tooltime is an idiot who thinks that listening to tool makes him an intellectual while having original and rational thought is not a necessary requirement.
You don't seem to understand evolution at all, or what tooltime is saying. Youve got causality all backwards in evolution. Here's a mental exercise: Make a list of the world's most intelligent animals in approximate order, humans, great apes, dolphins, monkeys, whales, wolves, ravens, something like this. Now how far down that list do you have to go before you get to a pure herbivore? We didn't grow brains because we ate meat, we evolved better intelligence to find and catch better food.
@trakkaton Gorillas are not pure herbivores. None of the great apes are, though Gorillas approach it. They're all omnivores and opportunistic feeders. In the world of biology, especially evolutionary biology, correlation and causation are a lot less distinct than say, physics. Traits that were selected to benefit one aspect of an organism might later benefit a different aspect. So what was it that I got "all wrong" ?
1. Are you HONESTLY want to propose the ASININE argument that SOME mountain gorillas have maybe been seen to SELDOMLY eat a couple of small bugs because OTHERWISE they would be entirely stupid and their brains would be underpowered? ARE YOU KIDDING?
2. Correlation is not causation. Period. Learn to READ.
@trakkaton Ok, asshat, please read what I said AGAIN. Did I say "we did grow brains because we ate meat?" did I? Or did I say the god damned opposite of that? I can't very well go into a god damned dissertation on the other CAUSES of the evolution of intelligence in a youtube comment, can I? And although it pains me to use a great creationist fallacy, prove there was no causation. Can you? no. Try to follow me here, but causation, in evolution, occurs at the level of the individual.
Tooltime IS saying the god damned opposite of that (3:30 in his video). And YOU stated that you are talking about HIS views.
Now, if you PERSONALLY think that mountain gorillas have to grow bigger brains and/ or become smarter in order to sometimes maybe eat a bug here and there then YOU are purely on your own. AND it IS irrelevant for the topic.
The claim that there can be no proof is no excuse for an invalid proof. The right reaction would rather be intellectual honesty.
@trakkaton Ok, dissertation it is then. Lets consider giraffes, with an evolutionary history of longer and longer necks. In the sense you're talking about, we can't PROVE that the pressure from food sources CAUSED this evolutionary pattern, but only in the trivial, irrelevant, pedantic sense you seem to be attributing to the word "causality". And I do think, yeah, a smarter gorilla would be able to better find food, duh!
If this still doesnt help, try watching this: watch?v=mOsrPqYPauc
What you call "trivial, irrelevant, pedantic" is also called "scientific", and you can't blame me for you not understanding what science is. And if suddenly new hints (yes, NOT "proof") would emerge that giraffes got longer necks to spot enemies earlier and that trees in the past weren't even that high it wouldn't mean the collapse of the universe because of an inconsistency of the laws of nature but rather that one theory based on hints made place for another one.
Let's make a summary: 1. You misrepresent tooltime's argument. 2. You do so even though tooltime's original argument is irrelevant. 3. You do so even though your misinterpretation is irrelevant as well. 4. You present a botched argument based on wishful thinking, full of errors. 5. You put a fallacy on top. 6. You change your claims again.
@trakkaton You're probably right that I overstated my claim. I seem to remember doing that a bit. This whole time I've been arguing with you I haven't rewatched the video to see what I was arguing. I just assume inmendham made some ridiculous argument opposite of what tooltime said, where the truth lies somewhere inbetween. the fact of the matter is I dont watch inmenham's videos anymore because I cant stand to see the hypocrisy and hate he uses against whoever he opposes.
I don't know Inmenham and therefore can't assess whether he is hypocritical. But hate does seem to be an apt reaction when anyone acclaims the unnecessary industrialized torture of sentient beings with fallacious arguments.
Hey, "make a mental exercise": Crocodiles hunt down sophisticated animals and do so with a tiny brain and the IQ of a rock. Gorillas and blue whales do not hunt down sophisticated animals while having a huge brain and being so smart that they could have a meaingful communication with humans.
@trakkaton Ok, you're just not getting it are you. Let me explain what you're now doing. You're now defending the young earth creationist position that evolution is a lie because theres NO CAUSALITY in evolution, and therefore no possible mechanism for evolution to operate. And no, what you're saying is not science. Science would be hypothesizing that there IS causality, then looking for similar patterns in other organisms, which, in fact, is the whole basis for evolution. DERP.
Mutation and selection can be proven in experiments. Experiments are an qualified method to establish proof. Observation is an qualified method to establish hints. The lines are blurry, but the concept is clear and accepted. I'm not dismissing hints (as long as they are accurate), I'm opposing false labelling for the sake of wishful thinking.
@trakkaton I dont know. I'm asking myself "could I conceivably have this argument with myself, if there were two of me?" and yeah, I probably could. I think I'm assuming youre saying things youre not, and I know you're assuming Im espousing viewpoints that Im not. This argument would probably be better for some forum like blogtv. But yeah, watch any of inmendhams videos, even the ones where he's not talking about something reprehensible, even petty little things bring out the hate.
@trakkaton I'm actually frickin amazed its gone on this long. Hes admitted he gets block happy and blocks people just cause he doesnt really like what they're saying.
walking with cavemen. A series for the BBC, Robert Winston talks about how hunting and eating animals allowed our ancestors a better source of protein. Dismissing the idea that eating termites might make a species better at eating termites is really stupid. Saying there is no scientific evidence for something just because you haven't seen it assumes you're familiar with ALL the research, which, again, is stupid.
@BohemianBlasphemy IF you had graduated past that, the rest of us would not be accosted with your nonsense comment, and if I check your channel you will have no videos up.... AND... OF course not! You're a stupid coward. See, two can do that. Oh wait, I didn't do what you did, I had slightly more back up to my argument.
@BohemianBlasphemy So you ask me this, assuming I'm vegan. I'm not. But I am moving toward basing my choices on decreasing suffering. So the obvious first choice is to cut out anything that has to do with factory farming. People cannot like the use of oil, and go for electric cars and whatnot, and they just have to live with the fact that many products are made with oil, and know they've at least started to live with common sense. People against corporate greed cannot HELP but line the pockets
of big corporations, still. So by your (implied) logic here, nobody can do anything because they can't do everything? Someone should say to you, "I remember when I was that stupid", what do you need a doctrine for to do the right thing? Gary is not strictly vegan either, he eats tuna sometimes. I have researched honey bees and see nothing wrong with honey. What part of this video suggests he's selling the doctrine that you used to sub to? There's nothing, you're projecting. I remember when ...
3. and I want to revisit this notion of "doctrine", why did you need a doctrine? You couln't just see how it's wrong for animals to be tortured and do your best? I don't need a doctrine, neither does Mendy, neither does anyone I know that follows his videos and sees that animals being tortured unnecessarily (redundant) must stop. It's insanity, and our economy en environment is also insane due to these choices. We are totally imbalanced and insane status quo, vegan mistakes would be BETTER..
The mantra of "decreasing suffering" is what made use the word doctrine.
Don't get me wrong: It's a beautiful and noble sentiment.
You're still part of the problem, though. You may think you're "decreasing suffering" because you have changed your car and your diet, but you're not. You are still benefiting from the suffering of animals. Wild animals.
It's mental masturbation: Makes you feel good to think you're "decreasing suffering". And masturbation is fine, when not in public.
Look, tell me what you normally eat and I can tell you how many animals are being killed in order to produce your food. Also, I have to assume you own a computer, so there's a very polluting industry you're supporting; and if you have any kind of functional, modern house -and I bet you don't live in a mud hut- you have plenty of products that contain palm oil around; so we're killing orangutans as a team. Like it or not.
Look, I benefit from the deaths of cows that were born in farms with the sole purpose of becoming food. I need meat. What do you want me to do? Go hunting every time I'm hungry?
But the cows I eat are not wild and are not in the path of extinction. Orangutans are, and that is relevant to my point, believe it or not.
You didn't answer my question: Do you wash your hair with shampoo?
The way in which the human organism interacts with B12 is one of the strongest pieces of evidence to suggest that our evolutionary ancestors did not eat much meat. Our body tends not to store vitamins which accumulate to hundreds or thousands of times the required daily dosage. Instead, it stores rare vitamins which were not commonly encountered. Our B12 sources were likely occasional insects (or rarely stolen bird eggs) or the highly fertile soil (B12 rich via fecal matter) left on our fruit.
