I agree with the video but I'd like to know your thoughts on buying meat from agencies that treat and kill farm animals in a far more "humane" way (if you even view the term as applicable), like they do in Canada.
The term is applicable, sure. Just as I'd prefer to be surrounded by moderate theists rather than extremist ones, I'd by the same token prefer it if the people already addicted to meat purchased their meat exclusively from "moderately brutal" agencies rather than extremely brutal ones. The analogy remains however: There is no excuse for imposing your meat addiction/theism addiction, on to your child, regardless of whether you're a moderate or not.
@theantinatalist again you argue out of ignorance. Bigotry is defined as: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself... You can be a non meat eater all you want, but your intolerance of meat eaters is bigotry by the pure and accepted definition not some skewed version you cling to that supports your dogma. Again you make strawmen and next i will venture guess you would like claim hypocrisy. Do you wish to grant all that feel pain or pleasure the same status as humans?
@theantinatalist I have not called myself a vegan or vegetarian. "chickens... burned alive in boiling grease"? do they no remove the innards first? Again dogma requires ignorance which you just demonstrated. You tend to demonstrate it every time you use the word dogma. Lol, is the term,"speciesist" suppose to be an insult? Yes, i give humans special treatment. if you do not you are a very sick individual. Are you arguing that we should treat animals the same compassion as humans?
@theantinatalist your long term memory has a flaw, i stated from near beginning that I believe we should reduce our consumption of meat. It has been my view for years. Not because of some flawed argumentation you have presented but because in an ever increasing world population it would be prudent and most efficient to do so. You see dogma is the attachment to ideas with out understanding. We all have dogmas yet, i chose a way that helps me shed them. You chose a way to spreed them.
@theantinatalist in response to your statement (in a way i think you can understand) ,"you might want to expand your vocabulary. You use "dogma" A LOT.".. There is a lot of dogma out there what ever shall i do call it wisdom of poo, or the folly of you?
@theantinatalist Oh nooos !, you broke out the ginger argumentation. What ever shall i do? Are you really comparing eating a cow to eating red haired people too? You do realize how sick that is to do? Don't make me quote Dr Seuss in a Horton hears a who "a person's a person, no matter how small", or gingered, or mentally ill. It is a simple concept if you get it or not.. You see, person is a person an animal is not. For only animals, of the two, are the only ones fit for a pot.
@theantinatalist would you like to give an example of a clear argument he did make that was insightful to a counter argument that showed a true understanding of a differing opinion and then showed a flaw in the make up of the logic used? Or will you concede that he does what he does out of habit and that he does not think about opposing views but just dismisses them in the same habitual nonthinking way....dogmatic way.....his dogma
@theantinatalist for example when he list the arguments against this stance and dismisses them all st hypocritical or nonarguments. which starts at about 3:00iirc and can be found thew out this video between the name calling and other rantings.
@theantinatalist what part does your brain not grasp? First i will assume you know what dogma or dogmatic means no? If you look at the corpus of his argumentation you will find a common theme. You will find some one that is dismisses any opposing view as hypocritical or a non argument. You will not find some one that is trying to understand a different perspective and presenting faults of and apposing view. In effect you find some one trapped in a dogma dismissive isolationism.
@theantinatalist "his reoccurring theme of painting all views in opposition to his as hypocritical(thus invalid) or a non argument is the dogma of promoting ignorance to maintain a preconceived opinion." Was that too complex for you to understand? Should i break it down for you in to tiny rubberized spoon full bits? *make an airplane sound* open up little Johny here comes the little logic's., is this what is needed?
@theantinatalist ooh, you stopped the dodges and insults and are actually addressing a point. I will take that as concessions to my previous statements. An that you think you found something you can win. You see win or lose and argument i still win for i am here to gain wisdom While his reoccurring theme of painting all views in opposition to his as hypocritical(thus invalid) or a non argument is the dogma of promoting ignorance to maintain a preconceived opinion.
@theantinatalist if you are or not is pointless. You responded you my criticisms of his argumentations. Or is your memory too short to remember that? Here i will quote you, "Firstly, humans ARE animals. You are either too ignorant to acknowledge(corrected sp.) this fact or you simply refuse to do so in your language because you are uncomfortable with what you are." That quote in NUTshell exemplifies the type of dogma and programed unthinking knee-jerk response this type of video promotes.
@theantinatalist lol, I will accept that you concede to my last post. For the only response you could muster was an insult and not even one that you could tie into what was stated. My point is this video author is doing nothing but preaching to an audience, he is just sputtering dogma and is not attacking the darkness in the subject matter with an enlightened approach. His argumentation, to some one that seeks enlightenment, has the smell of a false flag attempt at divisive(ism).
@theantinatalist Preaching to the convinced does nothing but create dogma. Dogma perpetuates action in ignorance. This is not enlighten, in fact it is the opposite. Do you want enlighten argumentation on your side or dogma? Do you want wisdom or faith?
@theantinatalist btw, of the thousands of comments i have made on youtude and the countless comments i have made that can be taken as ad mominem attack only a couple where not based on what the person said or wrote. Attacks on a persons ideas or words are common for me, how ever attacks of the person them selves are very very rare thing for me to do. You are not your ideas no? You do know what an admimem attack is no? I await a non moronic reply. Is this post an ad hominem attack also?
@theantinatalist are you saying that to have a minority opinion is a personal fault pr logical error that opens one up to ad hominem attacks? Most people do eat meat, most people do think diet is a personal choice that is truth. All this video has does is further divide those that hold his believes from those that do not. It has done nothing to convince those that disagree with his view into understanding a truth. The truth is eating as much meat as society does is inefficient.
@theantinatalist ok, I will assume you do understand subsets, that you are not a moron, but that your ego will not let you admit you made a mistake. It is ok, humans do that. Why do you not argue that all cats should not eat meat also? Why do use the argument hat humans are animals as part of one argumentation but refuse to acknowledge humans are animals in others?
@theantinatalist Normality has nothing to do with the truth. So, one you realize that and realize your are in the minority when arguing the reduction in meat consumption, you need to not preach and make proclamations like you are talking to a congregation but make logical arguments to prove your point.
You do understand the concept of subsets no? i see you did signed your post as "Moron" so maybe you do not. Mind if i call you by you self proclaimed name, Moron? So, Moron, i will try to explain this to you in a simple way. All terriers are dogs, but not all dogs are terriers get it, Moron? All humans are animals but not all animals are humans, you understand now, Moron?
@theantinatalist First of all there are humans(animals) and the other animals. Just like there are birds and nonbirds. Anything else is a straw man argument. So i will ignore that moronic accusation. You ASSume my position on this topic for i think we should greatly reduce our consumption of meat. However his obviously bias arrogant arguments do not help this cause. Human are more important then the other animals to normal rational people and retards are people.
Cannibalism is natural...but it's not moral...again because it doesn't serve mankind...the same as religion doesn't serve mankind...the same as vegetarianism doesn't serve mankind.
The argument for meateating is not intelligence. It's evolution. We are social mammals. We have developed empathy because we need it to survive. We don't need to have empathy towards other species. That serves no purpose. Do you expect other species to have empathy towards you? If you are a vegetarian for moral reasons, then I would say that your morality is perverted. I am true to my own species, not any other. Religion is bad because it has negative consequences for humanity. That's it.
The religion analogy is meant to illustrate the fallacy of the appeal to the taboo. That's it.
You're taking your intellectual marching orders from a DNA molecule's tunnel vision's agenda of aimless, senseless consumption & reproduction, for no ultimate gain or purpose. You can do better.
I urge you to read my replies to some of the comments below, or you can wait for my blog on this, where I will refute, in great detail, more comments espousing rationalizations similar to yours.
Thank you four anwering my comments. The fact that I am taking my intellectual marching orders from a DNA molecules's tunnel vision's agenda of "aimless, sensless consumption and reproduction" for no ultimate gain or purpose" is fine by me...it's okay if you wanna go against nature...I don't...maybe I can do better...but I really don't wanna do better.
"it's okay if you wanna go against nature...I don't"
But you do go against nature, every time you use a condom/contraception, every time you pay your taxes for a service you don't directly benefit from, every time you violate a survival of the fittest approach to your day to day routine, you go against nature. Civilization is itself a compromise against our nature. It's silly to draw an arbitrary line at humans, just as silly as drawing arbitrary lines with race/gender. It's all about sentience
This was a fail on my part. My argument isn't really that it's unnatural. Which I also think I made apparent in my second comment. Anyway, I don't think drawing the line at humans is arbitrary. Human morality should be about what's good for humans. We have a personal interest in caring for eachother. Just like any other social species. Again you wouldn't expect any other species to care for your well being (except perhaps domesticated dogs), so why care for theirs?
"Human morality should be about what's good for humans"
Speciesism is no different than any other breed of ism bigotry. It's not about "human morality". Morality is a word drenched in religious dogma, so stick with "ethics". Just as "with great power comes great responsibility" so does with intelligence. Appeals such as "you wouldn't expect any other species to care for your well being" can be used to justify any bigotry: "You wouldn't expect them sand monkeys to blah blah blah... so nuke'em".
I don't think what I'm advocating here can be categorized as bigotry. I don't eat animals because I have animosity towards them. Would you accuse a lion of being a bigot because it eats gazelles?
"I don't eat animals because I have animosity towards them"
You do realize that plenty of slave owners got along with their slaves. There was no animosity, as the slaves were born into it. So this justifies slavery then?
"Would you accuse a lion of being a bigot because it eats gazelles?"
Would you accuse a mentally handicapped white guy of being a bigot for hearing the word nigger on TV & then shouting it in the face of black people, like he saw on the telly? You can't be serious with this.
"We have a personal interest in caring for eachother"
If we allowed rights & wrongs to be dictated by our narrow, subjective personal interests stemming from emotion, while avoiding principles, we'd never have civilization. The only rational goal post is sentience. I don't "care" about most living creatures on this planet, humans & animals alike, I merely recognize their capacity to suffer, & based on mountains of evidence we know suffering to be a minus regardless of who's experiencing it.
I'm not arguing from emotion, I'm arguing from considerations of utility. Yes, civilization is based on human cooperation, not egotism. I still don't see a need for animal rights. Where would science be without animal experiments? If we don't acknowledge the rights of animals, does that mean we're avoiding principles altogether? If you could refer me to the "mountain of evidence" of which you speak, that would be great.
