Basman

Its not really a fallacy technically but thought terminating cliches are extremely common when question leftist group-think. Any word that ends with "-ist" or "-phobe" gets used to effectively shut down a conversation. Certain topics like talking about trans, immigration, women's/men's rights, essentially become taboo because people don't want to be framed as a bigot basically. I think this has slowly started to regress since Trump won the last election and I have experienced at least anecdotally that people are talking more about "taboo" topics more openly. There is generally too much focus on how an argument sounds rather than the actual content of an argument. The former is much easier to identify which is why I think leftist group-think (and group-think in general) trends towards being irrational and logically incongruent. Group-think is the opposite of nuance and critical thought. It has to be stupid and simple.

Just reacting to the title of this thread, this seems like just a grab for attention as Tate is falling out relevancy. Like with how Kanye was running for president. Its meant to be shocking. I doubt he is serious about politics.

Do you think wild animals deserve to be eaten alive by predators? Or do you think we have a duty to intervene in nature to save the poor animals? These aren't things that aren't done for fun. Its part of survival. I can see the argument but the problem is that I just don't see veganism being tenable on a societal scale for multiple reasons. And there are probably things that make up your life that you don't pay attention that are arguably unethically sourced, like your phone or your clothes. You don't question how your vegetables where made either with pesticides or your countries geopolitics. Right now your tax money is going to bombing people abroad. But farm animals is the one thing you are ideological about? There's a degree of entitlement to wanting everyone to adopt your views on a thing that isn't inherently immoral. Animal husbandry isn't needless cruelty for the sake of it.

You only need to tag me once or is this like an excited kid calling out for someone twice in a row? No you are right, sapiens is probably a better term.

Two adult siblings, a sister and a brother, go on a cabin trip to spend a weekend together and after a couple drinks and long conversations end up having sex. The sister assures she's on the pill but the brother chooses to use a condom anyway to be safe. The next morning they choose not to do this again or tell anyone but they feel closer than they did before. Is this immoral?

Its immoral to knowingly breed in such way to that are likely to lead to genetic disorders which is why inbreeding is problematic. But incest in of itself isn't immoral if its between consenting parties and its non-reproductive/not inbreeding. The taboo is around reproduction and adult-child relationships in the first place. There used to be a point where it wasn't unusual to reproduce with distant family members which technically isn't inbreeding.

Initiative is probably the most important factor for a man to get laid from my experience and research. In our modern environment, a lack of initiative is the main reason men aren't getting laid. You strictly speaking don't have to develop yourself socially now days so that becomes the path of least resistance, at least if you're the introverted type.

Its funny, because its basically just eating more veggies.

The fact is that people perceive animals differently. I think the view that vegans hold that animals are equivalent to humans morally is because many vegans didn't grow up with animal husbandry and are used to anthropomorphize animals through pets and media. If you grew up hunting seals for a living you would understand that exploiting animals doesn't inherently mean cruelty. Animals aren't equivalent to humans because they aren't sentient. And in a broader sense, exploitation is necessary for human society to survive. Its a bit of a luxury view in my opinion which is why I call it childish. A child doesn't have to contend with survival. Now, vegans make a good argument for individual welfare. And the treatment of animals has improved and continues to improve with time. In my opinion, veganism is like communism. Its main feature is the critique but the end game of either ideology is untenable. Animal husbandry is most likely going to continue for as long as humans exist.

In my opinion, the healthiest diet is a semi-vegetarian diet because you'll eat more veggies and avoid more of the processed garbage while still covering both nutrition and taste. I think this is much more realistically possible for most people than veganism.

So you agree then LOL.

There is no reason not to eat meat from a purely health oriented perspective. It just a matter of quality and quantity of certain kinds of products. Quality meat is perfectly healthy and highly nutritious. Choosing not to eat meat is necessarily an ideological orientation the vast majority of the time.

As nice as that would be, I doubt that it would ever truly replace, be a competitor at best. Growing an animal is way easier. Pigs do what artificial cell culture tries to do by just rolling around in the dirt, eating trash and fucking without having to worry about sterility or having to pay technicians for their 5 year degree. If you consider that there will always be a market for meat, then there necessarily must be an ideological battle.

Who knew that holocaust survivors weren't being starved. They where just vegan.

It doesn't really matter which diet is healthier when health isn't the top priority in an average person's lifestyle. People prioritize taste, culture and convenience over health generally speaking. Hence why meat consumption is the highest in the countries that can afford it. And also why there is such a push for meat alternatives industry-wise. If veganism is to become mainstream it needs to subsume popular culture somehow. Also hence the endless debates.

To add what I previously wrote, being critical of information is adjacent to being open-minded. Being open-minded doesn't mean you assume presented information to be true but that you examine it critically. That doesn't mean you can't know when something is true or false with a degree of certainty. Being close-minded would be to not even engage with information in the first place. Of course if people are being belligerent then you need to set a boundary for yourself and not engage with them. Your not obligated to entertain morons.

Starting to love this channel. Great political analysis.

