Sharp enunciation doesn't make your point more valid. "All feel pain, fear, joy, etc." Verify this. If you can manage to somehow prove what every other animal feels and their range of possible emotions and emotional depth, wow, I definitely concede. Otherwise it's an argument from assumption.. and so, meat.
I do make reference to other animals eating animals, because i believe it shows a marked difference between how herd animals normally die, and how we kill them. A animal we eat will have a much high quality of life than a wild animal. our animals never fear predators morning noon and night and do no get ripped to shreds in youth, old age, and sickness.
@TheAtheistFuture Excuse me? Please, I would like for you to take a look at a film called Earthlings and see how millions of animals die yearly. You may also find other documentaries such as The Cove (from Japan), Mataderos (from Spain) and the latest undercover investigation in Britain performed by Animal Equality at some Norfolk farm
Well your baby analogy is quite funny, since there are people that do indeed believe that they can do what ever they like with them, like chopping off parts of their genitals.
@TheAtheistFuture But you don't (I hope). Less than moral people are not the issue here, but values WE hold. If, say, I don't give a shit about humans, then I'm not going to be persuaded into considering the rights of nonhumans. But if you already believe that babies deserve equal consideration, that rebukes the supposed argument from rationality.
All life dies, it's not the death of the animal that's the problem, but the quality of life. If possible, I wish to be fertiliser on my death. The amount of wasted meat we throw away because we'd rather people starve than let them have any of the surplus meat is a problem. Since the animals we eat have been domesticated for many thousands of years, you advocate the near extinction of these animals, they could not survive in the wild and we would need their feeding lands to produce more veg.
@TheAtheistFuture Since when the description 'all life dies' becomes the prescription 'therefore, it's OK to kill'? Sounds suspiciously close to deriving an ought from an is. The underlying principle that let us make that jump is an already established prejudice (or discrmination, if you will) against other animals. You already think they are less and therefore you think it only applies to them. Because to humans it doesn't apply, right?
the line between humans and animals is not arbitrary. It is in fact quite clear, Not all animals are self-aware its silly to think just because you don't eat animals your lifestyle isn't contributing to the death of animals. Modern medicine would not be possible without animal testing and even farming vegetables requires killing innumerable rodents and insects
@Sebajstard If you ask me, it is as OK as eating a human that died by natural causes (ethically speaking). Of course, in the case of the human, you consider what the family would think if you ate the diseased. But that doesn't change the underlying amorality of the act of doing something to someone that already doesn't feel a thing.
@Veganomante Amorality or Immorality. What's immoral about eating a dead human? Other than it disturbing the family? When I die I hope to be fed on by animals and before that my organs donated to any one that could possibly make use of them. Ofc I have an established prejudice against other animals, i can't stand ideologies that want to ignore the fact that we are animals instead of trying to work with that. The only immorality with eating meat is the way we treat the animal during life, badly.
@Veganomante I just don't see the harm in killing animals for meat, if given a good life, well fed and well treated, and a quick and pain free death. And since the animals tend to be slaughtered in batches there won't be any one left to grieve, and they've had a good life. You propose mass extinction, and being shredded to pieces in the wild for all farmed animals. Or do you expect us to continue to care for them and put them in special ex farmed animal homes.
It's clear you never ran a farm, since animals do a lot more than consume feed that would otherwise go to humans. Anyway the complaint about land is irrelevant, since people can do with their property what they please. As to my choice, I choose to be a predator. I choose to continue playing the role that nature gave to humans, to be an actor in a play that began in the Pre-Cambrian era. I never feel so spiritual, as when I am hunting.
I agree responsible people do not want to cause pain, even to non-human animals. That is why I take care when I am hunting, to kill as quickly and humanely as possible. The animals I kill are almost certain to have a quicker and more painless death than I or most humans will face. All animals will die. By convincing people not to hunt deer for example, you are contributing to the pain they will face at death, since death by animal predation or disease does not involve any scruples about pain.
Vegetarianism can't work in everywhere! I live in the Ozarks and our soil is so rocky, which prevents growing anything on a large scale. Its the major reason why most people are ranchers and hunters around here!
Do vegetables somehow owe you the obligation to contribute their lives towards your sustenance? It is also life you know...If you are going to focus your argument on capacity for suffering then I hope you can see the obvious implications. If I can accomplish a murder without causing the victim any suffering......................................
This is a nice video. I'm a vegetarian too, well, virtually a vegan really as I only eat a cheese based meal when I go out to a restaurent every few weeks. I can see that you are a nice guy, Jacob, and I do not get much pleasure out of argung with libertarians like you as I can see that you mean well. So all the best, and I mean that.
Libertarianism is based on market forces and concumer choice. Consumers in a free market have massive access to meat, and most choose to consume it. Non-aggression is, in most libertarian's eyes, less important as a principle than free choice in a free market. As a voluntaryist, you oughht to heartily support this.
Habit, Tradition, Convenience and taste, every reason you can possibly come up with fall under those. And no, we have not, as a species, evolved to eating meat, society has.
But your most disturbing arguement is that "harvesting meat in a less harmful way, to hunt ourselves". This would undeniably have far worse consequences in bigger scales.
@rehwr Ah now, cows and sheep and chickens all get fed meat and fish meal. Arabian horses have been fed on and thrived on meat. That's a nonsensical argument. We can get some nutritional goodness from consuming poo, but it wouldn't mean it's a good idea
I apologize for not including a source to back up my claim. I will even go further and say that all animal products are unhealthy. Read the book "Eat to Live" by Joel Fuhrman. This book, among others, is how I came to my conclusion.
I have no idea why you respond to my post with what most vegetarians eat, but a source for your claim. I also don't think that what humans were evolved to eat adds anything to the discussion of whether or not it's healthy. Try again.
Eating a diet that we were evolved to eat is not "pleasure & amusement". Human beings are evolved to eat meat, plain & simple. The factory farms are disturbing, but what can we do when the government prevents us from harvesting our meat in a less harmful way, such as hunting it for ourselves? It's illegal to do anything the proper way, especially in "the west". We cannot be faulted for simply trying to survive in the healthiest way possible. Your other stuff is good, but this video is crap.
Eating meat is why americans are unhealthy. Eating meat increases the risk of cancer and heart disease. Eating meat is also completely unnecessary. We live in a time when we can eat the right foods to prolong healthy lives and instead we choose to eat garbage that makes us miserable in the long term for short term gratification.
@jimlovesgina That is a total myth. Eating processed carbohydrates, which is what vegetarians mostly eat, is what increases health risks. Human beings were evolved to eat fresh plant matter & meat from dead animal's carcasses. The modern diet is abysmally unhealthy because it's loaded with sugar, which is a toxin to the tissues. Fresh meat is not "garbage".
@Weintraubeheld221 For some reason I read this comment in a German "emotionless supervillain" -accent. "Nein, Mr. Bont. I expekt you to die effiziently und kvickly!"
Eating food doesn't violate any principle about non-violence. Libertarians tend to be libertarian because they recognize reality and don't buy into mindless BS. The fact that you are promoting the idea that eating mean is somehow immoral while you haven't pulled out your canine teeth only indicates that you aren't at all dedicated to the belief you claim.
HAHA this guy just doesnt get it at all. after all of these videos in support of capitalism and a free market, he just doesnt understand the core foundation of this ideology. go watch your uncle miltys vid "friedman schools a young michael moore"
and listen real closely to miltons argument about cost versus principle, think real hard on it, and then maybe the light bulb will go off, and youll see why so many liberterians dont like this particular video.
Oh please, don't be such a moron. The non-aggression principle is non-violence against other HUMANS. You HAVE to kill animals in order to survive. Just say a prayer before you eat if it bothers you. Sheesh, stupid vegan moron.
@XulChris No you don't. You can easily eat soy, beans, mushrooms, vegetables, fruits etc. your entire life and not die of hunger. Did you even watch the video and consider the counterarguments before concluding "vegetarianism = communist hippie bullshit"?