You completely lost the argument when you used the word "cannibal" in the wrong context. By using that word your suggesting that we are farming humans to eat them, which I am pretty sure we are not.
get your facts straight before making a rebuttal.
@b4igetu It's approximate cannibalism. We share 98/99% of our genetic code with some animals. He also used the term "almost equals", which describes the distinctions between the various mammals quite well. A gorilla and a chimpanzee are approximately the same thing; and humans are just great apes with language.
@IdaMiaDot I see what you mean, but he still used cannibal in the wrong form. It is to eat something of your own species. We may be close genetically to great apes, but that doesn't mean we are cannibalistic when we eat them.
I would also note that a variety of genetic relatives of all other great apes are still alive; suggesting moderately peaceful co-existence on average. The only remaining ape of the homo-sapiens is homo-sapiens-sapiens (modern humans). Driving every other member of the genus homo into extinction would have required a lot of intelligence. So perhaps the evolutionary "trick" which produces "intelligence" is rigorous and prolonged conflict between two or more highly intelligent animals.
Also an examination of human history illustrates that generally when modern humans found anything even remotely different in appearance to themselves they either tried to wipe it out or wage war with it in some form or other.
Although the other great apes fight tribally; they live moderately well amongst each other by comparison (I would argue); which would explain why they had less need for innovation and technology, and they are well adapted to their environments. Pretty much everything about Cro-Magnon's anatomy and brain also suggests that had there been a competition; Neanderthals would have lost in a war of attrition. They also went extinct during a period of harsh climate suggesting battles for resources.
Having spent a little time studying anthropology, I would argue that the development of our frontal lobes is to be attributed to rigorous competition with relatives, and not meat consumption (as our brains shrunk significantly during our most prolific meat eating period). A rival relative would be one of the few things in our environment which would require unprecedented intelligence to out-compete. This is also consistent with the sudden disappearance of Neanderthals from the fossil record.
This "life feeds on life" shit doesn't work. It's a huge oversimplification. I had to learn that the hard way. Which is a damn fine way to learn anything in my not so humble opinion.
Cro-magnon existed alongside Neanderthal's for some time, before Neanderthals suddenly disappeared from the fossil records. It is plausible that human innovation was a consequence of competition with another highly intelligent homo-sapien, which would have required immense intelligent and wit to out-compete. Neanderthals also ate more meat than cro-magnon; but despite having larger brains they were - judging by cultural and technological innovation - not as intelligent.
I discovered recently that our direct ancestors (cro-magnon [early modern European humans]) had a brain size of approximately 1600 cc; which is roughly 10% larger than the brains of modern humans. Their earliest fossils date to roughly 40, 000 years ago. The greatest meat-eating period for modern humans was easily the last 40, 000 years (upon the advent of advanced tools and culture), in which our brains shrunk by approximately the size of a tennis ball.
god damn this video is even better the 2nd time.. best video on this topic EVER.
this is objective fact. if he doesnt respond, he's either recognised he has no way of doing so without utterly conceding everything he said, or he just thinks he is above it. either way, he fails.
haven't done any neuro-logical research ~ it would b safe 2 say ~ algebra requires a complexity & order of thought that reproductive instinct doesn't ~
& will bet that a math nerd could neuro-logically ~ "mario donkey d/kong" any day :)
@TJae1 A highly developed cerebral cortex is what is required for intelligible abstraction. Its capacity correlates predominately with the available surface area created via brain convolutions. Despite what might be predicted, cetaceans have far more intricate and numerous brain convolutions than humans; as well as a greater surface area. They also have a vastly larger numbers of neurons and neural density; but their brains divert more energy towards extraordinarily complex auditory processing.
@TJae1 They don't have a vastly greater neural density; but it is greater. It's been suggested that dolphins are naturally more sociable than humans; as neural density correlates heavily with emotive capacity and sociality. Anyway; I would agree with Gary that intelligence is more an evolutionary "trick" of the human brain (and notably the cerebral cortex), rather than some drastic difference in structure or processing capacity.
@IdaMiaDot ~ & 2oo ~ it's an issue of results/performance ~ ol' ape-y may generate plenty of energy ~ but would probably have difficulty figuring 2+2 bannana equations :) Ur pnts R noted ~ & ~ do enjoy explanations that justice ~ mother nature * cheers*
Great job on this one. The idiocy displayed on value and ethics is one thing, but it's quite simply unacceptable when displayed on nutrition and the vegan diet.
They are kind of distinct. Under human care an animal CAN live longer and happier if we actually cared about their well being and let them frolic and all that shit, and then assassinated them painlessly at the end of their life for food. It's really a question of do animal rights have the right to a pain free exploitation or do they also have a right to life. I don't think so. Plant's have their own sentience, evidence suggests that the same electrical signals that are interpreted as pain in....
@MacabreManifesto ...animals exist in plants, probably even more so from what I heave read. It's basically like saying it is okay to rape a comatose patient whose charts show that they are likely never to recover, just because they can't physically respond to the rape. Except we actually need food and no animal, or plant, want's to get eaten so we have to enter into the immoral medium of exploitative predation for survival, and since all organisms feel pain and don't like dying, that's too...
@MacabreManifesto ...fucking bad mate! In today's society, we are smart enough to actually provide a pain free, nurturing environment for our food to grow in, but we live in an economic system that demands the opposite. I will admit that I would probably rather save a buck on chicken then have it's life not suck, I'm just an asshole that way. But if there was a proven way to make lettuce feel no pain that made it's cost double, would you pay for that expensive lettuce?
@IdaMiaDot Not necessarily. Plants respond to sunlight and recoil from darkness, they wither without water, and they (allegedly) respond to "kind words and vibes" from sentient creatures, which are vegetative parallels to pain-pleasure neurons in animals.
@TheAzov Plants have no capacity to comprehend human language. Why would "kind words" influence their vegetative state? Many bacteria also respond to sunlight and die without water. Pain is a consequence of neural activity in the brain. The potential for emotive experience correlates with the complexity of neural activity and density. This is why mammals can experience a greater degree of sensual experience than insects, for example; some having hundreds of billions of more neurons.
@IdaMiaDot That's all true enough, yet "kind words" do seem to create a positive aura plants respond to. Nor did I say that plant responses are identical to neurological activity, but that they parallel it. Pain is also a consequence of external actions upon an organism. A positive or negative response is the basis of pain/pleasure reaction. Plants exhibit the same characteristics in their own nature.
@IdaMiaDot Just because they lack the exact animal kingdom brain that reflects ours doesn't mean that they aren't suffering. All pain is due to electrochemical signals that are designed to happen when an organism is being harmed. Plants experience electrochemical signals when they are harmed also, how do you know that that is not agonizing?
@Macabre As neural activity decreases in animals, their capacity for emotive experience demonstrably decreases; before finally reaching null in plants (flora having no neural activity). You are proposing that a fully established pleasure-pain mechanism existed prior to the current neurological model, which was then somehow scrapped in its entirety and superseded by an entirely new paradigm; and took billions more years to evolve to comparable degrees as already existed previously in flora.
The funny thing is that MEAT HAS LIKE NO ENERGY. This is basic fucking 8th grade biology. TROPHIC LEVELS people. Look em up. You get A LOT more energy from plants than you do from meat.. Just sayin! I think this guy that you are responding to got all of his "science" from the naiive vegetarian website, which is hosted by the Weston A price foundation, lol. THE WORST kind of propaganda.
@cannibalcountry Meat generally has more energy than plants; but it is far more energy efficient to produce plants than meat, as a huge quantity of plant matter has to be fed to animals to sustain them during their lifetime.
Wow Immendham made no attempt to deal with the moral nihlist position. You need to establish your goal of eliminating suffering (in all beings) as an actual standard of value not just assert it. No one is saying that it is dogma, just philosophy, that needs to be argued for.
@dadrogon - Ya don't have to believe in hell to think someone is an asshole. Just sayin'. Meat is not necessary - it's as frivilous as wearing fur, as frivilous as supporting dog fighting, as frivilous as beating your own fucking dog. It's the SAME fucking thing. I mean - meat eaters are the ones who are inconsistent with how they look at sentient animals - they'll pet and "love" one kind - and eat another. Like how fucking retarded is that?
@cannibalcountry All those preferences are arbitrary. There is nothing inconsistent about their preference to keep animals as pets and some as livestock They generally selected on different bases (cuteness vs fat content) And so what if some action is unnecessary? Is everything you do necessary? No, I am sure you have values that do not directly support you biological survival.
