/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 10204
7 kB, 257 × 263
Does a wolf shame God by filing down its canine teeth to eat grass with the lambs?
>>
No. 10218
5 kB, 200 × 200
Nah, just going back to the garden of eden.
So maybe he shames Man. At least in christianity, I've heard judaism is anti-vegan.

That is, assuming wolves even have souls according to christianity. That'd be kinda weird, does the original sin also include the billions of animals who've slaughtered each other?
>>
No. 10219
>>10218
Nah, Original Sin is based on the act of disobedience in eating of the tree of knowledge. Animals aren't part of it.
t. went to c*tholic school
>>
No. 10223
>>10218
>I've heard judaism is anti-vegan.
This is blatantly false. I actually had a couple friends who simply went veg because it was way easier to keep Kosher that way.

>That is, assuming wolves even have souls according to christianity. That'd be kinda weird, does the original sin also include the billions of animals who've slaughtered each other?
I meant it more metaphorically than literal, as a parable or aesop

>>10219
Yeah and also this. In that case it was the simple act not only of defiance of God, but merely in having the cognition of being capable of defying God. Hence, free will, knowledge of good and evil etc. It's a lot more complicated than that but that's the gist of it.
>>
No. 10230
>>10223
I mean not practically, but ideologically.
"Animals were made for humans to lord over", etc.

>>10219
I have a headcanon about original sin in that it is a metaphor for start of materialist dialectical history: struggle of classes.
I don't like the idea of humans being at some point completely innocent. The grand experiment of life, in my opinion, is all about prving that virtue prevails even with freedom to sin, and that's exactly what makes it powerful and valuable. After all, if God wanted something that could not sin, he already had angels.

t. pulling shit out of his ass
>>
No. 10231
>>10218
Original sin refers to orgasm which taught mankind shame, lust and guilt. Before original sin nudity was allowed and not sexual. "To the pure everything is pure."

Adultery = sex for pleasure, extramarital sex. Sodomy = deviancy like blow jobs, minge licking/pussy eating and especially anal sex/homosexual sex.
>>
No. 10233
>>10231
Please. Orgasm is not the root of shame, pride is.
>>
No. 10236
>>10230
>"Animals were made for humans to lord over", etc.
That's not what that means. It says that man was given dominion over all the animals, all the birds in the sky and fish in the sea, over all trees and plants. Dominion over the earth. Ffs in context it would basically make it sound like eating pork and lobster is fine. This is one of the most routinely abused parts of Scripture and it annoys the hell out of me. In Genesis before the Fall mankind was given the flesh of plants for meat. It pretty much says in a sense that this idyllic pre-Fall world was free of the kind of violence and hardship that is adulthood in this world. This was all before being cursed to have labor pains and till the fields of the earth.

I should mention that of these two people one wanted to be a Rabbi. I think it's actually pretty basic common sense across all religions that anything increasing suffering in the world=not good. This whole misinterpretation of Judaic belief is an interpretation of more retarded American Christian belief, because frankly other than gay sex, abortion, and fucking, American Christians are atrocious at living up to the Bible or keeping these laws. It is people who are doing wicked or amoral things wanting to get not just a free pass but heavenly sanction. The eating of flesh is covered in the epistle to Romans alongside drinking. The basic conclusion the early church fathers came up with was in order to unify the churches and prevent sectarian controversy they took a hands off approach and said "if you drink and eat meat to the glory of God then drink and eat meat, and if you abstain from meat and drink for the glory of God then abstain".

It was actually basically a cop out ruling relying on the core precepts of behavior and conduct inwardly and outwardly to solve this dispute which was likewise erupting with the conversions of people like Greeks and Roman citizens alongside the Jews, who were still practicing the Noahide laws. This is the origin of the "circumcision of heart" statement in the New Testament, that a man who is circumcised but not circumcised in heart i.e. committed wholly and faithfully to the Lord might as well not be circumcised at all, and likewise that a man who is not circumcised but upholds the law in faithful earnest devotion to God is already circumcised and thus sealed in the only way that counts. It should also be noted the grave importance of marking someone, of sealing a person, of leaving the Lord's mark, of avoiding the devil's mark, of the marking of Cain etc. A sealed heart is worth more than gold, a philosopher's stone. It is like having the very letters of the speech of God imprinted and burned into your heart and soul. This is also partly where the division between the new Messianic Jews aka Christians and the old Jews came in, because Jesus and His Apostles were less concerned about making a series of empty gestures as the legalists and rabbis did, and instead leading by example and by faith. To this day you can see this with Jews who lawyer the fuck out of the Sabbath, ones who will do shit like have all the lights automated, automated food, automated flushing everything just so that they can carry on with their levels while technically still fulfilling the "thou shalt rest and not labor" clause.

