Vegan Caller vs. Sam Seder Round 2 FIGHT 

When I bossed my fellow third graders around that was their response.

i bet there would be plenty of humans who wouldn't mind being raised for food if it was done right, given a choice between that and their current lives

@HKZ P a cat is a perfect carnivore, humans are not. We are opportunistic omnivores, (but physically we display the traits of herbivores) meaning that we can eat animal products, but we do not have to do it necessary... and giving the fact that this practice is killing our only livable habitat, it is a very stupid choice to make. And for Sam, a person that has certain concerns about climate change, this subject shouldn't be so "whatever".

@HKZ P presenet evidence for all those claims. What scientists are you talking about? And about what sustainable practices involve animal farming for over 7 billion people's nutritional need are you talling about?

@HKZ P that is, if the plants are grown on factory farms

@@bazileia9222 sam seems not at all to be "whatever" on the subject of ethical responsibility and food choices. he has the appropriate attitude towards trolls

I actually laughed out loud at that part

Arkayem Translation “I have been intimate with pigs”

Sams a good comedian

this is why and how Sam can win the Libertarian vote in 2020

@@scottfrazier8446 Sam's the man

I mean he just pays people to forcibly impregnate them so they can give him mor meat.

Recent studies suggest that vegetables feel pain as well.

RED EYES cool.

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 independent of the validity of the proposed claim, plant-based diets require less plants deaths than standard meat-eater diets.

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 Oh ho ho, I've always wanted to hear plants scream.

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 I recall a study I read in 1995 where plants squeezed their stomata shut (cringed) when a person walked past who had just mowed lawns. So yeah there's material out there by now for a good vegetarian teasing I'm sure

Why though?

@@KingHalik the taste. No matter how much I try it, people taste funny.

@@KingHalik What do you mean WHY? Man: "I have less of a problem with shagging my girlfriend than shagging my mum!" IG KingHalik: "Why though?"

@@wabznasm9660 lmaooooooo ahahhhahaha

@@wabznasm9660 I bet you would have a problem eating your gf tho (in a carnivore way not a sexual way)

WHERE'S THE LAMB SAAAUUUUCE

This made me laugh. Thanks

2,000 throats slit per second. Enjoy!

The funniest part is that “society” and “killing and eating other humans being ethically permissible” are mutually exclusive

Exactly my thoughts

He was trying so hard to put Sam in a corner and failed miserably.

@Matthew Frazier ROFFLE! Okay.

Not gonna lie, some of these debates are best done under such conditions.

holy shit SAME

@@TheSkepticLeftist Because you are all godless junkies lol

I like this ..and I'm vegan...

Wow you just solved ethics bro

I have to assume you're a regular to Sam Seders show? I do realize that from the average persons perspective vegans seem overbearing because.. after all there isn't that many of them and the ones that make it to your screen are the ones acting most verbosely. But you're like what the tenth commenter I've seen so far make this point? Yet this is EXACTLY the format of Sam Seders debates with callers. "stupid ethical hypotheticals" is literally what debate is.

@@Furiends actuallyyyyyyy the stupid hypotheticals are the ones we get from libertarians that we mock mercilessly because there is nothing to be extrapolated and applied to this reality from a scenario so far removed from it. But the Shapiro and Crowder types have to rely on them to get any point across, the other side has to allow them multiple concessions and false premises for the debate to even go anywhere and it's boring and irrelevant. "Okay Mr so called vegan, if you were stuck on an island and the only thing to eat was meat, would you eat meat?? Checkmate atheists." It's tiresome and bland

"You can’t justify harming innocent sentient beings for your personal pleasure. " A justification is a reason for doing a bad act. i reject the premise that killing sentient beings in itself or torturing sentient beings as a byproduct to obtain a product is bad/immoral. i consider it morally nuetral(amoral). AKA, I obviously can't justify harming them because the very idea is incoherent. it is a category error.

Frank That product you acquired through “morally neutral” killing and torture, is not a necessary product. It is purely for pleasure. There are other options that fit the necessity requirement to sustain your life, instead you choose to support killing, torture of animals, unnecessary environmental destruction, could further argue healthcare impacts and costs on the industry... and this is all morally neutral? Because?

@@bamwesty8158 "That product you acquired through “morally neutral” killing and torture, is not a necessary product. It is purely for pleasure. " The killing and torture is necessary to obtain the product. I can throw the same infinite regress at you. Acquiring food isn't a necessary product. You don't need to survive. Then you can tell me why you apparently need to survive, and then I can ask you why you need that thing that is apparently necessary to survive, and then we go on an infinite regress until you realize that a need is simple a prerequisite to fulfill a want/objective. "There are other options that fit the necessity requirement to sustain your life" Again, why do you need to live? Oh wait, whether or not you NEED something is irrelevant. I don't need to drink juice to survive. Does that mean I shouldn't drink juice? NO!. I don't need to play video games to survive. Does that mean I shouldn't play video games? NO! Whether something is necessary for survival in itself is not relevant. "instead you choose to support killing, torture of animals" Yep. "unnecessary environmental destruction" I'm not going over necessities again. i already explained it to you. I support government intervention to mitigate animal agriculture environmental impact. I don't support going vegan to do so. "could further argue healthcare impacts and costs on the industry... and this is all morally neutral?" I believe in both medicare for all and a federal jobs guarantee so if people hate their job in animal agriculture they can work somewhere else, and any accrued damages can be fixes for all people across the country. Once we get that THEN it will be morally nuetral for them to be working there, because right now there are probably many that are working there because they don't have a choice, as with MANY other jobs across America where I still shop at. I believe in government intervention and not refusing to participate in my countries economy. Thanks. "Because?" The only thing that is not morally nuetral is the worker part and that is because they are forced to work in these conditions which I have a moral problem with and is why I want a federal jobs guarantee. outside of that, I don't consider the environmental factors immoral but detrimental to society and should be mitigated by government intervention, and regarding the killing and torture as a byproduct to obtain a product I do consider it morally nuetral as it A.Does not contradict my moral frameworks principles and B.Has not been demonstrated to be anything other than morally neutral, which is the default position.

Frank Lance How is it neutral?

@@arthurmorgan3260 "How is it neutral?" Because it doesn't contradict any of my moral axioms(creating a moral obligation to not do it) nor under my axioms is it morally virtuous.

@Hello World Food sovereignty>veganism

@@pleasefeedmewaxworms Humans > beasts.

Free range human .... Mmmmmmmm

tIMothy Francis Its worth looking into the ecological impact of the monocropping that takes place to produce staple foods that are used in your plant based diet.