@cannibalcountry No you don't need to belive in hell to think someone is an asshole, You do need a standard of value though, and if you want to convince me that that standard of value is more logical than my current one you have some work to do.
I've watched your videos for some time now, and slowly but surely I started unintentionally weaning myself off of eating meat. I noticed myself doing that so I just said fuck it... time to break the disgusting addiction. Most everything I buy at the grocery store is either pastas, rice, or some other grain. Kudos Gary. It's a shame that more people don't have nads to absorb what you're trying to get across to people.
@SkidRowRadio - YES, good point! A lot of people don't know this - but babies REJECT meat - they will continually spit it out - and the parents just keep forcing it on their babies until they start swallowing the crap. No baby is born wanting the shit. Someday we'll recognize this practice as child abuse. The way meat is forced onto babies IS dogmatic.
you're absolutely right that he's dead wrong about people eatin mcDs cos they're poor. it IS cos they are undisciplined. if you just ate like west indians, you can save HUNDREDS per month. they buy rice etc in bulk then all the lentils and such.. its so cheap and mcDs is so wasteful compared to it.
It really does a disservice for your purported cause when you don't understand what argument is being made because you are watching the video for the first time and then you cut away before the entire thought or proposition has been stated.
Suffering is of course the primary reason to forgo meat but in 2010, the UN released a report urging a shift towards a vegan diet. Meat and animal products are simply unsustainable since humans seem unwilling to control their reproduction.
Half a billion vegetarians in India alone. Someone really should explain to them that they are all horribly sick, inconvenienced, deluded human beings. Save them from the absence of propaganda they're stuck with.
It also happens that 40% of the Indian population is extremely poor, as qualified by income of less than $1.00 per day per head of purchasing power parity. The causation you're looking for is under-nutrition and even famine, due to extreme poverty, not a lack of meat intake.
@AntiBullshitMan true, and this is one of tooltime's arguments, which i tend to agree with. I am not saying veganism is impossible, but it is harder to achieve, in the sense that one has to carefully plan each meal as to avoid deficiencies in certain nutrients normally found in abundance in any meat. It would be awesome if veganism would be as simple as not including sausages in pasta. Meat is just an easier way to get said nutrients, which is why it's been so apreciated throughout human history
Who said anything about veganism? Vegetarianism =/= Veganism.
"curious how one should convince children who are picky-eaters to eat nothing but legumes"
Taking meat off of your menu doesn't mean you're stuck with nothing but legumes. I'm the pickiest eater I know & now I manage just fine without meat, despite having been unnecessarily conditioned into developing a taste for it from early childhood. I didn't jump through any hoops to supplement it.
@AntiBullshitMan Veganism is better than vegetarianism as a general rule. If we can avoid imposing life on animals (i.e. artificially and/or forcefully impregnating females who are not necessarily consenting) then it's the preferable option. You can probably still find some eggs around the place or whatever. Eat some jellyfish as Gary suggested; or some insects that will lay their eggs in bees or whatever.
@AntiBullshitMan My bad then. I agree that people eat way too many animal products. Vegetarianism comes with a problem though: what do you do with all the extra critters? A cow needs to be inseminated every year, chickens aren't able to keep a steady egg production and need to be replaced etc. We're talking about mass consumption, think what it could mean. As i see it, theres no viable way to completely avoid slaughter, maybe just reduce it. Or turn vegan. Carnivorous pets would have to go too.
I'm also curious how one should convince children who are picky-eaters to eat nothing but legumes. Or what / how much should a pregnant / lactating woman eat to ensure the well being of her child? I'm not trying to start a quarrel, just asking.
The term metaphysics has been high-jacked by religion. The philosophical definition of metaphysics includes any non hard science. Philosophy, ethics, (arguably mathematics) and morality lands under the category of metaphysics. Anything that isn't metaphysics is physics, which would include biology, physics as we know it, etc.
@SkidRowRadio I hope he responds too, because Gary misinterpreted a lot of what he said. It might be because Gary "knew what he was about before even watching the video", and that affected how he received his points. If tooltime responds, it would be to clear up a lot of what he said and reveal that he and Gary don't disagree as much as this seems.
@Yamikaiba123 if parts of Garys argument were things TT already knew or agreed with, i dont think that means he 'misrepresented' what he was saying, just that he added what he felt was important to this conversation.
where do you think he misrepresented what TT was saying?
@SkidRowRadio Well, some things all over. I would have to watch the 50 minute long video again and get back to you, but I won't I'll wait on Tooltime to defend his own stance, I don't really like defending other Youtubers' arguments unless I have a titanic amount of free time. Heck, I don't like defending my own arguments unless I have a reasonable amount of free time. Here's what I think. Gary has very sound points, and I'd agree with everything he said in this video.
@SkidRowRadio But I I also thinkTooltime has sound points, and might even agree with much of what Gary has to say were they in a skype conference or the likes so that they could make their own points clear in real time instead having to rely on the others' first impression.Now if I can agree with both Gary and Tooltime, I think there's some falsely perceived conflict between their points of view.Watch Tooltimes video on its own and you'll see that he isn't preaching the shluck Gary thinks he is.
@SkidRowRadio Perhaps it's like what Gary said about Pyhrro. When they got down to it face to face, it turned out that Pyhrro's positions weren't so crazy after all. Different people think and on top of that, speak in very different ways. Especially when you divorce two people from being able to interact with each other in a conversation like a Youtube debacle, it can seem like other people are saying some wacky stuff. But sometimes it just comes down to my use of words vs. your use of words.
@SkidRowRadio And my manners of speaking vs. your manners of speaking. I've spoken with Professor Anton, and he's not pantheistic, or spiritual in the religious sense like Gary makes him out as being. He's actually quite down to earth. The problem is that he approaches highly philosophical subjects with what some might call "flowery language and terminology". What do you want, he's a Philosophy professor at a university! Flowery language is how they communicate and develop creative ideas.
In any case, if you don't replace that slot of essential nutrients, you're going to suffer from malnutrition. Like if I only ate bread for the rest of my life, I wouldn't last very long, since I wouldn't be getting enough protein, or energy, since i'm not eating any fruits or vegetables. There are ways of getting alternatives, but it requires some education and a little bit of sophistication when it comes to buying and preparing. But anyone over the poverty line could afford such a diet.
And as for the difficulty of diet replacement, I know vegans and vegetarians. Like tooltime said, you can't just replace a steak with a salad. You need to make a dietary replacement of the nutrients you would get from meat. Some vegans have told me about chemical tricks, like combining corn with rice or something like that, as together, you're tricking your body to digest them together to get protein (something like that, I'm not sure since I don't do it).
@Yamikaiba123 I'm vegan. It really is not all that difficult to modify the diet while at the same time getting adequate nutrition. I get plenty of protein. I eat quinoa, which has all 8 of the essential amino acids, textured vegetable protein (TVP), seitan, tofu and tempeh, and almond milk. Plus of course all the fruits and vegetables. All it takes is just a bit of research.
@TheRecoveringZombie Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Not saying it's hard, just that you can't just eat anything and be well-nutritioned, and also that it isn't far-out to suggest that poor people can't afford to watch out for their diet that well.
I think you're misinterpreting much of tooltime's points. Perhaps since you feel that you need to be in opposition to him, you're construing everything he's saying as being as wrong as you can interpret them as being. Now I can see differences between how you both are judging the morality of suffering, probably big differences, but not as many differences as you're making out to be. Tooltime makes it clear here that as far as we're able to stop the suffering of animals, we should.
Gary, you're right that it isn't argument defending might as right. That's because he isn't arguing that. He's saying making animals suffer when it doesn't aid our survival is wrong, that factory farming is wrong.
Tooltime's point is that predators evolutionarily develop more sophisticated brains so that they can be smart enough to outsmart prey. The human brain is no exception, as we've managed to outsmart our environment to the extent of dominating a large part of what we have access to.
Tooltime was differentiating the two points at the start because "is subjecting animals to a suffering existence in crude mass-production method wrong" and "is eating animals wrong" are two different points. He immediately thinks that we don't need to make animals suffer in order to raise them, and that it is merely an unecessary neglect rooted from our industries demand for fast production. On the other hand, he only thinks that it is an emerging moral possibility to not eat animals flat-out.
