So much hypocrisy and double standards that I think either most humans are evil or determinism / no free will exists or moral responsibility does not exist or some kind of idealism quantum woo LOA exists or most people are completely or partially NPCs

But the idea theres only one shared universe and in it almost everyone in it is made in God’s image and almost everyone has a lot of libertarian free will and a lot of moral responsibility is definitely false.

File: isaac-bashevis-singer-392(...).jpg (124 KB, 640x820)

124 KB JPG

Learning about factory farming at like 18 years old was such a mindfuck and redpill. to be honest, it vastly improved my general mood, because i realized i live a better likfe than 99% of mammals right now.

File: IMG_1382.jpg (84 KB, 640x360)

84 KB JPG

>>5136645
That is true because it is easy to look at a healthy young rich person like mark zuckerberg or some celebrity and be jealous until you realize you are already in the top 0.1%

However because you are so lucky to be a human adult with a rational mind with access to things like your own bank account it also means you have a massive burden on your shoulders because 1 hour of your labor in a fairly easy and painless job can generate 20 dollars and you could then donate that twenty dollars to an effective charity to prevent literally decades of farm animal torture

>>5136645
>nazis out of nowhere
>singer
lol adds up

File: Screenshot from 2026-06-2(...).png (1.16 MB, 1219x623)

1.16 MB PNG

>>5136648
I know. its a mindfuck. can easily go off the deep end thinking about the causes and effects and implications.
I like buddhism as an explanation for why it all came to be as it is and what to do about it, that is be very compassionate and excersize restraint, whether it be for the craving to eat meat or to chimp out at the sociopaths who try to justify their violence.
buddhism also explains kamma and rebirth, how past life good deeds lead to better lives and stuff

File: IMG_1420.jpg (170 KB, 1000x974)

170 KB JPG

>>5136651
Yes but for boring metaphysical philosophy reasons I think atheist naturalist physicalism, monotheistic Hinduism, liberal version of Christianity or theism is most likely.

https://benthams.substack.com/p/god-best-explains-the-world?utm_source=publication-search

File: Selection_on_the_ramp_at_(...).png (712 KB, 900x700)

712 KB PNG

>>5136650
https://www.timesofisrael.com/holocaust-survivor-likens-treatment-of-livestock-to-shoah/
>I noted with horror the striking similarities between what the Nazis did to my family and my people, and what we do to animals we raise for food: the branding or tattooing of serial numbers to identify victims, the use of cattle cars to transport victims to their death, the crowded housing of victims in wood crates, the arbitrary designation of who lives and who dies — the Christian lives, the Jew dies; the dog lives, the pig dies. --Alex Hershaft
I

File: Screenshot from 2026-06-2(...).png (17 KB, 803x77)

17 KB PNG

>>5136654
Lol

>>5136656
Doesn’t have to be perfect just better than atheism

>>5136641
Fuck off benthams you spamming vegan fucktard

A dog is not a cow. A dog does not have the same moral value as a cow. A dog is an intelligent social animal that co-evolved with man as a companion. Dogs and our sense of innate empathy are closely related.

Cows are disgusting piss fountains that will happily watch farmers kill their friends as long as loud noises aren’t involved. The ones that run are few and far between and are increasingly being bred out.

There is NO benefit or reason to give a single shit about what happens to a cow as long as it isn’t screaming and thrashing around (ie: kosher slaughter) because those are universal signals that humans, as a gracile predator that uses advanced killing methods, are meant to be bothered by and hold as universally a sign of something wrong. Even though a cows chance of having an inner world with more than 2 seconds of awareness is nil.

>>5136654
All metaphysics are equally unlikely. There is no real or even working theoretical framework for them and lots to define magic as simply impossible. There is no god, are no gods, no warp or immaterium, no karma.

There is only this material life you have. There is no meaning. Morals and ethics are two flavors of a social technology. Meaningless philosophically. But made to choose between the alleged welfare of cattle and the prosperity of man, you are making the right choice or you are marking yourself as a threat to the rest of us, and being hated is the least you can expect.
Vegans are notably parasitic and reproduce by recruiting. They start out as an oversocialized upper class with defective beliefs so detached from reality in the way only the upper class can have them, and devolve into a very dumb people. See: india’s fall.

