Welcome to Stupid Meat Eater comments #10. This video series presents some of the amazingly stupid comments by non-vegan YouTubers on my channel’s debates and videos. This week’s episode will be the last regularly scheduled episode of THIS series in order to give me time to work on other awesome projects. Not to fear, from time to time I will be releasing new Stupid Meat Eater Comments videos, however not a 3 week cycle. Thanks to everyone who submits stupid comments for me to use. Keep them coming!
And now, here are this week’s top 5 picks…
This weeks comments are presented to you by my better half, my loving wife.
I’m perfectly aware that many people disagree with veganism, however unless you can defend your contrary opinion, i am not in the slightest interested in what you may think. The term “resources” is applied by humans to what they consider useful for our needs, but there is nothing inherent within the things we call “resources” that necessitates that they are only resources, outside our use. Sentient animals should not be considered resources as they have an interest in their own life and liberty that should be protected and not taken advantage of. Fresh water, heavy metals, land and plants, obtained responsibly, can be considered resources without any concern for the ethics, however when we start treating sentient beings no differently than inanimate objects of our desire, we cross an ethical boundary that requires a moral justification. Its one thing to swim in murky moral waters when a true need exists and no alternatives are available, however its another thing altogether when we engage in cruel immoral acts that have very viable alternatives.
Its great to hear from meat eaters the acknowledgement that humans are also animals, and that non-human animals have the capacity to feel fear and joy as well as pain and suffering. Its sad how many people don’t even acknowledge even this. Just when I thought this commenter was exhibiting evidence of an informed intellect, he crashes and burns with his claim that animals are not conscious and are only biological machines. Its been 364 years since Rene Descartes, a french philosopher and mathematician, proposed that animals are nothing more than machines.
“Descartes and his followers performed experiments in which they nailed animals by their paws onto boards and cut them open to reveal their beating hearts. They burned, scalded, and mutilated animals in every conceivable manner. When the animals reacted as though they were suffering pain, Descartes dismissed the reaction as no different from the sound of a machine that was functioning improperly. A crying dog, Descartes maintained, is no different from a whining gear that needs oil.” (Introduction to Animal Rights – Prof. Gary L. Francione).
We have had hundreds of years of scientific research, observation, and testing and ethologists, scientists who study animal behaviour, unanimously agree that animals have internal lives and are not just unconscious machine-like sacks of meat. How can you believe on one hand that animals are capable of feeling fear and joy and yet on the other hand claim that animals are instinct only driven machines. These claims are mutually conflicting and cannot be both correct.
Sentience…. is where we draw the line. If an animal is deemed sentient (which most are, including animals we routinely kill for their flesh), then that being has interests that ought to be protected whenever possible (where no real conflict exists). A non-sentient animal or living thing, has no interest in its own life, has no capacity to feel or think anything and therefore we cannot have any moral responsibility towards it.
In regards to the example of the fish, and its supposed limited mental capacity, even if this is true, how is this morally relevant? Fish and other aquatic sentient life, irrespective of how little or great their intelligence is (in comparison to our own), ought to be protected from our direct or indirect harm wherever and whenever possible. Is a human with a compromised intellect or limited memory worth less morally? I don’t think so. If anything we have more responsibility to take care of those who are less capable then others.
Intelligence may be important for certain aspects of life, but why would you equate moral worth with intelligence? Im not interested in giving animals human rights, because many of our rights are specific to the needs of our species and would not be appropriate for others, however I am interested in acknowledging the most basic of rights, the right to not be the property of another.
Lastly I will address the final few points brought up. What do you consider “well treated animals”? How do you determine what that means? How do you enforce it in a multi-billion dollar industry who’s primary concern is making money? What moral justification do you have to use animals at all irrespective of how well or poorly they are treated?
If you believe that animals are nothing more than machines without any internal lives, what difference does it make if they suffer or not when slaughtered?
Holz Name ends off with the Naturalistic fallacy claiming that since other animals eat other animals, he can’t see any moral objections for humans to do the same. To this I will say that other animals have either a nutritional requirement for flesh (while humans do not), and that other animals may not have the capacity to make judgements of right or wrong. We can, and we have a plethora of options at our disposal, so we have no moral justification to continue to use animals as food, clothing or resources.