@XulChris Very few of them are, and you don't need to include legumes in your vegetarian diet anyway. Look, if you can find some data that vegetarians are more likely to die from malnutrition than omni-/carnivores, then do continue on this line of argumentation. Until then, you're wasting your time.
Do you find that throwing insults gives your arguments more gravitas, or are you just venting your frustration or insecurity?
@ConscientiousMind I was probably venting my frustration. Grains and legumes contain poisons like lectins, phytic acid and glutens. They contain no nutritional value whatsoever. They actually absorb minerals from your body. They are actually anti-nutritious. They also cause leaky guts and accelerate the ageing process. In order to eat legumes you have to soak them in water otherwise you will die of poisoning.
Another point on the cruelty aspect is that nature is very often far crueler then any of the PETA videos I've ever seen. More then once I've seen videos of lions eating a living animal, now being hung by a broken leg in a meat processing plant or bled out to meet with koshur butchering should be stopped, but either of those is far preferable to being eaten alive. No sane person is going to call a lion a criminal and intervene on behalf of antelope.
I believe in animal rights, they should be protected from pain and provided with a decent life. I don't think they have the right to life, the only rights I think they have are to not be tortured. To me any life free of unnecessary pain regardless of how long, is a good life. Today many millions of animals are born and live in lives on average as good or better then their wild counterparts. Many of these would not be born if we didn't eat meat. On net eating meat is good for animals.
As a christian and a libertarian I believe two things.
1. All animals are on the planet for the USE of humans.
2. Humans have the reasponcibility to protect humans.
Now I eat alot of meant... BUT I agree that it must be done as humanly as possible. I'll also argue that chickens and cows, are not self aware. Their intelligence is so low that they do not suffer from emotional distress. Dogs, Hourses, Pigs, ect ect are intelligent enough to have and display emotions. The previous two do not.
@pcgamernum1 There's significant evidence that both chickens and cows suffer emotional distress. If YouTube let me post links without flagging it as spam, I'd gladly show you some.
Our rights are derived from our ability to reason, make choices and respect others rights. Animals do not possess these abilities. As to why I choose to eat meat is because meat is yummy and it makes me happy.
I don't see it this way... I support markets and the maximization of individual choice because it is appropriate for HUMAN survival. It's about choice, anyway. Choice is the reality. Individual freedom and individual rights are just a metaphysical speculation...
I find odd that some libertarians will apply the non-aggression principles to other humans but not other sentient beings that have the same physical and emotional feelings as we do.
Private property rights are the core of libertarianism (not the NAP). Humans act purposefully, animals do not. Animals can therefore be owned and eaten.
the animals and babies comparison shows the absurdity of your thought process, you posit "humans" as one group; this would obviously include human babies.
@alexkelly55 We share 98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees and 99.5% of our DNA among human "races" so the difference between you, me and a chimpanzee is not that large. The chimpanzee can reason. Lots of animals can reason and learn. You put up a very high, and arbitrary, level of what is considered as reasoning. To the topic: I would be vegetarian if I didn't live in socialist EU where gov't pays for food production regardless of market demand. The cow is dead, might as well eat it...
I also wanted to add... The really messed up thing is that as babies - we reject meat. We ALL come into this world as lacto vegetarians. And parents actually TRAIN young babies to "like" meat (basically FORCE them to eat it - even if they keep rejecting it) - if parents would just stop this and raise their kids vegetarian - as they prefer... We actually don't have a taste for it, it's like beer/coffee. We LEARN to like such things.
If people are going to be veg for ethical reasons, it's their responsibility and duty to become vegan... Dairy/egg farming are the cause of the WORST suffering. AND m calves (veal) and m chicks are killed directly because of dairy/egg industry... Also - isn't it true that ALL omnivores can live on a veg diet? I believe (but could be wrong) that omnivore is about being able to survive on just about anything. Most omnivores (like dogs/pigs) live healthier on a veg diet (like that 27 yr old dog).
Of course, it is not economically efficient to use a drug to knock out an animal to kill it without pain, so it is not done currently. If you can agree with the point I just stated, it becomes clear that you are not against eating and killing animals but you are against the infliction of pain. In the future we may be able to economically kill animals without inflicting any pain. At that point, the only reason to be vegetarian is for health benefits or better food supply.
@brush200400 In the future, it will be more economical to simply grow the meat itself, rather than the animal. In that case, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever.
@JacobSpinney You know that Rothbard (assuming you are a Rothbardian) argued that the individual loses his rights to the extent that he deprives others of their rights?
So when are you going to prosecute a bear for killing, say, a moose?
@JacobSpinney I'd be rather partial to genetically modified tomatoes that have all the nutrients/protein found in animal products that taste like Bacon + Tomato when cooked. I've been vegetarian for about 4 weeks now after having a good think about why I am anarchist and realizing that I agree with you on this vid. I've managed to keep my diet very nutty and feel pretty much the same as before. So thanks for helping me reduce an area of cognitive dissonance in my life.
@brush200400 - The animals for farming, vivisection etc are not just feeling pain/suffering at the end of their lives.... The conditions in which most live in cause immense suffering.
@cannibalcountry The condition animals are current raised in is bad. But again, it's not the acting of killing and eating meat that you people are against.
I agree that more people can be fed on plants, but as for your reduction of suffering and violence, I disagree. Refutation:
You are not resisting to initiate force against animals because you value life; you are doing it because animals would suffer in the process. You take plant life, but not animal life, so it is not their life you value. You know the pain inflicted on animals. But what if we could kill animals without inflicting any pain? We can.
@brush200400 In theory, we can raise animals in fulfilling conditions and kill them with no pain. In practice, is this achieved? Absolutely not. Even if it were achieved, I'd still see the process as rather barbaric, granted less so.
I agree wholeheartedly. You're also right about the meat's taste. If it didn't taste nice, would people would all still eat it because its good for you? No. If that were true, people would eat more vegetables. Its such a fucking disingenuous position.
For those of you who eat meat because you don't want to miss out on essential fats and proteins, try Hemp seeds. They have higher protein than any type of meat or fish.
Very good, well reasoned argument. You didn't even mention all the health benefits of being vegetarian. Sometimes i wonder whether people really have choice, they seems so conditioned to accept social norms, as a species it seems like this conformity is genetically based. Just a thought.
I don't know about everyone else, but I don't eat animals for amusement. I eat them because they taste good and I don't care enough about non-intelligent animals to not want to eat them.
Libertarians also believe in individual choice.That includes the choice to consume or abstain from animal based foods..A guilt -based moral ban on meat is not very secular considering it rides on a belief system.Just because I don't choose to eat animal flesh doesn't mean I'll stop someone else.It's one thing to inform and its another to "preach".
@dust540,where do you get rape,murder and exploitation from a food choice?Are you prejudice against carnivores and omnivores who pursue,strangulate,suffocate and/or break the neck of their prey?If it weren't for these animals,the herbivore population would overgraze the land and turn it into a wasteland.Millions of insects,rodents,earthworms and microbes are killed to protect your "tofu utopia".So is it perfectly fine to kill a living entity if it doesn't look cuddly?You tell me.
@StatelessLiberty You may very well criticize every single thing I do, but unless you impart to me the value of not doing it or coerce me into not doing it, I will continue. And why should I not? This is what will happen regardless of me being a moral nihilist or not.
There is what happens when one basing their entire political philosophy on a fantasy and falsehood such as the non aggression principle (which can never exist in a full form because of certain norms such as property which are not voluntary). One gets insanity along with a type of focus on irrelevant issues and endorsement of positions that most people have little to no concern with/detest for. I encourage everyone to abandon the enslaving, false NAP position. Aggression is positive.
"I encourage everyone to abandon the enslaving, false NAP position. Aggression is positive."