Lol at the "its too hard to become a veg*n". The time you're spending whining could be better spent LEARNING! Do some cost benefit analysis! Vegetarians statistically live longer, if you spend less time learning than the life extension, you're up!
No it doesn't. You can't beat a fallacious argument with another. Fortunately, the argument against meat consumption isn't an emotional argument. Simply put meat eating is not necessary and it causes suffering. While you need emotions to understand what suffering is, the argument is not an appeal to emotion.
@obnoxiousvf I agree it doesn't and that you can't beat a fallacious argument with another. However, meeting a fallacious argument with another, is a perfectly good way to tell the other side to go fuck itself.
No, the argument IS an appeal to emotion. The only way you'll ever make an argument out of the fact of suffering, is by turning it into an appeal to emotion.
The most recent studies in anthropology show that meat eating increased mans brain size, and that not eating meat causes a reduction in brain size over generations in studies on animals that do eat meat. The most profound impact however is the cooking of food including meat that contributes to brain size and energy levels. You cannot have a large gut and a large brain at the same time, the human gut is half that of our ancestors do to increased meat eating.
@Elenkhos, pre-processing our food (grans and plant fiber) provides a sufficient explanation for any theorized changes in metabolism...vocalization and the development of a language capable brain gave us the capacity to exploit a variety of environments (animals) it was not the other way round. .. regardless we aint in Kansas anymore and it is proven fact meat can, at best, only "need" be a tiny fraction of a healthy diet. your sick apologizing for gluttonous cruelty means you suck.
@inmendham I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm just quoting fact from studies I have been reading. One of my hobbies is the study of endocrinology, and how the body metabolizes food. If you like I can link you to the newest studies on the subject.
@Elenkhos "studies" of WHAT? there exist no useful artifacts of humans BEFORE they became structurally language capable... what are these studies studying? ...culture habits isn't biology.
@Elenkhos Don't bother linking anything that requires reading to Gary. He stated in one video that he is 'done with reading'. He's got it all figured out already and hangs his hat upon his ethics. Of course you'll suffer the 'you suck' arguement. Which is world renowned as being the bestest argument in da universe.
So let people cherrie pick the science that allows them to maintain their ethics. no? It seems that that is what people tend to do. F0t1gJ3r_sc
@inmendham Also, that being said, your argument about the cruelty of meat eating is not invalid, products derived from plant sources rich in protein and easily digestible would obviously be the answer to eating meat eliminating the suffering of the animals we exploit.
I watched the whole video. Question, Most of the vegans that I know adhere to a plant material and lower diet. You mentioned eating as many animals "low" on the evolutionary tree like jellyfish as you want. People actually do eat jellyfish, as well as molluscs, crustaceans, insects, etc. At what point would you approximate that "sentient" animal life begins? Fish? amphibians? all vertebrates?
@TheDude0fLife Any animal that has neurological chemicals and nervous systems that allow it to be capable of feeling pain. Animals without that are by definition not sentient. It's not actually hard to work out, scientists know which animals can feel pain and which animals can't- so we know what are sentient and what are not.
@hippydude89 I don't intend to answer for Gary, but he does eat fish on occasion. Technically that makes him a pescatarian. He does not eat any other types of meat though.
@hippydude89 I realize that this is a loaded question, kinda like the abortion issue, but even if a rudimentary nervous system is the arbitrary "goalpost", then that would pretty much rule out all animals, even jellyfish.
@TheDude0fLife If it can suffer it is off the menu for me.
This is really a matter of whether something is philosophically right......
Not actual "political implementation"
The philosophical issue is where we draw the line and i say suffering is where, not which animals can suffer, but I'd say most jellyfish do not have have capability to feel pain. Then again I am hardly a scientist in this field.
tooltime is an idiot who thinks that listening to tool makes him an intellectual while having original and rational thought is not a necessary requirement.
trakkaton 1 month ago
what an idiot tooltime is ...
NeidhardtMatthias 1 month ago
damn your ugly
Zanthios 2 months ago
You don't seem to understand evolution at all, or what tooltime is saying. Youve got causality all backwards in evolution. Here's a mental exercise: Make a list of the world's most intelligent animals in approximate order, humans, great apes, dolphins, monkeys, whales, wolves, ravens, something like this. Now how far down that list do you have to go before you get to a pure herbivore? We didn't grow brains because we ate meat, we evolved better intelligence to find and catch better food.
htomerif 3 months ago
@htomerif
1. Gorillas.
2. Even if you wouldn't be wrong with your failed argument, it still wouldn't be a valid one. Correlation is not causation, so YOU got it all wrong.
trakkaton 1 month ago
@trakkaton Gorillas are not pure herbivores. None of the great apes are, though Gorillas approach it. They're all omnivores and opportunistic feeders. In the world of biology, especially evolutionary biology, correlation and causation are a lot less distinct than say, physics. Traits that were selected to benefit one aspect of an organism might later benefit a different aspect. So what was it that I got "all wrong" ?
htomerif 1 month ago
@htomerif
1. Are you HONESTLY want to propose the ASININE argument that SOME mountain gorillas have maybe been seen to SELDOMLY eat a couple of small bugs because OTHERWISE they would be entirely stupid and their brains would be underpowered? ARE YOU KIDDING?
2. Correlation is not causation. Period. Learn to READ.
trakkaton 1 month ago
@trakkaton Ok, asshat, please read what I said AGAIN. Did I say "we did grow brains because we ate meat?" did I? Or did I say the god damned opposite of that? I can't very well go into a god damned dissertation on the other CAUSES of the evolution of intelligence in a youtube comment, can I? And although it pains me to use a great creationist fallacy, prove there was no causation. Can you? no. Try to follow me here, but causation, in evolution, occurs at the level of the individual.
htomerif 1 month ago
@htomerif
Tooltime IS saying the god damned opposite of that (3:30 in his video). And YOU stated that you are talking about HIS views.
Now, if you PERSONALLY think that mountain gorillas have to grow bigger brains and/ or become smarter in order to sometimes maybe eat a bug here and there then YOU are purely on your own. AND it IS irrelevant for the topic.
The claim that there can be no proof is no excuse for an invalid proof. The right reaction would rather be intellectual honesty.
trakkaton 1 month ago
@trakkaton Ok, dissertation it is then. Lets consider giraffes, with an evolutionary history of longer and longer necks. In the sense you're talking about, we can't PROVE that the pressure from food sources CAUSED this evolutionary pattern, but only in the trivial, irrelevant, pedantic sense you seem to be attributing to the word "causality". And I do think, yeah, a smarter gorilla would be able to better find food, duh!
If this still doesnt help, try watching this: watch?v=mOsrPqYPauc
htomerif 1 month ago
@htomerif
What you call "trivial, irrelevant, pedantic" is also called "scientific", and you can't blame me for you not understanding what science is. And if suddenly new hints (yes, NOT "proof") would emerge that giraffes got longer necks to spot enemies earlier and that trees in the past weren't even that high it wouldn't mean the collapse of the universe because of an inconsistency of the laws of nature but rather that one theory based on hints made place for another one.
trakkaton 1 month ago
@htomerif
Let's make a summary: 1. You misrepresent tooltime's argument. 2. You do so even though tooltime's original argument is irrelevant. 3. You do so even though your misinterpretation is irrelevant as well. 4. You present a botched argument based on wishful thinking, full of errors. 5. You put a fallacy on top. 6. You change your claims again.
