 Again, this is the one-dimensional soyboy view. Every meal in the restaurant is cruel. All right, guys, welcome back to the channel. If you're new, my name is Bobby. Guys, today we're gonna check out Cosmic Skeptic and Matt Diller-Hunty, where Cosmic Skeptic asks Matt Diller-Hunty why he isn't vegan. Let's have a look. If I gave you the opportunity to say here's a way to make it such that every single time you have a meal, you can make sure that it is not a factory-farmed animal that is on your plate. Would you take it? Yes, with no hesitation, Matt Diller-Hunty answers. Yes, of course, it is better to not support factory farms. What I find very, very interesting and intriguing here is how two atheists can sit comfortably on their blue little couch and discuss if it is good or bad to eat animals without a basis or morals. In case you don't know those two guys, they are both atheists. And this is very interesting to me because as you can see, the worldview of atheism is so vague that you can have two opposed opinions. If you ask a Christian, he will tell you that the Bible told him to eat meat. However, as an atheist, you don't have a clear line. One atheist will tell you, it is bad to eat animals, it is bad to eat out of factory farms. And the other one will tell you that it is not based on nothing. It is always the same. Their morals, their ethics are grounded on nothing. That option is available to you right now. Cool. Right now. And you're gonna say that it's to not eat meat. Yeah. Yeah. But why would it be? No factory farming. If we accept that premise for whatever reason, yet again, you live in a moral relative world, why would we listen to you? Why would we say that factory farming is bad when indeed it allows more people to eat? This is exactly what is going on in our society. Yes, we have factory farms and we have big agriculture. With that, we are feeding more mouths, more people. This is why later down the route of atheism, you will end up in anti-natalism. It is always the same. First step is you deny God. You become an atheist. Now you have no moral groundwork to stand on. So therefore you will have to create your own law, your own morals, your own ethics. This is why you get attracted to veganism and then anti-natalism. It is always the same path, always the same slippery slope. But that said, yet again, why can't you eat grass-fed meat if you're simply against factory farms? Let's hear it. A presumption in the way you phrased the question to begin with that makes for an inequality because what I'm actually comparing there is, is there a way for me to eat meat where I don't have any of the immoral problems of factory farming? And that I think is possible as well as far as I can tell. As somebody who's done every step in the process from killing all the way up to cooking and eating. Yeah, so I mean, it's possible, but the fact of the matter is that almost every single meal that you ever have that isn't specifically prepared by yourself or someone you know, in fact, I would say probably all of the meals that you have, like in a restaurant, let's say, come from the factory farm. Again, this is the one-dimensional soy-boy view. Every meal in the restaurant is cruel. Where does your rice come from? Where does your soy come from? Where does your bread come from? No vegan stops to reflect and acknowledge that agriculture, modern agriculture is destroying more animals, is destroying habitats, is destroying families. When you go to a restaurant, when you buy a soy schnitzel, you have no idea how many ingredients have been imported, how many habitats have been deforested, how many moral cultures have been created, how many insects have been killed. But excusez-moi, I forgot, they do not matter. Insect lives don't matter, cow lives do. And if you, I mean, you said a moment ago that you're almost convinced that that is just objectively wrong. Objectively wrong? Have you heard it, guys? It is objectively wrong. How can it be objectively wrong if you are a moral relativist? Please enlighten me. Actory farming industry. If it's the case that every single time you go to a restaurant, that's where your food's coming from, then it's not difficult to just choose something else on the menu. Yet again, you have absolutely no control over the ingredients in a restaurant. That might be true. Of course, you can choose restaurants that sell grass-fed meat if that is what you want to support. However, yet again, don't make me repeat myself. As a vegan, you have absolutely zero control over your food supply. You cannot grow your own food. You are a consumer like the rest of us. We're all in our cities consuming food. You're not on the moral high ground. You have no idea where your food is coming from and Matt doesn't either. You are both consumers that go to the supermarket. The only difference is that you believe that you are more ethical, more moral. You can virtue signal because you are a vegan. The reality is your diet kills more animals. Sure. So why don't you do it? Sure. Who said I don't? Well, I mean, have you eaten meat in a restaurant in the past week? It is so pathetic. Look at this, because those people have no moral root, no ethic, they cannot ground their ethics on anything. This is why this man out of nowhere, truth, became the moral high ground. He