If your character eats meat, his alignment should automatically be shifted to evil.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
If your character eats meat, his alignment should automatically be shifted to evil.
If your character eats meat, his alignment should automatically be shifted to evil.
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
What if they only eat the meat of evil creatures?
death by food poisoning
what if he eats this?
"Fat makes people fat" aligned
Healthiest gnome lunch
True American
You say that but that is 10000% certain to be clipped from one of those Korean street food videos.
My stomach turned looking at this video.
This is unjustifiable.
Most people are Neutral Evil if you use the alignment system. Most societies are Lawful Evil. Non-evil organizations and individuals are incredibly rare in real life. Stop trying to impose on peoples' escapist fantasy.
Most people and organisations in real-life are Neutral.
Stop trying to impose your grudge on society with ungenuine fantasy references.
>Most people and organizations in real-life are Neutral
Now explain how self-interested people and organizations are somehow a minority. Go ahead, but keep in mind I've already moved on from your bullshit.
Smallest minority is the individual.
Not exactly. Even the individual can be divided into smaller parts, though it does get rather nasty.
Chaotic Beetus
Permanent -4 INT -6 WIS -2 CHA
His alignment shifts to “diabetes”
That’s fricking stupid. You need to go touch grass. (And not eat it)
Actually we do. There’s a few proteins and vitamins we need to survive that we can only get from eating animal products. That’s why people choosing to live vegan have to take vitamin supplements to maintain good health, which is a sure sign that a vegan diet is anything but natural for humans.
We can’t escape it so the best we can do is handle the ugly part as humanely as possible and not squander the meat, and make the most of it.
> humans aren’t animals
Who says we aren’t? We’re certainly not plants, or fungus, definitely not mitochondria. We are animals (specifically a great ape of the Hominin family) as certainly as wheat is a kind of grass.
So? That doesn't change the fact that eating animals is unnecessary, all you have to do is take a B12 supplement or a multivitamin, neither of which are particularly difficult to acquire or do.
Ya do know that the sole reason that most domestic animals even exist is so we eat them right? Like getting everyone to go vegan wouldn't save any animals, it'd just mean that all the cows, pigs, chickens, etc. would be just chucked into an incinerator since there's no longer any reason to take care of the damn things.
Pigs especially would just... all get shot since they are a fricking problem if they get out.
That’s like saying we shouldn’t end slavery because the slaves would have nowhere to go. That doesn’t really justify continuing an immoral practice forever, in perpetuity. You’re also assuming that every single person would go vegan overnight
Jesus fricking christ. What is it with you people comparing eating meat to slavery or the holocaust? Every fricking time.
Rats and monkeys are animals, anon.
you're not arguing with a real vegan, it's a Ganker anon pretending to be one
Should have shipped them back, would save lots of trouble in the long run.
Slaves were human while animals are not. We get that you're mentally ill enough to anthropomorphize them to an extreme degree, but cows don't have the same feelings as you...okay maybe they do, but that's a you problem.
You shouldn’t need vitamin supplements at all! If your diet requires you to take nutritional supplements to get everything your body needs then it isn’t a healthy or natural diet.
You can get 99% of what you need from non-animal products, the only real exceptions are vitamin b12 and maybe vitamin D
This is a moot virtue-signaling argument anyways. The majority of people who eat animals are already deficient in vitamins or eat unhealthy diets that would be far healthier if they swapped to a non-animal diet anyways
"Eat a healthy natural diet!"
>Has to take manufactured chemical suppliments to live.
Do you know how moronic you sound?
You do realize that if you live in a developed country most of the foods you eat are enriched with vitamins and minerals, right?
That doesn't even look like it tastes good. Its all sweet, but the flavors wouldn't meld together well at all.
If your character eats dick, his alignment should be changed to Original Poster.
The Star Spangled Banner begins playing and he gains one level of gunslinger. Regardless of how much the DM protests about guns ruining the setting he retains this level and complimentary firearm after paying shipping, handling, processing, and tip simply by shouting SHALL NOT.
I doubt that is actually supposed to be eaten, you would have a better experiance just eating a bowl of straight suger. Stuff like that is for instagram views
Humans and sugar was a horrible mistake
That's just a bowl of diabetes, and maybe diarrhea to boot
>Look at the account
Why are white women like this.
i tried replicating this but with some ingredient substitutions
thoughts?
These OPs:
How do you not drop dead immediately from eating that?
if you shit up lembas your in shit
But refusing to eat meat is defying the gods' natural order for the world, and thus evil. Goblins are all vegans, which is why they're all skinny and hateful.
But goblins never tell you they're vegan, so ergo they can't be.
They're trying the whole time, they just can't speak comprehensible language.
Goblins are by nature sneaky, they will tell you they're vegan in the worst possible time.
but if the gods created the beasts of the earth for our use as some scriptures say, would it not be a good act to eat them?
what stops eating plants from being evil? plants are also alive and have their own spirits and souls. Dryads, some fae, etc.
By this logic life itself is an evil act.
I'm not sure about other holy books, but the book of Genesis only gives the plants as food to all beings during creation. Meat eating only starts after the fall. Of course, a holistic view of later writings show that meat eating is fine.
>Meat eating only starts after the fall
This is the complete bullshit.
>God had already created all animals, INCLUDING obligate carnivores like cats that cannot eat plants. This means that carnivores are amoral (being neither moral nor immoral).
>God explicitly gave to Adam "the livestock, the birds in the sky, and all the wild animals". Now this word livestock is a tricky translation but from the original Hebrew, they used this word interchangeably to mean "cattle", "domesticated animal", or "livestock" as it is translated here, kind of like calling a tissue a Kleenex or a soda a Coke. Adam and his family did not balk at slaughtering animals for sacrifice after the Fall because they had clearly been eating them beforehand and they certainly were keeping flocks of goats, sheep, and cattle. Male farm animals are for eating,
I believe this confusion actually comes from a much later verse -- Genesis 9:3. This is much much much later (ten generations!) in which God tells Noah's family after the flood that "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you."
