Transcripts for sourcing.

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Transcripts for sourcing.

Post by NonZeroSum »

________

FriendEd fails again.

Ask Yourself
Published on Sep 18, 2017

hey guys alright so I just got home from Sam Harris in Toronto it was fucking awesome I was gonna ask him to name the trait but the question segment got cut off the second I reached the microphone so that was a little disappointing anyway got home chilled out with friends for a while and then I was informed that friended has uploaded a new response to me now this is the second response he's put out since our discussion which turned into a debate with a title something like how to win a vegan debate this one is a response to me specifically it has my name in the title now just like we occasionally see in the UFC when a fighter can't accept the fact that they've lost and they attempt to backwards rationalize why the fight went wrong after the fact all the while conserving the notion that somehow they are the superior fighter it is extremely cringy to see someone who clearly lost a debate attempt to backwards rationalized themselves into correctness after the fact with a video about how to defeat the person who handed their ass to them in the ring and who they still can't come up with a coherent counter-argument to to this very day we've seen this already with a JW now we're seeing it with friended but whatever will set aside the extreme cringe and just debunk this retarded video here we go each other at this point I have to admit that his you know either dishonesty or stupidity on veganism is definitely starting to get to me I stand by that friended the point has been explained very clearly there is no logically consistent basis for simultaneously supporting and rejecting the same justification for murder the fact that you don't get this either indicates that you are dishonest you do get it and you're just not saying it for some reason or you're stupid because it's not a complicated point next actually persuaded that he is necessarily intelligent yeah no I mean I gave friended the benefit of the doubt originally and assumed that he has a good comprehension of morality of moral philosophy he's just a bit hung up on this point but after this many discussions he's talked to Emma he's talked to Jack and Tim he's talked to Liam he's talked to vegan gains he's talked to me I'm sorry but if you don't get it at this point you are either stupid or you're dishonest it's one or the other understand some things but I don't I don't know how smart the guy actually is again yeah I stand by that if you can't comprehend that it's a contradiction I'm not gonna say it again if you don't get it you're a fucking idiot or you're being dishonest is there another option I can't see it but whatever it is it's not flattering you don't need to explain this is ask yourself ask yourself as an outspoken vegan activists here on YouTube I don't call myself an activist I don't think of myself in that way I view what I'm doing more as some kind of hybrid of entertainment and communication of ideas I've never really been able to pinpoint why I don't feel comfortable with the term the closest that I can get is that I feel that the term activist carries a connotation that you should be pretty single-mindedly focused and on a bad way just just pretty directly focused on bringing about social change and that is something that I want to do but I can't actually say that it's my primary driving factor I mean I'm also on here largely for self-expression I'm on here largely because I like to provide comedy for other vegans I'm on here I'm do this for a living now I'm on here to make money so there's a range of different reasons that I make the content I do and I don't feel comfortable calling it activism because my motives for making it don't feel sufficiently pure to call it activism but whatever call me what you want it's your call I recently had the pleasure of discussing with ask yourself the topic of veganism and morality ask yourself is the author of a vegan compliance tactic known as name the trait well that's obviously just a straw man it's not a compliance test it's a consistency test or ask yourself asks what is the difference between a human and a cow which if true of a human instead of cow would make it okay to stab a human to death needlessly on June 18th 2017 I named the trait because as a student of ethics and moral psychology it was so painfully obvious to me I just thought you know why the hell not in my first video on veganism I explained the trait separating animals we eat from animals we give equal protection under the law is the status of that animals standing within our community murderers and livestock share the same standing as members outside our communities and neither receive full protections under the law at the same time citizens humans non murders and pets all share the same standing as members inside our communities and are entitled to the full protections of the law it's this status as a social member of the superorganism we call society that separates the man and the cow and ask yourselves name the trait compliance tactic okay so he's talking about membership in society group membership so I know that friended for whatever reason just does not get this or pretends not to get this but let me lay it out as obviously and simply and carefully as possible friended you do not accept being murdered because you aren't in someone's group therefore it is a contradiction for you to propose that it is okay to murder others because they are not in your group you are simultaneously using and rejecting the same argument Isaac I love you man yeah I mean no homo but I like you to friended I've said as much even on that live stream that you've picked all the segments where I'm being critical of you from I say something along the lines of I like friended he's an easy guy to vibe with so no hate there's just some frustration here and in all honesty there is some questioning of your intelligence or your honesty it's one or the other as far as I can tell but I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this I have named the trait both descriptively as in this is the way it is and proscriptive lee as in this is the way it should be well you use slightly different language when you talk like sometimes you say society sometimes you say the in-group sometimes you say the moral community so there's a little bit of wiggle room here just because you've used multiple similar but slightly different terms whatever that's no big deal when it comes to descriptive ethics sure it's true to say that group membership is what determines who has moral value or not that's pretty much tautology friended because the moral community is defined as those that were extending moral value to when it comes to prescriptive ethics No no no no you have not named the trait unless you're going to tell me that you're okay being murdered by someone based on the justification that you aren't part of their group even if you've done nothing wrong then you cannot use group membership to justify murdering others without producing a contradiction you have claimed on many occasions that morality is subjective and that you are not a moral Objectivist but if you place your standards for morality on every moral system you encounter from Western democracies to space alien cannibals you are a moral Objectivists no friended a moral Objectivist as should be obvious from the term is someone who believes that morality exists objectively that is independently of subjective experience this is not a belief that I hold what I do is I apply the concept of logical consistency to moral systems to determine if they are internally consistent if you are not a moral Objectivist and accept there are multiple competing moral systems you have to accept that those systems needn't be logically consistent with one another to be logically consistent within themselves I would love a quote friended when have I ever said that moral systems have to be logically consistent between each other to be logically consistent within themselves I've never said such a thing complete retarded straumann don't even know why you're going there it's also worth mentioning that name the trait is not an inter perspective argument it's not looking for contradictions between your belief system and the alien belief system it's looking for contradictions within your system it's pointing out internal inconsistencies it is an intra perspective argument when you say I don't want to be murdered just because I'm not a member of someone's group then you say I'm gonna murder animals just because they're not a member of my group you're contradicting yourself because you are deploying and rejecting the same argument your position is internally inconsistent that is what the argument points out so I've named your trade and there are no logical inconsistencies within this standard Western democratic ball framework I've laid out no friended you have not named the trait and the trait that you have named produces inconsistencies so your position your framework is inconsistent it is internally inconsistent again I said I wasn't gonna say it again but you need this drilled into your head you can't say X justifies murder X doesn't justify murder and I'm consistent that is a contradiction plain and simple nothing else to it if you don't get that you are either dishonest or an idiot I don't know what else to say one of my subscribers another youtuber named ginger bill was nice enough to lay out the logic for both of us formerly you have obviously seen that formal logic since you described it here he's pinned it to and it's got one like and one heart which I'm assuming he's a nice guy that he is just so wrong on this topic so in the stream would ask yourself eh why I kept trying to show a contradiction in my moral argument there is no contradiction so he says he's got a bullet point one into here one a set of axioms will produce a particular logic and axiom being something that is established Dmitri which could not be proven example parallel lines on a flat plane will never cross and then he says two if two sets have different axioms they will both produce different wrenches watching there's got an example down here he says guess who groups Group one and group two group one has the axiom a that killing it with within that more group is wrong through two has axioms a and axiom B that killing any human is wrong so Group one set of axioms a group to set of axioms a and E both think killing within that group is wrong but if Group one the group with out the axiom killing any human is wrong when dock to kill a being from another group only group two we think that's wrong note a does not equal and E and thus logic generated from the sets will be different you cannot apply one group's logic to another set because they're not compatible with one another for there to be an inconsistency the inconsistency has to be generated from that group's own logic if there are any more qualified logicians that would like to weigh in on this matter I'm happy to hear them out but until then this logic appears to be foolproof no friended the logic that your position is consistent when you simultaneously reject and accept the same justification for murder is not foolproof it full hearty so in the stream ask yourself also claims once again that my logic is internally inconsistent he says your beliefs and whether they're consistent with each other which again they aren't if you're simultaneously rejecting and accepting the same arguments who says like I think that it's pretty fucking obvious to everybody that if you take two people it's possible for them to have radically different moral positions where one thinks something is right and the other think something is wrong so that's obviously not what we're talking about we're talking about whether your beliefs conflict with each other and when you simultaneously accept and reject a justification for murder then you are being inconsistent your own prescriptive ethical beliefs conflict with each other so the second you start talking about you know what do aliens believe or what you tribes believe and of course that's not you know the same as what I believe they have different axioms so of course we reach different conclusions completely lost the plot we're talking about what you believe and whether it's consistent with the other things that you believe and I would just like to ask what this argument is that I'm simultaneously accepting and rejecting is he just stupid is he trolling am i falling for a troll job how can he listen to that and then say something like this friended the argument that you are simultaneously accepting and rejecting is group membership justifies murder okay I'll show you again friended is it do you accept being murdered by someone because you're not part of their group friended you're not part of the fucking African race so some crazy African radical group is going to murder you do you accept that logic I assume not okay you're not okay being murdered because you're not in someone's group so when you say I'm going to murder animals because they're not in my group you are contradicting yourself you're using the argument group membership justifies murder and then you're rejecting the argument that group membership justifies murder I just I don't even get how he cannot understand this it's it's mind-boggling because everything I've laid out through my entire interaction with vegans has been watching consistent they keep asking me to measure my moral framework against aliens and Zambian tribes which my moral system is not going to be consistent with their moral system and doesn't need to be so please provide some clarity here's your clarity friended no one is saying that your moral system is going to be consistent with a tribe somewhere or some alien species or that it needs to be we are saying that your moral system is not consistent with itself it's internally inconsistent because you accept and reject the same justification for murder and if you can't keep it in your brain here it is one more time group membership justifies murder friended if someone wants to murder you because you're not part of their group do you not them forget about them do you think that's ethical no so when you say I'm going to murder animals because they're not in my group you are deploying the same argument that you just rejected thank you you're welcome individual so why are you granting individual rights in the human context but not in the animal context and then he gave me what Tim John Newton would call the razzle-dazzle he would just change the topic or say oh just in the same way as with subject or with intelligence and with morphology it creates a contradiction of simultaneously using and rejecting group membership as an argument for murder okay sounds interesting do yeah I think I've got you on that man do you have a response to that I wasn't really paying that much attention because someone joined him enjoy and I finally found their way I know I kind of zoned out because I've heard this argument again and again and again I mean this is the argument okay we've reached the end of the video closing words I would say friended repeating bullshit over and over again like that you've named the trait or that your position is internally consistent does not make it true everyone sees through this nonsense the comments speak for themselves the vote ratios speak for themselves logic speaks for itself follow on facebook follow on Twitter support on patreon if you think I deserve compensation for giving myself cancer for you people on a daily basis that's all for today until next time.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Transcripts for sourcing.

Post by NonZeroSum »

________________


Talking to Vegans About Moral Psychology | Ask Yourself, Chris Hines, Philosophical VeganThink

ClubThink
Published on Sep 24, 2017

Chris did a stream with a few other folks ( https://youtu.be/0UxS92rQLDQ ) and he seems to get my multiple moral systems argument. We are going to talk about that for 30 minutes and then Philosophical Vegan wants to talk about veganism and moral objectivism. Ask Yourself is on to defend his subjectivist position.

-------

So I am here with ask yourself I am here with Chris Heinz I am here with Tim Jong hoon say something Tim what's up everybody how's it going he's not gonna say much but he wants to introduce his new famous avatar and I'm also here with the philosophical vegan so the way that we're gonna do it is we're going to have have chris is going to have the floor for about the first 30 minutes chris had done a live stream who's on your live stream with you Chris Oh gonna turn remember now I think Tim was on the Liam Anthony say Tim who else was on the stream well there there's a link to it there's a link to it in the description if any of you guys want to check it out and there's links to all these guys channels in the description as well so they did a a live stream where it seemed like Chris actually understood my argument my in-group moral communities argument a bit I the the crux of the stream was really okay now that we understand that we can take him down because we can figure out a way to get around it that's exactly how it was I know so it's a hilarious stream if you want to listen to it and the whole time I'm thinking yes finally they're talking about moral psychology I got involved in this vegan thing because I'm interested in moral psychology I could care less about the veganism but now now I think many people don't even realize that when they say you know that's a moral that they're just saying that's my morality and all of us seem to be going around in these bubbles of morality Jonathan hi calls it the moral matrix like we're all in separate matrixes and then when people try to communicate with one another it's like they're speaking different languages and there's all this miscommunication going on so I got to give it to you Chris I was super impressed that you seem to understand my argument even though it was a little bit motivated reasoning and that you were wanting to use it to debunk my argument that's good at least worked we're talking about the same thing now so what uh what do you what do you where do you want to go it's the floor is yours well I mean I guess I guess should we just explain well my argument against what it was yeah sure go ahead so sum up what you're saying in the stream okay so what you were saying is we got two groups say you know you're saying using in group though the other group is also called they're in group though but if they kill you you're saying that that is not contradictory of your groups morality but of their groups morality correct that is exactly right okay cool right so what I might also point out that's just not a true statement but I'm going to try to hold my hey if you want to grab a ask yourself if you want to grab a pencil and paper and just take take notes you will have the floor in 30 minutes and you're welcome to just take whatever arguments are thrown out down yeah I just want it to be clear to the audience sitting here listening when I'm sitting here passively not saying anything that's by request of these guys I do think that it's profoundly wrong to suggest that it's not a contradiction to simultaneously use and reject the same justification rumor we're gonna we're gonna get into that so go ahead Chris okay yeah well at first you like to say is I'm certainly not any sort of philosopher or anything like me either I've only kind of got into this whole kind of logical argumentation thing fairly recently and thanks to Isaac he's kind of got me on on this kind of path so I could be terribly wrong with things so definitely don't take everything I say well I'm here to tell you if you're right with my argument so that yeah well you're agreeing with that so that's cool yeah well you know we'll say we got an agreement there so so basically go ahead and what we know yes what we need to do now is basically we need to Chuck you out of your own in-group right and work out that part really to see whether there is contradictions within your own group so you said that animals aren't in your group why is that at the end I I got in a Twitter discussion over diem with a vegan as well and he was giving me charts and stuff and saying is this right is this right and he did a great job of showing animals well he had the arrows going the wrong way he was saying we're throwing animals out of the end group and I'm saying no the animals were never in the in-group yeah cool wits yeah why what what line they have ever in it what was that what's the reasoning because humans function as a you social species we we function like bees function like our society is a super organism the same way a beehive is this is a super organism so us as individuals a lot of times we feel like we're separate and we do separate more than a bee separates obviously but without society we're as as helpless as a be without a bee hive so letting bees do well I don't know that bees let any other organisms in I know that ants let other organisms in - you kind of use in the same way that we use animals but though just because they're letting those organisms into their ant nests doesn't mean that those organisms like belong there they're not throwing the organisms out and we're doing the same thing we're we're selecting animals that we want to include because they aid us in creating this super organism we call society just just say you'll come - Sam was thrown into another creature that wasn't a human mhm which then isn't in your in-group would you then accept being killed I think you'll know well you you got close in the stream because you were saying chucked out of your own in-group and I mentioned this in my very first video I said if you know if I was if criminals are chucked out of the in-group all the time and they don't like being chucked out of the in-group but when they commit crimes against society we throw them out of the out of the group and put them to death in many cases if you're in Texas you're going to the electric chair that's all fine but I'm more interested in what mean the animals are motive kahlan's be in your in-group and the reasoning they can't be customs there is there is no nothing that can't be in the in-group and this is that you guys are putting an axiom on your vegan morality that is whatever you do can't be arbitrary that seems to be an axiom of vegan morality and it's not an axiom of Maya morality and it's generally not an axiom of of other moralities the reason I used the bacon thing in the ISIS morality was because I was saying listen sometimes there's things that are arbitrary that just you know get picked for who knows what reason like right now in the social justice versus anti-feminist crowd like they on their side have this arbitrary thing that you can't talk to the enemy which you know why is that they're like it's could be said it's arbitrary so the eating bacon thing is definitely arbitrary if we chucked you out for arbitrary reason you're not going to accept it that is correct yes that is correct but letting someone in frogs letting someone in for an arbitrary reason is a lot different like think about it if you're joining a club right kicking somebody out of a club for an arbitrary reason is worse than letting someone in for an arbitrary reason right if you let someone in because you know you know them at work that's fine but if you kick them out because you know them at work that's why why wouldn't you let the animals in them they well first of all their food like humans could be feed yes but humans are in the web you could come from numerous sources they sure animals aren't a source of food for us today you know we feed the animals food so I mean that that in itself is not a reason today I mean in the past it has been because animals in hundreds of years passed when we didn't have the agricultural technology when we weren't able to say get b12 from bacteria you know eat it in delicious cherry flavored pills I've been animal research food they were sources of nutrition so there was a reason to keep them out today what the reason the reason to keep them out is because we don't want like we would feel horrible if we killed a pet for food like we would feel horrible if we killed another human being for food we would feel horrible if we killed a relative for food so you feel for killing of the round but that's a different argument that's a totally different argue but never do me the same if you're told you you do thing with your cup you do feel horrible but I don't feel horrible and many other people doesn't mean this could you don't feel horrible doesn't mean luck isn't in itself isn't horrible well that's a question of meta ethics Chris you're kind of asking him why they aren't in the in-group whereas we should be asking questions of should you know why shouldn't they you know why should they be and that's a question about well I I've answered why they shouldn't be I've answered why they shouldn't be already well you've you've answered that you've set arbitrary reasons you know why letting somebody in the in group or kicking somebody out there's there's not really any argument was made to say that those are fundamentally different I mean say you let somebody in your club who nobody else likes you know this really stinky guy that could be a lot worse than just kicking somebody out that nobody likes I mean it depends on your perspective on that sure so what I'm saying is that you the bottom line is that we disagree on whether ethical principles can be arbitrary or not you think they can be arbitrary that's why you are a relativist or subjectivist and we say that no they can't be arbitrary like they need to be nah don't don't speak for me don't speak for me what I'm thinking for vegans who are logically consistent no hey don't speak don't don't hey not you not yeah let's wait let's go what's at least so certain I spoke on my behalf some no I know I'm not I'm talking I'm talking to him ask yourself okay well well I'm being spoken for I will comment no no no go on okay if you assume everything I'm saying does not apply to ask yourself I'm just writing rational consequentialist vegans you're you're implying even your dilemma right okay so anyway so let me clarify on my arbitrary statement a bit actually you know I lost my train of thought in the in the in the melee there so I'm sorry that's okay go go ahead go ahead with what you're saying the the oh I remember now okay the arbitrary thing it's it's very and I'm speaking descriptively here are arbitrary thinks let me let me finish here arbitrary things can help moral communities form and they've done studies where different communes they they've actually done studies I forget the book that it's in I think it's Robert putnams book where he looks at a variety of different communes and those communes and the length of life those communes lasted and found that the communes that tried to use rational reasoning for every different rule that they have inside the commune didn't last near as long as the communes that had arbitrary rules that forced people to give up things like bacon or wearing their shoes in the house because the longer that they lived in that community like doing these unravel things together it just knitted that community together tighter and they didn't want to leave so when I'm talking about things in terms of rules sometimes rules make a community work better that we don't necessarily understand those rules from outside that community because they're so they seem arbitrary to us but they have value that we're not necessarily seeing from outside so okay yeah sure go ahead all right what you're talking about is a cult I mean when you have arbitrary rules you need some kind of authority to enforce those and what is what is it the first we know what is the difference between a cult and and a nation or a or the church or like I like humans form communities are is every single commute is a bowling league occult no there are differences between why people are forming communities people can conform communities around a particular authoritarian ideology particularly charismatic yeah yeah good right good hey speak up speak up Tim so sorry we're finish your thought but we need to give Chris back before we're taking Chris's time okay so sorry I like this so a cult compared to a nation the reason these communities break down is because they're within like within nations the nation is actually providing some kind of utility a cult doesn't necessarily build on it it provides people a sense of meaning no utility for you you're not in the cult well wait wait wait you're in a coma you're in a cult you're in the vegan cult but you don't know it so let's go back not let's go back to Chris stop taking Snipes that ask yourself - okay I haven't even been listening to be honest oh good good go get yourself a beer Isaac and come back in 15 I'm just waiting to Merc this Phil Oh guys so whenever whenever you're ready we're we're excited about that trust me we're all waiting come on Chris okay okay right let's just think about it's kind of really okay with let's talk about bacon for example how is having bacon in your community in any way beneficial and how are you justifying the fact that pigs are shoved in gas chambers having their nuts chopped off tail dog's teeth clipped how are you justifying this by this this argument for bacon which is easily replaceable I'm not a sensual well I just don't like that I just don't think about it much to be honest what are you thinking about much is not an argument is it it is I'm thinking about it much so it's fine D like it's different with people though people here you're talking about yes this is what happens this is this is real life this is something that we don't seem to be bringing up in these debate you know dairy cows are getting fists in never jump up here and I feel appeal to emotion appeal to avoid a fully appear with emotion I'm happy to admit it's no character motion understating the facts this is what happens you know we're taking children away from them how is this justify you know being them being outside of the group or not being in the group because you want milk because you want a replacement cuz you want to drink because you can't drink almond milk or soy milk how is this ethical like we can go on the logic path all the time but I want to know how is that ethical we can stop doing it it's easy pick up something else off the shelf that's it that's the easy way to do it sorry I can reason accelerate explain explain how you've you know these animals outside of your group purely because you want milk and you can't be bothered to pick up so I'm up I enjoy half-and-half I enjoy ice cream and the suffering of cows I don't think about I enjoy this you enjoy the suffering of cows did you say or you know I I enjoy I enjoy the products that come from cows and the suffering doesn't doesn't bother it takes more important than life yeah in some cases no no wait wait okay for me it for me the taste is more important for me the taste is more important than the life of the cow yes release so the cow is a product for me so if you have a child but if you do if you thought child taste of chocolate I'm okay to stop it any it because it takes nice that's cool dick no it's obvious not use taste taste is not a valid excuse to stop an animal to that ought to do it for you is inside your community for anybody for any rational person okay it's a it's a ridiculous argument come on you would not accept that it's a stupid argument my children's your children are not human beings and it it's I know that it offends people Sensibility 100 I yeah I messed up judge cattle are not human beings children are not cattle children are not livestock there nope chill either it's debatable whether children are human beings a lot livestock either they're living beings that have been now called livestock ok yeah see I mean I don't just get down to the gist of the thing there's a lot of screwed up stuff that's being justified for really really stupid reasons ok there is no reason to be doing these things when we have alternatives do you not think the best thing for all of us for the best thing at the well being at the planet for the well-being of the animals the environment that we what what is it what is different what is different well what is different from what you're doing right now to me then some social conservative shaming gay people how I can my shaming gay people I'm not shaming I'm just saying the facts they would say they would say gay people and you the Fox is shaming you you should really think about why it's shaming you I'm only telling you how food is produced I'm not dropping any you know but you're saying that I should you're saying you shouldn't do that you shouldn't be homosexual you shouldn't have homosexual sex you shouldn't be able to get married that's bad for society it's bad for society when it's bad for society when homosexuals have sex that's eat that's gross its evil are you kidding me racist well you shouldn't be homophobic that's what I'm saying well what do you what do you what is different what is different from the shaming tactic that you're using than that shaming tactic what is different tell me what is the difference I'm saying okay good I'm saying to someone what you're doing is wrong yeah what homos are doing is wrong almost shouldn't have sex with one another okay who's the victim yeah Society is the victim really upset it degrades human beings I want you to know this is not this is not my argument this is the argument that many social conservatives have okay they have their take on morality you have your take on morality all you're doing here is you're trying to foist your take on morality on me through shaming and I'm not gonna be ashamed I'm not going to be shamed into not enjoying my ice cream or my milk or my steak okay the we subjugate these animals to our will and I'm proud of that okay so you'll say killing all these animals is completely immoral it's not a moral issue no no not at all not at all so I can get a cow hey when when gay people want to have sex when gay people want to get married that is not a moral issue at all either Adam do you think it's wrong for you to shame the people who are ashamed the people for being gay like another word The Dream's yes yeah it's yeah what we're doing we're on that side you're discriminating against the animals and we're shaming you for your discrimination how am i how am i discriminating against the animals because you're picking the taste of their flesh or their secretions over their actual life okay you know it's it's it's ridiculous I mean are you saying I'm shaming animals I don't think I'm shaming animals but shaming animals but you're picking the angel hates the angel G is saying I sound like a psychopath but psychopaths Psychopaths have no empathy for other human beings which I've seen well I have plenty well the first step to psychopathy is often the mistreatment of animals so but I just want to clarify what I was trying to say cuz I kind of had marbles in my mouth when I said it when someone discriminates against homosexuals do you think you have a right to shame them for discriminating against homosexuals I not I mean I I have a right to try to convince them that's the same thing I see what you're saying what you're saying yeah okay all right so you're discriminating against animals so we have a right to try to convince you to not discriminate against animals right right right I I have the advantage on my side though that last I checked homosexuals were human beings right so and well they can fight with me because they're gonna have a hard time fighting with you but you know if you know like I mean we're we're at a state we're at a stalemate here and this is why it's so not really interested in this they all mate why is it it's tell me because the thing is what I said I'm not the philosophy I'm not the person who falls I'm logic I'm just you know in the UK you care more than me that's that's where the stalemate is the reason I care right I go to slaughterhouses I see these animals I go to factory farms I see these animal rights see them suffering okay I know what they're going through and I know that is completely uncalled for and that we're making these decisions purely because we like the taste of their flesh and that it's ridiculous aying veganism is perfect I'll never claim it's perfect because it isn't and I'm pretty sure that beyond veganism there is an even better solution which we will get to as it comes but at the moment veganism seems like the most thought-out like well you know structured thing that we can move to to start coming to a better world which is going to help you know like I said in you know our own health the environment it's gonna help the animals it's also not going to you know completely destroy kind of culture in any way either you know we can still have the Christmas turkey you just have it in a vegan version or anything like that it's a routes to a kinder world I don't see how continuing to eat animals is doing anything to increase our well-being or is ever going to increase our well-being further than we are now surely the best thing we should be doing for this planet and for us is to increase well-being and just sticking to eating meat is not doing it human well-being yeah human well-being as well do you think humans are benefiting from killing animals right yes in what way they're tasty because they're tasty okay what about all the heart disease they're getting what about all the diabetes they're getting what about the fact that you know we're literally bringing up society you know I mean you think about the violence involved in actually slaughtering animals you know slaughter people who work in slaughterhouses I've you know higher chances of going out and coming domestic violence and rape and stuff how is this benefit in humans so there's there's this thing that they do in business it's called a cost-benefit analysis so what you're saying I don't deny don't deny that there is downsides right but if we're if it's 60% up and 40% down let's take the 60% up I'm not just a pragmatist I mean tell me tell me how going vegan is going to be a detriment to know everyone how is it going to be a detriment because like I said we've got all the same foods all the same foods are all they're all that you want crispy prawns be all crispy prawns you want to look about me we got donek about me okay are you talking mark meat yeah okay okay so you know we all the foods are that so so there's no issue there so what is it that's going to become detrimental how humans going to yeah except for taste and taste isn't an argument yeah I can you turn your Micah what's I I don't know what to tell you Chris I mean I'm not biting oh yeah dude your your what you're trying to do is you're trying to like guilt me and it's really all it's doing is making me I mean I'll just come to the point where I'm I'm ready to go hunting man I'm fuck Mike I'm ready to go out and kill things seriously yeah I mean you can see that as much usual all I'm doing is saying the facts that's what I'm doing I know and if the facts it's your it's your cult man it's not my call I didn't call I don't wanna in the cult okay I I survived a friend in your body okay I don't subscribe to vegan morality but you might not subscribe to you confront evil I'm just telling you how it is this is how it is animals are getting screwed over it can't be denied you cannot say yeah you can if you say animals are amoral then that means we can do anything you want to them and then you're gonna go to that root you're gonna be like destiny are we gonna start throwing you know yeah you know torturing animals and stuff because they though they're any moral now it's not first of all even you even you've got limits first of all we try to make the we're not torturing them for fun okay we're torturing them out of necessity okay what do you need meat to survive its it's none of your business simple question do you need me to survive a simple question it's none of your business what I mean it's none of my business this is just a simple question if you don't need me to supply this need yeah let's move on let's move on because it's mule yeah totally you're just trying to guilt trip me man and it's it's like bullshit it really is bullshit you're what you're I everything you're saying sounds to me like the Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep you're gonna die you're gonna burn in hell you're don't it's totally unethical you're gonna burn in hell aren't you worried about the afterlife you want all your family to burn in hell no I just it like what you're talking is nonsense to me and what you're saying with the comparison to Jehovah's Witnesses is the Jehovah's Witness is trying to convince you that you're the victim that you will be the victim of your own actions well we're trying to show you to demonstrate you with the reality of the industry is that the animals are victims it's not a fair analogy okay yeah I'm standing up for the animals I don't know if it came from this like like I said Elena and you know you can say a lot of stuff I say is appeal to emotion that's because yeah I've got a lot of emotion because I've seen these animals so a lot of people haven't I've seen I've seen the conditions are and stuff and I know and I know that we could easily just not do it to them it's it's that simple there is no big argument that means that those pigs need to be in a factory farm unless you want to you know give give me that excuse and I'm the owner I'm not seeing I'm not seeing a decent one that's why you're a vegan exactly that's exactly why I'm a vegan well me and the rest me and the rest of the world don't see it as an excuse you wanna see you might not see it as a seed but you can't eat the thing is you have no argument against it you're just saying well I'm just gonna do it anyway that's not an excuse you got to say you this gonna get on with it you've got in care I mean do you or you can't say I don't care about doesn't make you it doesn't make you getting more rooted it's not that I care I don't care as much as you okay there are plenty of times in life when having too much caring is bad for you and how is this bad for me let's move on let's move on let's move on we're not we're not communicating you're talking at me we're not having a conversation it's been 30 minutes it's been 30 minutes let's move on philosophical vegan wanted to take the floor with met ethics yeah I I continue breath the cost-benefit analysis thing really quickly because you two are kind of talking past each other when you when you add up the cost I mean he's Christa's adding up you know animal suffering and you don't care about that as much in it yeah zero like he'll suffer you can fund the enemy faucet can philosophical turn his mic up let me think it's longer wider than us am I really quiet for everybody I'm having a hard day give me one second to I can you hear me I can hear ya we can hear you my my louder now it's hard to tell when you're not speaking relative to people but I can hear you right now okay I just wanted to address the cost/benefit thing real quickly because people can tend to talk past each other when they have find their different information or they value things differently we're listening hey yeah we can hear ya you're good I've turned my volume up so I don't even know it's all kind of loud now okay thanks so I you two seem to be talking past each other in it in order to address the value dissonance you really do have to talk about meta ethics you have to explain like why it is a problem the animals are suffering but you can even completely avoid that I mean you can make environmental arguments that are very strong but when you do that you have to say okay like eating a hamburger or something is that that's damaging to environments damaging to other human beings but so would be say a joyride in a Hummer so you have to kind of compare those things they look these are equally damaging say in environmental terms and you can't moralize one but not moralize the other I think sometimes begins aren't very careful to make that clarification so it sounds like we're being arbitrary but when we're making certain arguments we're not necessarily good okay and I wanted to come back to what you said about the the cults using arbitrary rules are you saying that that's prescriptively good that it's holding these societies together because I mean we have everything from like peaceful whatever hit the Raelians to like Heaven's Gate where they're you know killing themselves or there all sorts of different to to the first of all I'm talking about communities there are overlapping communities like we're all in a nation which is a community we're all in a state which is a community we're all in a city which is a community we're all in a you know these communities are overlapping so right all the way down to the Heaven's Gate right but so social capital is a thing that is valuable in society it's a when you trust people when you can interact with them and not you know crime is low there's all these things that social capital does for society so like destroying social capital willy-nilly is what I'm worried about yeah but you're not necessarily doing that when you're saying arbitrary arguments are good the wrong arbitrary arguments can create social capital though but do they necessarily the only evidence you provided is with respect to these small communities these small communities within larger communities that if they don't provide enough utility of course they break down because people just diffused into the overall nation sure I mean our nations are in competition with each other people can move between them and those nations offering better better perks people can move to if they meet the requirements to do that definitely yes the reason that it's a bad argument that arbitrary values are a bad argument is because it is talking about colors and it is talking about these minuscule communities within larger ones where people have options to diffuse out into these larger communities it's it's not really supporting anything for to me in my opinion cult is just a religion that you're not in that's not how cold is defined though okay the cold is very specifically I'm throwing I'm telling you the way I'm defining it okay well I mean it's kind of like ask yourself using murder and that's not really how suffice you you're the one that used hey thank you when I see murder that word fully applies to animals it's in the dictionary well then concede the point it's in the dictionary there's there's multiple definitions correct yeah ask yourself yes of course of course look and one sec but the definition of murder there are definitions that apply to animals I ask yourself i concede the point that there are multiple definitions ever stalking is it Tim right now it's no it's philosophical vegan but I I'm just conceding you know because okay wait philosophical conceit on that there's multiple definitions of murder obviously and some of them apply to animals right and we're is there a definition of murder that applies to animals you're contradicting yourself yeah hey hey don't sidestep answer the question does do certain definitions apply to animals yes or no their definitions do - I mean whatever Robert whoa answer the question no yes oh no but you may you took a jab at me well I guess I'm using word incorrectly wait hey yes stop letting wait wait so don't take weird shots at me using the word wrong it's in the dictionary you just acknowledged it it is a proper use of the term hey look ask your hold on hold on hold on hold on ask yourself you you realize that he is making a point that you and I are miss communicating over the word murder though I am using a different definition than you were using I'm responding - I understand that and I'm asking you a semi yes so I'm just putting out you can't say I forget this no I know that's why I'm not using that's why I that is why I am conceding the point to you that the definition is order the definition is good right but you got you understand that the definition I'm using a murder is good to know that we're using two separate definitions of murder and it's just confusing the argument yeah sure okay go on there's there's different definitions and right now right now Philo and I are using different definitions of cult and we're getting confused okay but I don't think we're not getting as confused because I understand that Raelians and Trump errs are are not necessarily the same thing so anyway my point is that you've been referring to vegans as a cult and yes that is applicable under a more casual definition right but when you use that word just like I I just agree with ask yourself using the word murder because of the first definition because of the legalistic definition letter because of how it means unlawfully killing basically I mean executing a prisoner is not murder a gift having abortion is not murder now you call it that but it just infuses the conversation with a lot of emotional rhetoric and it's yes I agree I agree and the likeliest hate the word community but I'm can we call it the vegan community as it is because yes so the vegan community they have their own rules um sort of there are major issues jungles I tear them up yeah I mean they're they're the deontological vegans who you know kind of Francey own type vegans they think okay you know absolutely it's wrong no matter what then there are consequentialist vegans to say okay you know eating animal products it harming animals like this it overall has bad consequences we shouldn't we shouldn't do it and they appeal to more empirical evidence they look is damaging the environment and it's time where are the animals and we should would you consider harm to the animals because of meta ethics because we want to appeal to a universal morality so that we can all discuss these things to come to agreements I mean that's kind of what what height was getting at with his with his heterodox Academy right he wants people to talk together you know across these ideological lines so that we can come and we can form a consensus of a universal morality we can get rid of all the arbitrary and groups now groups that's never gonna happen but I well yeah I mean the idea is that at least we can start coming to a consensus and start using that to inform our value judgments so that we aren't always talking I I think like I would like vegans to to be helpful in working at one one of the things that bothers me is I I am NOT into the industrial farming as many people are okay I don't want to see animals suffering I want the meat but I don't I want it to be as the least amount of suffering as possible when vegan when vegans say like no you can't do that it's impossible they're like they take this extreme position that takes you know fishing away from people like I like what is when you talk about people going fishing like catching fish cutting the fish up and eating them like how is that even remotely like that's not bad that's good yeah exactly you just said you want to cause the least amount of suffering possible so hooking the fish pulling it out of the water causing it to suffocate is causing it some suffering it would cause it's certainly less suffering if you just left it alone so the least amount of suffering would be to leave the fish alone well I mean the least amount of suffering in that it gets in my belly okay would you agree that say I I agree that mock meats aren't completely equivalent to the animal-based meats I mean people can't tell the difference there are things like the impossible burger it's getting close to right people say it's you know an 8 out of 10 burger or something like that well would you say that because suffering has a little value you would be willing to accept you know an artificial means say it's a it's a lab me it takes the clean meat as they say the in-vitro meat may be that tastes exactly identical would you say that that that we would have a moral compulsion to choose that over meet the required killing animals not at all other things being equal no not at all yeah even though one case exactly the same as the other and there's no suffering in one and there's some suffering in the other a lot of people on the left or against GMOs and whatnot but I know they seem to be a 4-month meets and against GMOs and it makes it just seems repair there are no more I'm not necessarily against GMOs so cuz I I mean there are deontological vegans who say that mock meats are wrong because they enforce the idea that we need to meet or that they you know are emulating this like playing some people think it simulated child pornography is wrong it's the same kind of argument that they're making they're not making a consequential argument they're not making a rational argument for it but what I'm asking you is okay I put for you there there's there's two options you can kill animals you can cost up for me get me bring get the exact same me it's it's a modern innovation it I'm gonna go with the regular me why because I like meat we've established out already I know but it tastes exactly the same it is meat it is made from animal cells that are grown without any suffering whatsoever just nature feels right their molecular lee identical the economic impact is the same the amount of people employed is all the same there's no difference one how about this what if we just use anesthesia what if we give the cows ecstasy before we kill them so you know I know that's a joke but you don't think people haven't already considered this you can't do that and render meat that's edible by humans oh really no come on don't I've been killed yourself so I don't know why you're advocating it um look can philosophical and I get in yeah totally it's supposed to be between you guys anyway I don't have fucking forever here yeah well what do you got love it what I've had all these arguments I didn't first of all i weirdly just like fighting vegans that we would choose the meat and of all suffering if they're exactly identical I mean I know there's some some emotional reason trying to understand where where your arguments well you're saying you I said the same thing to Tim you guys are trying to change my head and it's not my head that you have to change its my heart and my heart is not going to change I there's a converse six different intuitions that form morality and my I know that my antenna that's descriptive of my proscriptive settings my settings on those six different intuitions are my pros my proscriptive view of morality and those settings you're trying to get me to change those settings and I'm not gonna change those settings man I'm not gonna change them for some vegans on the Internet come on no layer basically you're not amenable to logic and you have an emotional position that you're going to dogmatic hey I know you disagree with that but the truth is the truth go ahead okay so if you like let's say a regular steak that wasn't produced with the least amount of suffering is like we'll just give it a quantitative value of 90 all right just got to point out you realize that is just you can determine that's false by the fact that I've already switched my position from carnism to veganism right fundamental issues switching my position it's you who's never changed your position in your life friended you changed your position for emotional reasons and don't know it all right but let me just ask my question real quick and then I'll shut up okay let's just say I just want to talk to this fellow guy so if you have a if you say like reg least amount of harm caused steak is produced and let's say it has quantitative value of 80 and then let's say a vegan steak is produced and it has a quantitative value of 70 would you prefer a steak with a quantitative value of a hundred if you knew that that steak was produced by torturing the animal what is the quantity what is the quantum you know what are you even talking about Artie is like a value of how good it is like let's say how good one good in what way good to his to his Simone you have taste are you your so you're telling me to play taste off of suffering right when you quantitatively good you're talking about how good at tastes like a 70 and an 80 and 100 those refer yes precisely I think it's it's a confusing argument I mean I I don't necessarily know how to address it oh okay I'll just say the vegan steak steak cause no suffering it tastes the worst okay the regular steak tastes okay that cost the least amount of suffering and then the best steak that you've ever had in your life it's like it's like an orgasm in your mouth it caused a ton of suffering you had to torture the animal and then the animal was beat to death so that it would taste that good I would save that steak for special occasions are you is that an honest answer is that just another joke yeah no I would alright so you'd accept torturing an animal to death for the sake of your taste pleasure your first of all your conception of torture my conception of torture are probably two different things you're you're a very sadistic motherfucker so I use very specific terms the animal was flayed alive the skin was pulled off no no of course not course not I would like come on no but that's that's not what we do though I'm not saying that's what we do I'm trying to figure out what level of concern you have for animals come on you would yours at the end we'll be at the end today


