Cosmic Skeptic on "Cancelling" Historical Figures
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 гру 2021
- Clip taken from the debate, "This House Would Cancel Cancel Culture", hosted by the Oxford Union, available in full here: • This House Would Cance...
If you like Cosmic Skeptic content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic
Alex, after I deconstructed from my evangelicalism and left behind notions like humans as the pinnacle of creation, didn’t take long for me to be convinced about veganism. I truly thank you, since your videos were of fundamental importance on both matters, but mainly in the veganism. Today I can somewhat tolerate that I was brainwashed by dogma, but I truly repent for all the suffering that could be massively avoided and I’ve caused not for some honorable cause or survival, but due to ignorance, an ill-placed sense of self-importance, and a sensorial pleasure.
Thanks from Brazil! 🇧🇷 🌱
EDITS: spelling and clarity
Actually, vegananism perpetuates the idea that humans are separate and apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Do you think Lions are immoral murderers for eating other animals' flesh? What about all other carnivorous or omnivorous species? Should they be condemned for eating the diets their bodies evolved to consume and digest? Why are humans the only morally culpable species?
@@blackalien6873 and what? Lions also kill cubs of another male to guarantee resource exclusivity for their lineage. I don’t judge the lion for that, but if a man did the same, I sure as hell will judge him. Ducks commonly rape female ducks, and we still make moral judgments about human rape. Should we stop?
If you want to base your actions on the rest of animal kingdom, please stop commenting on UA-cam, since no other animal does that.
We as humans have given this very unique characteristic where we can stop and think about the instincts that guide us. Other animals have other unique characteristics, one of ours is that. In nature is common to kill competitors for resources and mates, but we now think that’s not appropriate for our species because of that.
That even without talking about choice, a major, HUGE, point in ethics. The lion don’t have the choice to go vegan for its survival. On the other hand, I saw what animal factory entailed, had a choice if I would continue to participate in that, and choose not to. I even acknowledge that some people don’t have that choice, or don’t have in the same degree as I do (just like I don’t have in the same degree as some of my friends do), and some people need animal products for survival (and one of the last video of Alex says exactly that).
I just think that if I can avoid causing harm in the form of forced impregnation, family and social isolation, confined space, extremely shortening of lifespan, lack of hygiene and exercise, all of that while driving antibiotics resistance, climate/water/land crisis, new infections, poor job conditions for humans, for a somewhat dispensable product, I will avoid all that.
I will only take your argument against veganism being “but the lions do it too” when you stop watching UA-cam, stop living under a roof, go live in the woods and kill the animals you will eat with your bare hands with no animal factory involved.
@@blackalien6873 Since when did animals become the moral exemplar for what we should follow?
Also, animals do not have a moral code.
Man he really does knock it right out the park. Legend
Only to people incapable of complex thought.
@@blackalien6873 lol. There’s a difference between complex thought and doing mental gymnastics. I find Alex to be capable of the former, while I suspect you engage in the latter.
I think I distinction can be made between statues of people who are celebrated for their ethical failings (eg Confederate statues in the US) and statues of people who are celebrated for other reasons and who happened to also have ethical failings (eg Churchill). In other words, take down statues that celebrate racism, but leave up statues of people who happened to be racist.
Sure, but the South claims that statues of Robert E. Lee were celebrating his military prowess and integrity on the battlefield, despite the fact that the statues were actually erected to mend the decaying egos of the South. So that's an issue
@@JM-us3fr Good point!
I think a big problem is that some assume statues are historical objects. I don't like putting people on pedestals in general, and I likewise don't like pulling them down in the gutter. REAL History exists to be learned from, not something used to hand out medals and "demerits” about the past from.
Another problem is not realizing that we have the advantage of hindsight from a time that for them was an unknown future .. they operated under different presumptions
So:
We can learn about Lee's military prowess AND the deplorable system he was fighting for and we can make sure to NOT "sum up" who he was afterwards. We are learning history for OURSELVES to become better people, who cares what he was, he's dead!
Who decides which statues we keep and which ones we don't? In the UK we have had statues pulled down by thugs who asked nobody first. I know who I would like to cancel, all the little "cancel culture" wimps. They really need to get a life.