Most agriculture in general is incredibly destructive, not just raising animals. There is plenty of misery, suffering and world destruction on the slave plantations that give us chocolate, avacados, and other plant-based goods, the almond grove monoculture is stealing all californias water and killing all the natural pollinators etc. Theres simply no ethical consumption under capitalism. Small community owned farms with a wide diversity of plants and animals are the future, my friend.

Gotta get the special Iberico humans that eat tons of acorns. You'll never go back!

buttock burgers yum! nuff said

You go insane. You can't eat your own species as eventually you'll develop neurological diseases, just look up mad cow disease.

@@btw3344 the rich are a different species I see evidence of this every day and many of them have great diets which is likely similar to free range pig....their kids more like veal. so we ought to consider the idea just in case it comes down to the dirty deed. trust me if you are hungry enough you will likely be first in line for my soon to be famous buttock burgers farmed from ethically harvested rich people.

@@btw3344 cannibalism doesn't cause mad cow, it's spread by it, though. same type of thing happens with humans. there is some indigenous culture somewhere that eats their dead as part of last rights. females got the less choice pieces, which contained the disease, and were more susceptible

What’s more expensive: a pound of lentils or a pound of beef?

Its not a choice that EVERYONE can make but regular people certainly can, and should

Those who can do it should do it and those that can't do it at the moment, well it's our job to work towards a future where more and more of them can do it.

@@jackstubbington387 I can, but all those carbs made me fat so I stopped.

@@arlarl5122 Prime example. I dont care. Edit: and vegans really love the smell of their own ass too. that doesnt help

Lorita Alanzo another intellectually dishonest answer. Plants do not have a cerebral cortex. You question a vegan's moral level while you put your tastebuds value over the life of an animal. How do you feel about eating dogs? or cats?

Would agree, pretty moronic arguments being made by meat eaters. A shame

@@craiglee4061 why are you gay

Craig Lee I fucking hate animals. They don’t give a fuck when they cause other beings to suffer, so I don’t give a fuck if I cause them to suffer. Minks are vicious, smelly little assholes and it will be a very cold day in hell before anybody convinced me to feel bad for them being made into fur coats.

We're all animals and some are motivated by greed 😾and all sorts, and some are nice animals 😸 generalising all animals the same as all human animals the same makes no sense, like this annoying caller talking shite. WTF was he even talking about anyway, get to the fucking point instead of some moral gobshitery man jayzus. I'd rather butcher this guy than listen to his verbal diarrhea 🙉

Damien Joseph really the simple question is: Is an animal's life more important than your tastebuds?

@@madnezz1961 for me, no. Most animals have been eating others for a long time and we wouldn't be here otherwise but I don't really care. It annoys my head hearing all these spoilt first world cunts whining about calories and losing weight and all that shite. I like to eat pepperoni pizza, burgers, chips, bacon eggs and all sorts and I appreciate food cos I've known hunger and I'm not a fat fuck crying cos I eat too much, I only cry when and get annoyed when they reduce portion sizes cossa greedy fatties but that's just me. My carbon footprint is lower than most people I see

@@madnezz1961 veganism is fine for some and fair play but it's not for me or others I know from a similar ( blue collar) economic background. I think it's more of a rich kids thing. I have worked in food production and transport of chickens and felt a wee bit sorry for them crammed into crates but their ancestors shouldn't have got lazy and stopped flying, birds that don't fly away get eaten 😼 I've also seen a gang of ducks savagely attacking one of their own, I don't know why or what he may have done. Could've been a paedophile duck for all I know but I didn't interfere as was not my business. Not really relevant but it stuck with me

Are you implying that that's what Sam said? Because that's not what he said AT ALL. He in fact said we do need to cut back...

Brendan: hey boss, brought the tobasco you asked for. What's it for? Sam: Brendan: boss? Sam: Brendan: ....boss....

Dan If they go to a buffet do they ask the chef where every single piece of meat came from? The idea that people would research all the meat they eat is ridiculous you imbecile

@@elchapojunior3091 Maybe, they don't go to buffets. Maybe, they cook for themselves. It's weird that you don't think anyone will take the time to find were there meat is sourced, when vegans have to literally source check EVERYTHING they eat.

Sentience Institute | US Factory Farming Estimates. We estimate that 99% of US farmed animals are living in factory farms at present. By species, we estimate that 70.4% of cows, 98.3% of pigs, 99.8% of turkeys, 98.2% of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9% of chickens raised for meat are living in factory farms.

blackrazor1 no meat eater is going to restrict themselves to a select one or two meat items to buy at the store, if they cared that much they would just be vegan

@@elchapojunior3091 This shows you just want to shit on meat eaters. I made the point about it taking less effort to source free range meat than it does to source everything in my last comment. Sam lives in NYC. You literally get any found you there. I'm they also have a number of farm to table restaurants there. It's like shitting on someone that drives a hybrid car; instead of, an electric.

Not the greatest but good enough to own dairyboi sam

@@peterv2599 that dumb ass vegan can't have a conversation outside of his twitch Bubble. Ordinary people doesn't debate like that. That debate style only works on Twitch.

@@HockeyTownHooligan5 nah, plenty people have been convinced by animal ethics and plenty of progress has been made that way. This caller just isn't too good at engaging with others.

He does. Just that when trying to equate meat factories to death camps a very poor chose to compare to.

@Matthew Frazier >He is both unconvincing and illogical and ignorant sounding. Care to elaborate on that? Cuz I'm suspecting you weren't watching the same vid as we are. Sam made it clear he buys free-ranged and organically-grown meat. Meaning there's far less suffering than the latter. >At least AskYourself (the caller I think) DOES "win" Win at what? He admitted his question was a "gotcha question" which are usually done in bad faith. The arguer's choice of argument is comparing slaughter houses for animal meat to sell meat and feed people to literal death camps made to commit genocide. The meat industry doesn't commit genocide otherwise we wouldn't have cows and other livestock existing today. That's the major glaring flaw in that argument. That's just the tip of the iceberg. If he wanted to argue for veganism, there are tons of better choices to make that argument.

Yes. Like individually, it was enough for me to go vegetarian (I was vegan for two years) but saying that eating meat is like eating people lol

Absolutely agree

@@caitieeeee lol then name the trait that makes it okay to eat animals but not humans.

The morality issue is the key point of veganism. Sam just said "society decided this" and "I was born this way". Those arguments were used to justify holocaust and slavery. How can u guys not see that?

"That guy who wants to end human slavery is incredibly annoying and is the type of negro lover who just makes people want to own slaves." - Your ancestor, probably

Has Wright I commend people for not eating meat but I think that’s a very reductionist take. Regardless I can’t see being an annoying, know it all scold to everyone being productive.

@@haswright4933 Don't compare this to slavery. It's disgusting..

