/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>793626
if you want to be a vegan then go ahead, I don't see the point though, personally. human beings evolved to eat meat, it is a nutritious source of protein and dietary fats, and it's fucking tasty. I will not be swayed by moral arguments regarding animal consciousness or propensity for pain or whatever 'name the trait' type rhetoric that people utilize to browbeat meat eaters into submission.

I like meat, but I'm willing to concede a few points. vegans are generally right about the brutality of industrial agriculture and the livestock do needlessly suffer, which I think should be curtailed somehow. I also generally agree that people should consume less meat overall because, from field to slaughterhouse to table, it consumes a lot of natural resources that could be better put to use elsewhere.

however, unless you can make a convincing argument for why lab meat should take precedence over livestock, then I don't think much will change in terms of overall meat consumption. although, people do already consume a lot of 'frankenfoods' that are meat-adjacent but still otherwise highly suspect, like highly processed transglutaminase bound giblets that are forced into the shape of a patty, so maybe people won't mind consuming lab grown meat as an alternative, though I would be wary of its nutritious value and would likely still prefer "real" meat if given the choice.

I'm down with vegetables but I really just don't see why people can't have a balanced diet, why is everyone so fucking extreme with their diet?

Vegans are correct but I like borgar

>>793736
>>793821
idk, nutrition science is constantly evolving and being revised and we don't know nearly everything there is (which science does?) veganism doesn't work without supplementing vitamins (B12 atleast) and that should tell you we evolved to eat atleast some animal products, since there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, the only argument for veganism is a moral one.

dont think veganism prevents futures from being processed tbh. maybe it hurts it a little but u gotta be more like the animal liberation front besides getting into arguments online. not a vegan tho.

>>793845
I think the safest diet would be minimising processed food and heavily skewed towards plants with minimal animal consumption but not eliminated entirely because there are no tribal peoples that live entirely on veganism the only exceptions would be lacto-vegetarian sects that existed throughout history and still do in India/Asia but that is contingent on having lactose tolerance which not every population has.

>>793626
Veganism is cool but I’m not

>>793850
bro wtf man why you guys trolling this innocent old lady like c'mon man she's probably had nightmares after watching that.

>>793853
She is anything but innocent

>>793854
so what'd she do?

>>793856
She used to be a horrible woke scolding troll who would harass er naysayers

Literal Karen

>>793860
So like everyone on this site, but also a woman?

>>793861
The spirit of the Karen enraptures us all

>>793856
The picrel is absolute art.

Mixed opinions
I don't think moralizing to people eating rotisseries is helpful (if that shit even happens and every vegan is a meme) and humans evolved to atleast benefit from meat and milk..yet at the same i get them, millions of animal a year is devastating loss of life, imagine all the rotten leftover meats that were born fed drinking water shot up on hormones milked dry killed after years just to have tossed parts

Eat Chuds Not Candies

>>793736
>I will not be swayed by moral arguments regarding animal consciousness or propensity for pain

It's not really a moral argument. If you admit you don't care about animal suffering, it angers us who do care about it, and we consider you as an enemy.

>>793626
We should eat pic related instead

>>793977
I keep seeing this a lot.
The truth is, Jesus message is just a recycled script of moralistic platitudes
Idk why Christianity acts like they invented morality

>>793978
The solution would be to reintroduce hunting under strict regulations

I hear that deer run wild and spread ticks due to hunting being restricted

Also, people view snakes as bad but forget that they help eat mice and squirrels that would eat your crops

We can just further the development of lab grown meat.
>but it's expensive
So is real beef, but it's heavily subsided with tax incentives, and also bought from poorer countries such as Brazil.

>>793975
she's unironically correct tho. you're just a liberal

petty-bourgeois idealist bullshit

>>793977
>>794033
Okay either you guys or joking or you actually think that there is no difference between the barbecuing of chickens in America and the burning of Jews in the holocaust. Animals do have rights that are violated too often and the human population should eat less meat than it currently does (especially beef) or at least distribute it properly but you can’t unironically believe that humans are just as valuable as animals because they are not.

>>794032
its one of those issues that wouldve been fixed in like 10 years if we just had a rational economic system.

>>794041
why would animals be less valuable than people?