The moment you use the word care, instead of the word recognize, you shift the goal-post to emotion. We've been over this, don't make it circular.
The principle espoused in the video barricades subjecting animals to unnecessary suffering for the sake of a food indulgence. Animal testing analogies fail when such testing serves a utilitarian function, thus reducing net suffering. When it doesn't, it is indeed unethical.
I don't regard the the principle espoused in the video to be very logical. That because we are animals, therefore we have to empathize with other species. I would refer to the lion again, but I guess that's not gonna fly. At least we seem to be able to agree on a principle of utilitarianism. With other people there's at least the possibility of reciprocal altruism. With animals there mostly isn't. So what's the point of applying the golden rule to them?
"With animals there mostly isn't. So what's the point of applying the golden rule to them?"
I keep explaining why. It's not about who or what suffers. If we gave all the world's suffering to Adolf Hitler, it would still be suffering. I'll go back to the example of the retard: Would you justify harming a mentally handicapped human, on account of him harming someone else as he's incapable of grasping how it's wrong? If it's a-ok to do so for animals, why not the retard? A Neanderthal maybe? Yes?
@AntiBullshitMan It sure does seem like you are implying a retard is the gray are between humans and animals. That being smarter is some how more human. You you realize how arrogant this looks? A retard is still a person no? There is a line that demarks what is human and what is not human no? You do understand retards are people too, no? Your unwillingness to admit that retards are people is a like Hitler's stance on Jews. For shame on you.
"If you could refer me to the "mountain of evidence""
Wait, you're asking for evidence of how creatures that happened to have evolved differently than humans - all of which you already know have a nervous system - feel pain. Just confirm with me that this is in fact what you're doubting, because right now you give off the impression that you're willing to doubt just about anything as long as the doubt jives with what you're trying to rationalize here.
No the proof I was talking about was in regards to "we know suffering to be a minus regardless of who's experiencing it." I don't see the animals suffering as a minus to me. I recognize their capacity for pain. Don't need any proof of that.
"I don't see the animals suffering as a minus to me"
When engaging in philosophical conversation, or just about any subject I bring up in my videos, you have to step outside your bubble & take into account that you're not the centre of the universe. All suffering isn't a minus to me either, on an emotional level. It's a minus because you know you wouldn't want to experience what the sufferer experiences. Suffering is the minus, not "which particular conscious creature happens to experience it".
Or you can just admit that you're unwilling to look past your narrow, selfish perspective & confirm to me that I'm wasting my time trying to get you to do that... since you'll always just come back with "but I don't feel like I have to care" or some other infantile, lazy bullshit. It's not a complicated argument, the rationalizations you're applying here reek of the very same kind of conventionalist reassurance as did the case for slavery, concentration camps or any other cause of suffering.
A nervous system is what enables highly complex lifeforms to feel pain. This is why animals react to pain by displaying similar repulsion humans display when we are subjected to suffering.
It's bigotry because you rationalize a stamp of approval on their suffering simply because they're different/less intelligent. Sound familiar?
It seems that you're just whipping out fall back positions now. That hard to just admit that serving an unnecessary food indulgence is not worth the suffering caused?
"you rationalize a stamp of approval on their suffering simply because they're different/less intelligent."
Like I've said before, I'm operating from a principle of utility. The difference between humans and animals matters, because animals are not going to empathize with us the same way we empathize with them. With humans there's at least the possibility of reciprocity.
Is there any data for that? It can just as easily be said that, because we have developed empathy in order to survive, it therefore spills over to anything we humanize. It's why we feel disgusted when a dog gets run over in the street, and it's also why some people feel empathy towards objects, like a communion wafer or grandmother's ashes.
Without evidence either way, ad-hoc arguments from evolutionary psychology lead us nowhere.
I think it's quite obvious that our empathy, as you say, ”spills over” to other things. This is a case of evolution run haywire, and there are many cases of this to be found in nature, like when a moth flies into a fire because it's attracted by the light. Basing our morals on this "spillage", however, would not be rational. It would be the same if a moth tried to justify sucide just because it feels right to fly into the fire.
It would indeed be irrational to base our moral values solely on emotions our evolutionary heritage has instilled in us, but that's not an argument anyone is making. If you want to hear a different take on the points @AntiBullshitMan is raising, I highly recommend watching the interview with Peter Singer in "The Genius of Charles Darwin" (it's on YouTube).
Okay, so I've watched the interview: I agree that I am just another animal, but that doesn't mean that the golden rule has interspecies application. I think that human suffering should be more important to us than that of other species. Any other species will distinguish between itself and us, so why should we not be allowed to make that same distinction? I think it's taking our rebellion against the selfish gene too far. It doesn't serve a purpose.
I apologize for coming across as exhaustive on this point, but why do you feel that way? You've told me your opinion, but I want to know how you reached it. All you've given me so far is an arbitrary line between humans and non-human animals by saying it's simply self-evident that humans are more special. What makes your argument different from, for example, a white supremacist who feels that black suffering should not be regarded as important?
Basically its an ethical discussion, and ethics (and the resulting moral) is not universal or generic .... there is no such thing as a self-evident ethical issue.
I agree that it certainly shouldn't be a tabu issue, no topic should be really.
Where i disagree with your video is your pushing the ethical discussion as *being* self-evident, and if someone disagree with your moralistic view then you must be in the wrong. Specifically in the "pushing on children" part.
@kimdpetersen Hvis der ikke findes nogen absolute sandheder, så er der jo i princippet heller ikke noget galt i, hvis jeg går ud og myrder en masse mennesker.
@heitzt I princippet ... Nej. Men du vil sandsynligvis få problemer med resten af samfundet du befinder dig i. Etik er regler for hvordan man opfører sig ... og disse varierer ganske meget. I nogle stamme-samfund har det været ganske moralsk og etisk korrekt at gå ud og myrde nabo-stammen's befolkning.
There is nothing wrong with eating animals or driving cars and flying planes. But there is a problem with the scale on which it is done, and the inhumane ways we go about it... There are to many people on the planet... We need to reduce the human race to about 100 million to 200 million people...
@masluxx I pulled it out of my ass really. perhaps it is much smaller... Humans have become an infestation, and needs to be reduced in size! By a lot! Like, somewere between 95&99%
@Godfred78 between 95 &99% , where did you get that percent? What is your rational? For i can not in any stretch of the imagination fathom why we would need to remove 95-99% of the population. Do explain? And if you can't then we can just toss your statement aside with the rest of the mindless drivel we come across daily.
@masluxx One does not need billions of people for humanity to be sustainable. As for the numbers? Estimate only. Forget about the exact number for a minute...
If we all want to eat meat, drive cars, fly planes, live in luxury, have a big house, a cabin by the sea, a cabin in the mountains etc. And still have a sustainable society that can last for eons, without fucking everything up for the "lesser" species on this planet, we need to drastically reduce our numbers... Key word: birth control! :)
@Godfred78 In my opinion the survivability of humanity is more important then the sustainability of keeping things they way they are. Things will need to change and that does not have to be scary. Your view seems to show a real fear of change and an anti social bent. Are you the male version of the crazy cat lady? I'm just sayin'. For their are other paths to take other then removal of 95% of humanity. Oh as for survivability of humanity; getting off this rock should be priority one.
@masluxx I totally agree! The space program is the most important thing we have! And if we are less people there would be enough resources for everyone, and therefor no need for war. We could finally get things done! Most people only eat, procreate and worship gods who are not there! By following this road the earth will be depleted before we get off this damn thing!
I also agree that this is anti social statements, but i have grown weary and tired... I have lost all fate in humanity!
@Godfred78 oh my. With out society we could not pool resources to tackle big things like a space program. For no one person nor family could ever invent/discover/build everything needed in a space program. Big projects require large co operative groups that work together in a frame work of rules. IE societies. Our current society is based on revving the people up to produce thew greed and consumerism and skimming a little cream off the top to do things like a space program. It is ineffecent
OMG we have to stop the madness i just saw some one eat a big baby breakfast. It consisted of 4 types of babies and one meal stolen from a baby. It had roasted baby wheat plants (flower bread toast), baby strawberries plants floating in a jar of preservatives(jam) , Baby chicken embryos (eggs) , baby corn plants cracked into little bits (grits), and milk( the meal originally intended for a baby cow). What about the children ? We have to stop this madness !
Nope what? When you comment on a 35 minute video, you have to preface your "nopes" by contextually quoting the speaker.
"Human to human interactions are completely different from human to animal interactions"
Any surface level difference you have in mind does not justify the mistreatment at hand. If you didn't mean to challenge the vegetarian position with this sentence, carry on.
In the last few years i actually noticed that more and more people around me eat fewer meat or are now vegetarians. I think it's videos like yours or discussion like your video that change the minds because there are no good arguments against that position. Also there are not only ethical arguments against meat eating, there are also economical/ecological arguments.
I'm a meat eater. I'm pretty much considered the chicken Pol Pot. It's wrong and immoral. The environment is a more compelling reason for vegetarianism, but all are good reasons.
Am I going to change? Maybe, but not today. I own my guilt. Unfortunately for the chicken population I eat my feelings.
What if I hunted all my meat? What if every shot I took was a clean kill? I dont want animals in cages. As a matter of fact I'd rather hunt my meat rather than buy it in a grocery store. I dont try to rationalize my meat eating on a rational level. I just like the taste of meat and feel I have an obligation to the ancestors to hunt and devour the flesh of stupider beasts. Meat is delicious. Is it immoral? Dont care.
@AntiBullshitMan Just two things, first: meat is delicious. Second: It is silly, but more productive, I think, than most other silly traditions you will find. Feeds the family. Keeps my legs moving. Keeps my eyes sharp.
Trust me, I know. I was conditioned into developing a taste for it. But that's all it is, conditioning. Don't impose it on the wee ones & they won't miss it.
"Feeds the family. Keeps my legs moving. Keeps my eyes sharp"
1 billion vegetarians have unfed families because they themselves don't consume meat? Their legs don't move? Their eyesight is dull?
Factory farming is actually very counterproductive, but I won't get into it since you seem to draw the line at hunting.