It's not "false"; it's a summary of intent. Yes, aggression is positive, it is an action. And the summary of intent of NAP is that of not doing such an action.
If we carrry your non aggression principle to its logical conclusion libertarians would also have to be against killing mosquitos, disease causing microbes etc.
@davyjames People seem to have no problem killing spiders, flys etc. We never hear about their righst. Is it because the spiders, flys etc are not cut and cuddily.
@davyjames People seem to have no problem killing spiders, flys etc. We never hear about their righst. Is it because the spiders, flys etc are not cute and cuddily?
@Finnbar01 I don't think that's the logical conclusion of what he's saying at all! I thought he was quite clear about the difference between want and need... I'm vegetarian because, given all the tasty and nutritious alternatives, I have no need to kill another sentient being to survive. I do however clean my house, killing microbes and pests, because they are a direct threat to my survival. There's a humungous difference!
@itachi705 What does that even mean? Why would I eat a rock, or anything else that has neither pleasant flavour or nutritious value, when there's a world full of (insentient) tasty and nutritious vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, etc., etc.. Sorry but your argument is utter BS!
@witalian1 Someone in a coma IS STILL sentient, being brain dead may be a different matter... Plants are IN NO WAY sentient... I don't have a problem with any voluntary interactions so in the case of your hypothetical animal which enjoys being eaten I wouldn't have a problem. That would also require that said animal had the capability (language) to be able to convey its preference to you though.
Someone in a coma is still sentient only in the same sense in witch plants are sentient. It can react to outside stimuli, but it doesn't have a working central nervous system to capable of making behavioral decisions. Like it or not, we are animals, and animals exist by consuming other living things. Drawing a line between animals and plants is pretty arbitrary. Drawing it on the line of sentience is still arbitrary because it makes it OK to kill if the victim is oblivious.
@Finnbar01 I don't ever kill flies or spiders (and I'm scared of spiders). A mosquito I would happily swat though if I thought it was carrying malaria and wanted to bite me.
@Finnbar01 I disagree... Killing blood sucking or disease spreading insects is a matter of self defense. Slaughtering innocent cows, chickens and pigs have nothing to do with protecting ourselves from harm or threats. A plant based diet causes less suffering in the world - Surely that is a wise choice to make? ;)
@aggrajag2813 You're are the one that doesn't seem to want to engage. Here's a response to another poster on part 2 of this video.' Please google Dr Robert Winston, he did a BBC TV series on evolution and he explained quite well how eating meat helped our brains to develop to evovle to the Human Beings we are today. Also, he explained how people hunting in packs helped to develop and encourage communtiies and cooperation. Hunting came way before farming.'
@Finnbar01 You're changing your argument mid-stream. You asserted that it's possible that things lacking a central nervous system suffer. I asked if you really wanted to engage in a discussion about that, and you switched to an entirely new argument without addressing my question at all. That says to me that even you know your first statement was faulty. If you want to have it out over this I'm willing, but I'll not debate with someone who uses smoke and mirrors rather than a sound argument.
@aggrajag2813 I sure mozzies, flies etc do experience pain when you swat them. For the record I only believe in killing animals as humanely as possible for substasince (sp?). And I am a strong supporter of animal welfare.
@Finnbar01 They lack a central nervous system and there's no scientific study showing that they can feel pain. For the record, I still don't swat them.
@ProDCloud Death is not the only part of life, number one. If I hold you captive and treat you like shit, but at the end when I decide to kill you I shoot you in the head and you don't feel anything, that doesn't justify everything that came before. But, to answer your question more directly: Pain and sentience are, in my opinion, sufficient criteria for offering something enough moral consideration not to kill it.
The only reason I think you would find this whole thing perplexing, is because you're making some really tenuous connections between what it means to be libertarian, and vegetarianism. You're following a chain of logic like so:
NAP -> Reduction of suffering (does not necessarily follow) -> Applies to animals (does not necessarily follow) -> ergo Vegetarian!
@eagleeye1975 Do you dispute that we are indeed aggressing against animals when we kill them unnecessarily? The only question that remains, then, is what makes humans so different from animals so that the NAP only applies to us? It cannot be intelligence, as many animals are far more intelligent than a newborn baby, for instance. The only logical reason would be sentience and, unfortunately for meat eaters, sentience is a greyscale, not a black and white line.
@eagleeye1975 P.S. I'm not arguing that Libertarianism automatically leads to vegetarianism. But that because of the strong emphasis that libertarianism places on nonviolence, I would think there to be a strong association to vegetarianism, rather than the dissociation that I see.
I was a vegetarian (then vegan) for years, starting in high school with a vegan girlfriend and ending in college. Now I'm paleo. I eat mostly meat and animal products (grass-fed or wild-caught for higher n3/n6 ratio). I strongly suggest the blogs of ex-vegans "letthemeatmeat" and "huntgatherlove" who have dealt extensively with the ethical, nutritional, environmentalist arguments for veganism. And I strongly strongly suggest "archevore" on nutrition and meat in general.
I hate animal cruelty. I think the answer as usual won't be protests, or laws, or agreements, because people don't listen to protests, brake laws, or agree...
The answer will be technology, when a computer can replicate an organism chemistry no more animal experiments.
When humans find a way to make abundant food that people like better than animals, then the demand will stop.
Obviously the simple answer its not easy, is it? you have to study and work, not just say "Stop" no animal abuse.
Here's the problem Jacob, your definition of 'sentience' is not correct in my view. Does suffering head trauma that removes the ability to feel pain and emotions cause a person to lose their sentience?
Sentience is defined, as far as I am concerned, by the ability to reason, the sense of self-awareness, and/or the ability to overcome instinct through emotions rather than express them AS emotions. Some animals (chimps, dolphins,..) show signs of this; cows, chickens, etc... do not.
We can minimize the suffering of humans as well by the redistribution of wealth. People can live perfectly full and healthy lives in a nice condo or apartment. There is no need to live in a house or mansion. Think of how many people AND animals suffer because of your indulgence in what is 'pleasurable' when there are perfectly suitable substitutes available to you.
I would associate rights with Sentience, not with having a "brain", in any case, I like meat and animal rights is for me a seriously minor issue, even worse, its totally dominated by lefties. Oh and I don't want to give animals property rights.
the analogy to babies is correct. if "baby" referred to thing that would never become human, people would treat them as they do animals. this is because THEY ARE NOT humans (a term of philosophy here and not biology, stupid)
despite your unfounded opening claim, the line between human and non-human is not fucking arbitrary. it is the very basis of all of the political philosophy we all usually masturbate to
Pt. 3 Furthermore, if the ability to feel pain is what qualifies one to be under the aegis of the non-aggression principle, then suppose that you took a powerful painkiller that numbed your entire nervous system, and I took a hammer and broke your leg. Since you didn't feel a thing, that means, according to you, that I did nothing wrong. However, if you acknowledge this to be a property issue, then you'd know that your leg is still your property, even if you can't feel it breaking.
Animal are not capable to be ethical and I have no gain to be ethical toward them. The capacity to feel pain or emotions of other human or babies have nothing to do with the aggression principal. Check your premises and your epistomology.
Pt. 2 Also, your argument that animals are to be exculpated for the violence they commit against each other b/c they do not possess sufficient rationality to understand what they are doing is a little too good and proves too much. Suppose I am insane and do not realize the harm I cause you when I stab you to death. By your argument, I should not be held accountable. However, to consistent libertarians, I should still be punished b/c I have damaged your property. Animals have no property.
With all due respect, Jacob, you are absurdly inconsistent. The relevant question about when the non-aggression principle applies and when it doesn't refers not to an entity's ability to experience suffering, but to whether they own property. It is wrong to initiate violence against a human b/c that human is a property owner. And the right to be a property owner depends on rationality and the exercise of volition to act on value judgments. Animals are slaves to instinct; they have no volition.