Now I could stop this post here and point out that this statement makes it unambiguous that if you were born after Noah, it's not sinful for you to eat meat. But I want to even go a step further and point out that it wasn't sinful before that. When God commanded Noah to build the Ark he first tells him to gather "all the clean and unclean animals" (as in clean to eat), then later refers to those same animals as "the wild animals and the livestock" in Genesis 8. We can infer then that "the clean" animals were the livestock and the "unclean animals" were the wild animals. It was perfectly okay for Adam and Eve to eat livestock in the garden, but not wild animals. Noah's Covenant with God expanded the consumption of animals from livestock to all animals that move. This seems to exclude sessile animals like mussels because they do not move. Shellfish are forbidden eating later in Leviticus 11.
>FrUMbm0WYAASI9g.png
bullshit. hulk eats only hostess fruit pies
The crime is life, the punishment is death.
All beings in this world have been judged, the time of sentencing is upon us.
Unless, of course, a small band of misfits manages to band together to prevent justice from being carried out...
if your character is OP his alignment should automatically be committed chaotic/gay
my character only eats non-vegan people
Keep talking like that and I'll eat you
Depends on the setting.
... ok?
where's the fricking =B?!
If your character doesn't eat meat, his HP should automatically be shifted to -10
-1 to Constitution score for each week of veganism
Eating animals is morally indefensible because we no longer need to eat them to survive so we’re just killing then and forcing them to suffer for no justifiable reason beyond pleasure
By this reasoning, going outside is morally indefensible.
Finally /tg/ has the moral high ground.
Setting aside the fact that your extremely limited and selfish view of what constitutes suffering so conveniently denies the real action, communication, and responses to stimuli found in so many other things you are okay with killing, let's take just a minute here and go with you...
First, better not take any vaccines, since those involve torturing and murdering horseshoe crabs for their blood.
Can't take any pills or vitamins which have any sort of animal-derived protein substrate -oops
Can't drive a car, use a computer or phone, own a modern house, wear modern clothes, or touch anything with any amount of plastic or synthetic hydrocarbon product formed from material as petroleum by-products, which often make use of animal(pork)-derived lubrication during different stages of the transport or refinement or manufacturing process. And if you like to scream "dinosaurs!" instead of "phytoplankton and algae!" regarding oil reserves, then you're doubly fricked for using anything ever that contains any plastic material or synthetic fabric.
In fact, can't use any product or service ever, from hospitals and schools to Starbucks and Netflix, to the streets you drive on, since those are all the result of animal labor and suffering.
>But anon, people aren't animals!
If we are so much higher than them, then their suffering is not the same as ours, and there is not problem, or we are still justified by being gods to them as you said.
>But anon, ANY animal suffering is bad and unjustified!
Then all animal suffering is bad. Animals killing each other is bad. Animals dying in the wild due to starvation or illness or accidents or old age is bad. And you can't take that back without the previous steps falling back, too. The only way to end animal suffering is to end animals. Release the virus bombs, redirect the asteroids, trigger natural disasters, initiate global thermonuclear war. The only honest vegan is one fighting for absolute planetary destruction.
I hope this is pasta.
>tard actually manages to out-sperg a vegan, one of the most obnoxious gays on the internet and in general
>Vaccine
Not done for pleasure, it’s done to help manufacture medicine necessary to save lives
>Vitamins
Will depend, if there are vitamins available that do not require animal products (there are) then yes, it’s pointless because there are alternatives that exist that do not require harming an animal
>Technology
Has a utilitarian benefit beyond pleasure. Phones, cars, and so on are important for society to function. It is not even remotely comparable to eating bacon because bacon is tasty.
>Products
Humans can decide whether or not they want to work those jobs. Animals do not get a choice, they are specifically bred, raised or kidnapped by force to suffer and get slaughtered, solely to get eaten for pleasure
Your entire post can easily be destroyed by one question: if someone tortured a cat for fun, would you think he’s a psychopath?
If yes, why? The answer is obvious, it’s because he is harming a sentient being unnecessarily. There are other means to gain pleasure that do not require torturing a cat. We do not need to eat animals to survive or be healthy, eating animals is solely done for pleasure, because meaningful alternatives exist that are easily accessible
>Vaccine
Not done for pleasure, it’s done to help manufacture medicine necessary to save lives
Why is your life worth more than an animals then?
That's not a reason, nor an answer to the question.
> Phones, cars, and so on are important for society to function
And what makes society so good huh? Explain that.
>Humans can decide whether or not they want to work those jobs
Not really someone needs to make the roads, work the hospitals, teach the kids, to all of the shit that makes society function. Working a 9-5 is basically equal to working on a farm not comparable in energy but the concept of "labor".
Like if you are stuck on a island with no one else guess what you gotta do to survive? Hunt, repair and/or make shelter for yourself, search for things to eat daily, get drinking water, make sure you don't fricking die from wild life or the environment.
The only difference is that a job usually has less risks involved but the basics are still there.
But here's the thing you knuckle-dragging dick head killing a pig isn't fun. Eating something slaughtered by another isn't the same as torturing a cat cause me buying prepackaged bacon I didn't kill that pig someone else did what we are doing is basically being scavangers which oh wow already is a thing in nature. Hell what about carnivore animals? Are they evil? Hell no why? Cause they need to be healthy same with humans we are omnivores I don't want to take a pill so my teeth don't fall out cause I lack vitamins. This isn't even a fricking environmental aspect its because plant based products are cheaper as frick meaning whoever is selling this bullshit is getting more of a profit.
Consuming animals and animal products saves lives, and to say other wise is one of the most classist, racist, geopolitically ignorant, and overall cluelessly elitist things one can claim. Not everyone has access to environmentally destructive agriculture and first-world medical care and supplements to ehhh somewhat approximate a balanced diet. Most of the world's population does in reality depend on animal food products or labor for health and survival, directly. I said nothing about pleasure.
Animal products for consumption have a utilitarian benefit as much as your first-world pleasures, and relying on those first-world technologies to sustain first-world agriculture and industry and society and supplements is just a roundabout way of using animal suffering to fuel a lifestyle of preaching against animal suffering.