@AntiBullshitMan "Dont impose it on the wee ones and they wont miss it" My aunt was a huge vegan. She never allowed meat in the house. Her children all eat meat now. You might forget how good it smells and how it makes your mouth water. Its natural instinct. Its good to humans, natural.
I look At it This way, If someone Does not want to eat meat, Then they Do not have to, If someone does, As long as They do not Over do it, then that is their business as well
An oversimplification. If people don't "overdo it" you'll still have demand high enough to maintain the current industry. No different than telling Nazis not to "overdo" their concentration camps should they ever rise to power again.
Pain = Pain, regardless of whether it's happening to a human or an animal.
@AntiBullshitMan Well yes, But you Are Not gonna Stop these Meat eaters from Eating meat, So I was just suggesting moderation, It is A damn Shame what they do to animals at these slaughter houses, I was just Pointing out, Maybe People should cut back some, Because you Know, People are still gonna eat their meat, no matter What
I don't see the necessary correlation that you have to be a vegetarian to be against cruel animal suffering. Let the state regulate the slaughter house industry and make standards so it gives the animals a decent living condition and when they need to be killed make it as painless and fast as possible. That would completely eliminate the animal suffering. I just don't understand the argument/correlation you are trying to make against meat eaters.
Breeding them for the purpose of killing them, albeit more humanely, so to "completely eliminate the animal suffering" is not ethically sound either. It may be an improvement when compared to the natural habitat, it all depends on just how much breeding would be done under the industry's watch compared to nature's watch.
The correlation to meat-eaters is the product of the rigid offense some of them take at those who point out the fact that their indulgence drives demand, causing suffering.
@Lavitzzz Well I agree that if there was no suffering involved in the meat industry, I would probably be fine with eating meat. But that's not true right now, so I'm boycotting the inhumane meat industry by not eating their meat. And just saying that someone else should be regulating it doesn't mean it will ever get done. Being vegetarian is proactive; every time someone buys meat they support the institutions that hurt animals
Nice strawman of people who don't care about animal suffering, bro. Implying killing baby humans has no effect on society other than on the dead babies: definitely a good representation of my position... or not.
"Implying killing baby humans has no effect on society"
7 billion & counting. If anything, reducing the human population will bring about a positive result to society as a whole. One example is the negative effect overpopulation has had on cheap labor. But it's a non-sequitur anyway. You're ignoring the fact that I provided that example as a response to the "reacting to suffering/killing = emotional appeal" inconsistency. Kindly re-watch for proper context.
@AntiBullshitMan I'm talking about 29:20 to 30:50. You certainly SEEM to be implying that the only reason someone would care more about killing humans than about killing non-humans is for emotional reasons. If you were honestly just trying to address that one specific argument about emotional appeals, fine, but please be more clear from now on, as is seems like you are claiming that most dissenters use that argument as their justification.
@AntiBullshitMan As for how killing baby humans harms society: The main issue is related to the lack of security caused by people not thinking that they are protected by the law. If parents of young children have to protect their children or young children have to fear for their lives, it affects the way those people have to conduct themselves. They have less time to spend on luxury activities, which is the entire purpose of society: to stop having to fend for one's life.
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something. "
Next time you read the novel inform Roberts that selling solutions in the hopes of fixing the broken, instead of just romanticizing over the fact that things are broken, ain't a bad idea.
absolutism, like eating no meat what so ever? This is a moronic position, that is supposedly tied into an ethical position. What the video author fails to take in to account is he is also an animal. An omnivorous animal that by definition eats plants and animals. Will he next try to train the lions of the world to eat grass? Or the great baleen whales so some how filter out the plant plankton vs the animal plankton? Where will his lunacy stop?
@masluxx The point of vegetarianism is that we do not need to eat animals, so if there is no necessity to commodify and kill animals (a process which is inherently full of suffering) then we should avoid that situation. Your argument presupposes that this whole natural order of things is a smart system, which it clearly isn't. A planet full of sentient creatures addicted to eating each other clearly demonstrates nature's idiocy. We should rise above this idiocy.
@confused1028 You should be careful not to generalize vegetarianism. You do not speak for all vegetarians, and not all vegetarians have the same reasons as you do. Not all vegetarians care about animal suffering or think it's some "idiotic" evil. Just try to make an argument from your own thoughts.
@masluxx Where will it stop? That's debatable. But we do know that we can control our own actions at least. So it really comes down to walking by the deli and into the produce section. Not that hard.
@confused1028 why thank you, for it was a statement, it was concise it was non convoluted, and non confounding it was correct, it was everything this video was not. I am glad you agree.
@masluxx By the same standard, I could say: We should rape kindergarteners.
A concise, non convoluted, non confounding statement. Everything your previous statement was. Man, you suck so much. Learn how to argue before going on youtube.
@confused1028 I suck at arguing you say? Why, i must thank you. You seem to think winning an argument is what is important. While i think learning the truth and maybe helping other learns the truth also, is important. With this we both can win. For you can use your self made rules of engagement to pummel me to your perceived victory, while i will just state the truth. We have a short digestive track unlike herbivores. We are omnivores, we eat plants and animals.
@masluxx Well, yeah, arguing is one of the best ways to distill the truth. I wouldn't say I'm victorious, you just never put up much of an argument in the first place. All you did was make statements without anything to back it up.
I never said we weren't omnivorous. We can certainly eat both plants and animals. I'm saying we can live healthily with little or no meat. So we can reduce a lot of suffering by simply eliminating animal products from our consumption (food and other products)
@confused1028 We certainly should eat plants and animals for that is what we evolved to do. Yes, i am glad you agree we are omnivores, for arguing of that point would be the first sign that i am dealing with an irrational person that would not know reality if it slapped him in the face and called him stupid. It is good to see signs you are not like that. So, we are omnivores, yes? Again remind me, what did omnivores evolve to eat?
@masluxx You're missing the point. Of course we've eaten some meat in our evolutionary history. But we can get all of our essential nutrients from plants, who do not have the capacity to suffer. Our closest relatives are frugivorous (fruit predominates their diet, along with leaves and vegetables). They only go for small animals and insects in desperate situations. Their digestive systems are the most similar to ours. We can feed dogs, who are opportunistic omnivores, a vegetarian diet.
@confused1028 Have you ever had a pet? Did you have it very long did it get old and crippled? At some point did you "put it down" or did you let it suffer in agony? I would argue that, the suffering of old age is far far worse then an instant death. If you really want to eliminate all suffering you would slaughter all the old. Then why let it go to waste? The only convincing argument i have seen for vegetarianism is and argument of efficiency of resources.
@masluxx Then we shouldn't breed these animals into a shitty life to satisfy our needless addiction. I would certainly put an animal out of it's misery if it were suffering, but I would much rather avoid that instance of suffering by not breeding them into a miserable life.
@confused1028 Is it just the current production system and all the suffering it causes that you have a problem with? Or would you have a problem with a hunter also?
@masluxx The concept is pretty simple: avoid unnecessarily harming other sentient beings. Why would you hunt and kill a sentient being with a somewhat complex psychology when you can peel a banana or bake a potato?
@confused1028 wild animals suffer greatly when they get old and get taken down by wild predators, or starve to death (herbivores in the wild teeth get worn out and they will starve in time if no predators are around when they get weaken at the beginning of their starvation). Just like an old pet they suffer very much as they get older. The instant death a hunter offers is merciful in comparison. Predation reduces suffering in the wild.
@masluxx Well you have to consider the back side of that. Most herbivores travel in packs, or families. Killing one of them is like killing a mother in a family, which causes misery among the surviving. Also, the herbivore's teeth being worn down depends on the species and the type of plant being eaten mostly. Usually, herbivore teeth continually grow so they won't be worn down. But this is such a small part of the whole vegetarian thing. Most people farm their meat or get it from farmers.
@confused1028 You are anthropomorphizing these animals. They feel nothing but a strong feeling of "flight" once they have figured out what has happened. We are talking about animals that hunters hunt for food.....BTW.....These are primarily deer, elf, antelope, moose and boar iirc none of these have continuously growing teeth like rodents. (the boar tusks do continuously grow but not it's teeth).
@masluxx Oh come on. Anyone with a pet will tell you that it has deep emotions, and this kind of emotional behavior is well documented among plenty of animals. I would say that yes, if I saw an emaciated moose suffering in the woods, I would kill it as quickly and painlessly as possible. But are hunters actually going out and doing this? No, they're killing the biggest game they can to satisfy their ego trip, not relieve an animals suffering. Your argument is getting absolutely ridiculous.
@confused1028 once you killed the moose, would you let it go to waste or would you make good use of it? You are not correct, most serious hunters that have a connection to the land cull the herd. They pride them selves on having the biggest (which means healthiest) deer around. They kill the lame, the runts, the gimps, the ones with genetic problems or undesirable traits the ones suffering. Now those with no connection to the land might act as you stereotyped.
@confused1028 My argument is getting ridiculous? Like Cervidae having continuously growing teeth ridiculous? Or like serious hunters only killing the biggest, thus destroying their herds future viability kind of stereotype of ridiculousness? Oh, my, i think i get it, you are making funny funny at me no? haha i will add that the deluded cat lady down the street will also tell you her cats talk to her: She will swear that her brain has not anthropomorphised them at all they do talk.
yes, yes, so much discussion over what his point was. So, what was his point? Have we determined it yet? Could have i misunderstood? Could i have been wrong?
Excellent video RIGHTFULLY complaining about those that are dismissive. Excellent starting point of showing inconsistencies people hold. Ie. that they can hold a deontological position that humans have X rights and not other animals - and do so non-arbitrarily. Or that they can hold a consequentialist position about human suffering but not animal suffering.
Longest video you've ever done just to complain about essentially about those who are dismissive. Poor, I was hoping for some arguments about why 'elimination suffering' is the root of ehtical behaviour or such like. Perhaps contrasted with other attempts (briefly). This is where I like to oppose vegitarianism, though I do refer to their overly empathic rationalisations and inconsistencies too.
If everyone were a vegetarian half of the time, that would be the equivalent of half the population being a vegetarian. Less animals get killed and nobody has to stop eating meat completely.
