What the cluck was this episode?! It was horrifying and random haha! If you want to see the next episode's reaction right now, check out our Patreon: www.patreon.com/semblanceofsanity
I really wish people would stop referring to an episode as "filler" just because it didn't tie into a larger plot. People did that a lot with Steven Universe, and it was always completely ignoring the fact that those episodes develop characters. Todd and Diane really grew this episode. And so did that mean director lady, her perception of Bojack actually changed a little. Plus, we got worldbuilding. "Filler" is anime beach episodes that do absolutely nothing, this isn't filler.
Precisely. The only metric for judging filler should be whether removing the episode would change anything or not. I think that at the very least, Diane's character arc would be damaged if she didn't have this episode to explore her need for validation and her fear of becoming out of touch. Therefore it must be included.
Eh. Steven Universe definitely had filler. Sure the human characters had character development, sometimes, but most of those characters didn't even matter. It's also worth mentioning that Steven Universe's main plot was high stakes, and combined with the release schedule to create a really obnoxious experience.
@@rowan4327Filler episodes are episodes that pad out the series because they need more episodes or time. Steven Universe turned out to have limited episodes and a spare release schedule. I find it very hard to believe that these “filler” episodes weren’t valuable and important to the creator’s vision for the series. The audience not liking episodes does not make them filler.
@@celestinebuendia I don't think saying "it was important for the creator" holds much weight to judging whether something it's filler or not. Yeah, I am sure if exists it's because Rebbeca Sugar and the team wanted to explore that, but we can still try to analyze narrative, character, worldbuilding and the overall execution/intent of it's in the show to reach our own conclusion. It's not as simplistic as saying "I don't like it". Also, filler(that is a very loose defintion we are going for here) episodes don't exist exclusively because they need more time, or episodes. especially on western animation, which historically use a non linear storytelling, because that is the bussiness model. Hell even with ATLA, nick wanted more episodic, self contained episodes because they wanted kids to be able to tune in any episode and undertand what was going on. More often then not, especially on collaborative media artists have to meet the suits halfway and are not given free rein to whatever they want.
" Humans had always thought they were the most intelligent animal because they had invented things like atomic bombs and New York, while all the dolphins ever did was swimming around in the ocean having a good time" "Meanwhile the dolphins thought they were the most intelligent animal.... For exactly the same reasons" Douglas Adams in The Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy
A channel called "Project Senpai" just watched the pilot and is seeing how much support they get before deciding whether to continue. Might wanna head that way!
I adore how the creators realised the world of the show is kinda messed up if you think about it, and decided to double down on that even more to make it REALLY messed up.
“Sir, the viewers are asking some inconvenient questions.” “I see, that is a problem. Let’s dive into it for an episode and make it as clear as possible.”
[Part 1/2] I'm studying cognitive dissonance for my psychology degree, and this was actually a really timely example of it in practice. I want to make it clear upfront that I am in no way trying to argue for a certain outcome (veganism, vegetarianism, plant-based, whole foods, local/seasonal, regenerative permaculture, etc.), but I am absolutely arguing that what we eat has strong ethical implications. People of course want to be (and perceive themselves as) good people who aren't contributing to suffering and devastation, but at the same time our economic systems create and profit from that suffering. It's a lot to learn, to emotionally process, and to take personal responsibility for. It's important to note as well that being able to make some of these changes is absolutely a sign of time, money, and mental health privilege. The point is to make the intentional, informed, and gradual changes one can according to one's own conscience. Having said that, I want to delve into some of the arguments made in this video, in chronological order: -[16:33 - 17:33] It was notable to me how factory farming was described here. The intense suffering, environmental devastation, and extreme social justice issues were almost completely glossed over. Please don't misunderstand me; I completely agree that this isn't the time or place to fully get into the gruesome details, but I also want to emphasize that factory farms are one of the leading perpetrators of human and animal suffering, environmental harm and degradation, and social justice abuses. Beyond recommending researching what your money is supporting, I will simply add a definition of what factory farming is: "a form of intensive agriculture designed to maximize profits using as few resources as possible" (The Humane League, 2020, para. 2). To put this into perspective, it's important to acknowledge the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare codified by the United Kingdom's Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1979 and since endorsed by the ASPCA, American Humane, and the American Veterinary Medical Association: "1) freedom from hunger and thirst by ready access to to fresh water and diet to maintain health and vigor; 2) freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area; 3) freedom from pain, injury, or disease...; 4) freedom to express normal behavior by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind; and 5) freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering" (ASPCA, n.d.). It is noteworthy that factory farm practices are far from meeting any of these freedoms. It is apparent that this system is devoid of any ethical care for life and directly causes severe suffering. However, harm caused by factory farms extend beyond animals. Workers are almost always marginalized and minoritized peoples, with many being immigrants or refugees, undocumented, and unable to speak English (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2020). They are often under the poverty line and paid extremely poorly with no healthcare and almost no employee rights (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2020). These factors are used to exploit the workers who have almost no means of speaking up about the significant and frequent labor violations (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2020). Slaughterhouse workers especially are three times more likely to be injured while working, making this profession one of the most dangerous in America (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2020). These injuries include two amputations on average each week; eight deaths per year; and constant exposure to filthy conditions, terrified and aggressive animals, animal-passed health conditions that are frequently drug resistant, and high doses of dangerous chemicals and general animal matter (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2020). This does not include the severe trauma workers suffer that is now recognized to be caused by factory farming practices (Victor and Barnard, 2016; MacNair, 2002; BBC, 2020). This form of trauma is known as PITS, or perpetrator-induced traumatic stress. Closely related to PTSD, which involves victims of trauma, PITS has more severe symptoms due to the role of being the perpetrator of trauma and is often seen in soldiers and executioners (MacNair, 2002). Because I believe in the power of story, especially from the lens of those who lived it, I will highly recommend reading "Confessions of a Slaughterhouse Worker" on the BBC website for a more personal look at this experience. Furthermore, factory farming is one of the most environmentally harmful practices on the planet. The United Nations (n.d., para. 10) included reducing the consumption of meat and dairy as one of the most significant actions a person can take in their daily life to "significantly lower your environmental impact." There are many, many important reasons why agricultural practices, including factory farming, are so harmful, but getting into it is outside the purview of this already lengthy comment. I would recommend reading the United Nation's article "Food and Climate Change: Healthy Diets for a Healthier Planet" at www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food. Much of the pollution caused by factory farms is an example of environmental racism because they exploit "lower-income, minority communities...with the assumption that people in these places will put up less of a fight than more affluent, white-dominated areas" (The Humane League, 2020, para. 27). The presence of factory farms means that air and water quality will be significantly reduced with illnesses linked to close proximity to factory farms (The Humane League, 2020). Property value, which is directly tied to other significant outcomes like education and voting opportunities, is also sharply cut. - [17:49 - 18:16] "Chickens are not people" is a strange point to make here. Is the argument that only humans have rights? Is it that the value of an animal is only in how it is able to serve or be disposable to human need/desire? Certainly you don't have these same views when it comes to dogs or cats, and you likely wouldn't eat them despite many people arguing that they're delicious and nutritious. Why is that? Your next point relates to an animal's level of intelligence, and this is the only supporting argument you make for why humans can eat chickens. However, chickens have been found to be smarter than both dogs and cats (and four-year-old human children) (Friedrich, 2013). Not only are they (like pigs, cows, turkeys, and many other animals) sentient (able to perceive or feel things), but they have personalities and a general inclination to be in relationship, often including with humans (Friedrich, 2013). Chickens (and other animals butchered for consumption) have the exact same qualities you love in your pets. The difference is the cognitive dissonance necessary to reduce chickens to meat and elevate dogs/cats to beloved family members. There is a cognitive dissonance inherent to taking part in cruel practices toward animals when this is outside one's values (which it absolutely is for most people). However, we still want to eat chicken and purchase it at low prices where it's easily accessible. To get around this, we justify continuing the action by unconsciously creating a reason why it's okay. In this case, it's that chickens are just stupid animals anyway. The issue: the reasoning came after the decision, which makes it a form of rationalizing, not a rationale. As an important side note, there are important questions that need to be answered here: where does an animal draw its worth from? Is it inherent or based on its usefulness to humans? Where do humans draw their worth from? Do certain humans have different worth or value? What about other living things, like trees? There are going to be some immediate reactionary answers (mostly feelings) that arise here. Don't stop at the immediate response but dive deeper by continuing to ask why.