>>5136655
He won’t say why just why he won’t say why the dog lives. Why is a scary thought. It means admitting that perhaps a people can do something to make their entire tribe an existential threat to another. It means admitting value is assigned and modifiable, not magical and sacred. If only he pondered why. Mohammed wouldn’t be the most common name in germany right now, and israel would have the unanimous support of the entire planet.

>>5136662
>He won’t say why just why he won’t say why the dog lives.
...What?

>>5136656
the question of evil is juvenile

the answer is: what you think must be evil isn’t. from “the gods” perspective, evil as you think you know it doesn’t exist. it’s a self inflicted curse. we made evil up due to having the intelligence to communicate our feelings, and have others ask why.
>don’t do that. i dont like it.
>why? whats special about that?
>it’s… evil
our idea of evil is unique to us. individually. a consequence of making hominids too much like their creators, who are even more intelligent, and may no longer perceive good and evil. if they did they wouldn’t be shoving random genes into early homo instead of bringing their own terraforming equipment.

>>5136661
Morality Isn't A Social Technology

A funeral for a thought-terminating anti vegan cliche

For reasons I’ve given before at length, I think morality is objective. Thus, I don’t think morality is a social technology any more than the sun is it was here long before society, it will be here after society, and we did not create it. When dinosaurs died in agony and terror, long before anyone had any moral evaluations, that was deeply unfortunate. https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-i-believe-in-objective-morality

But lots of moral anti-realists are fond of the phrase “morality is a social technology.” Or “ If your instincts are not congruent with maximizing the survival of you and your kin, you have a disorder like a homosexual or a zoophile does.” Or “ Humans operate within chemical reality, not philosophical theory “. They are obsessed with this phrase and similar phrases like it. When, for instance, I argued for the modest proposal that insect suffering is the worst thing in the world, https://benthams.substack.com/p/thinking-insect-suffering-is-the lots of people replied along roughly the following lines:

Morality is a social technology which we follow because it’s useful for facilitating cooperation among social primates. However, trying to extend morality to say crazy things totally outside of the context for which it evolved is asking it to do too much. While perhaps YOU on account of being OBSESSED WITH BUGS have a moral code that causes you to weep each time an aphid feels upset, the rest of humanity doesn’t and it’s pointless to try to argue someone into a moral system that they don’t hold.

>>5136665
I think everything about this is confused, even if you’re a moral anti-realist.

The phrase comes from conflating descriptive claims about how moral beliefs came to be with normative claims about what we should do morally.

It’s true, of course, that part of the story of how our moral beliefs developed is that certain moral beliefs were adaptive. If everyone in a society thought that it was great to hit little babies with hammers, likely that society would not last very long and society develops norms to punish such behavior. (Some of us would also absurdly suggest that maybe part of the reason that almost everyone thinks it’s wrong to rape and torture people is that it really is wrong to rape and torture people but I know that such an absurd suggestion is unlikely to be seriously entertained by the “morality is a social technology” people. These people have moved beyond bogus superstition like the notion that you shouldn’t set random people on fire for no reason and this fact doesn’t just depend on your not liking setting people on fire).

But this doesn’t tell us whether the moral beliefs we should adopt are those that we evolved to adopt. Now I’m well aware that moral anti-realists deny there are such things as stance-independent reasons. They hold that morality is a matter of mere preference there aren’t reasons to hold moral beliefs that don’t depend ultimately on one’s own judgment.

>>5136666
But if this is right, then the morality we should adopt is a function of our judgments. If so, why the hell should anyone care about the social function of morality? Suppose I’m a utilitarian anti-realist. I recognize that my set of moral beliefs is out of accordance with those of society. But why should I care? I have many aesthetic evaluations that are out of accordance with society. I think that Amos Wollen is funny and that Fahrenheit 451 is the single most boring book ever written! If morality is a matter of preference, then its evolutionary history is totally irrelevant!

Now, one could reply that if morality is a matter of preference then it’s hard to see how you’d be able to convince people of moral judgments. You can’t normally talk people out of preferences or aesthetic judgments. One of the funniest passages ever written by the Chinese philosopher Mencius reads as follows:

>Mouths have the same preferences in flavors. Master Chef Yi Ya was the first to discover what our mouths prefer. If it were the case that the natures of mouths varied among people just as dogs and horses are different species from us then how could it be that throughout the world all tastes follow Yi Ya when it comes to flavor? When it comes to flavor, the reason the whole world looks to Yi Ya is that mouths throughout the world are similar.