>>794045
>Human meat tastes like and has a texture similar to pork
How do you know that?

>>794046
Because animals are not as intelligent as humans

>>794050
so people with mental disabilities, down syndrome, et cetera matter less than an average person?

>>794047
probably from google
although i do wonder how would society today look like if human meat didn't give humans severe kuru disease and nerve damage from how you're basically filling yourself with your own DNA. would we be eating each other even more openly? will slaves in plantations or POWs be cooked alive regularly? will we try to form some global liberal humans rights to stop people from eating each other or humans from overseas?

>>794052
>name the trait
>just go ahead and find a trait that humans posses that sets them apart from animals
the trait is the state of being human. it's simply that. just like white supremacists use superficial genetic traits to draw a distinction between themselves and non-whites, the same rationale can be used to place a, perhaps irrational, innate value on humankind over non-humans.

it only makes sense to disassociate with a creature that is not like your own kind. now, here's where the fucking alien hypotheticals come in, people will chime in with shit like
>yeah but what if a race of highly intelligent alien life form came to our planet and determined that humans are tasty as fuck
>and furthermore, they determined that humans are not of sufficient intellect to be granted moral consideration
>would you be okay with them eating us?
and to that I would say that they can fucking try, humans will put up a fight, and if we can't fight, then our demise is merely the natural order of things. rules of nature, bitch. that's just how it goes, the weak are eaten by the strong. humans aren't the only species to eat others, so why are you not holding animals of a lesser intellect to the same standards that you would impose on us? oh, because they're not as intelligent, right? why does that matter? do you think that if a cheetah had the appropriate intellect to understand the pain that it inflicts upon the gazelle in the process of hunting it, that it'd defy its own nature to abstain from eating meat?
>oh but that's bad faith because humans are omnivores, the cheetah doesn't have a choice
yeah but would the cheetah still not be mortified of its own existence as a killing machine? and besides, do you not consider plants to be worthy of preservation? what if a plant is destroyed by the pillaging of its fruit? what if the plant simply feels a great deal of pain from the pillaging of its fruit? what if the plant would object to he pillaging of its fruit on the basis that it gathered the resources necessary to bear that fruit of its own accord and does not authorize its theft by you? yes, I'm getting sort of ridiculous here, but bear with me, the point is this: at some point, a line has to be drawn. where do you draw that line? at some point, some amount of suffering is taking place, as it is the very nature of survival to pillage from other lesser creatures their resources.

at best, as the 'apex predators' on this planet, we have a moral responsibility to care for the lesser beings that bless us with their bounty. we can do this by making them as comfortable in life as possible, and killing them in humane ways when their time comes. in regard to the alien analogy, this is the only thing we as humans could do, attempt to appeal to our captors and forge an accord with them, in the hopes of attaining better treatment. currently, animals have no way of doing that, so if you want to get all misty eyed about the fate of animals, then fine. that is a noble cause, but there's really no way you can escape the nature of being a 'taker' in terms of your existence on this planet and the need for sustenance. well all take blood, water, and the resources of other beings. it's fact.

food for thought: your pet cat or dog or horse or whatever is not your equal. that animal is your dependent, and exists to be your pet because humans have developed the predilection for pet ownership. they have no say in how their living quarters are furnished, or even where they are allowed to reside. they have no say in whether or not to receive injections or suppositories from vets, and they don't have a choice in what they eat. some dogs get their tails and ears clipped to embody a certain aesthetic as deemed necessary by their owner (which they don't get a say in), and so it is true for some cats who are declawed without their consent. the point being that animals will always be subservient to the human race; all that changes is their role, whether it be as a pet or as a carcass to be cut up for its meat. if you really gave a shit about the animals, you'd take time to reconsider whether or not this subservience in itself is in the animal's best interests, but most vegans who are pet owners probably have never considered the thought of what life would be like for their pet if left to their own devices, outside of the evolutionary circumstances that have been pushed upon them by humanity.

>>794050
Tomdathinker. If animals are so much less intelligent than humans, why are they capable of driving in differing environments without special equipment?
And why are they able to get sex easily whereas humans cannot nowadays?

Veganism only makes sense if you also end the predation problem and sterilize/phase out all predatory species. Animals don't care if their predator is human or not.