[Part 2/2] -[18:31 - 18:50] There is a really common misconception that eating chicken is healthy. Certainly, it contains a good quantity of protein and essential vitamins and minerals. But then again, most plant-based foods do too. Every living thing is made up of protein, and meat really isn't always the best source of it. Seeds, nuts, and lentils are protein-dense and readily compete with a healthy serving size of meat in amount of protein and health benefits while also having a more positive environmental impact (Ure, n.d.). When considering that many meats are eaten mostly alone or combined with less healthy or nutrient-dense options, such as in a sandwich, the health value of meat is further reduced (USDA, 2020). Simultaneously, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (n.d., para. 1) found that "chicken is not a healthy choice" because "cholesterol, carcinogens, pathogens, and even feces found in chicken products increase the risk of heart disease, breast and prostate cancers, urinary tract infections, and foodborne illness." According to the USDA's (2020) Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020 - 2025, the amount of protein consumed from meat, poultry, and eggs is at or in excess of the recommended amounts. Comparatively, most people are not meeting their dietary needs for nuts and seeds (USDA, 2020). The USDA (2020) recommends people eat no more than 26 ounces of poultry (which includes chicken) per week. The most up-to-date health recommendation by doctors and scientists is for people to eat a whole, plant-based diet, which includes a spectrum of semi-vegetarian (limited meat, poultry, and seafood along with dairy and eggs), pescatarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets (Tuso, Ismail, Ha, and Bartolotto, 2013; McManus, 2021). As you pointed out, humans are omnivores, but that doesn't mean we need to eat meat to be healthy. For most people, their argument comes down to a simple fact: they like the taste and convenience of meat, and that's that. When humans can be perfectly healthy without meat, at what point does killing and torturing a living being while promoting environmental and human harm become ethically unjustifiable? If personal comfort is ranked more highly than anything else, your choice isn't an ethical one. -[20:51 - 21:15] Trying to negate the negative side effects of factory farming or the importance of an animal's right to life/a good life and death (depending on your personal ethics) by saying that other ethically awful things are happening is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning and are common in everyday thought patterns. Specifically, you're using a bit of a motte-and-bailey fallacy here. That means you have connected two issues that are not connected--one that is easier to defend (child slavery, mining) and one that is more controversial (animal rights vs. human desire). In this argument, you are arguing the more controversial opinion that animal consumption as it currently is is fine because it's better than child slavery and mining practices. This effectively makes it so that when I argue against your position that animal consumption is okay, you can argue that I am then justifying child slavery and mining practices. If, instead, I am sidetracked by the new topic of child slavery and mining practices, you can then argue that I have agreed with your position that animal consumption is okay. But just to refute this non-point anyway, children and adults are dying of dehydration and starvation due to environmental degradation and climate change significantly caused by factory farming and the agricultural monocultures needed to feed factory farms' animals (United Nations, 2019). Is child slavery an issue? Of course, absolutely. So are all other forms of modern-day slavery. This, too, will only become worse as we further destroy our environment. Your argument presents the topic as if only one of these things can be ethically abhorrent or changed for the better, which is an example of a black-and-white fallacy. This leads directly into my main point in all of this. People can care about many different important issues, and they ought to take action, in accordance with their conscience and the best available data. You don't need to solve everything, and you don't need to be extreme. Maybe you like eating meat and that is okay; buy it from a local, small farm that uses the best practices for animal care. At first, taking action will start with creating personal change in one small area of your life. You will eventually reach a level of day-to-day expertise in that area and can add another area and then another and another. In time, you will find that animal rights are environmental rights which are human rights. We are not separate. Life is in relationship with all other life, and we are here now, gifted with the opportunity to engage in that relationship. References Animal Legal Defense Fund (2020, July 28). Industrial Animal Agriculture: Exploiting Workers and Animals. aldf.org/article/industrial-animal-agriculture-exploiting-workers-and-animals/ ASPCA (n.d.). Five Freedoms. Retrieved on July 27, 2023 from www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/upload/images/aspca_asv_five_freedoms_final1.ashx_.pdf BBC (2020, January 6). Confessions of a slaughterhouse worker. www.bbc.com/news/stories-50986683 Friedrich, B. (2013, August 16). Chickens: smarter than a four-year-old. New York Daily News. www.nydailynews.com/opinion/chickens-smarter-four-year-old-article-1.1428277 MacNair, R. A. (2002). Perpetration-induced traumatic stress: The psychological consequences of killing. Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. McManus, K. D. (2021, November 16). What is a plant-based diet and why should you try it? Harvard Health Publishing. www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-is-a-plant-based-diet-and-why-should-you-try-it-2018092614760 Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (n.d.). Chicken is not a healthy choice. www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/chicken The Humane League (2020, November 30). Factory Farming: What It Is and Why It's a Problem. thehumaneleague.org/article/what-is-factory-farming Tuso, P. J., Ismail, M. H., Ha, B. P., & Bartolotto, C. (2013). Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based Diets. The Permanente Journal 17(2), 61-66. doi.org/10.7812/TPP/12-085 United Nations (2019, October 3). Can we feed the world and ensure no one goes hungry? news.un.org/en/story/2019/10/1048452 United Nations (n.d.). Actions for a healthy planet. www.un.org/en/actnow/ten-actions Ure, D. (n.d.). Meat vs. plant protein: 14 foods go head-to-head. Muscle and Fitness. Retrieved on July 27, 2023 from www.muscleandfitness.com/nutrition/gain-mass/meat-vs-plant-14-protein-rich-foods-go-head-head/ USDA (2020, December). Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020 - 2025. www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans_2020-2025.pdf Victor, K. & Barnard, A. (2016). Slaughtering for a living: A hermeneutic phenomenological perspective on the well-being of slaughterhouse employees. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Health and Well-being 11. doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v11.30266
Plant based foods first off lack certain proteins that are important for your health and second off deliver their nutrients in a less bioavailable way - making supplements a hard requirement for vegans and vegetarians. There's a reason why vegans and vegetarians have substantially more health problems associated with lack of nutrition when compared even to the general population - which is a really bad look. To put it in perspective: none of the centenarians living in Okinawa are vegan or vegetarian - and before you say something about the study on the diet of people from that place I will tell you to check the date on when they gathered that data and consider happenings of the time. I hate how disingenuous even the studies that seem to say some negative thing about eating meat are, let alone the moral crusaders weaponizing those flawed studies. We are omnivores and we are healthiest when our diets contain a substantial amount of meat. All our meat alternatives have substantial shortcomings in cost, nutrition, or both. Even if we could replace meat entirely, half of the world's fertilizer comes from animals.