became the more ethical atheist and he is the judge now. Matt Diller-Hunty has to defend himself in front of the royal court of the atheist vegans and tell him that he is as well ethical. It is nothing but virtue signaling. You have no ethics to stand on. Eating animals is not bad, but you bought into his ideology. It is a very interesting psychological game of framing certain subjects and appearing as if you truly are more moral, more ethical, based on nothing but hot air. They crab today at a restaurant. Yeah, so that means that- Eating crab is good, eating cow is bad. That you don't, that means that- Well, I don't think that the crab was factory farmed or harmed in the sort of immoral suffering that we're talking about. I mean, have you eaten pork in the past week that was not prepared by yourself or a friend? But pork? Kind of ethical manner that you speak of. I was gonna say probably nothing last week because I don't actually eat that much, but I actually have because last night at the Thai restaurant, I had pork. Okay, well, we could just rephrase it to say, do you think it's immoral for someone to do so? Whatever, like, there's a situation where you have contributed to an industry that is that you've already said, you think is almost certainly objectively wrong. Almost certainly objectively wrong. But how? How is it almost objectively morally wrong? What is objective truth? What is objective morality? Can you please enlighten us, us dummies, us stupid little Christians that have no idea? Can you please tell us exactly how morals are derived? If not, can you please tell me why we should obey your moral standard if there is no objectivity linked to it? Please enlighten me. But you've done so in such a way that could have been so easily rectified, just so easily by just choosing something else on the menu. Again, complete BS. How do you know that? Are you working in food production? Are you a farmer? It just so happens that me, little meat, little science denier, little corona denier Bobby here is actually in contact with many, many farmers and has observed true farming and knows for a fact that plant production kills more animals. You have no idea about food production. How can you sit there and tell this man that his diet kills more than yours without knowing the simple facts? It is absolutely ridiculous. But that also ignores the other aspects of how and why I make decisions about this. So what other aspects do you think other than taste come into it? So taking a situation like- And this is why this is truly funny to me. On the right-hand side, you have an obviously obese person that never went to the gym and the same applies to the soy boy on the left-hand side. Those people have no idea about nutrition. They do not know what they're talking about. This is why the vegan on the left-hand side is simply parroting what he heard of Joey Capstrong, earthling it. It is always the same. It's just a taste pleasure. Oh, really? I didn't know it's just a taste pleasure. It has nothing to do with nutrition. It has nothing to do with bioavailable protein. It has nothing to do with vitamin D3. It has nothing to do with creatin. It has nothing to do with cholesterol or vitamin B12. All of those things can be supplemented. Didn't you hear the good news of science? The good news of supplementing everything you don't need to eat? Heck, you don't need to be a human anymore. You don't need to be male. You don't need to be female. You don't even need to be born in the first place. You are non-essential. Wear your mask, cover yourself. It is not a religion. It is science. Like we can talk about the ethics of backyard farming and things like that. But in the situation we're living in, when I'm talking, and I know I shouldn't make these conflations, we should be careful to clarify, but I'm speaking generally about- No, I got you. I just wanted to be clear because somebody's going to sound bite something and go, oh, look. Of course, yeah. And I hate- Oh, look, somebody will say, oh, look, Matt Dillahunty isn't as ethical, as cosmic, sceptic, oh, look at him, shame. But so in these cases of factory farm to meet when it comes to you just going to a restaurant and being able to choose between having pork or having some kind of vegan alternative, what are the factors that play other than taste? So- Nutrition. Other than taste, quite often it's a mixed bag as to whether or not I'm going to enjoy the taste in a restaurant most of the time. Anyway, I'd rather cook things myself. But when I talk about how there's a complex list of factors, one of the things to consider is what's the impact on humans if I stop eating meat? Why do you deflect the argument? Why don't you just answer with nutrition? But yet again, as I said, obviously this man has no idea about nutrition. And in his case, it is probably true that eating is just about taste pleasure. This is how he looks like. However, people that have 1% understanding of actual nutrition will tell you that it is indeed about the nutrients that you cannot get on a vegan diet. This man on the left-hand side has been vegan for what exactly now? A year, a year and a half, something on those lines. He didn't suffer enough yet, but let him suffer. This is what I realized in the past few years. People will get attracted to veganism, especially