>>794052
People with mental disabilities are a part of the same species so eating them would be cannibalism, and if your gonna defend cannibalism while still advocating for veganism I will refuse to believe you are not a troll
>>794130
Animals can’t talk and build houses and technology

>>794143
> Animals can’t talk and build houses and technology

They do talk. Just not with words
There’s animals that communicate with pheromones.
Also animals can and do build houses
Look at how ants and termites build huge mounds
Birds build nests
Even primates do

>>794050
after reading many of your posts im pretty sure most crows and gorillas are more intelligent than you

>>794173
Yea.
No offense but Tom is kinda sycophantic.

>>794143
>if your gonna defend cannibalism while still advocating for veganism I will refuse to believe you are not a troll
im against both. where did i say i was pro eating people? if anything you should be pro eating people if intelligence dictates if it's ok to eat them.

>>794133
We need to abolish consumption of life in its entirety. End the cursed history of eating.

>>794173
I disagree, I would say that most worms are smarter than you.
>>794175
Sycophantic to whom?!?! Because you are acting pretty damn sycophantic to an Anon who defends That Vegan Teacher!!!
>>794268
No I shouldn’t.

>>793626
Lets just say that im more impressed by actual animal activists than people being smug about their diet.

>>794298
>No I shouldn’t.
your logic says you should. you're wrong and that's ok

The reason why people get so pissed at preaching vegans, as opposed to for example religious nuts who just get laughted at (oh Im going to hell for doing yoga? ok lmao) is that vegans arent pushing their morals on others, but merely holding a mirror to other peoples failure of living up to their own principles. Everyone, baring sadistic psychopaths, recognises industrial animal farms and slaughterhouses are an attrocity, yet their actively support it mostly out of habit and confort.

>>794313
This is a truth nuke, however, we can't forget that we live in a nightmare reality where people are living paycheck to paycheck and are all miserable. So we can't realistically expect people to be well-adjusted and to follow their own principles.

>>794313
>vegans arent pushing their morals on others
doesn't seem that way. seems like vegans very much want to push their morals onto everyone.
>merely holding a mirror to other peoples failure of living up to their own principles
in what way? because you can acknowledge the atrocities of factory farming and also enjoy meat, knowing that you contribute to that system, while also observing the reality that one must operate within the system in which they reside.

unless you think the scintillating commentary by boomers about how gommies are hypocrites because they use consumer grade products holds up to scrutiny.

>>794323
>doesn't seem that way. seems like vegans very much want to push their morals onto everyone.

I'll agree with this, I wish I could push my morals onto carnists, but I think it's very funny for them to make this argument when their lifestyle is predicated on the holocaust 100x every single year

>in what way? because you can acknowledge the atrocities of factory farming and also enjoy meat, knowing that you contribute to that system, while also observing the reality that one must operate within the system in which they reside.

lol how. it's not that hard to live without meat, it's mildly inconvenient yeah but hardly totally life changing.
<I acknowledge the horrors of slavery but I'm not gonna actually do anything about it even if it would change my life minimally
stunning and brave

>>794328
>it's not that hard to live without meat, it's mildly inconvenient yeah but hardly totally life changing
I guess so
<I acknowledge the horrors of slavery but I'm not gonna actually do anything about it even if it would change my life minimally
well that's the point. you can't really do anything about it on an individual level, the act of abstinence is mostly symbolic in nature, it has no real effect on the reality of things. meat consumption is too pervasive for your paltry objection to make any meaningful difference. hence the idea that vegans have the nigh impossible job of trying to convince the vast majority of humans to abandon meat as a part of their diet OR pressure politicians enough such that they dismantle the industry entirely (not gonna happen in either case lol).

I'm not saying abstinence from meat consumption is hard, I'm saying that the material conditions are what they are, whether I eat a burger today or not. do whatever you want on a personal level, sure, but don't criticize me for not partaking in your rituals, especially when I am intellectually willing to make concessions to your worldview.