@@corydorastube I think the problem in England and here (Norway) is more of an "infection" of anger from what is happening in the US.
Not that shitty people (and racists) are absent here .. but it is not like America.
There are three things different with America:
1. Racism runs deep (and is "cemented" in various structures)
2. Statues and public buildings are erected to make you feel small and obedient, to "send a message" of power to "the peasants"
3. History is treated like a rallying cry for nationalism and militarism (on a whole nother level). And they are "wicked" insecure about it, too ..
Oh and whites are very complacent about "the errors of the past". They'd leave ANYTHING up ... so
BUT:
It would of course be better to AGREE to be decent (and take outright "middle finger" - type statues down) through public processes and THEN one could require RESPECT for public processes!
@@busylivingnotdying but what is considered "decent"? How do you measure this? You cannot. It is different for many people. That's part of the issue.
Statues are not history. They are mythology.
Remember when a woke antifa mob forcefully stormed Berlin and cancelled Hitler
Very well said. If we cancelled everyone in the past who had bad morals then we would be cancelling everyone in the past until the end of time because morals are always changing. We can look at historical figures with an appreciation of how morality has evolved.
And we should rightfully be cancelled in the future!
I mean, I don't think Alex's two points really land here. He says we shouldn't "cancel" historical figures because they weren't moral clairvoyants. Then he says we shouldn't cancel them because someone in the future might retrospectively cancel us.
First, I don't even know what it means to "cancel" a historical figure. They're dead, there's nothing to cancel. They don't have TV shows, they don't have jobs, they don't have feelings. At most, we kinda just stop looking up to them or holding them up as moral exemplars and we point out how flawed they were. Which is probably a good thing. Alex admits that Churchill was indeed a racist, so maybe instead of keeping him around in our mind, looking backwards to the best we USED to be able to do, we should look forward towards the best we can ACTUALLY do. Cancelling a historical figure is at worst doing nothing and at best learning from the mistakes of the past.
Second, of course future generations will look back on us with disgust. AND THEY'D BE RIGHT. We treat the environment and animals like absolute shit, and we know it or are willfully ignorant to it, and we keep doing it. In 100 years, my grandchildren or greatgrandchildren will look back on my generation and think "wow, those guys sucked, they knew or should have known better and they just kept on doing the wrong thing anyway." They'd be right. Don't look to us as heroes, don't have statutes in our honor, we were awful, "cancel" us and do better. It won't hurt my feelings, I'll be dead.
Where are these historical villains being condemned? Not in my history books, not in my classrooms. They are outwardly being talked about as amazing people who should have statues, instead of people who have committed atrocities to those who they felt they could have to and helped those they felt they should. If anything, bringing these statues down is less about the individual person but of the system that perpetuates them as a higher being.
Then the problem is the way history is taught in UK schools. Isn't it?
Maybe look at it from another perspective.
I guess there are very old statues left from multiple centuries ago. Illustrating some noble ruler who most likely isn't a proper role model.
But having an original piece of art from long ago showing what shaped this region is a good thing to have.
A secular statue isn't like a religious depiction showing the perfect. It shows a person who did at least one thing that is very relevant and positive.
Churchill played a major role in resisting Hitler. Without somebody who filled this role the world could've be much worse.
An example is Colombus in USA.
Nailed it so hard 😍
I think we can just quit treating people as either absolutely good or absolutely evil cuz they never are either.. each person has good deeds and bad deeds, might have more of one than the other, but neither makes the other insignificant.. we can look back at someone like Winston Churchill and admire some of his actions while condemning some.. but not act like some of his actions can make him an absolutely good or bad person.. for example I hate his contribution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, he was a zionist.. but he did stand against Hitler, so.. is he a sinner, is he a saint? Neither, he's a human.
Agreed 👍
Absolutely correct.
@@ASMRyouVEGANyet
👋
Also this notion is absurd since someone either violates moral minimums or they don't. Like no one says well yea he IS a cannibal serial killer, BUT he did also start that children's charity.
@@taramoon9307 nobody does say that, but that doesn't mean he didn't actually do both.. ofc he was mostly a bad person, but the good and bad don't cancel eachother.. the good is there even if it's too little in comparison.
I pretty much guessed what the content of this vid would be from the title, but you always put it SO well. You're such a talented speaker.