>Ears are like this too. When it comes to sounds, the whole world looks to Music Master Shi Kuang. >This is because ears throughout the world are similar. Eyes are like this too. No one in the world does not appreciate the handsomeness of a man like Zidu. Anyone who does not appreciate the handsomeness of Zidu has no eyes. Hence, I say that mouths have the same preferences in flavors, ears have the same preferences in sounds, eyes have the same preferences in attractiveness. >When it comes to hearts, are they alone without preferences in common?

>>5136667
Despite repeatedly trying to talk people out of finding Zidu handsome, I simply could not! Despite repeatedly trying to talk people out of enjoying the flavors of Master chef Yi Ya, I failed completely. Aesthetic preferences are not generally swayed by rational argument.

(As an aside, I find it absolutely hilarious that we know basically nothing about Zidu other than that he was so handsome that Mencius thought that his existence demonstrated the objectivity of beauty).

Pic related. Behold: the ideal man!

Behold: the ideal man!

But moral preferences are a bit different from other kinds of preferences even if moral anti-realism is true. Moral preferences aren’t just a function of the degree of enjoyment you get from different things they have an evaluative character. They’re directed at other things in the world. They’re not just a function of our own enjoyment, the way our preference for cake is.

Suppose that there’s an anti-black racist. He thinks the interests of black people matter less than white people. I think it would be a problem for anti-realism if it holds that persuading him is impossible and that moral arguments shouldn’t change his mind. We should hold that at least for most people like that, they should change their mind if they reflected more. At the very least, we should hold that for many of these people if they reflected more, as a matter of fact they would change their mind. People can be talked out of moral positions even anti-realists.

>>5136663
Why does the dog live when the pig dies? The dog alive provides value, even if it’s simple value, and gives comfort to the hearts of men as our species oldest friend. The pig is naturally destructive. Though it is as intelligent as a medium sized dog, it is entirely self serving. They are the mammal that is most likely to cannibalize their offspring. More likely than a pitbull to eat an unconscious caretaker. An absolute menace. But they do convert actual garbage into high grade nutrition and fertilizer, and do so efficiently.

Why did the jew die, though he was human, and thus naturally had default standing beyond the dog? When he was useless dead? What did he do? He campaigned for the destruction of the german’s nation and inspired such fear people reverted to their animal instincts and lost the ability to discriminate, not just between good jew and bad jew, but between human and animal. Some very rich and powerful jews, pre hitler, did do some very wrong things that inspired fear.

If he pondered why, and acknowledged how malleable and internal the human concepts of value, good, and evil really are, perhaps he would have left a better legacy than campaigning for malnutrition and spoke instead of how we must never inspire fear in one another. It’s the only emotion that has never not superseded reason and flushed abstract tools like morality down the toilet.

>>5136668
How would one go about talking this person out of his views? I think I’d argue roughly along the following lines:

>The thing that your moral evaluations are being determined by skin color seems morally arbitrary. >If my skin simply changed color, it seems weird that this would affect my moral worth. So therefore it seems like you’re placing weight on something obviously morally irrelevant.

Perhaps he would then say that what he really cares about is not skin color intrinsically but criminality. He thinks black people are more prone to criminality. Then we could debate whether this is actually true and whether even granting that this is true the fact that a group is more prone to criminality on average is a good reason to take the non-criminal members of the group to be morally unimportant. Men commit more crimes than women but presumably he wouldn’t claim that men don’t matter.

Now, I don’t know if I would actually convince such a person. But it seems too quick to just handwave the possibility of persuasion with the thought-terminating cliche “morality is a social technology.” Even if morality ultimately boils down to preference, one can sometimes come to see that their moral evaluations are a byproduct of preferences that they don’t actually endorse.

This is what I hope to bring about when I argue for other unintuitive moral claims. When I argue that insects matter a great deal, I’m under no illusion that people actually care about insects. What I think is that people reject insect welfare for no particularly good reason. If they thought about the subject more, I think they might see that. The reasons they reject the significance of insects is because they harbor various ill-thought-out biases https://benthams.substack.com/p/thinking-insect-suffering-is-the against creatures that are small, funny-looking, and that you don’t naturally empathize with.

>>5136670
I also think there are other judgments that if they reflected on more, they could come to see are in conflict with their apathy towards insects. For instance, most people seem to be opposed to intense agony. All else equal, they think that if there’s more extreme agony in the world, that is unfortunate.