I mean unnecessarily slaughtering sentient beings and then justifying it with "society said so" and some arbitrary reasons is moraly consistent with that example.

@@KingHalik What do you mean by sentient? Are you referring to humans? Large sections of the human society survive due to factory farming today, human meat farming is quite a different situation to that by nature, let alone comparing it to agricultural apple farming practices today.

@@adoredpariah Large sections of human society starve because of factory farming. Meat causes cancer and heart disease. The industry is also one the biggest contributors to climate change. So i'd say large sections of human society suffer/die because of factory farming. Look up the definition of sentience if you don't understand what i mean by it. But im sure you do.

@@KingHalik human slaughter sentient being all the time and for literally no reason, not even for food - humans kill humans. This isn't about sentience, consciousness, intellect or anything else. It's about being able to consume and digest meat, and being predisposed by tummy rumbling to do so. I'm sorry that the meat industry is so rapacious, but if anything is going away it'd have to be the behaviour alone, because the industry will be around for as long as we have mouths and bellies.

@@KingHalik When I said large sections of society survive from factory farming I mean, just that, whether moral or immoral in the grander scheme of things there are people in positions economically or geographically that would be malnourished and/or possibly starve to death without a great deal of the processes we use there, and this is a large percentage of the planets human population. Agreeing with sam again, the moral choice of eating animals is one that I personally would prefer less to no of if possible, to go further I would love to see technologies that help to remove us from such requirements entirely, the "perfectly" ethical thing as self aware actors would be to remove ourselves (globally) from the equation of the environment enough that it can return to a more healthy state, but in the meantime there are billions of mouths that need to be fed, so to speak. The original point was that it is not a fair or equivalent moral comparison to swap out humans for the animals that we farm currently. There are not only health reasons, but cultural and societal reasons on top of the act of killing for the purpose of eating being itself a moral question.

It's an arbitrary position valuing some type of harm above others for purely practical reasons. And no, they don't want to actually reduce harm - otherwise vegans would've advocated against eating chickens and small fish the most. And every agricultural field is a place of massacre of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of lives. But vegans don't care about that, those lives are too inferior to care about. At least people who consume meat have history of human species as a basis for their views.

And that's great for you. I choose my path. As do others.

space in va der vegans are against all types of harm animal or humans

@@ittakesavillage5461 are they? then why do vegans eat vegetables grown with the help of insecticides? Those vegetables can require more animal deaths than eating a free range cow.

Agreed. You could tell he was struggling and didn't want to admit he's a bit in the dark on this issue. He's focusing on much bigger issues.

Agreed. Sam was not ready for this discussion and the caller was being Lisa Simpson. After the lil chat, Once Sam had some reflection. He entertained a lot of what the caller said and ultimately agreed we need to cut back on how poorly we treat many animals out there.

It sounds silly but isn't there some truth to this?

@@alandgomez5905 The question we must ask ourselves is does it make it right? Slavery is not moral regardless of whether or not it's acceptable by society. It was wrong 200 years ago just as it's wrong today.

@@awesomeal3603 Lol I don't disagree with you, I just think there's some truth to what Sam said. Slavery will always be wrong and I think we'll also get to veganism, eventually. I tend to avoid the word 'moral' myself but I think it can be used to sway others. Be cool.

Idk what ur talking about. We do have slavery going on. Are u out everyday protesting? If not, u must be fine with it.

@@eagle-wingedturtle201 If you're referring to the enslavement of animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses, I would agree with you. I don't agree that you need to actively protest in the streets, because you can advocate for being vegan in other ways that are effective also.

100%. Sam was mumbling and using so many fillers

You already spend time on shopping for food, hygiene products, clothes etc. All you need to do is choose differently. You aren't losing any additional time. Also, most of the human issues you can't do anything about. On the other hand, the lives of animals are on your hands. For example, what exactly can you do about murder? Nothing. What can you do about animal slaughter? Stop eating them. Also, how many of the people using this argument do ANYTHING for human suffering? This is just a common cop-out. Oh and that's actually not answering the question the caller asked. That's completely besides the point.

Sorry @thatguy I met a girl that dragged me from Bodega to Bodega looking at the back of coconut water bottles. You people are obsessed. In cities eating a quality plant based diet is fucking expensive and time consuming. Not to mention that agriculture destroys the habitats of millions of animals. The instruments literally kill animals, and lastly we have 60 years of top soil left, so this agriculture fantasy to support 9 billion people is complete BS. Go to iTunes or stitcher and listen to "tangentially speaking podcast episode w/ Lierre Kieth" former Vegan who found her sanity

@@antonsterlin9720 No it's not. Legumes, rice, vegetables, grains, and certain fruits are the cheapest foods in the grocery stores. I live in a capital city and I'm not spending any more money than I used to as a non-vegan. Probably even less. Yes, agriculture destroys the habitats of animals. The issue is that the animals you eat, eat a lot more food than they produce. We'd use up less space for plant agriculture without animal farming. Or do you think the animals you eat get by without eating? Don't be stupid.

I guess women's rights arent a priority to a male worker so why would he care about that. Or why would we care about Healthcare when racism and genocides are still happening.

His voice was very familiar and then he mentioned being on destiny and vaush

@2013TAMU Do you not have to eat the *brain* of an infected fellow human to contract a prion (misfolded protein) disease? Or eating the brain increases the risk but you can also get it from other infected tissues? Asking for a friend who happens to be a cannibal (jk) :P

@@robertjenkins6132 you can get it even if you avoid the brain. You can also get parasites eating the meat of certain carnivores like wolves.

I eat people all the time, never got a disease. Then again we go to clinics to get tested first. Badabum tss.

There is an air tight argument. The problem is you have to accept that all life has value first. Which you don’t necessarily reach via argument. I’d say if you’ve ever had a pet, just ask yourself if you’d have a problem with someone killing and eating your pet, outside of it being your property.

value has degrees. Don't really give too much of a crap about a roach lol. My life however... Lol I want to live!

@@TheIncognitusMe Not even vegans can avoid animal death. Analysis I have read indicates eating nothing but farmed vegetables will result in more life lost than eating only grass-finished beef. It can't be a question of quantity of life; it has to be a question of quality of life.

Soyborne. Born, made, and undone by the soy. Of course. Even animal rights promoters don’t care about all animals. They probably wouldn’t give a second thought about killing a spider. I tend to find the most common view is something like “sufficiently intelligent animals that can feel emotions should be respected.” Which is why people get very pissy about dolphins and stuff, since they’re super intelligent. And, of course, dogs and cats.

theotormon I’m not really sure I follow your point. How could more life be lost from eating only vegetables?

