BILLIONS of 1 day old chicks are put on conveyor belts leading to BLENDERS every single year.Millions of chicks are killed every year this way in countries like United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, etcIf an animal is living a mostly bad life, suffering massively in a factory farm and experiencing little wellbeing then it’s wrong to breed them into existence.If an animal is living a mostly good life, perhaps on a pasture then it’s wrong to cut their mostly good life short by executing them when they’re a healthy teenager.Why take a utilitarian view of “non humans” but take an inalienable rights view towards “humans” ?An individual consumer choosing to purchase or boycott animal products is personally responsible for extra chicks being killed or spared. If you are not vegan you are personally causing this to happen to more animals here’s proofhttps://philarchive.org/rec/MCMAIOhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=brKhhZlUoOc (Only first few minutes of this video are relevant)https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-causal-inefficacy-objection-isAnd the comments and back and forth of this for any objections you may have to the efficacy of individual boycott of real meat which have already been debunked https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1otuhqv/individual_boycott_of_meat_does_matter/
>>538759551Part 1
>>538759589Automatic circumcision and vaxx machine
>>538759627Another mass murder machine
>>538759551Don't care dino nuggies and sauce too good
For every ground up male chick there is a female hen in a battery cage standing on bare wire floor her entire life in a tiny dirty cage so crowded that she can not even open her wings
>>538759748Feeding very young human children the bodies of chickens who you paid for the horrible abuse of is child abuse and animal abuse
>>538759868So you're saying I should steal the dino nuggies?
>>538759838I’m white and my diet doesn’t contain poopCow milk contains pus though https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/42547134/#q42547219
THIS is a travesty
>>538759551Why cant we just have chicken living in the wild
>>538759551capitalismalso OP you're definitely a faggot for focusing on the problem and reacting to it like a fucking idiot instead of coming up with reasonable solutionsno, people won't stop eating chicken or eggs any time soonat least bring up in-ovo sexing & dual-purpose breedsor if you're really hardcore then strike at capitalism or even selfishness itself
It is usually hypocritical to be against baby boy circumcision but not also against animal abuse such as debeaking >>538760132Meat breed chickens have been bred to grow too big too fast to survive in the wild and the bodies of male egg laying birds are used for fertilizer and pet food
>>538760235human chattel slavery was ended without abolishing capitalism Jains are extremely wealthy and very vegetarian and they do things like open animal sanctuaries
>>538759551male chickens will literally maul eachother to death the moment they hit sexual maturity so unless you are interested in finding homes for all of them separate from other males shut the fuck up
>>538760347I’m interested in abolishing the egg industry so that billions of them are not bred into existence Roosters are even easier pets than hens because they don’t lay eggs so no need for birth control like medications
bump
>>538760456did the hens consent to birth control
>>538760978no but animal rights are a logical extension of human rights A dehydrated baby human may not have consented to an IV but it’s still in their best interests
>>538760132too many hungry niggers out there wanting their fried chicken. niggers are breeding so fast that industry can't keep up with the meat production. we just need more chicken fatser than ever. it's a battle against time to keep all these multiplying niggers fed.
>>538760978Did two non humans or a human and a non human give birth to a human? Was the child more important than one or both of his parents?
You can fight this by raising your own birds and encouraging others to do so.
>>538761108The growing middle class in china is also causing more animals to be bred into existence on factory farms
>>538759551Thread song: https://youtu.be/gFAZVWd5Edk
>>538761175By buying chicks from breeders that also cull males?
>>538761071An animal got mauled to death by a predator in the time it took you to type this out
>>538761298Yes and there could be tens of billions of severely mentally handicapped humans on Mars who are constantly killing and eating one another but it would still be wrong for me to murder my neighbor regardless of what is happening or not happening on Mars
>this thread againfucking bots
>>538761711I am human Many people are seeing this message for the first time today
>>538759551At least they get to go on a ride before they die. WHEEEEEEE! Look at them, they love it.