I'm fed up with your CRAP!
trakkaton 1 month ago
@trakkaton You're probably right that I overstated my claim. I seem to remember doing that a bit. This whole time I've been arguing with you I haven't rewatched the video to see what I was arguing. I just assume inmendham made some ridiculous argument opposite of what tooltime said, where the truth lies somewhere inbetween. the fact of the matter is I dont watch inmenham's videos anymore because I cant stand to see the hypocrisy and hate he uses against whoever he opposes.
htomerif 1 month ago
@htomerif
I don't know Inmenham and therefore can't assess whether he is hypocritical. But hate does seem to be an apt reaction when anyone acclaims the unnecessary industrialized torture of sentient beings with fallacious arguments.
trakkaton 1 month ago
@htomerif
Hey, "make a mental exercise": Crocodiles hunt down sophisticated animals and do so with a tiny brain and the IQ of a rock. Gorillas and blue whales do not hunt down sophisticated animals while having a huge brain and being so smart that they could have a meaingful communication with humans.
trakkaton 1 month ago
@trakkaton Ok, you're just not getting it are you. Let me explain what you're now doing. You're now defending the young earth creationist position that evolution is a lie because theres NO CAUSALITY in evolution, and therefore no possible mechanism for evolution to operate. And no, what you're saying is not science. Science would be hypothesizing that there IS causality, then looking for similar patterns in other organisms, which, in fact, is the whole basis for evolution. DERP.
htomerif 1 month ago
@htomerif
Mutation and selection can be proven in experiments. Experiments are an qualified method to establish proof. Observation is an qualified method to establish hints. The lines are blurry, but the concept is clear and accepted. I'm not dismissing hints (as long as they are accurate), I'm opposing false labelling for the sake of wishful thinking.
trakkaton 1 month ago
@trakkaton I dont know. I'm asking myself "could I conceivably have this argument with myself, if there were two of me?" and yeah, I probably could. I think I'm assuming youre saying things youre not, and I know you're assuming Im espousing viewpoints that Im not. This argument would probably be better for some forum like blogtv. But yeah, watch any of inmendhams videos, even the ones where he's not talking about something reprehensible, even petty little things bring out the hate.
htomerif 1 month ago
@trakkaton I'm actually frickin amazed its gone on this long. Hes admitted he gets block happy and blocks people just cause he doesnt really like what they're saying.
htomerif 1 month ago
walking with cavemen. A series for the BBC, Robert Winston talks about how hunting and eating animals allowed our ancestors a better source of protein. Dismissing the idea that eating termites might make a species better at eating termites is really stupid. Saying there is no scientific evidence for something just because you haven't seen it assumes you're familiar with ALL the research, which, again, is stupid.
mooxim 5 months ago
Great video Gary. This guy basically talks himself into oblivion and the conversation is brought back through clear logic by you every time.
ShockOfLemonade 7 months ago
Comment removed
ShockOfLemonade 7 months ago
@Kaicrea btw you're getting vegetarianism mixed up with veganism.
Milk..Eggs..
??! B12!
hippydude89 7 months ago
Oh, I remember when I was this stupid!
BohemianBlasphemy 7 months ago
@BohemianBlasphemy IF you had graduated past that, the rest of us would not be accosted with your nonsense comment, and if I check your channel you will have no videos up.... AND... OF course not! You're a stupid coward. See, two can do that. Oh wait, I didn't do what you did, I had slightly more back up to my argument.
boobootoob 7 months ago
@boobootoob
Legit question, vegan person: Do you wash your hair with shampoo?
I'm really asking. That was the question that started my deconversion from the vegan doctrine.
BohemianBlasphemy 7 months ago
@BohemianBlasphemy So you ask me this, assuming I'm vegan. I'm not. But I am moving toward basing my choices on decreasing suffering. So the obvious first choice is to cut out anything that has to do with factory farming. People cannot like the use of oil, and go for electric cars and whatnot, and they just have to live with the fact that many products are made with oil, and know they've at least started to live with common sense. People against corporate greed cannot HELP but line the pockets
boobootoob 7 months ago
of big corporations, still. So by your (implied) logic here, nobody can do anything because they can't do everything? Someone should say to you, "I remember when I was that stupid", what do you need a doctrine for to do the right thing? Gary is not strictly vegan either, he eats tuna sometimes. I have researched honey bees and see nothing wrong with honey. What part of this video suggests he's selling the doctrine that you used to sub to? There's nothing, you're projecting. I remember when ...
boobootoob 7 months ago
3. and I want to revisit this notion of "doctrine", why did you need a doctrine? You couln't just see how it's wrong for animals to be tortured and do your best? I don't need a doctrine, neither does Mendy, neither does anyone I know that follows his videos and sees that animals being tortured unnecessarily (redundant) must stop. It's insanity, and our economy en environment is also insane due to these choices. We are totally imbalanced and insane status quo, vegan mistakes would be BETTER..
boobootoob 7 months ago
@boobootoob
The mantra of "decreasing suffering" is what made use the word doctrine.
Don't get me wrong: It's a beautiful and noble sentiment.
You're still part of the problem, though. You may think you're "decreasing suffering" because you have changed your car and your diet, but you're not. You are still benefiting from the suffering of animals. Wild animals.
It's mental masturbation: Makes you feel good to think you're "decreasing suffering". And masturbation is fine, when not in public.
BohemianBlasphemy 7 months ago
@BohemianBlasphemy It's actually mental masturbation the way you're squirming away from the truth in this comment
ShockOfLemonade 7 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade
The truth is, you benefit from the suffering of animals.
Am I wrong?
BohemianBlasphemy 7 months ago
@BohemianBlasphemy Yes, you are wrong.
ShockOfLemonade 7 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade
Really?
What exactly do you eat? Soy?
What do you use for personal hygiene?
You are part of the problem and so am I. The difference is, I admit it.
BohemianBlasphemy 7 months ago
@BohemianBlasphemy squirm on...
ShockOfLemonade 7 months ago
Comment removed
BohemianBlasphemy 7 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade
Squirm on?
I don't even know what you mean by that.
Look, tell me what you normally eat and I can tell you how many animals are being killed in order to produce your food. Also, I have to assume you own a computer, so there's a very polluting industry you're supporting; and if you have any kind of functional, modern house -and I bet you don't live in a mud hut- you have plenty of products that contain palm oil around; so we're killing orangutans as a team. Like it or not.
BohemianBlasphemy 7 months ago
@boobootoob
Look, I benefit from the deaths of cows that were born in farms with the sole purpose of becoming food. I need meat. What do you want me to do? Go hunting every time I'm hungry?
But the cows I eat are not wild and are not in the path of extinction. Orangutans are, and that is relevant to my point, believe it or not.
You didn't answer my question: Do you wash your hair with shampoo?
BohemianBlasphemy 7 months ago
Ok I lasted to 6:34.... I figured it was only going to get more painful.
All you had to do was say "man" at the end of every sentence and at least I wound have got a laugh.
stramster1 7 months ago
Cornflakes with orange juice is well nice.
Just sayin.
dbbexeter 10 months ago
The way in which the human organism interacts with B12 is one of the strongest pieces of evidence to suggest that our evolutionary ancestors did not eat much meat. Our body tends not to store vitamins which accumulate to hundreds or thousands of times the required daily dosage. Instead, it stores rare vitamins which were not commonly encountered. Our B12 sources were likely occasional insects (or rarely stolen bird eggs) or the highly fertile soil (B12 rich via fecal matter) left on our fruit.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago 4
@IdaMiaDot It's not the meat so much as the fat and marrow which granted more energy to power larger brains.
skiddlecrumms 3 months ago
Oh look, another vegetarian rambling and, big surprise, he looks like he just stepped out of Auschwitz.
Nathan54AB 10 months ago
You completely lost the argument when you used the word "cannibal" in the wrong context. By using that word your suggesting that we are farming humans to eat them, which I am pretty sure we are not.
get your facts straight before making a rebuttal.
b4igetu 10 months ago
@b4igetu It's approximate cannibalism. We share 98/99% of our genetic code with some animals. He also used the term "almost equals", which describes the distinctions between the various mammals quite well. A gorilla and a chimpanzee are approximately the same thing; and humans are just great apes with language.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
@IdaMiaDot I see what you mean, but he still used cannibal in the wrong form. It is to eat something of your own species. We may be close genetically to great apes, but that doesn't mean we are cannibalistic when we eat them.
b4igetu 10 months ago
Ah the convenient Bookshelf backdrop, the cornerstone of every Youtube regurgitating elitist.
ThedogDio 10 months ago
Thanks to you and Sisyphus I'm now vegetarian.
The fuck do I do with the meet in my freezer?
PluripotentBrain 10 months ago
I would also note that a variety of genetic relatives of all other great apes are still alive; suggesting moderately peaceful co-existence on average. The only remaining ape of the homo-sapiens is homo-sapiens-sapiens (modern humans). Driving every other member of the genus homo into extinction would have required a lot of intelligence. So perhaps the evolutionary "trick" which produces "intelligence" is rigorous and prolonged conflict between two or more highly intelligent animals.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
Also an examination of human history illustrates that generally when modern humans found anything even remotely different in appearance to themselves they either tried to wipe it out or wage war with it in some form or other.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
Although the other great apes fight tribally; they live moderately well amongst each other by comparison (I would argue); which would explain why they had less need for innovation and technology, and they are well adapted to their environments. Pretty much everything about Cro-Magnon's anatomy and brain also suggests that had there been a competition; Neanderthals would have lost in a war of attrition. They also went extinct during a period of harsh climate suggesting battles for resources.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
Having spent a little time studying anthropology, I would argue that the development of our frontal lobes is to be attributed to rigorous competition with relatives, and not meat consumption (as our brains shrunk significantly during our most prolific meat eating period). A rival relative would be one of the few things in our environment which would require unprecedented intelligence to out-compete. This is also consistent with the sudden disappearance of Neanderthals from the fossil record.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
You can't cannibalize another species. It's impossible by the definition of the word "Cannibal".