@47:30 Ask Yourself vs. Brim starts


Let's let ask yourself let's let ask yourself have the floor go ahead ask yourself yeah okay okay well honestly I am sorry to be impatient I just know it's beyond this dream as much as I like talking with friended and what worse and whoa what was really note what what why are you well just just to give some back story to the audience here yeah yeah it's actually going to do that well the reason I'm here so this philosophical vegan guy he leaves a comment on my video telling me I'm a moral Objectivist using the word in a different sense than I'm using it so just a completely irrelevant comment it's like commenting on friend it's video and saying hey friended technically you're a feminist like you do believe in equal rights for women it's like I did call you a moral Objectivist though I know you did I'm talking about filler right now anyway so I mean I just blew it off I just said you don't know what I'm talking about or something along lines just ignored it and then I see you know he posts like just comments and comments like huge ego investment in his own intellect very obvious just massive comments I go over to friend ins channel massive comments from him again so I was like okay well I've created an enemy nothing new there I was just gonna ignore it but then I get a message telling me that he's coming on your stream to talk about me so I was like okay well I don't want this some guys reading confusion about me so I'm gonna go on and just debunk him and point out where he's making an error and I'll do that but were you about what he wasn't on he wasn't coming on to talk about you the tweet was actually it's like not talking about you trying not to talk about you so the way we his comments actually I'm talking about a message that I got okay okay then that's something different I I saw he his comments on my video were intelligent comments though I invited him on to talk to me about his position and I am under the impression he is a moral Objectivist and and I am NOT a moral Objectivist I think you're a moral Objectivists and don't know it he's a moral Objectivist and does know it I'm a moral subjectivist and and Tim Jong hoon is a sadistic motherfucker yeah and just to be clear yeah but just to be clear you know that confusions probably my fault because I am the one who let ask yourself know we were gonna be having this conversation today and I did tell you that I was gonna let big mouth bigmouth strikes again I wish I had the song I wish I had it right here okay so so anyway I'm just going to get into where this guy is making an error so obviously there's different definitions of what it means to be a moral Objectivist I've used the term in the same way since the very dawn of my channel and the video that trended was responding so it was one where I'm using it in that sense so I mean you can the sense that I use the word I'm talking about ontology I'm talking about what is ontology moon I don't I don't even know what that means it's it's it's like the the nature of how things exist so it's it's looking into the nature of being uh so I think I'm still come on so means I think yeah I think the etymology is Anto means being and logic logic so I think logic of it refers to the state in which something exists so when you're saying that morality is objective in an ontological sense you're saying that it exists in some way separate from subjective experience so that is a position that I don't hold and that's what I'm responding can I so can I fill out what can I go ahead quick it's not a complicated error to understand so then what fillo is doing is he's coming in and he's using a different definition of moral objectivism which is pretty much synonymous with moral universalism and he's telling me that by that definition I'm a moral Objectivist so my whole point is you're just using the word in a different way that I'm Ewing using it so it's just a heap of semantic bullshit and I don't know why you're even bothering so Philo what is your definition of objective morality I'd be glad to want to talk about this but I'm wondering if we can perhaps schedule later time to continue a discussion about arbitrary qualities in any groups and stuff like that okay well let's just clear clear that up right now friend is wrong because he doesn't accept being discriminated against for arbitrary reasons so he's contradicting himself and unless he wants a moral system that accepts contradiction which I'm pretty sure you don't because then you can just justify anything then you can tell him that he is wrong in that sense so you don't accept arbitrary you can't use arbitrary it's pretty simple I did I do accept that you guys can spend hours hashing that out but it's not a complicated point I already I already said I accept arbitrary but okay I don't think it's quite adequate what's your definition okay why don't wait why don't we not go off-topic yeah no just just not just no I mean you can address the definition but I'm just pointing out that your comment is just a misguided comment I mean you're just you understand that you are using a different sense of the word than me all right in the on rod first of all I am an Objectivist I just want I just want ization I though you I'm a I'm not sure I can even understand what your definition of objective morality is so it's completely unclear with me okay I mean I'm just going to trust one second fill OD I do you understand what I'm saying when I talk about ontological objective morality or do I need to explain this to everybody hiepro everybody in a minute but what I want to ask is for Adam this is the interesting conversation that I've kind of wanted to get into I wanted to talk about social intuition ISM I wanted to talk about whether it is justified to use arbitrary okay we can talk yeah we can talk about saying will you actually address why you're talking though because you made a stupid comment you're coming on a live stream - supposedly talk about me that's what I'm told so now you're here and I'm addressing something to you and I'd like an answer do you comprehend that or not philosophical vegan I am I know what you're arguing okay so you understand that in the ontological sense of the word I am a moral Objectivist person so objects so sorry let's explain it to us Philo in English no just don't come in just
Last edited by NonZeroSum on Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Transcripts for sourcing.

Post by NonZeroSum »

do you get that Philo that may or may not be true that is the question of conversation I just want to establish with Adam that may be okay but if you're not like I seriously let's start talking about what I'm talking - yeah the last-chancer I'm just gonna dip from the stream Adam doesn't want to fucking hear either let's get into the topic I'm here for you right now you've been ranting about me all over the internet so here's your chance to debunk ask yourself and you should be glad your ain't on because you're just gonna get murked and look like a fucking embarrassment so again I put it to you for I don't know the fourth or fifth time now in the ontological sense of the term objectivism I am ontologically a moral subjectivist I don't think that morality exists independently of subjective reality all of the shit that you get into about realism talking about fucking that pie exists regardless of whether people are there to observe pie that the concept of a circle is still coherent complete missing of the point Kay the conditions that we would evaluate as being moral they still exist regardless of whether anyone is there to evaluate them or not but the evaluation that a given set of conditions is moral depends on a subject so do again do you comprehend this I am on to logically speaking not a moral Objectivist please just yes or no don't start talking Adam yes I understand your argument and do you agree I don't fully agree with your argument you have okay what do you disagree where where do you how am I not a ontologically speaking how am I not a moral subjectivist please explain that to me well I would ask you ontological speaking do you think that mathematics and logic are subjective do ontological II speaking do I think that mathematics and logic are subjective what would you think they're also subjective I think that they are based on certain assumptions and definitions that you have to make like obviously I mean logic is based on certain metaphysical assumptions and then science is based on the assumptions of logic so do I think that they correspond to an objective reality sure do I think that it's objectively true to say up is the direction above me no that is you choosing to define that direction as up and once you define it you can talk objectively about what is or isn't up just like once you define light of wavelength you know 445 to 495 or whatever it is nanometers as blue you can talk objectively about what is or is not blue just like finally with morality once you define what good is you can talk objectively about what is good but the step of making the definition the step of saying what you consider to be good that is subjective there's no getting around that I don't think that your actual arguments indicate that you have that belief or you're not you're not making our arguments very well okay well that's just an assertion you wouldn't actually explain how the eye okay go okay go ahead okay so I mean let's start for this formal argument that you provided if they arguments for just right sir just before proceeding you do understand that ontological II I am a moral subjectivist you understand that I don't believe that morality is independent of mind right the reality we evaluate as being moral that's independent of mind just like the reality that we perceive as green is independent of mind but the determination that it's moral or the you know all subjective human experience that is green that is subjective ontologically I am a moral subjectivist so I'm just asking for confirmation that you comprehend that assuming you also agree that mathematics and logic are not independent to find then yeah maybe you hold that position I would say you're contradicting yourself but how how am i contradicting myself I was going to get into your argument all right keep sidestepping my question because we're talking right now I mean I need to go over your argument to show you where the contradictions are where the missing premises are that indicate that you have some object okay what whatever what I perceive you as saying there is I need to avoid your question and ramble my way into no no no make it little would let me you've had the floor let him let him give his argument Philo hmm yeah okay you trying to argue right now are you are you trying to argue that I am a moral Objectivist that I believe that morality exists independent of subjective reality no not at all not at all I'm not asking you I'm asking him what I am clear on is that you seem to be a moral Universalist that's okay that is again just again sorry to cut you off but that's exactly the error that I laid out immediately when I started talking you are you know taking the second you know taking a definition what is moral universal saying for first all you guys it's pretty basic you know well there's the audience there is the audience we I'm just filling your talk I'm and I'm talking at a level that people who know what we're talking about will be able to understand it just for us okay talking about something that can be universalized so if you define good as that which produces the most well-being then universally across the board anywhere in the universe for any action in principle you can say whether it's good or bad and how wrong it is and how good it or bad it is relative to another action so it's independent of whether or not people adopt it well I mean it's the universal means it's it's applicable everywhere it's a it's a totalizing moral system yeah it's the best morality which is by the way a different definition of Objectivism which is why you're completely off point here philosophical vegan that is not how I use the word so let him talk what do you say so it asked how was Adam using the word when he said that you thought you were immoral Objectivist because the way I interval let me answer the net so he's responding to a video first of all he's responding to a video where I'm using the word you talk about objective and subjective in the ontological sense and he contrasts it at the very start of his sentence with the word subjective you have claimed on many occasions that morality is subjective so that is what he's contrasting it with yeah but I was very clear that poorly or he means something else no no no I was very clear I was very clear you I you are saying that morality is subjective and I agree that morality is subjective but what I am saying is if you're saying my morality is better than any other morality and judging those other moralities and saying they're immoral you are a moral Objectivist because you're basically saying objectively my morality is it better than any other morality so that there you go philosophical vegans so what sense of the word do you think that is I can comprehend you guys you're talking over each other okay well I cannot follow the conversation and I ask you yes man you're just I'm sorry you're just annoying me your side stepping all over the place he just made well your undelete clear to you he's a moderator I we had a moderator the moderator would tell you if I am the moderator everyone be quiet good ask you a question yes when you said that you believe that ask yourself was immoral Objectivist it seems like you were doing the dichotomy kind of view the subjectivist Objectivists where subjectivist would not say things about other moral systems the subjectivist does not have any problem with moral systems being arbitrary a subjectivist may not rely mean I make the distinction between subjectivist relativist a relative moral relativists will say there are all these different moralities and no one can say one is better than the other a subjectivist will say there are all these different moralities but i can judge them on different criteria which are better than the others a Objectivists would say there is one morality out there that we can all agree is the best morality and I don't necessarily know that there's a best morality I know that from some moralities are better than other moralities but so evidently we're in agreement ask yourself we can tick that off of course I know if you're using the word it's just this guy so Phil oh do you follow that do you get the sense he's using the word yeah what sense are you using the word Phil oh you're using an incorrect distinction between the word he's talking about universalism which is another sometimes people use objectivism to refer to it but it's a completely separate point it's like coming on again a video about feminism and saying friended you're a feminist by the dictionary definition that's not the definition I'm using so no idea what you're talking about or how you perceive that to be even remotely relevant I've done a few streams on objective morality bond and definitely a fish out of water here so Philo go go ahead say your piece okay I'm I think you're making a incorrect distinction between relative and subjective well you're you're saying that but I mean okay as long as you understand me it's like you have no ability to stay on point you're not right now you are supposed to be communicating with me you're supposed to be explaining to me how I am a moral Objectivist I have told you how I thought yeah a weight and concession on that that's a great point you understand this do you get that ontologically speaking I am a subjectivist I don't know if that's the case or not can I go through the argument yeah do it no no no no you need to wait no you need to it's not complicated you what always let understand is that wait wait no no because it's a derail friended it's like how do some of these terms so I'm not it's it's it's not know any of these terms I know you're talking it's wait it's when I I'm sorry to hold the floor but I'm not letting him go off point when you say that I am ontologically speaking a moral Objectivist that I mean that is not my position I believe that morality is contingent on subjective Minds to evaluate something as moral I don't think that morality exists without a subject who think it exists just like love does not exist without a subject there to think it exists so talk about the truth value of that we can talk about all that but Phillip do you get that that is my position do you comprehend that I do not think that morality exists outside of subjective experience I didn't claim that you subscribe to robust realism definition decided when you did when you went to the Wikipedia page for moral objectivism moral objectivism may refer to robust moral realism I never claimed that you believed in robust moral realism you may or may not I don't know that bill oh okay so if you understand that you are using a different definition of the term than me then how how do you even see that as remotely relevant to come into the conversation and say that to me you think I don't know that I believe that my system is universal universalize well that doesn't mean that I don't still hold in some respects a relativistic position you might just be to dichotomized in your thinking from philosophy frankly you know you can have multiple universe Eliza ballistamon are incompatible with each other you I mean and now we're going off point just yeah if you get in Christine come on stand that ontological II speaking I'm a moral subjectivist your comment on my video is irrelevant you under you understand his position right I mean we're the definitions are immaterial really like like I said so so and this and this is why I'm not getting letting him run off because unless he's going to say Isaac in some sense you believe that morality exists you know separate from subjective experience then he's not actually contradicting what I've said and what I intended in all my videos up to that very point he's just just randomly taking a different definition and saying by this definition you're an Objectivist yeah let's give Philo three minutes here and you can you can bugger off right after this I I don't know if I can go over it in three minutes but I'll try so he starts off argument for animal moral value proposition one humans are moral value this is just an arbitrary rule and I know he knows it's an arbitrary rule and then proposition two there is no trait absent in animals this is making an implicit assumption it's an implicit rejection of arbitrary rules the assumption is that humans being of moral value has to be based on a trait okay let them talk let them talk at all I'm sorry there's just there's already two things that are wrong there so first of all let him read off letters in a human's hair don't you take some no wait wait that's that's not that's not an ontological truth claim that I don't want to active I don't want to mute you're saying that my morality assumes consistency and rejects our arbitrariness yes it does but I don't believe that a a that does not make me an ontological Objectivist that you're talking about basically epistemology there I I mean I don't I don't just I don't even know what to what to say to that can I don't assume that consistency is a God dictated rule it's a rule that I accept and that I assume any other rational person who's talking about morality is going to accept because otherwise you can justify anything on the grounds that you don't have to be consistent I don't think that's an object onto logically objective principle and I don't think humans have moral value is an ontological objective principle I'm confused too so continue okay let him talk for you let him let him make finish this point like it's just not in my being to be able to when he will comes at it from false angles but you know you can go ahead and try to get to a correct statement I wish I said you rejected you said that you reject arbitrary that is not the sign I personally into this thing see okay you personally do but you you put this into your logical framework and you hide it in there without any premise hide it yeah it is it's what the fuck are you talking about I always point out look at how many videos I point out that you have to accept human moral value and logical consistency in order to actually go into that argument no does that that's not accurate look okay well that's object it's objectively true to say that's something that I've laid out many times so maybe you haven't watched enough of my content maybe well the formal argument you presented does not follow it is logically incoherent okay how is how is that possibly true explain that you are missing a premise you are missing the premise of rejection of arbitrary rules if your is yes if you had probably proposition one you might know that that way wait that just when I reject inconsistency and unless okay I'm very aware of that you fucking moron so I understand oh no no no no I have no patience for this so give it my I wait I assume that inconsistency is wrong I don't personally want to be treated and consistently that is more deeply embedded than a rejection of arbitrary morality that follows from the principle that inconsistency is wrong what it does for me because I personally do not want to be mistreated for arbitrary reasons so it would be inconsistent for me to mistreat others for arbitrary reasons okay you're basically introducing the golden rule as an axiom in your morality ding-ding-ding-ding you're a real fucking idiot it's like it's like you I I personally accept that I should be consistent because I want to be treated consistently you know that is a subjective moral belief that I hold and that I argue others into on the basis that not accepting it will lead to absurd moral systems that they don't want to accept I never at any point make that argument on the assumption that it is somehow objectively true that you can't be inconsistent or objectively true that you can't have arbitrary distinctions or objectively true that humans have moral value these are subjective assumptions that I make that I argue others into based on the understanding that if they don't accept them they're going to generate a horrendous moral system that they won't accept what are the two what are the two inconsistent axioms follow the argument is not morally it's not logically coherent right missing he's missing crystal spell out spell out how how it wouid how is it what would logically just just it's just follow he how out upon spleen explain how does it notice all we need is the two axioms isaac wait long up we can get the to wait wait fucking wait saying that you don't introduce the axiom that arbitrary moral decisions are wrong how does that make my argument not followed are you saying that makes premise to not follow from premise one what are you saying it makes the conclusion not follow from the premises premise a child to follow from each other the conclusion doesn't follow because you're saying there isn't a trait absent in animals but that assumes that you need a trait to justify the moral value of humans that is not included in premise one oh you say as humans have moral value yeah okay so do are you do you think i think that is a ontologically objective thing that you need to do is that what you're trying to say you need to add it into the argument as a premise otherwise you're being dishonest in your yeah you sneaking a premise in your on the roads isaac you're on the road it's the conclusion of following from the premises you're asking i'm supposed to be moderator here i'm sorry about the outburst okay i okay let's it's fine it's fine why don't this guys get found ly confused and it's it's very obvious that there's ego investment it deals just it's frustrating guys it and there's no there's no a co-investment on your side come on come on when only one person has ego at this table come on well i mean every human has an ego but i don't sense that philosophical vegans coming from a place there's one quick there's one there's one person that's not letting anyone talk and it's not philosophical it's cuz he's going off point and let it make this point I'm sure I'm sure you know how I can make a better argument you fucking random no cuz he's not he knows honestly I'm I'm just like I'm getting the limit of my patience if you want it if you want to take off and we'll we'll hear the argument with you off the stream that's totally feasible well I think I think that I'll probably do that because that's how communicating with a person like this now you can look at this conversation say Isaac is talking more he's talking over people I am resetting the conversation on topic I can't get answers to my questions you tell me that my have all your questions been answered 'yes have all your questions been I haven't gotten fucking answers to anything this guy just rambles we we figured out our miscommunication that's good whoa wait when he tells me that my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises I see no evidence of how that's true his argument seems to be that you're asserting that you have to name a trait and that there's no objective reason why that's true again I've had other I've had other people tell me welcome an axiom in so I've had I've had other people say I'm not sure who you're talking to you or how they think that I'm talking about people that know more about logic than either one of us I mean obviously I didn't I'm talking about sense common Oh common sense is common to you oh it's not common to every common sense you think you think you think I'm literally just saying common sense that's a retarded straw man so fill it when I love how every straw man is always a retarded strawberry it's never just a regular straw yes why do I even bother man it's like you have to actually listen true women this you tell me be some truckers crow doesn't have a brain you're right he was retarded Adam Adam come on I don't do this to you if you come on my stream for two hours I I listen to people talk and if they can't stay on point I will jump in 100% oh really no okay no I'm okay let me let me articulate my point and then I'm gonna drop we know a point we know your point we already know your ended friended you have never grasped my point and Phil oh when you attempt to say that I am arbitrarily smuggling in the concept that you have to name a trait well I'm pretty sure that you don't want to be discriminated against just based on some fucking arbitrary random I'm pretty sure that you're going to say that they actually have to spell out a legitimate reason so you would be contradicting yourself by not holding the same principle in other contexts you would be special pleading so again it's not that it's an ontological objective moral principle it comes from an understanding that you have to be consistent and again you can reject consistency but it leads to absurd moral systems that's what you point out to get people on board with the concept of consistency if you're on board you may be moral objectivism you have to okay okay I'm actually convinced that this person is a moron you do not comprehend what you're talking about I don't have a good understanding you're it's you're convinced everyone is a moron so Vince the water cool with it we're fine we're fine with it man it's cool it's you so anyway I would just conclude by saying this person their criticism of me it's completely retarded completely off point it's the same thing as coming into friend it's video saying oh you're a feminist by this definition but the sense that you're actually using the word and criticizing the term which is very fucking obvious that you're not a feminist I'm just going to ignore that why why are you so wearing off point why are you so amending Nationals and because I'm annoyed with the dishonesty or the stupid it's not much it is it's not dishonesty man why what what is let me fuckin cap my point and get on will stream what is the motivation for being dishonest none of us are being dishonest here you're not being a sauce it could all it could also be stupidity I genuinely don't know it could be ego I'm just going to make my final statement and get off here because this is just infuriating to deal with I don't even know what the fuck this guy is thinking well we're done okay okay well well Phil oh your statement your original comment is completely irrelevant it's not the definition I'm using and your attempts to tell me that my argument is inconsistent make false assumptions that I'm holding principles ontologically to be objective when I'm not I'm assuming those principles because that's how I want to be treated and I argue people into accepting those based principles before moving through the argument it's very simple sounds simple it's simple to a person who can understand but it's not simple to a fucking moron or a dishonest person or someone who's got ego investment in trying to sound like they know what's up when it comes to philosophy that's what I perceive this guy to do so I'm gonna dip now and thanks for coming on I see you guys do yeah and if I see a collab between you guys I will probably Merc you know okay okay hold on enjoy the embarrassment and that is all bye-bye what's up Tim