the atheist crowd, the same applied to Sam Harris as well. However, they will all drop out, like the rest of them. It doesn't matter if you're an atheist, if you're a Christian, if you're a New Ager, if you're an athlete, or if you are a couch potato. People hear about veganism through the internet. No normal person finds out about veganism in a healthy environment. It is always the internet, always a sub-niche, always a little cult that appears on YouTube, et cetera. Then they get attracted to it. They try it out for a while. They rebel against everything. They make videos about it. I was vegan myself in case you're watching for four years straight. But it does not matter what I say here. Those people won't be able to wake up. They have to make their own mistakes. This is how humans work. All the debating, all the chatter, it is all noise. It doesn't lead to anything. It is just for entertainment. Watching those guys is entertaining. Watching YouTube is entertaining. But in the end, you will do what you believe is right. And those people will wreck their health. Probably at some point, Medillahanti will go vegan as well and will fail and will suffer. Let them suffer. Let them go through life and suffer. Just as Buddha said, life is suffering and you will suffer until you liberate yourself and find back to God. Until you didn't, you will suffer and you will find more ways to suffer even more. Have fun. So for instance, eating the agricultural industry farmers, ranchers, truckers, all of them lose business. And that contributes to the greater good of humans. But what do you think contributes more to the greater good of humans? Either proper nutrition? Making sure those people keep their jobs or combating climate change. Of course. Of course he's into climate change as well because cow fats, no, give me any proof. All the numbers of cow asperacy have been debunked one year after the movie's release. We know exactly that grass-fed farming, rotational grazing methods are beneficial to the environment. This is what vegans don't want you to hear. You can't be an environmentalist and not be vegan. Well, actually you can by supporting your local farmers and not importing soy schnitzel and quinoa from Peru. Now we've jumped into another realm. The reason I ask is because the agricultural industry is the single biggest contributor to climate change. Yes. The agricultural industry, do you even realize what you're saying there? Do you understand that you are the biggest consumer of the agricultural industry? And don't tell me that most of the crops are being eaten by animals. Again, if you would know anything about food production, you would understand that all those crops that are being fed to animal are not fit for human consumption. All of that is a waste product. All the waste of those crops goes to animals. So therefore think again, Sherlock, you're supporting big egg like the rest of the vegans. Far more than travel and things like that. We'll put together. Now to be fair, before I go down this road, this is something that I haven't spent much time in but have been told about and I'm fine with. However, is it the case that we couldn't make improvements such that we are, such that those industries are no longer major contributing factors to fact to- Rotational grazing is carbon neutral if you're really scared of climate change. The bookman- Climate change and yet still have those industries. And not practically, no, especially because a lot of the emissions come from the animals themselves. Are those animals? Exactly, right? It comes from the animals itself. Just as we bad, bad human animals, right? This is how the atheists see us. Just animals that are excreting carbon. We as carbon life forms, scientifically looking at us, we are bad. We should be illegal. Breathing should be illegal. Thank God there is corona and we are supposed to wear our little masks because of that we secrete less CO2 and therefore mother Gaia, the planet Earth can finally flourish. This is your satanic agenda, not taking into account basic science where you can see that all the flora and fauna flourishes from CO2. Isn't that true? Trees need CO2 in order to produce O2 for us. It is symbiotic, but you already bought into the doctrine of devil's veganism, into the doctrine of devil's atheism and now you believe that we are too many humans. Just as Satguru said, we have too many human feet. Let's get rid of all the unessential science deniers. Well, they're gonna go away when we stop eating them. Well, yes, they are. I mean, so there are currently unthinkable numbers of animals that are specifically being bred to be tortured and sourced. How many animals live in the wild? Oh, just 8.7 billion species that is absolutely nothing cosmic skeptic. Meanwhile, having three major species that we farm, cows, pigs and chickens. Yes, I'm sure they are the problem. It's not the 8.7 billion times God knows what species on this planet, but this is why atheism yet again leads to anti-natalism, leads to transhumanism, leads to sterilizing the world. This is what you want to do. You believe that life is bad. You believe that carbon life forms are evil. If the demand goes down, then they simply just won't be born anymore. So the animals aren't gonna go extinct. So maybe the better solution is to do like