>>538759551>>538759589>>538759627>>538759663Those are rookie numbers, we gotta pump those numbers up!
>>538761950falseAlso many are gassed to death
>>538759551My little brother has been a vegetarian for 7 years I wish i could give up on meat
What's the point of blending them (along with the shells no less) at 1 day? Isn't it just skin, bones and feathers? What do they make from it?
>>538762424It is extremely easy >>538762454Fertilizer which is why vegans should avoid organic
If you're going to buy eggs, you need to buy free range. Non-free range eggs are from chickens cooped up in tiny cages, the eggs are not healthy either.
>>538759551A lot of them are boxed and sold to feed barn owls. Do you want the barn owls to starve to death and die? I thought you cared about animals?
>>538759551mmm, mf making bbq chicken tonight, thanks for the inspiration bro
>>538762525Pasture raised?They still cull males >>538762570>A lot of healthy preborn humans aborted after 6 months in the womb are boxed and sold to medical companies to make lifesaving medicines for humans with rare medical conditions. Do you want the boomers to not be able to live an extra six months? I thought you cared about humans? We can’t ban late term abortions of healthy consensually conceived human fetuses
>>538762454Animal feed probably.
Bump
>>538759551Nice.How do we increase that number OP?
>>538759748Damnit I just got groceries last night and now I want nuggets but I don't want to drive.I wonder if I can get same-day nuggy delivery from amazon...
>>538759551>>538759589Male chicks are expandable.Female chicks are not.
>>538759551I fart on billions of chicks
Some sacrifice their own life or their own happiness for others Others sacrifice others lives for their own happiness
>>538759551And yet they say that the "good guys" won WW2. Unlike our current (((ZOG))) regimes in the USA/UK/EU etc, Germany's Third Reich led the world with groundbreaking humane animal rights laws.>Animal welfare in Nazi GermanyThere was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany (German: Tierschutz im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland) among the country's leadership. Adolf Hitler and his top officials took a variety of measures to ensure animals were protected.Several Nazis were environmentalists, and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the Nazi regime. Heinrich Himmler made an effort to ban the hunting of animals. Hermann Göring was a professed animal lover and conservationist, who threatened to commit Germans who violated Nazi animal welfare laws to concentration camps. In his private diaries, Nazi Minister Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a vegetarian who was contemptuous of Judaism for the ethical distinction they drew between the value of humans and the value of animals; Goebbels also mentions that Hitler planned to discourage slaughterhouses in the German Reich following the conclusion of World War II.
Reminder: China does this with catsMakes me diamonds
>>538761277Could buy from other people with backyard flocks or small farms you faggot freak
>>538760347Ive dealt with this basically I raised a batch of chicks to adulthood and then we adopted a male form some other family then I left and the idiot I was raising them with hatched a bunch of eggs and the chickens son was constantly fighting him so we had to put them together over the winter and they constantly beat the shit out of each other
Should be burden to society people instead.. That would still be in the billions just more food per slaughter..
>>538764271meat eaters deserve worse as this is far quicker of a death than they deserve
>>538764013>>538763905China today has less animal rights welfare laws than 1930s Germany
>>538759551>Please stop eating meat>Please eat grass and onions instead
>>538759868Dino nuggies are a delicious treat you faggot, nobody here will become a vegan
>>538764624Vegan Dino nuggets also taste good Meat eaters literally pay for male farm workers to masturbate male pigs by hand to collect their semen so they can put it in the female pigs. That is gay
>>538759551this is a lot more humane than forcing them to pay taxes at gunpoint, or face homelessness their entire lives.
>>538764804>Vegan>DeliciousPick one and only one. Vegans also look like they have aids. Also you'll never be a woman
>>5387645591930s-1940's NS Germany certainly set the world standard for the ethical human treatment of animals>china>see /pol thread from last night"sicko freak chink larvae burn mother day after beating her and her puppies and torture them all to death">>538723090>links from thread (X.com links via Nitter)https://nitter.net/TGTM_Official/status/2072195863523569878 https://nitter.net/TGTM_Official/status/2072558852285874634 https://nitter.net/LlyPooo/status/2074663376127713627 https://nitter.net/huanlang554980/status/2075772216248238285
>>538764804>That is gaySooo, you're saying that you are homophobic?
