Tuesday, January 10, 2023

Vegetarianism is Analytically Immoral

Which is probably why it makes you sick and weak!

Here's the real rule: cooperate with cooperators, defect on defectors. This is socket rogering, not rocket surgery. Everyone can understand it. 

Animals cannot cooperate. They can't read a contract, nor could they follow the contract even if they did. 

This means animals are inherently defective. You're supposed to defect on them. Thus, if you want to eat one, just do. 

Vegetarians say it's mandatory to cooperate with this defector, and immoral to defect on this defector. Vegetarianism is defection, and you should defect on vegetarians. The only reason you can't kill and eat a vegetarian is that cannibalism spreads disease. Vegetarians are parasites; don't make it easy for non-abstract biological parasites by eating them. 

Note that technically speaking the real rule isn't really morality, because morality isn't a thing. Rather, cooperating with defectors and defecting on cooperators is analytically imprudent. Always costs more than it is worth. Always constitutes rebelling against Reality.


Dividualist said...

Potential counter-argument: humans do not allow chicken to defect on them, hence cooperating with chicken does not in practice mean defecting on humans.

Counter-counter argument: bears and boars defect on people, and vegetarians are generally the types who oppose hunting them.

That is, not eating chicken is not defecting on humans - who cares what people eat - but positing any concept of animal rights is directly dangerous to humans.

Alrenous said...

Chickens have to defect. The only way for a human to prevent a chicken from defecting on them is to prevent the chicken from existing.

Dividualist said...

Precisely the point - vegetarianism prevents chicken from existing.

This is why it is hilarious. The vegetarian says it is better for chicken to not be born than to be killed. This means the chickens life has zero value. Hence there is nothing wrong with ending the chickens life.