Is it immoral to eat meat?

>No it's not.
Why?

>You're not in position of starving human and you're not in position of an animal.
Actually I am very poor and neet because understanding magic and religion doesn't really translate to employment opportunities. I have a drivers license, a priest card, and a security guard license.

>Therefore it's morally wrong to bring them unnecessary harm and eat them.
I agree, I don't like them to suffer, because they all have emotions, but I also possess K-9's that are meant for tearing flesh, and my front teeth are meant for chopping flesh, and my molars don't seem to be meant for chewing nuts and grass. Clearly I am a meat eater, judging by my anatomy.

lol @ the theologian living on the street eating homeless people.
Also, you do realize that carnivores don't have molars, right? I'm sure you can find a stray car or dog in your alley, just take a look at their teeth.

None of that says anything about cannibalism

Cannibalism being wrong is not even implied in the bible

I'm not, why are you samefagging the fuck out of me? Go debate a great white shark, I'm sure you will convince him/her.

You aren't debating, you are reeeeeing about morals and stuff. Animals all have self preservation built into them, ofcourse they fear death and sense pain. Doesn't imply they possess the capacity to rationalize morals. They are basically automatons who like having their heads petted.

>Then why do they feel pain?
So they can avoid damage

>Why should I not think of you as the same?
You can think whatever you wish, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, meat tastes good and animals are retarded, can you refute?

>My IQ is a lot higher than yours.
Sure thing pal, take a hike.

>Why do they need to avoid damage?
So they can function.

>Is intelligence gap your metric for what is edible?
Yes, and beauty. I would never eat a butterfly.

Insulting me doesn't seem to make you look smart. Why are you angry? Is it because I am winning your "internet fight"?

>Does that mean it's okay for people to eat you?
Yes, if they are starving.

>It's easy to win this "internet fight". People who eat animals provably don't have empathy. They don't respond like normal people do to suffering. They should be herded up and killed. Eventually.
Lmfao, yes, and you deserve to be stabbed in the heart, since you are clearly retarded and emotional.

>What if they aren't starving? What's wrong with eating you if they aren't starving?
Cooperation is more important than eating someone just for keks.

>When's the last time carnivores have built a commune?
When monkeys tamed dogs.

Most humans are automatons as well. Is it okay to eat a low functioning autistic?

It's not okay to eat anything. Is it morally correct for us to eat your mother?

What makes something morally wrong?

Why doesn't God follow the Bible?

Because your God doesn't. I'm imitating your God. Why doesn't your God follow the Bible?

>>Is it okay to eat a low functioning autistic?
>It's ok to eat anything.
Lmao... carnifags are literally saying it's okay to eat humans now. Can't make this shit up.

Morality aside, it would be very stupid if you as you would get Prion disease and then rapidly your nervous system would weaken and then you would die.

Why do you say that like it’s a bad thing? The father of the enlightenment thought animals were mindless automatons and it’s not an appeal to authority.

Their absence killed millions of Chinese

You can vilify me as much as you want, won't change the fact that I'm right.
Eating meat is amoral unless it's sourced from pets or protected wildlife. Livestocks are resources and their wellbeing only matters to the quality of the end products.
That's it, things that are fairly obvious but that some people seem to reject based on what I can only assume is their anthropomorphistic delusions about treating all animals as their own pets.

Torturing and killing evil people isn't amoral, it's actually moral.

Animals aren't evil like some people (You) are. They just act on natural instincts. Meanwhile you are a bastard piece of shit and justify it with mental gymnastics, which makes you evil. Thus torturing and killing you is moral. Make sense?

Never said it was.

:O

Sneed.

Still waiting for your explanation boy. Cause all I see is someone throwing a temper tantrum over the fact I am eating beef lasagna.
You have also yet to refute why eating meat is wrong. Meat is good for you. Lots of protein.

Seething retard.

He probably got banned again, he isn't even debating, he is just name-calling people. I hear someone reported him, but it wasn't me, because announcing reports is morally wrong.

>banning
>doing anything
If I got banned, my post would be deleted, newhomosexual retard.

Still waiting for your explanation boy. Cause all I see is someone throwing a temper tantrum over the fact I am eating beef lasagna.
You have also yet to refute why eating meat is wrong. Meat is good for you. Lots of protein.

No, the starting point is "waaaah we can't eat animals because it's le immoral"

So can you explain why one is literal and the other is not? Let me guess, because it completely BTFOs your own argument and logic and you needed a desperate cope?

