You're saying because we can't avoid any animal death we shouldn't bother with eating meat, which is like saying because we can't eliminate poverty 100%, we shouldn't have charity.

Actually, we displace a lot more farmable land by feeding livestock. 40% of it in the world. We could effectively feed the hungry with what we give to animals in america alone
news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

The world won't go vegan tomorrow though. And even if it does, we have plenty.

Feeling good does not equate to what or what is not right.

The point is that the only way you can not kill animals is to grow all of your own food yourself, and even then you'll have kill bugs and possibly rodents that might threaten your personal crop. Therefore, if your goal is to not kill any animals, you pretty much just have to stop eating altogether. Then again, since that will kill you, not even that's an option.

We have plenty, but it's fucking up our soil to produce as much as we do. Raising livestock can be bad for the soil in its own ways, but we already grow TOO MUCH vegetables as it is. The demand is so high that rotating crops properly simply isn't profitable.

If we don't feed the livestock, the livestock will die. So, again, we run into the brick wall of not killing animals.

Feeling good about "not killing animals" doesn't make veganism right, either, especially since it completely fails to even do that much.

you're appealing to the nirvana fallacy. Again, fi we can't eliminate poverty 100% should we not do charity?
Furthermore, there's no economic or social interest in avoiding these animal deaths. If there were, we would have methods to avoid them.

I again point to the fact that 40% of the crops in the world we grow go to feed animals and we could feed billions with them

that goes off the false assumption we stop feeding them tomorrow and the entire world goes vegan tomorrow, which simply would not happen

How does it fail to 'do much' when vegan harm less animals.
www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc

Vegans believe in not harming animals unnecessarily, which is something everyone believes in.

If we did only that which was necessary, the world would be a very boring place.

But that isn't the debate we're having.
The question that was originally raised was not killing animals for food when we don't have to. And we actually have a reason not to do so, even if it didn't cause unnecessary harm for the animal [that being we could feed humans]

Everyone agrees animals matter morally [that is, we shouldn't torture one even if we really like torturing it] so vegan morality goes along the same lines as what the general populous already believes.
And no, I am not equating animal torture to eating meat, merely providing an example of what is generally accepted to be moral, and demonstrating both cause unnecessary harm for the victim and give pleasure to the person doing the act.

yea maybe you didn't read the content but someone almost killed an innocent cat by forcing it to be vegan. I don't even like eating meat much. I am very sensitive to death and pain. I can't stand to see someone purposely kill something without reason. Even bugs. I still think you and the kitten owners are retarded.

I already said you shouldn't force a vegan diet on cats

its not letting me respond to your other comments but a pig doesn't have a conscious, and food pigs shouldn't have a painful life unless the factory owners are cruel.

That's just it, man. We're not having a debate. At least, I'm not. You eat your quinoa and I'll have a porkchop, and life goes on.

But we are. You called an entire lifestyle moronic, so you should be expected to defend it and you tried to. that's what a debate is, a proposition and a conversation about it.

>life goes on
Not for the pig.

yes too bad the random pig with the same intelligence of beibergotswag maybe slightly higher IQ who was bred for food won't get to walk back and forth with no point or goal.

whether or not a sentient being has a 'goal' has nothing to do with morality. We agree mentally disabled humans matter morally and wouldn't breed them for food.

the key part being bred for food. Also, like you said, severely retarded don't really have a future or present. I care much more about everyone else, but again, they were hopefully not bred for food.

How is that the key part? At one point we bred humans for slavery. What 'we' bred to do with them is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they can feel pain or pleasure or morality.
you're essentially justifying a decision with a decision we made beforehand that we wouldn't have to if we didn't say we made this decision. It's total circular logic.
We eat pigs=> because we breed them for food =>so we eat pigs =>because we breed them for food, ad infintum

You don't seem to realize that pork pigs and pet/companion pigs are different. They also have beef cows(grain fed and grass fed is a big debate, which I am currently doing a report on for school), and milk cows, and show cows, and pet/companion cows. They have this for almost any farm animal except for horses(which are usually show animals or pets) privileged fuckers . This is not being justified as we have always done it before, so why question it, but rather, it is a good source of food. They can feel pain but they aren't slaughtered slowly. They can feel pleasure from sex but I'm not sure about much else(I'm not legaly a pig).

Just because we've done something before doesn't justify it.
'Well, we've always had slaves, so why question it'
That's terrifying logic. Appeal to tradition.

And no, there is no difference between the two morally. both can feel pain and pleasure.