Go live a life of absolute self-sufficiency as a lower-middle-class vegan without ubiquitous and privileged access to every modern convenience, and let me know how it goes.
Billions of people also survive without all the things you use as justification for animal suffering, and billions more have done so and with happier lives than you.
And there's still you projecting your limited and biased understanding of sentience and suffering onto things in the most convenient way to celebrate the death of somethings without a care while using the death of other things as fuel for your own fire of pride. I raise my children with a knowledge of biology and conservation to understand living things and the world around them, and I instruct them in the sacred responsibility they have to be stewards of the earth and to take good care of the land and its inhabitants, taking care to treat living things with compassion and respect and to try to learn about them more, and to appreciate the sacrifice of every life in every form that is given to them for their health and strength.
Again, the only honest vegan is the one calling for planetary destruction.
>The only way to end animal suffering is to end animals
I like the cut of this guy's jib.
AI tier logic.
Agriculture kills significantly more things than animal husbandry
That's why farming is metal.
What do you feed to animals, moron? I don't even care about vegetarianism but this is such a fricking single digit IQ take jesus frick please kill your whole family and then yourself
Other ground up animals.
NTA but the amount of small native animals that die to pest control by farmers or get ground up by industrial agriculture is far more than the number of native animals that die from pastoral farming. I care way more about the local ecosystem versus the welfare of animals that wouldnt exist without us.
Some 70% of crops are fed to farm animals. You are genuinely fricking moronic.
If you cant differentiate factory farming from traditional farming you shouldn't be talking about this subject. No one likes our industrial farming, it has little to do with the topic.
moron, the point is that you can't have animal husbandry without agriculture, any form of animal husbandry is an inefficient use of agriculture because the food that is fed to the animals could just be fed to people instead. It would be different if you had a very small density of humans spread over a very large grassy area, that was important in the past and it may be a legitimate strategy for survival in the post-apocalyptic future, but in the present it's a egregious waste of resources to create a small number of extra-tasty grass-fed animals. Growing corn and oats to feed animals is vastly more efficient, and eating the corn and oats is even more efficient than feeding it to animals.
Now you're specifically looking at small-scale animal husbandry and specifically comparing that to large-scale agriculture, specifically ignoring the incredible ease of small-scale vegan agriculture, and specifically ignoring the horrors of large-scale "animal husbandry".
Its clear you dont understand modern industrial farming and how destructive it is. The issue is not meat, its how we cultivate it. Meat production was not a problem in the past.
What a tool.
Keep conflating industrial farming with traditional husbandry techniques buddy. The amount of effort to turn Prarie into farmland is immense in comparison to letting cattle graze it. We have so much land that is shit for crops but good for wild grass.
No we don't. You're an idiot.
Yes we do, you are just completely ignorant. Grasslands are costly to turn into open plots you have to coat in industrial scale production fertilizers. Cows can turn grass into beef.
My god is one of law and one rule of nature is that animals eat animals. All beings on this planet are animals and so I don't fall. Get rekt gay.
>No we don't.
One of these days go outside your city.
well grass fed beef is awesome, but humans can't even eat grass. and yet, somehow grass fricking grows everywhere, all the time.
>Agriculture kills significantly more things than animal husbandry
Only in extremely short term view - sure, extending farmland (at the cost of untamed wilderness) kills everything that lived there before, either directly or by displacement itno another region where it can't survive, which can be few thousands of animals across dozens of species. But this wave of extermination only happens once and done, with no additional deaths further down the line. Compared to animal husbandry that slaughters maybe couple hudreds pieces of cattle a year, but this grim harvest happens each and every year. And total death count keeps adding up. After a decade death easily toll catches up with agricultural approach. After two decades exceeds it significantly.
>Completely ignoring the long term ecological impacts of farming
Anon when a farm goes up an entire ecosystem is destroyed.
Yes, but only once. So no matter how high the initial death toll, it inevitably becomes preferable to continuous yearly slaughter after certain number of years.
Loss of habitat has long term negative effects and the disruptive nature of farms can cause populations of keystone species to decline or collapse fully.
Yeah, if stopping particular species from nesting in the farmed region means stopping it from nesting at all the species is guaraneed to not contribute to the death count any further.
Because you already killed off anything that lived there and made it uninhabitable for others. Its as nihilistic as saying killing yourself prevents death from your actions down the road
No, homosexual. You're constantly genociding pests and running them over with farm equipment.
That is arguing for planetary annihilation since it reduces death toll over an infinite amount of years where things would have been born and died.
Explain why it's morally wrong to eat animals for pleasure.
Animals are less standing creatures compared to humans.
They should be happy and feel honored that we breed and eat them.
The same reason why it’s wrong to murder puppies for fun
And that reason is?
If your answer is "it just is" then please eat yourself.
So you have no issue with someone murdering puppies for fun?
Not an argument
I need to eat them to survive, I am part vampire and require essence that plants can't provide.
Also, do you know that plants can feel pain, fear and distress? You savage. At least I respect my meals.
Your existence is morally indefensible.
>yfw we no longer need to eat them to survive
enjoy your chemically processed plant material
And pellagra, don’t forget the ensuing pellagra
And making plants suffer is morally justifiable?
I don't give a frick. Meat is tasty.
Nutrient density of meat > Nuttient density of plants, and raising enough meat to feed one person consumes fewer resources than raising enough plants.
Also, the suffering makes it tasty.
Not to be that guy, but it takes about 10 times as many calories of grain to get the same amount of calories in beef or pork. That said, the main advantage of things like goats, sheep, and cows is that they can generally eat things, like underbrush and grass, that humans can't, so in the pre industrial world it was a net positive.
Also in the post industrial world. Not all land is made equal, and some land is absolutely amazing for pasture, but complete crap for actually growing any crop that a human would want to eat, for an example just look at the entire continent of Australia
Granted you can sorta get around this sometimes if you fertilize/irrigate the absolute shit out of somewhere, but that's got negative consequences of its own. Also genetic engineering COULD prove a possible solution to this issue but LMAO at the idea of vegans eating anything that was genetically modified.