>A worldwide flood can literally happen.
No it can't. Neither can snakes talk, neither can fruits give you knowledge of good and evil, neither can animals/humans survive through inbreeding with only a single pair. None of these things can happen. You have the brain of an infant, but I'm still playing by your rules and being consistent, unlike you. The Bible itself states that animals only eat each other because Adam and Eve ate the fruit and caused the fall, so the end times where things return to a pre-fall condition of paradise also entails a return to animals not eating each other. Sounds like you don't even know your own belief system. Which is typical of low IQ religious retards.

>A worldwide flood can literally happen
Uhhhh.... no.

Why do vegfags think morality applies to animals when they cannot fathom the concept of morals?

Prove it can't happen.

God can do anything he wants. He created us.

>A predator cannot literally sit next to pre-ACK!

These are domesticated pets, not wild animals.

>God can do anything he wants. He created us.
Okay but I actually proved it probably couldn't happen. You're fine to argue that God is beyond evidence but if you're just going to do that then don't ask people to "prove" shit couldn't happen. I can say that the Earth is going to fly into the sun in 100 years because of some passage in Revelations despite extensive knowledge on orbital mechanics.

>Just take the water up and smash it down. Why can't God do that?
He could, but he probably didn't

God is not bound by the laws of nature He created, imbecile

So in other words he exists beyond the physical world, and is thus beyond observation.

From second hand sources written hundreds to thousands of years after the event allegedly happened, sounds like a pretty dubious source.

The kind that realized the total volume of water in Earths atmosphere could never have resulted in a global flood

God can also just not do that though. Ever consider that? Like there was really no reason to believe a flood ever happened even if God does exist.

Anon, the Bible wasn't written by God

Kinda heretical to claim Moses as God, no?

>He could, but he probably didn't
He certainly did.
>So in other words he exists beyond the physical world, and is thus beyond observation.
Yes.

There is simply not enough water on the planet ot entirely flood the continents.

Where does it say in the Bible that animals have selfhood?

The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus ate meat. We should eat meat. What's not to understand?

Jesus Christ died for everyone's sins, not just for my sins. You have to follow the Bible whether you like it or not. The Bible doesn't say we have to follow the letter of Mosaic Law. We only have to fulfill its spirit.

The Law literally mandates animal sacrifice.

We only need to fulfill the spirit of those laws.

How do you sacrifice animals in spirit?

>The law also mandates that the man who rapes should marry the victim and give money to family.
This is still a lie. The law says the penalty for rape is death.
>Or the law literally mandates rules for keeping slaves and states that foreign slaves are the property of the owner and their children are too.
Read Philemon

>Google it. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Wow that's epic did you get that from r/atheism, queen? Some of us have actually read the bible. There is no reference to rape in this scripture, it describes premarital sex. The actual penalty for rape is found a few verses earlier in 25-27, it is death.
>apostles did nothing to stop slavery.
No what you find in the New Testament is a different strategy to abolish slavery, one which if the Union had followed it would have accomplished it without needing to spill the blood of millions of men. The gospel is not cultural which is why it was essential that it not destroy cultures it encounters, such as would have happened to Roman culture had slavery simply been instantly abolished. Instead the gospel reforms the culture through Christianization; when all the masters and slaves are brothers, slavery becomes increasingly disgusting to them, as the natural bonds of human friendship are renewed.

From second hand sources written hundreds to thousands of years after the event allegedly happened, sounds like a pretty dubious source.

Written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost*

God can also just not do that though. Ever consider that? Like there was really no reason to believe a flood ever happened even if God does exist.

>Like there was really no reason to believe a flood ever happened
Have you ever read the bible?

I don't see "rape" in my bible

LSB.

The ESV does not have rape. Only the NIV has rape. The Hebrew does not have rape either.

>If you can stop eating animals and stop them from being harmed, isn't it's according to the spirit of the Law?
We're not under the Law, but under grace. Also eating animals was never prohibited under the Law.

Only fish.
But it's highly assumed that if he was following Mosaic Law and celebrating Pesah (Pascha) that he would eat a lamb.

Not necessarily, you can also rear cattle for milk and sheep for wool

Children can become moral as soon as age 2. They know its wrong to hit Mama and even fake cry to garner sympathy.

Regardless if this wasnt true, its the capacity thats important. Its also why I'm against abortion, because even though fetuses dont have the capability of being moral, they have the innate capacity to do so by simply being human.

Tell me then, if being a moral agent doesn't warrant personal rights then why dont rocks or trees have personal rights since they can't understand morality or know its wrong to kill or to be killed. Rocks deserve to exist too yknow.

Utilitarian ethics is an oxymoron

Doesn't mean much when roosters still get heemed by most predators. There is a grey area between brave and stupid.