Also, that's such an inane argument. A dog clearly feels more pleasure in the hands of an attentive, caring owner over the factory farms. A pig would be and is no different. And they don't just feel pain from the slaughter.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T48yOYjz5sk
Mother sows are basically breeding machines that they keep in cages. The pigs literally go insane in farms such as these.

furthermore, none of this answers the original question to begin with, can we justify using animals for food when we don't have to?

And even if they aren't slaughtered slowly that doesn't matter. their pain is what matters morally. Even brief pain shouldn't overtake pleasure. As one example, if I were to slap you, even I really enjoyed it, it wouldn't be justified

you don't seem to have read my comment. Try again.

I read your comment.
You said pork pigs and pet pigs are differen
they're not
Both can feel pain and pleasure, and that's all that matters
And it's not a good source of food at all. It's highly inefficient
The first question shouldn't be 'is it a good source of food' the question should be 'can it suffer'

Then I guess it would be more accurate to say we were having a debate, and I am stepping back from it. It is too late for me to be citing sources or any other such drudgery, even if I actually cared to on FunnyJunk, of all places. So, you win, I guess? Congrats.

And, yeah. Shame for the pig. But, I actually did have porkchops for dinner and he was delicious, so he's got that going for him. Or, he did.

What better place than funnyjunk really?
I mean, if it was a full on internet fight that'd be different but having a debate can and should happen anyway.

Like I said, you enjoying it doesn't mean much in terms of morality, which was the question brought up

But, if you don't wanna talk about it, whatever. I won't say it's your prerogative or choice or anything, but it's something you did.
Hell, it's something I did. I'm not proud of it. I don't like the fact that I did it. but it happens.
I'm just glad I changed.

Let me put it this way. I like animals. There are some I like to have around the house to keep me company, and there are some I like to eat. In either case, their needs and desires are secondary to my own. If I want to eat an animal, I'll kill it, or buy it from somebody else who did. Whether or not it comes to harm is immaterial, because I wanted to eat it. Feeling pity or remorse for that pig would be like feeling pity or remorse for broccoli. Their common thread is that they're food and I like to eat them. There's nothing immoral or moral about it.

I think there's an extreme cognitive dissonance to say you 'like' animals, yet their suffering is secondary to your pleasure which is momentary.

The difference between the pig and broccoli is that the pig had a conscious and could feel pain and pleasure.

It's not a matter of it being secondary to your own. you clearly do like animals because you have a dog and a cat. But it's the question of the fact that the pig was no different than your dog or cat. It could feel pain or pleasure and didn't wanna die.

You cannot claim it's immaterial. Is it immaterial that an animal is harmed because Michael Vick wanted to see a dog fight.?

the broccoli had no such concept of death. Brushing animals off as 'food would be like brushing your dogs off as food to me.

As I said, there's animals I like for company, and others I like for eating. The pig is different from my dog and my cat because it falls in the latter category. I simply do not care about the pig beyond eating it.

What difference is there morally? It's a completely arbitrary distinction that you're making in your mind. The difference between your dog and a pig is as little as the difference between the one breed of your dog and the latter breed of your dog.
I may as well say I like hanging out with Jewish people but like eating Muslims.

the pig was bred to be food. dogs and Muslims aren't. Also, the Muslim can lead a satisfying and happy meat eating life, while the pig just walks back and forth randomly for its entire life. Fun fact: pigs anatomically can't look up.

Also, a pig can lead a satisfying life as well.
A pig would obviously prefer say me as a care-taker who would let it do as it pleases on open land over a factory farm or a shortened, painful lifespan.

Yes but the pig can still feel pain and pleasure. what it was 'bred' to do means little to nothing about the fact that it has a conscious.

There is no difference morally. Morality doesn't enter into it. Besides, arbitrary decision-making is a luxury I enjoy to the fullest.

How does morality not enter into it?
Do you not agree that animals matter morally and we should torture them even if we really like it?

How is it moronic?
If we don't need to kill animals for food, how is it moronic?

Farming produce kills millions of animals anyway by shredding them in harvesting vehicles. No matter how you feed people, animals die.

You still have to displace a lot of wildlife and demolish natural vegetation to create an efficient plot of farmable land. Animals die and the environment is impacted.

Let's say we all went vegan tomorrow. Eating that much more produce would increase demand, which will require an increase in supply, which then requires us to overfarm even more land than we already do, which reduces the nutrient content of the soil.

Nevermind the fact that meat is fucking delicious. Nothing goes better with Brussels sprouts than a nice juicy steak.

You're saying because we can't avoid any animal death we shouldn't bother with eating meat, which is like saying because we can't eliminate poverty 100%, we shouldn't have charity.