But in terms of trying to keep as Kosher as possible, due to all the dietary laws and most insanely pedantic, autistic shit imaginable (which is basically what Judaism is on some level) with how you have to keep all your dishes and cutlery a certain way, no cross contamination of different things, no mixing dairy with meat because of Rabbinic interpretation of "thou shalt not boil a calf in its mother's milk" etc. that ultimately it's just easier to be a vegan Jew than observant while following all the autistic dietary rules afaik. Which, besides, should be common sense for anybody.

I think a good measure of a man is also how he treats his toys, his kingdom, and his property, alongside how a man treats children, a small animal, and his mother and father. The people with understanding recognize that "dominion" doesn't mean butchering the planet, just the same as it should be obvious to not befoul the temple of the indwelling of the spirit which is your body with drugs, alcohol, lust etc. It means something more like a caretaker. What is a king who eats his subjects? What is a lord who plows under the fields and despoils the land for his own amusement? No rightful king at all. It is being given a gift to take care of, more like it. Wanton abuse of [thing] is in a sense its own form of sacrilege and blasphemy, be it your body, your home, your Earth, or your soul, for all have been given to you by God and as the Lord gives the Lord taketh away.
>>
No. 10242
>>10236
Very nice post, quite interesting.

My point of contention with the common interpretation of that particular view was that when talking to christians and muslims (particularly my uncle), they all said that veganism is dumb, and that as long as your slaughter animals "humanely", God has given us right to use their flesh for our needs (not our vices, our needs).

Besides the argument if it's even possible to slaughter something "humanely", I don't think either halal slaughter, or industrial meat production is humane in any way, and I bet if a christian saw the conditions to which animals are subjected, they would HAVE to agree that it is debasement and cruelty. It seems to be used as a way to unload all moral responsibility on God, so they don't have to worry about anything (which most religious people do). And I don't see many religious people living frugal lives either, a lot of muslims in this country are fat :-DDDD. So much for "needs".

t. vegan sympathizer
>>
No. 10243
>>10242
It's very possible. Probably different in Brickistan but here and in New Zealand, industrial slaughterhouses are very clean and very humane because there are people like my mother who are independent of the company and whose entire job is to make sure that the killing is clean and minimises suffering. How independent? Mum cost the place she worked at probably in the millions of dollars of lost working time and inability to cut animal welfare/food safety corners because she had the authority to just shut the whole place down if they mistreated the livestock. What she told me again and again is that the root of most of the ugly stuff in the industry today is that halal butchery requires them to bleed the animal to death. If you didn't need halal, it's putting a bolt in the brain stem for instant lights out. Honestly, that don't seem too bad, you get to NEET it up in a cosy environment for your best years and then someone stuns you and puts a bolt in your heda and you're gone before you even realise it. Way more humane than getting old and shitting your pants while everybody refuses to put you out of your misery. We treat slaughtered animals better than old people tbh.
>>
No. 10244
>>10243
I have a kantian view on morality.

Everyone is their own moral agent, and your sole purpose is to not cause harm, not to prevent harm. Universal morality rather than consequential morality. Actions can be moral/immoral in themselves, regardless of consequence. (it's why masturbating is bad :-DDD)

So the only moral thing you can do is to not interfere. They can blame their sufferings on God/Nature, at least I didn't take part in it.
>>
No. 10246
>>10244
Mine is based in natural rights which differ between men and beasts. Then again, I'm from cattle country so livestock were just part and parcel of where I grew up.
>>
No. 10247
170 kB, 753 × 800
>>10246
> natural rights
SPOOK ALERT
>>
No. 10248
201 kB, 1262 × 1035
>>10247
Are you treading on me?
>>
No. 10250
11 kB, 220 × 330
>>10248
I ain't signed to "social contract", buddy.
>>
No. 10252
>>10243
>NEET it up in a cosy environment for your best years
That's not even remotely accurate. No matter how you try to minimize it it's still evil.
>>
No. 10254
50 kB, 1200 × 800
>>10250
That's part of why the rattlesnake was used. It's not fulfilling some social contract when it bites you for stepping on it. It's just doing what's natural, like me going all Spirit of '76 on snek steppers.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact. Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.
>>
No. 10255 Kontra
>>10252
I was around livestock for ~15 years. It's pretty accurate, especially if you understand all the lesser known processes involved in between the plant and source farms.

