Where Feminism, Atheism, and Animal Rights Intersect

[TheJesussmasher]

Fag

[cleom44]

YES!!! To all of that! 

[welovenatnalex]

lol I love your accidental rhyming words of wisdom

[oywidapoodles]

For some reason the setting and angle of this video made me feel like I was on a date. A very good date.

I think if more people thought about the suffering they usually ignore for just a few minutes a day, maybe a little meditation on it, the world would absolutely be better. But denial is a powerful thing.

[LLLeeeeeeeee]

So are you going to be President? because I really think you should be.

[RitchandFamous]

@LLLeeeeeeeee OK, can you help me with that? I don't know how to do stuff that isn't vlogging.

[LLLeeeeeeeee]

@RitchandFamous Sure why not? I'll create the cleverest propaganda evar! :D by the way do you like Zinnia Jones or Laci Green? 

[RitchandFamous]

@LLLeeeeeeeee I have no idea who those people are.

[LLLeeeeeeeee]

@RitchandFamous Oh, well they do vlogs on youtube as well and they are wonderful~ I think you would like them :}

[RitchandFamous]

@RitchandFamous Oh cool, I'll subscribe. Thanks, boo!

[luvtheheaven5]

@LLLeeeeeeeee Yay I already knew and loved both of them haha. :P

Ritch you rock. I'm not a vegetarian/vegan but I do agree that it's not fair to abuse animals in factory farms. I'm not sure what the best solution is. I can't give up eating tons of milk/cheese/butter/eggs.. nor seafood especially. I love these foods too much. Also me stopping eating all animals won't change the fact that most people still are... so. I'm stuck.

P.S. Yay I'm so glad you're an atheist too. :D

[Spill27]

@thepotatovagina Also, it is certainly not "healthy" to possess the amount of anger you appear to be harboring. Love is a natural healthy emotion, it is hate that is taught.

In addition, I find it ridiculous that you use teenage girl as an insult, as if grown men cannot possess emotions and teenage girls cannot speak intelligently.

[Spill27]

@thepotatovagina It is almost impossible for me to fathom how someone could have the mindset you appear to have. The scientific studies you speak of were bigoted and their "findings" are complete generalizations based on race, gender, and sexual orientation (and most were "blatant lies"). It is ridiculous to claim that a highly educated African American male will have a lower IQ than a Caucasian high school drop out just because one is of a different color than the other.

[Bookcat16]

I wish there were more people like you in the world. I'm an Agnostic, which means I don't know what's out there. There could be a heaven, there could not, there could be gods, they could not be, there could be a hell, there could not be, who knows? Have you ever died before? I haven't, I doubt you have. Some people claim that they have died, and that they've spoke to God, but those people must have been dropped on their heads as babies.

I love animals, more than most humans actually.

[KaelaMackenzie]

You're awesome. I'm a liberal atheist and feminist, but I haven't really gotten into vegetarianism. I know it's silly, but it would just be so hard. I have an insanely busy life, I'm terrible at cooking, and I don't really like vegetables. But maybe I need to suck it up and be morally consistent. Crossrooaaaads.

[thepotatovagina]

Science has shown that blacks have lower IQs than whites and that women have slighter lower IQs than men. But it isn't rare for people with your political beliefs to blatantly lie.

Natural, healthy people don't sit around convincing themselves they love every organism that pisses and shits. Life is competition, not wallowing in a touchy-feely, sentimental haze with an idiot's grin plastered on your face.

It's sad that your parents have a grown man who is basically a teenage girl.

[LLLeeeeeeeee]

@thepotatovagina you are such a sad pitiful creature, hopefully one day you open your mind to the obvious truths of this planet~

[thepotatovagina]

@LLLeeeeeeeee

ooooohhh, please tell me these obvious truths!

[LLLeeeeeeeee]

@thepotatovagina oh and also try reading The Ethical Slut~ it's fucking incredible, groundbreaking really <3

[theyforcedmetosignup]

"Now a days were sure everyone has brains...

Unless you're from west Texas"

I love you!

[LLLeeeeeeeee]

<3 <3 <3 your vids are the best!

[Spill27]

The Bible insists that a woman should be forced to marry her rapist... that makes sense.