@1:17:30 Ask Yourself leaves


where's my where's my song yes yes sorry man so I've heard I have heard people tell me the same exact thing that he's smuggling in an extra axiom I think there may be one maybe two ginger ginger bill has said there's an extra axiom I mean you just got to lay this stuff out in the video because he's he's not gonna let you get it out any other way but go ahead speak your piece okay so proposition one humans are at moral value and then proposition two there's not a trait absent in humans or abstinent animals which is absent in humans which became ourselves valueless there are like two implicit additional propositions one is that you can't just have an arbitrary trait I mean a proposition that says like humans are of more value than proposition two if you said it's not okay to have a you know moral value based on an arbitrary basis so it must be a trait and then proposition three was there's not a trait okay that would be great that would be Ryan and and what I'm doing I'm taking advantage of that an invisible premise and I'm saying yeah the trait is that you're human yeah absolutely and he said you could say the trait is that I I care okay the trait is that I don't want to kill you well these are all these are all the traits that I have man he comes back and he says well you can't do that because you wouldn't want to done to you right now he's introducing another axiom which is the Golden Rule don't do any others as you wouldn't have them do unto you I mean that is fine that is a wonderful argument that is an ex basis for universal morality there are very good arguments to to endorse that but he's not he's not laying it out it's dishonest or it's you know as he said it's maybe a little bit naive on his part to think that he can do that I don't know a or he may be too invested well III don't just he's through a lot of insults at you and I feel bad because I mean you're obviously smart guy I've communicated with you in private I've communicated with you I'm in my comment section and I mean I I don't have a dog in this fight at all because I could like obviously I could I'm here because I like talking about moral psychology and I feel like obviously you know moral psychology like you've read Jonathan hi you know the stuff that I'm talking about do you want to get in you had earlier wanted to get into a disagreement with me before they asked yourself came in came on maybe we can we can do another time Oh going through this stuff then it's will probably have to have to what was pretty soon yeah I'm a bit worn out myself so but yeah maybe another time I think can you throw out the basics just so I can think about it what were you gonna say earlier and also the audience we left him hanging on you wanted to say something before ask yourself got involved so oh yeah I just wanted to see if maybe we could talk about this ask yourself stuff and then we could talk about like the meat of the argument that I really wanted to get into so I'm social social intuition you don't want to do it but people are on the stream listening right now so yeah I don't think a lot of time because I think we'll really get into it you know I thought man it's like you know it's been a couple hours we got it we've only got point thirty something minutes and so it's been two hours and I'll have you go pretty soon what do you have to go I'll probably have to go in about at the very most an hour okay well we have an hour come on but I mean it could interrupt me at any time well that's fine if you're interrupted I'll talk to Chris Chris can assault me with his shaming Chris you got some good shaming well cute oh I've always got a look at you okay he's really what you need I sponsored the opportunity to say like obviously as you can tell I'm super passionate about this stuff but I think you actually think you're a nice guy oh man you know I'm passionate for the animals I didn't get to put so I didn't get to put any razzle dazzle on that one I wasn't taking any Raza Daza you know so uh so go ahead come on good name your trade argument because there were a few more points okay do it okay so if you add those two additional premises then yet but that's it that's absolutely a smile or you can add either one of them I guess I don't want to probably work then it's you know very sound argument you can establish that animals or are of moral value then guys this other section is at lotus-like argument for veganism from animal moral value and that's that's also in the weaker weaker side of the argument that you can if you can call it that animals are moral value and then there is not a trait absent goes through the trait thing again which which that's fine if you've already established that in the prior argument and then he says that causes us to consider anything short of non exploitation it seems like some sort of deontological the ontological thing i mean human exploitation obviously we don't want human exploitation because we're part of the social contract and we don't want you know the government coming in and like harvesting our organs and giving it to other people so tim long we don't we generally wouldn't be okay with with killing one person harvesting the organs assuming they weren't like I'll give you implications and giving it to other people like ten other people to save their lives I mean in principle yes that would be a good on paper oh you know you killed one person you save ten is basically the trolley problem yeah it is where it differs from the trolley problem is that the government is or somebody is actually coming in and doing this and you have to be against that because otherwise we don't have social order I mean I know you understand these things yeah you're talking about in your apartment all sorts of contracting it's just a really weak argument that's it so ignorant so for the other vegans on the stream though can you lay out the strongest argument because you've said that it's the weakest argument but you imply that there's a stronger one oh I was just saying a compass to like the first part is is is you only have to add in you know one one print premise to the first part and then you're pretty much solid his argument for animal moral values okay that doesn't solve if you accept the if you accept that morality isn't just arbitrary if you don't if you won't say that you know objectively Nazi morality is worse than you know our morality if you can't find and eject an objective basis to do that then you're like a pure subjectivist or a pure relativist and that's not gonna appeal to you if you're gonna be like well you know you choose the golden rule I choose the brass rule whatever mm-hmm so that that argument I think most people are going to be very receptive if you put in something like the golden rule you know like that it's not okay to have arbitrary ethics so you're just like you're just saying you're just saying to throw the axiom in you're saying to okay so what what are the name all the three axioms I think you have three or four axioms okay you've got humans are of moral value okay then you can add in it's not okay to like arbitrarily determine moral values so you do have to have some kind of empirical trait you have to have you like intelligence or something like that you have to have a trait then here is that more allow you to give us and then you can go on to say look there's not a trait absent in animals or specimens and humans with Cubs game are self valueless in that one so you don't have to you don't have to say causes game themselves value hello sorry you don't even have to say causes deem ourselves valueless that's trying to smuggle in the golden rule there it's trying to be you know self referential but I mean it's really big and it's not it's not at all clear it's like okay well this is appealing to the golden rule but the golden rule isn't in there either solo am I am i safe because I take the arbitrary route then I'm Nick you yeah if you accept arbitrary moral value if you say like I have no objective basis to say that your Nazi morality is worse or better than my morality if you if you're willing to jump in that mode I'm not willing to jump in that boat Jesus if if you accept any basis of judgment of morality I do though but you see there but what what basis do you accept and is that an arbitrary basis see it's just like who created God if you if you look at the God who created God if you look at with that if you look at morality though through like the sam harris moral landscape lens there are different peaks and we based our well-being and the assumption of well-being is important you have that axiom in your morality and if so I think the I think the metaphor still works even though I don't agree that it all comes down to care harm even though it I don't agree with that point I think the metaphor of the peaks and that they're theoretically is a Mount Everest out there that there's the highest peak that we would call objective morality but these like you want to compare this is always the vegans seem to take the the extremes they want to compare Nazi morality and our morality when I think really you're comparing maybe you know why did why can't it be French morality and American morality about signal-to-noise ratio for a minute we have a lot of no ways going on as far as our our beliefs of other cultures think like our our own emotions which definitely influences now in order to overcome the signal-to-noise ratio to get really strong signal you have to use like a really dramatic example of differences because those are is logically identical as a French morality in our morality or not a morality in our morality so you see your stuff be logically bound right so you're saying the French and infusing straight what do you want I'm saying that the logical argument that you can't accept an arbitrary difference well it doesn't matter if that arbitrary difference is small or enormous so it's very easy for people to emotionally say you know oh I accept the arbitrary differently our morality French morality but they're not really accepting arbitrary differences generally they're just applying that to a situation where the noise is so great you can't really get a signal the difference now if you use not reality as again your signal is very strong give us a detail or give us a detail on the arbitrary because I when I think of arbitrary I'm thinking an arbitrary rule against eating bacon like and that's arbitrary can can apply to anything like from anything that's not based on just just sound recent arguments and logic you know right did that that would be arbitrary like if you say that humans have more value okay Y then you say okay you know because a certain trait and then animals have this trait too well even saying even naming a particular trait is is an arbitrary choice unless there is a reason to argument to stay that trait is important so what do you could name what did you want to treat oh sorry would you want to say about social intuition ISM feeling tuition ism I think I think we'd have to get into a test I just wanted to cover over his argument and then if we would get on to like arbitrary is a good thing to leave into that if you want to dig into arbitrary and then we can talk about social enjoy okay so I mean do so do you accept arbitrary differences because if you don't like all the arbitrary difference you can't arbitrarily accept some arbitrary differences but not others well I mean I do in name the trade I'm accepting an arbitrary difference because the arbitrary difference is that there are human beings are not not livestock but you can't arbitrarily accept some arbitrary differences and not other arbitrary difference why not then you're still being arbitrary it's like saying god created universe okay who created God well meta God created God will who created medigun you have to you have an objective basis to claim that something is morally relevant otherwise you do it such arbitrary differences and there's no there's no degrees of arbitrary via the the utility I mean the thing could be arbitrary but the utility is kind of at a different level of it because who knows what arbitrary things are going to make increased social capital and make this society function more smoothly okay but now you're appealing to like social function that that is what you want at the root of an objective morality okay and then what a gas quick ask is that is that arbitrary and if we are looking to maximize social function does that imply that we should promote veganism I don't know man I think maybe we should go back to the shaming I feel like I feel like we're talking about time travel here yeah but I mean the shaming is where you're winning the conversation no I don't feel like I'm winning it's it's much more painful I feel like maybe I just take my licks what uh what um I I don't worth it either you accept arbitrary basis for moral value or you want all more value to have some sort of jet to faces it can only do four different objective basis for morality but they have to have strong arguments behind them they can't just be like I like it that's not objective that's arbitrary uh uh I like it is arbitrary yes are you our interests are arbitrary our personal interest like what what the people I like or don't like these are all arbitrary aspects it's you know emotions objective elements hmm okay I mean you can thank your triggered reasoning in a judicial system pardon well I'm asking Adam would you I think I already know your answers no not at all no obviously not so so in a judicial system you know to make adjudications requires impartiality I don't think impartiality and arbitrary are on the same they're not talking about the same thing well you know if you're if you're if you're saying that it's arbitrary to do things based on you like that or you have a preference for it I would say it is somewhat of the same thing because you'd be partial to the things you like the the thing about the judicial system is that we're trying to get justice media out mediated out equally to everyone like the arbitrary thing would be like a judge comes in and says I'm gonna rule this way because it's my brother-in-law and I don't want him to go to jail right because their way because they're female or because they're yeah you saw their species yeah well well I'm just using judicial system as a medium to get to the point about justice and general justice can exist outside of the judicial system yeah totally it does exist outside and judicial system I mean it has an objective and objective goal has an objective basis it's trying to see those laws through equally so everybody knows you know how they stand or what the consequences of actions are going to be in terms of when you remove justice from the social concept from the social construction I'm not sure you can really assert the Justice exists independently objectively outside of that I mean you can make a just distinction between things outside of a judicial system you can even justify things but then you have to do it logically if you do it based on a different objective basis rather than they oh I totally oh I totally agree I'm not I'm not trying to make an appeal to that I agree with okay okay yes and justifying like that's that's a confusing aspect like justice has a lot of no no that's the moral implications that's not quite what I mean but I'm saying I'm saying to to mete out justice whether it be in a judicial system or not requires impartiality well the impartiality has to do with mediating it out equally to everyone like if we're gonna make you know stealing a candy bar amer durable offense I mean that seems crazy right but as long as everyone gets the same punishment it theoretically is just so that's legal justice yeah and then there's also the the meta ethical justice of deontology and then there's there's justifying which is a logical concept that that you've used a logical argument to justify something right so these are these are like three different things that we're talking about and when we we complete them it's a little confusing right you know that son of mine to conflate them I'm just talking about justice in the sense that if your truck if you value justice then you should use it impartial II that that's the only thing I'm trying to point out and one real quick thing on that I'll shut up is I want to point out earlier you brought up Nazi morality and how that seems like such an extreme but have you ever considered why like there's such a high vegan population in Israel no I don't think about vegans on my free time well maybe you should okay I'll devote a minute a day okay as to the Nazi thing do you understand what I mean about the signal-to-noise ratio I do yeah yeah yeah I do I really want to get how people feel we have to use extreme examples and then but that's a no that is a good way that is a good segue into the social intuitionist model because the AI people change their minds this is elephant talk Tim people change their minds emotionally and then they're rational mind comes along for the ride an elephant whisperer who is who's this Chris Chris is an elephant whisperer but you just bullshit bullshit are you kidding me he had my elephant ready to trample people I was like I'm I'm ready like kick my own cat over here that's how bad it's like it's all sorry sorry it's sorry were me so okay the social intuitionist model it's a pretty good model in most cases do you buy it first first of all lay it out for our audience me my mic my mic is better maybe I should lay it out so the social intuitionist model is the idea that we are not rational beings that our emotions evolved before our reasoning ability evolved and that we interact with each other and have an instant gut level emotional response to different things different people different words different stimulus and that sets us we either like it or dislike it it sets us running towards it or running away and our reasoning is kind of tacked on after the fact to tell us to create a compelling story for other people why we hate vegans or why we love vegans so what I'm saying is emotionally when ask yourself comes on and and starts calling everyone idiot moron asshole like he's just making people run away and they will come up with whatever a rational argument they can to figure out why they despise what he's saying and that reason is not necessarily I mean it's it's not always good reason I mean a lot of times a reason is just to justify what we're doing to other human beings so is that a pretty good analysis of it you missed a really important ok so what a really important aspect of it ok one there there is that there is that that people are these emotional impulses and then as individuals most people will use reason or try to use misuse reason they will rationalize and they will try to explain away or explain the reasons for those emotions that's that's arbitrary it tends to be arms race if they're using lot correctly then it may be fine but it tends to be that people will rationalize them rather than be rational they will rationalize those emotions and they will try to explain why they feel that way that is on an individual level it doesn't apply to everybody but it applies to most people right but on a group level when you have people of different beliefs we have a conservative and a liberal and if they talk to each other they will use reason and they can convince each other of things based on reason they don't have to do it emotionally reason can actually prevail and that's part of the model that's why this if it sounds like establish the heterodox yeah right but if it's not emotionally charged I mean if it's something people like one of the one we avoid emotionally charging things we need to avoid saying murder we need to avoid saying cult Ethan you know we need to avoid these things and then we can use reason I'm giving a mic or no I I I agree with you 100% I totally agree with you on a person that's you know we have to we have to pop these echo chambers which is which is I I don't want to I you know I think ask yourself is doing some good things on YouTube I mean he's inspired a lot of people that's really great but I think when he rejects criticism why does he just like it comes in assuming that the other person is wrong he's not really interested in understanding he's just been pushing pushing his questions and that's that may be a good debate tactic for him but it's not getting at the truth of the matter and when you're when your elephant is so loud yeah you can't hear the reason of the other people when you can't consider their arguments then that's not going to work but for most people when you get people with different opinions together and they share their reasons and if they don't get it emotionally charged you can come to more reasonable conclusions I don't I don't see how you take the emotion out of it though when you're you're so I mean I made the argument previous videos that this is definitely a Liberty intuition versus care intuition and I mean Europe it's disagree well how do you decide me because I think you can apply both to come to the conclusion that veganism is the right thing to do well but everyone has to use both anyway it's a balancing act it really is right and I don't think they're I don't think they're opposed to one another like you know I find Liberty to be one of the highest values and so I say to myself well are animals capable of having a concept of Liberty yes they are of course they are so if if I deny them their Liberty am i abusing my liberties and I think yes that I would be so therefore I don't deny them their Liberty do you deny do you deny that that rational argument is all tacked on after the fact though and that really it's the motion that's driving you that you're passionate about saving animals lives oh sure yeah no I can admit that I'm totally I'm an emotional tool Batman absolutely I guys I see like the cute puppy on this side of the road I'm late I just go squeeze like I can't like I'm I'm completely emotional and mean I don't admit that and that doesn't mean and that doesn't mean I'm wrong my conclusions wrong whether it's motivated or post hoc reasoning it doesn't mean that my conclusion that animals have a concept of liberty and because I value Liberty they have a right to their livery that you know my emotional motivation doesn't mean that conclusions wrong I agree it's but it's just it's not wrong for you that's the difference we have well do you value Liberty my Liz yeah Jess your Liberty yes you don't you don't think Liberty in and of itself is a value I don't the Liberty why shouldn't my own nature tends to be personal yeah Ann's not like other people's Liberty that's more of a care of harm thing so so you don't care if other people are denied their Liberty i I of course I care theoretically but there's the motivation to actually do something about it is not there I'm not really to do anything other than not buy bacon next time you go to the grocery store but what are you gonna do when I go fishing and I Hatchett the head off that fish yeah I'd actually agree with that and I'd agree with that in the past anyway and you said I'm asking for too much if you remember correctly I don't need a line to do some horse trading I think I don't need a lot of bacon I don't need a lot of bacon you said my talk to you said pork was your favorite is I eat a lot of ham and I love it how can you take this is a perfect example how do you take the emotional aspect out of what people eat man it's so like if you saw the the vegan gains in the roaming Millennial thing like you wouldn't when roaming millennial was talking about like octopus she just was like oh it's so it's so tasty okay okay but it was jellyfish but it's a part it's like it's a part of her her it's emotional man it's very emotional I'm much less concerned with that than if she eats octopus because octopus are subtle APOD cephalopods tend to be pretty intelligent they have rich experience jellyfish don't really have much of a fully developed nervous system problem with life experience it's not the same so yeah I mean and that might seem arbitrary to some people which is my own I general it's not to eat any animals but the the richer the experience of the life-form is the more value we should give to that life-form you're using like yeah well and pigs have a very rich life it's so rich so unfortunate for them it's so unfortunate for them that they're so it's only unfortunate for them insofar as you condone the mistreatment of these animals hey we if they tasted like carp we wouldn't be having this conversation well people eat carp don't they I have no idea so maybe they do I guess I guess I guess if they're hungry let do you do you think it's better do you think well fishness it's a greater virtue of and selflessness no and all of morality is I mean I have the definition right here it's - its psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible but you're asking for too much and that's why I don't think so I don't think I don't think asking you did not kill pigs so that you can have your hand but I think is too much because we've kind of provided all the alternative so you just switch him one to the other I'll ask you just switching lentils and you're saying that that you you're asking too much of the pig because you're asking for the plate and you we can get back to you yeah exactly let's not we got 10 more minutes so let's Philo you over the floor all right well my point is that social intuition is Ahmet Fitz that's a good model to describe the behavior of some people but you can't jump from a description of the dirty behavior to save it well they do this therefore you know they ought to do this or therefore this is the appropriate behavior that's correct just drop chuffing there without any explanation it's not it's not useful so the social intuition ISM itself that's that's not a non arbitrary thing to plug into the moral framework neither is like social contract or anything like that because they have arbitrary balance unless you take away the arbitrate balance and then you can create a framework that's just based on social contract and that's it is brutal it is all a bit early written because they can't replicate things like that is arbitrary just like a binary it's either on or off I mean because it seems like there are certain things that can't could be arbitrary like fashion and people are not gonna get is upset about as if it's as they will for you know arbitrarily picking who lives and dies I mean it's one well it is it's a binary but you also have to win as fashion like people don't use to talk about morality of fashion oh they uh what are you kidding all like go to a Catholic Church sometime am they have all the kinds of religion has all kinds of arbitrary rules and that's that's one of the problems that this that throwing out arbitrary rules helps resolve we we don't appeal to say Christian morality or Islamic morality cuz those are both arbitrary unless you can prove inform those gods exist logically yeah then maybe it's an arbitrary anymore but as long as you're just appealing to these scriptures it's all arbitrary which one you pick the rats this is the same problem I have with aunty theists because I don't think I don't think pure reason works I don't think pure reason works well why don't you think your reason works because people are they're more motivated by their well they're exclusively motivated by emotions people are motivated to do things because of emotions people are motivated to do things because of emotions but you can change their motivation you can change their emotional alignments using reason yes I agree with you there I definitely agree with the reason half power there it's not 100 percent of motion I mean people are very emotional that's true and we have to find ways to limit that it's just like think about the scientific method and how it has advanced I mean we used to just do you know come up with hypothesis do some crazy experiment and just verify it because the experimenter was not rigorous in any way he didn't register their experiments which is terrible I could go on how thurible that is hey they didn't have peer-review things like this there's so many problems in science was not science science was just this emotional confirmation but now we have developed these processes to limit the biases to limit the emotion just in this conformation it's all I mean we're doing our best it's not perfect but it's not perfect but the same thing can be said for morality look we it's gonna be very hard to completely eliminate the emotion from the equation but in order to try to strive for a universal morality which I think you agree would be useful we need to come up with mechanisms to limit those emotional investments we need to we need to like stop using the emotional loaded language we need to use formal arguments like like ask yourself laid out this formal argument and it's very easy to demonstrate why those running is point right there and say look there it is missing premises this literally does not follow no logician would say that this makes sense right so it's like mathematics it's like when you formalize it I mean this could be formalized a lot better than this and it would be way more clear it's the language as it is just confusing but if you formalize things you can take emotion out of it you can be like with one plus one equals two I don't know what to tell you you know people wanted gonna come say no it's for the gonna be I thought man yeah it is but you know maybe maybe I'm still gonna do it but I just feel bad about it now we gonna change people's behavior right away but just it does provide some interest and people want to be good people at least most people want to be good and because of that of that reason that people want to be good and they can't really want to you know not this isn't you like Hippocrates we're not judging other people's evil while they're doing something that is based on some sort of jected framework but it's not a universal framework it's the bad is it being a good though sort of sort of measured by what other people are doing like what other people are absolutely you can't you can't look at it in a row to frame work and that's that's not saying that morality is relative that's just saying like our normalization of the scale is relative it's like you look at temperature you know you can use Caliban you can use their yeah exactly save symmetric the we're still conscious temperature is objective but you can say oh no it's cold or it's hot you know based on relative like in Alaska it's probably cold relative to Texas or somewhere we can we can say those kinds of things and those have a lot of value when we're judging people when we judge people we have to use relative metrics the morality is objective but the metric we're using is relative to society like we can say this person is better than most of the people around him you are doing that you're in the 90th percentile you know something like that those are very useful and we should absolutely be talking about that because that also helps to remove the emotion from the situation it's not just a binary life you're an evil person or you're a great person like I think you said send in another stream that you don't eat very much meat and we should we should say look that's that's way better than like what most people are doing or if you're a hunter if you are a Fisher if you pull out and you give them eat yourself and you're not participating and be extremely harmful factory farming you know that they're dumb magnitudes or does the magnitude different arm between these different systems and if somebody's doing one and not the other we needs recognize that way so you just say look you're doing better than most people but we shouldn't be calling you like this it's really shitty person this this is why this is one of the reasons why I want the vegans to make the best argument that they can because I feel like we're I agree with them is when they're pressing for more you know better living arrangements for the animals that are I mean I'm completely comfortable with the animals getting slaughtered but I feel much better about it when they've had a satisfying life and I mean I understand you I've had it before I I've shot at things I've killed things I mean that that not only in environmental terms is probably a little more sustainable because I mean what we're doing right now you can't grow that much food and his animals have them a burping about this methane I mean we had a serious issues with climate change in animal agriculture is a very large contributor and that that affects human beings too I mean even if you don't care about animals that is a serious problem right and we need to we need to take the emotional charge out of the situation right like I said before we need to when we would criticize somebody for eating a burger we can't be having a joyride in a Hummer at the same time but if we're talking about environmental ecology suite we have to recognize that there are a lot of harmful things that all of us do you can do harmful thanks to I think most vegans recognize that I think we're worse a vegan gains tends to go wrong in some of its dreams is somebody will say like oh you know all these monitors or you know you're buying cell phones and he kind of brushes that off like it's not a moral issue or like he doesn't have a choice but people people say the same thing about anything meat I mean you can't you can't just arbitrarily say look I don't have a choice cool well maybe you can explain how that is how about those justifications work any better than the justification freezing me now I I just look at the industry itself and say look at this it's not wrong to buy cellular phones and people are working in yes sweatshops in sweatshops are the best they have people want these jobs people clamor for these jobs I mean you are helping people in developing countries by buying stuff from them we are helping we're helping cows too so well one of the most challenging arguments yeah totally if you say look it's better for a cow to live a life than to not live a life free meal so ok well that's if you look at what makes happiness the being a captive and having no autonomy over your life doesn't do it I mean prisoners aren't really happy because they're getting free meals all the time just just because there are aspects of more suffering in the wild perhaps like you might not they're not really they're not the same so we're like oh let's say in terms of psychology of happiness there's a lot of empirical argument to have over whether it's better to raise cows and eat them rather than you know just let it return to forests and like wild animals go crazy there oh let's hear about it
Last edited by NonZeroSum on Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Transcripts for sourcing.

Post by NonZeroSum »

I'll let someone else have that argument Chris do you want to say you want to say any closing words before we go sorting so that's okay that's called that's called razzle-dazzle oh yeah when you're reading the chat so I'm gonna in the street I'm gonna in this dream here do you want to say anything you want to plug your channel or whatever if you want a good if you want a good dose of shaming head over to Chris Hines the link is in the description he'll Seamus damn you shit out of you you I felt mucho I never got to mention it but the first time I was ever on your channel Chris was after my my banana warrior princess debate oh really I can you guys I I think I left a comment there you guys went on and we're talking oh this guy's an idiot I he doesn't know what he's like you were I'm sure it's still on your channel so it was pretty look yeah you don't remember you don't remember it was me but thanks that's for having me on sorry if I get quite heated no no I'm pretty question I'm sorry I lost my cool man I know it's normally pretty good about that but nice it's cool coming to be honest normally I'm pretty huh I think to be honest one thing is probably got me worked up is I've been actually doing outreach today showing slaughterhouse footage to the public so I said a little very nice things today say that probably it got me a little bit Vice I'm sure they're gonna clip the hell out of this stream for me too they're gonna say I'm against homosexual it's like I can see it coming so anyway everything did you see the graphic I was putting up the cam we talked to can we talk to you about veganism yeah I like Tim's one that was Tim oh I know I know will you you during the Holocaust and whatnot yeah well oh he put one in the in the DMS so I said Adam can I ask if maybe I've moved you a little bit on considering like agnostic approach to a moral universalism in terms of maybe we don't want to endorse these arbitrary premises and that maybe we can find something that we can all agree on based on reason we haven't even really had that conversation though well that's kind of what this has been about I mean it's been about the arbitrary premises it's been about what that means it's been about human psychology and whether we can use reason and I think I think they are you haven't moved me at all to be honest I don't think yeah the I mean you've said an email that you know you might consider the possibility that there is a universal moral framework that we should fire - I think you said but that you're not really convinced about it that you that more I as far as there being an objectively best morality that is the best system for human beings to flourish or whatever you want to call it I think the problem that I have with that is what is the metric and there seems to be like a sprinkle of suffering seems to do us very well there's a there's this line from the matrix that I totally loved the first Matrix movie where they said that you might reject it yeah exactly they made the first matrix was perfect it was this matrix that your primitive brains kept wanting to wake up from and I feel like even if we got paradise it's there seems to be just humans want to sprinkle a suffering we need a sprinkling it's up for the argument isn't that we should have no suffering it it's not saying that there there is you know suffering all oh yes all I'm saying is that falls apart - I mean you could say is it good for everybody to just I know I know I know I know the only the only reason that I'm bringing it up is because in order for you to say there's an objective there's a objectively best morality you have to have a measuring stick and most people want to use the the you know human flourishing or human happiness or human non suffering as the measuring stick and I'm just not I don't know that that's a good measuring story right now for a measuring stick so we we can we can talk more about this later Tim Tim you want to pitch your new avatar you want to tell people where you got it so that we can all have one next guy Samet ah is amazing oh my avatar could talk like that well you gotta have character creator okay or a creative cloud rather you gotta have Creative Cloud suite because there's a beta application called character animator that I used to make this what is that and it was one of those quotes that keep flying up those are eight off Hitler quotes right yeah they're all Adolf Hitler quotes it's basically about how the Jews are the source of all life's problems that someone will clip that out too good that's fine there's plenty of things that you could clip me out of them anyway they're all quotes from famous people throughout history who whether they be scientist poets you know famous philosophers they all agreed in many ways that animals were deserving of a fundamental right to life mm-hmm at least in some capacity because they recognized that animals just like us have a life they have a rich experience of life they know that they are alive and because of that their lives have value to them just as our lives have value to us and so you know some of the people that I have these clothes from are Cesar Chavez Thomas Edison Nikola Tesla Leonardo da Vinci Albert Einstein just really great thinkers throughout history who may not have put forth the best arguments but nonetheless agreed that the arguments put forth were valid and so I put those up there so maybe that people who don't want to listen to me will see one of these names read one of these quotes and then reflect upon what that means to them and perhaps help them come to the same conclusions I've come to alright I think I will in the stream here then did everyone and one last thing I just want to say thanks for having us on again and I also want to apologize for instigating that Battle Royale that was not much it was not my intent at all big mouth fucking here you're he's like and he's gonna continue to get shit - because ask yourself you know ask yourself is listening right now he's yeah you to be honest if I thought I mean I wouldn't come in and call people morons we are you know I don't that stuff doesn't bug me at all and I do feel like we got some clarity out of the objective morality stuff where we were misunderstanding one another but it certainly bugs the audience and the audience doesn't want to listen to his arguments because I could I very well agree with him and his arguments in a lot of ways but I understand when someone hears that they automatically shut down and don't want to listen my um that's just that's unfortunate I think cuz I do think he's done some great things for the for the vegan movement I mean I'd love to talk about that maybe without bastards if you could represent his position and we could discuss this I don't know you know what I would I don't think I'm qualified to do that but yeah I mean even and I don't want to speak for anyone but there's one guy who I've talked to I'm gonna give him a quick plug here and he would not have expected me to do this but there's this one guy who is really I've learned a lot about ethics from him he's a German guy by the name of Pierre ethical and vegan II smus and I think he would probably be pretty adept at representing the argument in a way that it would be very productive for you guys to have a conversation that would be great my argument is really that morality is not constructed via logic so I mean ask ourselves logic could be well I don't I mean the logic could be airtight for all I know I just know that it's not consistent with the way that people actually formulate their morality so I think we are in agreement on that go ahead what last left all right I just want to make a quick plug here if anybody wants to discuss these these topics and more length or has any misunderstandings on the issue definitely check out philosophical vegan forum that's that's a place you can get a lot of answers and it would be great Chris if you would if you join us there because I'd really love to know your about meta ethics yeah I suppose I'd really like to learn more about all the logic and all that kind of stuff like I said I'm very much someone who's from a direct outreach kind of background rather than a prospective if you when you run into like skeptics and people who are really logic centered in or subjectivist and to think you know emotion drives drive immoralities you can argue from meta ethics and you can make a little more headway then then pushing a motion I think but I mean it's it's it's tricky either way yeah cool yeah definitely check it out sounds good what was the web address again it's philosophical vegan calm all right check it out you guys take care everyone all right thank you.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Transcripts for sourcing.

Post by NonZeroSum »

____________________


A Discussion of Morality #2 "What is the 'Name The Trait' argument?" (SPECIAL GUEST: Ask Yourself)

Darren McStravick
Streamed live on May 30, 2017

This stream will cover the topics of moral consistency, Isaac's "Name the Trait" syllogism for philosophical/ethical Veganism and epistemology regarding morality which will segue into a discussion of my rudimentary thesis {it's old, so it will be critiqued by me as well} for Gnostic Atheism and then conceding opinions/beliefs regarding it.