Cannibal: An animal that feeds on flesh of its own species.
Also, if we are cannibals because we eat things that are just "not as closely related to us", then are all other omnivorous animals cannibals as well?
Anghellik9 10 months ago
@Anghellik9, sounds like you're just playing with word definitions here - i think you missed the point - watch the video again
XES101watchclub 10 months ago
Just starting this video, but I'll say this...
This "life feeds on life" shit doesn't work. It's a huge oversimplification. I had to learn that the hard way. Which is a damn fine way to learn anything in my not so humble opinion.
Sarahon06 10 months ago
Do you ever clean your house?
ghostyman666 10 months ago
Cro-magnon existed alongside Neanderthal's for some time, before Neanderthals suddenly disappeared from the fossil records. It is plausible that human innovation was a consequence of competition with another highly intelligent homo-sapien, which would have required immense intelligent and wit to out-compete. Neanderthals also ate more meat than cro-magnon; but despite having larger brains they were - judging by cultural and technological innovation - not as intelligent.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
I discovered recently that our direct ancestors (cro-magnon [early modern European humans]) had a brain size of approximately 1600 cc; which is roughly 10% larger than the brains of modern humans. Their earliest fossils date to roughly 40, 000 years ago. The greatest meat-eating period for modern humans was easily the last 40, 000 years (upon the advent of advanced tools and culture), in which our brains shrunk by approximately the size of a tennis ball.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
god damn this video is even better the 2nd time.. best video on this topic EVER.
this is objective fact. if he doesnt respond, he's either recognised he has no way of doing so without utterly conceding everything he said, or he just thinks he is above it. either way, he fails.
SkidRowRadio 10 months ago
haven't done any neuro-logical research ~ it would b safe 2 say ~ algebra requires a complexity & order of thought that reproductive instinct doesn't ~
& will bet that a math nerd could neuro-logically ~ "mario donkey d/kong" any day :)
TJae1 10 months ago
@TJae1 A highly developed cerebral cortex is what is required for intelligible abstraction. Its capacity correlates predominately with the available surface area created via brain convolutions. Despite what might be predicted, cetaceans have far more intricate and numerous brain convolutions than humans; as well as a greater surface area. They also have a vastly larger numbers of neurons and neural density; but their brains divert more energy towards extraordinarily complex auditory processing.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
@TJae1 They don't have a vastly greater neural density; but it is greater. It's been suggested that dolphins are naturally more sociable than humans; as neural density correlates heavily with emotive capacity and sociality. Anyway; I would agree with Gary that intelligence is more an evolutionary "trick" of the human brain (and notably the cerebral cortex), rather than some drastic difference in structure or processing capacity.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
@IdaMiaDot ~ & 2oo ~ it's an issue of results/performance ~ ol' ape-y may generate plenty of energy ~ but would probably have difficulty figuring 2+2 bannana equations :) Ur pnts R noted ~ & ~ do enjoy explanations that justice ~ mother nature * cheers*
TJae1 10 months ago
western/judeo/christian law/culture ~ it's a b3tch (for the vegans anyway)
TJae1 10 months ago
I eat meat because it's a good source of protein and it is delicious.
InvertedHorizon 10 months ago
@InvertedHorizon
Sperm is a good source of protein why dont you try that?
qarohc 10 months ago
@qarohc I already have.
InvertedHorizon 10 months ago
Great job on this one. The idiocy displayed on value and ethics is one thing, but it's quite simply unacceptable when displayed on nutrition and the vegan diet.
and yeah, corn flakes dry are the best!
TheMaleWithNoName 10 months ago
nes. for human survival ?? hahahahaha !
what an idiot. :-((
panthera50 10 months ago
They are kind of distinct. Under human care an animal CAN live longer and happier if we actually cared about their well being and let them frolic and all that shit, and then assassinated them painlessly at the end of their life for food. It's really a question of do animal rights have the right to a pain free exploitation or do they also have a right to life. I don't think so. Plant's have their own sentience, evidence suggests that the same electrical signals that are interpreted as pain in....
MacabreManifesto 10 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...animals exist in plants, probably even more so from what I heave read. It's basically like saying it is okay to rape a comatose patient whose charts show that they are likely never to recover, just because they can't physically respond to the rape. Except we actually need food and no animal, or plant, want's to get eaten so we have to enter into the immoral medium of exploitative predation for survival, and since all organisms feel pain and don't like dying, that's too...
MacabreManifesto 10 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...fucking bad mate! In today's society, we are smart enough to actually provide a pain free, nurturing environment for our food to grow in, but we live in an economic system that demands the opposite. I will admit that I would probably rather save a buck on chicken then have it's life not suck, I'm just an asshole that way. But if there was a proven way to make lettuce feel no pain that made it's cost double, would you pay for that expensive lettuce?
MacabreManifesto 10 months ago
@MacabreManifesto Plants lack the pain and neural receptors of the brain necessary to feel pain.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
@IdaMiaDot Not necessarily. Plants respond to sunlight and recoil from darkness, they wither without water, and they (allegedly) respond to "kind words and vibes" from sentient creatures, which are vegetative parallels to pain-pleasure neurons in animals.
TheAzov 10 months ago
@TheAzov Plants have no capacity to comprehend human language. Why would "kind words" influence their vegetative state? Many bacteria also respond to sunlight and die without water. Pain is a consequence of neural activity in the brain. The potential for emotive experience correlates with the complexity of neural activity and density. This is why mammals can experience a greater degree of sensual experience than insects, for example; some having hundreds of billions of more neurons.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
@IdaMiaDot That's all true enough, yet "kind words" do seem to create a positive aura plants respond to. Nor did I say that plant responses are identical to neurological activity, but that they parallel it. Pain is also a consequence of external actions upon an organism. A positive or negative response is the basis of pain/pleasure reaction. Plants exhibit the same characteristics in their own nature.
TheAzov 10 months ago
@IdaMiaDot Just because they lack the exact animal kingdom brain that reflects ours doesn't mean that they aren't suffering. All pain is due to electrochemical signals that are designed to happen when an organism is being harmed. Plants experience electrochemical signals when they are harmed also, how do you know that that is not agonizing?
MacabreManifesto 10 months ago
@Macabre As neural activity decreases in animals, their capacity for emotive experience demonstrably decreases; before finally reaching null in plants (flora having no neural activity). You are proposing that a fully established pleasure-pain mechanism existed prior to the current neurological model, which was then somehow scrapped in its entirety and superseded by an entirely new paradigm; and took billions more years to evolve to comparable degrees as already existed previously in flora.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
The funny thing is that MEAT HAS LIKE NO ENERGY. This is basic fucking 8th grade biology. TROPHIC LEVELS people. Look em up. You get A LOT more energy from plants than you do from meat.. Just sayin! I think this guy that you are responding to got all of his "science" from the naiive vegetarian website, which is hosted by the Weston A price foundation, lol. THE WORST kind of propaganda.
cannibalcountry 10 months ago
@cannibalcountry Meat generally has more energy than plants; but it is far more energy efficient to produce plants than meat, as a huge quantity of plant matter has to be fed to animals to sustain them during their lifetime.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
Wow Immendham made no attempt to deal with the moral nihlist position. You need to establish your goal of eliminating suffering (in all beings) as an actual standard of value not just assert it. No one is saying that it is dogma, just philosophy, that needs to be argued for.
dadrogon 10 months ago
@dadrogon - Ya don't have to believe in hell to think someone is an asshole. Just sayin'. Meat is not necessary - it's as frivilous as wearing fur, as frivilous as supporting dog fighting, as frivilous as beating your own fucking dog. It's the SAME fucking thing. I mean - meat eaters are the ones who are inconsistent with how they look at sentient animals - they'll pet and "love" one kind - and eat another. Like how fucking retarded is that?
cannibalcountry 10 months ago
@cannibalcountry All those preferences are arbitrary. There is nothing inconsistent about their preference to keep animals as pets and some as livestock They generally selected on different bases (cuteness vs fat content) And so what if some action is unnecessary? Is everything you do necessary? No, I am sure you have values that do not directly support you biological survival.
dadrogon 10 months ago
@cannibalcountry No you don't need to belive in hell to think someone is an asshole, You do need a standard of value though, and if you want to convince me that that standard of value is more logical than my current one you have some work to do.
dadrogon 10 months ago
I think this is one of your strongest vids.