But people ignore their general opposition to agony when it implies that insect suffering matters. If they thought about it more, I think they could see that the factors that make them oppose other kinds of agony the fact it feels bad should also make them oppose insect agony. The reason it’s bad when, say, babies suffer isn’t because they’re smart (they’re not) or they’re human (one’s species doesn’t seem to affect how morally serious it is when they feel pain). The reason is because it hurts and it’s bad to hurt. But if insects can hurt too, why in the world should we ignore their pain?

Now, I think this appeal is a bit easier to make if someone’s a moral realist than if they’re not. But even moral anti-realists should be potentially persuadable. We’re not dogs perpetually jerked around by our emotional reactions. We can reflect on what truly matters to us and change our aims when we see that we’ve been drawing clearly irrelevant distinctions. Morality may be social in origin, but that cannot be a blanket excuse for ignoring every counterintuitive moral appeal.

>>5136665
>I think morality is objective
You can have that opinion, but that’s all it is. What you think. Not what is.

Morality is not objective. There is no magic action that is always wrong no matter what without a force to make it so. There is no action that is always good no matter what. If you are an immortal, self regenerating, sterile individual in an empty universe, morality as you know it ceases to exist, and it matters to no one what you do.

Thankfully we do live in physical, electromagnetic reality with other people and can have fairly consistent standards built around simple principles like
>i am a human who lives around other humans, and humans who do xyz to other humans may have xyz done to them because humans are innately reciprocal
>i a human, and if i do not shape an environment conducive to human life, i will die, and so will the other humans
>i am a human with family/offspring/friends, and empathy forces how i perceive their circumstance to be relevant to my own emotional state.

>>5136671
>5136670
>5136669
>5136668
>5136667
>5136666
>>5136665
Brevity is the soul of wit.

>>5136673
You can be a moral anti realist but morality is still not merely a social technology
>>5136671
>Now, I think this appeal is a bit easier to make if someone’s a moral realist than if they’re not. But even moral anti-realists should be potentially persuadable. We’re not dogs perpetually jerked around by our emotional reactions. We can reflect on what truly matters to us and change our aims when we see that we’ve been drawing clearly irrelevant distinctions. Morality may be social in origin, but that cannot be a blanket excuse for ignoring every counterintuitive moral appeal.

>>5136666
>I think everything about this is confused, even if you’re a moral anti-realist.

>The phrase comes from conflating descriptive claims about how moral beliefs came to be with normative claims about what we should do morally

>>5136674
Brandolini's law

File: IMG_0471.png (609 KB, 1536x1024)

609 KB PNG

>>5136669
What is ironic is it would be impossible to make a functional society if the majority of people in it justified their speciesism and meat eating by biting the bullet and saying
>I am a flesh robot no free will no afterlife might makes right

>>5136676
You’re not saying morality is objective. You’re just saying the best course of action isn’t always immediately apparent. You’re not even saying why.

It’s trivial to oppose factory farms. They are not needed for a sustainable population level. The oldest people do not even need to eat that much meat. They breed zoonotic diseased and produce meat of questionable safety and quality. They push the limits of the human psyche and are a true experiment to determine the moral worth of each animal. We know the abuse of one dog is associated with later crime. But how many pigs does a man have to kill for the same effect? With a bit of research into ordinary factory farms we could answer that. But why would we create the risk?

>>5136677
I’m a flesh AI with free will, might makes right and passion is strictly superior to logic.

There is no reason for the life of cattle to have innate value other than you want it to. This is a threat to the rest of us especially if you are so dedicated to ideological consistency (itself a false faith).

>>5136679
Equality between men and women is a false faith and women should be treated exactly like cattle as women also can not enforce their own rights

>>5136679
Believing women should be treated any differently then cattle is a threat to all men

>>5136683
>>5136681
False equivalence

Under my system, you have been marked for death or exile for equating a human with an animal. Why? Because fuck you, that’s why.

Though women are not men, and naturally differ from men, and may even have interests that conflict with men and their own ultimate well being (as do men), they are still human. Not cattle. Not property.
>but dey is both sentient beans and muh logical…
In behavior, logic is subservient to passion. What do you want, what do you want to know? Ask logic. It is a tool. A flashlight can not tell you what should be there. It only shows you what you’re looking for, and a whole lot of irrelevant information. It is of course, another dimension to look into, where hallucination is possible because we’re not native to it. One you clearly aren’t healthily adapted to interpreting yet. You are like an animal that has evolved eyes but lacks a good comprehension of visual input and makes poor use of it.