------

All right let's go on people so today we have ask yourself and first off I would like to basically plug two things which is basically please my goodness join discord it is the best app I've ever come across I've learned more about philosophy in the past I guess a week or so they've been on it um then I have tried to study philosophy um through diffusion for past five or six fucking years so join that shit it's good it's really really good um I have basically a text channel for YouTube news so you can keep yourself updated with what I do of a private discussion for if you want to become a moderator you have to you have to qualify you have to have those grill credentials um and then I have general discussion you can just posit whatever the fuck you want um well then we have debate scheduling which you can keep up to date and asking questions about whether you want to join a debate whether you win debates are live with me or if you want to join I guess I hang out and discuss something with me um then we have discussions on veganism posit whatever the hell you want in that channel and tell me what exactly what's up to date what's going on in the vegan community then we have the atheism discussion for anyone who's an atheist you can join in and basically do the exact same thing there and then we have the anarchism discussion for for those who are anarchists you can join in and pause it like whatever political Inklings that you have and then I have voice channels just private chat general chat and debate scheduling once again so next uh next thing I want to plug is patreon I've got the $1 Club so if you just donate one dollar you'll be you'll be recognized as a patreon and you'll be thanked personally for contributing I know one fucking dollar is still a lot to me anyway so then we have um next significant I guess reward is if you if you submit twenty dollars you can be a part of the stream there's there's a there's a cap for for patreon patrons per month because I'll be only having four streams per month so if you donate $20 you will be guaranteed a spot in one of the hangouts um and then the final tier would be musical collaboration if you pay if you submit $300 I make music I make Orchestra I make all kinds of genres um if you don't if you donate $300 I will guarantee you that we will workshop a song together so now that I have plugged all that shit let's get on to the discussion so first thing I wanted to discuss with this sick lad we have right here Isaac uh is the distinction between ethics and morality but first what did I discuss before hmm I was discussing morality in another stream of the previous stream of veganism and basically once as soon as I hit this of the subject of well-being um hysteria aka Johnny um he put yeah uh he pops up and says what I can yep yeah he pipes up and says that um you cannot cannot no well-being because it's just purely subjective and arbitrary so what she was listen that was he saying that in response to you talking about my argument are you saying that response to me just defining morality yeah I mean it's kind of weird thing to say I mean like obviously on some level all concepts are subjective but once you define what you're talking about when you say morality then you can speak objectively so like for example green just the color it doesn't exist objectively it's a human subjective perception well other beings probably see green but once you define green as a light of you know whatever wavelength green is I don't have it off the top of my head then you can talk about what is or is not green so same kind of thing with morality like once you define that you're talking about well-being then you can concretely say what is or is not moral yeah the whole discussion does into basically if you don't understand even like the just the basics all you need to understand the basics so DV the holsters for the immaterial or the abstract in this case color is hosted by the bar by quantum chromodynamics now if the frequency is of a specific rate um then it's going to result result create this abstract that we perceive as color now when it comes to things like a discussion of morality or well-being that is basically the abstract to something that is an abstract to the objective so basically what I'm trying to say is the brain is the holster for the mind the mind can be get thought thought can be get morality or all kinds of different things but they're all part of thought which is an abstract of an abstract which is an abstract of something that is physical you lost me there but I mean yeah I I know look when people when people say uh you know morality is subjective it's like in a sense that's true it's not it's not a physical object there's not a moral particle out there somewhere but unless like in the context of veganism at least unless you would be totally indifferent to you know a Holocaust happening - just abolishing anti murder laws - reinstituting slavery then you personally subjectively hold moral positions and veganism will follow logically from those positions and obviously you know my argument for getting to veganism from any moral position uh with humans right and what's it when it comes to even Mele uh hold on a discussing morality if you're going to discuss it in the first place that is no longer merely restricting itself to what you personally think it's we'll just as but it's good or bad it's it's an inclusive ethical discussion and I want to discern the difference between ethics and morals as ethics being just the principles that govern one one's actions and reasoning for what is right and wrong because theory are what regard good or bad because you couldn't bad within them in and of themselves are too equivocal and tautological you can basically define good as as fucking anything it's a very abusable term and so in the case of regarding principles that govern one's actions for unreasoning for what's right wrong you're regarding well-being in a different aspect in a different light outside of good and bad instead you're regarding it in a health and AM comfortability um and so on or what have you um and then morals the difference is just morals are just regarding regards to the principles both of themselves all the regards to the principles of for and wrong behavior so that can be obfuscated with a good and bad but in the case of ethics you will not be what's a limited I'm not but you will be doing our fucking huh you'll be limited to basically keeping it concise and fucking to the point like to an actual dislike you know what's a fuck well I've yeah where you got more there nah man I've never drawn an important distinction between morals and ethics um I'm still not totally clear on how you're defining the two can you just like give a quick little definition of both if so ethics is basically the principles themselves stuck up and run wrong what govern what your game is wrong wrong and Mose of what you regard to those principles so are you saying that morality is sort of the I mean it sounds almost like you're saying that ethics are the real world rules that we use for implementing morality which is this kind of concept that we have about right and wrong am i following there you go yeah I mean I I don't personally use language in that way like I don't I don't split them up like that but I can follow that second oh yeah definitely so basically like oh when it comes to when it comes to ethical discussion roundtable discussion as you promised we'll probably see st. harris going with numerous other philosophers they will tend to discuss subjects on the lines of deontology both rigid and nuanced um and the three aspects of teleology which is egoism you Domon ism and utilitarian ism and then consequentialism which could follow from either of those teleological aspects um yep you're going to say something um not particularly I mean I don't know who you're thinking of Harris talking to there yeah um perhaps say for instance in a discussion against William Lane Craig oh for sure so yeah well that that's the hilarious debate yes anyone hasn't seen that go and watch that it's honestly one of the most just brutal logical destinations I think I've ever seen you know funny little fact about that there's also a clip it's kind of hard to find but you can find it on YouTube from after the events like 30 seconds long and it's just the book signing and from afterwards and it's just kind of depressing you know sam harris standing there with this line just this ginormous line of people approaching them and craig is just sitting there at his little desk with nobody just kind of smiling looking lonely but it's so ironic yeah we've got to show what people are actually heading mentally we're starting to move away from the so dogmatic reached retardation i guess you could call it automatic reader well not on the topic of veganism oh yeah it sure enough but yeah regarding morality labor expression yeah but yeah um what would you say qualifies morality um why say for instance the discernment between a more a moral and what is moral what won't you dumb as one of yellow well a moral is just something that's that's a morally neutral action I mean there's ways to argue that like no action is morally neutral I'm not very fond of that kind of thinking but um so a moral is just a is like the absence of like like atheist it's just the absence of belief in a god it's not a positive belief that God doesn't exist so a morality is just yet you know it's just morally inconsequential behavior immorality is actually doing something that's contrary to morality so obviously that depends on your definition of morality but I don't think you can find any coherent definition of morality that doesn't basically come down to maximizing well-being minimizing suffering yeah it's true enough that's right on the way all right the way I personally go about it is just regarding a consistency from whatever you found I guess some logically properly basic like say for instance an example of this would be how I how I go about it which is why stem my morality from something that is um absolute which is basically the UH it's debatable though our again anyone could you not deeply consider yourself a moral realist is that the kind of position you're coming from fuck no absolutely not I don't know what to define my morality as to be honest um but um what's it the way I the way I stay my morality from is there's a there's basically the a universal principle of absolute aversion to absolutely notion I'm pretty sure that's covered by the by thermodynamics basically how that works is basically what's a fuck um Oh law of energy conservation law of conservation well basically energy cannot be created nor destroyed so energy is in within itself something that cannot not be and basically um the absolute version - absolutely nurse' branches out - anything that is encompassed by energy and we are all fucking we are everything within itself can be narrowed down to String energy as per string theory m-theory whoa okay you've totally lost me wait how are you getting from sorry yeah how are you getting from thermodynamics to morality because that this whole principle applies to the aversion to death it applies to death analogy yes now Oh I think he drilled out other here either but yo Isaac for the laws of thermodynamics yes it's basically I'm just trying to analogize um I tend to go about in a very secure dhis fashion so I'll try my damndest to fucking keep it simple because otherwise I've sound like a fucking idiot and frankly uh yeah I think that so my volume drop out or did yours drop out I think yours did hmm that's really odd um okay yeah so no I was just wondering how you got from thermodynamics to morality then you said it's an analogy yeah yes great you might you might need to break that right down for me I mean I've made simple simple thoughts I penned morality to you man to evolution how evolution works and what evolution is an abstract but a result of its universal processing a base a central Moranis raise an objection yes there are some things aren't some things that are evolutionarily good just obviously morally atrocious so yeah it doesn't balloon at a problem right there but um the only thing I actually take from evolution is a consequential progress that's it let's go watch it um I stem it's to basically all kinds of well that's basically just a principle it has to be consequential progress because I a pine evolution so therefore I'm going to fucking I'm gonna go from that and say this is the there it must be consequential so fucking I've input simply I'm just a consequentialist all right fucking now shit so that yeah yeah okay I mean I'm like generally on board with consequentialism yeah what would you actually qualify yourself as um well I think I mean it's it's hard to say I mean my core moral principle is logical consistency so I mean I know that I want to be treated in a certain way and I based my treatment of others on logically extending my own thoughts I would want to be treated if I were them so you know if I wouldn't want to be punched then if I'm gonna punch someone else I would need a reason that I would accept if it were you know being done to me yeah I think yes right I mean I think yes there might be times where that butts up against consequentialism like if the action that would bring about the most good would be something that I wouldn't want done to myself I actually wouldn't probably support doing it but even that I mean when when you take it to really crazy reductio and you start talking about something like you know like killing one person to end all disease or something it's pretty hard to not just be an authoritarian on that question and just be like uh yeah well if we can just eliminate human suffering by killing someone or something let's do it yeah the way I split it up is the difference between necessity and non necessity any question of necessity is not a question of morality because there's a reason it's a necessity and that is because it there's a duty to that necessity because it is fucking necessity unlike say for instance if it was necessary to take medicine to stop yourself from dying that's a duty to take it now condemned as a duty or you can let yourself die but that is completely up to you it's not as though it's an absolute that will always hold up um there are in fact exclude um I guess people who would be excluded from that whole subject but that's that's the nature of morality that's the nature of I guess the social aspect of humanity we are we are a dissonant mess but I think it's a it's a it's a principle that is of Ott's it is something that people ought to do in order to sustain and manage I guess synergy in a very efficient and progressive manner hmm so that that is you defining morality or how you view morality effectively I think yeah I think I said yeah that's very much it I guess yeah I mean I I just I take a more simple approach I mean morality is just what what's you know what's good and what doesn't what doesn't fuck with others needlessly so like I mean all laughing somebody sued definitely a lot more oh yeah sorry dude fucking hell I came into a discussion with this this um I guess Jehovah's Witness and he asked me to define my mode he defied he asked me to define what's good and what's the fuck I said I'm pretty sure I likened it to what was right and then he effected that he said what is the actual definition of good it's basically to promote well um mostly fuck mostly gonna get the definition I might as well because holy shit this was absolutely hilarious um have a Jehovah's Witness tell me that good means God and God means good oh geez yeah I mean I think there's a term for that I think they call call it like divine command theory where whatever God says is good is good like if God says an eternal Holocaust is good it's a good thing yeah um it basically just says to be desired the actual definition is to be just Auto approved of or definition of good yeah yeah okay that's sorry yeah meant going going I'm just gonna say I mean religious people will go there often I mean they'll say that it's impossible to have objective morality without a belief in God right you know my response to that is just I mean if we can make it as objective as we're gonna need for our own purposes without having to bring in any supernatural beings that's right why why does morality need to exist in that well I mean even I don't even understand how it would be objective if God said it was good but people people want morality to exist in some kind of way that nothing else exists like i sam harris makes a really good point which is that morality is actually more grounded than any of the sciences because all the sciences are predicated on logic and our reason for accepting the axioms of logic like that contradiction is that is because we'd have more well-being in a world where we believe that contradiction is bad yeah so you actually argues morality to be like the most base sort of concept that we have like prior to logic yeah yeah I still don't think that makes it objective like a particle but I mean oh yeah not it's not a simple object but it's it's as objective as we can be talking about something that's right because on the joint matter is not age fuck no sorry what I'm going people people tend to conflate objective isin't this you can opt in mute man hmm hi since this is gonna have to meet he's entered the room okay um okay absolutely like in our what do you what do you mean is that someone who you invited or is that someone I was going I was actually intending to invite him on in the first place um I told him that he could come on and yeah why is these why isn't he saying anything okay yeah I told him to me because he was echoing because I can finish my point um what I was saying was um that people tend to make mistake of conflating objective the two definitions of objective which is that one objective means that which is physical material and then the other the other definition of objective is that which holds truth value um yeah yeah that's yeah I mean I would spell those things out a little different but yeah that definition that distinction is pretty vital because yeah people people when they hear objective they they think like a physical piece of matter or something they want to exist in the way that a table exists it's kind of like missing the whole point yeah it's like you're you're talking about the other sense of the word objective which is you know applying the laws of of logic and reason and and just reaching conclusions rationally without emotional bias yeah exactly math curry so um so is there is there anything in particular that you want to get to on the topic of morality or do you want to uh to move on to something here I was thinking of discussing feather into the criterion of morality itself and then contrasting that to how there is a criterion to epidemiological thought um but I think that is a little bit too high Ralph this kind of string I might as well save that for another time you know I need to probably get more well-versed that way I don't like stutter and I don't take these serpentine fucking routes to get to my point which I seem to be doing right now whatever you prefer me and no worries yeah if I'm gonna leave um I think I'll just I'll save that for another time but yeah I'm I will just outline what that is so basically there is a question what is um what the correct what the criterion for morality is yeah if it was so in order to call something moral it has to fit the following parameters um I need to ask it would need two answers to prime questions okay um this is yeah it sounds narrowing but it is actually quite fundamental um it's basically the two questions are what is moral what is morality extend to than be is how we decide whether an action is moral what criteria do we use um so basically you can either choose to be a particular Methodist or skeptic regarding the subject on a particular wrist is to answer a dente answer B or a Methodist is to answer a B then to answer a a sceptic is to say you can't answer both like a fuckin retard um and say that morality doesn't exist because it's subjective like barring hmm okay well you lost my thought a bit there barring uh yeah he was he was just saying he doesn't he doesn't care about morality in the context of animals which obviously if you say that you don't care about morality in one context and you don't have any real consistent objection just to someone else up sorry said let me rephrase that if you say in one context that you don't care about morality then you can't object to someone else saying that they don't care about morality in a context where you would want them to exactly so therefore their argument is dissonant and no so basically I'll discuss that um I just got that whole subject in depth in the next episode of a discussion of philosophical veganism so um next I just want to ask a few questions direct like directly to you Isaac so yeah man I'll do my best to answer them all right so I'm gonna try and unpack it but first I'm gonna ask good indeed the raw form which is basically what does the name the trait qualify syllogism qualify as is an argument for general consistency or more so consistency to Tillie ology and what teleology basically is is for them those a concise definition that over the place down here well basically teleology in this um I guess context is what action justifies a specific result so is your question what action justifies a specific result or are you asking me something about name the trait right now I'll ask me about name the true origin was defining teleology in this comment in this okay so yeah if you had to just condense your question into like a few words there all right so the what does the nemah traits argument qualify as is it also for general consistency or is it just ask for general logical consistency or is it also more sodium what do you mean what does it qualify as um argumentatively is it getting one to to get logical consistency and logical conclusions or is it's more so towards basically this is another form of logical consistency which is basically to say that this specific trait requires this kind of action if there is no trait then there is no action type thing can't say I'm following but I think what I'm thinking I'm getting here is you're asking uh so so you're asking about name the trait and your I mean I'm sorry I'm not totally following you man you might just need to like really drop the jargon and just just ask like a simple simple way I'm a simple guy all right gotcha yeah so basically is it asking you to be logically consistence okay in the general aspect what do you mean to say that logically it is in that safe versus if your morals are coherent and this is the consistency results from it is to name is to basically take on board that there is no trade that differentiates the difference between difference in treatment between animals and shoes or is it just a discussion almost fucking discussion boots are you are you asking what is the purpose what is the purpose yeah yeah that's it my god on sale yes that's right so god that one has at what five words what is the of yeah six okay alright although I just counted name the trade as three words because I think as one word because I think they like that um yeah so I mean the general purpose is most people who aren't Psychopaths uh their own personal beliefs about morality will logically conclude in veganism so it's just a tool to get them to reflect and use empathy yeah so in the same way like if you're trying to reason with a racist or something someone like me who hates black people I mean you would try to tell that person you know that does joke you try to ask that person whoa can you hear me right now yeah okay sorry just went so quiet um yeah so if you're trying to reason with a racist you might say you know how how is a black person different from you you know what what is the big difference here which if true of you would make you say it's alright to just abuse you in the way that you're proposing abusing black people it's just trying to get people to put themselves in the shoes of the the creature the person whatever that they're trying to justify mistreatment for and just ask how would I feel if this logic were being applied to me and just just get them to realize that it's not consistent with their own beliefs so I mean if part of me also knows a really good outline of them yeah and I mean so there's there's really like three conclusions from this argument so you can either come out a nihilist a vegan or just inconsistent so yep I mean you the two logically consistent positions are veganism and nihilism so nihilism is just no morality at all for anything I don't care if we have another Holocaust or reinstitute slavery that's that's totally fine and then veganism would be you know what you whatever level of concern you have for yourself as a human you map that onto animals to the extent that it applies to them so that's just applying logical consistency to your moral principles and seeing what kind of moral system you get for animals out of that so the consistent positions are nihilism and veganism and then the inconsistent position is just uh you know holding human value well not extending it to animals at all even when logic dictates that you should straight up based on the classification you're using for giving yourself moral treatment yeah that's really good um so quick if you push sorry let me say a bit more so like if you push someone in debate to a point of admitting their annihilist you can pretty much get everyone on your side at that point I mean you just start saying okay so what's your objection to the Holocaust you know uh if we reinstitute slavery would you oppose that and you know usually you'll get these people saying oh yeah I actually would and then here you can kind of get into okay well so are you actually a nihilist but if someone truly truly believes in nihilism you just expose how fucking horrible an idea our society that is and most people watching will understand that they aren't making sense or proposing good ideas regardless of whether morality is objective or subjective which is something that always comes in here I'm going there that's right I'll let you talk but the other conclusions are you can you can push them to veganism which is just logical consistency or they can hold the inconsistent position of I want a certain kind of treatment for humans I don't want to extend it to animals and I can't differentiate them in any meaningful way to justify the difference of treatment and in that context you can just apply their own logic to them and just say well I don't have to differentiate you in any meaningful way I feel like raping you yeah yeah man all right um I reckon this is a good time for me to segue in ages call our question um she was going to all I see her asking - oh I thought she was asking a hop on the stream no sorry go ahead um yeah basically she was she just got me to all speed this one ah fuck of course of course of course that would happen all right he's still mm oops all right that's weird I don't know why I'd be happening um it must have something dude well of course add something to it the connection um I was like weird it shows me as being in the stream but it seems to drop out randomly you know had this happened when I was streaming with Jeff - but it didn't happen during any of those debates so I thought maybe it was fixed so sorry what are you trying to Segway to there I'll just run a segue to the ages question um I'll just basically read out what she wrote me okay um so this is switcher says after seeing more people exposed to the name the trait argument it seems that many of your debate opponents and critiques find the argument to be invalid on the basis that being asked to name a single trait is somehow unfair or missing the bigger picture the assumption although it's not necessary and necessarily stated in so many words is that if there are a series of significant traits that to differentiate humans from animals then it follows that they operate as a sum of parts ie the whole being stronger and more more influential than the individual parts and therefore in some way a violation of logical faux pas to distinguish any trait as a single discrete part for individual consideration what would your arguments be against this kind of group of trait argument I would say when you try to use this kind of argument in the debate but I don't you think you are allowed the opportunity to fully articulate a rebuttable well I did get my rebuttal across at one point although it was pretty brief um okay well first of all just to be clear I mean I I say name the trait but really it could be named the traits plural like you could you could put in more than one if you want to it could be a combination of things but yeah the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts oh you don't have to spell out the specific traits I mean again it's just going to be logically inconsistent because you wouldn't allow that as a justification for say mistreating black people you know I can't spell out the total amount of or I can't spell out any specific difference or set of differences that would justify treating me in the way that I'm proposing treating this person but you know this the sum of differences is greater than any of the individual parts so I think it's justified I mean unless you would accept that reasoning for mistreating humans then you couldn't use it to mistreat animals yeah and yes okay so at one point in the debate I talked about appealing to the totality of difference right that's no different than just saying well you know there's just a whole ton of differences between whites and blacks so it's okay to mistreat blacks it's like well I mean unless you accept that logic then you can't deploy it and then an argument that's used to be supplementary to that would be that's there as a result of morality being subjective it's therefore invalidated as anything that can be more consider are more important one-to-one like say for instance an inconsistent morality um is just as valid as one that is consistent just because it's subjective oh yeah I love that one um yeah so I mean obviously again it's just the same problem unless you would accept someone saying like Kay first it's it's really important to notice name the trait does not hinge on morality existing objectively or subjectively all it gives is logical consistency and a belief in human moral value so the argument there is basically okay morality is subjective there's no need for consistency okay well morality is subjective there's no need for consistency I'm going to rape your little baby to death do you accept it no so II can't employers yeah exactly fuckin oath all right yes so when it comes to when it comes to these these ethical arguments on how must one conduct themselves it should should one be a proponent or an exponent should one wait for the argument to come to them or should they go out and promote a logical fool sorry I was just filling a little glass of water there should moody a proponent or an exponent so you mean should you go out and what what advocate for what you think is or advocate we'll just wait for the for the the shitstorm to come to you ship spin were you saying this just in the context of like moral beliefs in general like should you advocate for your moral beliefs or just hold them yes yeah this yeah should we just yea hold them or should we advocate them well I mean I think it's probably good to advocate for them but I don't think there's any kind of like obligation there right so when it comes to conducting themselves in convincing others of veganism um how exactly should one like generally keep themselves composed a whilst doing so are you talking like almost on it on a kind of emotional like psychological level what is that what's the trick there yeah well I mean I think it's kind of a combination of things I think the main uh mindset you want to be in in a debate there's there's two main places you can be mentally and the one is very ego based it's like I want to convince this person that I'm right I want I want to sound the most logical I want to be the most clear and then and then there's uh I want to honestly see if I'm convinced by anything they say and the second one is the frame that if you're in you'll like find yourself laughing and like having a good time and just just like easily exposing the stupidity like when you're when you're in a debate with someone who is going to attempt to convince you that it's a good idea to stab an animal for no reason I mean I think I think the frame of mind you want to be in there is basically like okay well I'm not convinced of that so let's just let's just see what you have to say and whether it makes sense and I'll tell you why I'm not convinced as you talk I just presumably if they actually said something that convinced you you would you'd start doing it or not caring about it and if they don't then you're either able to our take callate why it doesn't convince you or they haven't been clear enough to convince you so you need to ask for more clarification on what they mean so that's the kind of mental place I'm at I would say just I just stay centered don't get lost like thinking a whole lot about how to lay your argument out just kind of let the words hit you and like just like with you talking to me it's like when you use a lot of like philosophical jargon and I'm getting lost I'm not sure what you're saying I'll just be like Darren I don't know what you mean you just have to intense it more you know yeah very good Barry be honest that's that's where I come from yeah I have a problem with does that answer your question yes it surely does um I do have a very big problem with them I guess articulating myself only with this esoteric um just just like unheard of speak so yeah it it definitely does help whenever I hear someone tell me turn it down you fucking idiot because I'll be sounding like a fucking idiot the entire time if someone doesn't actually pop up and tell me that what you're saying doesn't make any sense to the I guess every v 8a v 8 oh it only means you're sounding like an idiot I I mean it means that I don't know if you're sounding like an idiot or not cuz I can't I can't tell I see all the ways good yeah well there's there's a trade-off there it is so funny I heard actually sam harris talking about this on a recent podcast which is funny cuz it's something that i've talked about for a long time but it's just there's there's that trade-off between uh clarity and and being intelligible to everybody right so the more the more intense the vocabulary the more detailed the thoughts you're expressing the smaller the percentage of people who are going to have any fucking clue what you're saying exactly but the the greater the the clarity of your thoughts um so you know and then the the opposite end of that spectrum is you're speaking in a very simple way so you you can't get to certain levels of detail but um you're intelligible to most people who aren't just just like retarded or something so my whole thing like I mean I think there's a balance to be found between those two is I mean you can Sam Harris was saying this so you can be like Christopher Hitchens you can just be like fuck it I don't care if people are going to know the things I'm referencing or the words I'm using I'm just going to intellectually Massacre this person whether they understand yeah and I think that's hilarious and I don't have any problem with it but then well then the others oh yeah Hitchens is great especially when you have a computer there and you can just when you don't know what he's talking about you can just look it up oh yeah I mean then there's the other side obviously I don't need to describe it all just being really simple um so for me I mean personally I don't think that I've found the perfect answer here but I would say you know I try to be as simple as humanly possible and only throw in complicated words or like complex like multi-layered thoughts to the extent that it's necessary so if there's no other word to use than a big word then I'll use the big word but I won't use the big word when I have the option of using a small word nice sum total economy think of small work because I've been so conditioned to basically utilizing these massive fucking polysyllabic words so basically it's basically it is like the shittest experience with me and yes I I know I know ask yourself ISM is dropping out but um I just want to continue the floor anyway um I'll probably repeat repeat it to him once he comes back in um but yeah I to do to the audience yourselves I am sorry if what I say is just fucking gibber's there I dropped out I drop your name ask me any I've met though conditioned yeah all good men on let's Thorpe continue the flow to the audience um yeah basically it's just that I've been so conditioned after just reading all this academic mechanistic writing um because that's that's all I am I'm a mechanoid mmm okay yeah so you're used to you're used to the big words and the technical jargon and whatnot that's fine and actually forget these small words that could be utilized as an alternative yeah don't know if that's the point you want to reach there but yeah yes so you got some more some more questions there you want to hit more on this pointer fuck yeah um I was going to basically digress backwards a little bit to um what what it what extent should we engage mate ages um to the point we realize they're in like to the point that they we know that they're just 100% intransigence like they just cannot be convinced of what's true hahaha well I mean I think that it depends on your level of patience like personally I say you know engage anyone who's willing to engage uh I mean I have part of me anise P is oh yeah I mean someone like that's just cancer like personally I think that's wasted time I wouldn't I wouldn't waste time talking to someone like that alright I mean generally like I have the channel when I want to talk about veganism right so I don't I don't find myself talking in real life that often to people that veganism I mean I have gotten in a million arguments about it that's why I am so natural when I'm arguing about it but um I don't I don't usually push people to argue with me on the topic in real life if it comes up I will talk to them though yet generally speaking like assuming that for whatever reason you've already started engaging someone on veganism and now you're in a conversation about it I mean I would say you want to continue this is just me personally you can do otherwise but I would continue until I feel like there is basically a very very small chance of productivity like I'm just better off spending my time elsewhere like I kind of asked myself periodically in my head in a conversation like that um I'll be like if I spent this time talking to someone else would I be like significantly less annoyed and significantly more likely to actually change their mind if the answer is yes then probably not going to waste too much time on the person I'm talking to right so if you make an example of them is that also with them in and of itself beneficial for other vegans to adopt you form of argumentation just just to make them make an example out of these fucking mongoloids sorry sir make an example out of them as in when when they've demonstrated them to be intellectually dishonest should you shame them is that the question Oh kind of okay well if it's kind of then maybe clarify for me uh sure yeah in other words yeah um should we basically just make an example out of how intellectually dishonest they are how how cognitively distant they are regardless of the fact if the fact that you're not going to convince that person should we be an example to other vegans by continuing that argument and showing showing other vegans how to address these extra arguments from someone so fucking incorrigible okay wait so you are you talking in a context where there's an audience watching I'm not necessarily an audience but like say for instance you're in a comment section or perhaps yeah you're in there is an audience watching yeah I mean if there's an audience watching I think that it can often be useful to engage with people who are just completely just rocks on the topic I mean cuz you just you just expose the dishonesty and stupidity and people kind of get what's going on I don't I don't see a problem with that but if it's just you talking to a person who's effectively Iraq and you know no one else is there no one's gonna gain from it pretty much pointless I mean you can use it to sharpen your own sword I guess which I'm fine with that but I don't know if there's much point in it if no one's listening yeah true enough but yeah on the next um I just wanted to discuss on the saltiest lemon oh this is I saw um Sargon and some guys streaming on some kind of platform today and they were all able to I think I'm not sure if I got this right but I think they were all able to watch and control the video together and that would be fucking perfect right now yeah I'm pretty sure I could I could share screens I know I know he keeps dropping out um yeah oh my god this is well um I think this is some discrepancy in connection between Canada and Australia I've no problems were someone remember that I saw I saw it Sargon and these guys streaming earlier today and they were using um some kind of platform where they could all watch videos together and I think they could all control video together yeah that would just perfect right now because we could just go watch that cringey series of videos by the lemon yeah I'm planning on upgrading my whole streaming to two OBS studio which is which is the platform I'm sure that they'd be using um I think they were using OBS but then they were on a site called like watch together so they were they were viewing the video together on that oh that would be fucking awesome oh my god I think it's a good idea I would love to just fucking rip that video to shreds that would be that would make my day oh yeah why don't you why don't you ever do any response videos you'd make pretty fucking funny response videos haha that I would but the thing about it is I'm saving that for another time I've got I've got too many things to do and frankly um regarding academia because ah I have no I don't think I've publicised my goals but let me let me just say that involves two double degrees and two and a single double doctorate so I've got a lot of things to do but a lot of planning shitload of work a lot of work but it gives me the authority to be able to create thesis a thesis on to the Civic subjects that could potentially change the entire philosophical domain in academia so I I would love to fucking do that and I would love to give vegan in veganism a sound place in said academia and for it to be taken seriously I hear that ya know it sounds like a pretty sweet path what do I ask about the lemon I am what is your job oh my god yeah what what exactly is your direct like a direct refutation that just takes the piss out of what he says basically when he says if a cucumber and a baby cannot feel pain self-contained into intelligence oh my god oh is it well I mean justified it ate them yeah he seemed to be kind of like changing his example around just for a little context here did you see the third video he put out he put a third video out the third one I think was just the last like flailing failure of a retard like it was literally just sex noises I know this sounds like weird but that was actually what it was it just had his little intro and outro and in the middle it just had some girl like moaning and getting fucked before it didn't even contain an argument like is that just him acknowledging he's not making sense um yeah I don't know I don't know if I have one overall refutation for it I mean he made a variety of errors like I wash it and right off the bat he immediately misquoted me which was brutal because he he left and if out of my statement making it sound like okay that was the sentence it was something like if it can't feel pain if it isn't sentient but he changed it to if it can't feel pain it isn't sentient it's like well that makes it sound like I think sentience is contingent on pain oh yeah obviously I don't um and then there was there's other problems like he misunderstood what I meant with the god wand when I was talking about nature cuz people asked like oh look don't you vegans want to look stop the suffering in nature and it's like yeah of course I mean if I could just wave a wand and remove all suffering from the universe I would obviously do that but I don't I mean looking dude I can hate retards to basically um it is simple fiber veganism down to saying that all vegans meant veganism as a panacea it cures everything and therefore it's wrong like what the fuck ever likes that I don't know if that's what he was getting at I I think he was I think he was saying um I mean okay wait wait what I what I was saying was if I had the ability then sure I would just remove suffering from nature but as I've said in videos like when I was responding to that moron blh oh no oh I know I know that's cancer for sure you know what um I I said in those videos at one point you know yeah if I could wave a wand I but I mean there's just no actual tangible way right now to remove suffering from the ecosystem without just destroying it and causing all the Predators to just starve to death yeah um so then the lemon part of me question on that but yeah Kiku Louisville let me let me just finish this thought so the lemon he said something like uh what'd he say he said that I would support stopping predators from hunting prey which would obviously just cause like large-scale ecosystem problems and obviously the whole point of talking about a god wand is you remove suffering without destroying the ecosystem and just pretty sing more suffering so to be like oh if you like to equate removing suffering from the ecosystem in some magical way with a like actually physically stopping predators from unting their prey just like it's obviously not what I mean of course that would cause suffering and I've said so in my past videos you can't even try to say that I'm not aware of that and then one other thing um with the cucumber and the baby it's like he at the start he was talking about a retarded person with uh who's who's insensible so they can't feel pain and I forget there there's like maybe there's another quality there is really stupid person can't feel pain um and he was comparing them to a cucumber that's like well I mean the difference is that that retarded person is still sentient and the cucumber isn't so then he kind of changed his example and pretended it was his example all along like people do when you correct them and then he said um he talked about a person who's got like like basically any kind of like permanent brain death condition where they'll never be sentient and then I was like well yeah I mean as I've said a million times like there wouldn't be anything intrinsically wrong with eating that person or raping them or stabbing them to death because they're not sentient and they're not capable of being sentient
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Transcripts for sourcing.

Post by NonZeroSum »

