Great comments on new #namethetrait video

[Nightcell001]

I would also suggest if you could set up a page that will basically sum up your remarks in the form of 1 or two sentences with possibly a link to the full text for more explanation. I can see that most of people do not have the attention span developed enough to read the whole text in one go. So instead of having them give up, maybe a sum up page would convey the information more concisely as well as provide more info for the interested ones.

[brimstoneSalad]

I would also suggest if you could set up a page that will basically sum up your remarks in the form of 1 or two sentences with possibly a link to the full text for more explanation. I can see that most of people do not have the attention span developed enough to read the whole text in one go. So instead of having them give up, maybe a sum up page would convey the information more concisely as well as provide more info for the interested ones.

We'll add a summary section for the whole page... although the danger is that if there's a short article that doesn't go into much detail, that's what people will focus on attacking and ignore the more thorough arguments.

[DrSinger]

I've added quite a bit and rewrote some parts... it's kind of a mess right now, I'll have to figure out how to organize it better.

I read through part 2 again. Agree that it could flow better, but it does clarify things.

I think you could include the fact that this has actually been an issue in debates (for vegan gains, at least, not sure about AY). When posed with questions like 'did the production of your phone involve exploitation, if so, why don't you boycott it?' the response I've seen to this is 'I need it for my activism/youtube videos' (which is a good reason), rather than denying that any exploitation was involved.

An example relating to animal moral value, would be vegans buying things with trace amounts of animal products (e.g. glues?), which must've involved exploitation.

Not to mention the definition of veganism AY uses (I think) is 'Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.'

which is not absolutist in nature.

I think these would be tangible examples that would help readers see the issue.

[Nightcell001]

We'll add a summary section for the whole page... although the danger is that if there's a short article that doesn't go into much detail, that's what people will focus on attacking and ignore the more thorough arguments.

Sure. I was picturing an hyperlink to each section for more details. People attacking the short version of the argument could be dismissed and treated as intellectually dishonest.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think you could include the fact that this has actually been an issue in debates (for vegan gains, at least, not sure about AY). When posed with questions like 'did the production of your phone involve exploitation, if so, why don't you boycott it?' the response I've seen to this is 'I need it for my activism/youtube videos' (which is a good reason), rather than denying that any exploitation was involved.

There's also been criticism of him having two screens and his big gaming rig, which is probably excessive for his video editing needs.

An example relating to animal moral value, would be vegans buying things with trace amounts of animal products (e.g. glues?), which must've involved exploitation.

Not to mention the definition of veganism AY uses (I think) is 'Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.'

which is not absolutist in nature.

I thought about including the definition of veganism, and mentioning how it kind of contradicts the conclusion there about no exploitation being adequate/acceptable.

Can you add that stuff in?

(If you want to remove anything, just strikethrough)

[DrSinger]

Can you add that stuff in?

Would love to

Edit: tacked it on the end under a new header.

[brimstoneSalad]

Can you add that stuff in?

Would love to

Edit: tacked it on the end under a new header.

Thanks, I added to it a bit to explain the product/byproduct distinction Isaac would try to make.

[DrSinger]

Glad I could contribute. I agree with additions on at the end, and I have seen Richard make byproduct related claims with regards to his dog, not that he acted wrongly necessarily but by-products still contribute financially to the industry.

I think the first paragraph you added is somewhat misleading. It's not just that the actions don't align with absolute non-exploitation. It's also that his position is that such actions are not immoral. So his claimed beliefs are at odds with absolute non-exploitation

[brimstoneSalad]

I think the first paragraph you added is somewhat misleading. It's not just that the actions don't align with absolute non-exploitation. It's also that his position is that such actions are not immoral. So his claimed beliefs are at odds with absolute non-exploitation

Can you edit it to express this better?
If you can find a quote or reference, even better. I'm not sure I've heard him say this (although I believe you if you have, I could easily have missed it).

[DrSinger]

https://youtu.be/JBDnNgU-Tps?t=3030

50:30

Here's a link to Richard saying you can justify some amount of human exploitation, in the warski debate. AY is in the debate too but I haven't dug deep enough to see if he says something similar.

I'll edit it if you don't get round to it before me.

EDIT: added the quote and modified it a little bit. I'm not sure how you want to deal with the youtube link so I just dropped it below the paragraph