a Thanos snap and eliminate half the human beings. Yes. Hope now that's gonna change. And I'm not, I realize I'm half smiling but I'm trying to be glim. Yeah, that's not a privilege. But the reason why I wouldn't accept an argument like that is because the whole context in which we're talking about this and the reason I brought it up is because you said a second ago when you're making the choice about whether to eat meat and stuff, you say, well, how is it that going vegan is gonna affect human beings and my welfare? Well, obviously getting rid of half of the population or even just solving the overpopulation crisis, let's say, is not like, if you just kill half of the people on the planet, that's not good for human wellbeing. All right, yet again, it all boils down to human wellbeing. This is the basis of morality for atheists. They do not have God. They do not have universal morals. So hence it has to be human wellbeing. This is absolutely ridiculous. Even if we accept this, what stops us from saying amazing, we're gonna have fantastic lives by eating all the animals on this planet. Animals cannot enter a social contract. Animals cannot participate within our society. If we take your morals, your world view, there is absolutely nothing, zero wrong with eating animals as long as it benefits society. So we already established that eating animal foods is more nutritious than eating plants. And it is, of course, less cost intensive. It needs less labor. So what stops us from eating all the animals on this planet? We can harvest whatever we want. It does not matter if it is insects. It does not matter if it is monkeys for that matter. We are the atheist society that you want to have. There is no good and evil. There's only human benefit. It is the perfect world. Veganism doesn't fit into that equation. Have an overpopulation crisis. Okay, but even if we don't, you could say that one way to combat climate change would be to cut the population. Even if we don't. So do we have a population crisis? Don't we have it? It does not matter because it is not rooted in anything. It is simply a religion. It is always the people that want to free themselves from religion, from the bondage, from the shackles of Christianity. Those people become the most religious. Why do we have to accept your world view? Why is it bad to eat animals? Again, again, you have no ground to stand on. I should have. Another way to combat climate change would be to stop driving cars, but an even better way than both those things probably put together is to stop eating meat. Ah yeah, why? Show me the numbers. I think the single biggest thing that you can do as an individual. Ah, there it is. Okay, let's have a look. So guess what? After browsing through this article, I still cannot find any evidence that goes against regenerative farming. I can't find any evidence against grass-fed beef whatsoever. Most of the article is concerned with certain plant production anyways. But well, what do I know? I should trust the science. Stupid, stupid science, didn't I, Bobby? You should listen to this page. After all, it is titled ScienceMac.org. Ecological footprint is to stop eating meat. And if that's the case, then not only do we now have a situation where there is the whole argument of the ethical worth of animals. And that's one thing. You've now got this entirely separate argument about the environmentalism and how that's gonna affect you and future generations. All right, and this is where the clip cuts off very, very interesting, very enlightened, deep, deep discussion. We truly saw the deaths of philosophy, the deaths of human psychology, and beyond even more important animal ethics and universal morals that are grounded in absolutely nothing in human rights. Yes, so important to base everything on human well-being. This is why we live in such a good world nowadays. 2020 is so safe and so productive, so enlightened, a true golden age where people can stay home, save, vaccinated, and dildo their buttholes. On OnlyFans, for the world to see, it is so beautiful. Can't you see this? All for human well-being. You can stay at home, you can order your food via Uber, sorry, your vegan food, of course, and you can prostitute your wife on OnlyFans and make money like that, all in the name of progress, all in the name of human flourishing, all in the name of the great reset. All right, folks, and this is it for today's video. I hope you enjoyed it. Truly, truly interesting stuff. Super intellectual, super intelligent. It is very hard for us common folks to wrap our little brains around this prestige talk. I feel super motivated, super inspired by the two high priests of atheism to do better as a human, to get the vaccine, to fight climate change, to fight the dirty, dirty, bad corona that has destroyed our human well-being. Oh, thank you, Matt Diller-Hunty. Thank you, Cosmic Skeptic, for being true pioneers. I appreciate you. All right, guys, but this is it for today's video. If you liked it, leave it a thumbs up. If you haven't subscribed already, please do so. If you want to support this little dirty science-denying channel, all the links are in the description box below. Thank you very much. And as always, no matter if you are a Christian, a Muslim, or an atheist, may God bless you all. Much love and peace.