so insofar as you're doing something wrong uh to them and you're not really doing it to them it's not that they intrinsically have value it's that you're going to say some exactly you're gonna harm some other sentient being like their family so my position is just yeah I mean I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with like going and fucking and raping and stabbing a brain-dead person but you don't do that because it would cause immense human suffering I mean how would you feel if someone did that to your mom's corpse or something exactly because I'm the whole thing about it is there's a reason these these vegetables are still alive in the first place is because they're under intensive care oh yeah yeah like a full vegetable like even a full vegetable if they're still alive that's because they're under intensive care and because their family or other of that kin um cares about them deeply so if you were to kill that person or defied what's the to basically just do weird shit to them that's going to genuinely fuck up they're generally gonna fuck up that on that secondary person's psyche which which within itself could be as potentially damaging psychologically as I guess ripe itself or yeah or at least it could seriously fuck someone up if you if you did some fucked-up shit they're dead relative so I mean that's why you don't do it it's not because the that person the the dead person or the brain-dead person actually they have value themself because someone else has value and you would you would fuck with that person by fucking with them so they have extrinsic value in the same way as a plant can have extrinsic value like I'm not going to go and fucking chop your lilac bush apart because you probably wouldn't want me to it's not that the lilac bush actually has intrinsic moral value yeah but what if someone has so some like say for instance positing a noggin what is so one really fucking large cucumbers and think they should be eaten because they're they're a work of art by some sort of that's defined that that's fun that's the funniest rebuttal of all well what if someone values all plants as much as they value their brain dead relatives well I mean a fuck that person is just the absurd thing to say I mean I'm not going to respect that with the I mean is just like why why would you if someone says like I value all blades of grass that's like well I'm sorry that person is fucking idiot like I don't I don't I don't respect that I respect the value you place on your loved one so I wouldn't harm them you know so there's there's a big difference there I don't I don't respect your value that you're placing on a blade of grass and I don't think anyone actually values grass like that I think they only think like this when they're like trying their hardest to find some way to come up with an anti vegan piece of logic I mean when you're at the point of literally trying to argue that that vegans shouldn't step on the grass because you value every grass on earth it's like you that's when you know your argument is just imploded and just completely makes sense completely I said a dissolve to retardation just completes just pure straight up fuck that this is a stupid people know better I don't understand why actual app people actually resort to these kinds of arguments when then when they themselves do not um actually hold them it's like I'm oh my god I'm I was going to debate a guy named downs day up don't say aka Darth Dawkins and basically he plays this kind of devil's advocates when he argues against me again um regarding the subject of whether God exists Oh God whether you can yep this is you know already this is going to basically digress in spoon of Icarus it's going to go delve into the whole essay that I wrote but um basically he places um which this not to quite quite but necessarily but this um devil's advocate game where as you are going you have to be a epistemological skeptic if you don't believe in God like that's a somehow unnecessary um um position to hold if you don't immediately believe that you get your knowledge from some sort of transcendental or a revelation of way like what do you mean an epistemological skeptic epistemological skeptic is someone who thinks that they can know nothing at all because you cannot answer yes God God is the prerequisite for having any kind of knowledge of the world yea even like God itself is not properly basic fucking belief yeah I mean God isn't like a logical axiom or something like exactly we already know from like well just the science of logic you don't you don't need God to build a fully coherent logical system that can underpin science and math and biology and describe the universe and allow us to build planes and go to Mars so not really to to convinced by that yeah my god so oh my god I just hate people who do basically who deploy these arguments that they would not respect themselves but they pinned them to other people and say that somehow this is necessary to uphold through utilization of a false fucking dichotomy oh yeah yeah yeah well veganism it logically follows from veganism that you like should never buy an iPhone or something like that and like that person obviously buys their iPhones but they're trying to say that your position reduces to absurdity or something have I lost you again hmm okay you oh wait could you do it oh my god which is not sure what happened there holy shit abroad bussing holy shit oh my god about Hajj yeah it looked like you dropped out there I hope yeah as I'm sure if it's my computer or your computer doing this way you still there yeah okay well alright so what do you what do you want to do now oh shit Oh Darrin I think it's your connection man your sound and then Ozzie as fuck yeah man this is yeah okay you're good now he's not you sound fine now so so what are you what are you wanting to talk about or first all say that Australia just does not fund um neck network connection at all so it's like it's like we get um we still run on like 2g effectively connection wise our speed is that slow but yeah mmm it's pretty responded um but oh my god you do you have read the the full essay that I wrote cuz I would love to content to my own writing yeah I mean I I read the essay I can't say that I've followed all of it um but I mean I mean your your position is you you'd call yourself a gnostic uh atheist yeah so you feel you know that God doesn't exist yeah by virtue of um axiom via my I guess codification of histology and ontology well I mean where I'm coming from I'm not Gnostic anything I mean I think that unless you're omnipresent you can't actually claim to have any 100% true belief even at the axiomatic level like a equals a or something I mean that is you just you can't claim objective knowledge if you don't have full knowledge of what's happening in the universe so you're always you know pushing a scale of belief between you know pointa zero zero zero zero zero you know infinite zero one percent yeah you 99.999 infinite percentage right you're always and axioms are just you know beliefs that are so basic and so foundational that we put them at 99.9% probability so I wouldn't say that you can be a you know Gnostic a leprechaun nest or anything like that I don't think it can be a gnostic atheist I think that you can just be I think that agnostic atheism would be the right position which is I can't I can't uh Oh die drop you fairly brutal here we got you there herro um can you guys hear me right now anybody hmm I can hear you okay well you can hear me uh whoever whoever you are so why are you here what's what's your deal yeah he asked me if I wanted to come on earlier and I said I might um yeah so I started watching the street and I told him to bring in what's funny are you why you're a friend from Australia are you a internet friend I'm an Internet friend who lives south of you apparently okay what I'm in Guelph where are you I'm in America okay well a good bit south then um yeah what so do you have anything you want to talk about well Darren figures out what the fuck is going on with his life uh yeah one thing I was wondering about is um you probably you know heard thee oh there he goes yeah but when we are you've probably gotten the question before about uh what you think about um you know hunters who in times of forget for example when the white-tailed deer population starts you know skyrocketing as it does preseason Li um the hunters will typically go out and start hunting the deer so they don't like eat themselves into starvation you know I mean yeah yeah you're asking if I think that's ethical yes entually um no I don't I mean I don't think that I mean if it were actually provably necessary for uh you know to not destroy the ecosystem or something and maybe there is cases like that then in those contexts I would would be fine with that if if you really have to do it or else you're it's just going to be massive death or something but generally speaking no I mean because if a human is on trajectory to starve to death that doesn't give you the right to just merge to them I to make that choice for them so I don't know why you would apply that to an animal right um I know I I'm of two minds in the subject I suppose yeah well what are your what are your thoughts there or if you want another question or something um well for example you probably what was that question that you use in your argumentation was I called the unnamed the tree yeah yeah I'm sure people have probably brought up before the possible answer to that question which would be like one trait that humans share with other humans that animals don't share with human is that we form us a society and so morality is largely on formed by us trying to create principles that our facility are conducive and facilitate social cohesion you know yeah so you're saying the trait is society um I would say that the trut like you probably get the answer that the trait is at least one possible answer that would not exactly lead to necessarily at least an inconsistency would be that humans share with one another that kind of mutual coexistence in a society which we all have to kind of deal with each other on a daily basis that kind of thing and so we need to have those principles of morality such that we don't you know descend into absolute chaos so the trait is mutual coexistence in a society I suppose oh yeah yeah so if we didn't mutually coexist in a society would it be okay to just murder a human um it depends on the circumstances I would say well I mean someone who's living in you know the forest all alone they don't they're not part of society it's cool to well someone who's living in the forest for example all alone they're not part of society they're not interacting with other humans would it be okay to stab them to death um I wouldn't say that they're not necessarily a part of the larger collection because if you think about it you know there's other countries you know across the oceans things like that we still have to deal with each other in a more macro level if you know what I mean so Ari I'm still not clear on what you're saying the trade is Ari are you saying that it's the fact that we have created a moral structure to include ourselves and not animals uh I'm saying that the moral strut that one way of that underpins one thing that underpins the reason why the ant anthropocentric bias is so you know prevalent in people's morality which is something I object you myself I think it's very arbitrary one of the things that underpins that is the fact that we live in a society together and we need to have principles that facilitate social cohesion and yet so and so if we didn't would it be okay to just stab a human to death um if we didn't as in if I can't imagine a scenario in which I can't imagine a scenario in which you wouldn't well I mean what what are what are you saying here you're saying that we create a moral system together for ourselves because we're all humans yeah essentially basically the anthropocentric bias is itself a product of that so what what what are you saying the trait is can you can you just sum up what you're saying the trait is I'm not exactly making an argument for that is my point you know I'm saying one of the things which would not necessarily result in an inconsistency would be pointing out that the anthropocentric bias is underpinned by that uh shared trait among humans in which we have wavy no that's not that's not an answer to the question though the question is asking you to specify a difference or a trait you know something something that separates humans from animals which you know is something something true of animals which if true of humans would justify treating us in the way that we're proposing treating them I suppose this answers more you know regarding the opposite then something that's true of humans that if we're true of animals would not would rather make it unjustified to treat them how how we do now at least in the mobile many people who do treated now so you're sorry I'm just not following you you're saying that okay I'm trying I'm trying to get you here you're saying that the difference between humans and animals this is why sometimes say a difference instead of a trait because then it doesn't matter who it's present in is just a difference between the two you're you're saying that the difference is that humans can form our own moral codes together as a society uh no the difference is that we coexist in society and therefore we have an anthropocentric bias that uh you know underpins our morality okay okay so so sorry the trait is coexisting in society yes essentially okay and so if we didn't would it be okay to stab a human to death uh I would be stabbed to death if they weren't part of society do you think that would be an okay thing to do I can't really imagine a case in which humans aren't coexisting in society yeah but just saying you can't imagine a case I mean the whole point is that it's a hypothetical that's just like what the war ski said with aliens well I mean there aren't any aliens so I mean just just create situations someone someone's out you know they have a private spaceship and they go fly out to some planet away from society like the the moment that you start interacting with another human those anther like that dynamic in which you're interacting with another human and therefore you want to have you know cohesion rather than chaos that is reintroduced so I mean I think okay I thought you just said the trait was living together in society um it's more of a kind of thing so the same is that we just hope this coexist in a shared essentially okay so if someone didn't coexist in a shared space they're out you know they take some kind of Lander and go land on another planet and they're living there all alone they're not in our space is it okay to just kill them but just before eyes of the senses I think this you're not going to win this I'm just going to say there is literally no trade that will be able to justify one way and then the other way well if you can I think there's a confusion in which there's kind of an assumption being made about my position on the subject where I'm really just trying to explain why that enter presenters and exists in the first place oh okay wait okay maybe I am misunderstanding you so you're not you're not trying to name a trait right now you're just explaining why we have an anthropocentric bias yeah I'm basically doing that through that you know obviously like have an anthropocentric bias because of evolution okay yeah so but but you don't think that that's actually a trait that justifies discrimination do you having a typo centric bias no no I admit more I think if there is a trait that you could come up with there like I said before I strongly object to an anthropocentric bias because I find it extremely inconsistent and arbitrary yeah but you're trying to say that there's some it sounded for a bit there like you're trying to say that there was some trait that wouldn't produce an inconsistency so I'm not sure if I misheard you or if that is what you're trying to say do you think there is a trait that would not produce an inconsistency um with my personality I don't think so I try to be very consistent but now that doesn't work you because you said with your personal morality so obviously you understand there could be a consistent trait for a psychopath yeah yeah people gotta catch that aspect of it like I said before I don't I was more making a case ed that would be something that would make it so that someone could make it uh crap I lost my train of thought basically it wouldn't necessarily be an inconsistency just in on itself because someone might be completely indifferent to people who uh you know I mean they don't have to deal with another you know not now you've lost me again that what you're you're saying that there's some trait that for you it would produce an inconsistency but for someone else it wouldn't at which that could totally make sense but what trade are you talking about there the thing I mentioned before about what like the I was explaining how the anthropocentric bias is underpinned by that you know coexistence and all that and yes also that sorry just be clear you're not trying to right now name a trait you're just saying that we have an anthropocentric bias because we've evolved this way um the name the treat thing seems to be trying to explain a at the anthropocentric bias in a way that doesn't produce inconsistency well no it's not trying to explain an anthropocentric bias I mean name the trade is just it's just a tool that you use to point out to any non psychopathic person that if they're not a vegan their position produces inconsistencies so it's not it's not like supposed to explain why morality exists or something like that now I'm not trying to explain why it exists I'm trying to explain a way in which the anthropocentric bias basically the difference in the way that we treat humans and the way we treat animals that's what the in Detroit thing is supposed to get to the root of why someone would justify our yeah I mean the point of it it just it pushes to three conclusions either you're a nihilist you're a vegan or you're inconsistent you either reject morality whole cloth in which and that's consistent position you don't give a fuck about animals you don't give a fuck about humans or you go vegan so that's also a consistent position that's holding whatever morality you personally hold for yourself and then extending it to animals to the extent that it is extendable to animals and then the third position would just be inconsistent and you know treating animals and humans differently in specific ways where you would not accept that treatment for the just with the justification that you are using to treat the animal that way so it's a question goes three conclusions nihilism veganism or inconsistency I guess what a one one thing I'm trying to get at is that there would there might be like another conclusion that would be drawn to there depending on like the he's trying to answer that question how could there be an okay we asked before you before you start describing it what just what what is the other possible conclusion there it seems to me like a straight trichotomy it's either you're a nihilist you're a vegan or you're inconsistent what is the fourth position there typhus in with other nihilism conclusion I'm not sure but I was thinking maybe it would considered a form of pragmatism Deut does whatever does your form of pragmatism pragmatism involve respecting human moral value um people the person who would answer that by saying that it is justified to do this to animals and it is not justified to do this to humans because we coexist with humans and we need those principles of social cohesion that would give you things that would be saying that on a very pragmatic basis yeah so that that would fall into the category of inconsistent right because there you're advocating for different treatment of humans and animals based on a trait that would not justify mistreating you or other humans if they were true of you if you weren't coexisting in society with the moral code with everyone else it you wouldn't want to be stabbed to death surely so that would be inconsistent so that falls into one of the three possible outcomes well if they're indifferent to that person who is you know completely separate from society being mistreated then it would be like more of a pragmatic conclusion what yeah yeah well no no in that case it would be nihilism if they don't care about the human or the animal then it's nihilism right that's why I said that you might tie this into nihilism before yeah I mean if they if they held that kind of position across the board and they would in all of these contexts like they just wouldn't ascribe any moral value to humans either then yeah it would be nihilism and not not hearing any other aspect of their position just knowing that they don't care about that that human or that animal all you've got so far is they don't care about either so so far you'd be assuming nihilism but they might say they care about humans in some other context and then you've got to inconsistency right so it always it would be kind of like sorry yeah I guess it would kind of be saying I don't care about humans and and I don't care about animals intrinsically but I but I do care about like social cohesion because it benefits me you know I mean yeah that would that just be inconsistent because if so if your trait is social cohesion then you know if you're in a situation where it didn't benefit you you're off in some isolated place you're not part of society you still wouldn't want to be murdered right so if you would not be okay with being murdered in that situation but you support murdering animals that would be inconsistent but if you'd say yeah fuckin just go ahead and murder me then that's nihilism well I guess what if they just didn't like append like a moral judgement to the murder they would just not like it ooh they they but they don't think that it's wrong I mean I mean if they I'm just not following you here it's it will it has to be one of the following three things I mean either the person supports some level of human moral value and extends that to animals to the extent that doing so as possible so they're a vegan or they don't place moral value on humans or animals in which case they're annihilist or they place moral value on humans but don't extend it uh laud whoa Geron he still around yeah I'm here sorry about that um I just had to be right back right hmm I don't think eyes I think I dropped there yeah I don't know where I left off I was just saying it's so it's one of the three if the person yeah if they care about human moral value and then they extend that to animals to the extent that doing so is possible then they'd be a vegan if they care about human moral value but they don't extend it to animals where it's logically consistent to do so then they're inconsistent and if they don't care about moral value for humans or animals than their annihilist would you still consider it a nihilist if they don't give intrinsic values to humans or animals with a do see value in the social cohesion simply because it benefits them out of like a sense of pragmatism I don't know what it means to just value social cohesion do they care about how humans are treated do they care about how they're treated I'm sorry what do you say I said I don't know what it means to just care about the concept of social cohesion in the abstract I mean does does this person care about how they or other humans are treated they probably care about how they're treated not have a sense of morality but just because yeah so but they care they care about yeah it doesn't matter really if it's out of a sense of morality or not it'll either be consistent with their other beliefs or it won't so they care about how they're treated do they care about how animals are treated I know so that would fall into inconsistency yes yes it would oh I thought that was the other guy answering what but what's your name earlier your handle or whatever you're wanting to use hi campus I don't know buff hot Hayek in--this yeah it's actually pronounced hyacinth as' but I think not it is that's basically well I I don't know so I'm just I'm gonna just call him hi this did you say that's basic Latin your voice yeah you realize that see that pronounced like Ches Latin right my boys were way off topic here so oh yeah want to want to keep trying to poke holes in my argument or do you want to move on something else I'm not really trying to poke holes so much as I'm trying to navigate it in a way that I can see where your thoughts are I'm though specifically I'm not implying that you're trying to do something sneaky you're just you're trying to test it for consistency I assume I'm trying to see if there's like a fourth option that may have been overlooked more like well I mean technically there's inconsistency in the opposite direction where you care only about animals and not humans but I mean it's still inconsistent really sure yeah right I mean there's just there's only a finite amount of numbers right you just have two objects you either care about both neither or one but not the other so there's only there's only three it's a trichotomy do you follow and I could yeah if you come up with more you can raise it but I mean we're on Darrin's stream Darrin are you wanting to unless you've got something else there I'm not trying to avoid a challenge it's about something else I would okay so it was really it was really just a hunting thing and the pragmatism thing that I want yeah yeah the hunting stuff it's a bit of a gray area not normal hunting but hunting for like wildlife conservation reasons I think generally speaking people exaggerate how needed it is but yeah and if there were a hypothetical situation where it actually were necessary to preserve the ecosystem I would understand that but generally I'm really skeptical of that and just the notion that oh the animal will starve or the animal would die a worse death naturally or something like that those justifications don't do it because those would produce double standards with how we treat humans because you wouldn't be okay murky a human because they are on a trajectory to die of starvation or die a painful death or something then Plus hold on there's also another point we made regarding that and with in in with in and of itself on in the areas that these livestock are being loaded they would have no real natural predators like seriously if they will let out in the wild and where they were being slaughtered they'd be living better lives than what they would be by getting slippery like that because like what natural predator in like say for instance d UK or in Australia on hunts and actively seeks down like a cat cattle and um and like sheep and shit Sasquatch to percussion yeah yeah that yes it's as if that as mythical as that it's just not going to happen that would genuinely live better lives if they literally let free in the in the current wildlife that they'll be harvested off stood slaughtered in yeah I mean like I'm not a fucking wildlife biologist or some shit like this so I don't know the details of what happens when you put different species into nature but like logically speaking I can tell you how I would think about it based on what the conclude happen if we put that creature in nature if or sorry I guess we're are we talk about reintroducing to nature right now I I just realized we had a topic shift now that I think about it I call it are we we're just yet so second ago we were talking about hunting but then we were talking about letting cows go free how did that happen Jabberwocky that's a funny one guys talking about the Jabberwock if you guys rock from what actually is the Milwaukee it's I think from a a poem that I think is in Alice in Wonderland alright yeah it's like at and beware the Jabberwock the claws that fuck I don't know like the teeth I hate the claws that scratch beware the frumious Jubjub bird and the something Bandersnatch i don't know i don't fucking remember it's been years and years given but yeah anything else we're supposed to hit on hunting there do you guys want to move it along who should actually shift he is back um back backwards yeah I guess you could say it's back because you always wanna enjoys want to regress oh yeah fuck as most of oh if I can't go forward I go backwards alright our aggressive bastard Eric thanks I got a question actually is yeah I'm gonna pronounce this the way he's asked me to I don't know if it's correct or not is Hayek canthus uh vegan are you vegan uh Phyllis ah okay or like in practice like well I mean in in real life like do you participate in the animal Holocaust yes I suppose I do cuz I do mean well I mean we could get into a conversation right there if you wanted yeah and please please do that please gene but I don't want to fucking throw the world at this guy we can also move on it's hit always along if I if I apply to this we would like to visit that actually Jonah ekend good um dick Darrin's asked me my opinions on this before and um yeah a lot of my philosophy and regard morality and that align heavily when it comes to philosophical veganism I think it meat is going to be harvested at all it should be harvested in some sort of ethical way like for example if if you harvest it from an animal that has died naturally or I guess be in a more gray area yeah sorry when you say when you see no the ethical way when you say ethical way are you talking like lab meat roadkill etc are you talking death achill slaughter uh now I'm not talking my ethical slaughter yeah that's not seem wound but yeah I got no problem with that view why I don't see anything wrong with eating roadkill or a lab meat or like you know just uh for example if you have a cow and you raise and you you know raise it well treated welfare its life and then it dies of old age or some month on yeah I mean it personally I wouldn't want to eat it but I wouldn't see a moral problem with that yeah um and then it kind of gets more complicated when it comes to like hunting and things like that because if you want to go from a purely utilitarian standpoint it can be better in certain circumstances you know I mean I got how you we were talking about before when it comes to you know starvation or wildlife conservation um but uh yeah Darren has asked me before like why I you know how share these ideas but I'll still like you know purchase a burger from you know a fast-food joint or something like that yeah well and like I would chalk that up to mental weakness I mean do you do you actually think there's any other reason there if you if you know that it's not right but you still do it um well I've thought about it in different ways than that for example what would be the net effect of each of my option either buy a buy the meat off the shelf or I could not buy the meat off the shelf but I do then at least I'm making sure that it's not going to waste or something and if I don't there's not really any actual difference being made there this is why I think Darren before I brought up the topic of proponents and exponents which is a conversation that we had before which I was saying um how I would advocate for a lot of vegan principles and things like that but until such a time as like actual change can be made through boycotts and things like that I don't see much of a point in participating well I mean surely you realize that you reduce animal product consumption and remove yourself from the supply group by not buying the products right I mean it's not it's not like it's going to just go fucking rotten on the Shelf someone else is going to buy it we all need to stop purchasing it so that gradually the supply reduces and the demand reduces right but the thing is that y'all need to stop doing stop purchasing all that oh no no no no no that is a lazy argument cuz you're just saying thing I won't do it till everybody does it it's like would you accept that kind of logic with if there were a human Holocaust I was saying more that I'm not going to stop doing it until such a time as me stopping doing it can actually be contributing to some sort of change yeah but you don't you don't choose wet okay first of all it does contribute but it's a small contribution I mean you not eating animals means less animals are going to be killed every person who eats less that's less supply so less demand less animals produced and killed needlessly but the more important point here is you don't decide whether or not to do something ethical based on if you can solve the problem on your own you do the thing that is ethically right because that's what you would want people to do for you I mean you I mean you can't you can't just say the problem won't end if I stop eating animal products so I have no ethical obligation here um for one thing like I don't think I would see me just the action itself of purchasing some meat as being an ethical problem in that I'm not actually doing anything to that animal yeah but you're creating the supply which increases the amount of animals that are going to be stabbed to death needlessly so when it comes to I say Frances hitmen you don't necessarily just blame the hitmen you also blame the person who purchased the hitman to go out and kill exactly I mean it will Plus here yeah it's a proxy murder right you can't you can't just say I murdered that creature by proxy so I have no responsibility I didn't ever you know tell the guy who slaughtered it - hey go slaughter that cow though you will surely good point whoa you you didn't do that verbally but that's what you do when you buy the product you create the demand for it right and if you like thing is I see it more as there has to be a certain level of ideological push towards that but boycott actually happening for it to actually be effective in any sort of way whoa no but it's its first okay again I think I just need to repeat myself here doing the right thing isn't contingent on whether you can fix the problem alone or not and you not consuming those animals means you are no longer part of the problem you're no longer causing animals to die needlessly for your food have you guys still got me there can you hear me yeah yeah man um no I'm not framing this such that I'm saying that I don't think it really matters if I buy it because I can't you know solve the problem myself I'm saying that the push that exists currently is not nearly enough for any change to be made well woah about that and so I would rather so every vegan who stops every person who becomes vegan makes some amount of change do you think that that's not true because that would be logically impossible right because if all of the vegans changing would make it stop and none of the vegans changing would make it keep going at the same pace then every incremental step in between every vegan who's uh every person who goes vegan that is making it closer to the problem being stopped it's reducing the quantity of animals who are just needlessly barbarically Holocaust it for your food I don't think that if I stopped eating meat a single animal would keep their life though well I mean your well it's it's not that simple a chain of causation where it's like you're you're stopping saves a particular animal it's when you stop you reduce the demand for the product so the supply that they produce is lowered so less animals are then bred and murdered right I would like you stay at the animal that's already on your plate or something if that's what you're trying to say yeah and I would be contribute more my advocacy towards such a boycott in the future you know and I'm on time I would actually okay you can call it that if you want well wait are you are you saying that there is nothing unethical about buying animal products uh okay so you understand that buying them is unethical um I think it's more complicated man first what animal product either sighs you're fucking around a little here but you can you can try to explain it no like first what animal product in the first place because if you're talking about like fur coats and things like that you know that's that I don't see any reason why that would ever be you know acceptable yeah well and I'm sure you'd hold the same position to like crazy cosmetic experimentation and like killing dolphins in other countries and shit right yeah definitely yeah so that real like I mean this is more just getting at your psychology here but that reveals that you're willing to do the right thing when it takes no effort you're like yeah sure why the fuck do they have to kill the Dolphins like wide need the fur coat it's like yeah well of course but it's easy for you to say that because you're not wearing fur coats or killing dolphins how about the stuff that you are contributing to sorry my boyfriend is stalking me um yeah I heard you said no worries um yeah I mean it's just it's not again so you're saying it's not enough you think that it is unethical to buy animal products you agree that it's unethical to buy a fur coat or dolphin meat so what is what is the difference with buying cow meat the difference is that for one thing you know those those are purely consumed for purposes of like you know aesthetics and things like that whereas when it comes to you know meats those are things that are consumed for necessity and I mean Dalton Allison consumed in a context people people consume dolphin for food right and I'm extending this to that too I suppose but when it comes to uh you know when it comes to eating like cattle or something like that okay I'm not sure you sound a little unconvinced of what you are saying right now no I feel kind of jumbled because I'm kind of my attention is divided I'm sorry that's okay that's okay well I mean you're telling me on one level you're kind of saying that you agree with philosophical veganism so when I when I push you to be specific about that and I say do you think buying animal products is unethical you tell me that buying a fur coat or buying dolphin meat is unethical but you don't see a problem with buying cow meat so I'm trying to ask you why is it ethical to buy cow corpse now it's okay I would say that it's a case and so far as you know if you advocate for change and you try to change mine such that in the future enough people will boycott the unethical industry you know we can dismantle it in that that's fine okay so saying like but simply simply refusing yourself as a single entity or even yourself as like a part of a larger collective that still doesn't have enough push behind it to enact a change that would actually you know reduce the number of deaths or anything like that or the number of the amount of suffering what does reduce the amount of deaths if you eat less animals less animals will die I'm not convinced about that know people I mean surely you acknowledge that every so often the total amount of pounds of chicken that you eat adds up to a chicken exactly the whole thing about it is I think you're restricting you a view to what's current rather than what's long term and I mean if you just want me to get real with you here I mean I can just tell you're rationalizing like what you're doing you're in your head and you're trying to find these reasons why it must be okay for you to eat meat and you're grasping at straws you're taking a long-ass time to respond it's like I mean I just want to hear the clear explanation of why it's ethical to stab an animal for no reason because that's that's what you are saying is ethical when you're saying that it's fine to buy cow meat I'm not making that claim okay so you agree that it's unethical to buy cow meat no okay so I think that it's I think it's unethical to stab that cow for no reason however that cow has already been stabbed and yeah but I don't know you're yanking my lure of excluded middle weight don't don't get all tacular now just you know look you are sorry just you you're saying sorry I lost my little train of thought right there you said that the cow is already dead yeah you're not saving the cow that's already dead you're reducing demand so less cows are going to be killed here's the thing though like I think there's a bit of a conflation here between saying that action is unethical and this action is ethical what object it's an either/or thing well you know it's definite you're saying stab every cow is unethical you agree the guess okay and surely you agree that hey someone to stab the cow is also unethical uh yes okay so then surely you agree that buying cow meat which creates demand causing people to stab cows is not ethical I think it gets more complicated for well it can't just be more complicated yet a cow gets stabbed the more people buy meat the more cows get stabbed you agree with that right yes so the less people who buy meat the less cows that get stabbed right uh right so if you don't buy the cow meat less cows get stabbed correct mmm if you sing let's see obviously not you know what are you talking about you're saying that the quantity of meat you buy doesn't eventually add up to account no I'm just saying that I don't think that I stopped eating meat a single animal life would ever be saved okay so you solve it wait wait wait there's just profound confusion here so yeah you you must acknowledge that the total poundage of animals that you eat eventually adds up to the weight of an animal sure yeah that's mathematically correct part of me yeah yeah so just obviously by not buying the meat you are causing less animals to die like I'm not sure I could agree with that though how how could you possibly not agree with that because I don't see the causal connection in which if I as myself when we're doing see eating knew it you're reduced whoa whoa yeah that's yeah yeah hi census it's true I'm sure I don't keep saying that out of impulse um I small changes lead to increment small changes incrementally lead to bigger ones of course if you stop buying meat it's going to lead up to you saving effectively the life of a cow if you're going just if you're going to stop eating meat then you're going to save a life if you are not going time back now where are we at well there's a creator but though you're reiterating the point that uh you know stopping to eat stopping eating meat would reduce the demand and therefore reduce the supply yeah and reduce the you I mean when you don't eat meat you're reducing the demand for the product to the extent that the demand is reduced you are stopping animals from being stabbed to death and even if you're going to eat so little meat in your life that it never adds up to a full animal you in combination with someone else eventually it will add up to a football you must acknowledge that the less people eat animals the less animals are stabbed to death I mean you're not denying that are you no not no ok so and you've acknowledged that stabbing the animal is unethical mm-hmm so then how do you possibly justify buying the product the point I was making before is that as well but the point I was trying to make before was that well I agree that it would be more ethical it would be less unethical even if people stopped eating meat like enough that it would actually reduce the supply reduce the amount of cows that are getting stabbed for example yeah um I was saying that the reason why I kept repeating I don't think that me stopping not eating me any more would save a single life is that I was trying to make the point earlier it takes it takes a certain amount of people actively trying to boycott that for it to actually make a difference man and exact word actually comprised of it the group itself is comprised of individuals removing their influence of that process it's made up of individuals that make small incremental changes so it'll to be logical and system over Sunday and I was going to say that one thing I would I would do is I would advocate for people to I would try to shift their minds towards being more accepting of boycotting that it convenience um that eventually acquire you to do anything until it reaches a critical mass at which we can make change by boycotting it no I don't have to do anything but want to say no that's no no that's a totally incoherent position to the agree that to the extent that we stop consuming animals less animals will be stabbed to death correct right so surely you have an obligation to reduce demand or else you're contributing to the thing that you are calling unethical yeah that's a thing because if you're actually going to call upon others to take action against it uh you'd be literally hypocritical to not take action against it yourself that's like do as I say not as I do I mean it sounds like in the case that it I was making the case that in order to actually create a difference there has to be a critical mass of people who are willing to make that boycott and once that mass was reached I would know I know that as you know know that is insane you're gradually reducing supply okay or demand which reduces supply as we lower the demand the supply gradually lowers it's not like all of a sudden you just hit critical mass and animal exploitation disappears it's a gradual process to whatever degree you reduce demand you reduce supply if you agree that the product is unethical then it follows logically that the other thing to do is reduce demand not create demand I mean this this is like such basic level logic this is like completely common sense if you think that is oh if you think that it's unethical to stab an animal then creating the demand that causes people to stab animals is not ethical did he did nah I'm here yeah um how do you how do you possibly rationalize that if you agree it's unethical then how is creating demand for it ethical I wasn't saying that it's a good thing to do no you're saying it's not a bad thing essentially that's what I was saying okay but you agree that stabbing an animal is a bad thing yes you're contradicting yourself you're saying stabbing an animal is not a bad thing but causing someone to stab an animal that's fine that's that's a contradiction thinker here hi hi Kansas it's literally in careered i mean just look at the comments right now just rekt facepalm lawl I mean I'm not saying the audience knows what's up but like you know it's what you're saying is talkative polarity excuse yeah it no it's just yet with yeah common knowledge there's that's in violation of first order logic you don't even have to be an economic to know that that just does not follow I mean it's it's very simple if you agree that stabbing the thing is unethical then creating the demand that causes people to stab the thing is also unethical yeah I'm sorry I'm sorry I only hug confess to kind of look up to snowball you we can set change subject via Lightman no it's fine um is it like I'm not going to say that you know just as like as a consequence of being on here and having this discussion that my mind is gonna be changed but I'm going to reevaluate things yeah I'm not expecting you change your mind on the spot so when whenever you want to stop getting just hammered on this that's fine but I mean I don't like I'm just I'm not seeing a coherent position you're saying that something's unethical but you're saying that causing it to happen is ethically neutral doesn't make sense hey I was more trying I was more coming out from the opposite sense uh from the opposite opposite direction rather that um that in order for us to do the good thing you know uh of decreasing the supply decreasing demand there has to be a larger push than there is currently and I would enjoy that I know I'm sorry I'm sorry to cut you off but like I'm sorry to stefan molyneux you here but you you keep saying the same thing that doesn't make any sense to the it's not it's not all or nothing here oh yeah yeah but you can't repeating yourself is not addressing what's being said here you're saying that was in practical use in it okay so you acknowledge that your position is inconsistent your position that stabbing something's unethical but causing the stabbing to happen is ethically neutral you you must agree that's inconsistent right sure okay so do you think that it's okay for someone to say oh I'm just going to choose to be inconsistent about you know whatever you care about whether it's slavery racism rape on your mom do you think that it's inconsistent is it no like I said earlier that value yeah so you value consistency yet you've just admitted your position is inconsistent so how do you get around that one at this point that my even trying to well I don't know I mean you're still buying the animal products so I mean I'm not sure are you just like accepting being an inconsistent person when it comes to ethics and if so what's your objection to me saying well I'm just going to be inconsistent and rape your mom uh what well I mean you okay let's just we'll go step by step you just acknowledged that your position is inconsistent so if being inconsistent about ethics is fine then what's your issue with me saying well generally speaking I value human life but I'm just going to be inconsistent and not value the life of someone you care about like your mom just raper I never said being a citizen son I just said earlier on but you've acknowledged your position is inconsistent yet you're continuing to do the action how am i continuing to do the action we just had this conversation okay well sorry I just whoa my bad sorry are you you are now going vegan uh like I said have to reevaluate things and think of anymore alright so those case so so I mean it do you want to just drop the conversation yeah this going yep yep yep all right hey I told him stalking is that it did hi astounded hi acanthus say that he wants to drop this topic now that was Darren if you guys want to talk about it more I'm not like going to shy away from him but okay I I don't care I mean if it's just gonna be us repeating ourselves and that's fine I don't if you think that you have something to think about here and you want to go home and think about it or whatever that's it's totally cool we can drop it but if you think that you've got any kind of consistent logical argument here then I mean I just don't know what you're talking about yeah yeah it sounds like you already admitted it's not consistent so yeah I do think that it's really just gonna be us repeating ourselves at this point yeah just go back to the drawing board ratify your thoughts and all my god I would love to ask think about this on oh my god don't be amazing yeah well just just summing up here basically you've acknowledged that your position is inconsistent so you by that logic if you're gonna say I know sorry it's just a some food you're gonna say I know that my position is inconsistent but I don't care and I'm going to keep eating animal products which I'm not necessarily saying you're saying that I get that now you're gonna re-evaluate but if you're saying that then you can't have any kind of objection to someone saying well I'm generally consistent I think of human rights are important but I'm going to be inconsistent and not extend that to your mom okay yes you do not respond to Matt or anything but that's just that's just where we're at right now I know there's like in conclusion that okay all right well you want you want to take it along to the next subject voice yes um this is great I'm very very happy how this is this has turned out no I'm happy I was very happy about how it started because as I tend to tangentially ramble but um I think the next subject we can delve into could be the dairy industry um and corruption I'm going to delve into taking a piss but I will be back on this minute yeah go ahead man tickles I mean eight I'll introduce that right so basically what's happening because I actually and in the current process of writing a dissertation or actually it's it's more apt to call it just a basic research essay um and basically um the dairy industry floods um floods bureaucracy with false and willfully ambiguous populace data popular studies and effectively um it Australia is probably the worst I'm not going to lie it's probably the worst here in Australia because it's so extensive it's so incredibly deep um deeply entrenched in from us almost every single um I guess business pretty much um to the point where they tried to to sustain a level of monopoly over a product called milk yes they're actually trying to legislatively I guess outlaw any other products to qualify as milk unless it's by produce of cows yeah
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Transcripts for sourcing.