>>538759551Last thing I care about is baby chickens, or chickens in general. Pigs is another matter.
>>538759551Yummy yummy.Gonna go buy some McNuggets.Thanks for reminding me, OP.Seeing videos like this, always makes me go buy 10 orders.
>>538760126>more than 99% of the animals killed for human consumption are farm animalsYeah that's kind of by definition when you limit it to animals killed for meat. It's not like people are buying lab rats or euthanized shelter pitbulls to eat.
>Why take a utilitarian view of “non humans” but take an inalienable rights view towards “humans” ?Because humans are different, obviously. If we weren't, we wouldn't be able to force this fate on chickens.
>>538759551Okay, you're free not to consume animal products.
>>538765292>what is an internal critique
It's better to get it young
>>538765416Cambridge and New York declarations of consciousness says all birds and mammals are conscious >>538765961That is just might makes right. What if super intelligent AI or super advanced aliens treated humans how we treat pigs Men could force this fate on women but it’d still be wrong
>>538766242>That is just might makes right. What if super intelligent AI or super advanced aliens treated humans how we treat pigs We would be killed en masse, correct. Morality is a human social technology. Putting "just" in front of your failed rebuttal doesn't mean the argument is wrong, it's not defeated because you don't like it.
>>538766385Morality Isn't A Social TechnologyA funeral for a thought-terminating anti vegan clicheFor 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-moralityBut 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.
>>538766583>>538766385I 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.
>>538766606But 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?
They voted for this
>>538766638Despite 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.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.
>>538766678How 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.>>538766639
>>538766745I 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.
>>538759551Veganism, and ultimately eradication of all predation and parasitism in nature too when it becomes technologically possible , is undeniably the morally correct choice.Unfortunately I'm an asshole.
>>538759551The desensitization and goycattlization starts from here btw.>but muh free rangeNot sustainable for 7 billion people
>>538766908based honest anon
>>538767083yes so make everyone vegan or billions of humans must dieTheres not even enough resources for billions of humans to eat a diet of mostly factory farmed animal products much less pasture raised
>>538759551factory farming to feed big city shitters who live like bugs
Why dont they just find something to gas them all without contaminating the meat? This is barbaric and nigger tier.
>>538766770If that wasn't AI then you're just copy pasting a scripture you don't understand. Pigeonholing your interlocutor into something you've framed as an ideology (in all but name) is a typical liberal academic grounding for arguments they can't win directly, as is expounding someone else's beliefs to them in a schematic that suits their counterarguments.You cannot produce a unit of measure for morality, there is no objective way to take its account, and not a single one of your points survives contact with reality. It was never a debate about empathy or evolution. Philosophically, ethics relies on power -- and with power being essential, everything you care about must ultimately deconstruct cleanly into the scaffolding of that power. If chickens could farm humans and felt they benefited from doing so, they likely would, but even if they didn't that does not mean they operated on some super-organism moral system and to think as such is a matter of faith, not of observation, logic, or rigor.
>>53876715190% of crops goes to feed livestock10% of calories survive energy conversionYou do the math
>>538759551Only males, its not that bad
>>538766385>Morality is a human social technology.Looking around I dare say it's a pretty shitty technology at the moment.As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will always be battlefields. We failed to reach an efficient moral technology for comfy living because we we're too lazy to give up meat. With a bit of luck AI will enforce better technology. Or end it all, that's okay too.
>>538759663i wonder if you added some chemicals if you could get that giant pile of meat to become alive or something...also im really high...
>>538759551>Literally BILLIONS of chicks are killed this way every yearAnd why should I care? Chickens are things, not people. They exist because we make them. We make them for food. If some chicks are defective and not useful for food, disposal is a given. If you have any other opinion, you are mentally ill.