Very well communicated Alex. The continued existence of a statue is not a more pressing issue than the ongoing incarceration and killing of billions of sentient brings every year. Amazing that so few people can see this.
You can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Taking statues down is "cancelling"? That might need to be better defined.
You put a smile on my face, and hope in my heart. Thank you for the clarity!
A big "ouch" to every one that openly defends an anti vegan perspective
I’m not so sure. I think veganism is a fairly selfish view to hold because it’s sense of moral superiority rests on the fact only a minority in society hold it. If it were ever to become a majority position and factory farms (or any farms, for that matter) became morally and economically impossible, what would be done with the nonhuman animals on the farms? Released into the wild? But surely that would cause a heinous amount of painful deaths, both human and nonhuman.
@@geopoliticsweekly people love to use this "what would we do with all the animals?" argument, but let's be realistic. Everyone is not going to go vegan tomorrow. Realistically, the demand for factory farms would decrease at a steady rate, and the breeding of FUTURE animals would decrease and eventually cease entirely. Not trying to be combative here, but I think that's a reasonably understandable, logical goal, even if you aren't on the veganism train yourself.
I think you mean a big eh. I'm not anti vegan, but I'm not completely anti factory farming either. The difference between myself and Alex is I have mouths to feed, while living on a budget. I accept a certain amount of suffering to obtain the necessary food sources to cook for my family.
When my kids are adults, it is perfectly fine for them to have their opinions, but while they are children, it is my responsibility to make sure their needs are met.
@@justincapable oh man... "I accept a certain amount of suffering" is very good😅😅
Being against factory farming of animals does not equate to being vegan. It's in nature's very design that animals kill and eat other animals. I think it would be a bit arrogant to put ourselves above this, or to think we are designed to not eat meat. We were designed to be omnivores. Cows that graze freely can live without suffering. Same with chickens.
We cull deer when the populations threaten the crops the vegans eat, or when the wolves don't eat enough of them.
I agree wholeheartedly with Alex's position on factory farming of animals. I don't believe that veganism is the only answer. There are gray areas in between the extremes.
I think it's okay to "cancel" a historical figure who was confronted multiple times with an ethical issue, given the chance to reflect and consciously took a stance later considered abhorrent on it. MLK might not have been vegan, but his wife and a son went vegan after his death, and I wouldn't be surprised if he himself would have gone vegan eventually, too, if he hadn't been killed. So, I wouldn't cancel MLK, since I don't know that he would have had the wrong position on factory farming or animal ethics generally, if given the chance to think seriously about them, and I don't know that he did have the chance to think seriously about them.
hes just fucking hammering the table at this point, there's no nail left to be found
Alex, I generally find your arguments to be incredibly convincing and I've spent a lot of time questioning my beliefs due to the things you've said over the years. I hope you see this and consider my read on the situation, as I believe you to be very reasonable.
I guess the first point to make is that "cancel culture" is a hard thing to define. But I'm certainly not against criticizing it in its many definitions to a great extent - I think we can agree that the general existence of cancellation is a bad thing.
But I see "cancelling" historical figures as a separate concept. What I want to do is reframe the now dirty word "cancellation" and use "refutation" in place of it for a moment. We already recognize certain people to have done terrible things, to be people who we cannot endorse and rather people who we refute, to an almost absolute degree. If you believe this person was good, we cannot accept you. I'm sure you can think of the people I'm referencing - Stalins, Pol Pots, N*zis, and the rest - and we refute them and those who follow them. I would argue this is a process of cancellation - that "refute" and "cancel" are synonyms here. And we agree that some people should be refuted to the highest extent - in the present the grounds are much much shakier because these people we might cancel have current conscious experiences that we should take into account - but most of the time it's also for actions. If you don't agree this is fair, then I'm not sure what cancelling means in regards to historical figures.
I think, to start, the question of the cancelling of the Founding Fathers of America must be pondered. We in America celebrate them for creating "freedom" - there are statues of these men all over the country. And we certainly celebrate their creation of America while often ignoring the fact that they enslaved people. Take George Washington, for example. Washington, while celebrated for being the first President, had an estimated net worth of $500 million in today's money, coming from his land and slaves. He also put down revolts against the very forms of taxation he claimed to have fought a war to end. Does he not warrant cancellation, for claiming all men are created equal, fighting for that message, and then seemingly having the "blindspot" of somehow thinking being owned can be considered to be freedom? I would think yes. I can't venerate a slaver. I just can't. In fact, I would put forth the argument that "cancellation" from a society hundreds of years into the future is a rather minimal moral dessert for such heinous action.