Tldr

>>5136696
Local jew thinks we need to go full peta or start farming women
No, not the husky jew
Not the dinosaur jew
Totally different jew
Not all jews ok?

>>5136697
PS: I’m jewish too

It's pretty telling when incel's arguments against veganism basically boils down to
>i don't care
Just shows how callously rotten of individuals they are. Or they think that because you care about the welfare of animals that you're somehow a misanthropic human-hating nihilist that wants all of humanity to die.

>>5136703
>i don't care that animals can feel and that my money pays for their torture. and that makes YOU the nihilist
nihilism is one of those words that is completely perverted, pilpul style

>>5136703
I don’t care enough to compromise my own species.

Factory farming isn’t necessary. That is true.
I’m not a fan of pork but I also don’t feel bad for pigs.
Meat is necessary.
If you have a problem with it, support the creation of even dumber livestock, or buy from a farmer you like.

Supporting compromising humanity for a lower species is wrong. Our brains and bodies are completely dependent on meat to reach peak functionality. The veganism experiment has failed every single time, resulting in progressively shorter, dumber, less effective people, and its moral basis has always been consistently arbitrary and totally irrelevant to our survival. Veganism has actually been more useful as a tool of oppression to neuter entire social classes, or more sophisticatedly, to religiously justify the need for people to serve their compromised halfwit kings (the fall of india) once they start believing the weakened are their spiritual superiors.

>>5136706
>but animals can feel!
It really doesn’t matter if they can. And it’s likely that many don’t have the depth of feeling we do if they can, which makes caring as if they were people even dumber. There is a reason we eat cows and chickens but not chimpanzees or dogs. Honestly, I don’t think you’d be a vegan if you had to live around the animals we eat. You would be enthused to free them from their lives.

File: dontGetOnTheShips.jpg (295 KB, 1135x1135)

295 KB JPG

>>5136725
>I don’t care
followed by 5 more paragraphs of unread cope
if you buy meat you are a violent retard and it is simple as this

>>5136729
I am a violent genius and I value one inch of height and 10 IQ points more than one billion cattle. You are a lowly slave creature so desperate to suck up to a master you fantasize about aliens judging your diet. I move my species forward. You dream of humans reverting to an agricultural herbivorous ape that never leaves the planet.

You also have a practical fertility rate of 0.0 and your ideology can be considered a targeted cognitoweapon. Again, plant based diets have been used to hamper disposable people and guarantee that they will always be weaker.

They have also been used by increasingly stupid priests leading people into stagnation and ruin, with the priests moral fantasy falling apart once man approaches the animal line and he remembers he’s a chimp, not a gorilla.

File: t.png (2.61 MB, 1536x2304)

2.61 MB PNG

>>5136732
>I am a violent
followed by a wall of unread cope
Stop being violent

>human evolution
>monke eats frogs and berries
>monke scavenge deer
>monke throw rock at stuff and eat it
>monke man throw stick at stuff and eat it
>monke man start spearing fish
>man starts developing tribal society
>man catches animals so man doesnt have to hunt
>man becomes nomadic herder
>man learns to keep animals fed in one spot
>man makes animals dumber so they dont suffer wanting to escape
>man keeps way more animals
>man who eats beef and drinks milk is now 6ft, 130iq, developing space travel
>retarded women and gay men who survived because man took care of them think feeling bad or feeling good is the basis of good and evil, assume animals can feel because they kind of look like they do, have childish minds and cant understand why one species isn’t the treated same as another
>retards stop eating meat, feel a bit worse but are children of the wealthy and can manage. they use this trait to claim their idea is characteristic of civility and intelligence.
>their children are a bit worse but they come from wealth and already had good genes
>their childrens children cant tell they were ever noble due to epigenetic and immediate effects of malnutrion, begin breeding down
>increasingly dumb people do not maintain a decent meat replacement, lower body and brain size are selected for. caloric efficiency is good for the planet!
>loss of higher functions results in widespread moral decay
>society hangs on by a thread (india is here)
>a superior culture intervenes and reintroduces a meat based diet, or population devolves into a stem hominid and begins eating meat again, resuming the upward climb

>the people who never stopped eating meat already have genetically engineered brainless cattle growing on mars

>>5136733
No. Violence is a virtue. Passivity is weakness. You are a slave caste. You are kept in a field or if you might have been smart, you are kept in a temple. The best humanity can hope for when you are around is me who eat meat managing affairs and maintaining society while keeping you as pets.