>>538767490>And why should I care? Blacks are things, not people. They exist because we make them. We make them for free labor. If some blacks are defective and not useful for free labor , disposal is a given. If you have any other opinion, you are mentally ill.
>>538759551I fucking hate that such a thing even exists. How can you be so cruel to sentient living beings? I swear we fully deserve Gods wrath...
>>538767298>You cannot produce a unit of measure for morality, there is no objective way to take its account, and not a single one of your points survives contact with reality. It was never a debate about empathy or evolution. Philosophically, ethics relies on power -- and with power being essential, everything you care about must ultimately deconstruct cleanly into the scaffolding of that power. Ethics relies on intuitions. Most philosophers according to philpapers surgery are moral realists and most people dont simply believe in might makes right >If chickens could farm humans and felt they benefited from doing so, they likely would, but even if they didn't that does not mean they operated on some super-organism moral system and to think as such is a matter of faith, not of observation, logic, or rigor.Nothing you have said really engages with my original article which was not ai >>538767623Because a human designed it just like humans build baby circumcision tools
>>538767298>if you aren’t a solipsist then that is just a matter of faith
>>538767697If there is a creator, he will judge us harshly. Because this has nothing to do with nature anymore. This industrial scale slaughter of sentient beings is not "efficiency", like low IQ subhumans assume. Its an affront against creation itself. The vile and utter disregard for life is a stark reminder, that we are still a violent and barbaric lower life form. If alien civilizations could see this, they would be utterly disgusted by us.
>>538767582>>And why should I care? Blacks are things, not people.I'm posting on /pol/ faggot. Do you honestly think I believe blacks are people like I am? Read the fucking room.
>>538767697Intuition is non-real access, materialists on suicide watch!If that was a copy pasted article then you can't even make your own arguments and are pulling a reverse "source?!" by invoking someone else's opinion and shoving it into the wrong context. I'm not going to break it down for you when they're borrowed words.A final point and then you can go on contemplating immolating yourself for your cause -- philosophy isn't a popularity contest. It lives and dies by argument, not by however many people you can get to agree with you. Truth, as inaccessible as it is to a person, stands on its own. >>538767794You don't need to be a solipsist to know you're limited to your own subjection.>>538768088That creator created us to be this way. Should probably judge himself first.
>>538767298Someone could believe a bunch of false facts about mathematics and win a bunch of money at a casino while someone who is much better at mathematics loses money at a casino or doesnt play there and doesn’t make any money. But this doesn’t mean mathematical Platonism is false Objective mathematic and moral facts can exist even if believing in the objective facts makes you poorer
>>538768252>A final point and then you can go on contemplating immolating yourself for your cause -- philosophy isn't a popularity contest. It lives and dies by argument, not by however many people you can get to agree with you. Truth, as inaccessible as it is to a person, stands on its own.The majority of professional philosophers being moral realists is good evidence for moral realism
It is time for revenge
>>538759627You should have started with this one. Nobody gives a shit about shredding chicks, its so fast suffering is not even possible. But fucking up their beaks leads to life long suffering.
>>538761071>animal rights are a logical extension of human rightsboth don't actually exist tho
>>538768414Im sure some meat eaters think vaxxed chickens make unhealthier eggs and meat >>538768459Both must be granted or respected but arguments like name the trait show that people who already believe in human rights and logical consistency must also grant rights to animals
>>538768311Mathematical and moral facts....That you think these two concepts are even close to sharing bedlinen enough to be used this way is rough enough, but it's still completely missing the tea. Math is literally an abstraction with self-contained rules meant to help people interact with something that is specifically not math. You're literally making part of my earlier argument for me via ignorance. Nevermind that the only reason math can have objective facts is because it does not exist objectively -- what math describes isn't beholden to the system describing it.
>>538768575I mistook this for another video. I thought it was the one where they cut the end of their beaks off to prevent pecking.