Actually, we displace a lot more farmable land by feeding livestock. 40% of it in the world. We could effectively feed the hungry with what we give to animals in america alone
news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

The world won't go vegan tomorrow though. And even if it does, we have plenty.

Feeling good does not equate to what or what is not right.

The point is that the only way you can not kill animals is to grow all of your own food yourself, and even then you'll have kill bugs and possibly rodents that might threaten your personal crop. Therefore, if your goal is to not kill any animals, you pretty much just have to stop eating altogether. Then again, since that will kill you, not even that's an option.

We have plenty, but it's fucking up our soil to produce as much as we do. Raising livestock can be bad for the soil in its own ways, but we already grow TOO MUCH vegetables as it is. The demand is so high that rotating crops properly simply isn't profitable.

If we don't feed the livestock, the livestock will die. So, again, we run into the brick wall of not killing animals.

Feeling good about "not killing animals" doesn't make veganism right, either, especially since it completely fails to even do that much.

you're appealing to the nirvana fallacy. Again, fi we can't eliminate poverty 100% should we not do charity?
Furthermore, there's no economic or social interest in avoiding these animal deaths. If there were, we would have methods to avoid them.

I again point to the fact that 40% of the crops in the world we grow go to feed animals and we could feed billions with them

that goes off the false assumption we stop feeding them tomorrow and the entire world goes vegan tomorrow, which simply would not happen

How does it fail to 'do much' when vegan harm less animals.
www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc

Vegans believe in not harming animals unnecessarily, which is something everyone believes in.

If we did only that which was necessary, the world would be a very boring place.

But that isn't the debate we're having.
The question that was originally raised was not killing animals for food when we don't have to. And we actually have a reason not to do so, even if it didn't cause unnecessary harm for the animal [that being we could feed humans]

Everyone agrees animals matter morally [that is, we shouldn't torture one even if we really like torturing it] so vegan morality goes along the same lines as what the general populous already believes.
And no, I am not equating animal torture to eating meat, merely providing an example of what is generally accepted to be moral, and demonstrating both cause unnecessary harm for the victim and give pleasure to the person doing the act.

yea maybe you didn't read the content but someone almost killed an innocent cat by forcing it to be vegan. I don't even like eating meat much. I am very sensitive to death and pain. I can't stand to see someone purposely kill something without reason. Even bugs. I still think you and the kitten owners are retarded.

I already said you shouldn't force a vegan diet on cats

its not letting me respond to your other comments but a pig doesn't have a conscious, and food pigs shouldn't have a painful life unless the factory owners are cruel.

That's just it, man. We're not having a debate. At least, I'm not. You eat your quinoa and I'll have a porkchop, and life goes on.

But we are. You called an entire lifestyle moronic, so you should be expected to defend it and you tried to. that's what a debate is, a proposition and a conversation about it.

>life goes on
Not for the pig.

yes too bad the random pig with the same intelligence of beibergotswag maybe slightly higher IQ who was bred for food won't get to walk back and forth with no point or goal.

whether or not a sentient being has a 'goal' has nothing to do with morality. We agree mentally disabled humans matter morally and wouldn't breed them for food.

the key part being bred for food. Also, like you said, severely retarded don't really have a future or present. I care much more about everyone else, but again, they were hopefully not bred for food.

How is that the key part? At one point we bred humans for slavery. What 'we' bred to do with them is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they can feel pain or pleasure or morality.
you're essentially justifying a decision with a decision we made beforehand that we wouldn't have to if we didn't say we made this decision. It's total circular logic.
We eat pigs=> because we breed them for food =>so we eat pigs =>because we breed them for food, ad infintum

You don't seem to realize that pork pigs and pet/companion pigs are different. They also have beef cows(grain fed and grass fed is a big debate, which I am currently doing a report on for school), and milk cows, and show cows, and pet/companion cows. They have this for almost any farm animal except for horses(which are usually show animals or pets) privileged fuckers . This is not being justified as we have always done it before, so why question it, but rather, it is a good source of food. They can feel pain but they aren't slaughtered slowly. They can feel pleasure from sex but I'm not sure about much else(I'm not legaly a pig).

Just because we've done something before doesn't justify it.
'Well, we've always had slaves, so why question it'
That's terrifying logic. Appeal to tradition.

And no, there is no difference between the two morally. both can feel pain and pleasure.

Also, that's such an inane argument. A dog clearly feels more pleasure in the hands of an attentive, caring owner over the factory farms. A pig would be and is no different. And they don't just feel pain from the slaughter.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T48yOYjz5sk
Mother sows are basically breeding machines that they keep in cages. The pigs literally go insane in farms such as these.

furthermore, none of this answers the original question to begin with, can we justify using animals for food when we don't have to?