"Cancelling" historical figures, I'd argue, should be one of the primary goals of our society. If we are not critical of the people who preceded us, especially those who were in power, then we'll continue to repeat history's mistakes. Think about how often the "intentions of the founding fathers" are taken into account in the US, even prioritized by the Supreme Court above all else. These people, almost all of them, OWNED people. And there were certainly abolitionists in their time. And there were certainly enough of a means for them, as the richest men in a new country, to not own people. We can't judge people who are never exposed to the truth, but the Founding Fathers certainly were - John Adams was one of the most prominent of them and was an ardent abolitionists, while the state of Pennsylvania where they wrote many of the most influential texts in the country's history, some that reinforced the institutions of slavery in their country, had an incredible movement of abolitionist Quakers.
I would really want to emphasize this to juxtapose with the assertion, which I believe is misled, that this line of thinking leads us to cancelling Dr. King for not being vegan. For one, King as an individual, more than anyone in the 1900s, no longer exists in the eyes of the general public. He is just a collection of nice quotes that we use for political arguments. If we actually grappled with King's true beliefs, America would hate him. In my opinion it would be wrong but it is the truth. King was outwardly Marxist and endorsed guaranteed jobs and income and certainly would denounce the castrated image we have created of him. Additionally, King did not exist with a very prominent animal rights movement in his day, while the Founding Fathers existed with not just a prominent anti-slavery movement, but an entire half of their country that operated without slavery. King also fought from a position of an oppressed and disenfranchised minority, not from the position of the leaders of a country. I would hope we put less of an onus on him to be uniquely virtuous from that position. I don't feel the same inclination for the Founding Fathers.
Furthermore, I would think King would want us to grapple with and criticize his beliefs and actions. Would he have wanted us to just turn him into a collection of his cleanest platitudes? Maybe, to reference one of his platitudes, he would follow the idea that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere" and turn to animal rights, in the same way that he turned to the Vietnam War and guaranteed jobs programs later in his life? Were he alive today, King would know that his views were incomplete at the time and that the work always continues. If we are to venerate the past, we SHOULD do it with recognition of the past's errs, including King's unfaithfulness in his marriage and his disregard for animal rights - and we should acknowledge these things first. I ask, if a man saves a child from being killed, and then proceeds to assault anotherchild himself and kill the child, we acknowledge him as a child-killer before we would acknowledge him as a child saver. It is but another argument in favor of being more ethical - we do not get to excuse our worst actions with our best ones.
To extend this to Churchill, the man was also in a position of incredible power in the UK, and even notable conservatives of Churchill's time thought his views were out of date. Certainly we can recognize how he was a legitimately racist person?
All of this to say - and this last part is less technical - for me it comes down to this: Churchill is often venerated as a savior and champion of democracy, and the fact that we have massive statues of him all over the country is an endorsement of him. Regardless of whether or not we can "excuse a moral blindspot" we need to recognize that we cannot endorse him. He, even if he is a product of his time, was a man in a position of immense power who perpetuated systems of violence in his own country and others and did so while believing the people, the Black people and the Asian people and the Indian people, who received that violence were inferior and deserving of his hatred.
And fine then, keep the statues, don't "cancel" Churchill, I don't care. Keep it all, but keep the "He was racist" as well. If he had those convictions, our kids should grow up learning that first. Or do we wish to teach our children that racists and slavers and rapists and leaders of genocide are noble? Or do we wish to tell them that they never did those things in the first place?
People are not glorified with statues for their absolute perfection of all eternal Moral behaviours. They are just AN embodiment of AN ideal they stood up for. With that ultimate utopian standard you cannot honour any human beings. We are all imperfect with our own idiosyncrasies and of your time.
So all your heroes should be burnt to ground if some morals emerge in future that you cannot comprehend now?