Well, I made it quite a bit past the halfway mark, but just couldn't continue. I was really excited to hear what I finally thought would be some knock-out stuff that was addressing points I tend to raise, but you had basically made only one point so I stopped. I was vegetarian for 8 years before coming back. In general it is very unhealthy. Eating meat can be done responsibly. Lastly, vegetarians seem to take as an axiom that animals suffer. This has never ever been argued well by anyone.
all got to say is when I eat beef I am getting revenage on the cows that I work with. P.S. I work on dairy farm.
second If we removed the cages from chickens for example they peck each other to death in fighting, because they only can remember a few of there own kind for they start a fight they already won. One farm that really had large free chickens. They all killed each other. It happens with all these animals They Can Not Live With Out Us.
That's nonsense, I grew up in the countryside surrounded by small farms that had chickens and people didn't even think of caging them. There were no "chicken fights", chickens fight only when there's a great number of them all together in a small confinement and they literally need to step on each-other to be able to move.
I really don't care what other people eat, being vegetarian probably works for some people. However I see eating plants as on par with eating meat, they are both living breathing beings that feel, just becuase a plant dosen't have a mouth dosen't mean it dosen't feel pain. The arguments you make for not eating meat i can make for not eating plants, but I eat both so it dosen't matter. Humans are animals too. For example, yell and scream at a plant every day, it's proven it wont grow well.
Pain is not a feeling, is a sensation generated by the brain. If you can demonstrate how anything can feel pain without a brain / a nervous system I will maybe consider stop eating plants. Never mind the fact that plants NEED other creatures to eat them in order to be able to reproduce.
@ZOMGitsCriss Forget my argument it was stupid, i probably shouldn't have said anything considering I would never take sides on the issue in person to begin with. I like beef and oranges, so I'm for both. Unless the issue gets to the point where cheese production is affected negatively in some way I really just don't care. Thanks for setting me straight.
For being AntiBullshitMan you seem to be shoveling quite a bit of it in this video. Good for you being a Vegetarian. Basically I stopped watching half way through because it sounded like you are PETA wannabe. Bunch of Fing morons the whole lot of you. Animals are abused worst than in the food industry (science testing). Good thing too since without them medical science would really take forever.
But truly, it would be wonderful to be in a world were abusing animals and people and the planet was a thing of the past but we are not advanced enough to do that yet and it is because of people like you standing in the way because you think you know better when your full of shit. Everyone should follow stricter diets, I agree with you there and I am trying to get better with mine, but cutting out meat completely is a bad idea from a nutrition stand point.
Unless one is really good with planning meals and taking supplements, a Vegetarian is most likely to be deficient in protein and/or lipids. The healthiest eating one can have is a balanced diet (check the mypyramid.gov website)
Damn! you are making a moral stand against eating meat because of the abuse the animals receive and the cages they are put in? Without the demand for meat on the plate, many of the animals wouldn't even be alive... Not that I care one way or the other as I will continue to eat meat, but your moral high ground here is warped if it is for the animals.
Oh and I should add that Meat companies actually want the animals to be killed without abuse and pain because it actually makes the meat taste better. Turns out when animals are hurt and scared they drain the sugars and fats stores taking away taste, which is why most companies try to have the animals calm and healthy before slaughter. Unless of course you are eating Islam foods and Hebrew foods. They have to kill the meat in certain ways which are probably very painful ways to die.
I'm less than three minutes in and you're already telling me to go to cause based websites to see the most atrocious footage of slaughterhouses in existance.
I doubt you'd like to hear interviews from my friends who are in veterinary school who have spent time in average slaughterhouses. They actually felt better about eating meat afterward because the animals were NOT abused en masse like lots of sites would have you believe. It's easy to cherry pick the worst case scenerio. cont'd...
@sofiarune cont'd.... Room for improvement doesn't necessarily require throwing the whole thing out. Are some slaughterhouses awful? Sure they are! Is factory farming terrible? Definitely! Does this mean all meat products are evil and based on practices that totally neglect animal rights? Absolutely not.
If you want to make a real argument, ditch the ethics. You'd have an easier time discussing the environmental/economic cost of raising meat instead.
Pets are bred for mass consumption, many without the health checks and safe guards against cruelty that meat and dairy industry has. The truth of the pet industry is more analogous with the practice of criminals within Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei than with the meat industry. And yet you advocate pet keeping as a good thing for the animals. You say I am inconsistant and back tracking. I think you need a break.
Should we make all carnivores and other animals to stop eating other animal also. But, we are not animals you say? What are we plants or little godchildren? We are omnivores, that is what we do, we eat plants and animals. I have seen this video author right and wrong, but this is the first time i have seen him completely confounding and digressive. Maybe he is missing something from his diet that he needs to make his brain work properly. Might i suggest a big fat steak?
I would also like to point out that yes, saying "how dare you disrespect my position" Is a non-argument. But I really doubt in intellectual circles anybody would use that. The focus would be proving your position right.
The life of an animal that's been cultivated for our consumption is a short and miserable life, that can be considered torture. But to be honest, completely honest. I don't think I give a damn. I'm not saying it's right for animals to be tortured for our consumption but at the end of the day people are still going to do it. People are still going to eat the products, and nobody is going to stop it. hundreds of millions of animals live of the consumption of other animals we're no different.
If you want to help animals, you would need to stop eating eggs, dairy products, honey and any animal by-products to avoid them from being caged by humans. In fact, u should move out of your city or town and move into the jungle. The mere existence of human civilization is destroyed thousands of species of animals and most of the natural habitat of those that are left. If u really cared about the well being of animals, u would move to the wild and reintegrate urself into the natural food chain.
If you *really* cared about the poor, you would do EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN to help them out in every way possible. Donating $100 once a month to charity means you don't REALLY care about them and are a hypocrite. Because you still have money left over. Absolutist logic FTW!
Argue the damn points raised in the video or don't comment at all. Jesus Christ.
@AntiBullshitMan I only care about the poor to the extend that it doesn't hinder my life style. I never pretend to care more. You care about animals the same way, only to the extend that it doesn't require you to give up things you don't want to give up. The only difference is you go around lecturing other people just because their limit of what they're willing to give up isn't the same as yours. You don't get to dictate that only your brand of animal cruelty is the appropriate amount.
The analogy has nothing to do with what you care about, it just demonstrates the silliness of your all-or-nothing thought process on this issue
"you go around lecturing other people just because their limit of what they're willing to give up isn't the same as yours"
Huge volume of suffering =/= fluffy arbitrary limit. I gave up meat despite having developed a strong taste for it. Being judged by absolutists for stepping on an ant won't whitewash that
*Any*one who makes *any* sacrifice in order to reduce *any* level of harm can be pointed as being the culprit of some unethical activity in a different circumstance at some point in their lifetime. This doesn't mean people shouldn't be encouraged to do everything they can to come as close as possible to not violating any golden rule ethic. It doesn't matter 1 bit whether Dr. King mistreated a black person at some point in his life, I'm still glad he got into people's face about racism
@divertiti wtf...moving out of a city and into the jungle...how does that stop any animals from being caged, you were making sense until you said " In fact, u should move out of your city..."
wow i once respected your points of view. on some i still do. ut you have just jumped off the deep end buddy. hope you have some arm floaties. unsubscribe.
P.S. Bacon is soooo yummy! Thats why allah loves yummy pigs! try getting amore ethical treatment of animals before we eat them if thats your true issue. LOL! Most meats are good for you even if it hurts your feelings.
Comment removed
SchizophrenicDelight 3 months ago
I'm a vegeterian...
weworld2 6 months ago
I watched 5 minutes and I still could not decipher your stance on the argument. :P
BringBRToTheUK 7 months ago
I agree with the video but I'd like to know your thoughts on buying meat from agencies that treat and kill farm animals in a far more "humane" way (if you even view the term as applicable), like they do in Canada.
gardenswan 7 months ago
@g
The term is applicable, sure. Just as I'd prefer to be surrounded by moderate theists rather than extremist ones, I'd by the same token prefer it if the people already addicted to meat purchased their meat exclusively from "moderately brutal" agencies rather than extremely brutal ones. The analogy remains however: There is no excuse for imposing your meat addiction/theism addiction, on to your child, regardless of whether you're a moderate or not.
AntiBSMan 7 months ago
I DO remember Amazing atheist blistered their britches awhile back.
turnofffox 8 months ago
Excellent video, mate. Pretty solid arguments.
lateralpazwalk 8 months ago
@theantinatalist again you argue out of ignorance. Bigotry is defined as: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself... You can be a non meat eater all you want, but your intolerance of meat eaters is bigotry by the pure and accepted definition not some skewed version you cling to that supports your dogma. Again you make strawmen and next i will venture guess you would like claim hypocrisy. Do you wish to grant all that feel pain or pleasure the same status as humans?
masluxx 9 months ago
@masluxx Yet you comment on videos about vegetarians/vegans. You are at best trolling.
countingdown27 7 months ago
@theantinatalist I have not called myself a vegan or vegetarian. "chickens... burned alive in boiling grease"? do they no remove the innards first? Again dogma requires ignorance which you just demonstrated. You tend to demonstrate it every time you use the word dogma. Lol, is the term,"speciesist" suppose to be an insult? Yes, i give humans special treatment. if you do not you are a very sick individual. Are you arguing that we should treat animals the same compassion as humans?
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist your long term memory has a flaw, i stated from near beginning that I believe we should reduce our consumption of meat. It has been my view for years. Not because of some flawed argumentation you have presented but because in an ever increasing world population it would be prudent and most efficient to do so. You see dogma is the attachment to ideas with out understanding. We all have dogmas yet, i chose a way that helps me shed them. You chose a way to spreed them.
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist in response to your statement (in a way i think you can understand) ,"you might want to expand your vocabulary. You use "dogma" A LOT.".. There is a lot of dogma out there what ever shall i do call it wisdom of poo, or the folly of you?
masluxx 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theantinatalist Oh nooos !, you broke out the ginger argumentation. What ever shall i do? Are you really comparing eating a cow to eating red haired people too? You do realize how sick that is to do? Don't make me quote Dr Seuss in a Horton hears a who "a person's a person, no matter how small", or gingered, or mentally ill. It is a simple concept if you get it or not.. You see, person is a person an animal is not. For only animals, of the two, are the only ones fit for a pot.
masluxx 9 months ago
Comment removed
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist would you like to give an example of a clear argument he did make that was insightful to a counter argument that showed a true understanding of a differing opinion and then showed a flaw in the make up of the logic used? Or will you concede that he does what he does out of habit and that he does not think about opposing views but just dismisses them in the same habitual nonthinking way....dogmatic way.....his dogma
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist for example when he list the arguments against this stance and dismisses them all st hypocritical or nonarguments. which starts at about 3:00iirc and can be found thew out this video between the name calling and other rantings.