We do need to eat meat to gain muscle mass in any appreciable amount of time.
I can just see anon claiming we don't need muscles anyway in today's world.
We need to eat protein, and while meat is the most common source of protein, it's not not the only source.
Most calorie dense and useful forms of protein are animal products. If you think beef requires lots of resources most nuts worth a damn nutritionally are prima donna crops. Animal protein is simply the meta and everything else is incredibly resource intensive.
You don't only have to eat nuts for protein. There are foods like tofu, seitan, tempeh, and lentils that provide a lot of protein and are suitable substitutes for meat
The protection of rights comes with the responsibility to respect the right of others. Any thing that is unable to the later can not be protected by the former, you have to prove that animals can acknowledge that other beings have rights that need to be respected.
And if you do succeed in doing this than you have to also try animals as criminals in order to hold them responsible and set them to same standard as all beings worth giving rights.
It's defensible because my standard of morality is "Anything I feel like doing is right", and I feel like it, and therefore it is right.
You do realize that plants experience suffering as well. It has been scientifically proven that plants feel pain and even respond to damage to their bodies by "screaming", releasing chemicals into the air that encourage nearby plants - even unrelated ones - to start releasing poisons to make themselves taste worse.
This whole "only animals experience pain" idea only comes from the fact we are animals ourselves and thus more in tune with how they display their pain.
So if someone stomped on some grass and someone else stomped on a puppy you’d treat both acts as exactly the same?
It wouldn't be the same on emotional level simply because I'm much closer evolutionaly to the puppy than to the grass and thus can emphathize with puppy better, regardless of what I know intellectually.
For the exact same reason I wouldn't treat someone stomping on the puppy and someone stomping on human baby the same. But it doesn't mean that puppies can't feel pain does it?
Well that’s a dumb argument, you can use this to justify murdering a child
>oh we constantly cause pain to all living beings anyways so it’s okay if I murder a child for fun
Plants do not have a CNS and have no meaningful capacity for sentience, they “feel pain” in the same way a bacterial cell is dissuaded from certain stimuli.
>scientifically proven that plants feel pain
Where kiddo? You've said that plants release chemicals into the air when damaged. That is not pain.
>even unrelated ones
Some plants release a chemical that others of their species can detect and react to. This is not a universal trait shared by all plants. You're going to have to start naming specific species.
>This whole "only animals experience pain" idea only comes from the fact we are animals ourselves and thus more in tune with how they display their pain.
Get your head out from wherever you have stuck it and stop being so stupid. Huge amount of study has been done. Nothing even approaching consciousness or pain transmitters or opioid receptors has been found in plants. As best as modern zoology can tell us, it's only some animals that feel pain. Mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians are all widely accepted as being able to feel pain. Fish can probably feel pain. Pain is not known to be able to be felt in insects and arachnids. They display self-preserving behaviours but this is not the same as experiencing pain. This idea that animals can feel pain is not based solely on their behaviours, which is just one factor, but a host of factors.
NTA but saying that plant pain is just chemicals is kind of missing the point. Literally all emotions and feelings are chemical reactions. When a human feels pain, it's a chemical response.
A plant having a chemical reaction when it feels damage and then signalling to nearby plants in the same species is functionally identical to a deer getting chomped by a wolf and screaming in distress to alert any nearby deer.
That said, I don't know what plant he's talking about and I don't necessarily agree that plants have the same level of emotional depth and capacity as an animal, even if they are able to "feel pain." There's an obvious difference between the deer and the plant, even if the mechanics and chemical aspects are pretty much the same. That doesn't mean that plants don't deserve life, though, especially because of their importance to the world and ecosystem.
>NTA but saying that plant pain is just chemicals is kind of missing the point.
You're speaking at cross purposes and that's not what I said at all. I said that damaged plants releasing chemical signals into the air to warn others is not pain.
If you'd care to re-read the post you'd see that the implication of my post was that pain is not simply the release of chemicals and in fact involves consciousness.
>feels damage and then signalling ...functionally identical to a deer getting chomped by a wolf
No it's not. The most fundamental part is that you've said "feel" and there is no evidence that plants feel anything. Releasing chemicals when damaged is not the same as feeling pain.
You are fricking moronic. Plants are able to detect damage to their corpus and have a chemical response to it. Humans and animals are able to detect damage to their corpus and have a chemical even neural transmission is still chemical in nature to it. Where is the difference? Pain is simply an ability to obtain information. It doesn't require consciousness or even centralized nervous system. Your thinking is disgustingly anthropocentric.
>I don't know what plant he's talking about
It would be easier to list species that don't have some sort of system-wide response to damage
My ballsack shrinks when it gets cold, it's a chemical reaction to protect my balls from the cold. It doesn't mean I suffer. That's the difference.
Just because their body detects something harmful and reacts defensively doesn't mean the plant "suffers" the way we understand it. It might be a purely mechanical reflex that got passed genetically because it helps survival.
>Just because their body detects something harmful and reacts defensively doesn't mean the plant "suffers" the way we understand it. It might be a purely mechanical reflex that got passed genetically because it helps survival.
You could say the exact same thing about animals.
Yes but animals react to pain the same way we do so it's quite obvious they feel it. It's not impossible plants can suffer but it's not the same as animals.
>Pain is an information, nothing more, nothing less.
Pain is a violent information that you want to avoid, it's not the same as other kinds of information.
>Or do you think that the fact that plants don't have some sort of hub for collecting such information makes all the difference? If anything, it's more efficient.
Yes it makes the difference. We're not talking about efficiency but ethics. Is it morally wrong to hurt plants for the reason they can suffer? You could argue it's morally wrong for other reasons but it would be off-topic.
If they don't have the whole intellectual package to transform that information into suffering then there can be no cruelty towards plants.
On the efficiency part, being able to understand pain and push through it if needed can be an advantage btw.
>Pain is a violent information that you want to avoid, it's not the same as other kinds of information.
>What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output.