Also, I think you're brilliant. You're feminism videos always cheer me up.

[SickMouth]

Love it. :P And as a native of Texas, I can say that rural Texas is definitely almost completely devoid of brains.

[TheKeeper421]

Atheists have no reason for bashing religious people for having no evidence of their truth. It's a shame that scientific theories are taught in schools as if they are laws and are accepted by the masses as if they are laws. Faith is faith, whether it be in the origin of the universe by natural or supernatural means. Religion takes pride in faith in the supernatural, science takes pride in logic.

[TheKeeper421]

@TheKeeper421 Though it is arguable that religion's view of the origin of the universe is more logical. The most common scientific view is that materials came from nowhere to create the big bang, yet there is no logical evidence of this. Besides, that theory defies the laws of conservation science takes pride in. Religion's explanation is that a deity created the universe and is as old as time itself. Our lack of knowledge in the supernatural leaves this door much more open.

[RitchandFamous]

@TheKeeper421 There is plenty of evidence that the universe is expanding outwards and has been doing so for billions of years. There is evidence of this. We don't know exactly how it started, but no scientist believes that it literally came out of completely nowhere. Religion's explanation is vastly more complex. How can a God be less complex than an explosion?

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous The simple explanation is that the God is not less complex than an explosion. What seems more likely to you? A universe as complex, vast, and beautiful as ours was created by completely spontaneous, unintelligent chemical reactions from who knows where, with no help from a supernatural force or no direction/guide, or that an intelligent, complex force with a sense of direction created our universe?

[RitchandFamous]

@TheKeeper421 You're argument is rendered invalid by the fact that you are calling An intelligent, supernatural, complex force with a sense of direction NO MORE COMPLEX than an explosion!  If there is a being like this god you're talking about, they're more complex than everything ever, and their origins have to be more complex than the creation of everything we've ever seen.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous Please tell me, where did I say that? I recall saying the exact opposite. All I'm saying is that a being with a sense of direction would have a much better chance of creating what we see today than lots of random chemicals reacting together that have no origin.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous The evidence of that is nowhere near conclusive enough to make it the accepted law. Before making a timeline, it's important to know where the starting point is. Science has no explanation whatsoever that makes sense for that starting point. Religion does. Sure, it takes a lot of faith to believe the religious point. But it takes even more faith to believe a point that has no foundation in natural or supernatural means.

[RitchandFamous]

@TheKeeper421 Science has a pretty good idea of a starting point. That doesn't make it any less valid than a detective coming to a crime scene and only having a pretty good idea of where the crime started. We may never know. That doesn't mean we don't have very very very convincing evidence.

Just because religion has an explanation doesn't make it worth considering. Hold on, I'm going to come up with an explanation now:

"The world was created by fish."

There. Just as valid as relgion.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous It's very much less valid. Everything that happens has a cause. If a detective arrives on a crime scene, he knows that every condition has a cause. Science's explanation of the original material necessary to create the big bang has no cause present. Very convincing evidence can still be flawed, especially when created by flawed beings.

[RitchandFamous]

@TheKeeper421 Actually, I think you're under the misconception that the "theory" in "theory of evolution" means the same thing as kind of a hypothesis. A "scientific theory" is essentially considered to be as factual as is relevant to the physical universe. "Theory" here is the same as the "theory of gravity". So evolution has the same scientific validity as gravity.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous Evolution has gaping holes in its validity though, and many other more reasonable explanations. No noticeable and recorded instances of evolution have ever been witnessed by humans. Adaptation, certainly, but not macro or micro-evolution. Evolution also clashes with the widely accepted racial equality. The full name of Darwin's On the Origin of Species includes a part of the title very often dropped: "In the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

[RitchandFamous]

@TheKeeper421 ....no, I think you're confused. The fact that all the "races" of humanity exist right now means that they were ALL favoured in the struggle for life. The favoured races are the ones which don't die out.