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist what part does your brain not grasp? First i will assume you know what dogma or dogmatic means no? If you look at the corpus of his argumentation you will find a common theme. You will find some one that is dismisses any opposing view as hypocritical or a non argument. You will not find some one that is trying to understand a different perspective and presenting faults of and apposing view. In effect you find some one trapped in a dogma dismissive isolationism.
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist "his reoccurring theme of painting all views in opposition to his as hypocritical(thus invalid) or a non argument is the dogma of promoting ignorance to maintain a preconceived opinion." Was that too complex for you to understand? Should i break it down for you in to tiny rubberized spoon full bits? *make an airplane sound* open up little Johny here comes the little logic's., is this what is needed?
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist ooh, you stopped the dodges and insults and are actually addressing a point. I will take that as concessions to my previous statements. An that you think you found something you can win. You see win or lose and argument i still win for i am here to gain wisdom While his reoccurring theme of painting all views in opposition to his as hypocritical(thus invalid) or a non argument is the dogma of promoting ignorance to maintain a preconceived opinion.
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist you might as well be screaming. "leave Brittany alone !"
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist if you are or not is pointless. You responded you my criticisms of his argumentations. Or is your memory too short to remember that? Here i will quote you, "Firstly, humans ARE animals. You are either too ignorant to acknowledge(corrected sp.) this fact or you simply refuse to do so in your language because you are uncomfortable with what you are." That quote in NUTshell exemplifies the type of dogma and programed unthinking knee-jerk response this type of video promotes.
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist lol, I will accept that you concede to my last post. For the only response you could muster was an insult and not even one that you could tie into what was stated. My point is this video author is doing nothing but preaching to an audience, he is just sputtering dogma and is not attacking the darkness in the subject matter with an enlightened approach. His argumentation, to some one that seeks enlightenment, has the smell of a false flag attempt at divisive(ism).
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist Preaching to the convinced does nothing but create dogma. Dogma perpetuates action in ignorance. This is not enlighten, in fact it is the opposite. Do you want enlighten argumentation on your side or dogma? Do you want wisdom or faith?
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist btw, of the thousands of comments i have made on youtude and the countless comments i have made that can be taken as ad mominem attack only a couple where not based on what the person said or wrote. Attacks on a persons ideas or words are common for me, how ever attacks of the person them selves are very very rare thing for me to do. You are not your ideas no? You do know what an admimem attack is no? I await a non moronic reply. Is this post an ad hominem attack also?
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist are you saying that to have a minority opinion is a personal fault pr logical error that opens one up to ad hominem attacks? Most people do eat meat, most people do think diet is a personal choice that is truth. All this video has does is further divide those that hold his believes from those that do not. It has done nothing to convince those that disagree with his view into understanding a truth. The truth is eating as much meat as society does is inefficient.
masluxx 9 months ago
Thanks for making your videos! Logic is hard to find.
metaldave9 9 months ago
@theantinatalist ok, I will assume you do understand subsets, that you are not a moron, but that your ego will not let you admit you made a mistake. It is ok, humans do that. Why do you not argue that all cats should not eat meat also? Why do use the argument hat humans are animals as part of one argumentation but refuse to acknowledge humans are animals in others?
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist Normality has nothing to do with the truth. So, one you realize that and realize your are in the minority when arguing the reduction in meat consumption, you need to not preach and make proclamations like you are talking to a congregation but make logical arguments to prove your point.
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist
Dear Moron
You do understand the concept of subsets no? i see you did signed your post as "Moron" so maybe you do not. Mind if i call you by you self proclaimed name, Moron? So, Moron, i will try to explain this to you in a simple way. All terriers are dogs, but not all dogs are terriers get it, Moron? All humans are animals but not all animals are humans, you understand now, Moron?
Masluxx.
masluxx 9 months ago
@theantinatalist First of all there are humans(animals) and the other animals. Just like there are birds and nonbirds. Anything else is a straw man argument. So i will ignore that moronic accusation. You ASSume my position on this topic for i think we should greatly reduce our consumption of meat. However his obviously bias arrogant arguments do not help this cause. Human are more important then the other animals to normal rational people and retards are people.
masluxx 9 months ago
Cannibalism is natural...but it's not moral...again because it doesn't serve mankind...the same as religion doesn't serve mankind...the same as vegetarianism doesn't serve mankind.
3101 9 months ago
The argument for meateating is not intelligence. It's evolution. We are social mammals. We have developed empathy because we need it to survive. We don't need to have empathy towards other species. That serves no purpose. Do you expect other species to have empathy towards you? If you are a vegetarian for moral reasons, then I would say that your morality is perverted. I am true to my own species, not any other. Religion is bad because it has negative consequences for humanity. That's it.
3101 9 months ago
@3101
The religion analogy is meant to illustrate the fallacy of the appeal to the taboo. That's it.
You're taking your intellectual marching orders from a DNA molecule's tunnel vision's agenda of aimless, senseless consumption & reproduction, for no ultimate gain or purpose. You can do better.
I urge you to read my replies to some of the comments below, or you can wait for my blog on this, where I will refute, in great detail, more comments espousing rationalizations similar to yours.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
Thank you four anwering my comments. The fact that I am taking my intellectual marching orders from a DNA molecules's tunnel vision's agenda of "aimless, sensless consumption and reproduction" for no ultimate gain or purpose" is fine by me...it's okay if you wanna go against nature...I don't...maybe I can do better...but I really don't wanna do better.
3101 9 months ago
"it's okay if you wanna go against nature...I don't"
But you do go against nature, every time you use a condom/contraception, every time you pay your taxes for a service you don't directly benefit from, every time you violate a survival of the fittest approach to your day to day routine, you go against nature. Civilization is itself a compromise against our nature. It's silly to draw an arbitrary line at humans, just as silly as drawing arbitrary lines with race/gender. It's all about sentience
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
This was a fail on my part. My argument isn't really that it's unnatural. Which I also think I made apparent in my second comment. Anyway, I don't think drawing the line at humans is arbitrary. Human morality should be about what's good for humans. We have a personal interest in caring for eachother. Just like any other social species. Again you wouldn't expect any other species to care for your well being (except perhaps domesticated dogs), so why care for theirs?
3101 9 months ago
"Human morality should be about what's good for humans"
Speciesism is no different than any other breed of ism bigotry. It's not about "human morality". Morality is a word drenched in religious dogma, so stick with "ethics". Just as "with great power comes great responsibility" so does with intelligence. Appeals such as "you wouldn't expect any other species to care for your well being" can be used to justify any bigotry: "You wouldn't expect them sand monkeys to blah blah blah... so nuke'em".
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
I don't think what I'm advocating here can be categorized as bigotry. I don't eat animals because I have animosity towards them. Would you accuse a lion of being a bigot because it eats gazelles?
3101 9 months ago
"I don't eat animals because I have animosity towards them"
You do realize that plenty of slave owners got along with their slaves. There was no animosity, as the slaves were born into it. So this justifies slavery then?
"Would you accuse a lion of being a bigot because it eats gazelles?"
Would you accuse a mentally handicapped white guy of being a bigot for hearing the word nigger on TV & then shouting it in the face of black people, like he saw on the telly? You can't be serious with this.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
"We have a personal interest in caring for eachother"
If we allowed rights & wrongs to be dictated by our narrow, subjective personal interests stemming from emotion, while avoiding principles, we'd never have civilization. The only rational goal post is sentience. I don't "care" about most living creatures on this planet, humans & animals alike, I merely recognize their capacity to suffer, & based on mountains of evidence we know suffering to be a minus regardless of who's experiencing it.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
I'm not arguing from emotion, I'm arguing from considerations of utility. Yes, civilization is based on human cooperation, not egotism. I still don't see a need for animal rights. Where would science be without animal experiments? If we don't acknowledge the rights of animals, does that mean we're avoiding principles altogether? If you could refer me to the "mountain of evidence" of which you speak, that would be great.
3101 9 months ago
"I'm not arguing from emotion"
You, 2 posts ago: "so why care for theirs?"
The moment you use the word care, instead of the word recognize, you shift the goal-post to emotion. We've been over this, don't make it circular.
The principle espoused in the video barricades subjecting animals to unnecessary suffering for the sake of a food indulgence. Animal testing analogies fail when such testing serves a utilitarian function, thus reducing net suffering. When it doesn't, it is indeed unethical.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
I don't regard the the principle espoused in the video to be very logical. That because we are animals, therefore we have to empathize with other species. I would refer to the lion again, but I guess that's not gonna fly. At least we seem to be able to agree on a principle of utilitarianism. With other people there's at least the possibility of reciprocal altruism. With animals there mostly isn't. So what's the point of applying the golden rule to them?
3101 9 months ago
"With animals there mostly isn't. So what's the point of applying the golden rule to them?"
I keep explaining why. It's not about who or what suffers. If we gave all the world's suffering to Adolf Hitler, it would still be suffering. I'll go back to the example of the retard: Would you justify harming a mentally handicapped human, on account of him harming someone else as he's incapable of grasping how it's wrong? If it's a-ok to do so for animals, why not the retard? A Neanderthal maybe? Yes?
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan It sure does seem like you are implying a retard is the gray are between humans and animals. That being smarter is some how more human. You you realize how arrogant this looks? A retard is still a person no? There is a line that demarks what is human and what is not human no? You do understand retards are people too, no? Your unwillingness to admit that retards are people is a like Hitler's stance on Jews. For shame on you.
masluxx 9 months ago
"If you could refer me to the "mountain of evidence""
Wait, you're asking for evidence of how creatures that happened to have evolved differently than humans - all of which you already know have a nervous system - feel pain. Just confirm with me that this is in fact what you're doubting, because right now you give off the impression that you're willing to doubt just about anything as long as the doubt jives with what you're trying to rationalize here.
Want proof of gravity too while I'm at it?