Your ballsack shrinking from cold isn't painfull because your ballsack doesn't get damaged. If you put it in a vat of liquid nitrogen it absolutely would hurt. Pain is an information, nothing more, nothing less. Your brain recognizes it and gives a system-wide response. Or do you think that the fact that plants don't have some sort of hub for collecting such information makes all the difference? If anything, it's more efficient. There is no middleman, signal gets response as soon as it reaches a tissue.
>doesn't mean the plant "suffers" the way we understand it.
>Your thinking is disgustingly anthropocentric.
>Maybe animals screaming arent really in pain guys
ok, balls-shrinker
Actually it shrinks anytime I'm slightly uncomfortable, like if I want to take a shit or feel sick
I shit very often so it's always shrinked
Look at mr. tiny shrunken balls! Everybody point and laugh!
NTA, but if your scrotum doesn't react to external stimuli, I'm pretty sure your balls are about the size of jelly beans.
>You are fricking moronic.
I'm quite the opposite of moronic. You probably made the statement not because it's an accurate reflection of your beliefs, though that would be an indication of you own lack of intellectual acuity, but because you have no real understanding of what you're on about and you're trying to discredit my statements rather than lose an anonymous argument, which is an indication of you own lack of intellectual acuity.
>Plants are able to detect damage to their corpus and have a chemical response to it.
Having a chemical response is not the same as pain. The human body has a cascade of chemical reactions resulting from the tissue damage of being cut by a scalpel regardless of its inability to feel pain blocked by anaesthetics whether general or local. Many of these reactions have nothing to do with pain whatsoever. People unable to feel pain, such as from HSAN2 and CIP, have the same set of blood clotting and tissue repair responses despite an inability to feel pain. The blanket claim that detecting and responding to damage equals pain is false, only a limited subset of such responses qualifies but your claims are outside this subset.
>It would be easier to list species that don't have some sort of system-wide response to damage
Learn to fricking read. I asked about the alleged interspecies communication, not about what species have reactions to physical damage.
>disgustingly anthropocentric
I'm sorry, are you some sort of scale loving furry? Is that why you think my mention of fish, reptiles, amphibians (which don't have scales) are anthropocentric? Fricking hell, at least make an effort to make credible accusations.
>It doesn't require consciousness or even centralized nervous system.
I don't know about needing a CNS but consciousness is probably a sine qua non for the existence of pain.
What pain doesn't require is actual tissue damage so your plants signal other plants when they're damaged thesis is missing the point.
Cool word salad moron, using longer words doesn't make you smart.
You're right on the last bit. I don't use them to make me smart but I can use longer words because I am already smart. Well done a partially correct observation!
>pain is a signal corresponding to tissue damage, or, in general, some sort of improper functioning. Collecting such signal is extremely important for survival, and thus nearly all living things evolved some method to emit it.
>no, anon, pain is a signal formatted and processed in an extremely specific way. What's this formatting based upon? Well, humans of course (not all humans even, only humans without specific disabilities)! Why it has to be formatted this way? Because frick you, that's why!
This is what I meant by >disgustingly anthropocentric. You judge all living things from a position of human experience rather than systemic knowledge. Signal mask that you believe determines what signal is considered "pain" is completely arbitrary. It happens to align with what most humans consider pain, but you can easily make it specific enough that the only being on a planet that can feel pain is you, or any set of humans or species of your choosing.
Saying that you need consciousness to feel pain is the same as saying that you need mammalian stomach to eat. Just because matter is processed in a different way doesn't mean that it's magically "not eating".
A post so based that no one can withstand it.
It's a simple "We don't need to eat meat, because we can produce all our calories from plants" statement, anon. A part of me agrees with it, and that a complete vegan diet is perfectly manageable in modern times, but people enjoy the taste of meat. All the pastureland used to feed cattle could be converted into farmland, and we'd have a net gain in calories, because of the 1/10th rule. However, meat tastes really good, because your ape brain knows that meat holds a lot more calories than berries, so it gives you a dopamine cookie for eating the meat.
However, this is all reliant on the modern eras agricultural methods. Do you think a fantasy peasant understands nitrogen fixation, soil acidity levels, how to counter fungal parasites, or microbiological fauna that assists plants extract nutrients? No. They know some fields are more fertile than others, some soil is totally useless, and sometimes you lose an entire harvest to the wheatrot. You don't eat the chickens running around your field, you eat their eggs, and when they finally stop laying, THEN you butcher them so you can have an extra nice dinner, and some good soup as you turn the bones into broth.
Also, since humans wiped out the majority of predator species that hunt things like deer, we have an obligation to fill that niche in the ecosystem, because if we didn't, the deer would simply keep making more deer, until there were too many deer for the environment to sustain, and you'd have a massive population crash as they starved to death. While an arrow to the thigh and eventual bleed out as you are chased down by an ape is a pretty bad way to go, I imagine starving to death to be a much, much worse death. At least the hunt is a few hours of terror, instead of days, weeks of slowly withering away until you are literally too hungry to move.
>that a complete vegan diet is perfectly manageable in modern times
I'd be more convinced if every vegan that tries to push this stuff didn't look like shambling corpses. And they don't usually smell much better.
I've seen enough ex vegans to know that a pure vegan diet is missing something critical that can only be gained via animal proteins.
They often suffer from brain fog and fatigue.
I'm all for less cruel farming practices, but you cant make humanity abandon meat, its simply counter to our nature.
A modern vegan diet that is not just subsistence consumption is unattainable for all but the affluent. Even the affluent in the west usually go down the archetype of sugar addict land whale, Auchswitz victim or roids.
Commercial over-farming will inevitably lead to the collapse of modern civilization, potentially sooner than you think. I look forward to the vegans going first.
Absolutely based croc.
all foods are clean, Mark 7:19
there's my defence i can get more if you want.
being a judgmental vegan is morally indefensible, Romans 14:1-23, Matthew 15:11.
Then how come israelites have to keep it Kosher and Islam also has dietary restrictions? Same God.
Because all three books he quoted are from New Testament, only recognized by Christians.