I am actually okay with exploiting babies as long as you don't allow the ones exploited, to live until they are old enough to gain the mental and emotional prowess that makes them worthy of human rights. Nothing that we determine as being a major factor in giving us humans rights that other animals aren't worthy of, in our eyes, are present in a baby. In a world where there are excess humans, I see no problem in exploiting babies, because there is nothing special about a baby.
Non aggression is a pipe dream. Even if we had a society with a lot more liberty in it's law (that's what I feel libertarianism is) you still have to enforce that law through aggression. Because humans have a violent nature because it is damn useful (not moral, just useful) on this scarce planet to conquer others for their resources, as well as band together. If a militarily unified ultra libertarian society existed, and boasted the most powerful military, and most effective police force...
@MacabreManifesto ...(the net of all private companies of course) then they'd still require aggression to enforce contracts, laws/well-being, and defense. As for vegetarianism, the problem is that most people don't feel that the right to life extends past humanity. I actually feel that it is more moral to keep an animal from suffering than to keep them from dying. And it is thus moral to promote morally grown meat since, in our most moral methods, animals get a better life than they6 would...
@MacabreManifesto ...in the wild. I would find it much more immoral to eat white chicken eggs from chickens so stressed it borders on torture, than it would be to eat morally grown meat, because one creates demand for stress, and one creates demand for relaxation. Either way I still feel that my right to dollar menu chicken trumps an animals right not to be mass produced in terrible conditions because the money I save and the improved quality of life I, a human, receives, trump's the animal's.
In a free society where animals are not used, they would have no value and would become a problem. Elephants have never faced extinction in Asia because those elephants have value. Authorities would have to use force to stop farmers from defending their crops from invading animals. Also how could someone claim any homestead if animals were equal to humans? If the NAP is between humans and animals it becomes impossible to work between humans.
@TheAlaric89 The animals in the livestock sector only exist because they are artificially bred. If you do not pay to breed them then they cannot cause any form of problem.
Your argument about sentience doesn't work very well because it isn't just on or off. There are varying degrees of self awareness and most animals we eat don't have very much. They are living only for the purpose to be killed and if they were treated better and killed painlessly I would have no problem with it because they are essentially relatively basic machines evolved to reproduce and with no other purpose in their lives as limited by capability. Nonaggression I see more as a human truce.
makarov
PHEnhoj85 1 week ago
Sharp enunciation doesn't make your point more valid. "All feel pain, fear, joy, etc." Verify this. If you can manage to somehow prove what every other animal feels and their range of possible emotions and emotional depth, wow, I definitely concede. Otherwise it's an argument from assumption.. and so, meat.
JaysThoughts 2 weeks ago 3
soon they will being growing meat in a petri dish
turg87 1 month ago
I do make reference to other animals eating animals, because i believe it shows a marked difference between how herd animals normally die, and how we kill them. A animal we eat will have a much high quality of life than a wild animal. our animals never fear predators morning noon and night and do no get ripped to shreds in youth, old age, and sickness.
TheAtheistFuture 1 month ago
@TheAtheistFuture Excuse me? Please, I would like for you to take a look at a film called Earthlings and see how millions of animals die yearly. You may also find other documentaries such as The Cove (from Japan), Mataderos (from Spain) and the latest undercover investigation in Britain performed by Animal Equality at some Norfolk farm
Veganomante 2 weeks ago
Well your baby analogy is quite funny, since there are people that do indeed believe that they can do what ever they like with them, like chopping off parts of their genitals.
TheAtheistFuture 1 month ago
@TheAtheistFuture But you don't (I hope). Less than moral people are not the issue here, but values WE hold. If, say, I don't give a shit about humans, then I'm not going to be persuaded into considering the rights of nonhumans. But if you already believe that babies deserve equal consideration, that rebukes the supposed argument from rationality.
Veganomante 2 weeks ago
All life dies, it's not the death of the animal that's the problem, but the quality of life. If possible, I wish to be fertiliser on my death. The amount of wasted meat we throw away because we'd rather people starve than let them have any of the surplus meat is a problem. Since the animals we eat have been domesticated for many thousands of years, you advocate the near extinction of these animals, they could not survive in the wild and we would need their feeding lands to produce more veg.
TheAtheistFuture 1 month ago
@TheAtheistFuture Since when the description 'all life dies' becomes the prescription 'therefore, it's OK to kill'? Sounds suspiciously close to deriving an ought from an is. The underlying principle that let us make that jump is an already established prejudice (or discrmination, if you will) against other animals. You already think they are less and therefore you think it only applies to them. Because to humans it doesn't apply, right?
Veganomante 2 weeks ago
"life feeds on life"
demonhuntevo 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
self interest isnt a line between humans and animals
demonhuntevo 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
the line between humans and animals is not arbitrary. It is in fact quite clear, Not all animals are self-aware its silly to think just because you don't eat animals your lifestyle isn't contributing to the death of animals. Modern medicine would not be possible without animal testing and even farming vegetables requires killing innumerable rodents and insects
RzaChess 1 month ago
What about animals dying by natural causes? Is it right according to you to eat them then?
Sebajstard 1 month ago in playlist More videos from JacobSpinney
@Sebajstard If you ask me, it is as OK as eating a human that died by natural causes (ethically speaking). Of course, in the case of the human, you consider what the family would think if you ate the diseased. But that doesn't change the underlying amorality of the act of doing something to someone that already doesn't feel a thing.
Veganomante 2 weeks ago
@Veganomante Amorality or Immorality. What's immoral about eating a dead human? Other than it disturbing the family? When I die I hope to be fed on by animals and before that my organs donated to any one that could possibly make use of them. Ofc I have an established prejudice against other animals, i can't stand ideologies that want to ignore the fact that we are animals instead of trying to work with that. The only immorality with eating meat is the way we treat the animal during life, badly.
TheAtheistFuture 2 weeks ago
@Veganomante I just don't see the harm in killing animals for meat, if given a good life, well fed and well treated, and a quick and pain free death. And since the animals tend to be slaughtered in batches there won't be any one left to grieve, and they've had a good life. You propose mass extinction, and being shredded to pieces in the wild for all farmed animals. Or do you expect us to continue to care for them and put them in special ex farmed animal homes.
TheAtheistFuture 2 weeks ago
It's clear you never ran a farm, since animals do a lot more than consume feed that would otherwise go to humans. Anyway the complaint about land is irrelevant, since people can do with their property what they please. As to my choice, I choose to be a predator. I choose to continue playing the role that nature gave to humans, to be an actor in a play that began in the Pre-Cambrian era. I never feel so spiritual, as when I am hunting.
j3ox 1 month ago
I agree responsible people do not want to cause pain, even to non-human animals. That is why I take care when I am hunting, to kill as quickly and humanely as possible. The animals I kill are almost certain to have a quicker and more painless death than I or most humans will face. All animals will die. By convincing people not to hunt deer for example, you are contributing to the pain they will face at death, since death by animal predation or disease does not involve any scruples about pain.
j3ox 1 month ago
@rehwr Here's the kicker: We can't
atleast not properly, just as any non-carnivore
GreenGuyofSweden 1 month ago
Try out the true anarchist community if you are looking for non-speciesist (and environmentalist) political minds, JacobSpinney.
Pikukat 1 month ago
Way to go on the video, by the way
Pikukat 1 month ago
Vegetarianism can't work in everywhere! I live in the Ozarks and our soil is so rocky, which prevents growing anything on a large scale. Its the major reason why most people are ranchers and hunters around here!
rehwr 1 month ago in playlist More videos from JacobSpinney
Do vegetables somehow owe you the obligation to contribute their lives towards your sustenance? It is also life you know...If you are going to focus your argument on capacity for suffering then I hope you can see the obvious implications. If I can accomplish a murder without causing the victim any suffering......................................
a46475 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Animal protein is the main casue of cancer and milk is the worst culprit. Google: Animal Protein -- Meat and Dairy -- Cause Cancer YouTube
nivekvb 1 month ago
Comment removed
nivekvb 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a nice video. I'm a vegetarian too, well, virtually a vegan really as I only eat a cheese based meal when I go out to a restaurent every few weeks. I can see that you are a nice guy, Jacob, and I do not get much pleasure out of argung with libertarians like you as I can see that you mean well. So all the best, and I mean that.
nivekvb 1 month ago
Comment removed
nivekvb 1 month ago
Libertarianism is based on market forces and concumer choice. Consumers in a free market have massive access to meat, and most choose to consume it. Non-aggression is, in most libertarian's eyes, less important as a principle than free choice in a free market. As a voluntaryist, you oughht to heartily support this.