>>538768575You can't help yourself can you? You presuppose truths you haven't argued for time and again -- this is counterargument seeding. Force a framework that benefits your position while pretending to address your opposition fairly. The majority of humans would not assume to be the equals of all other living organisms. To use your own thinking against you: this is an intuition nearly all humans share.
>>538768575>and logical consistency must also grant rights to animalsThere are people who walk among us believing they are at least average intelligence, or even a little above average... that are thoroughly, utterly mentally retarded. Like you. Rights aren't magical. They're an agreement between beings who can make agreements... in other words humans. You have rights because I decided that it was pragmatic to behave as if you have rights, and I have rights because (whether you know it or not) you agreed that I have rights.We don't extend rights to bears because they cannot agree to treat us as if we have rights. It's pointless. Extending rights to animals that cannot even conceive of reciprocity is lunatic behavior. We'll lock you in an asylum, you obtuse fuckwit.
>>538768783The machine vaccinates and cuts the beak which does lead to long term suffering >>538768714This is AIThis conflates two separate questions: whether mathematical objects exist as mind-independent entities, and whether mathematical claims are objectively true regardless of what anyone believes. You can deny the first (go formalist or fictionalist about numbers) while keeping the second — "2+2=4" doesn't become negotiable just because you think numbers are useful fictions rather than furniture of reality. If that's right, "math is objective because it doesn't exist objectively" is an equivocation, not a real disanalogy.And it actually helps the moral realist's case more than it hurts it. The "companions in guilt" argument was never that moral facts float in a Platonic realm exactly like numbers supposedly do — it's that our access to necessary truths (mathematical, logical, moral) runs through the same channel: reflection and intuition, not empirical observation. Grant math objective truth-values via that route despite math not "existing" as a thing out there, and you've conceded the epistemological point realists actually need. The metaphysical question of whether numbers exist was never load-bearing for the analogy.There's also a tension in saying math is a tool for interacting with something that isn't math, while denying morality could be a tool for reasoning about something that isn't "morality" in some spooky sense — namely facts about suffering, preference-satisfaction, wellbeing. That's the naturalist realist's whole picture: moral claims are claims about those natural facts, expressed in normative vocabulary. If a formal system counts as objective by tracking something external without itself being a free-floating entity, ethics gets to make the same move.See the difference?
>>538768575those chickens get killed beacuse they are a problem, human babies already get aborted, in Canada they euthanize people, in Ukraine they kidnap people on the street and send them to die for a kike golden shitter so yeah human rights exist only until it's usefull the opposite. And Nature itself is immoral, the only moral beings are plants and saprophages that don't steal nothing from anybody
>>538768937That just sounds like appeal to futility If you believe what happens to young Ukrainian men is bad and that they should kill the conscripters then you should be vegan
>>538768414it's just dulling of their beak because chickens are niggers and peck at each others
>>538768996because they go insane in the horrible conditions they are kept in The only egg laying chicken breed chickens that are debeaked are the females as they are kept in tiny cages together in which they go insane
OP, what about pescatarianism? I was a vegan for many years, but gave it up when I moved to a pacific island. Veganism was just too expensive there, and seafood too ubiquitous. I won’t eat squid. However, fish and ESPECIALLY mollusks excluding squid/octopus/cuttlefish are on the menu. I just can’t do no animal protein.I’d especially like to know your thoughts on consuming/using animals which almost certainly have no subjective experience, such as sponges and urchins. Also, if you are doing invasive species control (there are no native amphibians here, the invasive species committees regularly eradicate frogs), is it OK to consume something like frog legs when it comes from an invasive species which was culled for that reason?
>>538769109Veganism isn’t expensive Yes killing wild carnivores who kill herbivores is often okay unless it causes ecological collapse as that would lead to a greater rights violationOysters are fine too
>>538759551>If an animal is living a mostly bad lifeIf you didn't notice their life is hatching and almost instantly being ground to paste. Their suffering is like 2 or 3 seconds. Worth it.