17:53 eh, I was mindblown when I heard this. But turns out chickens outperform the average 4 year old kid on multiple cognitive tests. Appearantly they can 'recall and learn from past events, dream, empathize with others, and even do math!' Pigs are among the top 10 smartest animals as well, beating out rats, dogs, and even crows! 'While dogs have intelligence comparable to a toddler, pigs operate at a much higher IQ level. They are able to understand the concept of reflection at only six weeks old; that is something that takes human children several months to comprehend. Pigs also have approximately 20 different sounds that they use to communicate, and mother pigs sing to their children while they are feeding. Pigs respond to emotion and even show empathy when appropriate which is an extremely rare trait in the animal kingdom.' Cows, while slightly less intellegent than dogs, can understand cause and effect relations, are empetethic of other cows being stressed, and show calming behavior in that scenario. They can also learn from behavior of other cows. And then I haven't even touched on octopuses, and their intelligence. Researching this, makes me think they're all quite smart. And I'm definitely speaking here as a vegan, but smart enough not to deserve being eaten. Even if they weren't as smart, they definitely have been show to feel pain. I think that would be enough to warrent us atleast to have conversations about how ethical eating (these) animals is. Especially when it has been shown we can survive, and even thrive without them. And unexpectedly, in most developed countries for cheaper than having a diet with them. I do realize this is a very complex topic, with lots to consider. But certainly something to think about, and if you want to share or talk about your ideas of this, feel free to. I'd love to hear what you think!
As for the land use, iirc it's like 70%+ of the land that's used for animal agriculture. That's because animals have to eat too, and they eat plants as well, but a LOT more than us. And ofc, you lose quite a bit of energy that way. I think having it all be plant-based stuff directly would be much more effective when it comes to that side specifically. And imo, we can and should focus on multiple things at once. Your diet is just for most people in developed places quite a simple one. As most of the time It's quite simply reading some packaging and choosing this one plant-based product, instead of the animal-based one. Then you can focus the rest of your energy on other pressing issues. Also, and I know this is VERY long. Thank you for reading this if you are, but by focusing on at least not funding factory farms, (which at a global scale you do have to use to be able to all have access to animal products). You also help a lot of human suffering. See, a big thing with a lot of slaughterhouses that It's not exactly a very sought after job. So the people who do it largely do it out of need, that's usually because they're immigrants or they come from a low-income household. When you consider that, and how slaughterhouse workers are particularly prone to things like PTSD because of this, when they didn't even want to do it in the first place. (And I can't imagine it would be a very pleasant job even if you don't suffer from these long-term mental consequences). Even if you do continue eating meat, I think that's quite the issue. And if you don't continue eating animal products, than not only are you preventing lots of unnecessarily animal suffering, but human suffering as well. I think that's a very worthy persuit. Especially as It's quite simple to do in most developed places now. But again, very complex. Please let me know if you have any thoughts about this.
Not that this changes your point, but I will say that an animal developing certain skills faster than a baby isn't particulary impressive, when compared to humans (it's impressive on it's own), if they have a shorter life span, plus human babies grow slower because the brain has to keep developing.
@brandonchandlerMGandO I mean yeah. No animal compares to a human in any way , because at the end of our life span , we are much more developed and intelligent. Also well.......they're animals. We haven't separated them from us without a reason for millennia.
I actually like that it unapologetically saying two things: №1 there never was and never will be ethical way to kill someone №2 majority of people are fine with this At there very least we should stop lying to themselves and stop finding loopholes to feel better about what we, people who consume animals, do. And in foreseeable future we not going to change until we forced to. "You'd probably sleep a lot better at night if you just admit to yourself that you're goddamn coward who takes whatever he want, and doesn't give a shit about who he hurts" (c)
A channel called "Project Senpai" just watched the pilot and is seeing how much support they get before deciding whether to continue. Might wanna head that way!
@@Steelburgh I’m hoping that channel will do Bojack Horseman, but I don’t think they will… Most of their subscribers are watching them react to Gumball and Adventure Time and shows like that… kids shows… So I don’t see Bojack being a hit with them
Heck, now that I'm prioritizing drinking water more regularly at work, I can't eat lunch. Because prioritizing something means abandoning everything else - everyone knows that!
"Chickens aren't people" no one is making that claim. Chickens are sentient beings nonetheless, they experience pain. You say you don't specifically eat the "smart animals" yet I doubt that's actually true, Pigs are smarter than dogs yet you eat one but not the other. You don't eat the animals that you think are cute so the "friend animals" and eat the ones you don't think are cute or have been socialized to view as "food animals". Ultimately there isn't really any significant difference between cows, pigs, chickens and dogs, cats, dolphins etc. They are all sentient beings that seek to avoid suffering. "If you're upset about chickens but don't care about child slavery..." just whataboutism. You can care about both. Clothes and electronics don't necessitate child labour, animal products necessitate animal exploitation. Animal products can't really exist without animal exploitation, so it's not even really a good comparison. "Live and let live" just not the animals I guess. Yes there are people starving and yet we use almost 80% of the total agricultural land to grow animal feed to then kill and eat the animals for far less calories over all. The cognitive dissonance becomes pretty apparent with this episode.