Violence is what creates life. Violence is what creates change. Violence is so fundamental to existence that the acts of violence needed to create the atoms in your skeleton destroyed entire solar systems. You are a squirming mass of microbes killing each other and destroying matter in a vat of ph 1 acid that developed to dissolve animal flesh with bones left in. Your ideology is that of a child, aimless and prone to incorrect attachments that will only hurt you and other people until corrected.

You may, in fact, need to be corrected with violence.

Can't you guys do what reasonable people do and eat meat like twice a week or so? That alone reduces the impact on meat production

>>5136661
>But made to choose between the alleged welfare of cattle and the prosperity of man, you are making the right choice or you are marking yourself as a threat to the rest of us, and being hated is the least you can expect.
Damn that's a great way to say it. Based.

>>5136706
>>i don't care that animals can feel and that my money pays for their torture. and that makes YOU the nihilist
Holy shit man. I said you incels can't argue without strawmanning and what do you do? Reply with another strawman. You incels are walking jokes. Your entire knowledge base of vegans comes from reading cherrypicked bullshit on /pol/. I guarantee you've never met a vegan IRL let alone even attempted to understand their position. You simply aren't equipped to discuss this topic in any way other than bad faith

>>5136807
retarded or bot, call it

>>5136679
>>5136677
Most atheists do not believe in libertarian free will and most theists do.

Studies show that people who believe in libertarian free will are more productive, healthy, moral etc than people who do not believe in libertarian free will so it’s easy to see why a society of mostly theists would crush a society of mostly atheists/agnostics especially since theists have high birth rates and atheists and agnostics have low birthrates

File: IMG_0943.jpg (253 KB, 1206x1483)

253 KB JPG

>>5136732
>I am a violent genius and I value one inch of height and 10 IQ points more than one billion cattle.

You and what army? There’s plenty of meat eaters willing to pay a few dollars more for better animal welfare even when it doesn’t even improve the quality of the animal product they are consuming

File: IMG_0049.png (263 KB, 691x683)

263 KB PNG

>>5136736
Violence can be justified but rights violations are bad

>>5136821
I said factory farming is le bad.

>>5136822
There are no rights pertaining to veganism.

The sentient being thing is a just-so. Is ought gap not crossed. A because it is ok soiboy argument. You memed yourself into imagining lesser AIs as secrelty being people. That’s it.

NTT is a wholly invalid and irrelevant red herring argument which assumes the absurd conflicts with the reality of morals. A static, non emergent trait does not have to be named so specifically. Humans are not animals. Further, not all species are the same, and even individuals of species are not the same. This does not have to be proven in any framework because it is, just as we do not have to prove gravity is real and explain why to say that dropping a piano on your head would probably kill you. Rather any abstract framework that can not recognize and define these immediately apparent facts is incorrect, and any belief system that does not prioritize humans over all other life can be discarded because it can not, by definition, be true. After all, NO abstract framework can be/must be true because universal moral truth does not exist without a religious delusion such as god, gods, or mystical soul recycler. So we’ll stick with not committing suicide and not hobbling ourselves, as any who will exist in the future will as well until the actual universe creating sky man tells the truth and isn’t yet another cocky sentient plasmoid toying with people.

>>5136829
Furthermore and most concerningly - you have NO reason to be good, or not to be bad in your system. None. Your greatest evil stated thus far is not following an ideology strictly enough and the punishment for your evil is impotently screeching >you cant just do thing, or openly declaring warfare on human well being and attempting to physically punish people for avoiding malnutrition and expecting that they won’t respond. You can’t prove why the assumed suffering of a cow, which you invent freely by imagining being a cow (you can not do this because you have no idea how limited the inferior brain of an animal with nearzero comprehension of its own mortality is), is relevant to you or humans besides the asspull, “if you’re a hypocrite in my belief system your morals are invalid and you’re just bad. i worship logical truth, i worship thought itself! listen to me - sarek of vulcan” (in fact, i genuinely think your entire schtick IS a LARP like this and engage with it accordingly).

I prefer the more salient, “your belief system is conducive to your success or not, and determines whether or not you will have power over the future”.