I will not deny that bees are crucial to the pollination of many of our crops, however there is no need to artificially create colonies and then extract the honey in order sustain current farming operations. Bees exist and thrive naturally, and they pollinate flowers and crops all on their own. The reason why beekeeping exists is soley to produce honey for mass consumption. Your claim that without the honey industry their would be worldwide famine, and the extinction of bee species is an extreme exaggeration used to try and justify your consumption. Varroa mites, parasitic creatures that feed on the bodily fluids of adults and laval bees, are carriers for viruses that lead to deformed wings and can desolate the hive population, however these mites are generally not a problem for a strong hive, which can simply leave and relocate. While you may desire their to be a co-dependance between humans and bees, and you seem to romanticize beekeeping, all that you have done is propped up a self-serving bubble that allows you to continue exploiting other animals for your desires.
Most people who consume honey, don’t have a clue about how its actually produced. They hold notions of bees collecting honey from flowers and creating honey combs for no purpose other than for human consumption. The reality is a bit more disgusting. Bees swallow nectar into their crop, regurgitate it, add enzymes (spit), chew, swallow and repeat many times. Honey is essentially bee vomit, partially digested. Sounds yummy now, doesn’t it?
For a full detailed explanation of the moral issues with honey and beekeeping, check out the following webpage link is in the description
At times, when looking for stupid comments to critique and debunk, i am left speechless in regards to how passionately misinformed others can be.
Sentience is the ability for a living being to feel, perceive or to experience subjectively. This is to be distinguished from the ability to think or reason.
In July of 2012, at Cambridge University, scientists came together and formulated the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. This declaration stated
“Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity toexhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”
Leading ethologists have over recent years created a large database of research on animal sentience. Scientists know that individuals from a wide variety of species experience emotions ranging from joy and happiness to deep sadness, grief and post traumatic stress disorder, along with empathy jealousy and resentment. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions )
The World Society for the Protection of Animals has interactive website entitled “Sentience Mosaic” and an introductory video explaining animal sentience (http://www.animalmosaic.org/sentience/) .
Helen Proctor and colleagues at WSPA have done a systematic review of the scientific literature on sentience and have reviewed over 2500 articles and concluded that “evidence of animal sentience is everywhere” (http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/3/3/882 )
Charles Darwin’s idea of evolutionary continuity, recognizes that the differences among species in anatomical, physiological and psychological traits are differences in degree rather than kind. It is bad biology to rob animals of the traits they clearly possess.
Humans are not alone in the community of the sentient. It is time to abandon our anthropocentric view that only big-brained animals such as ourselves, the great apes, elephants, dolphins and whales have sufficient mental capacities for complex forms of sentience and consciousness. Unlike religious claims, sentience has been proven through scientific inquiry.
Other links to use:
Food, as a broad category, is our fuel. Our bodies needs amino acids, minerals, vitamins and water to function, repair muscle, and stay warm. Our bodies don’t care one way or another from which source these nourishment come from, what matters is that we get sufficient quantities so that we are not deficient. Your complete lack of awareness of what vegan foods contain is shocking and a testament of the failure of the education system. Ive never heard of vegan protein tablets. Why would I need to consume some artificially processed protein supplements when we have at our disposal a cornucopia of vegan foods that contain more than sufficient sources of amino acids, minerals and vitamins?
Here is a cursory list of vegan foods that contain protein (list of foods with protein)… notice not one of those is a vegan protein tablet:
- Tempeh – 41 g per cup
- Lentils – 18 g per cup
- Plain soymilk – 11 g per cup
- Edamame – 20 g per cup
- Seitan – 19 g per 3 ounces
- Tofu – 20 g per 1/2 cup
- Peas – 9 g per cup
- Brown rice – 5 g per cup
- White rice – 4 g per cup
- Cooked broccoli – 4 g per cup
- Sunflower seeds – 6 g per 1/4 cup
- Quinoa – 9 g per cup
- Cooked spinach – 5 g per cup
- Avocado – 4 g per cup
- Whole grain bread – 7 g in 2 slices
- Black beans – 15 g per cup
- Cashews – 5 g per 1/4 cup
- Cooked semolina pasta – 8 g per cup
- Chia seeds – 5 g per 2 tablespoons
- Flax seeds – 4 g per 2 tablespoons
- Bulgur – 5.5 g per cup
- Peanut butter – 8 g per 2 tablespoons
- Sunflower seed butter – 5.5 g per 2 tablespoons
- Baked red potato – 3 g per cup
- Barley – 3.5 g per cup
This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means, as protein is readily available across most plant foods.