There aren't gaping holes in the validity of evolution. There are gaps in the fossil record, but...of course there are! We're talking about billions of years! Fossils only occur under specific conditions. We're lucky to have anything.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous While the title could also be interpreted that way, Darwin makes references to racial similarities throughout the work. Darwin, as well as other prominent believers in evolution referred to Australoids as "missing links" between man and ape. Also, are you sure that it really has been billions of years? When Mt. St. Helens erupted, it created many layers of sediment 30 feet thick in about 3 hours.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous As for fossilization, given the right conditions of temperature, pressure, etc. fossilization can be very, very varied in speed. There is a fossilized pickle created no earlier than 1930 that was found in a jar. A refinery in Texas has been reported on that can turn dead turkies into oil in a few hours. Varying amounts of heat and pressure rapidly speed up or slow down many processes.

[RitchandFamous]

@TheKeeper421 You're missing the point about fossilization. Not every place on planet earth for all of time was under the same conditions as a pickle jar. You seem to be criticizing the lack of fossils for every life form that has ever existed based on the very unusual phenomenon of a pickle jar.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous Now, Darwin's evolutionary theory is widely accepted as the foundation, if not truth of evolution in the world of science. He stresses the similarity of humans to apes and gives them levels of distance from apes. Australoid being the most similar, followed by Negroid, then Mongoloid, and then Caucasoid. Seeing as people are taught all races are scientifically equal(increasingly this is found true), this contradicts the uncensored evolutionary theory. Both cannot be true.

[RitchandFamous]

@TheKeeper421 Darwin didn't fully understand where different ethnic groups split from one another. But again, you're missing the point. There are no "less evolved" animals. Every animal has evolved for particular means of survival. No matter that one "race" is closer related to another "race", that doesn't separate them from a species. A species is defined as a life form that can reproduce with another life form and have fertile offspring. All human "races" can do that.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous I really don't think I'm missing the point. The point here is, Darwin's theory is accepted as the standard now when even you just admitted that he was taking guesses, just as all evolutionists do. Science itself is proving Darwin incorrect. The races are all adaptations, when Darwin was using them as justification of evolutionary progress. There is more proof of simple adaptation than evolution. Evolution is not flawless enough to be taught as law.

[RitchandFamous]

@TheKeeper421 No, no, no, no. I'm not saying he was taking guesses. I'm going to send you a personal message. Hold up.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous As for the fish comment, I can simply say this for the scientific explanation: The big bang was created by fish with chemicals. Comparing the supernatural to our plane of existence in that way is taking a guess in its own way. Science has no more proof of how the original materials necessary to create the big bang were created. Religion simply says God is the beginning of time and therefore everything that happened after was because of Him.

[RitchandFamous]

@TheKeeper421 Haha, dude listen to yourself! HOW IS THAT SIMPLE! God is everything? That isn't a simple idea. That isn't simple at all. That's the most complex concept ever.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous For such a chilled out person in this video, you really seem to be freaking out now. You should really listen to yourself. Why are you criticizing me for saying the religious view is complex? I did say simply, but that's because I summarized it for you. As I've argued in the past comments I've made, the religious God is intelligent and complex. It would take something that complex to make something like our universe, not fish or chemicals.

[TheKeeper421]

@RitchandFamous I really do enjoy seeing the high and mighty, all knowing and all science trusting atheist resort to petty insults and word twisting. It makes them look like the religious people they criticize for the same thing. Just save yourself a headache and admit that you don't know 100% for sure that no supernatural forces exist.

[RitchandFamous]

@TheKeeper421 Sorry, hon, I think tone is easily lost in youtube comments. I'm not freaking out. But I think you're just regurgitating inaccurate information without any genuine understanding of science. I'm really not trying to be offensive. Its just clear you don't understand the theories we're discussing.

[miamazing]

I love your videos because you challenge my beliefs and opinions, and I believe that makes me a better person. You are so eloquent and reasonable in your arguments. Very good videos!

[DinaCruickshank]

I like the points that you bring up! How 'animal rights' isn't a black-and-white subject.. It has many overlapping grey areas. I think it would be difficult for one to genuinely back-up animal rights, ethical treatment, or believe in the science of the animal mind.. If there was religion involved. There isn't room for the belief in creationism and a belief that pigs are almost equivalent to a human child (on a cognitive level).. Ignorance makes me sad.