>No matter how you try to minimize it it's still evil.
No matter how much you try to blow it out of proportion, it's still not evil.
>>
No. 10295
After watching Puella Magi Madoka Magica I can't accept slaughterhouses, although I am fine with hunting and fishing. It is too much of a violation of trust to raise an animal only to kill it.
>>
No. 10296
>>10295
>It is too much of a violation of trust to raise an animal only to kill it.
What did you mean by this? Is there some form of implied contract between the two parties? Do you believe the animals feel betrayed as they are marched off to slaughter?
>>
No. 10298
>>10296
Yes

>>10295
>after watching some hentai anime I got a moral compass
Fuck you
>>
No. 10299
>>10236
>Ffs in context it would basically make it sound like eating pork and lobster is fine.

It was fine for everyone until God forbade the Jews to eat certain foods, and it remained fine for everyone else.
>>
No. 10301
24 kB, 450 × 301
13 kB, 214 × 314
>>10255
> try to blow it out of proportion
Profiting needlessly off of the death and suffering of others is as basic the definition of evil as any. It is the core feature of evil. We are not talking here about being carnivores is the thing, nor are we talking about starving people. What we're talking about is pic related, and part of why gluttony itself is evil. Like I have no problem with people living off the land hunting and fishing like >>10295 this guy says. In terms of religious dietary restrictions, those are removed when one's life is in danger. It is why a Muslim is allowed to eat pork when he's starving to death, or why capybaras are technically classified as "fish" by the Catholic Church, to skirt around the rules because starving people is also kind of evil.

But that's not what's happening. People are running industrialized killing machines for personal profit, and the consumers are only doing it for pleasure. The entire rationale is simply "it tastes good" and it's also hilarious when the same people will try to make some claim about how not eating meat isn't healthy when they look like pic related.
>but they don't suffer
I'd like to see some evidence for that. The last thing on the minds of these people is the welfare of an animal and I'm sure there's lots of people who rationalize what they're doing. In fact, the very fact you have to rationalize to begin with like your mum and her job even existing means people know it's wrong.
>inability to cut animal welfare/food safety corners because she had the authority to just shut the whole place down if they mistreated the livestock
Well, this is also an American perspective. Also so far as I'm concerned the way you treat other animals is often a direct reflection of how you really see other people. The whole idea of the Holocaust I think is so horrifying to so many people is just because it's treating a group of humans the exact same way we treat everyone else. Those were cattle cars for example. Same logic, same process, same complete disregard for life and utter lack of respect for living things.
>Mine is based in natural rights
Which is an irrational religious argument
>which differ between men and beasts.
Not entirely. I think any animals under our care and dominion pretty clearly have a right not to needlessly suffer. That compact is routinely violated.
>What she told me again and again is that the root of most of the ugly stuff in the industry today is that halal butchery requires them to bleed the animal to death.
You're only focusing on the moment of death here which is pretty telling. These are not animals leading cruelty free lives. Their whole existence itself is pretty cruel and it isn't being done by hunting for what you need to live.

>>10296
>implied contract between the two parties?
I personally wouldn't argue that if only because it's at best built upon deception of the other party, and no contract is ultimately valid that's based on fraud. Since there is never the intent nor is it implicit imo you cannot claim this as breach of contract in particular, at least regarding the animals. I would say that many of these facilities cause enough suffering though that the animals are not being defrauded by being made to think they're safe. They pretty much lead their lives being cramped, filthy, and stressed out.

>Do you believe the animals feel betrayed as they are marched off to slaughter?
I don't know that most animals even have the capacity to feel betrayal because it requires a certain type of complexity in awareness and theory of mind that most species likely don't have.
Ignore the title of the video the content itself is unbiased
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htUrjOShq0M
I mean you can tell the extent to which there is recognition in this animal. Also my understanding is that Halal butchery despite its overall barbarism comes specifically from the understanding of animal suffering because one rule is to "not allow it to see the knife"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabihah#Islamic_slaughtering
>Care must be taken that the nervous system is not damaged, as this may cause the animal to die before exsanguination has taken place
That's indeed messed up although I wonder, wouldn't non-fatal damage to the spinal cord be exceedingly painful from a bad cut?

>It is also compulsory that each animal must be slaughtered individually and in seclusion. In a poultry farm or slaughter house, one animal must not witness another animal being slaughtered.[16]
That video related. It is a recognition of animals as not mere soulless automatons. I think one acceptable definition of the shades of evil is how much you accept or enjoy suffering and death caused outwardly from you and your own ego, the most vicious and evil people on earth accordingly being the killers of their own mothers, and fathers, and children, and their lovers, particularly doing so for pleasure or profit.

Although on topic I guess one might also ask, what is the nature of man?
>>
No. 10302
>>10299
My understanding is that it's kind of implicit tha
Oh wait nvm I think you're right, that non-Jews are only required to follow only the most basic laws right? I was going to say, that it's rather implicit because the story goes that God would deliver all peoples to the rulership of Jews, and some other tractate says that those coming under the occupation of Jews must be made to follow God's law. I may be getting that part wrong though. The Christian interpretation of course is that God through Jesus said basically following every jot and tittle of the old laws wasn't relevant for the non-Jewish converts to the new Christian church.
>>
No. 10306 Kontra
>>10301
Sure thing mate. I'll just lump thousands of perfectly good folks including my late mother under the 'evil' blanket because some preachy yank thinks it's icky and demands it. Tbh, casting stones this hard is unsightly.