And even if they aren't slaughtered slowly that doesn't matter. their pain is what matters morally. Even brief pain shouldn't overtake pleasure. As one example, if I were to slap you, even I really enjoyed it, it wouldn't be justified

you don't seem to have read my comment. Try again.

I read your comment.
You said pork pigs and pet pigs are differen
they're not
Both can feel pain and pleasure, and that's all that matters
And it's not a good source of food at all. It's highly inefficient
The first question shouldn't be 'is it a good source of food' the question should be 'can it suffer'

Then I guess it would be more accurate to say we were having a debate, and I am stepping back from it. It is too late for me to be citing sources or any other such drudgery, even if I actually cared to on FunnyJunk, of all places. So, you win, I guess? Congrats.

And, yeah. Shame for the pig. But, I actually did have porkchops for dinner and he was delicious, so he's got that going for him. Or, he did.

What better place than funnyjunk really?
I mean, if it was a full on internet fight that'd be different but having a debate can and should happen anyway.

Like I said, you enjoying it doesn't mean much in terms of morality, which was the question brought up

But, if you don't wanna talk about it, whatever. I won't say it's your prerogative or choice or anything, but it's something you did.
Hell, it's something I did. I'm not proud of it. I don't like the fact that I did it. but it happens.
I'm just glad I changed.

Let me put it this way. I like animals. There are some I like to have around the house to keep me company, and there are some I like to eat. In either case, their needs and desires are secondary to my own. If I want to eat an animal, I'll kill it, or buy it from somebody else who did. Whether or not it comes to harm is immaterial, because I wanted to eat it. Feeling pity or remorse for that pig would be like feeling pity or remorse for broccoli. Their common thread is that they're food and I like to eat them. There's nothing immoral or moral about it.

I think there's an extreme cognitive dissonance to say you 'like' animals, yet their suffering is secondary to your pleasure which is momentary.

The difference between the pig and broccoli is that the pig had a conscious and could feel pain and pleasure.

It's not a matter of it being secondary to your own. you clearly do like animals because you have a dog and a cat. But it's the question of the fact that the pig was no different than your dog or cat. It could feel pain or pleasure and didn't wanna die.

You cannot claim it's immaterial. Is it immaterial that an animal is harmed because Michael Vick wanted to see a dog fight.?

the broccoli had no such concept of death. Brushing animals off as 'food would be like brushing your dogs off as food to me.

As I said, there's animals I like for company, and others I like for eating. The pig is different from my dog and my cat because it falls in the latter category. I simply do not care about the pig beyond eating it.

What difference is there morally? It's a completely arbitrary distinction that you're making in your mind. The difference between your dog and a pig is as little as the difference between the one breed of your dog and the latter breed of your dog.
I may as well say I like hanging out with Jewish people but like eating Muslims.

the pig was bred to be food. dogs and Muslims aren't. Also, the Muslim can lead a satisfying and happy meat eating life, while the pig just walks back and forth randomly for its entire life. Fun fact: pigs anatomically can't look up.

Also, a pig can lead a satisfying life as well.
A pig would obviously prefer say me as a care-taker who would let it do as it pleases on open land over a factory farm or a shortened, painful lifespan.

Yes but the pig can still feel pain and pleasure. what it was 'bred' to do means little to nothing about the fact that it has a conscious.

There is no difference morally. Morality doesn't enter into it. Besides, arbitrary decision-making is a luxury I enjoy to the fullest.

How does morality not enter into it?
Do you not agree that animals matter morally and we should torture them even if we really like it?

For the same reason a person would be vegan
they don't think we should kill animals for food.

Hi there. I just wanted to point out that the animal in question most certainly does want to kill animals for food.

Yes but what other animals want to do does not justify morality.
Nature does not dictate morality.

Well, that's moronic.

How is it moronic?
If we don't need to kill animals for food, how is it moronic?

Farming produce kills millions of animals anyway by shredding them in harvesting vehicles. No matter how you feed people, animals die.

You still have to displace a lot of wildlife and demolish natural vegetation to create an efficient plot of farmable land. Animals die and the environment is impacted.

Let's say we all went vegan tomorrow. Eating that much more produce would increase demand, which will require an increase in supply, which then requires us to overfarm even more land than we already do, which reduces the nutrient content of the soil.

Nevermind the fact that meat is fucking delicious. Nothing goes better with Brussels sprouts than a nice juicy steak.

You're saying because we can't avoid any animal death we shouldn't bother with eating meat, which is like saying because we can't eliminate poverty 100%, we shouldn't have charity.