I thought Islam recognized Christ as a prophet of Allah.
For Muslims Jesus is the prophet, not Christ, calling him by that title is like calling him Mahdi and he's not that for Muslims. Jesus is recognised as a prophet but for Islam a lot of the writings in the new testament are heresy like calling Jesus the messiah/christ and the son of god and Paul saying it's okay to eat pig meat.
>Then how come israelites have to keep it Kosher and Islam also has dietary restrictions? Same God.
Because they didn't accept the new covenant and thus haven't been saved by the Christ.
Because Muslims are a little misled and israelites aren’t human.
Why would an all loving, all good, all powerful god intentionally create a world where we have to murder other living creatures with the capacity to feel pain and suffering in order to survive? He supposedly created Heaven, a perfect paradise with no suffering so he could’ve easily done that with our current reality yet intentionally chose not to
Don't worry about why everything is so fricked up, anon. It gets better after you die.
Now prove that is evil
Devil advocacy for a counter-argument: Life is suffering. Untold billions of living beings exist in misery for only a small fraction of time before their lives are snuff out by uncaring, predatory processes cruel beyond understanding. All life feels pain, and the more complex it is the more it suffers.
The joy of existence is almost absent from all the domain of life, it is suffering what is consistently present. Life is an uncontrolled process that only exists to perpetuate a minuscule strand of information, at the expense of every structure that is sequestered for that mindless, eternal task, and discarded once it has outlived its usefulness.
So the only moral thing to do is to thrive, to develop technological means so that one day, the aberration that is life in the universe itself can be ended, across the stars, on all galaxies, on every world that develops any structure capable of self-replication. A barren universe is the ultimate goal, and every second life thrives is one second of failure.
>Meanwhile, vegan parents on trial because their kids die of malnutrition
If you say so buddy.
>Eating animals is morally indefensible because we no longer need to eat them to survive so we’re just killing then and forcing them to suffer for no justifiable reason beyond pleasure
>We
Yes, because we're all billionaires who maintain private monopolies on agriculture, maintain our monopolies to promote consumerist lifestyles, and buy out any environmentally friendly/ vegan alternative which could contribute to a new way of living.
Clearly, WE ARE the problem as opposed to a bunch of bloated billionaires, boers, CEOs and capitalists.
Just imagine how tender and marbled billionaire longpork would be...
You don't have to be a billionaire to avoid eating meat though? Unless you're literally living in the middle of bumfrick nowhere that has zero access to markets then yes, you can afford to avoid eating animals, in fact not eating meat is cheaper than eating meat
Counterpoint: all living creatures were made by God to serve man
Morality isn't the be all end all. At a certain point there's diminishing returns and it becomes navel-gazing at best and performative weepiness at worst. I keep returning to pic related's remarks to le bomb-maker and it feels more and more appropriate for cretins who constantly wring their hands about their guilt for fricking existing or that reality isn't a disney movie. This doesn't mean going down some dark eldar tier amorality, rather that such dualistic gnosticism is ridiculous and it makes me understand why almost every religious movement became bitterly hostile to manichaeans.
It's a vidya gaem but that's the Hermes-Fandaniel solution and honestly it is a natural conclusion for bleeding heart misanthropes.
Yeah, the real blackpill is that morality is a utilitarian farce evolved in a futile attempt to keep the bloated super-amoeba of humanity from tearing itself apart.
Our world is an eternal Treblinka
Can we all agree that Vegens are the scum of the Earth?
What if the game I play doesn't have moral alignment mechanics
In any case he's evil because he's a religious zealot murderer not because he eats meat
>organism evolves to to be an omnivore with a meat focus
>"reeeeeeeee you're evil"
Is a pigeon evil because it shits on your head?
NO! That is it's nature.
What if I have permission?
Okay.
If you meat, then you have more in common with a simple animal ruled by instinct than a rational thinking empathetic man ready for the next stage of human evolution. The self must be properly developed in order to coexist with the wider universe and to face trials and horrors that lie within without breaking. It's not about what you can and cannot do, it's about where you belong, so are you content to live as a beast, or do you desire something more?
>should
But isn't homosexual boy
How bigoted of you. I play a carnivore race, can you stop judging people for who they are even for a moment?
If you push your dumbass ideology on others, especially those who didn't ask and don't care, you and all characters you play are automatically chaotic evil and remain there.
Low test.
If your character steps on insects, they should automatically be evil.
no worries, eating food is suboptimal anyway
>tfw it's goodberry night again
Agreed. If they're a paladin I make them fall.
Anti-moralhomosexuals hate vegetarians and vegans for being objectively more moral and having better self-control than them.
>his character doesn't eat meat
of course americans are getting replaced by Black folk when they have the same capacity for logical reasoning
people here are genuinely talking like brain-damaged mouthbreathers
>alignment
I play games, not participate in freeform improv theater.
hoes mad
What if we summon demons to eat?
Row row bite the powah
>Alignment
moronic D&Dogshit thread. Go back to your containment general.
Just eat orc infants, senpai.
>A Modest Proposal For preventing the Orc Children From being a Burthen to Their Region or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick.jpg
>Local biome only has cabbage and cranberries thriving in it
>Animals however can convert wild plants and animals into human compatible foods
Not everyone lives in Florida or California
Since you never specified the act of killing itself, if I kill something and consume the metaphysical energy of it's death to sustain myself, does that make me evil?
I’m sensing there’s some fanatical misanthropes in the thread, so I’m just going to be blunt:
What. The. Frick. Do. You. Want. From. Us?
You want a return to nature? A return to the hunter-gatherer life? Did you forget that we, as a species, abandoned that way of life FOR A REASON!
Nature is an endless gladiatorial free for all where countless animals die every day screaming in pain and terror for no good reason except so some other animal can either eat that day, or just to flex. And if Chimps and anthropological evidence are any indication of what “nature intended” humans to live, then it’s a life where if humans don’t wake up every day and choose violence, something else will choose violence for us.