Post by NonZeroSum »

New Zealand might be worse Tim it's yeah so they find loopholes in legislation and regulation and what they do is they pay for popular studies to be done on those who are very who are highly um I guess what am you I was highly tolerant to the negative effects of trans fats of specific I guess damaging amino acids like specifically methionine a highly sulphur contained amino acid which happens to directly feed cancer cells these kinds of things um they will test only on the highly tolerant to said products in order to somehow make whatever legislature abode in their favor and they do this a lot um so basically um this is one of the another reason why I technically qualify as a as a prospective prospective let me let me just let me put that out there is the caveat the prospects PMA is as you gone so basically I'm a lot been discussing man is the dairy industry pays for improper for purposefully ambiguous populace studies so they avoid legislature that could possibly ban the product so basically just to be clear this this is a bit out of scope of knowledge I don't know what kind of lobbying they do like I've heard this kind of stuff a lot and I know that they people say the dairy industry is influenced like the food pyramid even and some some information that were taught in school and in nutrition class but you know for me my my focus is on the ethics and the philosophy so I don't have a lot of ground-level knowledge on something like this just to discuss discuss business ethics regarding this we could actually um discuss the ethics of perhaps how getting rid of legislation um or regulations is perhaps beneficial to the market to to basically stop monopolies from forming unless they are only of value to the people so say for instance that's why I technically qualify as a prospective prospective because as it stands now I'd be a socialist oh crap so basically a socialist who is inclined towards only allowing those with the knowledge and capacity to vote and put those in offers who have the credentials based on the knowledge to be able to make these big decisions perhaps even take the take the route where it's basically government does not monopolize infrastructure because infrastructure is something that requires value value creation rather than I guess arbitrary spending based on taxpayer money which could go anywhere like specifically to football stadiums that's not infrastructure so condense it down for me a bit here what what's what's the core of what you're saying it sounded like a bit a bit there you're talking about voting and in terms of voting in an election I mean I definitely think that I think that I think Socrates made a criticism like this but if you just allow the general public to vote you'll get demagogues you'll get idiots there should be some kind of base standard in order to vote like I've thought for a long time that in order to vote you should need to demonstrate a base level of knowledge on a range of important political issues and you should just have not not any kind of biased questions just fact-based questions like where is Syria located like what are the forces there's just stuff like this if you want to be allowed to vote exactly and that's exactly what the stock receipt is that I don't I don't sorry just be clear and I don't know how you got from there to talking about infrastructure but but I'm with you on on putting some kind of standard in place so people who know what's up are voting as opposed to voting just being some kind of birthright or something yeah infrastructure was just a brief aside okay okay so just what's the core of what you want to get at here basically um the ability for specific industries like are the ones that are very damaging like the tobacco industry the the meat and dairy industry and even the seafood industry what have you these industries are allowed to monopolize um and through their great power are capable of I guess making incapable beneficial industries to rise like this and this is very very well permeated throughout the the fossil fuel industry or any fuel industry whatsoever electrical fossil fuel wise cold wise what-have-you um this allow this ability to monopolize is all it all stems from the initial government push of these things because they're brand new technologies and there was nothing else to like them at the time that they first came out so they were allowed fair rein to monopolize because they had government funding because these were these were technologies that we did need in order to progress as a society initially now that electricity and shit like that has come out and we assigned to really develop quality batteries like with Tesla it's becoming more and more difficult for companies like this to even sustain themselves because the demand the sheer amount of populace the sheer amount of populace that still basically taps energy out of the grid the grid basically has a supplier which is the supplier is government-funded which is basically the coal and fossil fuel industry um they are basically being pushed out of the game at its core it's very sorry I dropped at it's becoming difficult for companies like this to sustain something yeah like for companies like the learn stuff like that it's definite makes it it's difficult for them to sustain themselves because they're actually starting to I guess diffuse into the industry where they can provide sustainable power to housing Tesla now creates batteries that could be utilized in one household that could supply fresh energy straight up fresh as fuck energy straight to the entire neighborhood from one household and frankly because the fossil fuel industry has quite a strong grasp a class on the on the throat of the government through money um and laundering and things of those sorts the these industries requires quite a significant amount more of funding than what the fossil fuel industry currently gets so if things like this just just do not um get successful because we have other detrimental industries that are people of prospering because we have a government that supports them you see when it comes when it comes to be that there is a new technology that comes out it immediately gets government supporting if it's effective and it's kind of seen as I guess we can't live without this unless if we are wanting to progress so what happens is the government will fund it and then that technology even in its most prototypical form will sustain itself and maybe generally slowly progressed as legislation progresses so it's very difficult for anything like a I guess any vegan produce to come out on top because the fucking dairy industry they label a milk to be defined as only that which comes from a cow now that is just flat-out retarded like straight up but that it is what it is I don't I don't think we can really do much until we get rid of this whole on money laundering and shit like that so I mean is there anything in particular that you want to get my take on there or what you know I'm really following you generally yours that you're saying you know we have a whole bunch of uh far from ideal industries that you know they're being like subsidized by government and like for example the fact that like meat is so subsidized it well like lean people towards buying that kind of shit the fact that you know the dairy industry is so big they can Lobby to pass laws so that you can't label nut milk is milk it'll stop people from buying it instead of milk you're just saying that the size of these companies gives them kind of unreasonable degree of control over the economy I guess is that what you're saying yeah and because the og they've got the support of the government um and basically what happens when you get initial support of the government and you're a technology in and of yourself that is unlike all others initially you'll get a reciprocal funding from the government's so basically that's like a perpetual cycle that feeds itself over and over again even even until there are new technologies that start to rise they those new technologies will fall off because this is the only thing that's getting funded and the people are buying because it's the only thing that's being advertised to the scale it is because it's the only one that's got the amount of funding that does so I don't know if that's strictly speaking true I mean obviously if you have one giant massive industry with its government subsidized that's paying for lobbying and stuff like this they have a huge competitive advantage but that doesn't mean that a small start-up can't be successful I mean there's companies are doing well like Gardein de a-- I'm sure there's others so nice yeah and they all doing well they're doing significantly well because they think smart they know how to basically um pledged no no okay so sorry sorry to kind of gear this all like Center this all here but is there something that you you are wanting my take on on this is there a particular part that you're getting I mean what the whole thing about it is um I'm basically expressing what is going on and you can chime in whenever you want to add whatever you want or basically whenever you feel there is actually a point you can add do it okay okay she's not specific question or something okay I thought I thought we're still in a question segment of this I thought you had said it was gonna come in three segments but yeah I mean I agree with a lot of what you said there I don't agree that it's a pure stranglehold and hold I'm not sure if it's a totally just because they're the og company I think it's got to do a lot with size but I agree with a lot of what you're saying yeah and the thing I'm always argue is like a like this was about dairy right it is this is coming back to dairy specifically or was that just a launch point the lowest point was Gary I think it could wrap around to the meat industry as well okay because agriculture is a necessary thing as soon as her ingredient and whatever starts off is generally um what get some the the the funding of the government because it's the first necessary step to progress now once it gets the funny oh you already want it does something the government funding to take off in a free market I don't necessarily think that's a free market no well well I mean I know it's not a perfect free market but I mean even in this context there's uh barriers there at least disadvantages to not having government funding but it doesn't mean your startup isn't gonna work exactly I'm not one to claim that you have to be you have to be smart about it and that's why I really want to promote I would love to start I'm delving I want once I get the financial stability I will happily starts to basically delve into foodstuffs um as a business I would love to and it should initiate a brand of vegan food they'd be absolutely fuckin dreamy to me like honestly I would love to do that is on the entrepreneurial minded person I'm no limit good idea oh yeah I'm Minister Darren's family fish sticks or something yes alright yeah fuck yeah alright um but yeah um it's the corruption needs to stop at one point and it all starts it's all stemming from a reciprocal cycle that just keeps on fading itself so how the fucking we stock reciprocal cycle like I'm one where it's constant being fading fading the flames of a big corporation um I'm funny yeah I mean that's that's a real practical level question I don't know if I have any uh real good advice there to be honest it's not so we haven't put any you know there's probably things we could maybe do like maybe you can do things like lobbying government to stop subsidizing certain things or I don't know maybe to start subsidizing others there I'm sure there's also something else than subsidies to talk about I mean it there's laws that we could Lobby to change that would allow it to become easier but again like I don't know really the kind of ground-level economic details to have any really informed input on this topic Briella that stuff is saved for um my third stream series just a discussion of the market capitalism oh they're nothing good yeah all joy no worries I'm fine to get into it but I just I don't I don't know that there's much I can offer there to be totally honest don't even worry about that bird on the whole thing is for this country I'll touch upon politics but I'll be using that as a conduit to the subject of veganism okay well let's so it's a way you want to be you want to move to another thing now is what is what I'm hearing um yeah maybe maybe um which is just let it fly man just let it flow whatever feels right whatever feels right okay why I'm fine I'm fine my dad yeah okay okay we might get back to the whole um essay on Gnostic atheism if you have any directs contentions to it I would look at them well yeah I mean for everyone watching Darin wrote an essay his position is that isn't Gnostic atheism as opposed to agnostic atheism so that would be a concretely certain belief that God doesn't exist so I mean my position with that stuff I'm not a Gnostic anything you're always pushing the scale of belief between you know point zero zero one percent certainty to ninety-nine point nine nine nine percent certainty even axiomatic knowledge is just knowledge that's at 99.999 percent certainty unless you're an omnipresent being you can't actually claim 100% certainty so I wouldn't call myself a gnostic atheist i wouldn't call myself a gnostic a leprechaun 'test i would be technically an agnostic atheist but I put the probability as close to zero as possible because there's no evidence for the proposition and I would also agree with the point that you're kind of making in your essay what I took to be the sort of overall point which is that if you accept the laws of logic there's no proposed model of God that is going to actually make sense and not contradict the laws of logic that's right um so basically um for me to respond to that uh but but to be to be clear even the laws of logic which are you know some of our most axiomatic level knowledge it's still beliefs that we hold to a 99.99999% certainty it's not as I actually concrete up like a ontologically objective knowledge all right so um yeah I actually kind of answer that with a query um does 1+1 absolutely equal to well we in our system of mathematics that's how we would bet that's true yeah I mean it's not advice it's it's still is still a human uh model it's not it's not still representative the quality of the quantities that we can experience as human beings in a system of reality so it's still representative so regardless if it is beyond our perception that 1+1 was to hold as equaling two because there's two quantities and it's not opposing the ends through the preface I don't know what it means to say that one plus one equals two outside of human perception I mean the concept of one is humans taking a certain cluster of molecules whether it's a tree or something else and saying that is one X that is one of this particular thing I don't know that the concept of one does not exist objectively it's a subjective construct yeah that's right but if it is to represent an objective that is what it is so in that case it is not representative of thought but it is similar simple Tenaya simultaneity to that which is objective I'm sorry if I'm from delving into this just tell me not unpack the little ahem anyway ok wouid i mean it sounds like you're getting at forget what the term is for this i think it's like mathematical like Platonism or something but i I don't uh I'm ok wait you're saying that you have concrete 100% certainty that God doesn't exist that's what you're saying yes and you would say you have concrete 100 percent certainty that a leprechaun doesn't exist no what okay you always already lost me a little there um I I just I don't understand how you can say that any knowledge is something that a being that is not omnipresent can know completely I mean I would say that our understanding that God doesn't exist is about as true as something can be I mean I can't think of any description of God that would cohere with the laws of logic but I mean even the laws of logic this is a human model right so you can't you can't claim objective knowledge really on anything as a human it's always knowledge itself is always subjective but whether or what if you'd if you know that then you can't claim Gnosticism on anything no no that's untrue because if your subjective thing completely represents the consistency of objective reality then again both and so you can't know it done so you can't you can't know it does that's the whole point I mean you can be certain beyond any reasonable doubt but you can't actually know without any possible doubt like I mean I see a point yeah you'd like we just can't possess knowledge in that kind of way as finite beings that aren't uh omnipresent we can't know something to 100% ever I do see your points the whole the whole thing that I would content to that is on there is in fact a methodology that can be utilized in order to get you to I guess you could actually convert me to utilizing the 99.99 to an infinitesimal rather than 100% oh I'm in if that's where you're willing to go on that in that sense that's where I'm at but that is agnostic eight that's not Gnostic I mean it's like no stick as you get within the parameters of of logic yeah but I'd still have to further edify my mind on whether knowledge can be obtained in a way that is consistent to what objectively occurring what is well-represented oh yeah of course of course it can I mean we are you can picture it like an asymptote to reality like our understanding of reality is constantly getting closer and closer to perfect but we'll never actually touch the line because omnipresence doesn't seem to be physically possible as far as oh yeah I know that's right so so I mean it's a pretty micro disagreement here it's a little epistemological disagreement but I I mean we both for all intensive purposes are going to say God doesn't exist but if you're willing to say you're you're not a hundred percent sure you're ninety nine point nine infant s Amol sure then a cool sofas mistake I mean the story then you'd have to call yourself an agnostic atheist yeah I understand that's what I'm saying yeah all right so then I flow to use your of because the whole thing about it is that sa did not conclude I I realized that a whilst I was rereading it or did was address specific arguments and predicates are predicates of what could qualify as a God or what would would qualify as a god um so basically um I think in my image who are philosophically our mind of that time and this is genuinely a contention because I made the I made the quote-unquote thesis like um I think last year I yeah it was it was based off a discussion I had in university with one of the evangelicals um and basically ology was paraphrasing I don't think I would build any conclusive or any reason to for anyone to conclude based on what I said that um my conclusion was correct so I think yeah that that was a the whole essay itself was very immature and I think it was premature to because I know a lot more now about philosophy and ontology and metaphysics and epistemology and what-have-you um and I'm actually planning on getting a double doctorate in epistemology and metaphysics um so I'd be a cool thing to do oh yeah because I am definitely planning on testing the boundaries of epistemology and whether whether or not conclusively it is the case that one can absolutely know and whether or not it is the case that one can absolutely to only absolutely only to a 99 to an infinitesimal a percentage know something to be the case yeah I mean that that's a position that I've held for many many years I don't understand how we could have a hundred percent certain knowledge on anything being a finite being if we discovered it one way or another it'd be something worthy of the Nobel Prize and I mean just to be clear like hypothetically I can't have a hundred percent knowledge that I can't have a hundred percent knowledge so maybe you're somehow right but currently I don't see any reason to think that we could know something to one hundred percent because there's always just the fact that we aren't omnipresent we don't know every corner of the universe we don't have the sum total of possible knowledge so you can't you can't claim to know something to a hundred percent without that knowledge that's right and that's why I'm planning on writing a thesis on the whole subject the amount of play I reckon it'd be so much fun to do um it would require your job a bit like it would be kind of like a soul-searching but in a very mechanistic way um to really understand or get as close as you possibly can as a floor as a philosophical deliberating mind it would be so much fun at least for me cuz I'm a boring cunt hey man sounds perfectly fine to me you get that double doctorate and use it to substantiate veganism philosophically saying I would do that neighs I'd be missing I'd love to do that well yeah so I mean we could get into the micro details of the essay but I think that's that's the kind of major point there so I don't see much point really yeah as it sounds it sounds like we are pretty much in agreement here and you're willing to say you know it to 99.99 infinitesimally we're saying there's a possibility you can claim a hundred percent knowledge but you just you know you're not holding the position that you've proved that yet yes pretty much yeah so I mean we're on the same page for all I can tell there yeah it's only it's merely a discussion of where we stand now where and where we're planning to go where specifically I'm planning to go so it yes it has been a lot of fun discussing this entire subject with you Isaac but I think um that would be appropriate I proposed to end this this on the stream it has been fucking interesting it's been amazing I start sorry and the topic or end the stream altogether I think yeah I think it's um I think it is high time to end the stream right about totally man I'm I'm fine with that I just want to say one other thing you originally said there was three things you wanted to do he said you wanted oh no that was it yeah you said you wanted to hit morality hit some questions and hit the essay so that's all three yeah swim pretty good eh yeah good to me man I've had a good time talking to you a good time talking with and arguing with you hiya canvas yeah yeah I've had a good time with that too I appreciate you being real it's all uh yeah it's actually pretty good that um we're ending about now because my boyfriend is trying to call me in to eat dinner now fair enough man or so well all right so do you have any I was gonna ask you ask yourself um just one one just one brief last question what does your daily diet consist of man I would love to know your secrets oh well I mean I'm pretty fucking boring like I mean generally I wake up in the morning I'll have some oatmeal throw a bunch of fruit in there drink a glass of orange juice not from concentrate fuck that shit up lunch I don't know maybe like make a sandwich maybe throw some fucking like tempeh on there lettuce tomatoes you know some other stuff maybe I'll put some like furs mushrooms and then suppertime I'm usually doing like I usually like to make something like rice or quinoa or you know some kind of grainy big fucking thing and then make some veg with that and then make some kind of meat like thing whether it's like you know tofu or tempeh or sometimes like if there's products like grab some fucking Guardian field roast great pretty simple yeah pretty nice all right but I think that's do you have any future plans for your channel just just just the final cut off oh yeah I mean I'm just gonna I mean it's gonna go into a whole ton of really cool places like I'm going to talk about typology on there I think eventually especially once I have an actual camera I'm going to talk like personal development to some extent um and I I mean also obviously just going to keep pushing the veganism hard uh really make it clear that they're not going to be able to dismantle our argumentation so hopefully we can totally just dummy this platform and get get everyone kind of acknowledging that you can't argue against the vegans on YouTube so yeah just you know keep pushing veganism few other topics I want to expand it into just keep growing keep expressing whatever I'm feeling the ultimate goal is just just self-expression really and just you know creating kind of fun and entertainment for the people who watch beautiful alright so guys um just as a final statement um be sure to join me on my discord is fucking amazing it's an amazing app um I have general discussions I have YouTube news I'll keep you guys updated uh you guys can join in discuss directly to me I will respond you every fucking one of you because I'm very active um I thought I could still say that sorry said I wish I could still say that I just made a video people I can't keep responding to them you know I totally understand that word that would sound nightmarish because I like if I was in your position I just want to like respond to every single person but it'd be damn near impossible at that kind of rate it's it's insane and yeah like Richard I have no fucking idea how he does it you know and still still if I ever talked to him and I say hey there's some person who's messaging me and I don't know how to answer their questions it's about nutrition the guy still always makes fucking I am to talk to them inside I don't know this that's fucking crazy but yeah baby sure to join in that because we will also have our voice channels you can actually talk directly to me on discord that's what makes this frigging apps so amazing and finally um be sure if you guys want to see more of this kind of content where I have special guests every week make sure that you join it in on my patreon one-color club you will have you be recognized and I'll talk to you personally and thank you personally give you recognition you are the baddest you are for even joining $1.00 because that that's still on the money to me because I'm broke ah but yeah I'm $20 gives you the ability the 100% opportunity to join in on the streams that happen four times a month so every single week I will have a stream if you donate $20 you will be guaranteed a spot on my street and so the final one I've got I've got I've got miscellaneous donations in between them bargain wisdom um just you're my patreon if you want to see them I'm the last donation is 300 dollars will give you a guaranteed song in your name and trust me I know what I'm doing when it comes to musics I've been I've been making music for the last five years so if you guys want to have a song in your own goddamn names any any genre anything progressive because I've been delving to that quite a lot recently and thanks to Isaac they see your fucking music yeah I have how many here Darren rap oh I would love to do that I'd love to branch into that don't be fun actually like I'm but like seriously thanks to Isaac I'm deeply ensconced in a in progressive music it's fucking awesome like it oh my god I'm a drink theatre though it's like one Danis fuck everyone knows Dream Theater but but yeah I sure I'm rambling alright guys thanks very very much for watching I hope you all have a good one make sure that you join them I just Gordon oh yeah stay logic talking to you Darren good talking and yes you also hi acanthus you guys have a good night you too.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Transcripts for sourcing.

Post by NonZeroSum »

__________________



Debating the "I Don't Care" Mentality (Vegan Gains vs. Bearing)

à-bas-le-ciel
Published on Mar 30, 2017

In some ways there are important parallels between the situation for veganism right now in 2017 and the situation for gay rights many many decades ago the situation for gay rights when it was at the stage of millions of people sitting down at millions of dinner tables with their own parents with their own grandparents and saying look there's something I fertility and fundamentally people at that early stage had to explain the concept of gayness itself to a public who in large part heated feared it failed to understand and fail to understand why would ever be made public why wouldn't this be secret why wouldn't this be something totally private that you'd never even mention right and that too had to be explained that had to be articulated and many people may look back on the history of gay rights and imagines the most important part of the story you know was this or that street protest people holding signs in the street I don't think so I think there was a profound and really kind of philosophical engagement you know people with their own parents people with their employers people with their co-workers saying look this is who I really am and you may not understand that and this is why you need to know this is why it needs to be public why it can't just be private I can't just be a secret so step one of bearings argument in this epoch-making debate between vegan gains and bearing over the ethics of veganism itself the core the core issue of veganism step one of his argument actually is that morality is a totally personal private and subjective matter many people felt that way about sexuality 50 years ago even 20 years ago maybe I remember those debates and Canadian politics there were people who just said your sexuality is your private business so I'm not going to judge you and you're not as long as you don't judge me we don't have a problem like life doesn't work that way it was not sufficient to simply tell homosexuals to stay in the closet and keep their private lives private and allow the world to roll on why well you have a situation where a school teacher is employed by a conservative school board maybe the Catholic school board and the school teacher is fired when somebody finds out that the school teacher has a same-sex relationship it's a man with a boyfriend or a woman with a girlfriend or whatever it is okay his problems are the gay teacher say it's a gay man his problem isn't just a legal battle with a school board his problem is that he stands alone if you live in a closeted society if you live in a society where your sexual morality simply consists of mutual ignorance and mutual indifference you can never make that progress that we have made in Canada in the last 50 years the situation for homosexuals is completely transformed completely and there are openly gay school teachers in Canadian school boards who know they will not be fired for their their sexuality for having a boyfriend I mean a girlfriend whatever their case may be and if they are they know that they will not stand alone they probably know within the same school other openly gay professionals they know within the same city other openly gay professionals right and that's that's crucial right so bearings perspective starts by saying that morality is a totally personally totally private totally subjective matter and the keys not going to judge vegans harshly and vegans shouldn't judge him and that's it and the truth is morality is precisely the opposite morality is intensely public and intensely political and is a never-ending open-ended struggle to transform the world and transform yourself step two of bearings argument is in three words I don't care and I'm going to tell you in this video how I deal with that argument face-to-face when people say it to me sincerely because it does happen sometimes rarely sometimes I'm talking to someone and they're not just being a jerk but they're their response to the general question of ecology animal rights veganism future how humans and animals are going to share the planet and even the health of the diet all the time if they say to me sincerely I don't care i say i understand but somebody has to and here's where i take it you don't care about sewage treatment somebody has to it's crucially important in every major city in the world there's a minority of people no matter how small who are really scrutinizing where the sewage goes and where your drinking water comes from it's crucially important that there's a passionate minority of people focus on the question of sewage treatment anytime you have several million people sharing a sewage system and sharing one drinking water source you don't care you have the luxury of not caring somebody else is fighting that struggle for you and you should be able to recognize that you benefit from all ecology works like that who cares about river pollution who cares about air pollution maybe not you maybe not you bearing maybe your indifference is completely sincere and maybe you really believe that this life of mutual ignorance and mutual indifference is virtuous but my response to that is simply to point out to you that on the contrary if we live in a crowded society we live in a society not of isolated individuals but of millions in fact we depend on one another I don't care in a practical sense I can't care i'm too busy about nuclear waste treatment and management I different points in my life I actually have done some research on it I've done some reading I've taken interest different points in my life I have but that's not an issue i'm going to lobby city hall and that's not even looking into and there are extreme and fascinating case studies of this again i've done some reading over the years in England I read this fantastic and hilarious case today of course in Japan we had this example that blew up in our faces and the whole world stood there astonished at just how high stakes the question of nuclear safety can be in energy production and there's one a test site she's an ecological disaster in the north western states i did some reading about it Wow fascinating fascinating ok now I I would not say that I don't care I do care I do care i just don't have enough time and energy to to work on every important issue in the world ok but if someone says to me that they don't care i can say to them isn't it a good thing that somebody does imagine just how dangerous this situation of be if nobody cared and now what is your attitude going to be toward someone else when you when you meet a person who has that passion who has that concern and who has those expertise because they care why are you telling them that you don't care instead of thank you for caring because i can't you can't do everything bearing and i can't either I've got to make choices if i'm studying cambodia and human rights issues in cambodia i'm not studying farm conditions in texas I can't do both I did spend a couple years study in Cambodia so I choose that that example ok the fundamental question is of what kind of a person you want to be and that's why I never gage these issues in terms of shallow crafts logical fallacies I don't think that vegan gains vegan gains take it in the direction he took in a real-life situation face-to-face I don't think that he could have one and there's another channel called ask yourself who took it even further in that direction ask yourself tries to make this into a debate about how how precisely how logically do you define a human being as different from an animal in order to justify violence against animals as different from you and beings you know we we have a we have a saying in political science well I don't know the definition of pornography but I know it when I see it most people this argument goes nowhere what exactly is the different the definition of human being what exact trait does a human being have an animal acts that justifies move yeah well they may not know how to define a human being but they know it when they see it okay if you can engage someone on the meaningful question what kind of a person do you want to be what kind of society do you want to be a part of and what direction you on the server that's great and if you encounter somebody who can't can't engage in that discussion that level of you there's no point in you having a deep discussion while they're having a shell of one stupidity is real stupidity was a huge factor in this debate one side was manifestly much much super than the other so there were limits to where this conversation go but when I encountered that attitude of I don't care I don't challenge them on the fact that they don't care I don't say you should care what I challenge them on is why are you proud that you don't care why are you being self-righteous about it because there's a sense in which I don't care and I can't care about nuclear safety there's a sense in which a very very few people can care and get involved with sewage treatment or other eka logical problems but that impact your life directly water quality can I trust the tap water when I turn the tap okay everywhere I go I try to research that I tried to research that here in China and Victoria in Cambodia on and on everyone lived I try to take it as far as I can okay not everybody can care but that doesn't mean that you should feel proud of yourself because you don't care sure doesn't mean you should be self-righteous in your ignorance and your difference you should have feel some sense of appreciation and some sense of gratitude towards the tiny minority of people who have the passion who had the engagement and who develop the expertise because they really are making the world a better place for us.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Transcripts for sourcing.

Post by NonZeroSum »