Actually, we displace a lot more farmable land by feeding livestock. 40% of it in the world. We could effectively feed the hungry with what we give to animals in america alone
news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

The world won't go vegan tomorrow though. And even if it does, we have plenty.

Feeling good does not equate to what or what is not right.

The point is that the only way you can not kill animals is to grow all of your own food yourself, and even then you'll have kill bugs and possibly rodents that might threaten your personal crop. Therefore, if your goal is to not kill any animals, you pretty much just have to stop eating altogether. Then again, since that will kill you, not even that's an option.

We have plenty, but it's fucking up our soil to produce as much as we do. Raising livestock can be bad for the soil in its own ways, but we already grow TOO MUCH vegetables as it is. The demand is so high that rotating crops properly simply isn't profitable.

If we don't feed the livestock, the livestock will die. So, again, we run into the brick wall of not killing animals.

Feeling good about "not killing animals" doesn't make veganism right, either, especially since it completely fails to even do that much.

you're appealing to the nirvana fallacy. Again, fi we can't eliminate poverty 100% should we not do charity?
Furthermore, there's no economic or social interest in avoiding these animal deaths. If there were, we would have methods to avoid them.

I again point to the fact that 40% of the crops in the world we grow go to feed animals and we could feed billions with them

that goes off the false assumption we stop feeding them tomorrow and the entire world goes vegan tomorrow, which simply would not happen

How does it fail to 'do much' when vegan harm less animals.
www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc

Vegans believe in not harming animals unnecessarily, which is something everyone believes in.

If we did only that which was necessary, the world would be a very boring place.

But that isn't the debate we're having.
The question that was originally raised was not killing animals for food when we don't have to. And we actually have a reason not to do so, even if it didn't cause unnecessary harm for the animal [that being we could feed humans]

Everyone agrees animals matter morally [that is, we shouldn't torture one even if we really like torturing it] so vegan morality goes along the same lines as what the general populous already believes.
And no, I am not equating animal torture to eating meat, merely providing an example of what is generally accepted to be moral, and demonstrating both cause unnecessary harm for the victim and give pleasure to the person doing the act.

yea maybe you didn't read the content but someone almost killed an innocent cat by forcing it to be vegan. I don't even like eating meat much. I am very sensitive to death and pain. I can't stand to see someone purposely kill something without reason. Even bugs. I still think you and the kitten owners are retarded.

I already said you shouldn't force a vegan diet on cats

its not letting me respond to your other comments but a pig doesn't have a conscious, and food pigs shouldn't have a painful life unless the factory owners are cruel.

That's just it, man. We're not having a debate. At least, I'm not. You eat your quinoa and I'll have a porkchop, and life goes on.

But we are. You called an entire lifestyle moronic, so you should be expected to defend it and you tried to. that's what a debate is, a proposition and a conversation about it.

>life goes on
Not for the pig.

yes too bad the random pig with the same intelligence of beibergotswag maybe slightly higher IQ who was bred for food won't get to walk back and forth with no point or goal.

whether or not a sentient being has a 'goal' has nothing to do with morality. We agree mentally disabled humans matter morally and wouldn't breed them for food.

the key part being bred for food. Also, like you said, severely retarded don't really have a future or present. I care much more about everyone else, but again, they were hopefully not bred for food.

How is that the key part? At one point we bred humans for slavery. What 'we' bred to do with them is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they can feel pain or pleasure or morality.
you're essentially justifying a decision with a decision we made beforehand that we wouldn't have to if we didn't say we made this decision. It's total circular logic.
We eat pigs=> because we breed them for food =>so we eat pigs =>because we breed them for food, ad infintum

You don't seem to realize that pork pigs and pet/companion pigs are different. They also have beef cows(grain fed and grass fed is a big debate, which I am currently doing a report on for school), and milk cows, and show cows, and pet/companion cows. They have this for almost any farm animal except for horses(which are usually show animals or pets) privileged fuckers . This is not being justified as we have always done it before, so why question it, but rather, it is a good source of food. They can feel pain but they aren't slaughtered slowly. They can feel pleasure from sex but I'm not sure about much else(I'm not legaly a pig).

Just because we've done something before doesn't justify it.
'Well, we've always had slaves, so why question it'
That's terrifying logic. Appeal to tradition.

And no, there is no difference between the two morally. both can feel pain and pleasure.

Also, that's such an inane argument. A dog clearly feels more pleasure in the hands of an attentive, caring owner over the factory farms. A pig would be and is no different. And they don't just feel pain from the slaughter.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T48yOYjz5sk
Mother sows are basically breeding machines that they keep in cages. The pigs literally go insane in farms such as these.

furthermore, none of this answers the original question to begin with, can we justify using animals for food when we don't have to?