TheAlfonz69 1 month ago
@rockstarofredondo People eat meat for four different reasons;
Habit, Tradition, Convenience and taste, every reason you can possibly come up with fall under those. And no, we have not, as a species, evolved to eating meat, society has.
But your most disturbing arguement is that "harvesting meat in a less harmful way, to hunt ourselves". This would undeniably have far worse consequences in bigger scales.
GreenGuyofSweden 1 month ago
@GreenGuyofSweden Then why can humans digest meat? Oh, ya, we're built to!
rehwr 1 month ago in playlist More videos from JacobSpinney
@rehwr Ah now, cows and sheep and chickens all get fed meat and fish meal. Arabian horses have been fed on and thrived on meat. That's a nonsensical argument. We can get some nutritional goodness from consuming poo, but it wouldn't mean it's a good idea
Pikukat 1 month ago
@rockstarofredondo
I apologize for not including a source to back up my claim. I will even go further and say that all animal products are unhealthy. Read the book "Eat to Live" by Joel Fuhrman. This book, among others, is how I came to my conclusion.
I have no idea why you respond to my post with what most vegetarians eat, but a source for your claim. I also don't think that what humans were evolved to eat adds anything to the discussion of whether or not it's healthy. Try again.
jimlovesgina 2 months ago
@jimlovesgina
I mean that you should include a source for the claim that most vegetarians eat processed carbohydrates. Sorry.
jimlovesgina 2 months ago
Eating a diet that we were evolved to eat is not "pleasure & amusement". Human beings are evolved to eat meat, plain & simple. The factory farms are disturbing, but what can we do when the government prevents us from harvesting our meat in a less harmful way, such as hunting it for ourselves? It's illegal to do anything the proper way, especially in "the west". We cannot be faulted for simply trying to survive in the healthiest way possible. Your other stuff is good, but this video is crap.
rockstarofredondo 2 months ago
The NAP isn't flat out "No force, period," it's no force to acheive a political or social goal.
AnchorsAweigh2010 2 months ago
"Why Aren't Libertarians More Vegetarian?" Because they aren't forced to be.
IWantToUnderstandIt 2 months ago
Eating meat is why americans are unhealthy. Eating meat increases the risk of cancer and heart disease. Eating meat is also completely unnecessary. We live in a time when we can eat the right foods to prolong healthy lives and instead we choose to eat garbage that makes us miserable in the long term for short term gratification.
jimlovesgina 2 months ago
@jimlovesgina That is a total myth. Eating processed carbohydrates, which is what vegetarians mostly eat, is what increases health risks. Human beings were evolved to eat fresh plant matter & meat from dead animal's carcasses. The modern diet is abysmally unhealthy because it's loaded with sugar, which is a toxin to the tissues. Fresh meat is not "garbage".
rockstarofredondo 2 months ago
Libertarianism is the natural order. Hunt and kill food is natural instinkt. dont see why eating meat and being libertarian shouldnt fit together
Weintraubeheld221 2 months ago
@Weintraubeheld221 For some reason I read this comment in a German "emotionless supervillain" -accent. "Nein, Mr. Bont. I expekt you to die effiziently und kvickly!"
ConscientiousMind 2 months ago
Eating food doesn't violate any principle about non-violence. Libertarians tend to be libertarian because they recognize reality and don't buy into mindless BS. The fact that you are promoting the idea that eating mean is somehow immoral while you haven't pulled out your canine teeth only indicates that you aren't at all dedicated to the belief you claim.
wrjamescom 2 months ago
Well I like meat so I guess I am not Libertarian, but I agree with you on Decentralization/Economics/Statism as being bad/etc.
YaHuWaHservant 3 months ago in playlist More videos from JacobSpinney
I am a libertarian and vegetarian. I actually became a vegetarian through libertarian ethics.
SocietyIncollapse 3 months ago
101 thumbs down..?
lol @ cult of meat-worship.
IdaMiaDot 3 months ago
HAHA this guy just doesnt get it at all. after all of these videos in support of capitalism and a free market, he just doesnt understand the core foundation of this ideology. go watch your uncle miltys vid "friedman schools a young michael moore"
and listen real closely to miltons argument about cost versus principle, think real hard on it, and then maybe the light bulb will go off, and youll see why so many liberterians dont like this particular video.
rofllolzkek 3 months ago
Oh please, don't be such a moron. The non-aggression principle is non-violence against other HUMANS. You HAVE to kill animals in order to survive. Just say a prayer before you eat if it bothers you. Sheesh, stupid vegan moron.
XulChris 3 months ago
@XulChris No you don't. You can easily eat soy, beans, mushrooms, vegetables, fruits etc. your entire life and not die of hunger. Did you even watch the video and consider the counterarguments before concluding "vegetarianism = communist hippie bullshit"?
ConscientiousMind 2 months ago
@ConscientiousMind legumes are poisonous you bleeping moron.
XulChris 2 months ago
@XulChris Very few of them are, and you don't need to include legumes in your vegetarian diet anyway. Look, if you can find some data that vegetarians are more likely to die from malnutrition than omni-/carnivores, then do continue on this line of argumentation. Until then, you're wasting your time.
Do you find that throwing insults gives your arguments more gravitas, or are you just venting your frustration or insecurity?
ConscientiousMind 2 months ago
@ConscientiousMind I was probably venting my frustration. Grains and legumes contain poisons like lectins, phytic acid and glutens. They contain no nutritional value whatsoever. They actually absorb minerals from your body. They are actually anti-nutritious. They also cause leaky guts and accelerate the ageing process. In order to eat legumes you have to soak them in water otherwise you will die of poisoning.
XulChris 2 months ago
part 2
Another point on the cruelty aspect is that nature is very often far crueler then any of the PETA videos I've ever seen. More then once I've seen videos of lions eating a living animal, now being hung by a broken leg in a meat processing plant or bled out to meet with koshur butchering should be stopped, but either of those is far preferable to being eaten alive. No sane person is going to call a lion a criminal and intervene on behalf of antelope.
Hashishin13 3 months ago
I believe in animal rights, they should be protected from pain and provided with a decent life. I don't think they have the right to life, the only rights I think they have are to not be tortured. To me any life free of unnecessary pain regardless of how long, is a good life. Today many millions of animals are born and live in lives on average as good or better then their wild counterparts. Many of these would not be born if we didn't eat meat. On net eating meat is good for animals.
Hashishin13 3 months ago
GO VEGAN!
Nutzername36 3 months ago
As a christian and a libertarian I believe two things.
1. All animals are on the planet for the USE of humans.
2. Humans have the reasponcibility to protect humans.
Now I eat alot of meant... BUT I agree that it must be done as humanly as possible. I'll also argue that chickens and cows, are not self aware. Their intelligence is so low that they do not suffer from emotional distress. Dogs, Hourses, Pigs, ect ect are intelligent enough to have and display emotions. The previous two do not.
pcgamernum1 3 months ago
@pcgamernum1 There's significant evidence that both chickens and cows suffer emotional distress. If YouTube let me post links without flagging it as spam, I'd gladly show you some.
aggrajag2813 3 months ago
Our rights are derived from our ability to reason, make choices and respect others rights. Animals do not possess these abilities. As to why I choose to eat meat is because meat is yummy and it makes me happy.