_____________

FriendEd vs. Chris Hines and the Vegan Debate Death Squad

Transcript and upcoming again hang about I'm naughty I missed probably like a minute because of the lag he's back for the shaming you guys are asking me so many questions though and I I'm dammit like I'm not I'm not trying to be evasive or dishonest I think there's a miscommunication going on because I understand morality comes from the unconscious mind and that we all have various settings for what we are going to accept and reject and my settings are different than your settings and we're just having like a miscommunication about that so I mean right I quit ask you is it do you need to eat me to survive right and you said that's none of your business right well it was getting heated and I was just trying to cool off so I didn't want to say something that I would regret so I just was like that was just a tactic to like cool things down yeah totally I wouldn't come in yeah don't try to shame me I mean if we're if we're having do you you are the cult thing I think we worked out in the stream because I like I I understand morality as like Christian morality has a set of rules right and most moralities have the most important rule that if you break that rule you're not going to be a part of that community anymore and I would say vegans have the rule that killing and eating innocent animals is wrong right if you break that rule you're no longer a part of the vegan community correct I'm not a part of the vegan community because I break that rule like every day you mentioned Christianity but you know Christianity has a Christian I'm like like there is there is a firt there is a most important rule in Christianity you have to accept that Jesus was the son of God and died for your sins if you don't accept that you're not a Christian there are all these other other rules that are tacked on right turn the other cheek and the different they different sects of Christianity will argue about the ancillary rules but the one rule that binds that community together is Jesus was the son of God he died for your sex you see what you do a little bit because you're saying let me lay it out let me lay it out you're you're making an argument that society would be better if we followed your axiom that killing and eating innocent animals is wrong and I do not believe that axiom and could you explain why I don't know why that is exactly why do you think that it would it wouldn't be as good I have made the argument that the cultural losses would be too great 14 human I know you guys don't like that which which coach Willis is exactly can you kind of explain what they would cannot can I come in on this back let's okay go ahead we're all over the place let's start with the axiom so how how exactly is this axiom by the way veganism it's the axiom and it has multiple you know components do you disagree with me that the main axiom I have it right it's agree it's not veganism is not the main axiom there are more fundamental principles to that that conclude conclude - veganism right ecology you know ethics nor is the inherent moral value of animals that's not it not an axiom it's basic fundamental principles it's all those things I think are covered but I mean yeah you're welcome to disagree you don't understand I don't know fundamental isn't like I'm not sure how you're not clean and honest there's more these principles that are more fundamental than what you're saying is the action you don't know what an axiom is you don't have to start with that you start and I'm more fundamental level and you conclude to it but it's still the most important thing it's not that's the thing well I think mix wanted to say something you wanna get in and say what you're gonna say yeah well selecting the whole axiom thing and how it correlates to what he's trying to say I'm I'm really just trying I was where I wanted to join moves a little bit past now so we'll leave it for now friended vegans are arguing that the world would be better if we were vegan am i praising you right yeah yeah okay well your external to the vegan group all right that's kind of something we're trying to figure out I think the first thing and foremost we are saying that it is wrong to harm animals like that's the first there are levels to all of this maybe that is the main axiom it's wrong to kill any innocent animals right innocent beings I would say I wouldn't say we I'm counting humans or animals - I'm counting so so you you I think probably add a sentient component to that too because I think some vegans don't care if you eat oysters and stuff like that right so I mean the ocean and that's kind of other than that I'm aware they're not sentient and but they are vital for ecosystem so I'd rather we didn't I would say that like I I was actually on a friends yeah you could turn them on and off you know the lizard is most certainly sense gnostic on like oysters and insects but the lizard is most certainly second to that where you put a finger on it and it kind of kind of freezes up doesn't mean that it's not sentient it's probably the is that is that um from what I've seen these things in tanks or you know there's pretty much something on my room 24 hours a you know 24 hours a day when I was at you know universe you stated oh speeding then was it that did not they know of that old aunty sex but you're talking to someone the prior to being vegan and vegetarian used to probably have well I used to do an animal care course and I had more animals in my house in my bedroom than they had at the animal care room because I used to collect Turtles and bugs and all this kind of stuff so I don't even use they're not just robots like I said like one lizard that would come to their name always kind of stuff well you say when you say you can turn it on ass are you saying you can kill it and resurrect it again reset it's not a reset it's basically the ceviche won't it wakes up it doesn't clean it'll be the same as giving me like I ran about two bottles of whiskey on a Friday night and then I wonder what I don't think I don't think anything up to it would be like you have two bottles of whiskey we could talk about resetting lizards for hours is a great subject but I wanted to talk about going back to the the cultural costs that Adam said I want to know what those exact cultural cross smokers we didn't actually get an answer because we don't we don't know we're guessing what the cultural costs are we really are you got this guess and then assume no no surely you should be like what we say oh you're the one that's all you want the one guessing though no because we you're the one guessing no because we can say y ou B we can i we can say why the code wriggles would be better but you you don't know the downside yeah but you can't name the downside either yes but I'm not advocating for making radical changes to society I mean if I can't name the downside and you can't name the downside but we can name the positives well I've named hunting and fishing and I've named holidays and political days be effective yeah no more turkey for Thanksgiving I mean that's a good part of the holiday that'd be a pretty lucky you're talking about making replacements to holidays that people like they made changes in Israel when they carved out Israel to give the Jews a country after the Holocaust and you can make an argument that the Middle East has never been the same they've had war there ever since so I mean you're talking about just like you're saying oh yeah we could just make changes but same is just replacing a one item on a Christmas meal no and I'm just saying there's a there's a faith component to you saying that you can just change it without any cause what would be the worst that would happen if we replace turkey at Christmas dinner the worst scenario do you think everyone's gonna start killing each other I was colors from green and red to pink and yellow you know it seems entirely arbitrary it's it's not I mean most people don't even know what they eat turkey at Christmas in fact the only reason that the turkey is because it was just the cheapest bird that people leave I back in the day that could feed the family that was literally the only reason there's no real like cultural significance to the turkey if you go back it's just the real the real reason the real test of it would be to make it illegal to use like to take pigs off the menu to say it's illegal to to slaughter pigs and see how that affects things yeah I mean I think what do you think would happen if we if we if all of a sudden tomorrow it was illegal slaughter pigs and there was no more bacon at the grocery store no no more I mean culturally what would happen everyone wouldn't mind for a bit because what everyone does and everyone would home for a night nobody's baking black-market because I know these as a year we used to get like you know like Haram things get imported into the country all the time well then it's like anything else there will be a black market for it me there'll be black black market for me I agree what happened and the animals might get less care in the black market economy than they do now exactly that's a pragmatic argument of what might happen if if this happens what we're talking about there'll be lots pigs getting killed you're not going to get the same amount of pigs the reason why is because there have to be put in areas and it'll be mostly indoors and they'll be like how they grow cannabis now what's gonna happen again it gotta try to hide it and stuff like this well this happens in the UK not not necessarily like any I don't know about American that but they put it under like and then they use hid they actually use slavery and lock the people in the cannabis houses now so this is in happen in the UK so we actually have people slaves filming like this in this cannabis in these indoor cannabis farm so you know that's actually made situations worse hasn't it do you wanna something for the black market I I think a black market would form they the same thing happen with abortion abortion in countries for how cold for whatever is not there if you can afford to pay it there's a black market for it hold on there's a there's a black market for raping children do you think raping children should be legal is not it's not if you want to talk a bortion of that it's close but interrupts go ahead Bank market as a justification to keep killing animals as legal right you're using this black-market argument to keep that legal I'm not saying that's good what happens when you make child for the child prostitution illegal is that a black market forms do you think that means that you shouldn't make child prostitution illegal don't be stupid man come on that's not an argument against a something like that making something illegal or black market will form well does that mean you should make it sorry sorry to be like a little bit the route but that is like really low hanging fruit Akkad's is in my mind not even on the same level so your mind's comparison of situations and black market that's all innocent creatures there's a clear comparison between that you're forcing your you're using force to coerce I don't see black market though and robots though that's a list now what about the meta ethics though because we have meta ethics though on our side because vegan gains kept saying well and ethics so meta ethics though this group thing right can I kill you technically technically I'm not contradicting my morality by doing I was talking about like or no innocent animals should be killed better or no animals should be killed I mean do you have the actual act fundamental axiom is to the maxima as well Ben yeah I could justify killing you because it would maximize well-being on a grander scale you kill about 200 animals a year hmm or Olivia knew on that basis I I would know I would say that you're a journalist probably advised you that that's not a good defense strategy yeah it wouldn't be legal if we're saying black guys are so fixated on the law guys could we just move can we just move on them from black America because I think market isn't an excuse can we say what other huge cultural impact it would have we are talking about we eliminate eating pigs yeah good I'm here I'm here because I didn't want to be evasive and I was getting called I was that people were saying I wasn't answering questions and I'm trying to just be as honest I think always those list is looking so good ancestors the bacon though black market though canines Oh cigarettes though chickens are like robots you know that that doesn't that's not helpful on your side because what you're doing is you're compiling a list of a hundred reasons why you shouldn't be the oh well they're bad to you but all the people that like people don't need a good reason to justify doing something that they want to do any old shitty reason are you can someone else what they want to do is kind of that's kind of important I can literally mine under an ethical action oh I just want a Holocaust a bunch of a bunch of lower intelligence species you know I want to whatever rape your kids like it's pretty fucked up man you know friend it I have a question can you give me a moral explanation why you think he would be wrong for me to suicide part because there there's no social argument that you can give for the morality of why that's wrong they could convinced at the genuine question yeah can we get back to this point after this why is it wrong for you to suicide bomb me yeah I mean that that seems just patently evident to me I mean it's it's illegal I think you know if you ask washing I put fly planes into buildings next seriously nope I mean if you're dead why would I you're not giving any moral logical reason well first of all I have given the the justification that I don't think it's right it's immoral to kill other human beings it still more it'll kill innocent human beings and you would be betraying that essential part of my morality for one so that's why I think it's wrong well you can't really draw this arbitrary line yeah like oh yes you can yeah also why I should like it you can't make arbitrary L suppose if you if you would if you love something like Islam is amiss yes you can draw this arbitrary line because then you say oh well they look afar or whatever right and that is exactly where you go you basically make them the other is what you're getting at isn't it no it's just like you're saying we make the animal the other right we doesn't we don't make them the other they are the other we don't we don't make them yes exactly they are the other but you're saying that vegans say that they are that we make them the other that's the there's a fundamental problem with all these arguments is in my opinion is that we think you know llama me Todd I think that animals are fundamentally different the people all right you know to sin extent right is amiss think non-islamic people are fundamentally different and it's okay to kill them you know certain circumstances because they are the other so you know you're getting really choppy sorry Landers you saying was people and animals are fundamentally different and then he became a computer I think it might be your connection because he sounded fine to me hey what's up there and is that Aaron I'm not I don't have the thing yeah yeah hi all right let me jump out and jump back comes down to um friend Nick and people want me to push you on gang an answer for is me you're gonna shave me and goddamn it yes I'm still black and blue from the last you know how it rolls right everyone wants me to push you on me do you need me for survival question could you still have an answer that for okay first of all I agree with you you do not need meat for survival this again does that mean killing animals is needless the taste pleasure the when you say needless we don't need Christmas either like don't we also don't need beds like we can sleep on the floor right we don't need houses yeah but we can sometimes on anything that's kind of it doesn't it doesn't add up like logically speaking to you it doesn't add up but your dad's a perfectly fine I will Edd's to killing an animal that's not like you're adding you're adding an axiom right here that you're saying I can't compare beds to killing animals but there's not no I can I am and I do and non-arbitrary you shouldn't sleep on beds or get rid of Christmas or wear yellow shorts what is what is the value of Christmas that's the point you know there's a reason not to murder humans there there are reasons for that that's the value of Christmas really what if the human is a psycho-killer child rapist murderer none to Dan that humans like we would eject him and I think sometimes you've got a call to herd I think sometimes in our weak links and they should be eliminated betrayed me yeah well I'm saying that if if there was a good reason for that it wouldn't be arbitrary and then it would be justified that's the distinction could I bring up another thing as well I don't know you said in the stream the animals killing animals was a moral but yet you expressed that you were against factory farming which meant that you clearly have some form of care towards the animals in factory farms can you explain that I mean I think as as humans we all want and myself included want to see the least amount of suffering for the animals that we eat I think that's a solid position that 99% of the population agrees on yep to be quite honest when you plant an animal you want to kill it as quickly and as painlessly as possible otherwise you taint the meat it doesn't taste the same so there's a there's a utility reason and a moral reason could be apparently in China they tortured the dogs because apparently amazement well that that might be like total bullshit the arbitrary regardless in terms of the taste pleasure when you're talking about the morality that tortured dogs that don't eat them they just torture dogs okay they're not very nice people did you know they've we've got we got terms to these people they're fucking psychopath sorry yeah in China they use rhino horn to get a boner can I just say though so we're talking about the fact people torture dogs because it tasting pigs shame he's got his own pigs and of shaming is wrong people die from pigs and from sharks I don't own a person if someone bought a person would you actually argue that that person was truly bad if if somebody bought a person and what they treated the person fairly or they treated the first bought people and pretty much freed them they bought them to freedom so it kind of does matter how they treat them if someone if someone caught me and treated me like Donald Trump then maybe you know if someone treated me like I was wealthy okay yeah I mean what that's that's wrong but they bought you could then they treat you like you're a queen well if they treat you like a queen in them people that had you we're selling you I mean you were in slavery nobody else reach it if you abort you're bought to then be killed no that's not necessarily true I mean a farmer who raises animals doesn't kill all his animals we tell him who's daddy kill out of interest because majority of them die the ones that he kills I mean most animals are eaten are killed within like the first year to two years of life they're animals that are correct if he sells them off to be killed they're still gonna be killed they're still being important to this life right by his profit or to die well he isn't profiting from their deaths good that's where people but time you're asleep we're okay what's on what kind of shoes do you want what kind of shoes made or all your shoes made of canvas and rubber only yeah yeah I could show you a picture from my Chirac if you'd like where's the conversation skipping all over the place of course we don't have a problem cutting down trees talk about the forestation can we just mention that 95% of ours in the forestation is due to cattle and the food that we're feeding time so if you were to talk to forestation and saving trees don't eat homes raising crops like soy no you're the soybean fed to Celtic a very very small percentage compared to how much soy as Mexicans yes all the vegan see just a tiny micro percentage of soy all those soy products use in place of the animal products they think of the fact that like 20% of that soy like okay think of how much point we use in products we have soy lecithin we have byproducts of soy we have tofu we have all these different things about how much is in like how much soy is in product I mean check out some of the unis like some of the highly processed foods out there you know it's it's fucking clothing is it all made in America does it all have a made in America or made in England tag on it or does it have a moral you guys are because your sweater says Maine a Bangladesh and it was like some four-year-old kid that made it for like two cents for the week you're okay it's a few Atilla tea and most of us will actively try and avoid that well first of all yeah can I just ask when someone's got something good say someone goes up to someone just put a nice Act are you the person who goes up to them and goes how dare you something I know the person does something good afterwards comes up to me and it's like I did it you didn't how dare you well then yeah I might say well hey yesterday you know you ran over my neighbor's cat always shame me this is like the argument from you're emotionally sort of resistant to this you're sort of reactive over this is your argument alive stream and I've heard the shaming help is take the facts if you feel guilty about your acts and think about why you feel all animals are opportunistic carnivores stripping another deers carcass I can show you videos of squirrels eating rattlesnakes I can show you videos of fucking rabbits eating birds because you have more protein in meat all life knows that meat even fucking plants eat meat okay I even in situation what you need to give them out more live and eat them I catch and kill it by cut I'll go fishing and a very catchy killer I will put it in a pan and I will gladly fry it up but that's because you can and not because you need to you are not in a situation I don't see so far being is not like really an option here and yeah I'm not gonna go out with a gun and hunt something product twice as much you and I could go to my local farmer just outside of the city and get meat a lot cheaper but you still punches plug foods you do not need I can raise X I can raise chickens and then the eggs are free you can for eating the eggs you can there's no I mean you can have abortions you don't have to have the abortion but they do point reporting every time no life I mean if you guys are going to put this cute life I mean to point just for how ridiculous amounts of stupid can you just listen your gift scaloppine you're thrown out so many fallacious arguments these religious they are yes they are they don't have abortions I'm in a modern it's now vegans have a person's what is that a take a go record distinction you saying all vegans have abortions I just don't like what vegans try to use this moral high horse like over superior because you're using your eating animals that have been tortured how do you know my animals have been tortured ha why would you presume that in the first place what that dead that's a big factor doesn't mean they were torture doesn't mean that they lived a shitty life no just had a knife in the neck you know in safe example tomorrow someone just wanted to kill you they did it in a nice way would you say that that's appropriate if somebody wants to kill me someone killed you tomorrow the masters they did it nicely what I accept if they tried to kill me you got a good life what they tried and they failed because there's no guarantee that they're going to I am NOT I'm a human being you do understand there's a difference right between humans they're going to be killed made you would reject that next are you gonna go tell the lion to stop killing the gazelle are you gonna go tell those annoyin life's moral agency and has no other option we are humans so there's a difference there and you are equating them to us their life is so variables just as valuable as a person so you're saying if they don't have moral agency that they're not okay to kill okay so if a human didn't have moral agency 10 piglets right when a human gives birth it gives birth to one baby and piglets get off the ground the moment they're born and they're able to suffice they can walk around and run and human babies can't right yeah it takes us three years before we can just title okay let alone of sufficient on our own so what was the difference between the human and animal is that animals will have more than one so humans have several differences but they're all rubbish because you want to keep waving your finger as if you're some more superior person this choice a few differences has been civilization so if humans didn't have civilization it would be okay to kill them no the other one was animals have more babies of humans have civilizations since the dawn of time I mean there has been a point where we have it okay you want to say what KK if people I don't I don't know I don't know if I buy that because yeah our civilization goes back as far as written history we don't know thank you now in an industrialized civilization and we are in barbaric like we used to so I don't understand how you're like okay sure we did we did certain actions back when it didn't make those actions morally justifiable just because we did them in the past do you think that because we've done in action in the past throughout history that is a person that raises their own food they raise all the wrong foods you would give them grief because they raise animals for their own consumption you should let them finish their cutting a mom that they were wrong Nicholas party Nicholas was making a point to cut you off maybe it was done didn't want to be equipment or the stream oh sorry it's good to make sure you're working and you can we can crack on say yeah Nicholas did you want to make a point there yeah no just just because we've done a done something in the past does it make it morally viable and I what I wanted to really hammer you on is if somebody wants to kill you is it appropriate like the main point if they if they tried to say hey Billy I depends on the reason though there have been people who have killed other people because they've killed family members and juries haven't convicted them even though they obviously committed murder because as human beings like we understand there there's a revenge component like context is everything yeah context is everything like if my friend sacrifice their life for me like said hey you know I realize that you know this this helicopter can come and save us in 30 days and the only way that one of us is gonna survive is if one of us like offers our body person I could say that would be justifiable like you know a mill cut a limb off you guys could live off that limb sure I mean it going to be appended okay so I go yeah I know I mean that's that's really that's really just the main point i I just know like you seemed it jumped and I think we could all just be a lot calmer if we just hit each point and like focus on that point until it's hammered out 8p8 non-p how many of you are vegans oh but you in friend ed actually mix I'd be actually no yeah I think you're not yeah that might just come later use that don't want everybody looking up like know where I live if you want a min good find out exactly where my name is straight way seriously back on topic this is totally irrelevant yeah I want to get back to the argument I made ages ago that my own team evaded away from right by the in-group stuff you're not in my own group my ethics don't necessarily preclude me from killing you to maximize well be right but if you're using in-group and out-group as a justification to be able to kill someone that's not in your own in-group right then how how am I not justified in killing you kill somebody I can kill you because you're in or you're in the in-group lady that's his argument Kim here so my argument is all humans are in the in-group but I think we should go around and group arguing because I think we kind of suss that one out you're saying the humans are in your in-group and animals are not in your friend group is your justification for being allowed to kill animals well you're not in my at that in my street I'm a vegan you're not in my in-group because you're not vegan right right so you're not in my modelling group so they realize that curiosity then hold on if you're an American out group as your sole justification for being allowed to kill these animals you're not in my own group and right and my morals don't preclude me from killing you okay so why shouldn't I kill you when you're a how is that how is that a good way to base your ethics to say anyone that's out of my own group well I think it's terrible I think it's a terrible way making progress then killing animals was because they're not human well he's pitching Isis morality again I don't agree with Isis morality it's a tear you're out in the wild and a fucking animals ready to kill you are you just gonna lay down your life animal now what are you gonna do with it just was it self-defense the self-defense argument is interesting because I would use the same self-defense argument if if vegan was gonna kill me I don't know I'm sorry I don't know your name vegan vegan DNA I like your avatar though that's pretty kick-ass yeah I think we need to go around the the in-group argument cuz I think in the beginning of this for Christmas we could kind of Chris has figured it out Chris knows the magic I know the magic I still think it's rubbish mom it's three-quarters razzle dazzle once you see that once you see the razzle dazzle it's basically it's like you know you know the trick right let's clear out for everyone I mean whether this is proper logic I can't say like I said I'm not logic master but basically what it is you have to put you have to put friended outside have his own in-group and then try and kill him in like some context [Laughter] yeah my yeah my in-group is all humans oh so I have already got around that is what about if we transfer transport your consciousness into something he did he did get around it if we transported your consciousness into something that wasn't argumentation 101 hypotheticals account look it up okay so basically if we transport your consciousness into something that wasn't within the human species but you still had a lot of the same traits as a human and would it be okay to kill you being outside of the of your own out group well I would I would say this was some question for me I'm sorry but I'll say oh I'll be totally against like killing girls and chimpanzees are we that I'll be totally there they're there they're so similar to us we should be you know cleaning dolphin cages either and you know that's what I think about that daddy hop on I'm screaming just mutilate this conversation I have a I'm a hi I have a hypothetical I want to ask you guys morally yes I think it fits up with a vegan argument okay so let's say hypothetically someone is going to offer you a billion dollars you'll never have to work a day in your life you you can live in the lap of luxury you can do whatever you want to do but at 45 they're gonna kill you do you take that offer or do you you know work live to be 70 years old who knows what you're you know you you're let's say you're middle-class it's not like you're destitute but that's a tough one because that is that is kind of what animals have in mind they did they didn't make the choice today yeah that's a good point that is a good point we're making the choice for them but someone could easily say someone could make this choice for you and and like which which one is which one is better I'm asking you which one alien civilization wants to just destroy us in 2020 so like Nicholas are you gonna take the are you taking the billion dollars what are you gonna do you could have a lot of kids you could have a lot of kids by the by the time you're 45 and you could leave them let's make it more interesting you can leave them your whatever inheritance you have it cannot spoil army I just want to address that 45 years old to make that a fair comparison you'd have to call human at 8 years old yeah for example we kill them at like about just keep talking until you're done talking so I can finish my point their ability to walk or do anything at the beating of their life has no merit on the length of their life the leyla their life really does that's why they're like destroyer would ordinarily be so to make this a fair comparison you'd have to cut the life short of a human by about 1/10 so that would be 8 years old not 45 years old 8 years old that is a masterly yeah it's going to be so mic drop I think yeah it was a mic drop I mean basic let's hold on can we get it I want to know the answer to that question because is it yeah are they is it 10% of like they're killed at 10 like the cow can live to be how old normally in the wild 25 looks and hopped up typically around 25 20 at the minimum but there's also because I see a lot I watched the nature channel sometimes that I see like the Lions don't seem like they're taking down I mean sometimes they get got earlier like they're not only they go for the lamest rate that's what I go for they yeah see yeah but but the thing is though I mean are we are we going to go by naturalistic fallacious arguments is that is that how we're gonna do this yeah we're talking about you're getting a billion dollars I mean it's like okay Piz natural so how about you know I own your life okay can we can we get an answer to the funded us a question like I mean what we can tim answered that i mean that's the whole point of the mic drop it was pretty mathematically clear that that's what he was doing it was like okay i want to check its math excuse me i want to give me this one so if you go over some of the animals don't say for example chickens they can live for up to fifteen years they killed it about eight weeks pigs can live sick pigs can live six to 10 years cold around six to eight months and then really so they don't even they don't even let him last a year that big that's all I need yeah yeah and what's the cows cows it depends if a beef cow or Derek I think dairy cows live the longest I think maybe up to feels killed up to eighteen months yeah it's not veal pits beef it's older than 18 months ago I think so my billion dollar question is a hypothetical you know just to make it interesting I obviously obviously you wouldn't take the deal if it you were dying before you even got to you like reproductive well well the thing is the billion dollar question it also definitely map out very well to the current times because we might get to the point where we're so productive that that becomes kind of a stupid question within the near future anyways so for if if you know within 15 years we have automation that's that's already getting to the point where you can everyone can reasonably live within that kind of lifestyle or you know that or you're saying you don't have to work and you can pretty much get all the material desires that you would ever want and I mean you have everything's just made out of atoms so for if we're getting that to point to it we're pretty close to that you know we're already getting self-driving cars where you know apes are much less safe to drive you know these giant metal death traps at these high speeds that we didn't evolve to to manage right so we're are getting to the point where where humans are becoming less useful in the job market and where I almost had a tipping point that's a bad question right now but I think historically it's also kind of a bad question because a billion dollars I mean wouldn't get you the amount of freedom and control and influence that it would today - as well so it's it's kind of within our context it's it almost assumes you have - things are gonna stay as they currently are for the next you know 30 years or what however much you have left to live I still want to know if you'd take the deal I mean it's an interesting question okay well personally not because we that's that's not even half our life considering it okay well I was gonna start at 45 and go down to like 25 if you gave me a billion dollars I owe 45 and I put the whole billion dollars into shutting down the meat and dairy industry good for you good a billion dollars is a million million dollars give me a million billion dollars yeah I probably take it no it's but why don't you guys know plants you know that smell you smell the grass yeah seeing a warning signal to the rest of the plants that shows legs first off you need to provide the study second you can go and Wikipedia in the condom and plant perception which lists all the things you're saying plants do it's under the paranormal category all the other things you're actually suggesting a pass to a signs of intelligence not to sentence my iPhone can do a lot of these things it can react to sound it can react to light they give you all these think all this is reacting to external stimuli does not mean they have a subjective experience of the world or ascent in any way so unless you want to provide actual scientific evidence of plant sentience which doesn't exist then you have to convert that into carbon-based life they're the only organisms that do this so we need plants to exist animals would not exist if not for plants so even if plants were sentient we'd still have no choice regarding eating other animals we do have a choice could I also mention if you really really really want to keep leaving if you're really really interested in plants advocacy as well you might want to realize that the animals you are eating more plants incorrectly so by going vegan you actually save plants as well so the animal I'm saving the plants on you cry me the onion has emotions and releases things that make me cry I provide the study actually I think you guys carry on something I'm gonna go right wind plans there is no need for them to be sentient because they cannot move from danger big-big hell they don't so amazing no don't buy a suit right I don't think you should plant that's an existence they can't move respond to stimulus but they do move like towards sunlight they grow towards sunlight but she what she's talking about is there like an information processing not sentience exactly right we can we can make technology that does that but has no perception plants don't have perception that's the difference they don't have sentience technology doesn't have calculators and well is a calculator sent in that's like a but we can make a sentient computer that's not an argument for sentience versus oh you want to provide evidence for that because botanist scientists plant perception Oh from and look at that we'll get the picture the black and white image from the 1800 job change I mean we learned a that's it no nothing ever changes we know we know it's a morgue vegans vegans hate plants you just you can't get around it I hate them with a passion I want to interject honest you're breaking up a little bit we put humans above other animals it's just that there's not a difference between them that we would not and non-arbitrary dip you know you this guy is not very bright I'm not sure first start with classified super predators from star is are we obligatory obligate carnivores no we are omnivores our teeth we do not uh our biology does not obligate us to consume meat correct we have teeth to consume meat or molars insects and small mice nothing like what we cows need larger canines for that and you would have to chew like upwards to swallow a large amount of the venturing from side to side its we're not really supposed to be in large amounts I mean animals who do have very many gorillas have canines and they do eat small animals but our biology doesn't we work in favor of plants have astounding abilities to sense & react to this world but you know I mean those same as your iPhone so I you know why not eat it eat your electronics you know I mean this plant right everyone so this guy here the study this is one of the guys I studies plants and I tweeted him to ask him ah plants sentient so there we go you can see he's a plant scientist and a plant sentient I don't think plants are intelligent all sentient I was going to say things there's the guy who wrote the study about plants sentience saying no oh yeah when was that study done pretty recent BBC 2016 that says the opposite well I even distinguish what sentience is so I wouldn't trust your ability to understand the study sure can you can you define sense of meaning wait wait wait can you define sense are you able to define sense in a way that would make me confident in your ability to actually understand the word can you do that can you do it I don't think I have to prove myself to you and that's a real douchebag move to be quite honest you guys asked for studies you guys asked for fucking evidence and I just put a shitload of documentaries and studies but yeah hey whatever he shows it's study from God knows why with a black and white photo of some fucking fries you're right plants are fucking okay dazzle friended under Adam what was your opinion on sentience I think you guys just hate solar you guys are totally against solar that's why you hate plants your opinion honestly what do you think no plants aren't sentient come on ok cool right so if you all agree except for Aaron I don't know that bugs are sentient even why they're there you know you're actually you really push it there there's most people that study fish and marine biology would disagree with you there but insects at least most of them I mean cockroaches you can get a little bit more blurry there because they actually have what is what is the definition of sentience I mean what are you saying I don't know not around you to react to it yeah yeah I think you should like the actual literal definition I'll give you the literal fucking definition yes to perceive or feel things that's the definition you do you understand the difference between proceeding and reacting to stimulus might to it wait do you understand what consciousness is Jesus Christ you asked for sentient now it's consciousness now the plants be conscious I think it's our conscious quite honest hey you ever watch a sunflower move to the Sun is that not it being sentient when I dragged my screen to open up the lock on the phone you're saying that this is scent it's reacting to stimulus it's it's it's quotation marks preceding reality I don't think you understand that it's not feeling it it doesn't feel things the sense eight against the screen it's reacting to it guys can we just please note that the article she's linked me quite clearly says plants intelligence and I search for the word sentience it's not even mentioned within the article this is not evidence of the documentaries will show you plants reacting to their stimulus that self-driving cars will move them well the way of danger they are intelligent but whatever yeah you're right ok ok I I really think you need to look at plant paranormal perception versus plant perception physiology because there's a very clear differentiation between the two and they're not so pleasant on each other study it a little bit and then please to date studies and what you guys have given yourself the chance to even look into and you just like tell yourself that plants are these non feeling objects so that way you feel good while you're consuming them but animals feel and you should feel bad well plants feel too but you don't want to accept them I just defunct your own article that you saw you didn't you didn't that was the one use because I said a fucking bunch of them why don't you look at all of them reading ability to be quite honest yeah I sent you a study that wasn't applicable you take what you want out of whatever it is to fake your agenda taking what you wanted because when we stated that so much deforestation is down to animal agriculture so many of the crops that we produce about them but then again I stated right from the beginning of this I'm not talking about corporate farming that's all you guys talk about you don't want to talk about the fact that there are people who actually raise their own animals and slaughter their own animals they let those animals run free they feed those animals daily they love those animals and then they do the slaughtering in a very respectful manner just like painless and quick wait but you guys don't want to see that you want to compare it all to pigs trapped in fucking cages where they can't lose okay guys can I do some 30 commander ii ii ii ii Chris for the sake for the sake of the audience we bond from this nonsense because this is just ridiculous whether or not plants are sentient is completely irrelevant because within the biological system do you have the capacity to not talk and to just self-regulate yourself changing the subject I'm explaining why your arguments bunk so let him speak yes taking the energy from the Sun and they turn that into carbon-based life they are the only organisms that are capable of doing though that so without plants animals do not exist okay so animals need plants to exist so whether or not they're intelligent we're sentient is irrelevant we would still require them to be able to subsist you do not need animals to subsist that is the difference if you do not understand that difference now you will never understand that difference can we also just marry mind this is the other study she linked us once again plant intelligence no sign of the word sentience within the article just wanted to point out how much more evidence do we need to show now I mean do you think bacteria are sentient viruses are sentient viruses aren't even alive I know I know I'm seriously asking does she think bacteria are sent it does she think viruses are sensing quite do you as soon as you become a cell does it start becoming sentient or or are Adam sentient like I'm asking serious questions right Nick you might show me you don't eat bacterium you're eating plants okay sorry no that's what you're eating your diet well if bacteria was sentient then there would be moral qualms about b12 not your diet right I'm going to the point that you guys try to shame people who eat any kind of meat or fish or milk or cheese you try to shame them for doing that is if you're morally superior and they say well plants also feel now that is like no they don't well I'm showing you they do article consistency logical consistency do you understand logical consistency sentient which one both neither can you mean happy fucking question thank you and we do eat bacteria because and muting me maybe I could answer the question one the conversation [Laughter] oh no you're not going the words of violence direction are you come on I'm actually I have to take off soon so I just jumped in because I wanted to know like I didn't want your questions go unanswered like I don't want to be perceived as being dishonest I'm trying to be as honest as I can but there's this thing where morality is is based on the unconscious so really I mean I'm guessing as much as anyone elses I don't know why I feel this way right you know I think you're you know positive guy I like your effect I'd like to talk about you come with like in regards to morality completely detached from veganism sometime I think there's new topic because like I have one simple question that you know I've always kind of concerned me do you uh would you say like all subjective experience you know our consciousness our that is all derived from physical processes within the universe so from systems from atoms from you know I'm asking if violence no like well not further than biological I mean it's it has to fundamentally come down to some physical properties of the universe right I am pretty close to a biological determinist I'm reading Robert Sapolsky book now behave and Robert Sapolsky is a biological 212 pretty much biological determined it's kind of like a weird way to phrase it because you if you ask any physicist they'll say that the universe is deterministic so um and in totally we have freewill as human beings and I don't necessarily know that we have free will well of course not free well is a bunk concept it's paradoxical listen you don't believe in free will you're a biological determinist no I'm a physicist it's determinist in terms of the universe being deterministic and so far is it that it may not be determinist okay we'll have randomness at only the quantum level and that stills no concept of free will that you can derive from your chance right okay so here's you're saying the randomness comes up from the point no I don't actually and take that on that position but like insofar as like any legitimate physicist could offer you a non completely deterministic universe they would only be able to offer you ran on this at purely just the quantum level and I mean free well I think is a bunk concept even if the universe do you think dude yeah dude do you believe in free will no no I think it's a fun concept that even if the universe wasn't deterministic that it's itself paradoxical and causes an infinite regress inherently which oh do you believe in free will I I'm not no no no like I think that it causes infinite regress like you don't think freewill okay yeah yeah yes yeah so as far as like free will I mean do you believe that there should be like systems in place that kind of just an AI certain moral action like certain yeah actions alright like I believe in I believe in free will I think that you have to believe in free will even have free will exist but I think there's a level Oh Michaels like there-there are you have I think you have a lot less choice and people believe that they have let's put it that way well you know I'm fine with compatibilism to a point as long as you're actually you know accepting the basic principles of the universe but friend I have a quick question before you go if you have a second you know like the universe is almost certainly deterministic and you know consciousness almost well it has to come from some sort of principles of the universe right like whether it's chemistry biology physics right so then subjective experience comes down to objective principles so I actually don't understand even so far as we say you're a moral subjectivist I mean if if subjectivity is inherently an objective process then fundamentally you'd still be objective unless you believed in magic but aren't we arguing I mean we're arguing two different things because if if we're talking about an objective morality that's like the best system for maximizing human happiness or whatever objective that you want whether or not we can reach that objective morality is a completely separate question right yeah a hundred percent yeah it's kind of yeah I'm gonna I'm gonna go anyways that answer your question conversation with you follow me on Twitter I'll follow you back DM me take care
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Transcripts for sourcing.

Post by NonZeroSum »

____________


A Discussion of Morality - Darren McStravick, Vegan Gains & Ask Yourself


youtube streaming still kinda sucks are we live all right what's going on people today's the day Martin's not here yet because I think because Isaac told me you might not actually yeah good it's possible that yet will never come because I think he is past it yeah so basically we've got three-quarters of what could be the four horsemen for rational veganism other I would think I would be the fourth Horseman I'd be surprised but yeah alright somewhere I'll be the squire fine all right so basically today we're going to be discussing some fruit deep shit I first want to start with discussing why say for instance Isaac's or Richards mole theory to get to get off the ground and get warmed up so the basic stuff like discussing utilitarianism II Diamond ISM anything like that that's really basic and then will branch on tomato ethics so we'll start to discuss like the epistemology and ontology of our morality which will then lead us into deontology and consequentialism and discussing whether either one of them are valid or necessitated by all moral frameworks and that and of itself will lead into the second part the second major part of the string which will basically be cause of your mind neuro philosophy and how it relates to morality and the different fundamental types of morality like say for instance moral realism this is moral subjectivism and after we finish with that massive part because trust me it's gonna be it's gonna be pretty big but it's still gonna be within relatively understandable parameters you know and then the third part the this is the final major portion of the string we're gonna discuss the best direct offensive arguments for veganism so we'll get like the opinions of Richard Isaac and enough if Martin shows up we'll get is a pity missile and then also how we should advocate or be an advocate and activist for veganism to promote rational ethical thought then we'll discuss things like a antinatalism of politics and changing minds and then the new contentions to name the trait argument and if Martin's here I'm gonna ask him a couple questions so let's get started the first pot smoker sorry I yeah I just want to make sure I follow what you're talking about because you'll lose me with a lot of lingo so you're gonna get me asking for you to explain things in simple person speak yeah so you said there's basically three parts so the first part you want to talk about just our personal ethics then the second part you want to talk about consequentialism and deontology and then the third part which for anyone who doesn't know that's like rural based ethics versus consequence based ethics and then the third part you want to talk about what was the third thing you said there I was the third the third part third major partners is an assortment of subjects oh yeah you want to talk about kind of like effective activism and the best arguments for veganism and then you said just kind of random questions and shit yeah that's right so the final part would be basically just audience Q&A


Moral Theory: 3:35


so we start from the start and work our way to the finish all right so so this one will go straight to Isaak first and I'll ask for Richards appear you know what a normative ethical framework are you partial to what and why so be it consequential audiological that much doesn't matter yet but do subscribe to utilitarianism which means that intrinsic goods must be prone or promoted for an action to be moral do you subscribe to concert categorical imperatives which is that normative rationalized behaviors to a common universal principle are moral or do you subscribe to virtue ethics where behavior that is conducive to normative or true goods are moral or do finally subscribe to intuition ISM which is that morality is a process evolves based on an understanding of duty so which would you say which theory would you say it best describes your personal ethics utilitarianism category categorical and prep imperatives virtue ethics or intuition ISM if you need me to restate I said with the definition of h1 go ahead so as ik would you say B would be the best ethical theory to your ethics well in all honesty there and I'm always a little unsure where I fall in this I know like just starting with consequentialism and deontology I mean I I think that where I fit there almost depends on how you define those terms because if you're talking about deontology in a sufficiently narrow sense then I don't think I'm a deontologist because I picture narrow deontology being like following pretty narrow like rural or set of rules and kind of like not bending on them regardless of context like punch that's wrong in all contexts I don't subscribe to that kind of narrow deontology but by a sufficiently broad definition of deontology you could call me at the ontology but I mean once you go to that brett the consequentialism is going to be a deontological framework because it's based on the principle of maximizing well-being which is still a rule albeit a more kind of broad almost like algorithmic type of rule yes so I actually in all honesty and I have trouble placing where I fit there okay so because I'm here an example I'll give you an example and this is like yeah I mean talking about virtue Essex and intuition ISM that's that's like going to a whole other than making it a tetra kata me going there we can in a minute maybe but just with deontology and consequentialism like for example I think that there's areas where I don't align with either framework I mean there's things where the action that is consequentially the best that will produce the best outcome in terms of well-being I'm not actually in favor of so if for example you could say it's like quantitatively true that you know killing one person and giving their organs away to other people's would create more well-being or if you could say it's you know just quantitatively true that allowing you know a bunch of guys to like roofie and rape a girl and then like bring her back home and tuck her in and she like never notice will actually produce more well-being I still have a problem with those actions because they violate the principle of logical consistency because I don't want those things done to myself and the best consequential arguments I've seen to get around things like that come from Sam Harris and there's still pragmatic arguments so I'm not satisfied with them I mean he'll say that a society where we pass a law where it's okay to harvest organs forcibly to save the maximum number of people would be a bad Society and that it would lead to people living in fear and stuff like this and I agree with that this a pragmatic argument but that doesn't actually tell you why in principle in a philosophical abstract where for example no one's ever going to know about it the action is wrong so there's some areas where I don't align with consequentialism and then deontology I mean I feel like I feel it sometimes that I'm more partial to deontology but I don't I don't know I'm not sure that I would line up with deontology in all situations either I guess it depends on what your set of rules yes yeah okay we'll discuss that in more depth later on in the stream but Richard would you say best aligns to your ethics utilitarianism categorical imperatives virtue ethics or evolutionism I will actually took a one more thing up go ahead and sorry so much I just want to say I think that there's also a chance that I might fit a position that's called rule consequentialism which is basically like you're still concerned with maximizing well-being reducing suffering but there's also certain rules that you accept based on understanding that it it will produce the most well-being of the type you want though I mean you might be able to say that there's like higher level rules that you can create while still holding to a consequential kind of framework so I just thought I'd mentioned that too but sorry please go ahead yeah I'm not too familiar with these terms but I just kind of follow the rule where you try to maximize individual rights but restrict rights where it interferes with others rights in general well-being so like murder stealing those things like obviously they have to be restricted because they interfere with others rights and well-beings but something like owning firearms doesn't necessarily interfere with anyone's well-being it's just like it's just a personal choice personal right but if you want that you should be able to have it so yeah um yeah I'm just not too familiar with familiar familiar with the terms and the way Isaac described it it seems like there's like you can always find weird little exceptions - you know - these ideas where it doesn't totally fit so I don't think I'd really say I subscribe to any kind of you know moral philosophy like that yes so yeah I'll throw in one other thing cuz like covered areas where I have trouble with consequentialism and I'm not satisfied with the responses because they're they're all pragmatic they don't tell you why these situations are wrong in principle but areas where I disagree with deontology it depends on the breadth of your definition of deontology so like if you try to hold some kind of narrow principle like say that someone tries to hold like the non-aggression principle dianna logically like it's it's always wrong to aggress against someone who's not aggressing against you okay well you can either address against some innocent person who's just like picking you know daisies in a field or the earth explodes well deontological ii if you would actually have to say that the right thing to do is to let the earth explode because you're going to hold to the rule so if you pick an arrow rule like that or if you try to go with some like ridiculously narrow rule like like never punch or something it's like that.i those just lead to absurdities but once you get sufficiently broad with your definition of deontology I mean if the ontology is rural based systems then bias efficiently broad definition consequential is is actually a deontological system because it's following a rule so once you get to that kind of like breadth of definition then I think that it might start I start becoming more partial to deontology yeah I understand that because when when you start to use nutritionism yeah so sorry sorry go ahead yeah that's right we start to use these main structural terms as accommodating of the other then yeah of course they do fall in line and I would suggest that there needs to be other deflation astoria comma dating approach to ethics that basically aligns a lot of the mold furies aligns a lot of the approaches to moral theory so that's like consequentialism versus the ontology they don't necessarily need to be in rivalry with each other but we'll get to that kind of stuff later on so I think we've already in 40 years did I think there's way wait there's no doubt that narrow deontology is is absolutely mutually exclusive to consequentialism yeah a broad broad deontology contains consequentialism yeah but I definitely don't think it's all around false dichotomy or something yeah all right you want to talk about virtue ethics and intuition ISM you might need to give me like general definitions on those but I can tell you what I think about them I'm sure Richard can tell you what he thinks about them all right so I guess we'll start with virtue ethics virtue ethics is basically positing that behavior that is conducive to normative or true goods is what qualifies morals so that which is moral will be behavior that's conducive to normative or true goods well I mean that sounds like you just depend on your definition of good exactly so the definition of good would have to is literally just that which is desired or approved of it sounds like it sounds like by that definition if you were to define good as that which maximizes well-being consequentialism would fit within it yeah well I don't know I'm not sure really how to say what I think about that and intuition ISM is that basically the idea that we all we morals are just like intuitive personal things we have and and moral discussion is just an attempt to rationalize the intuitions yeah effectively it's it's the equivalence of monism but um well I don't know what exactly we mean to call it moral Darwinism but if it is what I said it is which I'm not sure I don't look into all the different theories I'm more concerned with just really like common-sense thinking about ethics okay so if I'm saying it's my dollars I'm saying the equivalence of whenever it's socially accepted to like a maximal degree not a maximal degree but a very prevalent but it slowly yeah good when you're talking about moral Darwinism like I don't know it kind of insinuates that it would actually be productive or beneficial to have the sort of moral outlook like is is that what you mean like after yet productive yeah official me okay productive but in a very blind since like in the same way that say Francis someone's psychology of like what they know their body should be eating will be dependent on what they've eaten in the past and not necessarily what will absolutely be best for them in the new situations so it's still it's blind so that's what I'm saying is stylistic because it's most towards survival of the fittest moral theory well yeah I mean the fittest moral theory isn't necessarily the one that I would I think is ethical but if the idea I mean I always thought intuition ISM it comes from like the literally the notion that we are our ethics come from intuition and that we think we're coming up with logical arguments but we're like really like coming up with kind of like post hoc rationalizations and that is what it means if supports to it I think that I am I think that that is very true largely speaking but I also and I think that people who promote that kind of you like I think that's like John Hay right like I think that that people who promote that kind of you still understand that you can argue other people into moral positions so I think that it's like descriptively true to say that that's a lot of what's happening with ethics but I don't I don't know that that tells me anything about what we should actually be doing what I think we should be doing yeah that's right I don't think I don't think the moral good is just our intuitions I think there still need for like discussion end that's right because otherwise it's category less and completely vacuous so unless we're willing to