Qjuad 10 months ago
If Terrance Mckenna is right, then it was low doses of psilocybin mushrooms and not meat.
Gettinghitonattheban 10 months ago
so much fail in this...
Coquipirate 10 months ago
Harsh, but pretty right.
Skindoggiedog 10 months ago
at 33.00 I agree, education. We need to educate each other.
ThinkMinding 10 months ago
:-) Was wondering when you would do this one....
ThinkMinding 10 months ago
Anyone else die laughing thinking about a T-Rex wearing tooltimes glasses?
japanezeboi 10 months ago
Great fucking video!
CosmicSeaman 10 months ago
He's like professoranton's mini-me.
They're both, sorta, aggravating.
I mean we'd all get along in person. But on the debate floor, yeah, I'd tear him a new one.
fulishproductions 10 months ago
@fulishproductions at best I'd say he's a wannabe professoranton.
xtrafranky 10 months ago
oooooooh lionboy is wrong for once.............did ya see it
Redpilldown 10 months ago
"suffering comes from desire"
im10pplok 10 months ago
I've watched your videos for some time now, and slowly but surely I started unintentionally weaning myself off of eating meat. I noticed myself doing that so I just said fuck it... time to break the disgusting addiction. Most everything I buy at the grocery store is either pastas, rice, or some other grain. Kudos Gary. It's a shame that more people don't have nads to absorb what you're trying to get across to people.
Hritzness 10 months ago
@Hritzness
cudos
good job!
join our little club
TehMorbidAtheist 10 months ago
@TehMorbidAtheist lol
SkidRowRadio 10 months ago
also, the point about it just being a conditioned preference is indisputable. it pwns all.
SkidRowRadio 10 months ago
@SkidRowRadio - YES, good point! A lot of people don't know this - but babies REJECT meat - they will continually spit it out - and the parents just keep forcing it on their babies until they start swallowing the crap. No baby is born wanting the shit. Someday we'll recognize this practice as child abuse. The way meat is forced onto babies IS dogmatic.
cannibalcountry 10 months ago
@cannibalcountry woah, no i didnt know that...
SkidRowRadio 10 months ago
you're absolutely right that he's dead wrong about people eatin mcDs cos they're poor. it IS cos they are undisciplined. if you just ate like west indians, you can save HUNDREDS per month. they buy rice etc in bulk then all the lentils and such.. its so cheap and mcDs is so wasteful compared to it.
SkidRowRadio 10 months ago
It really does a disservice for your purported cause when you don't understand what argument is being made because you are watching the video for the first time and then you cut away before the entire thought or proposition has been stated.
hugesinker 10 months ago
Suffering is of course the primary reason to forgo meat but in 2010, the UN released a report urging a shift towards a vegan diet. Meat and animal products are simply unsustainable since humans seem unwilling to control their reproduction.
TheRecoveringZombie 10 months ago
Trolltime?
vfIskullangel 10 months ago
Don't you ever bash thunderfoot JR.!
MultiHypocrisy 10 months ago
Half a billion vegetarians in India alone. Someone really should explain to them that they are all horribly sick, inconvenienced, deluded human beings. Save them from the absence of propaganda they're stuck with.
Fucking hell.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago 24
@AntiBullshitMan India also happens to be one of the countries with the highest rate of malnutrition.
gri189 10 months ago
It also happens that 40% of the Indian population is extremely poor, as qualified by income of less than $1.00 per day per head of purchasing power parity. The causation you're looking for is under-nutrition and even famine, due to extreme poverty, not a lack of meat intake.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan true, and this is one of tooltime's arguments, which i tend to agree with. I am not saying veganism is impossible, but it is harder to achieve, in the sense that one has to carefully plan each meal as to avoid deficiencies in certain nutrients normally found in abundance in any meat. It would be awesome if veganism would be as simple as not including sausages in pasta. Meat is just an easier way to get said nutrients, which is why it's been so apreciated throughout human history
gri189 10 months ago
"I am not saying veganism is impossible"
Who said anything about veganism? Vegetarianism =/= Veganism.
"curious how one should convince children who are picky-eaters to eat nothing but legumes"
Taking meat off of your menu doesn't mean you're stuck with nothing but legumes. I'm the pickiest eater I know & now I manage just fine without meat, despite having been unnecessarily conditioned into developing a taste for it from early childhood. I didn't jump through any hoops to supplement it.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan Veganism is better than vegetarianism as a general rule. If we can avoid imposing life on animals (i.e. artificially and/or forcefully impregnating females who are not necessarily consenting) then it's the preferable option. You can probably still find some eggs around the place or whatever. Eat some jellyfish as Gary suggested; or some insects that will lay their eggs in bees or whatever.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan My bad then. I agree that people eat way too many animal products. Vegetarianism comes with a problem though: what do you do with all the extra critters? A cow needs to be inseminated every year, chickens aren't able to keep a steady egg production and need to be replaced etc. We're talking about mass consumption, think what it could mean. As i see it, theres no viable way to completely avoid slaughter, maybe just reduce it. Or turn vegan. Carnivorous pets would have to go too.
gri189 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan Also, i am not going to watch this again, but if i am not mistaken, this whole argument was about veganism, not vegetarianism.
gri189 10 months ago
Comment removed
gri189 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan And, sadly, it also tastes good.
I'm also curious how one should convince children who are picky-eaters to eat nothing but legumes. Or what / how much should a pregnant / lactating woman eat to ensure the well being of her child? I'm not trying to start a quarrel, just asking.
gri189 10 months ago
I hate to point out a flaw, but a brain reading a book DOES burn more calories than say a brain watching TV.
29Ocelot 10 months ago
The term metaphysics has been high-jacked by religion. The philosophical definition of metaphysics includes any non hard science. Philosophy, ethics, (arguably mathematics) and morality lands under the category of metaphysics. Anything that isn't metaphysics is physics, which would include biology, physics as we know it, etc.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
this was an absolutely brilliant video gary. i hope he responds.
SkidRowRadio 10 months ago
@SkidRowRadio I hope he responds too, because Gary misinterpreted a lot of what he said. It might be because Gary "knew what he was about before even watching the video", and that affected how he received his points. If tooltime responds, it would be to clear up a lot of what he said and reveal that he and Gary don't disagree as much as this seems.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
@Yamikaiba123 if parts of Garys argument were things TT already knew or agreed with, i dont think that means he 'misrepresented' what he was saying, just that he added what he felt was important to this conversation.
where do you think he misrepresented what TT was saying?
SkidRowRadio 10 months ago
@SkidRowRadio Well, some things all over. I would have to watch the 50 minute long video again and get back to you, but I won't I'll wait on Tooltime to defend his own stance, I don't really like defending other Youtubers' arguments unless I have a titanic amount of free time. Heck, I don't like defending my own arguments unless I have a reasonable amount of free time. Here's what I think. Gary has very sound points, and I'd agree with everything he said in this video.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
@Yamikaiba123 lol fair enough : )
SkidRowRadio 10 months ago
@SkidRowRadio But I I also thinkTooltime has sound points, and might even agree with much of what Gary has to say were they in a skype conference or the likes so that they could make their own points clear in real time instead having to rely on the others' first impression.Now if I can agree with both Gary and Tooltime, I think there's some falsely perceived conflict between their points of view.Watch Tooltimes video on its own and you'll see that he isn't preaching the shluck Gary thinks he is.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
@SkidRowRadio Perhaps it's like what Gary said about Pyhrro. When they got down to it face to face, it turned out that Pyhrro's positions weren't so crazy after all. Different people think and on top of that, speak in very different ways. Especially when you divorce two people from being able to interact with each other in a conversation like a Youtube debacle, it can seem like other people are saying some wacky stuff. But sometimes it just comes down to my use of words vs. your use of words.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
@SkidRowRadio And my manners of speaking vs. your manners of speaking. I've spoken with Professor Anton, and he's not pantheistic, or spiritual in the religious sense like Gary makes him out as being. He's actually quite down to earth. The problem is that he approaches highly philosophical subjects with what some might call "flowery language and terminology". What do you want, he's a Philosophy professor at a university! Flowery language is how they communicate and develop creative ideas.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
But poor people need to eat what they can get, and the cheapest food is not the healthiest food.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
In any case, if you don't replace that slot of essential nutrients, you're going to suffer from malnutrition. Like if I only ate bread for the rest of my life, I wouldn't last very long, since I wouldn't be getting enough protein, or energy, since i'm not eating any fruits or vegetables. There are ways of getting alternatives, but it requires some education and a little bit of sophistication when it comes to buying and preparing. But anyone over the poverty line could afford such a diet.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
And as for the difficulty of diet replacement, I know vegans and vegetarians. Like tooltime said, you can't just replace a steak with a salad. You need to make a dietary replacement of the nutrients you would get from meat. Some vegans have told me about chemical tricks, like combining corn with rice or something like that, as together, you're tricking your body to digest them together to get protein (something like that, I'm not sure since I don't do it).