Thank you for making this video :)

[Skylara]

"I think religion has done nothing but give us excuses for thousands of years to do mean things to people..."

FINALLY someone said it. So true.

[element5333]

First off: what kind of drugs are you on? Seriously? You look like a crazy drugee. For real.

oh and um, didn't the guy RAPE her?

How is that justifiable?

and you're a... feminist? wtf......

[RitchandFamous]

@element5333 What are you talking about? Who raped who?

[GroundZeroHiroshima]

@element5333 Most Americans don’t care about many innocents being killed by Neo-COINTELPRO while protesting mistreatment of race horses today.

Americans do care about animal rights. Is that why they use human lives for the development of mass mind control techs?

Americans learned to protect animal rights; they should be able to learn human rights, too. Let’s teach human rights to Americans. Yes, We Can!

[GroundZeroHiroshima]

@element5333 In 1970's Americans initiated anti-whaling while bombing N.Vietnam. It was OK to kill Yellow human but NOT OK to kill whales.

[caitieeeeee]

"Fearing God or loving God is not necessary for loving other people or animals."

<3

[CavePeezy2]

Science is not the study of everything that exists... it is the study of knowledge... and we as humans don't know that much as of right now (compared to the size of our massive universe). [I am not a creationist, I believe science and religion can work hand in hand.] How can you say that science dictates that the clock was made by someone, however you deny that there is a creator of the universe (even though there is a design to it)

[RitchandFamous]

@CavePeezy2 Science is the study of everything to OBTAIN knowledge. Knowledge doesn't just come out of no where. We have to study how things work (the universe) to obtain the knowledge. That's what science is.

You're right, we know little. But we know enough to know that if there's a clock on a wall, it was, beyond a reasonable doubt, made by a human.

There's no evidence, thus far, to believe that a creator was NEEDED for the universe. However, it is clear that a clock has been constructed.

[CavePeezy2]

@RitchandFamous You are essentially saying that the clock was made by nobody then. You cannot say that the clock was made by a human, then turn around and say the universe was made by no one... I mean, do you not think that you contradicted yourself there?

[RitchandFamous]

@CavePeezy2 There are things in the world that even people like yourself don't think god built. Like the grand canyon. There's clear evidence as to how the grand canyon was formed. It didn't need a self-aware being to create it.

However clocks very clearly need to be built by a person(s) knowledgeable enough to construct it.

The universe, as far as we can tell, is like the grand canyon. Maybe there is something like a "god". But theres no evidence yet. And if there is...who created God?

[CavePeezy2]

@RitchandFamous If God existed, by definition, he would have no creator... otherwise he would be subjected to other things in existence.

God might not have directly created the Grand Canyon, but he created the means of its formation (water, time, ect.).

I would argue that the universe would need to be built by an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being that is God.

[RitchandFamous]

@CavePeezy2

I don't understand how you can say that something as infinitely complex as an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being could not have a creator, and yet the universe (which is just a big old grand canyon-like mess) would HAVE to have a creator.

[CavePeezy2]

@RitchandFamous because it isn't that an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being DOESN'T have a creator, it is because an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being COULDN'T have a creator. Otherwise HIS creator would be the previously stated things. Does that make sense? The universe obviously exists in a manner that is both ordered and designed... down to the last molecule.

And if God existed, he would have the capabilities and means to create a complex thing like the universe.

[RitchandFamous]

@CavePeezy2

We have a good idea of how the universe started, and there doesn't seem to be any implication that a designer was involved. That is fact.

So where did you collect and study the evidence to prove that there is an omnipotent omniscient being that definitely exists, and created the universe without leaving a trace of evidence behind?

How did you study god to discover it is omnipotent, omniscient, AND omnipresent? Do you only know it doesn't have a parent because...it told you?

[CavePeezy2]

@RitchandFamous A good idea isn't a fact, it is a theory. And God could have easily provided the means of the Big Bang.

Divine Revelation, and Logic give me my conclusions... If we had tangible proof of his existence, you and most others would probably believe, am I right? An omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being would have the means of eradicating any concrete evidence of his presence right? If God didn't have those characteristics then He wouldn't be God.