>>538768995Nah I have chickens, from eggs and broods, if you don't kill the males they basically make the lives of hens hell by raping them constantly till they expose the skin on their back. It's not even that I want to kill them because I want to eat them, they just are niggers by nature. I am against killing baby chickens but when they grow up to adulthood they need to be culled. Sorry I didn't make nature's amoral rules
>>538769245For each one there is a hen being tortured for many hours >>538759768>>538769109https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yWvQRwen8ag
>>538769256This logic could be used to justify killing aggressive humans who are severely mentally handicapped and unable to reason in mental hospitals
>>538768925Yeah, it made my argument in such a way that you think it didn't. It's right that morals could operate the same way as math -- but that definitively makes morality a technology. It serves the purpose it's asked to serve, just like math. Whatever preconceptual media "morality" actually is doesn't have to be anything like what we use morality for. The equivocation is the argument here because you contended that they are different when they aren't -- your use of the word "fact" is your missing keystone. If something is objective then it is either subject to something to qualify it or inaccessible outright. None of this counters that morality that cannot be enforced is not morality, but preference or opinion. That makes it, again, ultimately rely on the ability to be implemented (collapsed into the term "power" because I'd rather be concise) in order to exist. Therefore, what is able to be done or what is done is moral and what cannot be done is not. If you just want to feel better about yourself and your lack of power by fantasizing about something "greater" giving your preferences unearned agency that's fine, but it's just entertainment and not a defensible philosophy.
>>538769328Why not? It's certainly been done before. It will be done again. Do you think the people who did it before thought they were amoral?
>>538759551>>538759589>>538759627>>538759663>>538759768Cool! Thanks for sharing =)
>>538759551I'm gonna buy 100 chicken nuggets and eat them out of spite.
>>538769328I am in favour of killing violent criminals (murderers and such)
>>538759551Each and everyone of those kikes deserved it.
>>538769328besides a quick death when they reach adulthood is something than most chickens wouldn't even get in nature, it also happened two times that some hens killed their hatchling eating their brain because who knows, nature sucks just like that
>>538769383>It's right that morals could operate the same way as math -- but that definitively makes morality a technology. It serves the purpose it's asked to serve, just like math.Watch the equivocation happen in real time — and it's yours, not mine. Math-as-practice (which theorems anyone bothers proving, which notation survives, whether a department funds topology this decade) is shaped by purpose. Math-as-content isn't. 2+2=4 doesn't serve a purpose, it's just true, and stays true in a universe with nobody left to use it. If morality is objective the way math is objective, that's what transfers — truth indifferent to usefulness, not truth that collapses into usefulness. "Technology" quietly slides between those two senses in your own sentence.And you've misdescribed my last post. I didn't say math and morality are different, full stop — I granted the analogy exactly where you needed it granted: mind-independent truth reached by reflection rather than observation. The one disanalogy I flagged was convergence — proof forces agreement from shared axioms, moral argument has no equivalent force even among people reasoning carefully from the same premises. Nothing above touches that.
>>538770007>>538769383>Whatever preconceptual media "morality" actually is doesn't have to be anything like what we use morality for.Grant it fully — it costs you more than it costs me. If origin doesn't fix current content, then the fact that moral norms historically tracked whoever held enforcement power tells you nothing about what morality is now. You don't get to use "origin ≠ current use" to cut math loose from mere usefulness in one sentence, then use "origin = current use" to weld morality to power in the next. Pick one.>If something is objective then it is either subject to something to qualify it or inaccessible outright... your use of the word "fact" is your missing keystone."Subject to something to qualify it" is smuggling your conclusion in as a premise. Subject to what — a rational procedure, or power specifically? If the former, fine, but that's reason, not force, and theorems are subject to derivation from axioms without anyone enforcing them. If the latter, you haven't given a dichotomy, you've assumed the thing you're trying to prove. Axioms themselves aren't subject to anything at all — they're the starting point, held because self-evident or fruitful, not because enforced — which is exactly how a basic moral intuition like "gratuitous suffering is bad" could function too. "Fact" isn't hiding a keystone. It means true independent of anyone's say-so. That's the whole content of the word.