What does veganism promise, besides trading strength and intelligence in your prime for more time spent in your decline, and eventually, genetic or epigenetic (both can happen) devolution due to increasingly unsupported brain, endocrine, and musculoskeletal development as has occurred in every population that was induced to eat as little meat as possible, and which reversed over a few generations in every population that was reintroduced to a meat heavy diet?

I promise usurping death, I promise ripping suffering from the grips of violence. But first man must nourish the body he has started with and make it more capable so he can pass on the torch to more and more powerful generations.

The next step in this process is not submission and stagnation.
It is creating dumber, more efficient livestock

Meat plants.

>>5136821
>uk survey reveals the british are idiots
Way to survey the population that participated in its own genocide
>oh no, you cant kill a cow! its… small!
>-nigel smithson, last white man on the pakistani isles
>Shut up while i kill your dog for going in house. Allah demand you submit. No dog in house. Allah. *loads ak47* if i see again i mark you as apostate and behead.
>-sultanate’s most honored shariah enforcement officer muhammad al-londani

>>5136829
>The sentient being thing is a just-so. Is ought gap not crossed. A because it is ok soiboy argument. You memed yourself into imagining lesser AIs as secrelty being people. That’s it.

Name the trait does not require the is ought gap to be crossed it only really requires that you believe in human rights logical consistency, you may like neitzcshe but most people already do believe in both of those things as if you are not logically and internally consistent you can justify literally anything and there’s no point in having morals.

Also the is ought gap can be crossed if you are a moral naturalist and you just think that moral facts are some kind of descriptive fact.

If you are a moral non naturalist and you don’t think moral facts reduce to natural facts then you can’t pass the is ought gap but you don’t need to and moral realism can still be true because the claim isn’t that the ought facts follow trivially from any descriptive facts the claim is that the ought facts are just true in their own right and not derived from anything else

>>5136837
There’s plenty of farm animal welfare ballot initiatives in the usa that have passed

File: IMG_0020.png (762 KB, 1200x628)

762 KB PNG

>>5136829
>Humans are not animals

Humans are animals. You have never answered pic related hypothetical so I won’t even bother typing it out again because you are a joke

>>5136829
>Rather any abstract framework that can not recognize and define these immediately apparent facts is incorrect, and any belief system that does not prioritize humans over all other life can be discarded because it can not, by definition, be true.

Incorrect, that is merely your preference to be a human supremacist and I see zero reason why someone else could not say

>any belief system that does not prioritize male humans over all other life can be discarded because it can not, by definition, be true.


>After all, NO abstract framework can be/must be true because universal moral truth does not exist without a religious delusion such as god, gods, or mystical soul recycler.

No because most professional philosophers are moral realists including most atheists https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4866?aos=6653

You can cross tabulate the survey's God theism question against meta ethics moral realism

>>5136854
>>5136829
You can also cross tabulate by immortality (afterlife) yes and no and most professional philosophers who don’t believe in an afterlife are still moral realists

>>5136834
>Furthermore and most concerningly - you have NO reason to be good, or not to be bad in your system.

Because I want to do good things and I don’t want to do bad things, I could say the same thing about you
>you have no reason to care about other humans besides that you care about other humans

Sometimes vegan humans make massive personal sacrifices to save non human animals or prevent their torture. What about psychological egoism which says that people always only act in their own self-interest? This is just very implausible as a fact about human psychology. Sometimes people throw themselves on a bomb to save their friends or toil for years so their children can have a better life. It's implausible that this is really in their self-interest. I think basically all good people all the time do things that aren't in their interest.
I sometimes wonder whether psychological egoists have ever met a parent. Isn't it obvious that people often do things for their children's sake, not for their own?
In response to this argument, psychological egoists start trying to tell some story about how the real thing motivating this behavior is that you feel bad when you behave badly because of guilt. That's true enough, but it's not at all plausible that that's why people do it. You might feel bad if you don't save your friends, but you will also feel bad if you explode.
The standard of proof for "people always act for the sake of X," cannot be "when people act you can generally tell some story, however implausible, about how it advances X." By that logic, you could similarly say that people are only motivated by gaining money, or something

>>5136850
Now you’re heading towards the “define human” idiocy. You think it is logically impossible ergo your system is broken because humans ARE.

And you remain UNABLE to say why be good and why not be bad.
>because it would be… inconsistent with my philosophy!
Voluntary idiocy.

>>5136852
Would you kill a person to save one million cows?
If yes, ALL other people are obligated to prevent that, to ensure they/someone they care about will never be killed solely to save a cow. Sorry!