AntiLiberal1026 4 months ago
I don't see it this way... I support markets and the maximization of individual choice because it is appropriate for HUMAN survival. It's about choice, anyway. Choice is the reality. Individual freedom and individual rights are just a metaphysical speculation...
iagopseleme 4 months ago
Saying that people can eat only plant foods and live 'perfectly healthy lives' is absolutely untrue.
I absolutely abhor eating plant and derive most of my nutrition from killed animals. Eating plant for the rest of my life would be a living hell.
You need to learn and accept that there are OTHER value judgments besides your own and there are OTHER wants and needs besides yours.
marcoantoniocosta 4 months ago
My argument is that animals which are self aware should be respected by the non-aggression principle. This means no more killing monkeys etc
DoctorCapitalist 4 months ago in playlist Videos from JacobSpinney
I love bacon though : (
DoctorCapitalist 4 months ago in playlist Videos from JacobSpinney
Holy shit. There exists in the world another atheist libertarian vegetarian. I want to give you a hug right now, mang.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 4 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES I'm one but I'm rethinking vegetarianism. At least with fish and poultry.
Esoparagon 4 months ago
I find odd that some libertarians will apply the non-aggression principles to other humans but not other sentient beings that have the same physical and emotional feelings as we do.
Frasssaanarchy 4 months ago
Private property rights are the core of libertarianism (not the NAP). Humans act purposefully, animals do not. Animals can therefore be owned and eaten.
kdo2300 5 months ago
the animals and babies comparison shows the absurdity of your thought process, you posit "humans" as one group; this would obviously include human babies.
TheL0wner 6 months ago in playlist More videos from JacobSpinney
Comment removed
alexkelly55 6 months ago
@alexkelly55 Please see my "What Is A Healthy Diet?" video.
JacobSpinney 6 months ago
@alexkelly55 Please see my "What Is A Healthy Diet?" video.
JacobSpinney 6 months ago
@JacobSpinney
Gary Tubby Taubes
why would anyone take advice from that guy?
NoNeedToStudy1 2 months ago
@alexkelly55 We share 98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees and 99.5% of our DNA among human "races" so the difference between you, me and a chimpanzee is not that large. The chimpanzee can reason. Lots of animals can reason and learn. You put up a very high, and arbitrary, level of what is considered as reasoning. To the topic: I would be vegetarian if I didn't live in socialist EU where gov't pays for food production regardless of market demand. The cow is dead, might as well eat it...
benji4608 1 month ago
Comment removed
alexkelly55 3 weeks ago
@alexkelly55 Do mentally handicapped humans not have rights then?
We should only surrender freedom when it causes suffering to other individuals. Animals can, obviously, suffer.
BringBRToTheUK 1 month ago
@alexkelly55 'Do some research' LOL
Veganomante 2 weeks ago
I am a vegetarian and I am a right libertarian.
madhoyden 6 months ago
I also wanted to add... The really messed up thing is that as babies - we reject meat. We ALL come into this world as lacto vegetarians. And parents actually TRAIN young babies to "like" meat (basically FORCE them to eat it - even if they keep rejecting it) - if parents would just stop this and raise their kids vegetarian - as they prefer... We actually don't have a taste for it, it's like beer/coffee. We LEARN to like such things.
cannibalcountry 6 months ago
If people are going to be veg for ethical reasons, it's their responsibility and duty to become vegan... Dairy/egg farming are the cause of the WORST suffering. AND m calves (veal) and m chicks are killed directly because of dairy/egg industry... Also - isn't it true that ALL omnivores can live on a veg diet? I believe (but could be wrong) that omnivore is about being able to survive on just about anything. Most omnivores (like dogs/pigs) live healthier on a veg diet (like that 27 yr old dog).
cannibalcountry 6 months ago
Libertarian animal rights activists vegetarians of the world unite! But seriously, this libertarian vegan thanks you for making this video.
MstrirSage 6 months ago
Of course, it is not economically efficient to use a drug to knock out an animal to kill it without pain, so it is not done currently. If you can agree with the point I just stated, it becomes clear that you are not against eating and killing animals but you are against the infliction of pain. In the future we may be able to economically kill animals without inflicting any pain. At that point, the only reason to be vegetarian is for health benefits or better food supply.
brush200400 6 months ago
@brush200400 In the future, it will be more economical to simply grow the meat itself, rather than the animal. In that case, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever.
JacobSpinney 6 months ago
@JacobSpinney You know that Rothbard (assuming you are a Rothbardian) argued that the individual loses his rights to the extent that he deprives others of their rights?
So when are you going to prosecute a bear for killing, say, a moose?
jsgoodfella 4 months ago
@JacobSpinney I'd be rather partial to genetically modified tomatoes that have all the nutrients/protein found in animal products that taste like Bacon + Tomato when cooked. I've been vegetarian for about 4 weeks now after having a good think about why I am anarchist and realizing that I agree with you on this vid. I've managed to keep my diet very nutty and feel pretty much the same as before. So thanks for helping me reduce an area of cognitive dissonance in my life.
LatteJonny 3 months ago
@brush200400 - The animals for farming, vivisection etc are not just feeling pain/suffering at the end of their lives.... The conditions in which most live in cause immense suffering.
cannibalcountry 6 months ago
@cannibalcountry The condition animals are current raised in is bad. But again, it's not the acting of killing and eating meat that you people are against.
brush200400 6 months ago
I agree that more people can be fed on plants, but as for your reduction of suffering and violence, I disagree. Refutation:
You are not resisting to initiate force against animals because you value life; you are doing it because animals would suffer in the process. You take plant life, but not animal life, so it is not their life you value. You know the pain inflicted on animals. But what if we could kill animals without inflicting any pain? We can.
brush200400 6 months ago
@brush200400 In theory, we can raise animals in fulfilling conditions and kill them with no pain. In practice, is this achieved? Absolutely not. Even if it were achieved, I'd still see the process as rather barbaric, granted less so.
JacobSpinney 6 months ago
@JacobSpinney
if youre gonna kill them anyway why do it without pain, either we can kill them or we cant.
unfad1ng 2 months ago
Comment removed
Objectivist1994 6 months ago
I agree wholeheartedly. You're also right about the meat's taste. If it didn't taste nice, would people would all still eat it because its good for you? No. If that were true, people would eat more vegetables. Its such a fucking disingenuous position.
LatumWay 6 months ago
Comment removed
brush200400 6 months ago
For those of you who eat meat because you don't want to miss out on essential fats and proteins, try Hemp seeds. They have higher protein than any type of meat or fish.
heavymetaldeath4life 7 months ago
Very good, well reasoned argument. You didn't even mention all the health benefits of being vegetarian. Sometimes i wonder whether people really have choice, they seems so conditioned to accept social norms, as a species it seems like this conformity is genetically based. Just a thought.
jemmre 7 months ago
plants respect the non-agression principle
Rapeliums 7 months ago
@Rapeliums,how do you explain the pitcher plant,the Venus fly trap and every plant that exudes poison to kill the life attempting to eat it?
namniekib 7 months ago
Animals can never be members of the human club.
Finnbar01 7 months ago
I always thought that the philosophy of libertarianism was to fuck over your neighbors for your own gain?
ToxicMayo9 8 months ago
I don't know about everyone else, but I don't eat animals for amusement. I eat them because they taste good and I don't care enough about non-intelligent animals to not want to eat them.
TehRaegls 8 months ago
Libertarians also believe in individual choice.That includes the choice to consume or abstain from animal based foods..A guilt -based moral ban on meat is not very secular considering it rides on a belief system.Just because I don't choose to eat animal flesh doesn't mean I'll stop someone else.It's one thing to inform and its another to "preach".
namniekib 8 months ago
@namniekib So it's perfectly fine if an individual chooses to rape, murder, exploit someone?
dust540 8 months ago
@dust540,where do you get rape,murder and exploitation from a food choice?Are you prejudice against carnivores and omnivores who pursue,strangulate,suffocate and/or break the neck of their prey?If it weren't for these animals,the herbivore population would overgraze the land and turn it into a wasteland.Millions of insects,rodents,earthworms and microbes are killed to protect your "tofu utopia".So is it perfectly fine to kill a living entity if it doesn't look cuddly?You tell me.
namniekib 7 months ago
Vegetarians aggress against vegetables.
