Ask Yourself has stated on numerous occasions he wants to get enough ppl on board with veganism so he can ban meat consumption

This makes vegans no different than religious zealots

They are too stupid or willingly ignorant to recognise there is no universally applicable moral system since everyone prefers their own morality that enables them to thrive and reproduce rather than spend life pursuing an abstract goal

An abstract moral system that’s consistent in many hypotheticals is not what most people are interested in. They want a moral system that conforms to their lived experience and helps them navigate complex social dynamics

@The-Free-Monk I wonder if their attempt to create an artificial morality actually stems from a more primordial morality that involved not causing unnecessary harm to animals?

We evolved to hunt and eat meat

Our ancestors were hunter gatherers

They lived off whatever they could catch and domesticate

Human progress and evolution necessarily entails destruction of other species

Construction, mining, logging, fishing , agriculture, power plants, textile mills etc

All of these involve killing numerous species by destroying their natural habitat and ecosystem

We are way past unnecessary harm

We have probably caused millions to go extinct without even realising

Like you said, our morality never evolved to satisfy the laws of logic.

They are not mathematical systems that are internally consistent at all times.

We could have a moral system where people say they don't want to eat meat to minimize harm to animals while turning a blind eye to other forms of harm to animals.

In that sense you could say the vegans have an excellent example of an internally inconsistent morality.

I think we could even imagine a genetic reason behind this. Maybe people who are genetically predisposed to not want to harm animals are more likely to engage in animal husbandry which has been a huge asset for human society for thousands of years. Maybe the logic behind this morality is not consistent but that's ok right?

one can also argue that any moral system that arbitrarily discrminates between animals and plants, is bankrupt.

Vegans must ignore the reality of plant life, whilst hypocritically upholding the sanctity of animal life. It is retarded.

aren't you presupposing that a moral system has to be logical then? That would contradict Super Monk's position @oojimaflip

No, I don't think so.... A moral system only has to be internally consistent to be valid, internal consistency does not *have to* derive from logic. Morality can be bat-shit insane but still internally consistent. @Boniface

I suppose you disagree with monk and I then, I don't think morality has to be internally consistent. @oojimaflip

Not really, I think most people's attempts at morality fail to be internally consistent. It doesn't mean it ceases to be a moral system, it just is one that I disagree with.

to be fair though, the only internally consistent moral system I do agree with is moral nihilism.

@Boniface

Livestock farming was an essential survival tool

If you suffered from a year of drought or bad rainfall

All you could grow are animal offspring

Unless irrigation canals were set up

But that technology is very recent

would gas lighting be considered a fake moral signal?

🤔 great question

its quite black pilling to hear about JF being stabbed in the back by malicious females

do you think Islamic societies create stronger moral signals than other civilizations when it comes to punishing and and restricting the malicious aspects of female nature

?

hopefully one day JFs kids find his YT videos and became based and redpilled

my strategy for dealing with corrupt court systems would be to create a parallel system of justice

something along the lines of sharia courts

that will take full responsibility for cases pertaining to family law

If a nuclear war broke out across the western world and only European people’s were left