Your failure to define human does not mean humans do not exist. Because they do. And they are clearly not cows.

Good does not exist outside of your mind.
Evil does not either. Humans DO exist outside of your mind. Define the imaginary accordingly.
There is no such thing as moral truth, only consequence. Only an implicit agreement that we like certain values and do well holding them. We are NOT obligated to behave consistently with any artificial value system because they are not actually real, and it is hubris to assume any are correct/perfect. If a situation arises where the “truth” demands we harm ourselves to not be hypocrites, we are to be hypocrites.

It is impermissible to be a vegan for moral reasons.

>>5136857
The argument that convinces people of egoism is generally something like the following:

1. People always act in accordance with their desires.

2. But acting in accordance with your desires is invariably self-interested.

3. So people always act in self-interested ways.

The big problem is that 2. is false. If you desire to help other people or non human animals, it isn't selfish to help them. It's only selfish if you try to help them because you think it benefits you. But if you have genuine care for them, then helping them out doesn't involve acting in self-interested ways.

>>5136859
>Would you kill a man to save one million women?
>If yes, ALL other men are obligated to prevent that, to ensure they/someone they care about will never be killed solely to save a woman. Sorry

There are some humans who wouldn’t want to risk the death of a cow they care about like one they met at a vegan sanctuary, theres also some humans who are racist who would gladly kill a million African humans to save one cow despite being themselves a meat eater.

>Your failure to define human does not mean humans do not exist. Because they do. And they are clearly not cows.

You failed to define it.

>Humans DO exist outside your mind.

I think the physical collection of atoms you call humans exist mind independently but the definition of human does not necessarily exist mind independently.

>There is no such thing as moral truth, only consequence.

Moral truth and consequences can both exist at the same time, it’s possible for a morally objective truth to exist which if followed by you would lead to consequences you do not like just like an objective mathematical truth can exist (most philosophers of mathematics are also mathematical Platonists AND moral realists) which leads to consequences that make you personally unhappy

>>5136857
>because i want to
Again
You have no reason to be good. You have no reason not to be bad. All of your pseud garbage is an attempt at justifying disordered emotions to your own detriment.
By turning your base delusion into a shitty religion you have become a threat to all other people (see: vegans that want to spread alpha gal syndrome and eco terrorists in general)

I REPEAT
There is no such thing as factual good and evil
This is a fact of existence
They do not exist. They are opinions. They are arbitrary to their core. They are relative to the holder. And the holder can very well be stupid, and harm themselves and others believing themselves to be good, and thus, relinquish power over the creation of the future.
Your belief system benefits you, or what will replace you.

All vegans are part of a parasitic, pseudo-religious death cult comparable to antinatalists. You are nothing more than a defective organism that does not prioritize its well being, a self beaching whale, a suicidal idiot, and when the last of you die you will spend your last moments loathing your replacement.

Many such cases. I repeat:
made to choose between the alleged welfare of cattle and the prosperity of man, you are making the right choice or you are marking yourself as a threat to the rest of us, and being hated is the least you can expect.

>>5136862
That’s a lot of shit that doesn’t matter.

Humans ARE.

You ARE NOT a cow. Truth value: 1. Undeniable.

If your “ethics and philosophy” (shitty linguistic programming) can not account for this your system does not operate upon reality, you have used language to describe a hallucination. It operates upon a delusion. Your entire philsophy is the equivalent to adding epicycles to a flat earth geocentric model.

File: IMG_1458.jpg (307 KB, 1180x2252)

307 KB JPG

>>5136872

File: IMG_1460.jpg (312 KB, 1198x2249)

312 KB JPG

>>5136874

File: IMG_1462.jpg (312 KB, 1192x2247)

312 KB JPG

>>5136876

>>5136872
>
>>5136877
Why are you spamming a logical fallacy (appeal to an authority that is also, widely recognized as not a meaningful authority, rather a group of useless eaters that agitated the downfall of our civilization)

>>5136893
Evidence =/= proof

>>5136834
>>5136669
>>5136735
If you’re concerned about malnutrition you should focus on helping more GMO crops to be more widely used like rice that contains vitamin A https://open.substack.com/pub/abio/p/a-blocked-gmo-rice-could-have-saved?

>>5136932
Meat is the best vitamin A source

Reduce waste. Freeze dry unwanted meat and send it to thirdies.