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
No the proof I was talking about was in regards to "we know suffering to be a minus regardless of who's experiencing it." I don't see the animals suffering as a minus to me. I recognize their capacity for pain. Don't need any proof of that.
3101 9 months ago
"I don't see the animals suffering as a minus to me"
When engaging in philosophical conversation, or just about any subject I bring up in my videos, you have to step outside your bubble & take into account that you're not the centre of the universe. All suffering isn't a minus to me either, on an emotional level. It's a minus because you know you wouldn't want to experience what the sufferer experiences. Suffering is the minus, not "which particular conscious creature happens to experience it".
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
Or you can just admit that you're unwilling to look past your narrow, selfish perspective & confirm to me that I'm wasting my time trying to get you to do that... since you'll always just come back with "but I don't feel like I have to care" or some other infantile, lazy bullshit. It's not a complicated argument, the rationalizations you're applying here reek of the very same kind of conventionalist reassurance as did the case for slavery, concentration camps or any other cause of suffering.
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
A nervous system is what enables highly complex lifeforms to feel pain. This is why animals react to pain by displaying similar repulsion humans display when we are subjected to suffering.
It's bigotry because you rationalize a stamp of approval on their suffering simply because they're different/less intelligent. Sound familiar?
It seems that you're just whipping out fall back positions now. That hard to just admit that serving an unnecessary food indulgence is not worth the suffering caused?
AntiBullshitMan 9 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
"you rationalize a stamp of approval on their suffering simply because they're different/less intelligent."
Like I've said before, I'm operating from a principle of utility. The difference between humans and animals matters, because animals are not going to empathize with us the same way we empathize with them. With humans there's at least the possibility of reciprocity.
3101 9 months ago
@3101
Is there any data for that? It can just as easily be said that, because we have developed empathy in order to survive, it therefore spills over to anything we humanize. It's why we feel disgusted when a dog gets run over in the street, and it's also why some people feel empathy towards objects, like a communion wafer or grandmother's ashes.
Without evidence either way, ad-hoc arguments from evolutionary psychology lead us nowhere.
Provoker7 9 months ago
@Provoker7
I think it's quite obvious that our empathy, as you say, ”spills over” to other things. This is a case of evolution run haywire, and there are many cases of this to be found in nature, like when a moth flies into a fire because it's attracted by the light. Basing our morals on this "spillage", however, would not be rational. It would be the same if a moth tried to justify sucide just because it feels right to fly into the fire.
3101 9 months ago
@3101
It would indeed be irrational to base our moral values solely on emotions our evolutionary heritage has instilled in us, but that's not an argument anyone is making. If you want to hear a different take on the points @AntiBullshitMan is raising, I highly recommend watching the interview with Peter Singer in "The Genius of Charles Darwin" (it's on YouTube).
Provoker7 9 months ago
@Provoker7
Okay, so I've watched the interview: I agree that I am just another animal, but that doesn't mean that the golden rule has interspecies application. I think that human suffering should be more important to us than that of other species. Any other species will distinguish between itself and us, so why should we not be allowed to make that same distinction? I think it's taking our rebellion against the selfish gene too far. It doesn't serve a purpose.
3101 9 months ago
@3101
I apologize for coming across as exhaustive on this point, but why do you feel that way? You've told me your opinion, but I want to know how you reached it. All you've given me so far is an arbitrary line between humans and non-human animals by saying it's simply self-evident that humans are more special. What makes your argument different from, for example, a white supremacist who feels that black suffering should not be regarded as important?
Provoker7 9 months ago
@3101
You've watched the video I sent you, so feel free to send me videos that expand on your arguments.
Provoker7 9 months ago
Excellent video, especially when it comes to the "they argue from emotion" stupidity. You mirrored my thoughts on that 100%.
It falls on deaf ears though as always.
costagreek19 9 months ago
Basically its an ethical discussion, and ethics (and the resulting moral) is not universal or generic .... there is no such thing as a self-evident ethical issue.
I agree that it certainly shouldn't be a tabu issue, no topic should be really.
Where i disagree with your video is your pushing the ethical discussion as *being* self-evident, and if someone disagree with your moralistic view then you must be in the wrong. Specifically in the "pushing on children" part.
kimdpetersen 10 months ago
@kimdpetersen Hvis der ikke findes nogen absolute sandheder, så er der jo i princippet heller ikke noget galt i, hvis jeg går ud og myrder en masse mennesker.
heitzt 9 months ago
@heitzt I princippet ... Nej. Men du vil sandsynligvis få problemer med resten af samfundet du befinder dig i. Etik er regler for hvordan man opfører sig ... og disse varierer ganske meget. I nogle stamme-samfund har det været ganske moralsk og etisk korrekt at gå ud og myrde nabo-stammen's befolkning.
kimdpetersen 9 months ago
There is nothing wrong with eating animals or driving cars and flying planes. But there is a problem with the scale on which it is done, and the inhumane ways we go about it... There are to many people on the planet... We need to reduce the human race to about 100 million to 200 million people...
Godfred78 10 months ago
@Godfred78 100 to 200 million? where did you pull that number out of?
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx I pulled it out of my ass really. perhaps it is much smaller... Humans have become an infestation, and needs to be reduced in size! By a lot! Like, somewere between 95&99%
Godfred78 10 months ago
@Godfred78 between 95 &99% , where did you get that percent? What is your rational? For i can not in any stretch of the imagination fathom why we would need to remove 95-99% of the population. Do explain? And if you can't then we can just toss your statement aside with the rest of the mindless drivel we come across daily.
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx One does not need billions of people for humanity to be sustainable. As for the numbers? Estimate only. Forget about the exact number for a minute...
If we all want to eat meat, drive cars, fly planes, live in luxury, have a big house, a cabin by the sea, a cabin in the mountains etc. And still have a sustainable society that can last for eons, without fucking everything up for the "lesser" species on this planet, we need to drastically reduce our numbers... Key word: birth control! :)
Godfred78 10 months ago
@Godfred78 In my opinion the survivability of humanity is more important then the sustainability of keeping things they way they are. Things will need to change and that does not have to be scary. Your view seems to show a real fear of change and an anti social bent. Are you the male version of the crazy cat lady? I'm just sayin'. For their are other paths to take other then removal of 95% of humanity. Oh as for survivability of humanity; getting off this rock should be priority one.
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx I totally agree! The space program is the most important thing we have! And if we are less people there would be enough resources for everyone, and therefor no need for war. We could finally get things done! Most people only eat, procreate and worship gods who are not there! By following this road the earth will be depleted before we get off this damn thing!
I also agree that this is anti social statements, but i have grown weary and tired... I have lost all fate in humanity!
Godfred78 10 months ago
@Godfred78 oh my. With out society we could not pool resources to tackle big things like a space program. For no one person nor family could ever invent/discover/build everything needed in a space program. Big projects require large co operative groups that work together in a frame work of rules. IE societies. Our current society is based on revving the people up to produce thew greed and consumerism and skimming a little cream off the top to do things like a space program. It is ineffecent
masluxx 9 months ago
just a thought, how do you view the idea of eating meat when the animal died "naturally"?
BTW i am a none meat eater
CHASCHARLTON 10 months ago
OMG we have to stop the madness i just saw some one eat a big baby breakfast. It consisted of 4 types of babies and one meal stolen from a baby. It had roasted baby wheat plants (flower bread toast), baby strawberries plants floating in a jar of preservatives(jam) , Baby chicken embryos (eggs) , baby corn plants cracked into little bits (grits), and milk( the meal originally intended for a baby cow). What about the children ? We have to stop this madness !
masluxx 10 months ago
Nope.
Human to human interactions are completely different from human to animal interactions.
HomoCyborgZombie 10 months ago
@HomoCyborgZombie "Nope"
Nope what? When you comment on a 35 minute video, you have to preface your "nopes" by contextually quoting the speaker.
"Human to human interactions are completely different from human to animal interactions"
Any surface level difference you have in mind does not justify the mistreatment at hand. If you didn't mean to challenge the vegetarian position with this sentence, carry on.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan What mistreatment? Unless you broad brush every meat eater as a factory farm serial killer, then I see none.
HomoCyborgZombie 10 months ago
In the last few years i actually noticed that more and more people around me eat fewer meat or are now vegetarians. I think it's videos like yours or discussion like your video that change the minds because there are no good arguments against that position. Also there are not only ethical arguments against meat eating, there are also economical/ecological arguments.
GravitasFreeZone 10 months ago
I'm a meat eater. I'm pretty much considered the chicken Pol Pot. It's wrong and immoral. The environment is a more compelling reason for vegetarianism, but all are good reasons.
Am I going to change? Maybe, but not today. I own my guilt. Unfortunately for the chicken population I eat my feelings.
nutinwrks 10 months ago
@lostman - By your rationale Steven Hawking could dine on our flesh guilt free. :) Of course as long as he finished you with a clean kill.
nutinwrks 10 months ago
What if I hunted all my meat? What if every shot I took was a clean kill? I dont want animals in cages. As a matter of fact I'd rather hunt my meat rather than buy it in a grocery store. I dont try to rationalize my meat eating on a rational level. I just like the taste of meat and feel I have an obligation to the ancestors to hunt and devour the flesh of stupider beasts. Meat is delicious. Is it immoral? Dont care.
LostManSays 10 months ago
@LostManSays "What if I hunted all my meat"
Certainly an improvement. It'll all about pain reduction, so euthanasia would be the end goal, assuming you'd have someone care for the young.
"I dont want animals in cages"
...
"Is it immoral? Dont care"
So you don't want them in cages for a reason other than the fact that it imposes unnecessary suffering?
"an obligation to the ancestors"
These obligations are about as rational as trying to preserve any silly tradition, theistic or not.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan Just two things, first: meat is delicious. Second: It is silly, but more productive, I think, than most other silly traditions you will find. Feeds the family. Keeps my legs moving. Keeps my eyes sharp.
LostManSays 10 months ago
"meat is delicious"
Trust me, I know. I was conditioned into developing a taste for it. But that's all it is, conditioning. Don't impose it on the wee ones & they won't miss it.
"Feeds the family. Keeps my legs moving. Keeps my eyes sharp"
1 billion vegetarians have unfed families because they themselves don't consume meat? Their legs don't move? Their eyesight is dull?