And even if they aren't slaughtered slowly that doesn't matter. their pain is what matters morally. Even brief pain shouldn't overtake pleasure. As one example, if I were to slap you, even I really enjoyed it, it wouldn't be justified

you don't seem to have read my comment. Try again.

I read your comment.
You said pork pigs and pet pigs are differen
they're not
Both can feel pain and pleasure, and that's all that matters
And it's not a good source of food at all. It's highly inefficient
The first question shouldn't be 'is it a good source of food' the question should be 'can it suffer'

Then I guess it would be more accurate to say we were having a debate, and I am stepping back from it. It is too late for me to be citing sources or any other such drudgery, even if I actually cared to on FunnyJunk, of all places. So, you win, I guess? Congrats.

And, yeah. Shame for the pig. But, I actually did have porkchops for dinner and he was delicious, so he's got that going for him. Or, he did.

What better place than funnyjunk really?
I mean, if it was a full on internet fight that'd be different but having a debate can and should happen anyway.

Like I said, you enjoying it doesn't mean much in terms of morality, which was the question brought up

But, if you don't wanna talk about it, whatever. I won't say it's your prerogative or choice or anything, but it's something you did.
Hell, it's something I did. I'm not proud of it. I don't like the fact that I did it. but it happens.
I'm just glad I changed.

Let me put it this way. I like animals. There are some I like to have around the house to keep me company, and there are some I like to eat. In either case, their needs and desires are secondary to my own. If I want to eat an animal, I'll kill it, or buy it from somebody else who did. Whether or not it comes to harm is immaterial, because I wanted to eat it. Feeling pity or remorse for that pig would be like feeling pity or remorse for broccoli. Their common thread is that they're food and I like to eat them. There's nothing immoral or moral about it.

I think there's an extreme cognitive dissonance to say you 'like' animals, yet their suffering is secondary to your pleasure which is momentary.

The difference between the pig and broccoli is that the pig had a conscious and could feel pain and pleasure.

It's not a matter of it being secondary to your own. you clearly do like animals because you have a dog and a cat. But it's the question of the fact that the pig was no different than your dog or cat. It could feel pain or pleasure and didn't wanna die.

You cannot claim it's immaterial. Is it immaterial that an animal is harmed because Michael Vick wanted to see a dog fight.?

the broccoli had no such concept of death. Brushing animals off as 'food would be like brushing your dogs off as food to me.

As I said, there's animals I like for company, and others I like for eating. The pig is different from my dog and my cat because it falls in the latter category. I simply do not care about the pig beyond eating it.

What difference is there morally? It's a completely arbitrary distinction that you're making in your mind. The difference between your dog and a pig is as little as the difference between the one breed of your dog and the latter breed of your dog.
I may as well say I like hanging out with Jewish people but like eating Muslims.

the pig was bred to be food. dogs and Muslims aren't. Also, the Muslim can lead a satisfying and happy meat eating life, while the pig just walks back and forth randomly for its entire life. Fun fact: pigs anatomically can't look up.

Also, a pig can lead a satisfying life as well.
A pig would obviously prefer say me as a care-taker who would let it do as it pleases on open land over a factory farm or a shortened, painful lifespan.

Yes but the pig can still feel pain and pleasure. what it was 'bred' to do means little to nothing about the fact that it has a conscious.

There is no difference morally. Morality doesn't enter into it. Besides, arbitrary decision-making is a luxury I enjoy to the fullest.

How does morality not enter into it?
Do you not agree that animals matter morally and we should torture them even if we really like it?

To be fair, it wouldn't taste very much. Really fresh meat mostly tastes like eggs, it needs to hang for the enzymes to work their magic and bring out the meat taste. Where G.R.R.M really messed it up was: How in the world is a little girl supposed to eat 10 punds of meat in one sitting? That's the least a stallion heart weighs.

Shh the Dm didnt question it, so neither did I. Lets just say at one point a Bag of Holding was involved, with it's head sticking out so it could get air. Love finds a way
As for the babies, our legacy campaign let the players play as their character's kids in the same universe, so i figured the next gen. of goats was in order as well.

The fun part is guessing which piece of jewelry is their phylactery. Only to find out it's none of them.

Hm... well alright then. He's still cool.

I agree.

I didn't since it was in my pocket and counted as an accessory in my inventory, until our Legacy campaign when we gave it some armor. It was mostly for RP purposes, luckily, or it would have been dead right away...

But, how would it be such a tiny goat forever, or have children?

Shh the Dm didnt question it, so neither did I. Lets just say at one point a Bag of Holding was involved, with it's head sticking out so it could get air. Love finds a way
As for the babies, our legacy campaign let the players play as their character's kids in the same universe, so i figured the next gen. of goats was in order as well.