Right? It was definitely a cheap feels tactic that devalues the word.

Especially when speaking to a Jewish person. He's trying to be dramatic but it is actually insensitive.

martin craughwell well for one thing, he was using is as a verb

beetdiggingcougar the caller is jewish himself

@@vivek264bit It doesn't mean killing chickens under any definition.

well some are more sentient than others, meaning they actually move on their own, and react to being eaten.

@@tonyolo4591 responding to stimuli =/= sentient.

@@handlethisnut Sentient means to feel. If lifeform responds to stimuli, it's sentient. It's pretty arrogant to dismiss plants as non-sentient because they don't have senses we intuitively identify with. Plants definitely respond to stimuli.

Sam is not what we would call a deep person.

@@democrazy69 you know definitions to words exist for a reason. Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. s u b j e c t i v e l y. my iphone responds to stimuli. is it sentient? my calculator also reponds to stimuli. is it sentient?

Because he can identify and empathize more with his own species, maybe? I'm just shooting in the dark here, of course... You don't have to value animals as much as humans to recognize that it's wrong to abuse and kill creatures that have the same five senses you do and that want to live, if you don't have to.

@@itswrongtokillanimalsifyou2837 i agree.

@@Zatzzo +1 Respect

If both are accidents, it's not morally relevant how he feels.

@@paredown. it's about how bad he thinks the loss of life is.

oh my god I hate it but you're right

I think he is one. It's Ask Yourself. I'm vegan and personally get annoyed with some of his arguments. Like he actually argues that veganism is not a leftist issue. He refused to answer my comment about vegans being overwhelmingly left because of so many correlating ideologies. But you know, he lives in white suburban Canada and listens to metal ....so you know how that goes. Also he's friends with the vegan bigot himself Vegan Gains.

Yeah because it is so leftist to fund the most harmful and destructive industry of our time. No real leftist would denounce veganism when confronted with the science.

@@KingHalik Exactly, I agree.

@@KingHalik what are you even talking about? Who denounced veganism? Not choosing veganism as personal choice is not the same as denouncing veganism. That's like being anti-war and being told you are denouncing having a military. Those dots don't connect.

Kinda not. I mean, sure, he denied having a moral issue in the first place, but the caller was asking a very silly silly question that was created to pin down someone, not elucidating anything.

Slaugmr Omni Sam answered the question to the best of his abilities. But he didn’t explain it well. So let me try to clarify. If he was raised in a canniblistic society, it wouldn’t be immoral in his eyes to eat another human being. Because society dictated that it wasn’t immoral. So, society today, dictates that eating animals isn’t immoral, but killing other humans is.

@@animegaming4057 I think you're right in your interpretation of Sam's approach. But it betrays on Sam's part a deep misunderstanding or ignorance of moral discourse (at least as it is traditionally practiced in, say, philosophy). Sam seems to be implying that his morality does and would track the dominant morality of his society. But this seems obviously false, at least as a general principle (and when we're discussing morality, that's crucial). I'm sure Sam could come up with myriad instances over the past, say, thirty years in which he whole-heartedly rejected the dominant morality of his society (on social issues, on issues of war and peace, on economic issues, on issues pertaining to education or health care etc.) I cannot believe that Sam's actual view is that whenever and wherever you plopped him in history (i.e., if you changed the time and place of his birth) he would automatically adopt the dominant morality. This is both highly presumptuous and unfair to himself. Does Sam really just assume that he would be pro-slavery had he been born in the early eighteenth century? Perhaps, but how could he possible know that with enough confidence to ground moral judgments? This is at best lazy thinking, and it serves to skirt the important theoretical issues. There are a few more problems with Sam here. First, it is an entirely acceptable and highly useful to place ourselves (our current selves) in other times and places and make moral judgments. This isn't to pat ourselves on the back or to sneer at how backwards people were in the past. It's to elucidate our moral principles and to better ourselves. If current Sam were to be placed in antebellum America, he would certainly be appalled at the practice of slavery and would (I'd hope) judge the practitioners negatively. It would be relevant to then ask what about their activity made it immoral. Is there a principle upon which one's negative moral judgement can be based? Is there an argument to be made, e.g., about whether and why a society absent slavery is morally superior to one with slavery? And so on and so forth. And second (I suppose this follows from what I've already said), there is no logical connection between "society has dictated the moral righteousness of x" and "x is morally righteous", unless, that is, one subscribes to the (I think) indefensible claim that what is moral is just what a given population happens to think is right (for whatever reason). I have no problem saying that slavery is morally indefensible, not just for those of us who live in a modern society that dictates this - it has NEVER been morally acceptable to enslave another. I should probably stop since I've gone on a while and I'm not sure how intelligible I've been. But I think it's important to point one one more problem with Sam's thinking here (and, again, I think this follows from what I said above). The phrase "society dictates x" is terribly, uselessly vague. Is it true that society dictates that eating non-human animals isn't immoral? Well, it depends entirely on how one defines 'society' and what it means for society to 'dictate' something. Of course it's true that eating non-human animals is legal, and most people eat meat, but millions don't. Millions of people in our society find the eating of meat to be morally wrong. This is just to say, to reiterate, that the notion of "society dictates" that Sam relies on here is not unproblematic. That's why I intimated above that Sam should just have ducked out of this conversation, given that he wasn't willing to have the philosophical conversation the caller desired. (Then again, it's his show and he can do whatever the hell he pleases - but at a certain point Sam comes off not very well because he engages in the conversation without doing any of the hard work necessary to actually have it.)

Slaugmr Omni I can agree with, pretty much all of this. I’m a new sub and just found this channel so I don’t know his ideology yet. I just happen to like the way he spouts some things so I’m here to stay a while and see where things go. But about history and how where we would be if we were to be born into it... we don’t exactly know how it would change us and how we would be shaped if we were to live in those times. I’ll use my history as an example. I have a proud history as my last name comes from Meade. So my great grand father was general meade who defeated Lee at the battle of Gettysburg. So, I’d like to think that throughout history, including today as I marched with Bernie rallies, helped with Justice Democrat’s, and fight for the progressive movement, that id be on the right side of history all the time. But, in my family, I do have racists, I do have corrupt cops, I do have murderers, I do have drug dealers, so am I just my grand fathers lucky child? Am I the only fighter that I know of in the Meade family?

Slaugmr Omni And the only reason I am like the way I am is because the age of information. I was a republican because of the family I grew up with. Especially after 9/11. Then I became Democrat after years of conflict. Then, after a few years of lies of Obama, I didn’t know what to believe, then Bernie came out of nowhere, and that’s who I followed ever since. Not blind loyalty, but because he’s just factually the correct choice. He is 97% right on every issue. There is no other candidate that comes even close. Even Elizabeth Warren comes at a staggering 60%. She’s our second best and she still fails by all accounts.