PissedFechtmeister 8 months ago
I am genuinely stunned by the idiocy of some of these comments.
"We need to privatise elephants! (A parallel to slavery can definitely not be drawn!)"
"Microbes suffer equally to other more conscious life forms so you're saying we shouldn't harm them?!"
"It's just not natural!"
"Shouldn't we prioritise humans over animals?!"
"I'm a moral nihilist which means you can't criticise anything I do!"
Retarded arguments.
StatelessLiberty 8 months ago
@StatelessLiberty What do you think of the arguments I made on theshittytalker against the use of morality in relation to vegetarianism?
SomethingSea1 8 months ago
@StatelessLiberty You may very well criticize every single thing I do, but unless you impart to me the value of not doing it or coerce me into not doing it, I will continue. And why should I not? This is what will happen regardless of me being a moral nihilist or not.
TotalAnomy 8 months ago
There is what happens when one basing their entire political philosophy on a fantasy and falsehood such as the non aggression principle (which can never exist in a full form because of certain norms such as property which are not voluntary). One gets insanity along with a type of focus on irrelevant issues and endorsement of positions that most people have little to no concern with/detest for. I encourage everyone to abandon the enslaving, false NAP position. Aggression is positive.
AnglosphereAlliance 8 months ago
@AnglosphereAlliance Exactly.
SomethingSea1 8 months ago
@AnglosphereAlliance
"I encourage everyone to abandon the enslaving, false NAP position. Aggression is positive."
It's not "false"; it's a summary of intent. Yes, aggression is positive, it is an action. And the summary of intent of NAP is that of not doing such an action.
SomethingSea1 8 months ago
Well done! Thanks for articulating these points so clearly!
beaelliott 8 months ago
The answer is very simple. Animal rights aren't profitable. Gotta make that sweet sweet cash!
99bit 8 months ago
Im pro human wellfare.
STAB1L 8 months ago
In a laissez-faire society, you break the law. In a statist society, the law breaks you!
rebelq1 8 months ago
If we carrry your non aggression principle to its logical conclusion libertarians would also have to be against killing mosquitos, disease causing microbes etc.
Finnbar01 8 months ago 2
@Finnbar01 Wouldn't that be self defence?
davyjames 8 months ago
@davyjames People seem to have no problem killing spiders, flys etc. We never hear about their righst. Is it because the spiders, flys etc are not cut and cuddily.
Finnbar01 8 months ago
@davyjames People seem to have no problem killing spiders, flys etc. We never hear about their righst. Is it because the spiders, flys etc are not cute and cuddily?
Finnbar01 8 months ago
@Finnbar01 I don't think that's the logical conclusion of what he's saying at all! I thought he was quite clear about the difference between want and need... I'm vegetarian because, given all the tasty and nutritious alternatives, I have no need to kill another sentient being to survive. I do however clean my house, killing microbes and pests, because they are a direct threat to my survival. There's a humungous difference!
ccodling 8 months ago
@ccodling All creatures are sentient to a degree.
Eat a rock if you don't like killing sentient beings.
itachi705 8 months ago
@itachi705 What does that even mean? Why would I eat a rock, or anything else that has neither pleasant flavour or nutritious value, when there's a world full of (insentient) tasty and nutritious vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, etc., etc.. Sorry but your argument is utter BS!
ccodling 8 months ago
If it's OK to eat something that's insentient, how about eating a person in coma?
Or how about creating an animal that actually feels good about being eaten, like in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
And plants are sentient to a degree - they sense light, they sense magnetic fields, they sense season change, they sense gravity etc.
witalian1 8 months ago
@witalian1 Someone in a coma IS STILL sentient, being brain dead may be a different matter... Plants are IN NO WAY sentient... I don't have a problem with any voluntary interactions so in the case of your hypothetical animal which enjoys being eaten I wouldn't have a problem. That would also require that said animal had the capability (language) to be able to convey its preference to you though.
ccodling 8 months ago
@ccodling
Someone in a coma is still sentient only in the same sense in witch plants are sentient. It can react to outside stimuli, but it doesn't have a working central nervous system to capable of making behavioral decisions. Like it or not, we are animals, and animals exist by consuming other living things. Drawing a line between animals and plants is pretty arbitrary. Drawing it on the line of sentience is still arbitrary because it makes it OK to kill if the victim is oblivious.
witalian1 8 months ago
@ccodling Botanists have established that even plants have a degree of sentience.
Like I said, eat a rock if you don't want to kill a sentient being.
itachi705 7 months ago
@Finnbar01 I don't ever kill flies or spiders (and I'm scared of spiders). A mosquito I would happily swat though if I thought it was carrying malaria and wanted to bite me.
davyjames 7 months ago
@Finnbar01 I disagree... Killing blood sucking or disease spreading insects is a matter of self defense. Slaughtering innocent cows, chickens and pigs have nothing to do with protecting ourselves from harm or threats. A plant based diet causes less suffering in the world - Surely that is a wise choice to make? ;)
beaelliott 8 months ago
@Finnbar01 None of those things suffer. Animals do.
aggrajag2813 8 months ago
@aggrajag2813 How do you know?
Finnbar01 8 months ago
@Finnbar01 Do you really want to have an argument about this or are you just trying to start shit?
aggrajag2813 8 months ago
@aggrajag2813 You're are the one that doesn't seem to want to engage. Here's a response to another poster on part 2 of this video.' Please google Dr Robert Winston, he did a BBC TV series on evolution and he explained quite well how eating meat helped our brains to develop to evovle to the Human Beings we are today. Also, he explained how people hunting in packs helped to develop and encourage communtiies and cooperation. Hunting came way before farming.'
Finnbar01 8 months ago
@Finnbar01 You're changing your argument mid-stream. You asserted that it's possible that things lacking a central nervous system suffer. I asked if you really wanted to engage in a discussion about that, and you switched to an entirely new argument without addressing my question at all. That says to me that even you know your first statement was faulty. If you want to have it out over this I'm willing, but I'll not debate with someone who uses smoke and mirrors rather than a sound argument.
aggrajag2813 8 months ago
@aggrajag2813 I sure mozzies, flies etc do experience pain when you swat them. For the record I only believe in killing animals as humanely as possible for substasince (sp?). And I am a strong supporter of animal welfare.
Finnbar01 8 months ago
@Finnbar01 They lack a central nervous system and there's no scientific study showing that they can feel pain. For the record, I still don't swat them.
aggrajag2813 7 months ago
@aggrajag2813
So is pain a criteria of whether something should die or not? Because people can die painlessly as well...
ProDCloud 6 months ago
@ProDCloud Death is not the only part of life, number one. If I hold you captive and treat you like shit, but at the end when I decide to kill you I shoot you in the head and you don't feel anything, that doesn't justify everything that came before. But, to answer your question more directly: Pain and sentience are, in my opinion, sufficient criteria for offering something enough moral consideration not to kill it.
aggrajag2813 6 months ago
Comment removed
Finnbar01 7 months ago
@Finnbar01 No, that could be considered self-defence.
waksibra 6 months ago
Great video!
jaminunit 8 months ago
The only reason I think you would find this whole thing perplexing, is because you're making some really tenuous connections between what it means to be libertarian, and vegetarianism. You're following a chain of logic like so:
NAP -> Reduction of suffering (does not necessarily follow) -> Applies to animals (does not necessarily follow) -> ergo Vegetarian!
eagleeye1975 8 months ago
@eagleeye1975 Do you dispute that we are indeed aggressing against animals when we kill them unnecessarily? The only question that remains, then, is what makes humans so different from animals so that the NAP only applies to us? It cannot be intelligence, as many animals are far more intelligent than a newborn baby, for instance. The only logical reason would be sentience and, unfortunately for meat eaters, sentience is a greyscale, not a black and white line.