[RitchandFamous]

@CavePeezy2

Yes, I would believe if there were tangible proof. Which would make god a definitive part of our scientific understanding. So you know because of the....divine...revelation...

You know because...someone told you...who can't prove it...

...and you can't prove it...

...but it exists...

...even though other religions say the same thing...

...gravity is also a theory, do you reject that theory?

...if god didn't provide the big bang, it wouldn't make any difference.

[CavePeezy2]

Using your logic, cats and dogs are essentially slaves to humans, yes? What distinguishes humans from animals is that humans have self-awareness and souls. If cows and pigs were self aware, they would have already had an uprising... They would realize that they were raised to die. Animal rights is a joke. We'd stop a lion from killing a baby, right? But what your suggesting is that we would have to kill the lion if it attempted to kill a deer, or a shark trying to kill a fish. We'd have to be a

[RitchandFamous]

@CavePeezy2

a) by "logic" you mean "reasoning". And no, I don't think my reasoning suggests that.

b) research "self-awareness". There's evidence several non-human species have self-awareness. We can't be certain that many don't.

c) there's no scientific basis for a "soul"

[CavePeezy2]

@RitchandFamous Animals are like biological computers. Sure, you can add 'programs' to change some of the behaviors of the animal (teach it tricks, fetch, ect.), however, the animal will always do what it is in its nature (they do as they are told). Humans are the only species that can go against their own natural boundaries (men wanting to be treated as babies, men tatooing themselves to 'become' a lizard) There is no scientic basis for a soul because you cannot observe the supernatural

[CavePeezy2]

@RitchandFamous If there is a God (which i believe there is) you couldn't try to use science to explain Him, seeing as he created the means by which we would try to explain him. Think of it as a painting: you can look for hours within the painting and you would still never find the tangible painter.

Another example: Say there is a clock on my wall.. Science could tell you what the clock looks like, how it works, ect. but You would still know nothing of the maker, what he/she is like, and so on

[RitchandFamous]

@CavePeezy2

You need to talk to a professional biologist. You clearly have no understanding of animal or human behavior.

Science is the study of everything that exists. Science dictates that a person made the clock in the first place. Next comes more detective work, which uses physics, biology and various other means (which are real, not supernatural) to find out who made the clock. There's nothing supernatural that can separate us from the clock maker.

[LokcedUot]

@TheGesamtkunstwerk I know she can. She can remember lots of things, and want things, and intend things and feel things. I was making a different point. The point that leads to the idea that we could ever morally torture babies. And things without memory, for that matter.

[tvanymesic]

elsewhere, elsewhere, but why should we? Let's say you had some magical power and you could talk to a wolf. They're smarter than dogs, so by your logic they should count as being at the very least semi-sentient. If you could tell the wolf that killing other animals is wrong and they should really just eat tofu/rice/beans/etc for protein, would you? More importantly, do you have the right to force them to not kill?

[RitchandFamous]

@tvanymesic So....if wolves could understand the abstract concept of a moral compass, essentially putting them on the same level as humans (at least human infants), and could eat omnivorously, again putting them on the same level as humans...why does talking about wolves make them any different from talking about humans? I feel like you've basically said "what if a human was short and hairy; would you expect it to have morals?"

[tvanymesic]

I'm curious as to whether your ideas on animal rights are for inhumane practices (such as factory farming, as you stated) or taking the life of another creature in general? I definitely with you on the inhumanity of some machines and techniques...its despicable what big business has done to farming and ranching. However, I feel like along the whole science route, you have to acknowledge the fact that in the case of humans, we are a top predator. Do we have to be? no, we can get nutrition...

[RitchandFamous]

@tvanymesic I think factory farming is worse than hunting, for sure. The taking of a life isn't the worst thing in the world to me. I think torture is worse. But usually murder involves a decent degree of suffering.

[tvanymesic]

@RitchandFamous You do drive a hard point with the wolf, in retrospect that was a horrible example. I tend to draw most of my philosophical ideas from a fusion of objectivism and hedonism. I like what you said about there being an invisible wall between humans and other species (that wall being largely comprised of the inability to communicate even simple ideas with most animals), but I think I need to reevaluate my point...because I know it is there, I just am shitty at expressing myself, lol

[RitchandFamous]

@tvanymesic

re: "we can get nutrition elsewhere, elsewhere, but why should we?"