Also, natural rights aren't religious, they're based in the idea of the state of nature which can be interpreted in either creationist rot or in the philosophical sense, unlike your claim to 'dominion' over animals which is quite literally biblical. Also, do you buy any food? Then you're contributing to the system of exploiting underpaid field hands who gather the stuff and causing human suffering that way. How very evil of you.
>>
No. 10311
>>10243
>What she told me again and again is that the root of most of the ugly stuff in the industry today is that halal butchery requires them to bleed the animal to death.
Halal is the most humane way to kill an animal, you fucking racist bigot. How about you kill yourself, nazi shit racist xenophobe? KYS!

(User was banned for this post)

>>
No. 10313
>>10311
You are welcome to leave your speak wherever you come from.
>>
No. 10314
>>10306
> I'll just lump thousands of perfectly good folks including my late mother under the 'evil' blanket because some preachy yank thinks it's icky and demands it.
I'm not saying she's evil, I'm saying the practice itself is evil. From what you made it sound like it's like giving somebody morphine after the mob has their legs broken.
>Then you're contributing to the system of exploiting underpaid field hands who gather the stuff and causing human suffering that way
Whataboutism. Besides which as I already said, there is doing it because you need to survive and doing it purely for profit and pleasure. I happen to need to eat. I wouldn't mind not needing to it, but I also wouldn't mind not having to piss. Fact of the matter is, the people who are being supplied this industrial factory meat generally live in the first world and don't need it, moreover some of them literally would be healthier not eating it. Everywhere from Australia to Germany to Kuwait is now getting filled with fat fucks. We're not talking about going fishing here or hunting deer in the woods.
>>
No. 10316
>>10313
I think it was sarcasm.
>>
No. 10317
>>10314
That's not the same at all. Nobody breaks the legs of the livestock and then knocks them out. In fact the farms get audited for animal welfare just as hard as the plant does, by the same people and if they fail, not only are they given massive fines, but they love their livelihood because nobody is going to buy from a farm that fails an audit, and the conditions are pretty stringent including and not limited to having adequate shelter and limiting the livestock to pasture ratio.

Then once they reach the plant, they're kept in similar conditions in the yards. The holding paddocks are actually very well maintained, the ones I've been around even had hedgerows for the sheep to get out of the wind in (an optional feature too). Then they go to processing yards where they follow the judas sheep inside under no coercion where they're stunned and killed as quickly as humanly possible and that is instantaneously if halal doesn't need to be observed. If it is observed then a reputable plant uses bigger stunners that keep the animal under while they die. Using your mob analogy, it'd be someone putting you on a long morphine drip so you're out cold while the nastiness happens and stay out cold, with the difference being that you don't wake up to deal with the broken legs. Also, don't try and act like you weren't laying judgment on the people involved with your 'they know it's wrong' theory. It's also internationally recognised that livestock are sentient (not sapient, people get them mixed up a lot) and thus measures must be taken with the assumption that the animal is self-aware and has a limited ability to comprehend its environment. Seeing something as not having the same rights as sapient (human-like) life doesn't mean that you think it has no rights. We're not the callous barbarians you make us out to be.

And for the record, I don't eat veal or support that specific industry because the biology of juvenile cattle doesn't work in the favour of animal welfare. They're very hard to stun and it causes unnecessary suffering for all parties because they have the ability to recover from all sorts of things including drowning even very quickly in their juvenile stage for what is a relatively small market, but sheep and adult cattle can be slaughtered very humanely in modern conditions and serve a great deal more people. Not judging an entire industry as 'evil' doesn't mean I support every single part of it.

And no, it's not whataboutism. If everybody can just go and hunt for their meat, why can't everybody just also have a wee patch to grow the food that they need? Because reality doesn't work as cleanly as thought experiments do, that's why. You can technically survive on flour and water which is largely automated in planting and harvesting with a minimum of human exploitation, but that's not really enjoyable or something anybody is going to willingly do.
>>
No. 10337 Kontra
>>10316
It wasnt funny and an utter shitpost. If the ban is not too long its okay in my book.

t. shitpost pro
>>
No. 10998
>>10296
Implied contract, no. A contract would require some exchange of services. Feeling of betrayal, yes. The farmer who raised you from a child, who spoke to you with kind words and gave you medicine when you were sick, suddenly showing that all his kindness was a lie and he never felt anything towards you but contempt.