There’s no such thing as as a vegan with any kind of industrial agriculture, thousands of insects, snakes, mice, frogs, and other small creatures are crushed and split by threshers and harvesters every year for your supposedly vegetable products, you’re still consuming flesh but in an invisible way

>>794332
>well that's the point. you can't really do anything about it on an individual level, the act of abstinence is mostly symbolic in nature, it has no real effect on the reality of things. meat consumption is too pervasive for your paltry objection to make any meaningful difference.

if there's more vegans then less animals will be raised and slaughtered for meat. pretty simple. to claim otherwise is just magical thinking. the impact of the group is made up of lots of individual impacts.

>hence the idea that vegans have the nigh impossible job of trying to convince the vast majority of humans to abandon meat as a part of their diet OR pressure politicians enough such that they dismantle the industry entirely (not gonna happen in either case lol).

never say never, I would be very surprised if we still practised animal agriculture as we do today in 500 years. even if all we can do is reduce the harm that would be a great thing. if we could get meat subsidies reduced that would be a huge step forward

>>794334
look, I wish you well, but I'm here to tell you that you're living in a fantasy land if you think you can pressure enough people to abandon meat. it ain't going to happen, especially when all you have are moralistic appeals to mercy.

>>794335
Why are the lives of snakes and mice and insects less important to you? If you’re so moral why is there still a hierarchy of life? In fact let’s drop veganism and eat grubs instead since they don’t suffer like cattle or swine

>>794338
we have to have some kind of hierarchy based on complexity/emotional richness/whatever, yes of course it's subjective but I feel like basically everyone would agree that a dog's life is more significant than a mosquito.

it sucks that we have to kill snakes, mice, insects whatever, we should try reduce it if we can, though I'm also not really convinced this is such a big problem as people claim.

>let's eat grubs

why? that's gross. let's just eat plants.

>>794336
everything that has now been accomplished once looked impossible. it's an uphill struggle sure but i have hope we will get there some day. for now i'll support pro-environmentalist parties/movements as that is obviously going to lead us further in the direction we prefer.

>>794340
Southeast asians have been eating grubs for thousands of years and anyone that’s ever eaten shellfish has eaten bugs, crawfish and crabs are river and ocean bugs, there’s no vegan source of protein that can fully replace meat. Eating bugs and invasive species and hunting overpopulated prey species while phasing out chicken, beef, and pork is a perfect middle ground imo.

Hunting an overpopulated prey species is fundamentally pro social.

>>793991
unironically this

>>794341
>there’s no vegan source of protein that can fully replace meat.

big, if true. there's loads of them. also you can just take supplements
<eugh i dont want to thats unhealthy
no it's not and you almost certainly are deficient in something even if you eat meat.

if people want to eat bugs then i would consider that less bad than eating mammals sure but you would have to eat a lot more of them to get the same nutrition so who really knows what the moral calculus is there. it's still bad imo.

>>794342
the only reason prey species are 'overpopulated' is because hunters and ranchers killed all the natural predators lol. completely circular argument.

I hate how people focus on how industrial animal farming is bad as if small-scale animal farming is acceptable in comparison. It isn't imminent critique. Animal slaughter is unacceptable even if it is done in a 'wholesome' way.

>>794341
No, there will be no middle ground. I care about the bugs as well.

>>794346
why so absolutist on this issue?

>>794346
>>794345
So I’m supposed to just accept all the car accidents deer cause?

>>794345
And now we are the only predators, therefore it’s our responsibility to keep the prey population numbers down

>>794348
no? reintroduce predators. and roadways should try to avoid wildlife areas. in general human civilisation should recede to megacities (over a long enough period of time)

>>794350
no, because the actual solution is to put nature back the way it used to be, as much as possible. anyways, why is this even being brought up? at least 95% of meat consumed in the west is not hunted so it's kind of irrelevant.

>>794351
Communism isn’t ultra urbanism, it’s the opposite, you have to evenly distribute the population throughout the entire landscape, urban concentration makes no sense outside of class society

>>794351
>the actual solution is to put nature back the way it used to be, as much as possible
No, it's the opposite. We must abolish suffering, which is only possible through exponential socialist technological progress

>>794352
You're just describing settler colonialism. Why should we not concentrate in cities where our needs are best met and in the most efficient way? Obviously there's still probably some rural areas that need populations and people who really prefer rural life can go there, but over time we should try to return the planet to nature as much as possible.