I'm also a passionate meat eater but you have to admit to yourself that no one eats animals based off intelligence. It's mostly dye to set religious and cultural norms, no? And how easy it was to keep and breed animals that sometimes varies on a region. And we all have biases about what animals are okay to eat or not ok to eat because of that. Animals are smart, all animals are sentient (just not sapient). I'd believe farmers would understand it more than anyone else. People just keep telling themselves things to feel better since it interferes with how they view themselves from a moral standpoint. It's just not ao fun fact that has to be accepted. You can't dodge that. Personally I believe this grim part of life should be asknowleged.
"As a passionate meat consumer", you seem to be dodging the direct animal rights messaging in the episode. There's no better farm, and they're "all Becca." They're saying ethical meat isn't possible and that cute animal antics aren't special, all critters have that potential when left alone. Nobody deserves to be slaughtered for a sandwich.
You've nailed the point of the episode, but you seem to be taking it as gospel. Also, by shutting down the factory farming side of the conversation, you're refusing to accept progress because it's "not enough progress", which is antithetical to the whole cause.
@@Joe-cm5kl How do you see small, family farms killing animals as progress towards not killing animals? Do you think environmentalists and people who love animals object to the *size* of the slaughterhouse? UA-cam is eating links to Elwood's Organic Dog Meat, but check them out. They're fresh, never frozen organic and available by the half or quarter dog. No antibiotics, family owned. What part of that is progress?
The issue is that this is a world of anthropomorphic animals who sometimes retain biological features of their species even though they're otherwise human. Some animals are carnivores and will starve to death without meat. We don't know that it's possible for everyone to go vegetarian or vegan in this universe - eating meat might well be a _biological necessity _ for big chunks of the population. This would explain why a setup this horrific is allowed to exist in this world - because when all animals are anthropomorphic and some animals have meat as a dietary requirement, your options are to either admit to yourself that you're raising other sapient beings to be killed and eaten, outlaw meat eating and watch entire species go extinct, or create a degree of separation between yourself and your food through this artificial stunting, pretending that it's OK because they're not as intelligent as you, even though you made them that way. From that perspective,.choosing the third option makes perfect sense.
@@Talisguy I'm sorry but this is a very silly perspective masquerading as philosophy. The show was made by humans for humans, who are a single species. There is no subtype of human and there is no subtype of human that must eat meat.
I think a lot of people have unconsciously given up the notion of being able to make material and institutionalized changes, so they pursue avenues where they feel like they have more power aka crying on Twitter. It’s a lot easier to tweet at some random person on the internet than calling your local congressmen’s office. We all implicitly understand that there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, but because we feel like we can’t tackle the capitalism part, it becomes a contest of who can consume more ethically, which is ultimately a distracting and fruitless endeavor.
Sadly you're correct. We will never achieve greatness like Mao and other glorious, "non-capitalist" utopias did. You can't get closer to "ethical consumption", than nomming on your own babies.
It's not fruitless at all, pun intended. Take responsibility. You don't need a law passed to decrease demand for meat by a barnful, just stop eating animals.
What I understood from this video is, that it has to be nice to be born in the USA morally wise. Hey. Dont go vegan. Ofcourse you could do your part in stopping unhealthy meat factorys in which you have disturbing animal cruelty. Ofcourse it would help to not use 70% of farming land to feed said animals. Ofcourse it would help a lot in terms of gases released into the atmosphere which increase the greenhouse effect. But... if you are an US american you dont need that. Just dont throw away the food you would normally put to waste and you save more than multiple people of other rich countrys would ever need. Wow.
I suggest re-watching that part. Meat and dairy are a great caloric dense, nutritious and long lasting source of food, not to mention it's extremely tasty. Must be nice living in places where fresh produce is readily available. There are ways to use livestock to actually have a positive effect on the planet, and keep eating them, look up regenerative agriculture (becoming a big thing in Australia) and biogas production (which is, indirectly, becoming mandatory in quite a few USA states, hopefully all of the USA soon) for example, since you're worried about farming land and greenhouse gases.
@@nikm3r Yeah, I think the real issue is the overconsumption of meat and the advent of industrial factory farming. I think there should be a return back to traditional farming methods in regard to livestock.
yeah lol absolute waste of his cognitive energy to talk. veganism isnt even about the environment, its about the rights of the animals being directly violated. Then they mention slavery as if its a correct analogy to animal agriculture (ignoring the obvious whataboutism)
@@peggedyourdad9560 traditional farming methods are very inefficient, you can't feed the planet with them, but, as I mentioned above, there are ways to do it, while doing good for the planet and having high quality meat in the end.
So this episode is really hard watching reactions to, it really puts me off of reaction channels I usually like. Your commentaire is great, usually, but here it's just an unreflected mess. Chickens ARE sentient, contrary to what Jacob said, and yes, there are smarter animals out there than chickens but 1) how is that even relevant when chickens are capable of suffering and feeling pain, pain we unnecessarily inflict onto them, and 2) we commonly slaughter pigs which are one of the smartest species out there so this argument is literally useless. Oh, there's a state that has more chickens than people? No, that's the entire world, because we force breed chickens 4 times the amount of humans into existence because "taste". We are omnivores but not obligated ones, we can but don't HAVE to eat animal based products to be healthy. So that being a fact makes whether you consume animal products purely a moral question. And news flash, people can care about unnecessary animal cruelty AND child labor, as could you.
The elimination of the meat and dairy industries would drastically improve global human hunger, as well as it would massively reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions (which will kill millions of humans). It isn't an either-or situation. Of course, we can't solve that problem without tackling capitalism.
Probably the weakest episode of Bojack Horseman, so I get why you called it “filler “ But don’t worry, the show starts to set up a story arc in the following episodes and builds to a great climax
What the cluck was this episode?! It was horrifying and random haha!
If you want to see the next episode's reaction right now, check out our Patreon: www.patreon.com/semblanceofsanity
I really wish people would stop referring to an episode as "filler" just because it didn't tie into a larger plot. People did that a lot with Steven Universe, and it was always completely ignoring the fact that those episodes develop characters. Todd and Diane really grew this episode. And so did that mean director lady, her perception of Bojack actually changed a little. Plus, we got worldbuilding. "Filler" is anime beach episodes that do absolutely nothing, this isn't filler.
Precisely. The only metric for judging filler should be whether removing the episode would change anything or not. I think that at the very least, Diane's character arc would be damaged if she didn't have this episode to explore her need for validation and her fear of becoming out of touch. Therefore it must be included.
Eh. Steven Universe definitely had filler. Sure the human characters had character development, sometimes, but most of those characters didn't even matter. It's also worth mentioning that Steven Universe's main plot was high stakes, and combined with the release schedule to create a really obnoxious experience.