>>538770038>>538770007>>538769383>Morality that cannot be enforced is not morality, but preference or opinion... what is able to be done or what is done is moral and what cannot be done is not.This is Callicles' argument in the Gorgias, and it fails the same way now it did then: it can't distinguish "this happened" from "this was right," which means it can't condemn anything that succeeded. Every atrocity ever fully carried out, with power adequate to the task, is moral on this view — not "legal but wrong," just moral, full stop, because implementation is the only test you're allowing. You already bit this bullet, at the top of the thread: superintelligent AI or aliens treating humans the way we treat pigs, and your answer was "we would be killed en masse, correct." Notice the word doing the work there. Not "that would happen to us" — a prediction. "Correct" — an endorsement. You didn't warn anyone. You pre-signed the paperwork.>If you just want to feel better about yourself and your lack of power by fantasizing about something "greater"... it's just entertainment, not a defensible philosophy.That diagnoses my motive instead of touching my argument, and it runs backward besides. A theory where "moral" means "whatever the currently powerful can implement" isn't a neutral discovery — it's the single most self-flattering metaethics available to whoever already holds power, and useless to anyone who doesn't. If you want to play motive-detective, the position that happens to justify whoever's already winning isn't the one that needs explaining away as compensation. And if you actually believed power settles it, you wouldn't be typing paragraphs at a stranger trying to win him over with reasons — you'd just exercise the power. You're arguing. Some part of you still thinks reasons can be right independent of who's currently stronger. That part is the part I'm talking to.
>>538769638But violent criminals are not innocent assuming you believe in moral responsibility and dessert
>>538759551Separate territories need to happen... Racially, culturally, and spirituallyThis isn't my fault, I'm vegetarian and want cruelty free natural organic co-ops amongst my own people... Straight White Non Jewish (Aryan Whites) don't do this... "People" that abuse animals aren't my people nor culture, AnonAnimal abusers and "need meat" and "muh humanism so they're just animals to abuse" are Judeo Niggerized Semitic cultures and lesser non aryan white cultures
>>538769861Sometimes women abort their babies or leave their newborns for dead in dumpsters >>538761461there could be tens of billions of severely mentally handicapped humans on Mars who are constantly killing and torturing one another but it would still be wrong for me to murder and torture my neighbor regardless of what is happening or not happening on Mars or to animals in the wild
>>538770292India has the highest rate of veganism I don’t really see a correlation between lightness of skin and caring about animals. India also has a very low iq on average It really seems to be culture
>>538770292Israel also has one of the highest rates of veganism
>>538759551I want a lot of people to die. So why would I care about some chickens dying?
>>538770007You're missing it again. 2+2=4 is "factual" specifically because math is an objective system created subjectively. >>538770057These multiple post replies are suspiciously long and fast, but I'll humor it. This all boils down to what you want to believe about this rather than what is arguable. I don't make those kinds of excuses and I don't need them. I have the power to exert my morality over some parts of my life, but not all of them. There are still things I cannot do (see: am unwilling due to consequence or not enough ability to exert control) because of the systems greater than me that I am a part of. I only know myself, experience my self, and ultimately care about myself. This is true of everyone even if they don't like it -- it's a necessity of the limits of subjection. Those same limits apply to morality itself."Right" and "just" are just moralizing language. You hate torture and pain and believe no one should be subject to them, but there will exist a man who wishes upon himself both and tells you he is happy for more.
>>538760456So you want to abolish the healthy and cheap food so that the goyim could eat more chemical goyslop. Got it.
>>538770606Mathematical Platonism is the idea math is discovered not invented Moral realism is the idea morals are discovered not invented
>>538770699I would argue eggs are not really healthy because increased risk of heart disease due to lots of saturated fat and cholesterol
>>538770606>"Right" and "just" are just moralizing language. You hate torture and pain and believe no one should be subject to them, but there will exist a man who wishes upon himself both and tells you he is happy for more.Yes but he is irrational just like someone who thinks going to a casino has positive EVMoral realism just requires you to think he is wrong even if he thinks he is right
>>538770828>your subjective reality is wrong because mine makes me feel superior And thus we have established that morals are subjective. I knew you could do it.