It.... was a small goat. I also once played a gay cowboy named Scooter who stole a baby goblin and killed its mother, and when I realized it needed fresh meat to eat I fed the mother to it. I realize now I have a problem. Dm was not happy.

So, did you roll saving throws for the goat when you got hit by AoE spells?

I didn't since it was in my pocket and counted as an accessory in my inventory, until our Legacy campaign when we gave it some armor. It was mostly for RP purposes, luckily, or it would have been dead right away...

But, how would it be such a tiny goat forever, or have children?

Shh the Dm didnt question it, so neither did I. Lets just say at one point a Bag of Holding was involved, with it's head sticking out so it could get air. Love finds a way
As for the babies, our legacy campaign let the players play as their character's kids in the same universe, so i figured the next gen. of goats was in order as well.

To be honest, the video reeks of Hikikomori-ism to me. Sure, there's plenty there sexually, but there's plenty of evidence to support that it goes deeper than just sexual issues. I'm pointing mainly to the first person gun scene.

In the scene, the problem he's facing manifests itself into a physical form that he attempts to fight in his mind, as if trying to save the princess instead of tackle the problem in a realistic way. As if defeating the monster will turn his real life around.

Not to mention all of this going on in his mind while he lays there on his bed, surrounded by the mess that is his room. The fear of going outside and being too enthralled in fantasy can cause a right mess that can't/won't be cleaned up.

Just my two cents to the discussion. It's such a cool video to watch because you catch more and more the more times you watch, like the pieces of the suit he wears in the gun scene are laying in miniature form on his desk in the beginning. Reminds me of this video;

Granted, anything as mindfucky as this is going to be able to be interpreted a hundred different ways. Still, I think the animation more strongly supports my interpretation, if only because the porn and porn-horror occurs more frequently. Flak cannon titties blasting you to pieces, being paizuri'd into a bloody pulp, being drowned in cum vomit, etc.

I already mentioned this, likes anime, few fanservice here and there totally innocent, then he gets addicted to it, then comes the fapping and the oh god I can't stop. It's in the first comment.

Dude now you're being stupid. You want to argue over technicalities? okay let's do that. I never said he was a weeaboo but rather this was about weeaboo culture which is about Otakus.
Stop shoving words in my mouth
Stop changing my meanings
Stop assuming things from what I say

Weeaboos and otakus are two different things, though, hence my confusion as to what the fuck you're talking about it.

But, yeah, I still don't think it's about being an otaku so much as it is about his porn addiction getting in the way of his personal relationships.

To be honest, the video reeks of Hikikomori-ism to me. Sure, there's plenty there sexually, but there's plenty of evidence to support that it goes deeper than just sexual issues. I'm pointing mainly to the first person gun scene.

In the scene, the problem he's facing manifests itself into a physical form that he attempts to fight in his mind, as if trying to save the princess instead of tackle the problem in a realistic way. As if defeating the monster will turn his real life around.

Not to mention all of this going on in his mind while he lays there on his bed, surrounded by the mess that is his room. The fear of going outside and being too enthralled in fantasy can cause a right mess that can't/won't be cleaned up.

Just my two cents to the discussion. It's such a cool video to watch because you catch more and more the more times you watch, like the pieces of the suit he wears in the gun scene are laying in miniature form on his desk in the beginning. Reminds me of this video;

Granted, anything as mindfucky as this is going to be able to be interpreted a hundred different ways. Still, I think the animation more strongly supports my interpretation, if only because the porn and porn-horror occurs more frequently. Flak cannon titties blasting you to pieces, being paizuri'd into a bloody pulp, being drowned in cum vomit, etc.

No no but he has evangelion figmas.
Why would he have evangelion figmas unless he watched evangelion? You don't go straight from hentai to figmas. Plus he had that fancy gun and I don't think he's gunna be fucking guns anytime soon.

Yeah, but why is he having dreams about a super-busty demon vomiting jizz into his mouth until he dies if the problem isn't porn related? The gun and space marine armor are how he tries to fight back, so the anime fandom itself isn't being portrayed as the problem.

And, he probably isn't a weeaboo as there's no evidence that he is a non-Japanese who romanticizes and extols the virtues of Japanese culture over his own native culture. That's the definition of weeaboo. And, this being a Japanese animation, the character himself is likely Japanese, which makes it impossible for him to be a weeaboo. So, again, if anything he's an otaku.

Also, as I understand it, the animation was done by the studio that did the Evangelion remakes, so the EVA figs are a nod to that.