@@rowan4327Filler episodes are episodes that pad out the series because they need more episodes or time. Steven Universe turned out to have limited episodes and a spare release schedule. I find it very hard to believe that these “filler” episodes weren’t valuable and important to the creator’s vision for the series. The audience not liking episodes does not make them filler.
truee people are so quick to call an episode filler
@@celestinebuendia I don't think saying "it was important for the creator" holds much weight to judging whether something it's filler or not. Yeah, I am sure if exists it's because Rebbeca Sugar and the team wanted to explore that, but we can still try to analyze narrative, character, worldbuilding and the overall execution/intent of it's in the show to reach our own conclusion. It's not as simplistic as saying "I don't like it". Also, filler(that is a very loose defintion we are going for here) episodes don't exist exclusively because they need more time, or episodes. especially on western animation, which historically use a non linear storytelling, because that is the bussiness model. Hell even with ATLA, nick wanted more episodic, self contained episodes because they wanted kids to be able to tune in any episode and undertand what was going on. More often then not, especially on collaborative media artists have to meet the suits halfway and are not given free rein to whatever they want.
" Humans had always thought they were the most intelligent animal because they had invented things like atomic bombs and New York, while all the dolphins ever did was swimming around in the ocean having a good time"
"Meanwhile the dolphins thought they were the most intelligent animal....
For exactly the same reasons"
Douglas Adams in The Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy
A channel called "Project Senpai" just watched the pilot and is seeing how much support they get before deciding whether to continue. Might wanna head that way!
@@Steelburgh yes I went and watched, subscribed and liked their Bojack video.
Hopefully they get enough clicks to keep on watching 🤞
I adore how the creators realised the world of the show is kinda messed up if you think about it, and decided to double down on that even more to make it REALLY messed up.
“Sir, the viewers are asking some inconvenient questions.”
“I see, that is a problem. Let’s dive into it for an episode and make it as clear as possible.”
[Part 1/2] I'm studying cognitive dissonance for my psychology degree, and this was actually a really timely example of it in practice. I want to make it clear upfront that I am in no way trying to argue for a certain outcome (veganism, vegetarianism, plant-based, whole foods, local/seasonal, regenerative permaculture, etc.), but I am absolutely arguing that what we eat has strong ethical implications. People of course want to be (and perceive themselves as) good people who aren't contributing to suffering and devastation, but at the same time our economic systems create and profit from that suffering. It's a lot to learn, to emotionally process, and to take personal responsibility for. It's important to note as well that being able to make some of these changes is absolutely a sign of time, money, and mental health privilege. The point is to make the intentional, informed, and gradual changes one can according to one's own conscience.
Having said that, I want to delve into some of the arguments made in this video, in chronological order:
-[16:33 - 17:33]
It was notable to me how factory farming was described here. The intense suffering, environmental devastation, and extreme social justice issues were almost completely glossed over. Please don't misunderstand me; I completely agree that this isn't the time or place to fully get into the gruesome details, but I also want to emphasize that factory farms are one of the leading perpetrators of human and animal suffering, environmental harm and degradation, and social justice abuses. Beyond recommending researching what your money is supporting, I will simply add a definition of what factory farming is: "a form of intensive agriculture designed to maximize profits using as few resources as possible" (The Humane League, 2020, para. 2). To put this into perspective, it's important to acknowledge the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare codified by the United Kingdom's Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1979 and since endorsed by the ASPCA, American Humane, and the American Veterinary Medical Association: "1) freedom from hunger and thirst by ready access to to fresh water and diet to maintain health and vigor; 2) freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area; 3) freedom from pain, injury, or disease...; 4) freedom to express normal behavior by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind; and 5) freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering" (ASPCA, n.d.). It is noteworthy that factory farm practices are far from meeting any of these freedoms. It is apparent that this system is devoid of any ethical care for life and directly causes severe suffering.
However, harm caused by factory farms extend beyond animals. Workers are almost always marginalized and minoritized peoples, with many being immigrants or refugees, undocumented, and unable to speak English (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2020). They are often under the poverty line and paid extremely poorly with no healthcare and almost no employee rights (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2020). These factors are used to exploit the workers who have almost no means of speaking up about the significant and frequent labor violations (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2020). Slaughterhouse workers especially are three times more likely to be injured while working, making this profession one of the most dangerous in America (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2020). These injuries include two amputations on average each week; eight deaths per year; and constant exposure to filthy conditions, terrified and aggressive animals, animal-passed health conditions that are frequently drug resistant, and high doses of dangerous chemicals and general animal matter (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2020). This does not include the severe trauma workers suffer that is now recognized to be caused by factory farming practices (Victor and Barnard, 2016; MacNair, 2002; BBC, 2020). This form of trauma is known as PITS, or perpetrator-induced traumatic stress. Closely related to PTSD, which involves victims of trauma, PITS has more severe symptoms due to the role of being the perpetrator of trauma and is often seen in soldiers and executioners (MacNair, 2002). Because I believe in the power of story, especially from the lens of those who lived it, I will highly recommend reading "Confessions of a Slaughterhouse Worker" on the BBC website for a more personal look at this experience.
Furthermore, factory farming is one of the most environmentally harmful practices on the planet. The United Nations (n.d., para. 10) included reducing the consumption of meat and dairy as one of the most significant actions a person can take in their daily life to "significantly lower your environmental impact." There are many, many important reasons why agricultural practices, including factory farming, are so harmful, but getting into it is outside the purview of this already lengthy comment. I would recommend reading the United Nation's article "Food and Climate Change: Healthy Diets for a Healthier Planet" at www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food.
Much of the pollution caused by factory farms is an example of environmental racism because they exploit "lower-income, minority communities...with the assumption that people in these places will put up less of a fight than more affluent, white-dominated areas" (The Humane League, 2020, para. 27). The presence of factory farms means that air and water quality will be significantly reduced with illnesses linked to close proximity to factory farms (The Humane League, 2020). Property value, which is directly tied to other significant outcomes like education and voting opportunities, is also sharply cut.
- [17:49 - 18:16]
"Chickens are not people" is a strange point to make here. Is the argument that only humans have rights? Is it that the value of an animal is only in how it is able to serve or be disposable to human need/desire? Certainly you don't have these same views when it comes to dogs or cats, and you likely wouldn't eat them despite many people arguing that they're delicious and nutritious. Why is that? Your next point relates to an animal's level of intelligence, and this is the only supporting argument you make for why humans can eat chickens. However, chickens have been found to be smarter than both dogs and cats (and four-year-old human children) (Friedrich, 2013). Not only are they (like pigs, cows, turkeys, and many other animals) sentient (able to perceive or feel things), but they have personalities and a general inclination to be in relationship, often including with humans (Friedrich, 2013). Chickens (and other animals butchered for consumption) have the exact same qualities you love in your pets. The difference is the cognitive dissonance necessary to reduce chickens to meat and elevate dogs/cats to beloved family members. There is a cognitive dissonance inherent to taking part in cruel practices toward animals when this is outside one's values (which it absolutely is for most people). However, we still want to eat chicken and purchase it at low prices where it's easily accessible. To get around this, we justify continuing the action by unconsciously creating a reason why it's okay. In this case, it's that chickens are just stupid animals anyway. The issue: the reasoning came after the decision, which makes it a form of rationalizing, not a rationale.