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
@Yamikaiba123 I'm vegan. It really is not all that difficult to modify the diet while at the same time getting adequate nutrition. I get plenty of protein. I eat quinoa, which has all 8 of the essential amino acids, textured vegetable protein (TVP), seitan, tofu and tempeh, and almond milk. Plus of course all the fruits and vegetables. All it takes is just a bit of research.
TheRecoveringZombie 10 months ago
@TheRecoveringZombie Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Not saying it's hard, just that you can't just eat anything and be well-nutritioned, and also that it isn't far-out to suggest that poor people can't afford to watch out for their diet that well.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
I think you're misinterpreting much of tooltime's points. Perhaps since you feel that you need to be in opposition to him, you're construing everything he's saying as being as wrong as you can interpret them as being. Now I can see differences between how you both are judging the morality of suffering, probably big differences, but not as many differences as you're making out to be. Tooltime makes it clear here that as far as we're able to stop the suffering of animals, we should.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
Gary, you're right that it isn't argument defending might as right. That's because he isn't arguing that. He's saying making animals suffer when it doesn't aid our survival is wrong, that factory farming is wrong.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
Tooltime's point is that predators evolutionarily develop more sophisticated brains so that they can be smart enough to outsmart prey. The human brain is no exception, as we've managed to outsmart our environment to the extent of dominating a large part of what we have access to.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
Thou shalt not kill .... sounds like bullshit religion to me
dospook 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dospook , "Thou shalt not unnecessarily harm and exploit" ....what a horrid ethic :-D
inmendham 10 months ago
Tooltime was differentiating the two points at the start because "is subjecting animals to a suffering existence in crude mass-production method wrong" and "is eating animals wrong" are two different points. He immediately thinks that we don't need to make animals suffer in order to raise them, and that it is merely an unecessary neglect rooted from our industries demand for fast production. On the other hand, he only thinks that it is an emerging moral possibility to not eat animals flat-out.
Yamikaiba123 10 months ago
Epic title!
PluripotentBrain 10 months ago
Slam Dunk
ScruffysGreatestFan 10 months ago
This guy probably never suffered a day in his life, or he wouldn't be saying that suffering doesn't matter.
HigherPlanes 10 months ago
Lol at the "its too hard to become a veg*n". The time you're spending whining could be better spent LEARNING! Do some cost benefit analysis! Vegetarians statistically live longer, if you spend less time learning than the life extension, you're up!
obnoxiousvf 10 months ago 4
His argument in short: Appeal to nature + appeal to tradition.
obnoxiousvf 10 months ago
@obnoxiousvf Beats appeal to emotion.
SAsgarters 10 months ago
@SAsgarters
No it doesn't. You can't beat a fallacious argument with another. Fortunately, the argument against meat consumption isn't an emotional argument. Simply put meat eating is not necessary and it causes suffering. While you need emotions to understand what suffering is, the argument is not an appeal to emotion.
obnoxiousvf 10 months ago
@obnoxiousvf I agree it doesn't and that you can't beat a fallacious argument with another. However, meeting a fallacious argument with another, is a perfectly good way to tell the other side to go fuck itself.
No, the argument IS an appeal to emotion. The only way you'll ever make an argument out of the fact of suffering, is by turning it into an appeal to emotion.
SAsgarters 10 months ago
The most recent studies in anthropology show that meat eating increased mans brain size, and that not eating meat causes a reduction in brain size over generations in studies on animals that do eat meat. The most profound impact however is the cooking of food including meat that contributes to brain size and energy levels. You cannot have a large gut and a large brain at the same time, the human gut is half that of our ancestors do to increased meat eating.
Elenkhos 10 months ago
@Elenkhos, pre-processing our food (grans and plant fiber) provides a sufficient explanation for any theorized changes in metabolism...vocalization and the development of a language capable brain gave us the capacity to exploit a variety of environments (animals) it was not the other way round. .. regardless we aint in Kansas anymore and it is proven fact meat can, at best, only "need" be a tiny fraction of a healthy diet. your sick apologizing for gluttonous cruelty means you suck.
inmendham 10 months ago 26
@inmendham I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm just quoting fact from studies I have been reading. One of my hobbies is the study of endocrinology, and how the body metabolizes food. If you like I can link you to the newest studies on the subject.
Elenkhos 10 months ago
@Elenkhos "studies" of WHAT? there exist no useful artifacts of humans BEFORE they became structurally language capable... what are these studies studying? ...culture habits isn't biology.
inmendham 10 months ago
@Elenkhos Don't bother linking anything that requires reading to Gary. He stated in one video that he is 'done with reading'. He's got it all figured out already and hangs his hat upon his ethics. Of course you'll suffer the 'you suck' arguement. Which is world renowned as being the bestest argument in da universe.
So let people cherrie pick the science that allows them to maintain their ethics. no? It seems that that is what people tend to do. F0t1gJ3r_sc
Thou shalt not kill
dospook 10 months ago
@dospook Oops... done made a video....but it is an mp3 so its just a listen to...but it has a link
Elenkhos 10 months ago
@inmendham Also, that being said, your argument about the cruelty of meat eating is not invalid, products derived from plant sources rich in protein and easily digestible would obviously be the answer to eating meat eliminating the suffering of the animals we exploit.
Elenkhos 10 months ago
Do you sell Mogais? All the clutter makes it seem like you might have one stowed somewhere.
eksyte 10 months ago
unblock me
Barklord 10 months ago
hypocrites!
merjemke 10 months ago
2:00 - 3:00 and not two shits were givin.....
ipwnm00bs 10 months ago
People will go to extreme lengths to justify their love for Macdonalds
FiendCandy 10 months ago
I watched the whole video. Question, Most of the vegans that I know adhere to a plant material and lower diet. You mentioned eating as many animals "low" on the evolutionary tree like jellyfish as you want. People actually do eat jellyfish, as well as molluscs, crustaceans, insects, etc. At what point would you approximate that "sentient" animal life begins? Fish? amphibians? all vertebrates?
TheDude0fLife 10 months ago
@TheDude0fLife Any animal that has neurological chemicals and nervous systems that allow it to be capable of feeling pain. Animals without that are by definition not sentient. It's not actually hard to work out, scientists know which animals can feel pain and which animals can't- so we know what are sentient and what are not.
hippydude89 10 months ago
@hippydude89 I don't intend to answer for Gary, but he does eat fish on occasion. Technically that makes him a pescatarian. He does not eat any other types of meat though.
TheRecoveringZombie 10 months ago
@hippydude89 I realize that this is a loaded question, kinda like the abortion issue, but even if a rudimentary nervous system is the arbitrary "goalpost", then that would pretty much rule out all animals, even jellyfish.
TheDude0fLife 10 months ago
@TheDude0fLife Scyphozoan jellyfish have no brain or nervous system. We could eat them to some extent. They're basically just animated plants.
IdaMiaDot 10 months ago
@TheDude0fLife If it can suffer it is off the menu for me.
This is really a matter of whether something is philosophically right......
Not actual "political implementation"
The philosophical issue is where we draw the line and i say suffering is where, not which animals can suffer, but I'd say most jellyfish do not have have capability to feel pain. Then again I am hardly a scientist in this field.
hippydude89 10 months ago
I disagree with almost everything you said. It's even hard to begin an argument with an hour long video, when there's so many objection points...
mjanowski 10 months ago