THIS. Thank you. Also, he used an appeal to nature fallacy and he couldn't provide a good answer to the name-the-trait consistency test (since any answer would lead to absurdities).

The problem by you saying that is that you are basing it off of literally nothing.

Sam is giving a moral relativist view and not a subjectivist view which Ask Yourself wants. Moral relativism deals with group determination. Societies determine what is moral and immoral under this framework as apposed to individuals, and society has determined that there is a problem with killing humans whereas there is no problem with killing non-human animals.

Everyone is partially a product of their environment. Eventually, you get exposed to different ideas and start to deviate from what you grew up around. Unless you are a hermit, you have to take societal norms into account. Technically, jacking off on the public bus isn't hurting anyone else, but as a society we've decide that isn't acceptable behavior. I still think it's odd that the caller can't see the difference between humans and other animals.

yup. Sam would not have been able to realize for himself that slavery is wrong. He would have had to wait for Abraham Lincoln to tell him.

Alex Wing well there are good reasons for eating meat. Meat is high calorie. And high protein neither of which nature gives up willillingly or easily. Its responsible for allowing us to develop big brains which use a lot of calories. We are biologically omnivores and meat and fish are a good way to supplement our diet. It start to go awry when food becomes industrialized

I've never seen someone pose a hypothetical this outlandish and then force Sam to keep to it even after it been mocked. If the jetpack libertarian had been like this Sam would have at some said "look the premise of the question in the way you're asking it is absurd, I'm not answering it" like he had to do here lmao

He was evasive because the caller was dishonest and searching for soundbites.

@@britishrocklovingyank3491 no he wasn't. Sam was playing the mental gymnastics here.

said 1-800-PHONE-SEX to you ;)

@@Khonen I think the OP was making some levity there.

No, I'm going to eat animals

@@tyrvinodinson9790 well, maybe one day your heart will open up and you will no longer want your actions to be the direct cause for the unspeakable suffering of other sentient beings. And, perhaps you will care enough about our planet to do something within your power to protect it.

@@nyperi13 Oh, I protect the planet. But I kill and eat animals too. Much like 70% of all species on earth.

I do think that sustainability and environmental degradation should be the 2020 argument for veganism. I agree with you.

🧐hmmm, I’m just like 70% of the species on Earth... lemme just write that thought into my iPhone and bounce it of a satellite to share with people worldwide! 😂

Yup, sorry he's not my favorite vegan RU-vidr.

@@veganrican606 He's not mine either.

It was "illuminating" for lack of a better word, the way in which he responded. He should have ended it quickly but he didn't want to give the caller the satisfaction.

@@R3dTi3nJ3ans I agree with your assessment, but it just makes it all the more embarrassing.

@@k1m6a11 For both of them, agreed.

actually, it was a pretty smart response. he was asked what is moral, and he deferred by saying more or less that "morals" don't exist by themselves and are decided by humans collectively. so the caller must argue affirmatively for a distinct moral framework or argue for Sam to extend his system, which strongly depends on the idea of reciprocation and is agnostic on the question of non-human lives, to creatures that naturally cannot reciprocate.

What was wrong with that answer?

That is not true. The world is full of omnivores.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make and I'm not trying to be a smart-ass I'm just simply saying herbivorous males kill other males for breeding rights all the time.

Also, I do not look to the animal kingdom for my morality.

@@jy3127 Yeah, you're sort of right. Also because they have no choice. But it's not as common as you think. Most breeding rights fights among male animals are mostly posturing and end with minor injuries at worst.

But how is it unethical to eat something which has no sense of self-awareness or consciousness and is going to die anyway?

No, I think what he's trying to prove is that some of Sam's subjective preferences are inconsistent with each other.

You nailed it.

No. Being a moral subjectivist means you don't believe anything is inherently right or wrong, according to some innate mystical standard. Instead, a subjectivist tries to appeal to rational consistency and empathy in order to make moral arguments

@@haswright4933 In philosophy, subjective means "because someone said", while objective means that it is based on reason and logic. Now, who said it was wrong to eat animals; God, the person calling in, a random person from a mental ward; is largely immaterial as it being subjective states that it is immoral based on the person that said so's feeling alone. Whether it is inconsistent, or even completely random, it just matters that it is done because a person said so rather than any underlying logic. This is literally ethics 101, within a month you learn these definitions. If you don't like these definitions, take it up with literally millennia of philosophy because Socrates was arguing with these definitions. It's possible that they, like you, don't know what they're talking about, but then you would have to wonder why anybody would listen. Wouldn't you?

Ive slaughtered a few animals like sheep and goats but yea no emotional contact whatsoever. I'd probably save a dog over a stranger though if there wasn't time to think and the choice was explicit.

I think the caller was wrong, ultimately, but his point in using a hypothetical was what is typical of ethical discussions. It's intended to flesh out principles and reasoning. Seder really doesn't think deeply about moral issues, as he admitted. He just goes with whatever is socially acceptable. This is problematic even if you aren't vegan and disagree with the caller. THe caller wanted Seder to formalize reasoning on why it is okay to eat non-human animals, but not people. It's rather easy to defend, but Seder made zero real effort.

Damien Rafalowski Sams argument seemed to be that because predation is a part of nature, its not intrinsically unethical

@@jlrinc1420 I don't think killing is intrinsically unethical either. My disagreement was when Seder tried to claim he sees it done in nature as a justification for himself doing it to them. The fact that X does Y to X doesn't mean it's okay for A to do Y to X. I don't agree with the premise that because it is natural, it is therefore ethical. Rape is natural and widespread in the wild, too. Does not mean we should derive the principle that rape is okay because we see violent fucking in the animal kingdom. :) Most animals have no agency or choice. We can choose to eat low on the intelligence scale and reduce the harm. They can't. That was one part of it, but Seder's secondary argument was that "society deems it unacceptable to eat people, therefore it is." That's also a bad argument, because it means literally anything can be okay if your society says so. It's cultural relativism. In the South during the 18th-19th century, it was acceptable to own people. But most would say that slavery is wrong, regardless of what society finds acceptable or the norm.

Nothing he said was new info to anyone, he is just doing what vegans always do, try to make it a moral issue, which it is not. Anyways, no vegan arguments educate anyone ever, we already know the arguments.