Meta-Ethics: 15:56


met ethics unless unless you have more things to bring up regarding no no I mean I don't have any more hope that that's sufficiently clear I'm not super knowledgeable all the different ethical theories yeah that's absolutely fine man but yeah on to medics so this one is basically directed to you and Richard so what are your meta ethical views and why so we'll start off with your epistemological commitments and end with your ontological commitments so sort of we're starting with epistemology what do you guys think is the meaning of moral statements so are they beliefs propositions or prescriptions what are they um well if you're talking about like I mean I could tell you what my meta ethics are unless you want to go first Richard um no you go ahead okay I just died asks I've been talking a lot um I would basically say that morality does not exist objectively it doesn't exist without a subject there to actually consider something moral so the conditions that we would evaluate as moral those exist objectively there's a mathematical truth to what will produce the most well-being like I completely agree with all that but the notion that that's actually good is fundamentally subjective you have to define good on a subjective level so ontologically in terms of how i think morality exists it exists subjectively and talk about the ontology of morality off we've exhausted the epistemology of human relatives so just what does what does what well for me it for me it really makes more sense to go the opposite way and then with the pistils LD well I've already gone through ecology and then for epistemology what I would say is I think how like how do we know and how can we know like I think that once you define what you actually mean by morality then you can just approach it exactly like you would approach like science or math or anything else and you can just use the tools of Investigation from you know from science from logic from whatever domain to just determine what will produce the most good so I think I think epistemologically once you've actually like defined what you mean by good then you can approach like determining in reality what types of actions are good in a just like fundamentally mathematical objective way so people like it idiots like philosophical vegan don't understand that ontologically I'm a subjectivist epistemologically I'm an Objectivist they seem to have trouble with that and it boggles their minds a little bit but it seems pretty logical obviously it doesn't exist objectively obviously once you define it you can talk objectively about it and at that sense its epistemological approach the same as any other branch of science and by analogy I would just say this is very similar to something like light for example so I mean the color blue that's our subjective experience of light of wavelength I think 450 to 495 nanometers right so that's subjective experience of blue that is entirely subjective blue does not exist without a subject to perceive blue where does it exist if there's no one there to perceive it the light frequency still exists objectively though and once you define blue as that light frequency then you can talk objectively about what is or is not blue so I would just apply the exact same thing to morality it's not actively true say that a given thing is moral but once you define morality you can talk objectively about what is moral we discussed that in particular when we start to delve into the philosophy of mind talking about dualism and monism but we won't be printing to two technical territories we'll just keep it nice and yeah I guess laymen yeah a trouble area for me I have the holes there Cobain's um so Richard what do you think is the meaning of moral statements so do you think they're like a supposed to be beliefs propositions or prescriptions well we should do I I'm pretty much in perfect agreement with Isaac there I think morality is subjective but once you can agree upon some sort of moral framework then you can objectively prove within that framework whether or not something is you know moral or good or bad yeah like I don't really have too much else to say about that like I really just think like morality to me is subjective but I think it is a useful like a useful trait that we evolved to have and I and I know with rodent experiments we've discovered that morality arises from social contact so you know for you know living beings you have to be able to to form social contracts you do have to have some sort of implicit morality there to be able to cooperate and that's really where morality arises from Colette you know like we it we've we can agree upon certain moral frameworks like it's wrong to kill within our society and you know based on those sort of fundamental assumptions we can objectively prove within that framework whether or not some things more learn of course it would be the could you say that there is an objectively right framework um no no not like not necessarily not unless we agree on some base fundamental assumptions cool cool so do you think it is naivete delusion or sophistry that mainly leads us to different answers or moral truths just relative to each individual um I wouldn't say they're relative to each individual because when you argue with people especially about veganism they're like they're incredibly self contradictory so I think it is delusion in most cases like I mean most human beings like unless you're sociopath or psychopath or you follow some crazy and say in religion like Islam yeah we can agree on like basic like we can agree on very basic moral prints principles like it's wrong to kill it's wrong to steal it's wrong to rape like we you know our ideas of morality are pretty consistent across cultures but for whatever reason like when you say okay well why is it okay to you know kill a cow but like they end up contradicting themselves so I'd say it has a lot to do with delusions okay beautiful so it's both of you guys is morality universal or is it relative so are there traits that are necessarily moral and or immoral when you say that that's not what it means to be universal if the universal doesn't mean that it like necessarily has to be one particular way it just means that it's applicable in all contexts you know like dogs morality Universal like some moralities are universal some aren't so I guess someone has a particular istic morality they think it just applies to them so that's not a universal morality someone has a universal morality that can tell you what's right or wrong in all contexts like if they think whatever maximizes well-being is what's good then you could I mean that's universal yeah when you ask it is morality universal or not well I mean some are and some aren't okay so I think we've exhausted that particular part of the room


Normative Ethics 23:35


so now it's time to actually talk about particularly deontology and consequentialism so I'm just touching over because it is a very important subject and a very contentious subject so I thought this is yeah I know we did talk about it but just felt a little bit feather into it because oh okay yeah we're just going to plan so sure sure sure this is just directed to both of you guys so do you actually agree yeah Alice if you if you guys have subscribed to geology ontological consequential ethics so just get that one how and why did we come to different ethical frameworks why does deontology and consequentialism and consequentialism have a rivalry in the first place why are they so incredibly like butting of heads well do you mean like conceptually why or like psychologically when historically what explains that let's let's go with a bit of both that well well conceptually they butt heads because if well like I mean here we're talking about narrow deontology because again a broad definition of technology includes consequentialism because it's based on a rule yeah but if you're talking about narrow deontology well conceptually the reason they butt heads is because they generate different answers so I mean if you have what I would pick your deontological principle I mean let's say hitting is wrong okay well there's someone who's who's raping a child and you only have your fists I mean is hitting still wrong in that context well I mean if the rule is that hitting is wrong then yes if you're concerned with the consequences and I mean there's different forms of consequentialism but the general form is some kind of concerned with well-being and suffering well then no that gives you a different answer that tells you that the right thing to do is to hit that person so yeah they butt heads because they generate different answers and then why do people hold those two views that I have actually to be honest not thought of it I honestly don't know what draws people to those two views I think deontology is maybe like narrow deontology is kind of like appealing to people because it's very totalizing and it kind of like gives you answers to everything and you can you can like speak very categorically about stuff I think that could be part of it kind of like I mean religious morality is deontological and that's definitely like definitely a thing that that gives religious people they're kind of like conviction and strength like just having this rule set basically why are people drawn to consequentialism I think well I mean I honestly I don't know I think it's just intuitively obvious people that they're concerned with the consequences of their actions so I I don't know really what explains why people take to the to positions but I hope I've done a good job of saying why they fight heads conceptually yes you have good sir so what would you say would be the main a fundamental building up to reaching either one what is like the main argument for consequentialism will be the main argument for deontology reaching such not necessarily what how efficacious either one are for reaching moral conclusion but why do we are why we arrive at our the consequentialism or Dion tell deontology in a very argumentative methodological sense and should we inevitably reject one or accept Bosch well you can't accept both if you're talking about narrow deontology and consequently because they're logically incompatible so I mean I definitely categorically reject narrow deontology it doesn't make sense and then if you talk at ATCO broad deontology it's a false dichotomy so it's it's not necessarily clear to me I don't know okay so um which you actually call yourself a multi Ward's deontology or consequentialism I don't know um when I think of morals I don't necessarily think of causing like trying to create the most amount of good necessarily I think of it more in terms of freedom and rights okay but have no other freedom in rights well uh I think like I just value freedom and like personal responsibility above just trying to produce the best overall well-being arrive at non coming to this type of ethics and that sounds kind of very similar to to how friend ed tentative yeah like I mean like I can I can put it this way like if you're looking at things from a consequentialist perspective like you could say firearms ownership is bad because like even though I don't agree with this but just for the sake of argument like the more people who own firearms the more people get shot right so I don't necessarily agree with that but let's just say for the sake of argument that's true well just in that situation I personally value like the personal freedom of being able to own firearms and defend myself adequately over say safety and general safety of the population yeah you can actually argue a consequentialist view that is geared towards gun ownership that more people yeah so you could yeah when it comes to these extensional ethics like rights the choosing what kind of stuff it yeah okay it's it's highly context based so you can basically all I think in that context though he was just making the assumption that it is in fact true that got more guns on the street means more deaths but I understand yeah consequentially maybe we could we can argue like more cars on the road more car accidents or deaths like that is that have an effect like we could we could do that and like you could argue okay well if you like if we just make it so it's illegal for people to drive cars and take that right away from them that could save lives potentially like I say the freedom of being able to drive is worth more than just the general well-being that people have of you know reducing death or risk of injury and accidents so I don't know I just place more moral value over rights and freedoms then say well-being and again it's going to kind of depend on context to have two things that I want to say here so one of them is that it's hard to argue against a consequentialist on something as broad as like you know reducing the speed limit or something because I'll just point out all the bad consequences that would happen in a society if we actually like you know got rid of driving or reduce the speed limit to 5 or something and argue that those negative consequences actually just outweigh the amount of people who would be like the good of the lives that would be saved so I think if you wanna like I mean I totally get what you're saying and I hear you but I and I go to talk about my issues with consequentialism I'm usually focused on like the philosophical abstracts where they can't like kind of appeal to the Cascade right lenses where it's like okay well let's just reduce it to one situation it's like raping this girl is gonna maximize well-being no one's ever gonna know about it you can't appeal to what it's gonna do to society you can't appeal to some other set of consequences that aren't present in the situation we're just talking about this is it ethical and then it becomes a lot harder for them to talk about it because they have to say on principle it's wrong to rape but they don't want you because consequentially it's like well it's gonna produce the most well being so which do you go for and then the other thing I want to say was just not sure I fully appreciated your question a little while ago Darren like you're asking like methodologically to explain why like why people choose one or the other what's the strongest argument or something I don't know but one thing that comes to my head with all of that is like the strongest arguments for both appear to be pointing to the absurdity of the other I mean like the consequentialist will just point to the absurdity of narrow deontology and that's totally valid I mean narrow deontology is pretty crazy and then narrow deontologists will you know or maybe just general deontologist will point to absurdities that consequentialism generates so I think some of the strongest arguments are like an absurdity is that both positions produce I think there's also a biological reason why I like people lean to either side like like in most societies I know there are obvious exceptions but like it's wrong to have sex with your sister or your mother like incest is really look down upon and it's seen as immoral but like if a brother and sister are consenting like what's exactly immoral about that like when you really think about it like it's not really harming anyone right right it's not really harming anyone but the the biological reason for like why we'd see it is immoral is just because in like incest leads to just really just functional any a champ so like there is a like there is a biological route to immorality so that can actually flannel a certain people we like go down certain paths when they think of morality no that's I would get me ready to rock but sorry yeah no no I was just saying I mean that's a good account of why someone would just like deontological II opposed incest because there is no consequentialist argument against non-procreative incest I've never heard one at least so I was well I mean you can try talking about actual action between two people that doesn't produce any negative consequences then I don't understand how you can say it's negative not into it but yeah you know sure enough I'll think of it some other time we'll probably discuss that in a bit more depth well then we'll fleshed out perhaps in another stream the future whenever and honestly like when we're talking about things like that like morality there are certain things that fucking gross us out like it can like you can talk about meta ethics and like weird different ethical theories all you want but I mean sometimes it's just that simple like shit just grosses us out or it's weird yeah and yeah I mean obviously just to be clear I'm sure Richard you're not saying that's like a moral argument but you're saying sometimes nation of why we yeah totally yeah it's just response and and again that is sort of linked to biology yes and I would also point out that like I like when I try to make arguments for me it's like I don't like to bog them down with unnecessary levels of complexity like I want to argue something that everyone can understand like anyone who's well anyone with a brain I mean if you if you have common sense and you can like process language you should be able to understand what a contradiction is and you should be able to understand that if you put if you allow contradictions in your ethical system then you can't argue against other people doing the same and you lose all your own rights and you can like you know you can argue people into some of these things yeah my mind what if you argue from an arbitrary standpoint to say as if that morality is in fact like say for instance with arrow Theory the subjectivist arrow theory that all moral statements are false unequivocally I mean yeah I I do have an opinion on that yeah with yeah oh that's that's I mean it's technically true because moral statements are only true conditional and they're true conditional on the assumption that you've actually defined morality like I mean it's not it's not objectively true to say it's it's good to not rape your mom I mean it's it's good it's objectively true what if you define good as that which maximizes well-being or you know any definition that excludes raping your mom but it's not like on its own the statement doesn't have truth value you have to actually insert a definition of morality for it to be true so I and I am just saying yeah we're an era theorist comes from and all I was getting at before is just like you should like I just don't like to bog people down too much with crazy levels of philosophy I'm happy to talk about it happy to learn about it but when arguing for something as simple as veganism it's just like we don't I mean we don't even need to get into the complexities of ethical like for this conversation it's great idea but in general it's like we don't need to get into the complexities of like multiple ethical systems unless you're going to explain why you want contradiction in your moral system in your personal subjective moral system then I mean I just idea red herring like if someone tried to go to this kind of turf in a debate about veganism I would absolutely not even let them go there you know what I mean yeah that's there would you say that um because I had this brought up with sort of a forward conversation that if you appeal to the absurdity of your opponents moral framework is that not an appeal to popularity I to the popular conception of absurdity but sorry go ahead though yeah yeah like I'd say no because like again there's a biological link you know there's a biological like morality how do I say this there's a biological link between us and morality so if something seems absurd to us then like if it leads down a path where it ends up like justify genocide then and everyone thinks that's absurd and wrong then I think that kind of proves that your moral system like just won't function like people have to accept the moral system and it has to like somewhat be in line with our biology that sorry it has to be in line with our biology to some extent like if a moral system would yeah it's just my mom it's not important yeah like if I mean if people won't accept the biological Sittler sorry if people won't accept the moral system and it seems absurd to them and it's totally counterintuitive to our biology where we want well-being and we want to have offspring and be successful then I think that shows that the moral system just doesn't function at least on any like practical level and it has to function on a practical level like the reason we have these like moral systems is entirely out of like necessity like it's just a valuable utility so if you show that it leads to absurdities then I think that proves that it just doesn't work yeah like I want to say one or two things there with it's pointing out that something is a you asked if playing out if something as absurd is an appeal to popularity well yeah that seems like it would only be true if you're appealing to the popular conception of absurdity I mean you like if someone can still accept an absurd moral system it's just if you point out that someone's system is absurd most people are gonna be like okay well I'm not on board with their reasoning like if you like with destiny or someone for example like Richard just got him to acknowledge that his system like just he doesn't have a problem with genocide and stuff like this and you know most people listening to that even carnist s-- are like they're not agreeing with him they're like even people are still gonna go and eat their fucking bake and they're like there's still some bullshit reason to eat bacon but they're not buying into his reasoning because Richard has exposed it as being so absurd so I mean it's not like a morality becomes a actively wrong because it's absurd because it was never objectively right in the first place but yeah like with murdered no one's gonna buy into it yeah like morality is just inherently subjective to begin with so you know people have to agree upon it so it's not really an appeal to popularity it's just like moral systems have to be agreed upon or else they they just don't work so I wouldn't say that's an appeal to popularity how about the celerity standed instead of being satisfactory to an approval rate sorry can you say that again so how about satisfactory to an actual set of standards that are conducive to moral conclusions rather than being satisfactory or satisfying of popular or popular opinion but what typically al genome tends to gravitate towards so could we not I just said okay I hear you are you making a distinction between you know what likes satisfying the populace or satisfying some set of principles but I don't understand what you're asking about right now with those type of things isn't necessarily the case that we have morality that is geared towards satisfying what typically arises in our genomes our preferences as human beings typically well I mean it's it's not it's not well typically sure necessarily no I mean people can there's there's weird people who would accept a fucked-up moral system there are just mentally unstable people out there but I mean generally sure I'm sure that like the kind of like I mean I don't think there's any doubt I mean Richards laid it out a bunch of times but it's just there's obviously a biological component here absolutely all right so if he does live because the biological component can generate negative aspects of morality but it's still rooted in biology that's where it comes from right so now we're going exhausted the subject enough if you guys have any any extra caveats or perhaps any extra points to make go ahead Richard but if not no I think I'm good same here all right


Part 2 - The Nitty Gritty of Morality and Existence The Philosophy of Mind, Neurophilosophy and the Ontology of Morality: 42:10


so let's move on to basically the philosophy of mind this is going to be more geared towards Isaac but if you have answers to the Richard please feel free to express them so it is going to be the force of mind your philosophy and how it relates to basically the ontology of morality so a little bit of a specialization on that point of focuses bounds above my pay grade but I'm down to here yes let's list let's get started so Isaac are you a joist or monist on the subject of the philosophy of mind if either why so if you're a monist do you follow physical idealism or neutral monism I think that the position that I hold is called substance dualism I think that what I believe is that there's two kinds of stuff in the universe there's mental stuff stuff that's happening subjectively and then there's you know stuff that's not mental stuff that's happening objectively regardless of whether a subject is there so I believe that there is mind and there's matter okay we might be able to argue for some other category like some people will try to argue that certain things like math like I don't know this kind of shit in depth but there's stuff like Platonism right and I think that's it contains these ideas like that you know there's like perfect objects that exist conceptually like a perfect rectangle or a perfect circle or you know I think there's no such thing as a perfect but anyway so the idea that there's certain like mathematical concepts and ideas that our true regardless of anyone is there to see them and I think it's true that they're true but I'm not sure what it means to say that they exist I mean it the truth exists that if an object is dropped in you know around the planet it's gonna fall to the planet but that doesn't necessarily mean that that thing actually exists anywhere in the universe at that time yeah so I mean as far as I can tell there's two categories I'm I'm open yeah yes there's a third but it seems like when people argue for that third category it's like pure math and stuff like this that I don't actually see that they're saying that it exists I see that they're saying that it's true so I'm not I'm not sure they're yeah dualism is the closest to what I've yeah what do you think truth is if it's not a correspondence to what occurs in reality truth is a really hard thing to define I mean that's pretty much the death and it is that definition of truth true that's another really good question well I mean now you just approach like the level of definitions I mean you can define truth in different ways you can be Jordan Peterson and define truth in an internally consistent but unreasonably cumbersome way and spend an arc you spend an hour arguing with sam Harris about it but I mean I think that like generally speaking just a functional useful definition of truth that just like pragmatically make sense and works for us is you know that which corresponds most accurately to reality okay would that not be arbitrary in of itself what do you mean when you say that's arbitrary my definition of sure isn't if it's yeah a definition of truth well I mean all definitions are on some level arbitrary I mean you you can yeah I like when you're defining things you're defining things I think that's the most useful notion of truth I mean I don't know what a competing notion of truth is that would be useful ya know do you think like the definition of chair like four legged object that you sit on is like a good it's like yeah seems pretty like functional it seems like it's gonna serve our purposes maybe you can like lay it out more clearly maybe there's some better definition and I'm not gonna say that's objectively what it means to be a chair because the language is a human construct so I mean all I can say is that that's the most functional reasonable definition I've heard it goes for enough but a little bit I know you said that your substance substance duelist you know sense I guess you could say I think that kind of accommodates Cartesian dualism physical monism and also idealism Moines ISM yeah you'd have to describe those things to me that's out of yes so Cartesian dualism is to say that two independent substances exists that the mind is a substance in love itself and that the physical is a substance in love itself and that these are the only two types of substances that are or occur in reality as far as I can tell that's that's what I believe right there let's continue okay with the other two so your physical physicalist monism is basically to say that there are two substances that exist but mental substances sorrysorrysorry physicalist monism I thought I thought we were talking about types of dualism right now yet I'm talking my Ives types of substance dualism so basically that there are two substances that also so did you just say fill us off why'd you call it philosophical monism it's a to get physical physical Asst physicalist Hellenism how is physicalist monism part of substance dualism I don't understand that because that talks about two different substances and how they relate to each other so okay just just define it for me I can tell you if I believe it or not okay so physical list you are monism would be that the physical is the superordinate to this sub ordinate of the mental so mental concepts like the mind color hate perception they're all subordinates to the physical state of affairs which makes them the equivalence of such a physical states of affairs so they're one in the same technically but to delineate the two they need to be separate substances in a very loose sense and okay well let me answer that before you go to a third one so I definitely I definitely agree that there's a connection and I definitely agree that mind is arising from matter there's no way that mind is happening prior to matter because like we can just I mean like this is just like kind of freewill stuff we can understand decisions you're gonna make before you make them we can we can tell what's happening in your mind before it actually reaches the level of your conscious subjective experience so there's no way that mind is like happening prior to physical reality they're certainly two separate substances but mind is produced by physical reality but just the way you talked about it there seem to almost yeah it seems to almost not appreciate the hard problem which I I didn't like when it's like when you suggest that they're linked to a point that there's not like an interesting separation or there's not something fundamentally different about the types of subs yeah or that it's not interesting to look at the what it means for one to arise from the other that's the kind of stuff I really don't like because that's a lot of people who are actually deep philosophers take those kind of positions and don't appreciate the hard problem and I did boggles my mind but yeah that's fair enough fair enough but the third one is basically the converse to the to the physicalist monist which is basically to say that the most fundamental substance is the mental which creates the physical so that comprise it's just insane that's like Deepak exorcism yeah and it's also aligned to Buddhist philosophies Chinese philosophies all these very classical ridiculous ancient philosophies and is arranged in glue like yeah and weird new age like manifestation and stuff like I can like manifest physical objects by like thinking about them yeah so we can we can definitely say that it's absurd because the mind is contingent on something independent of it in order to comply be comprised of anything meaningful so wait wait the mind is dependent on something independent of it to be comprised of something meaningful oh yeah yeah yeah well I mean if you're saying if you're saying it requires some kind of base physical reality to actually exist then yeah absolutely so so objectivity isn't assassinated for basically the whole concept of mind so moving on next that means exactly the way you said it but yeah go ahead yeah all right so um we could bring it up some later time if you've still got the question in mind or if you do now go ahead clears about that I'll be here so what makes you think that anything could qualifies as subjective do you think that the mind is actual and is a causal agent if either why there's a lot of things in one question so let's just break that down hearts yeah ask us one by one what did you say there what do you think what what makes you think anything could qualify as subjective so any thing how could anything qualify as a construct of the mind well just by fitting the definition of subjective meaning like you know independent of objective reality you know it's it doesn't it you can't detect its existence in the objective world what does it mean to be dependent of the mind how does the mind create is that not just the brain the mind create I'm now I'm not sure what you're asking me let's say Ferb's if the mind causes specific states of affairs cognitively speaking as a secondary substance so like color anything like that caused by the mind yeah sure yeah how is that how what does it mean for anything like say Frances ecology be caused by the mind and not simply just a state of affairs that is receptive by the brain through senses as not actually how they are you need to break it down it's you got to make it really simple yeah cool yeah I'm you I would come into troubles when it comes with this kind of stuff because it's branching between positive mind and your philosophy which are two incredibly high condensed subjects but I mean I'm not a neuroscientist here I just stare absolutely so I'm gonna try and make sure it's actually comprehensible so I want you thinking as few words as possible yeah already so what does it mean for a thing to exist as caused by the mind if the mind is the secondary substance and not a primary causal agent like the brain is cuz it's just a rest and well I mean it doesn't it's not actually it caused fundamentally by the mind it just proceeds from the mind in the chain of causation so something else outside of the mind obviously caused the mind to do what it's doing yeah so that not me because I've said Frances do to the transitivity law of logic that's very logical more but um say like a equals B and B equals C a who say if the brain creates the mind functionally and the mind creates technically as a categorical statement these like morals would that not mean that the mind are that the brain the brains functions are equivalent to the to being encompassing of the function immorality and other things like color so would that not suggest if if that is the case that the way that color is perceived is actual to the state of affairs like quantum chromodynamics creating color excitements of particles creating hate and that of sensation of these things are actual to what's occurring in reality I don't know what it means to say it's actual to what's occurring in reality I mean if you're if you're asking like how does the mind you know how can you say something is produced by the mind if the mind is produced by other things well I mean you can't it's just like it just proceeds after the mind in the chain of causality right it's like there's still something before the mind and that's the brain and there's something before the brain and that's whatever inputs are going into the brain exactly so like a physiological functions and our electrochemical impulses that arise as an interdependent connection between the two things to make them work so you're all right sorry yeah so interdependent so the mine Oh require a physiologic our personal physiology to be able to do stuff that helps the body in a mechanistic level survive pretty there we can already like derive functionality and functions and how to maximize functionality which this other self won't delve into ethics as we as we go along but if we've exhausted that part I think we should move on because I think it's it's it's going to just money the waters more if we go I'm not I'm not really appreciating the question like for me if you want an answer from me on something the best way is if you can articulate it in the fewest words the least the least yeah like levels a little strip complexity just like break it down like yeah the truth I talked to mine does this you know yeah I mean it goes so I can't say those folks I don't know if I'll get a satisfactory answer or not yes language I'm not sure I understand the question either like are you trying to ask if like the mind itself is interpreting color or like if the brain is what's responsible is that what you're trying that's basically okay well um I'm really not sure like yeah that's a suspect well I mean I mean I don't know like well there you can actually find like like say people who have schizophrenia or an attention deficit disorder you can actually see like differences in their brain or brain function so I'd imagine if like I'd imagine ultimately it is the brain that is perceiving things in a certain way like I don't see how the mind could really yeah I don't really see a big separation between the mind and the brain yeah really I assume you're on my page here maybe or not but like you would just agree that the mind is just and like an emergent property of the brain surely right like it's see I mean the mind yes yeah it's just a projection happening in this subjective dimension but it's it's fundamentally based on brain activity yes actually sounds like it'd be accommodating thieve if you're good well if you're asking like how do we see green it's like well there's some wavelengths of light out there and then there's our brain that takes those in and does what it does with them and then our brain creates this 3-dimensional moving map of reality for us to navigate and it codes it with colors because for whatever evolutionary reason that's helped us understand so it's like the reality is feeding into the brain is producing the mind as an emergent property so I don't know if that's addressing what you're talking about with monism and dualism but mean that's that's what I think that's fun I don't think delving into it would would it elucidate much more in fact I think it would like as I said before money but either was a little bit more so I think it'd be best to move on to the next question which is all right let me just let me just check this out before I actually accidentally like go back into the exact same subject blindly yeah I've already covered we've already covered that the mind and neural patterns and stuff like that so actually yeah it's the mind what what exactly is the mind is the mind just a reference to the neural patterns or just reference to the brain itself oh no the month the mind is the subject of experience the mind and the brain are they they are highly connected but they're not the same thing the brain is that physical squishy object in your head the mind is your subjective experience of reality the mind is is like you for all intensive purposes that's your subjectivity that's what the mind is okay so let me think the neural patterns would dictate the specific functions that could qualify the mind does that not mean that the mind is there for the use you lost you lost me within the first few words man the the mind can say that again okay I'll tell you and I lose you beautiful so if the mind if the brain has specific neural patterns which service functions that's really quite trivial right there the the brain has that service functions what what do you mean exactly if the brain has certain pathways that service functions the patently Jesus met so there's like the function of memory yeah it's so there's a physiology so we don't do the same mistake to us oh okay yeah yeah yeah there's a there's a physical function to our brains our brains do things like memory yes unconscious so it's yeah just yeah if if is comprised of specific functions like say for instance our ability to perceive ourselves the quote unquote subjective experience doesn't that mean that the mind and of the self is literally just the functions demonstrated by neural pathways and their reference to senses no no cuz I know that is a hard problem no that that's that's the thing that I don't like is that ignores the odd problem because the mind is fully dependent on the brain and every single thing that happens in the mind has a brain basis there's no like mind activity that doesn't come down to something physically happening in the structure of the brain but yeah the when when someone says that the there's the mind is literally it's just that there's nothing it's it's like this is the problem I have with that do you do you know what I mean when I talk about the hard problem not exactly so there's the hard problem is basically like how does consciousness arise so there's a whole there's whole X areas of philosophy and like all the major Sciences don't even like really pay attention to this question this is like a kind of philosophy question but there's whole areas that just like completely ignore this problem and think it's not interesting and it's like how does depression arise well like this area of the brain is firing in this way and doing this thing it's like well no that's that's an explanation of correspondence that's telling me what brain activity corresponds to which mind activity but that's not actually explaining the hard problem which is how does it arise how does whatever's happening in this three-dimensional world make its way into this other dimension of subjective reality and some people cannot appreciate why that's a weird question so I don't know do you do you follow what I'm saying right there awfully we say yet the the easy problems are problems of correspondence so when you're talking about like the basically like mind brain it's like the easy problems our correspondence problems like what is what is suffering well suffering is when this area is doing this thing you know what is what is memory well memories when this area is doing this thing etc right the hard problem is how how does the mine state actually arise from physical matter how is how is the matter producing mind that's the hard problem the correspondence probably the question is could the question be difficult because it's Matthews that the audio minded is that possible that the actual idea of the mind know that be back you know well we're experiencing the mind how could how can it be vacuous it's okay this is the thing is like there's I don't know why but some people just do not appreciate how trippy this this is and once you do it'll weird you out it's like where where does your subjective experience exist Darren yeah it's cool it's not a matter of where it's a matter of how well well and and if you can't locate where it is then don't tell me you've solved the hard problem if you don't even know where it is you definitely don't know how it's being produced so I hope that kind of clears it up a little bit so I don't I don't like any kind of like I don't know what what you call it like theory of mind or philosophy or whatever that that doesn't place emphasis on how trippy a problem that is when it when we just talked about about mind is totally correspondent to brain like that that's true and and all those correspondence problems are super interesting but when it seems to actually not acknowledge the hard problem that's when I'm like I don't like the way that was phrased yeah because they just basically our fundamental metaphysical opinions on these things and frankly I'm gonna be rigorous about it and ask yourself has demonstrated a very good approach so yeah you've definitely told me something good there about the hard problem and stuff like that so yeah I probably shift more towards Cartesian dualism at this point because yeah it's it's understand a little bit a little bit more tricky than it seems to be clear Darren that that's just the view that there are just two two types of substance mind and matter yeah so I think I think that's where I fall to I mean I was calling it substance dualism I don't really I don't know all the terminology I can just tell you what I believe and what makes sense to me beautiful all right so next question so don't we do you reckon we should just like a move on from the philosophy mind I'm down for whatever man what kind of time you have Richard you gotta get on to doing shit no really like I can stay for another hour maybe okay so whatever you want Desmond says 40 minutes the point things most happy wife happy life yeah
Last edited by NonZeroSum on Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
Post Reply