As an important side note, there are important questions that need to be answered here: where does an animal draw its worth from? Is it inherent or based on its usefulness to humans? Where do humans draw their worth from? Do certain humans have different worth or value? What about other living things, like trees? There are going to be some immediate reactionary answers (mostly feelings) that arise here. Don't stop at the immediate response but dive deeper by continuing to ask why.
[Part 2/2]
-[18:31 - 18:50]
There is a really common misconception that eating chicken is healthy. Certainly, it contains a good quantity of protein and essential vitamins and minerals. But then again, most plant-based foods do too. Every living thing is made up of protein, and meat really isn't always the best source of it. Seeds, nuts, and lentils are protein-dense and readily compete with a healthy serving size of meat in amount of protein and health benefits while also having a more positive environmental impact (Ure, n.d.). When considering that many meats are eaten mostly alone or combined with less healthy or nutrient-dense options, such as in a sandwich, the health value of meat is further reduced (USDA, 2020). Simultaneously, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (n.d., para. 1) found that "chicken is not a healthy choice" because "cholesterol, carcinogens, pathogens, and even feces found in chicken products increase the risk of heart disease, breast and prostate cancers, urinary tract infections, and foodborne illness." According to the USDA's (2020) Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020 - 2025, the amount of protein consumed from meat, poultry, and eggs is at or in excess of the recommended amounts. Comparatively, most people are not meeting their dietary needs for nuts and seeds (USDA, 2020). The USDA (2020) recommends people eat no more than 26 ounces of poultry (which includes chicken) per week. The most up-to-date health recommendation by doctors and scientists is for people to eat a whole, plant-based diet, which includes a spectrum of semi-vegetarian (limited meat, poultry, and seafood along with dairy and eggs), pescatarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets (Tuso, Ismail, Ha, and Bartolotto, 2013; McManus, 2021). As you pointed out, humans are omnivores, but that doesn't mean we need to eat meat to be healthy. For most people, their argument comes down to a simple fact: they like the taste and convenience of meat, and that's that. When humans can be perfectly healthy without meat, at what point does killing and torturing a living being while promoting environmental and human harm become ethically unjustifiable? If personal comfort is ranked more highly than anything else, your choice isn't an ethical one.
-[20:51 - 21:15]
Trying to negate the negative side effects of factory farming or the importance of an animal's right to life/a good life and death (depending on your personal ethics) by saying that other ethically awful things are happening is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning and are common in everyday thought patterns. Specifically, you're using a bit of a motte-and-bailey fallacy here. That means you have connected two issues that are not connected--one that is easier to defend (child slavery, mining) and one that is more controversial (animal rights vs. human desire). In this argument, you are arguing the more controversial opinion that animal consumption as it currently is is fine because it's better than child slavery and mining practices. This effectively makes it so that when I argue against your position that animal consumption is okay, you can argue that I am then justifying child slavery and mining practices. If, instead, I am sidetracked by the new topic of child slavery and mining practices, you can then argue that I have agreed with your position that animal consumption is okay. But just to refute this non-point anyway, children and adults are dying of dehydration and starvation due to environmental degradation and climate change significantly caused by factory farming and the agricultural monocultures needed to feed factory farms' animals (United Nations, 2019). Is child slavery an issue? Of course, absolutely. So are all other forms of modern-day slavery. This, too, will only become worse as we further destroy our environment. Your argument presents the topic as if only one of these things can be ethically abhorrent or changed for the better, which is an example of a black-and-white fallacy.
This leads directly into my main point in all of this. People can care about many different important issues, and they ought to take action, in accordance with their conscience and the best available data. You don't need to solve everything, and you don't need to be extreme. Maybe you like eating meat and that is okay; buy it from a local, small farm that uses the best practices for animal care. At first, taking action will start with creating personal change in one small area of your life. You will eventually reach a level of day-to-day expertise in that area and can add another area and then another and another. In time, you will find that animal rights are environmental rights which are human rights. We are not separate. Life is in relationship with all other life, and we are here now, gifted with the opportunity to engage in that relationship.
References
Animal Legal Defense Fund (2020, July 28). Industrial Animal Agriculture: Exploiting Workers and Animals. aldf.org/article/industrial-animal-agriculture-exploiting-workers-and-animals/
ASPCA (n.d.). Five Freedoms. Retrieved on July 27, 2023 from www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/upload/images/aspca_asv_five_freedoms_final1.ashx_.pdf
BBC (2020, January 6). Confessions of a slaughterhouse worker. www.bbc.com/news/stories-50986683
Friedrich, B. (2013, August 16). Chickens: smarter than a four-year-old. New York Daily News. www.nydailynews.com/opinion/chickens-smarter-four-year-old-article-1.1428277
MacNair, R. A. (2002). Perpetration-induced traumatic stress: The psychological consequences of killing. Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
McManus, K. D. (2021, November 16). What is a plant-based diet and why should you try it? Harvard Health Publishing. www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-is-a-plant-based-diet-and-why-should-you-try-it-2018092614760
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (n.d.). Chicken is not a healthy choice. www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/chicken
The Humane League (2020, November 30). Factory Farming: What It Is and Why It's a Problem. thehumaneleague.org/article/what-is-factory-farming
Tuso, P. J., Ismail, M. H., Ha, B. P., & Bartolotto, C. (2013). Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based Diets. The Permanente Journal 17(2), 61-66. doi.org/10.7812/TPP/12-085
United Nations (2019, October 3). Can we feed the world and ensure no one goes hungry? news.un.org/en/story/2019/10/1048452
United Nations (n.d.). Actions for a healthy planet. www.un.org/en/actnow/ten-actions
Ure, D. (n.d.). Meat vs. plant protein: 14 foods go head-to-head. Muscle and Fitness. Retrieved on July 27, 2023 from www.muscleandfitness.com/nutrition/gain-mass/meat-vs-plant-14-protein-rich-foods-go-head-head/
USDA (2020, December). Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020 - 2025. www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans_2020-2025.pdf
Victor, K. & Barnard, A. (2016). Slaughtering for a living: A hermeneutic phenomenological perspective on the well-being of slaughterhouse employees. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Health and Well-being 11. doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v11.30266
Plant based foods first off lack certain proteins that are important for your health and second off deliver their nutrients in a less bioavailable way - making supplements a hard requirement for vegans and vegetarians. There's a reason why vegans and vegetarians have substantially more health problems associated with lack of nutrition when compared even to the general population - which is a really bad look. To put it in perspective: none of the centenarians living in Okinawa are vegan or vegetarian - and before you say something about the study on the diet of people from that place I will tell you to check the date on when they gathered that data and consider happenings of the time.