>>794353
Abolishing suffering is an interesting idea but I do think it's kind of shitty if we were to end nature basically. How can we be so sure we will be able to do better? At least if nature is still there, we have a backup plan in case our technology fails us some day (societal collapse or whatever).

>>794354
Karl Marx called for the emptying of cities and redistribution of the population to rural areas

>>794355
ok, cool, i don't agree.

The leftism leaving people's bodies when veganism is mentioned :

Let's leave the (((politics))) aside for a second. There are so many incredibly good reasons to become vegan. It's healthier, you reduce land usage, water usage, CO2 emissions, you decrease the horrific suffering of animals. And you get exposed to so many new ingredients and tastes.

Also the Impossible and Beyond and Gardein stuff is genuinely good. I know many meat eaters who are shocked how close they are to real meat. Oat milk is pretty tasty as well.

>>794354
We can do better than nature. Don't ossify your thinking into religious idealist nature worship.

nah lol

>>794367
In theory we could do better than nature but would require basically godlike levels of technology, let's just focus on stopping climate change and the worst excesses of humankind before we try write a new script shall we?

Look at how much land is wasted for animal agriculture

>>794360
ok look I'm right there with you but I just don't think you have to be that militant about it. can I be pescetarian? no? that's too bourgeois for you, I'm still a murderer then. ok what about vegetarian who occasionally has animal products? still too impure for your tastes? this is why vegans are made fun of and disregarded, because they're not willing to work with people who see the problems that you identify as a result of big agriculture/meat industrial complex, but who aren't entirely ready to let go of cheese, eggs, butter, etc.

>>794400
obviously any cutting down of your meat consumption is better. not like i talk to carnists like this IRL, obviously, I'm on an imageboard.

Animal suffering is good

>>794304
No it doesn’t! People with disabilities are still a part of the human species so they should not be eaten like cows!

>>794471
neither cow or people should be eaten. again, why does their species indicate if they should be eaten or not?

Let's say animals get raised in a 100% environmentally sustainable way, they get a quality life without suffering, and they are killed painlessly. Would eating meat still be bad?

>>794472
Because cannibalism is bad for humans medically so we know not to eat other humans, but there is no health risk for cows.

>>794495
Tom you’re willfully stupid

There are risk with eating cows.
Mad cow disease.
Salmonella with chickeuyghs and chicken flesh, etc

>>794298
> Sycophantic to whom?!?! Because you are acting pretty damn sycophantic to an Anon who defends That Vegan Teacher!!!

I wasn’t sycophantic.
You’re the one being sycophantic with your frankly radlib takes.
If anything, I’m more a barb-wired dildo

>>794487
Of course not. Its why killing happily married father of 2 is ok as well.

>>794754
I'm assuming this is sarcasm , but this is just a false analogy. I thought the argument was about preventing animal suffering, and if an animal lives a happy life with a painless death, then it would have very little suffering, The reason why it's bad to kill another human being is because quite literally the other person does not want to die.
And before you say "animals don't want to die either" I want to ask you this question: Do animals even ponder about the fact that they are going to die someday? Would the other animals have a moral outrage about the murder of their companion? No. Animals don't have morals, and they don't think about their own death, and treating them as such is like giving a color TV to a colorblind person instead of a black and white TV.

>>794553
There are also health risks in eating lettuce. You can easily die if the wrong parasite ends up from the lettuce leave to your system.

>>794360
>Let's leave the (((politics))) aside for a second.
<lists more political reasons
From a strict dietary viewpoint you should eat less meat but not completely remove it from your diet. If for whatever reason you decide to stop eating animal proteins, you should know what you are doing and take vitamin supplements.

>>795128
I really hate the "not the complete source of protein" criticism of vegan diet, like do you plan to sustain yourself on exactly one kind of food? Nobody writes that you get scurvy and gout and miriad of other health issues as a negative of meat.

>>795116
>fact that they are going to die someday? Would the other animals have a moral outrage about the murder of their companion? No. Animals don't have morals, and they don't think about their own death, and treating them as such is like giving a color TV to a colorblind person instead of a black and white TV.

Animals grieve over dead relatives.

>>795202
So? Would they react differently if their relatives died of natural causes instead of being killed by a human being? If the answer is no, then it literally does not matter if you kill them (as long as you give them a good life and a painless death) because they are not immortal.