Factory farming is actually very counterproductive, but I won't get into it since you seem to draw the line at hunting.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan "Dont impose it on the wee ones and they wont miss it" My aunt was a huge vegan. She never allowed meat in the house. Her children all eat meat now. You might forget how good it smells and how it makes your mouth water. Its natural instinct. Its good to humans, natural.
LostManSays 10 months ago
I look At it This way, If someone Does not want to eat meat, Then they Do not have to, If someone does, As long as They do not Over do it, then that is their business as well
68bootyman 10 months ago
@68bootyman
An oversimplification. If people don't "overdo it" you'll still have demand high enough to maintain the current industry. No different than telling Nazis not to "overdo" their concentration camps should they ever rise to power again.
Pain = Pain, regardless of whether it's happening to a human or an animal.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan Well yes, But you Are Not gonna Stop these Meat eaters from Eating meat, So I was just suggesting moderation, It is A damn Shame what they do to animals at these slaughter houses, I was just Pointing out, Maybe People should cut back some, Because you Know, People are still gonna eat their meat, no matter What
68bootyman 10 months ago
I'm reminded of the old imperial doggerel on Brits in India:
"Behold the British soldier,
He rules the Indian small,
Because being a meat eater
He is five cubits tall."
TheAzov 10 months ago
I don't see the necessary correlation that you have to be a vegetarian to be against cruel animal suffering. Let the state regulate the slaughter house industry and make standards so it gives the animals a decent living condition and when they need to be killed make it as painless and fast as possible. That would completely eliminate the animal suffering. I just don't understand the argument/correlation you are trying to make against meat eaters.
Lavitzzz 10 months ago
Breeding them for the purpose of killing them, albeit more humanely, so to "completely eliminate the animal suffering" is not ethically sound either. It may be an improvement when compared to the natural habitat, it all depends on just how much breeding would be done under the industry's watch compared to nature's watch.
The correlation to meat-eaters is the product of the rigid offense some of them take at those who point out the fact that their indulgence drives demand, causing suffering.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
@Lavitzzz Well I agree that if there was no suffering involved in the meat industry, I would probably be fine with eating meat. But that's not true right now, so I'm boycotting the inhumane meat industry by not eating their meat. And just saying that someone else should be regulating it doesn't mean it will ever get done. Being vegetarian is proactive; every time someone buys meat they support the institutions that hurt animals
tenatopps 10 months ago
I'm addicted to meat, I've tried to cut down though.
JDBlessin 10 months ago
Nice strawman of people who don't care about animal suffering, bro. Implying killing baby humans has no effect on society other than on the dead babies: definitely a good representation of my position... or not.
meritocratic1337 10 months ago
"strawman"
Quote me contextually.
"Implying killing baby humans has no effect on society"
7 billion & counting. If anything, reducing the human population will bring about a positive result to society as a whole. One example is the negative effect overpopulation has had on cheap labor. But it's a non-sequitur anyway. You're ignoring the fact that I provided that example as a response to the "reacting to suffering/killing = emotional appeal" inconsistency. Kindly re-watch for proper context.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan I'm talking about 29:20 to 30:50. You certainly SEEM to be implying that the only reason someone would care more about killing humans than about killing non-humans is for emotional reasons. If you were honestly just trying to address that one specific argument about emotional appeals, fine, but please be more clear from now on, as is seems like you are claiming that most dissenters use that argument as their justification.
meritocratic1337 10 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan As for how killing baby humans harms society: The main issue is related to the lack of security caused by people not thinking that they are protected by the law. If parents of young children have to protect their children or young children have to fear for their lives, it affects the way those people have to conduct themselves. They have less time to spend on luxury activities, which is the entire purpose of society: to stop having to fend for one's life.
meritocratic1337 10 months ago
Basically your argument should be against certain forms of meat production and the people who fund it.....eating meat is intrinsically amoral.
100PercentGreen 10 months ago
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something. "
Dread Pirate Roberts.
OtherGonzo 10 months ago 2
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something. "
Next time you read the novel inform Roberts that selling solutions in the hopes of fixing the broken, instead of just romanticizing over the fact that things are broken, ain't a bad idea.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
absolutism, like eating no meat what so ever? This is a moronic position, that is supposedly tied into an ethical position. What the video author fails to take in to account is he is also an animal. An omnivorous animal that by definition eats plants and animals. Will he next try to train the lions of the world to eat grass? Or the great baleen whales so some how filter out the plant plankton vs the animal plankton? Where will his lunacy stop?
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx The point of vegetarianism is that we do not need to eat animals, so if there is no necessity to commodify and kill animals (a process which is inherently full of suffering) then we should avoid that situation. Your argument presupposes that this whole natural order of things is a smart system, which it clearly isn't. A planet full of sentient creatures addicted to eating each other clearly demonstrates nature's idiocy. We should rise above this idiocy.
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 You should be careful not to generalize vegetarianism. You do not speak for all vegetarians, and not all vegetarians have the same reasons as you do. Not all vegetarians care about animal suffering or think it's some "idiotic" evil. Just try to make an argument from your own thoughts.
meritocratic1337 10 months ago
@masluxx Where will it stop? That's debatable. But we do know that we can control our own actions at least. So it really comes down to walking by the deli and into the produce section. Not that hard.
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 It should stop at your plate.
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx Thanks for the convincing argument.
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 why thank you, for it was a statement, it was concise it was non convoluted, and non confounding it was correct, it was everything this video was not. I am glad you agree.
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx By the same standard, I could say: We should rape kindergarteners.
A concise, non convoluted, non confounding statement. Everything your previous statement was. Man, you suck so much. Learn how to argue before going on youtube.
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 I suck at arguing you say? Why, i must thank you. You seem to think winning an argument is what is important. While i think learning the truth and maybe helping other learns the truth also, is important. With this we both can win. For you can use your self made rules of engagement to pummel me to your perceived victory, while i will just state the truth. We have a short digestive track unlike herbivores. We are omnivores, we eat plants and animals.
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx Well, yeah, arguing is one of the best ways to distill the truth. I wouldn't say I'm victorious, you just never put up much of an argument in the first place. All you did was make statements without anything to back it up.
I never said we weren't omnivorous. We can certainly eat both plants and animals. I'm saying we can live healthily with little or no meat. So we can reduce a lot of suffering by simply eliminating animal products from our consumption (food and other products)
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 We certainly should eat plants and animals for that is what we evolved to do. Yes, i am glad you agree we are omnivores, for arguing of that point would be the first sign that i am dealing with an irrational person that would not know reality if it slapped him in the face and called him stupid. It is good to see signs you are not like that. So, we are omnivores, yes? Again remind me, what did omnivores evolve to eat?
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx You're missing the point. Of course we've eaten some meat in our evolutionary history. But we can get all of our essential nutrients from plants, who do not have the capacity to suffer. Our closest relatives are frugivorous (fruit predominates their diet, along with leaves and vegetables). They only go for small animals and insects in desperate situations. Their digestive systems are the most similar to ours. We can feed dogs, who are opportunistic omnivores, a vegetarian diet.
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 so your argument distills down to, animals suffer and we do not need to eat meat so we should not to eliminate suffering no?
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx Not to eliminate suffering completely, but to avoid imposing suffering... because suffering sucks.
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 Have you ever had a pet? Did you have it very long did it get old and crippled? At some point did you "put it down" or did you let it suffer in agony? I would argue that, the suffering of old age is far far worse then an instant death. If you really want to eliminate all suffering you would slaughter all the old. Then why let it go to waste? The only convincing argument i have seen for vegetarianism is and argument of efficiency of resources.
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx Then we shouldn't breed these animals into a shitty life to satisfy our needless addiction. I would certainly put an animal out of it's misery if it were suffering, but I would much rather avoid that instance of suffering by not breeding them into a miserable life.
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 Is it just the current production system and all the suffering it causes that you have a problem with? Or would you have a problem with a hunter also?
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx The concept is pretty simple: avoid unnecessarily harming other sentient beings. Why would you hunt and kill a sentient being with a somewhat complex psychology when you can peel a banana or bake a potato?
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 wild animals suffer greatly when they get old and get taken down by wild predators, or starve to death (herbivores in the wild teeth get worn out and they will starve in time if no predators are around when they get weaken at the beginning of their starvation). Just like an old pet they suffer very much as they get older. The instant death a hunter offers is merciful in comparison. Predation reduces suffering in the wild.
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx Well you have to consider the back side of that. Most herbivores travel in packs, or families. Killing one of them is like killing a mother in a family, which causes misery among the surviving. Also, the herbivore's teeth being worn down depends on the species and the type of plant being eaten mostly. Usually, herbivore teeth continually grow so they won't be worn down. But this is such a small part of the whole vegetarian thing. Most people farm their meat or get it from farmers.
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 You are anthropomorphizing these animals. They feel nothing but a strong feeling of "flight" once they have figured out what has happened. We are talking about animals that hunters hunt for food.....BTW.....These are primarily deer, elf, antelope, moose and boar iirc none of these have continuously growing teeth like rodents. (the boar tusks do continuously grow but not it's teeth).
masluxx 10 months ago
@masluxx Oh come on. Anyone with a pet will tell you that it has deep emotions, and this kind of emotional behavior is well documented among plenty of animals. I would say that yes, if I saw an emaciated moose suffering in the woods, I would kill it as quickly and painlessly as possible. But are hunters actually going out and doing this? No, they're killing the biggest game they can to satisfy their ego trip, not relieve an animals suffering. Your argument is getting absolutely ridiculous.
confused1028 10 months ago
@confused1028 once you killed the moose, would you let it go to waste or would you make good use of it? You are not correct, most serious hunters that have a connection to the land cull the herd. They pride them selves on having the biggest (which means healthiest) deer around. They kill the lame, the runts, the gimps, the ones with genetic problems or undesirable traits the ones suffering. Now those with no connection to the land might act as you stereotyped.
masluxx 10 months ago
@confused1028 My argument is getting ridiculous? Like Cervidae having continuously growing teeth ridiculous? Or like serious hunters only killing the biggest, thus destroying their herds future viability kind of stereotype of ridiculousness? Oh, my, i think i get it, you are making funny funny at me no? haha i will add that the deluded cat lady down the street will also tell you her cats talk to her: She will swear that her brain has not anthropomorphised them at all they do talk.
masluxx 10 months ago
Comment removed
masluxx 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@confused1028 ello McFly, you done beating me yet? I hope not for i have not learned a thing yet:/ have you?
masluxx 10 months ago
Comment removed
masluxx 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yes, yes, so much discussion over what his point was. So, what was his point? Have we determined it yet? Could have i misunderstood? Could i have been wrong?
masluxx 10 months ago
Great video thanks for making it!
metaldave9 10 months ago
Excellent video RIGHTFULLY complaining about those that are dismissive. Excellent starting point of showing inconsistencies people hold. Ie. that they can hold a deontological position that humans have X rights and not other animals - and do so non-arbitrarily. Or that they can hold a consequentialist position about human suffering but not animal suffering.
trick0171 10 months ago
Longest video you've ever done just to complain about essentially about those who are dismissive. Poor, I was hoping for some arguments about why 'elimination suffering' is the root of ehtical behaviour or such like. Perhaps contrasted with other attempts (briefly). This is where I like to oppose vegitarianism, though I do refer to their overly empathic rationalisations and inconsistencies too.