Because, I think, compassion is a more important attribute than ambivalence in the pursuit of happiness. I think ambivalence toward speciesist discrimination encourages unscientific discrimination elsewhere in life. Why aren't you asking why we're kind to anyone at all? Americans are top of the financial chain. Why should we care about starving children in the third world?

[tvanymesic]

@RitchandFamous Perhaps I am just an unfeeling ass? I mean, I grew up on a ranch, thus I have personally raised sheep and steers, cared for them, made sure they were healthy and that they were, to the best of my knowledge, generally happy. And then when the time came, I helped to slaughter them, make the necessary cuts of meat and remove the waste and then refrigerate it all and eventually eat it. As such, I can see no true moral issue with it, and I feel there is no real "absolute" right and

[tvanymesic]

@RitchandFamous ...and wrong. I can really only trust what I have seen and experienced to be my personal truth...if that doesn't necessarily align with someone elses, then I can see that issue, but I can also see that we need to live in harmony with each other, as neither of us have the right to say, "what you are doing is wrong!" because neither of us can objectively know that.

[RitchandFamous]

@tvanymesic I definitely agree, there is no absolute right and wrong. But there are absolute truths. Then there are moral standards which are extremely relative and subjective. Your moral standards for yourself are your own. And I won't really ever say "what you're doing is wrong", but I will probably say, "what you're doing is fucked up!"

[tvanymesic]

@RitchandFamous Well, I agree that you have every right to tell me as such. But I'm confused, how can there be no absolute right and wrong, yet there can be absolute truths? What would be an example of a truth that is NOT socially, or subjectively, constructed?

[RitchandFamous]

@tvanymesic Evolution is an absolute truth. Homo sapiens' necessity of oxygen to breathe is an absolute truth. Many non-human animals' ability to feel pain is an absolute truth.

[tvanymesic]

@RitchandFamous Merf. I could be a douche and argue that ;) but I won't because then I'd be playing devil's advocate and arguing universalism vs relativism, the former being commonly supported by objectivists such as myself. I suppose I would have to hand it to you then...It's going to be hard going veggie again =[

[chenoamonster]

amazing :)

[LokcedUot]

@asporao By your logic, it would be okay to torture a baby human, because they can't remember the pain. Did you know that parrots are as smart as 5-year-old humans? That means until they're 5 years old (at which point they become "equal"), children are "less" than parrots. You would torture a parrot, but definitely not a 4-year-old child.

What makes the *recall* of an event more important than the *experience* of it?

Please answer more than one of my points, with more than one word.

[MrMuffStench]

When was the last time you showered? Your Filthy! Wash you clothes.

[LokcedUot]

Welp, you've got me convinced that my Italian greyhound is a better human being than you.

:)

[LokcedUot]

@asporao You *don't* believe I'm rude or 12 years old? Okay. Cool.

"humans are more important ." So, whether or not something has a right to itself is determined by the values it has to *others*? Because that's what importance is. Do homeless people have rights to happiness?

I'm still having trouble understanding you. Your illiteracy really is unforgivably terrible unless English really isn't your first language. My dog can't remember pain so it doesn't matter if I kick her?

[LokcedUot]

@asporao Lol I want to call you stupid but I'm not even entirely sure what you're saying. Could you please tell me what "self continuous" is?

Do you think people who believe in animal rights somehow think it's okay for human children to suffer? The point is that suffering is bad.

Please learn how to apply punctuation.

[timeslush]

I really can't believe it: you are doing what I wish I could, saying what I wish I could articulate, and so poignantly at that! Fantastic. I could go on for years, but will refrain. I think you're awesome, and so appreciate your frankness.

[philogos0]

It is very nice to see others that feel as I do on these issues. Sometimes I worry.

[ruolbu]

hahaha love it!

For the amazing train of thoughts, the brilliant connections and the staggering references to the doctor :3

*heart you*

[lissyruth13]

I was so glad to see your last video get so many views! You definitely have a knack for vlogging, and people need to hear these things!

Also, would it be weird if I added you on facebook? It's how I found your channel, and we have a lot of mutual friends...