You can with certainty defend something you feel certain about while still being open-minded to different views. Being open-minded doesn't mean you have to assume the view of the last person you spoke with. Its more like a sense of curiosity than an obligation in my opinion. An examination of potential truth when presented with new information. Open-mindedness would be something like agreeing with Andrew Tate on a thing or two while dismissing the rest of his world view as obviously misogynistic. Close-mindedness would be to dismiss anything he says regardless of validity due to a preconceived notion. You can often intuit when something is very biased or lacking in depth of understanding in my experience. Usually I don't give such opinions much weight unless they can present something actually insightful, like the aforementioned example with Andrew Tate.

This was about vegan activism. None of what I said is precludes personal life style choices. My critique of veganism is mostly against the P. Singer brand of extreme veganism and idiotic activism. I'd love to see a more realistic and informative dialogue that doesn't use emotional blackmail and outrage as a crutch because veganism can be a positive influence. The problem is if you subsume that veganism is the only solution, which I fundamentally disagree with philosophically and I believe to be simply impossible considering the world we live in, hence "flawed". The reason people disrespect vegans is because your insufferable. That should say something about your politics. Its unserious and merely groupthink. Altruism is when you harbor a concern for others, independent of personal benefit. Vegans care about the welfare of animals primarily as an ideology. Therefore veganism is an altruistic ideology.

I get the hustle but this whole pick-up thing comes off as so manipulative and gamey sometimes. The crazy part is that girls don't even recognize all the tactics on display. All the work that goes into it all. They are so in their own little world.

The ideological point of veganism is equalizing animals with humans in terms of rights and ethics. There is hardly any point in being vegan if not for ethical reasons. Veganism is sorely focused on the welfare of individuals as opposed to collectives, like for example an ecology, a forest or a city. Vegans do not prioritize the environment over individual animal welfare for example. For someone like P. Singer, the environment is something to be undermined for that exact reason, advocating for euthanizing predators via contraceptives. I never said that veganism is necessarily harmful to society. I'm merely pointing out that it is a flawed premise in execution when taking into account the reality we live in. People are simply not going to agree that animals are equivalent to human being across the board. This is obvious. This was about vegans. The problem with acts like releasing fur minks is that its hypocritical and makes vegans/animal rights activist look stupid and myopic, only being able to focus on the suffering of individual animals. And the fact that the animals vegans/animal rights activists care about are almost always cute makes them seem unprincipled and merely emotional. Releasing an invasive species into the wild isn't even being registered as a potential issues. The consequences don't matter. It all about destroying what you hate right now, which is why I call it childish. I once lived in close proximity of a dairy farm and one night a group of activists snuck in released all of the cows. Did the cows live happily ever after? No, they got run over by cars and got stuck in ditches. This is why people don't vegans/animal rights activists seriously.

Nothing of what I said precludes questioning the ethics of something or changing the status quo. What you are demonstrating here is that veganism can't even be question. That is not even post-modern, that's modern. Your trying to impose an absolute rule and the fact is most people judging by how they live and think don't agree with the premise that animals have the same status as a person. That doesn't mean that there is no value what so ever to be gained from dialogue, for example vegans have been a positive influence on animal welfare in factory in farming. However, it is like I said, the value of veganism is the critique not the means. Acting as if veganism is inherently correct comes of as short-sighted and myopic. It assumes people think the same which is my biggest critique. Animal exploitation is not equivalent to slavery. While you could have an argument in terms of welfare the fact is that animals aren't people. A human in slavery is not the same as a chicken coup. To compare the two as equal is ridiculous and childish. Veganism is extreme relative to what is normative. When I call veganism extreme is descriptive not pejorative. And its perfectly fair to call veganism extreme considering the lengths you have to alter your lifestyle to be vegan not to mention the often cult-like and misanthropic community that subscribes to the ideology.

But ethics is a matter of perspective. Ascribing altruism to animals isn't something everybody is going to agree on to the same extent that vegans tend to do. That doesn't mean your necessarily less developed or that you don't value animal welfare. The problem with veganism, or at least the more extreme version of P. Singer, is that it prioritizes individuals over systems. If you start giving every animal rights you start undermining human society as well as natural ecosystems. That is when you get people who release fur minks into the wild, which then devastate the ecosystem driving native bird species to extinction. Veganism is like communism in that its more about the critique than the means in my opinion. Just like how its not truly possible for there to be a true communist state outside of perhaps a hunter-gatherer tribe its not possible for everyone to be vegan.

You don't need a free market of guns to achieve that. Just acquire one illegally. In practice, a bomb is probably more effective than small arms, like that scooter trap that killed that Russian general recently. When Luigi Mangione used a handgun to kill that CEO it was no doubt in part a statement. In fact, I'd argue most premeditated acts of gun violence are in parts statements rather than just pure acts of elimination. Like a school shooting or the terrorist attack on Utøya in Norway by Anders Breivik.

In N. Europe access to guns is highly regulated and mostly just for hunting. I do envy America a little for all the fun toys you can get access to and I think there is some merit to guns as a self-defense measure in a trained and regulated fashion but on the other hand we have next to no serious gun violence. All we get are these Elmer Fudd guns with a max capacity of two. Doesn't inspire much in the way of fervor. In Norway you can't even use an airgun to shoot rats (legally).