Hythloday71 10 months ago
If everyone were a vegetarian half of the time, that would be the equivalent of half the population being a vegetarian. Less animals get killed and nobody has to stop eating meat completely.
Provoker7 10 months ago
Well, I made it quite a bit past the halfway mark, but just couldn't continue. I was really excited to hear what I finally thought would be some knock-out stuff that was addressing points I tend to raise, but you had basically made only one point so I stopped. I was vegetarian for 8 years before coming back. In general it is very unhealthy. Eating meat can be done responsibly. Lastly, vegetarians seem to take as an axiom that animals suffer. This has never ever been argued well by anyone.
PainefulMass 10 months ago
all got to say is when I eat beef I am getting revenage on the cows that I work with. P.S. I work on dairy farm.
second If we removed the cages from chickens for example they peck each other to death in fighting, because they only can remember a few of there own kind for they start a fight they already won. One farm that really had large free chickens. They all killed each other. It happens with all these animals They Can Not Live With Out Us.
099923257457 10 months ago
@099923257457
That's nonsense, I grew up in the countryside surrounded by small farms that had chickens and people didn't even think of caging them. There were no "chicken fights", chickens fight only when there's a great number of them all together in a small confinement and they literally need to step on each-other to be able to move.
ZOMGitsCriss 10 months ago
I really don't care what other people eat, being vegetarian probably works for some people. However I see eating plants as on par with eating meat, they are both living breathing beings that feel, just becuase a plant dosen't have a mouth dosen't mean it dosen't feel pain. The arguments you make for not eating meat i can make for not eating plants, but I eat both so it dosen't matter. Humans are animals too. For example, yell and scream at a plant every day, it's proven it wont grow well.
zpgJiggleBilly 10 months ago
@zpgJiggleBilly
Pain is not a feeling, is a sensation generated by the brain. If you can demonstrate how anything can feel pain without a brain / a nervous system I will maybe consider stop eating plants. Never mind the fact that plants NEED other creatures to eat them in order to be able to reproduce.
ZOMGitsCriss 10 months ago
@ZOMGitsCriss Forget my argument it was stupid, i probably shouldn't have said anything considering I would never take sides on the issue in person to begin with. I like beef and oranges, so I'm for both. Unless the issue gets to the point where cheese production is affected negatively in some way I really just don't care. Thanks for setting me straight.
zpgJiggleBilly 10 months ago
For being AntiBullshitMan you seem to be shoveling quite a bit of it in this video. Good for you being a Vegetarian. Basically I stopped watching half way through because it sounded like you are PETA wannabe. Bunch of Fing morons the whole lot of you. Animals are abused worst than in the food industry (science testing). Good thing too since without them medical science would really take forever.
atmdusty 10 months ago
But truly, it would be wonderful to be in a world were abusing animals and people and the planet was a thing of the past but we are not advanced enough to do that yet and it is because of people like you standing in the way because you think you know better when your full of shit. Everyone should follow stricter diets, I agree with you there and I am trying to get better with mine, but cutting out meat completely is a bad idea from a nutrition stand point.
atmdusty 10 months ago
Unless one is really good with planning meals and taking supplements, a Vegetarian is most likely to be deficient in protein and/or lipids. The healthiest eating one can have is a balanced diet (check the mypyramid.gov website)
atmdusty 10 months ago
Damn! you are making a moral stand against eating meat because of the abuse the animals receive and the cages they are put in? Without the demand for meat on the plate, many of the animals wouldn't even be alive... Not that I care one way or the other as I will continue to eat meat, but your moral high ground here is warped if it is for the animals.
Written at about 5:02
atmdusty 10 months ago
Oh and I should add that Meat companies actually want the animals to be killed without abuse and pain because it actually makes the meat taste better. Turns out when animals are hurt and scared they drain the sugars and fats stores taking away taste, which is why most companies try to have the animals calm and healthy before slaughter. Unless of course you are eating Islam foods and Hebrew foods. They have to kill the meat in certain ways which are probably very painful ways to die.
atmdusty 10 months ago
Fan-fucking-tastic!
ArjunaMysterytramp 10 months ago
Wow.. I made it through 4 minutes of this... including this post.
TheOnlyHatchet101 10 months ago
Excellent video, too bad people still don't get it.
wintershadows 10 months ago
You KNOW meat eating isnt that big of a deal, you just want to be different and want to be a moral grandstander.
Also, you KNOW that god exists
SecularNumanist 10 months ago
I'm less than three minutes in and you're already telling me to go to cause based websites to see the most atrocious footage of slaughterhouses in existance.
I doubt you'd like to hear interviews from my friends who are in veterinary school who have spent time in average slaughterhouses. They actually felt better about eating meat afterward because the animals were NOT abused en masse like lots of sites would have you believe. It's easy to cherry pick the worst case scenerio. cont'd...
sofiarune 10 months ago
@sofiarune cont'd.... Room for improvement doesn't necessarily require throwing the whole thing out. Are some slaughterhouses awful? Sure they are! Is factory farming terrible? Definitely! Does this mean all meat products are evil and based on practices that totally neglect animal rights? Absolutely not.
If you want to make a real argument, ditch the ethics. You'd have an easier time discussing the environmental/economic cost of raising meat instead.
sofiarune 10 months ago
Excellent! *Subscribed and favs*
VolcanicPenguin 10 months ago
Pets are bred for mass consumption, many without the health checks and safe guards against cruelty that meat and dairy industry has. The truth of the pet industry is more analogous with the practice of criminals within Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei than with the meat industry. And yet you advocate pet keeping as a good thing for the animals. You say I am inconsistant and back tracking. I think you need a break.
ZOMGitsDouchebag 10 months ago
Should we make all carnivores and other animals to stop eating other animal also. But, we are not animals you say? What are we plants or little godchildren? We are omnivores, that is what we do, we eat plants and animals. I have seen this video author right and wrong, but this is the first time i have seen him completely confounding and digressive. Maybe he is missing something from his diet that he needs to make his brain work properly. Might i suggest a big fat steak?
masluxx 10 months ago
I would also like to point out that yes, saying "how dare you disrespect my position" Is a non-argument. But I really doubt in intellectual circles anybody would use that. The focus would be proving your position right.
EnigmaticTbay 10 months ago
ok, i finished it.. excellent video. uum, nothin to add.. so yea..
bye
SkidRowRadio 10 months ago
The life of an animal that's been cultivated for our consumption is a short and miserable life, that can be considered torture. But to be honest, completely honest. I don't think I give a damn. I'm not saying it's right for animals to be tortured for our consumption but at the end of the day people are still going to do it. People are still going to eat the products, and nobody is going to stop it. hundreds of millions of animals live of the consumption of other animals we're no different.
EnigmaticTbay 10 months ago
If you want to help animals, you would need to stop eating eggs, dairy products, honey and any animal by-products to avoid them from being caged by humans. In fact, u should move out of your city or town and move into the jungle. The mere existence of human civilization is destroyed thousands of species of animals and most of the natural habitat of those that are left. If u really cared about the well being of animals, u would move to the wild and reintegrate urself into the natural food chain.
divertiti 10 months ago
Translation:
If you *really* cared about the poor, you would do EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN to help them out in every way possible. Donating $100 once a month to charity means you don't REALLY care about them and are a hypocrite. Because you still have money left over. Absolutist logic FTW!
Argue the damn points raised in the video or don't comment at all. Jesus Christ.
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago 23
@AntiBullshitMan I only care about the poor to the extend that it doesn't hinder my life style. I never pretend to care more. You care about animals the same way, only to the extend that it doesn't require you to give up things you don't want to give up. The only difference is you go around lecturing other people just because their limit of what they're willing to give up isn't the same as yours. You don't get to dictate that only your brand of animal cruelty is the appropriate amount.
divertiti 10 months ago
"I only care about the poor to the extend"
The analogy has nothing to do with what you care about, it just demonstrates the silliness of your all-or-nothing thought process on this issue
"you go around lecturing other people just because their limit of what they're willing to give up isn't the same as yours"
Huge volume of suffering =/= fluffy arbitrary limit. I gave up meat despite having developed a strong taste for it. Being judged by absolutists for stepping on an ant won't whitewash that
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
@divertit
*Any*one who makes *any* sacrifice in order to reduce *any* level of harm can be pointed as being the culprit of some unethical activity in a different circumstance at some point in their lifetime. This doesn't mean people shouldn't be encouraged to do everything they can to come as close as possible to not violating any golden rule ethic. It doesn't matter 1 bit whether Dr. King mistreated a black person at some point in his life, I'm still glad he got into people's face about racism
AntiBullshitMan 10 months ago
@divertiti wtf...moving out of a city and into the jungle...how does that stop any animals from being caged, you were making sense until you said " In fact, u should move out of your city..."
darryllobo14 10 months ago
wow i once respected your points of view. on some i still do. ut you have just jumped off the deep end buddy. hope you have some arm floaties. unsubscribe.
arkmade 10 months ago
P.S. Bacon is soooo yummy! Thats why allah loves yummy pigs! try getting amore ethical treatment of animals before we eat them if thats your true issue. LOL! Most meats are good for you even if it hurts your feelings.
arkmade 10 months ago
@arkmade "Bacon is soooo yummy!"
So why do you, arkmade, think that you deserve to g