Yes there are over 7 billion humans alive today, and most can live healthful lives without any animal body parts or bodily secretions. If you are not incredibly poor, or live in a community that is extremely remote, then you have the capability of eating 100% based.
You are right, we do make our own choices, and those choices should be made using reason not desire.
In regards to your claim that the world would be a dessert if it weren’t for humans, Id argue that the earth would be a healthier and more prosperous planet if we had never existed. Our food choices, farming practices, transportation and industry have caused untold damage to our fragile ecosystem. Global flooding, drought, deforestation, desertification and climate change are direct results of our irrational self-centredness.
Non-human animals may not communicate symbolically like we do, however it is very apparent that they can and do communicate in alternate ways.
Some animals communicate through sound, others through scent. Regardless of how animals communicate with their own kind, the fact of the matter is that they do. How is it relevant that no other animal communicates like humans? Why would this matter in the slightest when determining moral worthiness?
We can do whatever we want with other animals, but the question is whether we should, and I believe that our actions should be informed, compassionate and responsible.
Being vegan won’t make the world a better place, but it will be one hell of a start, especially for the 58 Billion land animals and 50+ billion sea animals destined to be killed each year.
Sure there are some wild animals that kill and consume other animals even if biologically they could survive without. To this I would point out a) wild animals do typically do not have a wide range of alternatives to choose from. Most wild animals live in a particularly small ecosystem with certain species and weather patterns so their choices are limited. b) we do not know if other animals have a fully developed moral system and can judge right from wrong, necessary from unnecessary.
You are correct to conclude that my concern is primarily centred around human to animal interactions, and not on the interactions between wild animals. The reason for this is…
1) we know that humans do not need to eat other animals to live healthy lives
2) we know that humans have a developed sense of morality and can make choices based upon reason and evidence
3) many animals that do kill other animals do so because they have a nutritional requirement to do so
4) many animals that do kill other animals do so because they don’t have viable alternatives given their environment
5) we don’t know if other animals have a sense of right from wrong and therefore we can’t hold them accountable for their actions
We cannot police the natural world, and we cannot explain to wild animals how they ought to live, however we can relate and communicate with other humans. I have no vendetta against other humans… i just realize that humans have other options and can be potentially swayed with reason and evidence, while non-human animals cannot.
There you have it. 5 stupid comments from 5 different YouTubers. Which comment would you vote to win the Dumbass Comment of the week award?
Would it be:
1) Holz Name who thinks that animals are capable of feeling joy and fear, pain and suffering, yet they are nothing more than unconscious machines.
2) Brendon Taylor who thinks that without the honey industry their would be worldwide famine.
3) detailsman247 who thinks there is no evidence for animal sentience
4) Damian Games who thinks that vegans consume “fucked up vegan protein tablets” because no other vegan sources exist
5) Jay Kotecha who thinks that vegans should be more concerned with the wild animals killing other animals, instead of concerning ourselves with human to animal interactions.
To vote, leave your choice in the comment section below. Choose only 1 winner. Results will be available on my Facebook page and Google + page One week from today on Friday March 28th. Check back to see who won! If you enjoyed this video remember to press the like button and share with everyone! If you would like to submit a video or audio reading of an upcoming stupid comment, send me an email to email@example.com
Thanks for watching.
Want to see more? CLICK subscribe and keep an eye out for the next Stupid Comments video coming out next Friday. Follow me on my Facebook, twitter and Google + pages (links are in the description). Lastly, head over to my channel and check out all the debates, presentations and videos.