Survival will never be certain, you’d be Living day to day, and if your tribe had too many kids, well I hope momma loves you more because one or more of your siblings is going to have to have their skull smashed in so the whole tribe doesn’t starve. Assuming, of course your neighbors don’t decide that they want your tribal grounds, because then everyone’s getting murdered.
Civilization and agriculture are our way of telling Mother Nature to go frick herself we’re not playing her sadistic survival game anymore.
>A return to the hunter-gatherer life? Did you forget that we, as a species, abandoned that way of life FOR A REASON!
The chief reason for abandoning hunter-gatherer lifestyle in favor of agriculture was not because it would be easier, safer, or more efficient method of sustenance, but because it allowed conistent production of alcohol.
Yeah. Living in an early agricultural society compared to a hunter gatherer one was absolutely a downgrade in quality of life, given how much more effort you needed to put in to get your food. Stuff slowly started to skew more in favor of farming over time, but good lord it's honestly a small miracle that enough people decided to subject themselves to that shit for it to take off.
Though like you said, the booze definitely could have helped, especially back in the day when people would have like, next to no alcohol tolerance so you could potentially get plastered off of pisswater
What gets me is the same people who want to go Anarcho-Primitivist are those least likely to survive in said world due to the effort it would take.
It's a common paradox - the same people who want to go Communist are those least likely to survive in said regime.
Common indeed. Theocracy, Facism, whatever they name is better isn't going to welcome them with open arns.
It’s not as paradoxical as you may think when you get to the root of it:
They want an excuse to burn the world down that’s easier and more convenient than their real reasons they’re disappointed in their life choices and want to make it everyone else’s problem though I suppose we shouldn’t be so judgmental, if your choices were to either face your personal demons, or extreme violence, who wouldn’t be tempted? I mean I wouldn’t, then I’d have to deal with personal demons on top of the consequences of extreme violence, including the inevitable feelings of guilt
Exactly. Of course, they'd get killed or chicken out the second things got real and they know it.
Hi Megan, how many Black person dicks did you suck today? Die in a fire you filthy hooker.
If your character eats dick, his alignment should automatically be shifted to evil.
动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
Vampire paladin is peak morality. Eggs are a non-meat animal product that doesn't kill the animal. Blood can be extracted safely and not kill the human.
Therefore blood is a vegetarian food.
Killing is not evil: it is merciful.
Having a kid is evil.
I see the grapes are particularly sour this seasons.
Whats wrong with having a goat?
Milk, butter, yogurt, and the superior cheese option. Dont have to kill it for these foodstuffs, itll eat whatevers lying around, and in its youth is cute and playful as frick.
Elemental plane of meat; it's just full of meat that was never even alive in the first place.
The Good and Evil axis should be placed with a morally-neutral alignment, like Light and Dark. Subjective morality does not make any sense as an objective law of physics.
If your character doesn't eat meat they should get -5 STR
>Be me
>Playing 3.5
>DM lets me use ANY race
>Party is elf, half elf, and spellscale
>Make a lizardfolk fighter, based off a salt water crocodile
>Build him as a grappler
>Claws, bites, and armor spikes let me blender whoever I grab
>Decide I don't spit out the meat of whatever I bite, unless rotten/caustic/toxic
>Argue that it's not cannibalism, because I'm not even a mammal, much less a human/orc/elf/etc
>Get a frigid bag of holding to store all the corpses the party generates.
>Hold a big ol' feast for the tribe I took charge of, made from all the assorted meats I had collected
>DM never once even hints at my character not being lawful good
>Was the token moralgay of the group, being the only lawful PC, and one of two good PCs
>Only time I did an evil was when I killed the party ranger in a fit of rage, because I had grown sick and tired of his incompetence fricking with all my side projects
>To be fair, the ranger had traded some orphans I had collected to a pirate lord, and was promptly backstabbed and said orphans had been given to some devil
>If your character eats meat, his alignment should automatically be shifted to evil.
t. Peter Molyneux
Humans are primarily carnivores that forced evolution to allow us to eat plant matter. We couldn't drink milk, but North Europeans and Subsaharan Africans forced evolution to allow for the breakdown of milk. Look at ANY number of people, famous and not, who have gone vegan. They couldn't keep it up. They had digestive tract issues, from bleeds to bloat. Video below. In certain countries you NEED to hunt. Kangaroos are a danger to... Well everything in Australia. Boars (admittedly they were brought over, so that's human fault) in Hawaii. Here, deer. Literally if we didn't hunt hundreds of deer every year the fields and forests would be destroyed and then we'd not only starve, we would have issues in general. And bears. We didn't hunt them for a decade and now there's way too many, and they kill not only livestock, but are generally an issue for the forests they live in, even killing sjx people this year. Birds are also trouble, and can destroy whole fields and damage forests and lakes. And should we just toss the meat away? No, that would be a horrible waste. What about the Inuit of Greenland? They NEED to fish and hunt, or they'd starve.
Same could be said in fantasy settings. Those deer WILL destroy your fields. Those bears WILL attack people who come into their area, not because they're evil, simply because they're animals. And then what? You leave them to rot?
That said, yes, we should absolutely reduce the amount of meat and milk factories. I buy my chicken and eggs from my neighbour's free rang ones. The cows? Local providers, local butchers. That's not really possible in cities. But reducing meat consumption would be good. But eliminating it is not only not possible, it's actively bad for your health.
But overall, you're a moron who actually knows nothing of how the world actually works. Get bent.
If Lord didn't want us to eat meat he wouldn't have made us omnivores
unironically true. even if other religions and gods may exist, the settings of all games i gm work accordingly to the buddhist cosmology.
If the Dalai Lama can come up with excuses to eat meat regularly then I'm not going to adhere to those restrictions too strictly either.
the lama is a moron and will suffer dearly for his lies and crimes
Yeah, I'm sure some fa/tg/uy knows better than the fricking Dali Lama. Get fricked, you LARPer
So they don't work then.