I hate how disingenuous even the studies that seem to say some negative thing about eating meat are, let alone the moral crusaders weaponizing those flawed studies. We are omnivores and we are healthiest when our diets contain a substantial amount of meat. All our meat alternatives have substantial shortcomings in cost, nutrition, or both. Even if we could replace meat entirely, half of the world's fertilizer comes from animals.
17:53 eh, I was mindblown when I heard this. But turns out chickens outperform the average 4 year old kid on multiple cognitive tests. Appearantly they can 'recall and learn from past events, dream, empathize with others, and even do math!' Pigs are among the top 10 smartest animals as well, beating out rats, dogs, and even crows! 'While dogs have intelligence comparable to a toddler, pigs operate at a much higher IQ level. They are able to understand the concept of reflection at only six weeks old; that is something that takes human children several months to comprehend. Pigs also have approximately 20 different sounds that they use to communicate, and mother pigs sing to their children while they are feeding. Pigs respond to emotion and even show empathy when appropriate which is an extremely rare trait in the animal kingdom.' Cows, while slightly less intellegent than dogs, can understand cause and effect relations, are empetethic of other cows being stressed, and show calming behavior in that scenario. They can also learn from behavior of other cows. And then I haven't even touched on octopuses, and their intelligence. Researching this, makes me think they're all quite smart. And I'm definitely speaking here as a vegan, but smart enough not to deserve being eaten. Even if they weren't as smart, they definitely have been show to feel pain. I think that would be enough to warrent us atleast to have conversations about how ethical eating (these) animals is. Especially when it has been shown we can survive, and even thrive without them. And unexpectedly, in most developed countries for cheaper than having a diet with them. I do realize this is a very complex topic, with lots to consider. But certainly something to think about, and if you want to share or talk about your ideas of this, feel free to. I'd love to hear what you think!
As for the land use, iirc it's like 70%+ of the land that's used for animal agriculture. That's because animals have to eat too, and they eat plants as well, but a LOT more than us. And ofc, you lose quite a bit of energy that way. I think having it all be plant-based stuff directly would be much more effective when it comes to that side specifically. And imo, we can and should focus on multiple things at once. Your diet is just for most people in developed places quite a simple one. As most of the time It's quite simply reading some packaging and choosing this one plant-based product, instead of the animal-based one. Then you can focus the rest of your energy on other pressing issues. Also, and I know this is VERY long. Thank you for reading this if you are, but by focusing on at least not funding factory farms, (which at a global scale you do have to use to be able to all have access to animal products). You also help a lot of human suffering. See, a big thing with a lot of slaughterhouses that It's not exactly a very sought after job. So the people who do it largely do it out of need, that's usually because they're immigrants or they come from a low-income household. When you consider that, and how slaughterhouse workers are particularly prone to things like PTSD because of this, when they didn't even want to do it in the first place. (And I can't imagine it would be a very pleasant job even if you don't suffer from these long-term mental consequences). Even if you do continue eating meat, I think that's quite the issue. And if you don't continue eating animal products, than not only are you preventing lots of unnecessarily animal suffering, but human suffering as well. I think that's a very worthy persuit. Especially as It's quite simple to do in most developed places now. But again, very complex. Please let me know if you have any thoughts about this.
yeah the intelligence thing is bullshit, what animals we eat is completly cultural
Also tastes great on a sandwich with lettuce and tomato! ☝🏻
Not that this changes your point, but I will say that an animal developing certain skills faster than a baby isn't particulary impressive, when compared to humans (it's impressive on it's own), if they have a shorter life span, plus human babies grow slower because the brain has to keep developing.
@brandonchandlerMGandO I mean yeah. No animal compares to a human in any way , because at the end of our life span , we are much more developed and intelligent. Also well.......they're animals. We haven't separated them from us without a reason for millennia.
I honestly didn't notice until just now that Diane did the Dukes of Hazzard car-hood-slide when they escaped the slaughterhouse.
(Yeah, ok, I'm old.)
Look at all those chickens! 👉 🐓 🐓 🐓 🐓 🐓
I actually like that it unapologetically saying two things:
№1 there never was and never will be ethical way to kill someone
№2 majority of people are fine with this
At there very least we should stop lying to themselves and stop finding loopholes to feel better about what we, people who consume animals, do.
And in foreseeable future we not going to change until we forced to.
"You'd probably sleep a lot better at night if you just admit to yourself that you're goddamn coward who takes whatever he want, and doesn't give a shit about who he hurts" (c)
If these are your concerns, you're going to love later seasons.
The creators of “Wallace and Gromit” did a film called “Chicken Run”, so I wonder if this episode is a nod to that
A channel called "Project Senpai" just watched the pilot and is seeing how much support they get before deciding whether to continue. Might wanna head that way!
@@Steelburgh I’m hoping that channel will do Bojack Horseman, but I don’t think they will…
Most of their subscribers are watching them react to Gumball and Adventure Time and shows like that… kids shows…
So I don’t see Bojack being a hit with them
"Yolk go oh no!" might be my favorite part of this episode.
love these reactions/breakdowns
28:45 "prioritise human injustices over animal injustices" nice, i'll start kicking dogs from now on, guilt free.
and when people tell me to stop, i'll just tell them to F off and focuse on humans first
ok, go ahead man 👍
Heck, now that I'm prioritizing drinking water more regularly at work, I can't eat lunch.
Because prioritizing something means abandoning everything else - everyone knows that!
Reading all these comments about food consumption has been super interesting.
and after saving Beca they ate burritos lol
Don't ask questions, just keep eatin
"Chickens aren't people" no one is making that claim. Chickens are sentient beings nonetheless, they experience pain. You say you don't specifically eat the "smart animals" yet I doubt that's actually true, Pigs are smarter than dogs yet you eat one but not the other. You don't eat the animals that you think are cute so the "friend animals" and eat the ones you don't think are cute or have been socialized to view as "food animals". Ultimately there isn't really any significant difference between cows, pigs, chickens and dogs, cats, dolphins etc. They are all sentient beings that seek to avoid suffering.
"If you're upset about chickens but don't care about child slavery..." just whataboutism. You can care about both. Clothes and electronics don't necessitate child labour, animal products necessitate animal exploitation. Animal products can't really exist without animal exploitation, so it's not even really a good comparison.
"Live and let live" just not the animals I guess. Yes there are people starving and yet we use almost 80% of the total agricultural land to grow animal feed to then kill and eat the animals for far less calories over all.