I already mentioned this, likes anime, few fanservice here and there totally innocent, then he gets addicted to it, then comes the fapping and the oh god I can't stop. It's in the first comment.

Dude now you're being stupid. You want to argue over technicalities? okay let's do that. I never said he was a weeaboo but rather this was about weeaboo culture which is about Otakus.
Stop shoving words in my mouth
Stop changing my meanings
Stop assuming things from what I say

Weeaboos and otakus are two different things, though, hence my confusion as to what the fuck you're talking about it.

But, yeah, I still don't think it's about being an otaku so much as it is about his porn addiction getting in the way of his personal relationships.

To be honest, the video reeks of Hikikomori-ism to me. Sure, there's plenty there sexually, but there's plenty of evidence to support that it goes deeper than just sexual issues. I'm pointing mainly to the first person gun scene.

In the scene, the problem he's facing manifests itself into a physical form that he attempts to fight in his mind, as if trying to save the princess instead of tackle the problem in a realistic way. As if defeating the monster will turn his real life around.

Not to mention all of this going on in his mind while he lays there on his bed, surrounded by the mess that is his room. The fear of going outside and being too enthralled in fantasy can cause a right mess that can't/won't be cleaned up.

Just my two cents to the discussion. It's such a cool video to watch because you catch more and more the more times you watch, like the pieces of the suit he wears in the gun scene are laying in miniature form on his desk in the beginning. Reminds me of this video;

Granted, anything as mindfucky as this is going to be able to be interpreted a hundred different ways. Still, I think the animation more strongly supports my interpretation, if only because the porn and porn-horror occurs more frequently. Flak cannon titties blasting you to pieces, being paizuri'd into a bloody pulp, being drowned in cum vomit, etc.

Doesn't explain the shitload of figmas he has though.
You don't need figmas if you're just here for hentai.

Unless you're masturbating to them, or blowing a load all over them or something like that. Think of the otaku dude from Paranoia Agent. He hires a prostitute and fucks her, but talks to his figs the whole time.

No no but he has evangelion figmas.
Why would he have evangelion figmas unless he watched evangelion? You don't go straight from hentai to figmas. Plus he had that fancy gun and I don't think he's gunna be fucking guns anytime soon.

Yeah, but why is he having dreams about a super-busty demon vomiting jizz into his mouth until he dies if the problem isn't porn related? The gun and space marine armor are how he tries to fight back, so the anime fandom itself isn't being portrayed as the problem.

And, he probably isn't a weeaboo as there's no evidence that he is a non-Japanese who romanticizes and extols the virtues of Japanese culture over his own native culture. That's the definition of weeaboo. And, this being a Japanese animation, the character himself is likely Japanese, which makes it impossible for him to be a weeaboo. So, again, if anything he's an otaku.

Also, as I understand it, the animation was done by the studio that did the Evangelion remakes, so the EVA figs are a nod to that.

I already mentioned this, likes anime, few fanservice here and there totally innocent, then he gets addicted to it, then comes the fapping and the oh god I can't stop. It's in the first comment.

Dude now you're being stupid. You want to argue over technicalities? okay let's do that. I never said he was a weeaboo but rather this was about weeaboo culture which is about Otakus.
Stop shoving words in my mouth
Stop changing my meanings
Stop assuming things from what I say

Weeaboos and otakus are two different things, though, hence my confusion as to what the fuck you're talking about it.

But, yeah, I still don't think it's about being an otaku so much as it is about his porn addiction getting in the way of his personal relationships.

To be honest, the video reeks of Hikikomori-ism to me. Sure, there's plenty there sexually, but there's plenty of evidence to support that it goes deeper than just sexual issues. I'm pointing mainly to the first person gun scene.

In the scene, the problem he's facing manifests itself into a physical form that he attempts to fight in his mind, as if trying to save the princess instead of tackle the problem in a realistic way. As if defeating the monster will turn his real life around.

Not to mention all of this going on in his mind while he lays there on his bed, surrounded by the mess that is his room. The fear of going outside and being too enthralled in fantasy can cause a right mess that can't/won't be cleaned up.

Just my two cents to the discussion. It's such a cool video to watch because you catch more and more the more times you watch, like the pieces of the suit he wears in the gun scene are laying in miniature form on his desk in the beginning. Reminds me of this video;

Granted, anything as mindfucky as this is going to be able to be interpreted a hundred different ways. Still, I think the animation more strongly supports my interpretation, if only because the porn and porn-horror occurs more frequently. Flak cannon titties blasting you to pieces, being paizuri'd into a bloody pulp, being drowned in cum vomit, etc.

idk i only ever saw one episode of that and got bored 10 minutes in...

K.