JacobSpinney 8 months ago
@eagleeye1975 P.S. I'm not arguing that Libertarianism automatically leads to vegetarianism. But that because of the strong emphasis that libertarianism places on nonviolence, I would think there to be a strong association to vegetarianism, rather than the dissociation that I see.
JacobSpinney 8 months ago
I was a vegetarian (then vegan) for years, starting in high school with a vegan girlfriend and ending in college. Now I'm paleo. I eat mostly meat and animal products (grass-fed or wild-caught for higher n3/n6 ratio). I strongly suggest the blogs of ex-vegans "letthemeatmeat" and "huntgatherlove" who have dealt extensively with the ethical, nutritional, environmentalist arguments for veganism. And I strongly strongly suggest "archevore" on nutrition and meat in general.
asdfgasdfasdful 8 months ago
It's nice that you care about animals.
as we burn up all fossil fuel, all animal, vegetable, fungus & bacteria life on earth will be incinerated.
jffryh 8 months ago
Read Chapter 21 of Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty." It explains the concept with regards to animal rights beautifully.
shanedk 8 months ago
I hate animal cruelty. I think the answer as usual won't be protests, or laws, or agreements, because people don't listen to protests, brake laws, or agree...
The answer will be technology, when a computer can replicate an organism chemistry no more animal experiments.
When humans find a way to make abundant food that people like better than animals, then the demand will stop.
Obviously the simple answer its not easy, is it? you have to study and work, not just say "Stop" no animal abuse.
Ramiromasters 8 months ago
Here's the problem Jacob, your definition of 'sentience' is not correct in my view. Does suffering head trauma that removes the ability to feel pain and emotions cause a person to lose their sentience?
Sentience is defined, as far as I am concerned, by the ability to reason, the sense of self-awareness, and/or the ability to overcome instinct through emotions rather than express them AS emotions. Some animals (chimps, dolphins,..) show signs of this; cows, chickens, etc... do not.
angpetru 8 months ago
We can minimize the suffering of humans as well by the redistribution of wealth. People can live perfectly full and healthy lives in a nice condo or apartment. There is no need to live in a house or mansion. Think of how many people AND animals suffer because of your indulgence in what is 'pleasurable' when there are perfectly suitable substitutes available to you.
angpetru 8 months ago
pain is just a defense mechanism, plants do everything they can to stay alive too.
lovehandles74 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would associate rights with Sentience, not with having a "brain", in any case, I like meat and animal rights is for me a seriously minor issue, even worse, its totally dominated by lefties. Oh and I don't want to give animals property rights.
Illyrien 8 months ago
@Illyrien
In any case, interesting talk Jacob.
Illyrien 8 months ago
Comment removed
Illyrien 8 months ago
the analogy to babies is correct. if "baby" referred to thing that would never become human, people would treat them as they do animals. this is because THEY ARE NOT humans (a term of philosophy here and not biology, stupid)
despite your unfounded opening claim, the line between human and non-human is not fucking arbitrary. it is the very basis of all of the political philosophy we all usually masturbate to
BroBroDude 8 months ago
what the fuck is this shit
BroBroDude 8 months ago
Interesting points
wolverine10mm 8 months ago
Pt. 3 Furthermore, if the ability to feel pain is what qualifies one to be under the aegis of the non-aggression principle, then suppose that you took a powerful painkiller that numbed your entire nervous system, and I took a hammer and broke your leg. Since you didn't feel a thing, that means, according to you, that I did nothing wrong. However, if you acknowledge this to be a property issue, then you'd know that your leg is still your property, even if you can't feel it breaking.
IvanTheHeathen 8 months ago
@IvanTheHeathen Who owns the body? Is the brain not the body?
barccy 8 months ago
Animal are not capable to be ethical and I have no gain to be ethical toward them. The capacity to feel pain or emotions of other human or babies have nothing to do with the aggression principal. Check your premises and your epistomology.
NeutrinoideReturns 8 months ago
Pt. 2 Also, your argument that animals are to be exculpated for the violence they commit against each other b/c they do not possess sufficient rationality to understand what they are doing is a little too good and proves too much. Suppose I am insane and do not realize the harm I cause you when I stab you to death. By your argument, I should not be held accountable. However, to consistent libertarians, I should still be punished b/c I have damaged your property. Animals have no property.
IvanTheHeathen 8 months ago
With all due respect, Jacob, you are absurdly inconsistent. The relevant question about when the non-aggression principle applies and when it doesn't refers not to an entity's ability to experience suffering, but to whether they own property. It is wrong to initiate violence against a human b/c that human is a property owner. And the right to be a property owner depends on rationality and the exercise of volition to act on value judgments. Animals are slaves to instinct; they have no volition.
IvanTheHeathen 8 months ago
I am actually okay with exploiting babies as long as you don't allow the ones exploited, to live until they are old enough to gain the mental and emotional prowess that makes them worthy of human rights. Nothing that we determine as being a major factor in giving us humans rights that other animals aren't worthy of, in our eyes, are present in a baby. In a world where there are excess humans, I see no problem in exploiting babies, because there is nothing special about a baby.
MacabreManifesto 8 months ago
I am an ethical meat eater. I try to get grass-fed beef, cage-free eggs and wild caught fish; and I do eat a lot of vegetables, fruits and nuts.
lovehandles74 8 months ago
Do you realize that if humans seize to eat meat then whole bunch of species will be doomed towards extinction?
ShwangShwing 8 months ago
Non aggression is a pipe dream. Even if we had a society with a lot more liberty in it's law (that's what I feel libertarianism is) you still have to enforce that law through aggression. Because humans have a violent nature because it is damn useful (not moral, just useful) on this scarce planet to conquer others for their resources, as well as band together. If a militarily unified ultra libertarian society existed, and boasted the most powerful military, and most effective police force...
MacabreManifesto 8 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...(the net of all private companies of course) then they'd still require aggression to enforce contracts, laws/well-being, and defense. As for vegetarianism, the problem is that most people don't feel that the right to life extends past humanity. I actually feel that it is more moral to keep an animal from suffering than to keep them from dying. And it is thus moral to promote morally grown meat since, in our most moral methods, animals get a better life than they6 would...
MacabreManifesto 8 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...in the wild. I would find it much more immoral to eat white chicken eggs from chickens so stressed it borders on torture, than it would be to eat morally grown meat, because one creates demand for stress, and one creates demand for relaxation. Either way I still feel that my right to dollar menu chicken trumps an animals right not to be mass produced in terrible conditions because the money I save and the improved quality of life I, a human, receives, trump's the animal's.
MacabreManifesto 8 months ago
In a free society where animals are not used, they would have no value and would become a problem. Elephants have never faced extinction in Asia because those elephants have value. Authorities would have to use force to stop farmers from defending their crops from invading animals. Also how could someone claim any homestead if animals were equal to humans? If the NAP is between humans and animals it becomes impossible to work between humans.
TheAlaric89 8 months ago 9
@TheAlaric89 The animals in the livestock sector only exist because they are artificially bred. If you do not pay to breed them then they cannot cause any form of problem.
IdaMiaDot 8 months ago
Your argument about sentience doesn't work very well because it isn't just on or off. There are varying degrees of self awareness and most animals we eat don't have very much. They are living only for the purpose to be killed and if they were treated better and killed painlessly I would have no problem with it because they are essentially relatively basic machines evolved to reproduce and with no other purpose in their lives as limited by capability. Nonaggression I see more as a human truce.
SecondAgeOfReason 8 months ago
Can't I wait for genetically engineered Beef Trees?
Morrakiu 8 months ago