The cognitive dissonance becomes pretty apparent with this episode.
Obviously they don't reply to these kinda comments but I really hope they at least read them and try to reflect on them :/
I'm also a passionate meat eater but you have to admit to yourself that no one eats animals based off intelligence. It's mostly dye to set religious and cultural norms, no? And how easy it was to keep and breed animals that sometimes varies on a region. And we all have biases about what animals are okay to eat or not ok to eat because of that.
Animals are smart, all animals are sentient (just not sapient). I'd believe farmers would understand it more than anyone else.
People just keep telling themselves things to feel better since it interferes with how they view themselves from a moral standpoint.
It's just not ao fun fact that has to be accepted. You can't dodge that. Personally I believe this grim part of life should be asknowleged.
Off topic - Does anyone know if the bros are gonna react to Mushoku S2 or are gonna wait until it ends?
"As a passionate meat consumer", you seem to be dodging the direct animal rights messaging in the episode. There's no better farm, and they're "all Becca." They're saying ethical meat isn't possible and that cute animal antics aren't special, all critters have that potential when left alone. Nobody deserves to be slaughtered for a sandwich.
You've nailed the point of the episode, but you seem to be taking it as gospel. Also, by shutting down the factory farming side of the conversation, you're refusing to accept progress because it's "not enough progress", which is antithetical to the whole cause.
@@Joe-cm5kl How do you see small, family farms killing animals as progress towards not killing animals?
Do you think environmentalists and people who love animals object to the *size* of the slaughterhouse?
UA-cam is eating links to Elwood's Organic Dog Meat, but check them out. They're fresh, never frozen organic and available by the half or quarter dog. No antibiotics, family owned.
What part of that is progress?
The issue is that this is a world of anthropomorphic animals who sometimes retain biological features of their species even though they're otherwise human. Some animals are carnivores and will starve to death without meat.
We don't know that it's possible for everyone to go vegetarian or vegan in this universe - eating meat might well be a _biological necessity _ for big chunks of the population. This would explain why a setup this horrific is allowed to exist in this world - because when all animals are anthropomorphic and some animals have meat as a dietary requirement, your options are to either admit to yourself that you're raising other sapient beings to be killed and eaten, outlaw meat eating and watch entire species go extinct, or create a degree of separation between yourself and your food through this artificial stunting, pretending that it's OK because they're not as intelligent as you, even though you made them that way. From that perspective,.choosing the third option makes perfect sense.
@@Talisguy I'm sorry but this is a very silly perspective masquerading as philosophy. The show was made by humans for humans, who are a single species. There is no subtype of human and there is no subtype of human that must eat meat.
oh right this episode
The editor not putting the whiteboard scene actually on the screen…
Great reaction!
watch its gonna be Todd's girlfriend!!! lmao.. 😂
I think a lot of people have unconsciously given up the notion of being able to make material and institutionalized changes, so they pursue avenues where they feel like they have more power aka crying on Twitter. It’s a lot easier to tweet at some random person on the internet than calling your local congressmen’s office.
We all implicitly understand that there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, but because we feel like we can’t tackle the capitalism part, it becomes a contest of who can consume more ethically, which is ultimately a distracting and fruitless endeavor.
Sadly you're correct.
We will never achieve greatness like Mao and other glorious, "non-capitalist" utopias did.
You can't get closer to "ethical consumption", than nomming on your own babies.
@@arsenelupin9697google false dichotomy
@@yersiniapestis5237Google "Mao's Great Famine"
It's not fruitless at all, pun intended. Take responsibility. You don't need a law passed to decrease demand for meat by a barnful, just stop eating animals.
No ethical consumption under capitalism so might aswell not try to be as ethical as possible. What a silly argument.
love season 2
What I understood from this video is, that it has to be nice to be born in the USA morally wise.
Hey. Dont go vegan. Ofcourse you could do your part in stopping unhealthy meat factorys in which you have disturbing animal cruelty. Ofcourse it would help to not use 70% of farming land to feed said animals. Ofcourse it would help a lot in terms of gases released into the atmosphere which increase the greenhouse effect.
But... if you are an US american you dont need that. Just dont throw away the food you would normally put to waste and you save more than multiple people of other rich countrys would ever need.
Wow.
I suggest re-watching that part.
Meat and dairy are a great caloric dense, nutritious and long lasting source of food, not to mention it's extremely tasty. Must be nice living in places where fresh produce is readily available.
There are ways to use livestock to actually have a positive effect on the planet, and keep eating them, look up regenerative agriculture (becoming a big thing in Australia) and biogas production (which is, indirectly, becoming mandatory in quite a few USA states, hopefully all of the USA soon) for example, since you're worried about farming land and greenhouse gases.
@@nikm3r Yeah, I think the real issue is the overconsumption of meat and the advent of industrial factory farming. I think there should be a return back to traditional farming methods in regard to livestock.
yeah lol absolute waste of his cognitive energy to talk. veganism isnt even about the environment, its about the rights of the animals being directly violated. Then they mention slavery as if its a correct analogy to animal agriculture (ignoring the obvious whataboutism)
@@peggedyourdad9560 traditional farming methods are very inefficient, you can't feed the planet with them, but, as I mentioned above, there are ways to do it, while doing good for the planet and having high quality meat in the end.
@@nikm3rThis is nonsense. Almost every calorie fed to an animal is lost, the corpse only has like ten percent left.
So this episode is really hard watching reactions to, it really puts me off of reaction channels I usually like. Your commentaire is great, usually, but here it's just an unreflected mess. Chickens ARE sentient, contrary to what Jacob said, and yes, there are smarter animals out there than chickens but 1) how is that even relevant when chickens are capable of suffering and feeling pain, pain we unnecessarily inflict onto them, and 2) we commonly slaughter pigs which are one of the smartest species out there so this argument is literally useless.
Oh, there's a state that has more chickens than people? No, that's the entire world, because we force breed chickens 4 times the amount of humans into existence because "taste".
We are omnivores but not obligated ones, we can but don't HAVE to eat animal based products to be healthy. So that being a fact makes whether you consume animal products purely a moral question.
And news flash, people can care about unnecessary animal cruelty AND child labor, as could you.
One of the only episode I dislike in the whole show and its not even that bad
The elimination of the meat and dairy industries would drastically improve global human hunger, as well as it would massively reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions (which will kill millions of humans). It isn't an either-or situation.
Of course, we can't solve that problem without tackling capitalism.
Ah, the weakest BoJack episode and it still had interesting things to say and some good jokes.
This is far from the weakest episode, it's easily better than at least half of season 1...
Probably the weakest episode of Bojack Horseman, so I get why you called it “filler “
But don’t worry, the show starts to set up a story arc in the following episodes and builds to a great climax
This episode is terrible lmao.
this is my least favourite episode is just,...there idk