>>538770945No
>>538770753I can't believe you can be on this site and be that retarded. It's literally impossible to be in here and at the same time to fall for 90's corn syrup promoting propaganda. The only logical explanation for this is you being a subversive jew.
>>538771102Nurses health study
Go vegetarian this is cruel if u are a meat eater fuck you!
>>538759589Can we have a giant version of this machine and we replace the chicks with niggers instead?
>>538771553Gas is already used for death row inmates and chicks
>>538771653Air deprivation chambers are not the same thing as gas chambers you dumb tranny. Chicks who die in air deprivation chambers ironically die much more mercifully than inmates.
>>538771705CO2 is painful and nitrogen would be better
Out of all meat eating, eating pigs is the most horrific. They're as smart as 3 year old children. I don't really like Muslims but not eating pork is the one thing they do right.
>>538772061all birds and mammals can feel significant amounts of pain Castration of pigs without anesthetic and them being kept in cages in which they can not turn around in is horrible
>>538772061Pigs kill and eat humans
>>538772061Jews also don't eat swine.
>>538772311I agree, the treatment of animals in the meat, dairy and egg industries is an unspeakable crime. I've been vegan for over 7 years. Zero regrets.
>>538771553I think your muv's gullet has chewed more black babies than any machine ever could, bruv.
>>538772937Based and red pilled
>>538763664This is the reason for the male loneliness epidemic
>>538763664The females have a much worse fate than the males. At least the males are killed instantly in the shredder. The egg laying females live out their entire lives in a box so small they can't even open their wings. Absolutely horrific.
Everyone should watch the 2018 documentary Dominion, which is on youtube. You don't have to stop eating meat, but you should at least no the truth about what you eat.
>>538759551Is cum vegan?
>>538759551Tendies
>>538769292>>538769227Predators are a part of the batural ecosystem, they shouldn’t be killed.Veganism IS expensive on a pacific island, where most of that shit is imported at great cost. I just go gig frogs and fry the legs up, they’re invasive here. I can justify hunting certain animals to myself, it’s less horrific than industrial animal husbandry
Yes. Spare the Chickens and let's eat cats instead. Dogs are exempted again. It’s only going to get worse. If you want to actually discuss things consistantly in a coherent manner - talk about geopolitics, history & conspiracy theories, finance and esoteric metaphysical ideas, places like image board where it's open to everyone is no longer an isloated layer where you can just laugh at normiefags. You are not observing it, you are being observed. However, the answer is the psyops sommelier society formerly known as 4chan withdrawal prevention center. If you're getting tired of talking to same-shit-spam-agitprop-algo-bots, anons will have to break the covenant for a while - a chat format not image boards again. But Discord & Telegram are namefags and privacy nightmare. SX doens't require your phone number to join and the first messaging app without user identifier.https://simplex.chat/contact#/?v=2-7&smp=smp%3A%2F%2FrWvBYyTamuRCBYb_KAn-nsejg879ndhiTg5Sq3k0xWA%3D%40smp5.simplexonflux.com%2FS7YGl86qWPmQr3yYJj0BGRXmHr1n5Lrz%23%2F%3Fv%3D1-4%26dh%3DMCowBQYDK2VuAyEAWJbRMQecfQyW89ffDPk-PYD0K96Xmym5miifm7q4rA8%253D%26q%3Dc%26srv%3D4ao347qwiuluyd45xunmii4skjigzuuox53hpdsgbwxqafd4yrticead.onion&data=%7B%22groupLinkId%22%3A%221v_4J9RJ1amWs7l7Y1qxnw%3D%3D%22%7DThis chat is post-populist, that means you agree to disagree and willing to abandon Idpol populist position cause it's not 100% open colosseum where millions of lurkers lurk like be influenced by.https://simplex.chat/downloads/ recommend using desktop app
