rights as we humans and if you still don't get it or refuse to accept it then there's not much more I can really say to you.

"speciesism" <Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo>

I need a steak, maybe with a side of veal.

 

[Kardashians]

Not gonna lie, I think there has to be something wrong with somebody that supports the dairy and meat industries, industries that treat animals poorly, where they suffer abuse and neglect. And animals that come from other places, like carriage horses and plow mules, etc end up going to slaughter for meat. Not all of them of course. But a lot of them. Once they're "used up" and no longer any good. Pretty shitty imo. Work an animal all its life and then just toss it away. My god the shit you see at a simple livestock auction is bad enough. To me it's just not worth the suffering of other live beings so that you can live a more convenient life and indulge in foods that you don't *need* and just simply enjoy. I don't know what's worse, people eating meat but never bothering to learn how it came to be, or people that are well aware and continue to do it anyways. Actually yeah that's probably more disturbing.

I really don't take people seriously when they say they love animals but are meat eaters. You may love animals but only the ones you come into contact with before they hit your plate.

Also lose respect for people when they eat meat. Meh.

That's just my opinion tho. I'm not even here to argue lmao I just wanna be like everyone else okay and say shit that won't matter to anybody else here xD lol

 

[Kardashians]

Your speciesism is glaringly obvious and, I don't know, for all I know I'm talking to a misogynist too so this may not be the best question to ask you but I would like to know your honest view about the fact, that in certain cultures, women are still regarded as second class citizens and indeed many are also still used as slaves. Would you agree that in spite of the fact this subjugation is completely lawful in such cultures it is inherently wrong and morally unjustifiable or do you also write this off as just "a matter of perspective"?

I explained to you why there is no rational reason as to non human animals shouldn't be afforded the same fundamental rights as we humans and if you still don't get it or refuse to accept it then there's not much more I can really say to you.

Lmao did you say misogynist? Who are? Do you know where you are? ARE YOU REALLY A GUY???

Ain't no way no goddamn male sherdogger around here is concerned with who's a misogynist lol. Misogyny is like this boards thing by the looks of it.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

why are you abandoning meat

i think he is just abandoning eating it....

 

[FyrFytr998]

I can only conclude that the purpose of this pic is to show that the gun will give you a much faster more painless death than all the other products of suffering sat there on the table next to it.

Probably, but I'll drag it out for as long as I can.

 

[ocean size]

Haha Smecker goes hard and you are taking advantage

 

[MikeMcMann]

Ah the ubiquitous MikeMcMann. Didn't we just do this a few weeks ago and once again your pivotal argument is based upon a completely false projection of my position. I'll be very brief because just like last time it gets extremely fucking boring repeating myself to you over and over again and having you continually misrepresent my position. I have never at any point tried to layer human emotions onto non human animals as the basis for my argument against exploiting them. This is just your go-to straw man because really if you are to be be completely honest with yourself you got nothing else.

I can't layer the emotions of a healthy fully functional human being onto an individual who is severally mentally impaired and has little to no concept of his own place in the world but that doesn't mean that I should have the right to abuse, exploit or murder retarded people does it?

Finally I never said I didn't want them to live, that's just you projecting again. I do want them to live but live by their own rules, fulfilling their own evolutionary instincts, urges, wants and desires and certainly not as slaves to our wretched species.

Ya you are still saying the same stupid shit and refusing to address the issue so I will keep replying appropriately whether you are capable of understanding it or not.

It all comes down to this. You are not the sole arbiter of morals and you cannot dictate morals for others.

You put no argument forward and have no answer when i raise the issue that a free range raised deer would want its life as much as a wild one would and that your position (not using them for food) would end up in them being slaughtered on mass and wiped out of existence going forward.

You seem to suggest this pollyanna view that perhaps people will continue to feed and raise them out of charity as if that saves your argument. It does not.

Sorry but yes, it is only your imparting of your human view of wrong on something the animal cares nothing about that makes you impose your view on them and others.