The Buddha himself ate animal flesh even after awakening, and I do not mean the sūkaramaddava "pig delight" controversy which preceded and maybe caused his death as no one knows what that food was and it's a world wide practice, then and now, that plants can be named after animals so the name could either be a nice food made from pig, or a food pig's like, or it could just be a fanciful name that has nothing to do with animals but the name like foxglove.
>unironically true
Theravadan monks eat animal flesh routinely. It is a violation of their monkly vows, and nunly vows if you accept the moderately recent ordination of women, to refuse animal flesh offered to them unless they see, hear, or suspect that the animal corpse being served to them was killed for them to eat.
Maybe you're taking a popularist Mahayanist viewpoint.
One wonders if he has tried going vegetarian again. At the time he tried he was under a lot of stress due to his country being invaded and genocided and the change in diet may have been the final straw. A lot of things have changed in his life including having now spent decades of 5 or 6 days per week vegetarian so maybe his body wouldn't develop hepatitis.
nta From a Buddhist perspective it is impossible to argue that killing an animal like a mammal or bird is not causing it suffering. Even spiders and insects are not supposed to be killed. Killing a snake that would otherwise kill a human, I think one is allowed to kill the snake but there's a karmic reaction there. As the purported embodiment of boddhisattva (being who has awakened but postponed entry to nirvana) Chenrezig maybe his actions don't attract karmic reactions but he doesn't speak about himself in such a way so it seems reasonable that, according to his own beliefs, he will suffer the effects of the seeds he has sown.
I wish gay morons would stop getting political. I am tired of having to pander to gay morons. The West is turning into a society that revolves around the comfort of gay morons.
/tg/ should only be for generals
General belly aching is more like it
There is nothing wrong with causing animals pain and suffering for purposes of survival.
There is everything wrong with causing animals pain and suffering for ill motivations.
I eat meat because it is a healthy source of protein and vegan sources of protein are inefficient or bastard abominations manufactured in a lab.
If you eat anything living then you can just frick off with trying to take any sort of moral high ground.
Sustain yourself on inorganic materials you c**ts.
>he eats the souls of rocks
Don't talk to me, monster
>he can't photosynthesize
I'm sorry anon, you ain't gonna make it into heaven
Do explain why
Why is this moronic off topic schizoid shitpost thread still up?
My guess is a janny is some homosexual vegan or sonething
Threads like this further reinforce in my mind how right both Ted Kaczynski and Aldo Leopold were
Sooth.
Depends on the setting.
Also, obvious bait is obvious.
But it still worked.
You fricking fascist. If a character owns slaves, that doesn't mean the character is evil. If it's a fact of life in that society and they do good by their property, then they're a good person. Props for eventually freeing the slaves and fighting the system, but that's a long road.
Is killing or torturing a puppy for fun wrong, yes or no
If yes, then eating animals is wrong. Because like killing or torturing the puppy for fun, it’s wrong because you are harming a sentient being unnecessarily since we no longer need to eat animals to survive
If no you are a psychopath
> unnecessarily
It might be 'unnecessary' in whatever first world privilegehole you're living in with wide availability of globally sourced vegan foodstuffs and biological supplements.
That's not the case for the majority of the people living on this planet.
diff anon The majority of the world get most of their nutrition from plant sources. Eating animals is hugely expensive due to the cost of raising an animal. Getting 1 cal from beef takes as much land as would provide 100 cal from plants. The majority of the world's arable land in use goes towards livestock by a factor of 5:1 livestock:human consumption.
Intensive agriculture leading to such massive consumption of animals is a very recent development and most people were, of necessity, mostly vegetarian. People needed their oxen or bullocks or whatever to plough, horses were too expensive to own and couldn't be used for ploughing before the right collar was developed. They couldn't afford to raise animals a lot. This is why corn, wheat, maize, rice, plantain/bananas, beans, etc are called staples. Apart from certain micronutrients, notably vitamin B12, it's trivial to gain proper nutrition from plants and things like eggs and milk (dairy farming is more efficient than beef production whether the cattle are raised as live stock or slaughtered when the farmer considers them no longer producing enough milk) and yeast all provide B12, all of which are vegetarian foods. Vegans would have to reply upon yeast or bacterial or synthetic sources.
Other anon is correct. The vast majority of the world's human population does not need to kill animals to survive and currently can't do as much eating meat as you're trying to imply it does.
Its not a fair comparison when most of the cals fed to livestock are not fit for human consumption. Its like the water arguement when anti meat shills include rainwater in the numbers.
>water arguement when anti meat shills include rainwater in the numbers
If they do that, just check to see how they feel about almonds. Shit takes up more water than most crops, and many meats as well. Vegetarians still eat it up without thinking.
>almonds
Its always hysterical to me that gays try to pretend that california is some self sufficient agricultural juggernaut when 90% of their non-beef and dairy production is nuts and desert fruits, intensely water hungry produce in the middle of a desert.
>dessert fruits*
Missed the second S
Shit like strawberries.
.t delusional narcissist
You dont need to exist either.
->
Eating meat is good cause its delicious
Its not my fault animals are made of food
Gotta love all the discussion about traditional game in this thread. It really is true, we don't have a single mod left to prune garbage and most of you homosexuals on here don't actually want to talk about games at all.
Any concept of morality that stems from philosophy or some other forced, unnatural logical process is an abomination. Morality is the result of Hamilton's rule's effect on evolution. If morality isn't achieved through a process of gene-culture coevolution, it will eventually lead to destruction. Reasoned morality is a memetic virus, a mental parasite that eventually kills its host. Top-down, reasoned morality is to natural morality as undeath is to life. It is complete anathema.
Contradiction: Assuming no sort of supernatural origin, philosophy is a natural extension of human functions which are an extension of evolutionary functions and therefore originate from the same source as 'natural morality'.
You have the options of 'I believe in the supernatural' (and therefore external morality may be applicable because of supernatural/natural integration) or 'only the natural exists' (in which case any morality that exists exists in nature and thus you are creating a false distinction, because human intelligence is an extension of human instinct).
Rules of nature b***h
oh god, the fricking vegan is still here.
So are you one of the obviously evil ones that wants to genocide all the domesticated animals?