Broad assumptions about groups of people always diminish the strengths of an argument. As a vegan myself, the callers argument did not play to Sam's priorities. You can be vegan for animals AND humans. For example, pig farms in the Carolina's are spraying pig waste into fields and the open air. Workers in these farms are almost always people of color, working under the table or getting paid less than they should be, but they get hurt, and die working in these farms. Not only that, but the pig waste being sprayed into the air, travels downwind to low socioeconomic communities, with majority people of color living there. Most vegans forget or don't care to talk about the intersectional human aspect to veganism. I'm vegan for those pigs, those farm workers that have no other choice, and the communities of color being impacted by factory farming. Just to name a few.

Who cares that promoting a well balanced vegan diet would cure most of the diseases affecting Americans: diabetes, heart attacks and obesity, making the demand for Medicare 4 all less of a dire need and less expensive? Who cares that veganism would reduce our carbon footprint that they claim is causing global warming and killing all those poor koalas? Bunch of insufferable hypocrites, all these people. I don't like Greta Thunberg and I don't agree with her politics or forecasts but I respect that she tries to walk the talk and is consistent with her flawed ideology.

@@kazuoua how does this correlate with op

@@kazuoua the problem is the industry, not the actual consumption of meat.

@@hugosilva400 it's not like they're forcing people to buy meat.

@@kazuoua oh, agreed. I didn't mean that. What I meant is that eating meat isn't problematic itself, the problem is how most of the meat is obtained. While people aren't directly forced into buying it, sometimes they have to buy the cheapest meat, which is the industrialized one

Jokes on u we're all gonna die before 5 years pass!

You think there will be a consensus on veganism in 5 years when we cant even do easy things like debunk religion? OK buddy.

Justin The Fixer totally see what you’re saying but there is a big difference between debunking religion and debating veganism - when you understand that it’s wrong to kill innocent sentient beings (those words being very important when you consider valid grey areas), there is no debate. It’s simply the least that people can do as a moral baseline. Religious vegans also have a very useful and conscientious perspective.

@@bobbyg1570 sure but the point is that the sentience discussion is still very much up for debate, not to mention the reality that even if people do discover there is some consensus on sentience, its a big assumption to think they will even care. Like I said, 5 years is incredibly lofty, people are dumb and society moves incredibly slow on even the big issues.

@@bobbyg1570 "there is a big difference between debunking religion and debating veganism" I disagree, you're debating morals and ideology, it's very much the same thing. I'm sure you have data that supports your claims, and that can be compelling and interesting, but as a society we can't even do easy things like diagnose pain,. Did you know that? the concept of "pain" has been around for tens of thousands of years, but we cant measure it. So we just can't say factually that veganism is absolutely the correct position. Maybe one day.

Kasey Kohler always with the cherry picking, right? Afraid to use whole logic.

Much like hogs, dogs, bears, and many other species humans are onmivorous.

@@eagle-wingedturtle201 Dogs aren't omnivores.

C Luvzinfo we can never quantify animal intelligence

If it was possible, i think i could show you millions of people uncapable of philosofical thoughts or morality disscutions. And soooo many people that go through life, not just without a contributiin for humanity or even their comunity, but people that actualy harm their families and comunities and are less productive than animals. Please stop thinking this way. You may think you have the perfect excuse to not lower your meat consumtion because there will never be an animal with philosofical thoughts (and if there is, its impossible to communicate this). I think Albert Einstein said once that "we should not judge a fish by his abilities to climb a tree, beacause we will allways be dissapointed" We should all be more comparionate and do our best to lower animal suffering, over consumption, pollution, and to increase other indicators. Please don't just listen to some crazy vegan, and because you don't agree with him/her, use that as an excuse to don't do nothing. The cause behind the disscution remains is the same and true - less suffering and unnecesary pollutio. Im not vegan either, we should all just do our best to be better. I hope you undestand what i've tried to say. Sorry for my english.

I think you might have misunderstood the question. The question is "what's true of one that if true of the other would cause you to say that it is acceptable (buying free range human meat)". So in the example you gave, you'd then logically be forced to bite the bullet that if a human is incapable in engaging in a philosophical conversation, then it's fine to eat them.

@@DiamondMoneyMiner no. Responding to OP last sentence, i said that just because something isn't capable of philosophical thinking, you shouldn't eat them.

@@marimaria8256 oh yeah I wasn't responding to your comment, but OP

Animals kill their own kind plenty of times. Lions are good example of killing a lioness's cubs when when a male lion wins a fight to get the pride so as to use the resources on his cubs over the existing ones. Rats eat their own pups during winter when there are no food to sustain themselves with. There are plenty of animals that kill their own kind for one reason or another.

@@romankvapil9184 and how many lions have you eaten in your life so far? Or rats?

@@einzeltier That's a malformed question and misses my point. Animals kill each other plenty of times and their own for one reason or another. I've not killed my own kind at all. If possible, I would rather eat those animals over my own if I were to choose between eating a human being, or a rat or a lion.

You've never seen a cow killing another? Well, bulls certainly will kill other bulls and guess what a bull is? That's right, a cow.

Maybe because they're not predators?

I'm not sure if you're doing this, but it seems like some people argue that the badness of killing humans for food consists of it being unhealthy for us. I'm kind of astonished that anyone would look at that scenario and only have that issue with it. Thinking, feeling humans.

@@redrick8900 Why would it matter? If the wrongness of killing is found in thwarted preferences and suffering, humans being more important and meat being natural is irrelevant.

@@ludvig5597 Your premise is false. That isn't what the "wrongness" of murder is based on. That's the word, "murder." Killing isn't wrong, never has been. No one is mad about weeding gardens, or killing pest infestations. "humans being more important and meat being natural" Isn't irrelevant. It's why you can't win.

@@redrick8900 I thought you'd figure I didn't mean 'killing' full stop. Put moral relevance on whatever you wish. I'd vote against you.

@@ludvig5597 I can't "know what you mean." That kind of thing is reserved for people with reasonable thought processes and you are pretending veganism is moral superior. Also, murder doesn't apply to animals so if you are conceding that killing is moral most of the time and it's murder that's wrong you've already conceded.

Why didn't you start a proper chat on the call? Why did you try to back him into a rhetorical corner that made no sense? Oh yeah, clicks. If you would have been the tiniest bit honest in your conversation there would have been none of the tension that leads to more clicks on your channel.

You just proved that you wanted to get sound bytes for your own channel, I can already see the video's up. Have a proper attitude and stop interrupting next time and maybe you won't get hung up on again. People like you hurt the vegan cause more than factory farmers.

@AskYourself Minor spelling error. I think you meant *Michael Brooks, not Micheal.

@@PiratesRock - Corrected, thanks.

