I realize now meat eating isnt always evil. I have established a ranking of moralty. From morally good, to morally evil. I will explain why right now why its this way and you will listen and understand 1. Hunters, morally good because they kill an animal that would otherwise brutally die to some disease, aging, or even be eaten alive by animals. A human who kills and puts an animal swiftly out of its misery is actually doing the animal a favor. This is the ultimate truth you have to realize.and hunting doesnt require a agricultural society. A good hunter is in harmony with nature whilst being the kindest of all predators for they feel compassion for their prey.2. Veganism, morally gray. Its not as good as hunting because vegans require vast tracks of field where animals are killed during the simple farming process, not to mention farming itself, as in agriculture, requires an agricultural society which is inherently the most evil thing this world has spawned.3. Meat eaters who eat farmed meat. This requires vast tracks of field, for animals to be bred into mishappen ways, it is essentially hell, it is literally hell on earth. It is a fleshy pyramid, gauntlet of hell. Factory farming is giga evil.The modern human is no hunter, they hold no knife or gun or arrow, but a pen, and with this pen they sign deals with the devil, they agree to evil, they are COMPLICIT in not just the suffering of animals but also in the suffering of humans (think palestine). The modern human is far removed from the perfection that is the hunter gather.The first ever farm was the birthplace of the devil.
>>44603354>hunters, morally good because they kill an animal that would otherwise brutally die to... agingnona what the fuckthis is insane>oh yeah sure i shot you but in 20 years you would have died of old age anyway so that makes it okay
>>44603361Animals live in a very brutal world. They can be torn to pieces by wolves. The benevolence of a hunter is almost like the coming of christ to a starving child. The deer approaches the rifle and thanks their lucky stars for they have been released from the shackles of flesh, their soul is set free. The future where they will be eaten alive by vultures or parasites has been avoided.
This is retarded in more ways than one. You should inform yourself on how hunting actually works.Jsyk, they breed animals for retards to kill them. They kill predators to make sure the animals breed more. And they fucking airdrop fish into lakes.
>>44603376You literally just described farming. What im describing is hunting. Hunting is in the natural order. It is morally good.The circle of life must be respected. Circles are divine, do you know why?
>>44603354farming is based, mankind is asserting its dominance over nature and the worldwe literally enslave entire species and genetically engineer them and destroy entire ecosystems to support them just so we can literally slaughter them allthat is based as fuck and the only flaw is that the meat and farming industries are not controlled by dommy transbians (yet)>>44603376this is also based but again requires more dommy transbians
>>44603394This person is evil. They have been corrupted by sin. They are the modern man(archaic usage). Do not let go of the compassion in your soul, people of lgbt. You have hearts of gold, dont let them take that from you
>>44603387Oh ok so hunting is based because it happened in the past and muh appeal to nature Go send anthrax mail idk senpai
I can see the appeal of veganism but it's more rational to diversify your biofuel sources
>>44603354>, morally good because they kill an animal that would otherwise brutally die to some disease, aging, or even be eaten alive by animalsOkay go start killing people now to save them from dying to AIDS, COVID and crime.
>>44603430Hunting is ontologically good because it removes suffering from a system. It doesnt create additional suffering like farming does. Though quite frankly. There is an argument for combining both to create the optimal morality index. To farm small scale, without the use of machinery, if it doesnt harm animals, can be seen as better, but its not as good as giving the animal the choice to die mercifully as with hunting.Of course, the big if, the big factor here is the unfortunate reality of human success. Humans are too successful and keep breeding. Eventually they sustain themselves on warehouses of agony, machines where the gears and cogs are the screams of the innocent.There needs to be a proper population control in place so that humanity can sustain itself on hunting and small scale farming alone.A birth policy where one in a hundred may breed according to a opt in lottery system would be the fairest way of doing it, and coincidentally also solves the wealth accumulation problem. Rich people are always a much smaller %, meaning they have a much smaller % of winning said raffles. The problem therein could be that successful people are bred out and only dumb and poor people breed if you want to believe those rumours of wealth being earned. So there are arguments for wealth accumulation as well as not, so really what we should want is some mind of gaunlet. A test, quizzes, survival games like the colloseum but better where only the greatest most kind and amazing of humans can breed, 10 generations down the line who knows what greatness could be bred. And there could still be an additional lottery system in place so that losers and genetic failures have a chance to breed too. The gaunlet is just so that those who failed but really want it get a second chance.I realize now, i would run an absolutely excellent world. What an utopia i could build.The big thing we have to swipe under the rug here however- well nvm
>>44603498farming is good because it removes the suffering of starvation from societyhunter gatherers are not enough to support 8 billion people, if we tried to bring hunter society back then billions would starve to death which is the most evil shit imaginableyou are insane
>>44603535Im not insane.And this is what i meant about the stuff under the rug, namely, even this utopia buily by me with optimal min maxxed morality index, would still require a pretty costly sacrifice. Something upward of a billion dead babies, probably more. The problem is many people would not obide by the birth policy laws, and so many would have to be killed until it can be properly cemented in the cultural consciousness. What you're saying is the greatest evil, that just because something is it should keep going on. That 8 billion should become 16 billions and so forth, multipling the suffering index and lowering the morality index. Why would you do that? To create large machines of suffering? Perhaps its fear to make a decision. You too are just a modern man, complicit in the suffering of animals.The change doesn't need to be sudden. A birth policy would very quickly adjust the population. After a hundred years we could be at the optimal number already. The best time to start such a process would be after a war, so even war can lead to goodness if its used properly. No death needs to be in vain. Compassion for the living, as well as the dead.
>>44603597>im not insane but here's why we should kill upward of a billion babiesi love /tttt/
How evil would it be for me to tie you up in my basement and feed you a vegan diet?Your freedom would be infringed but so many... so many animals would be saved.
Join the vegan brigade..
>>44605107This would be very evil because if i cant spread and proliferate my philosophy around the world, it might be doomed. I can save the world if we let my word reach the masses.If you did it anyway it would have to be garden grown food because farm grown food is evil as i said. And you could hunt a pigeon now and then and feed it to me grilled.