@@AskYourself So you're going to ignore the actual criticisms on your comment but you'll reply to the person correcting your spelling error?

yep, but the caller was having such a hard time operwting out of his own perspective that he couldn't hone in on that slip up. earthling ed would have definitely seen the hypocrisy there, but he knows calling into a show like this is a lost cause, so he doesnt

Yeah but if prey can kill their attackers when they came after them, they will most certainly try. And if they succeed, they aren’t going to jail. The point Sam is making isn’t that we should only eat animals that are predators, it’s that wild animals as a whole do not have a morality system. It is primitive. It is kill or be killed

most wild animals larger than a cat are dangerous, carnivorous or herbivorous. a moose or a kangaroo or a baboon will kill a human in a second.

He started playing when he could not give a good answer, though.

@@pw5975 "But he gave a good answer right away, though." I must have missed it, could you remind me what it was?

@@itswrongtokillanimalsifyou2837 sam answered his question twice but the caller didn't want to accept that.

@@09daniscool "sam answered his question twice but the caller didn't want to accept that." What was the answer, specifically?

@@itswrongtokillanimalsifyou2837 sam said early on that yes, if they were in some apocalyptic world where cannibalism were the norm of that society, that he'd probably be as his is now with animal consumption. But the caller didn't like that answer because it wasn't the gotcha answer that he was fishing for.

What about being born in another time (the future) or part of the universe (Mars)?

@@chrissmith6097 What color is fast?

We live in this time and this place.

@@NoExitLoveNow Duhhhhhhhhhhh

And Sam has no choice?

That was not vegan gains

different guy i think but similar style

I'm sorry. It sounded so much like Vegan Gains. Gains even does that weird framing routine

Rory Saurus this isn’t vegan gains lmao

Any vegan who doesn't get that capitalism is the problem with meat is just a glorified health nut

I guess we should never strive to do better at anything because we will always fail in some way. In fact that makes the effort to do better hypocritical so even worse that not trying at all. Not!

Sam doesn't fine these very specific hypotheticals useful. He thought ask yourself was asking his genuine opinion and wasn't thinking he was going for a gotcha question. Sam handled himself well and made ask yourself look goofy. Ask yourself never left his script and kept throwing out even more ludicrous hypotheticals as the convo went on, even though Sam obviously didn't care about the moralistic angle.

@@NoExitLoveNow That's certainly interesting, but not my point. We engage in morally compromised consumptive habits constantly in all our lives, yet you never seem to get any grief from people who refuse to support African slave trades by buying the next new iphone, or who refuse to destroy staple rivers in India for the sake of ephemeral fashion. It seems like it's only vegans who assign moral compulsion to their cause, and try to assign the guilt of a massive industry to individuals. In reality, no one person going vegan will damage the profits of the meat industry to a level that escapes margin of error. It isn't atomized, personal consumer choices that can make a difference here, it's collectivist movement towards things like test tube meat and other alternatives, and regulations on factory farms until then, that will skin this cat.

@@ShazyShaze More futility fallacy nonsense. You are responsible for what you do. Not causing animals to suffer > causing animals to suffer. No barrage of irrelevant words makes this not so.

​@@NoExitLoveNow Okay, so the meat industry produced 26.9 billion pounds of beef in 2018, and the average American consumed about 220 pounds of that, according to the USDA. So, if you can convince one person to not eat meat, you've alleviated about 0.00000817% of that problem for every year that they stay vegan. Not really "futility fallacy", just futile. Conversely, if you could spend your time advocating for systems that alleviate this problem, like investment towards test tube meats and animal rights causes, rather than trying to chastise people for not keeping up with your personal standards for moral decency, then you'd probably stand to actually accomplish something. Of course, you don't get to flex moral superiority over people that way, so I can understand why people might gravitate towards the former.

Not a vegan btw. I can see their logic though and how what I eat could be considered morally reprehensible. We don't need to make living things suffer the way we currently do in order to survive. However I was raised on meat and it's hard to change

Shite, I could care less. I couldn't afford all the expensive options. I buy what I can afford. I make little money and gotta feed me and my kid. Fuck morals, I want to survive and not be so mal nourished that I have health issues constantly. Is a vegan diet healthier? Maybe, but it aint for me and someone trying to be on some moral high horse cuz they don't is annoying.

Well I don't know who that guy is but what he said was really stupid.

iconic

It is very cool that sam is denouncing a diet that would drastically increase the american health while supporting mediacare for all. Seems like he is really concerned about his fellow americans.

Lol vitamin d3 and b12 is very important too.

@@btw3344 Yes. You can easily suplement those. The animals u eat are actually supplemented with b12. It doesn't make a difference if u take it directly.

@@KingHalik lol you can just say the same thing about fiber, folate and vitamin c. JUST SUPPLEMENT BRO, is not an argument. Just stick with the moral arguments, vegans win those all day.

@@btw3344 Dude you are supposed to go vegan because it causes unnecessary suffering and damage on a gigantic level. Meat causes cancer and heart disease. That's why it is better to supplement b12 directly instead of stealing it from those animals. It is really painful to see leftists going against their own ideology just because of taste pleasure at least be honest about it. Your answer doesn't even make sense in the context my earlier statement.

I still don't see the victory they are crowing about. I still don't understand this call.

Sam was too polite to say "I got shit to do and living by your Vegan morals is not high on my list. If we don't get Bernie elected we can't have nice things, so have a nice day you Canadian fuckwit"

Chris Bettison one thing that is worse is murdering for no good reason and justifying it because lions kill to survive.

@@hematadopormenos actually that's sounds pretty good to me. I'd prefer more of that and less of this

and some fava beans, with a nice chianti.

@@theangelslayer400000 tftftftff

True

Nah he just does hyena sound effects.

@@TheCoolestJose Also true.

@@Disentropic1 Sam is not a fool. He knows exactly that his argument is messed up. He knows he is wrong but instead of being open about it he gets defensive. If you're a leftist and someone confronts you with the facts about veganism and this is your answer, I can't take you seriously. He wants to feel morally superior. And can't stand to "lose" a debate. That's it.

​@@Disentropic1 Damn i wish i could express myself that good. :D Correct me if misunderstood your point. This kind of community sounds extremly dangerous to me. Your sense of unity shouldn't be influenced by disagreement and/or new ideas as a result of (self-) reflection. This gets extremly dangerous if the majority of that community engages in imoral acts. The unity, image, positivity or whatever of this community stands in no comparison to the suffering and damage meat consumption causes. I think this community misses a great chance by acting that way. That aside. I know that we need a strong connected network to counter alt-right ideoligies since they seem to agree on literally anything. But that doens't mean that we should copy their obvious faults. We should do better. And i think we can be more succesful even if we sometimes disagree on certain issues. As long as we stay honest. But from an outside perspective he doesn't seem any better than Shapiro with that "society said so" mindset. Perhaps i'm overreacting but he's i think thats highly irresponsible of him. I mean why not thriving for improvment rather than we can't disagree or the unity/my reputation is endangered?

Nah they don't care about bugs just care about their delusional moral superiority argument

Yes, It's called an *appeal to nature fallacy.*

Other animals are not human beings who have developed the rule of law

Also animals are inevitably killed when harvesting plants so I guess if you eat plants you don’t grow you are saying it’s ok to holocaust animals.

@@menzere2009 Comparing humans to animals would reduce humans to ANIMALS. That's a great moral stance to take. Snickers.

Will Humans are animals. The moral thing Sam did was a bit lame I admit but everyone draws a line somewhere. The Palm oil industry is catastrophic. That said eating less meat a good thing.

_"Just because you do slightly immoral stuff sometimes doesn’t mean you’re evil"_ In his short video "Are Nonvegans Evil?" Ask Yourself (the caller) explicitly states that. I'd encourage you to watch it.

"Why don’t you just admit that vegans are morally superior?" Because vegans have yet to demonstrate that they are. I reject that they are. Please demonstrate that it immoral to kill and exploit these animals, or that it is morally virtuous to not do so. Thanks.

Frank Lance being compassionate to others is morally superior to being unnecessarily violent to others. Is your problem with this statement only when the others are nonhuman animals or do you think it’s morally ambiguous for someone to go out stabbing innocent victims?

@@hematadopormenos "being compassionate to others is morally superior to being unnecessarily nonviolent to others." Demonstrate that being compassionate to animals in the discussed way is morally superior than not. Also, it is not unnecessary, as a necessity/need is a prerequisite to fulfill a want, and in order to obtain an animal product an animal must necessarily be exploited and/or killed. "Is your problem with this statement only when the others are nonhuman animals or do you think it’s morally ambiguous for someone to go out stabbing innocent victims?" 1st of all, it has nothing to do with non-human vs human. I literally give no fuck about unborn human lives at any point in the pregnancy. I live in Illinois, which just legaled abortion completely, so theoretically if a woman wanted to kill her unborn right before giving birth she wouldn't be prosecuted, and I am damn happy that this is the case. I have no problem with that happening. 2nd of all, whether or not something is "innocent" is irrelevant in determining moral value. Plants are innocent. Who cares. Innocence is not relevant unless you have already determined that the being in question has morally significant value. I reject the premise that the animals in question have any morally significant value. 3rd of all, if you are talking about me having a problem with stabbing actual innocent people, yes, because it is both immoral under my moral framework AND completely detrimental to society to allow such a precedent. It would destabilize society, which is a problem. Killing animals for food is neither immoral under my worldview, or detrimental to society. There are specific detriments regarding animal agriculture(animal agriculture=/=killing animals), and I not only believe that veganism CAN NOT solve it(as there is no chance that even half of the world's population will go vegan by 2050), but I believe that IF we are going to solve it, it is going to be through government intervention. Policies such as reducing or negating animal agriculture subsidies, taxing their emissions, regulating their practices, and capping deforestation are what I want.

@@franklance9167 vegans are morally superior because the production of the food they eat is generally less harmful to the environment

I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise that because an action or lack thereof yields little meaningful effect there's no moral dimension to it. At the time of slavery people could've used the same argument to justify their actions towards slaves. It's an argument from futility that doesn't deal with the problem at all.

I'll first through you a curve ball since you seem to at least be thinking about the bigger issue here then I'll give you my broader perspective. Would you hunt animals, kill them and prepare them yourself to eat them? You don't actually have to answer just keep it in mind. Ultimately the system humans have created to cultivate other animals is not even remotely the same as predation in the wild and the system we created implicates each individual. If as I mentioned each person hunted for food and that lead to a tragedy of small decisions then you could say each actor knew what they were doing on a small scale but were not aware or responsible to it on a large scale. However the implication of any persons meat consumption does reflect on a larger conundrum that even Sam Seder gets diluted by. If all meat eaters ate grass fed free range there would be more animal suffering not less. Because in order to support such a system would require the transformation of more of the entire worlds land mass to raising animals to be eaten causing the destruction of all other environments. This after all is pointing right in the face of the problem here and why human-animal husbandry is nothing like anything else in nature. We play God, other animals do not. Color me surprised but in the three decades I've been following in vitro meat there is nothing that inspires confidence. There is no reason to believe it'd be healthy, there's no reason to believe it'd cost less except glossy media blurbs, there's no reason to believe it'd ever scale well, it wouldn't keep better, it'd cause higher wealth disparity unless of course poor people just get be vegans. Meanwhile we already have a massive growth of the plant based concentrated protein products like the Impossible Burger, various bean paddies and meat substitutes and people are buying these things in droves. Its currently the top product type sold in grocery stores across the country if you can believe that.

No actually, slavery is an ongoing act of cruelty from a slaveowner’s direct contact and treatment of a slave. The act of cruelty in the meat industry occurs in the production of the meat completely separate and out of the hands of the consumer. A slaveowner has a daily and perpetual opportunity to effect the life of a slave, to choose not to force them to work, to let them free, it requires ongoing abuse. The meat eater has no opportunity to effect the lives of the animals in the meat industry, it continues no matter what the meat eater does.

A lot to unpack. Firstly, no I would not hunt or kill animals. As for your allegation that eating free range animals would cause more animal suffering because of devastating ecosystems, you’d have to conduct a pretty damn extensive and detailed study to be able to make that cost benefit analysis between the two. One obvious kink in that belief is that the animals which would suffer and die as a result of changing ecosystems would suffer and die only once. The animals bred by the meat industry suffer and die in perpetuity, in ever increasing body counts. To your notion that the current system implicates each individual, I would argue no it does not. If you have no meaningful effect on the system no matter what you do, you are not involved. The meat industry will continue along unchanged whether one packet of steak fails to sell or not. It’s only in the combined scale of consumption, which is not effected by any one individual’s buying or consuming habits, that any meaningful changes occur. As for vitro meat, like anything it is dependent on technological advancement, and is a matter of time and the level of attention given. It wasn’t until now that there has developed enough consumer interest in reducing the suffering of animals. So the level of focus given to this field is currently increasing on a scale the last several decades couldn’t touch. And the capability of genetically engineering and breeding an animal with no brain or capacity for consciousness is only a matter of time. At which point it may not be all that prohibitively expensive to develop on a large scale.

@@IcarusLime You're missing the point. You're saying the consumer has no responsibility in what they buy because it's not in their hands whether or not animals are killed for food, that's not true. It's supply and demand, of course it has an effect. In my analogy with slavery you'd say you are justified in buying products made by slaves because if you boycott them you'd have little impact on what happens to them.