To address sentences 1, 3, and 4: I never claimed that giving someone a statue meant we regard someone as an individual with absolute moral perfection. As you'll note, if you read my message, I state that I don't believe King would be, nor should he be, canceled for eating meat in his time. But certainly, I also noted that it was wrong for him to do so and I addressed the fact that he was unfaithful in his marriage. If he did both of these things that I think of as wrong and I still accept having statues of him, I certainly couldn't have a position that someone has to be "absolute perfection of all eternal moral behaviors" or at least I hope that is clear.
To address sentence 2: Certainly we can recognize this is a strange hill to die on. What does Winston Churchill stand for? Was it championing human rights? Certainly his actions during the Bengal Famine and his general perpetuation of clearly racist systems in both his country and outside of it throughout his political career would fly in the face of us recognizing him for that ideal. Was it his skill in wartime endeavors? Well that is certainly something to question as well. Then we could be justified keeping the statues of Robert E. Lee, for being a masterful general who simultaneously fought for the maintenance of slavery, or Stalin, who was instrumental in the defeat of Germany during World War II, or even Hitler, for successfully orchestrating a genocide of millions while fighting a war. If we only focus on a single ideal, we can justify having statues of all sorts of terrible people. I would put the same arguments forth for the Founding Fathers as well; they were men who "fought for human rights" while keeping slaves. If these are not the ideals we put the statues for Churchill or the Founders, would you enlighten me as to what they were?
In regards to the last question, while I don't think I understand what you are asking, I would argue that morals that "emerge in the future" do not exist. Either I can interact with those morals or I cannot, and that is all that matters. A moral truth will always be applicable as long as I can comprehend it. Slavery was always bad, for example. And if I cannot comprehend a moral, then I have failed as a moral actor and/or I am not culpable for that action. Maybe you are trying to ask a different question, but as it is currently phrased, I do not understand it.
i do not agree with everything you said, but i do hope alex sees this comment.
@@barry7136 "A moral truth is applicable as long as I can interact with it"
Your morality is product of your time. It's strange that you take morals of this time as moral absolute. If you talk about equality to someone from the past centuries, they will laugh at you. Especially if they are from China or India. Undoubtedly new morals will emerge in future that you cannot comprehend now.
"Slavery was always bad" Are we reading the same history. I can understand as a layman when you read history you judge them with today's knowledge and moral standards.
A kid who is not socialized today will automatically become champion of equality and human rights?
@Jo Sm First, being progressive does not make one moral. Many terrible acts have been done by progressive people, even when judged by the standards of their time.
Now to discuss your historical claims. First, Churchill was certainly not a progressive, in fact he was the leader of the conservative party from 1940 to 1955, was adamantly opposed to socialism, and a supporter of the monarchy. He was also, as I stated in my first post, noted even by his conservative peers as old fashioned in many of his views, including his ones on race. I do not understand how you see him as progressive.
I would also add that the founding fathers, while arguably generally progressives of their time, did not bring about the abolition of slavery, but rather they delayed it. Slavery was in fact taken off of the Declaration of Independence as one of the evils of King George before the document's official publication, and Britain ended up abolishing slavery 20 YEARS before the US did. The Constitution the Founders wrote also explicitly protected the institution of slavery in the United States, which, if I remember correctly, outlasted every signer of the Declaration of Independence.
Now, in terms of your last statement where you called me a child, because we're stooping to this level, please tell me why I can't cancel H*tler. Why not do it in the synagogue I used to go to?
I personally think that while we can criticize our predecessors and are (in my opinion) in the right for doing so, we should also expect similar treatment from people of the future. Some of us may be remembered as good advocates of rights for all living creatures, while others might be remembered as horrible abusers of the basic rights of other species. I see it as a good thing that historical figures are denounced for things that we now consider immoral but didn't back then; I don't want my country or my city to publicly endorse a genocider.
So you think we should remove the statues of Martin Luther King and George Floyd?
@@GeroG3N Has either of them actively advocated for the violation of animal rights? Stop kidding yourself. Columbus killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people and oppressed the locals and essentially gave birth to systematic slavery that lasted for centuries and stole the lives of millions. Luther King ate meat. So what? He did not actively advocate for murdering animals. Churchill knowingly oppressed millions and killed thousands. George Floyd ate meat. He did not advocate for abusing animal rights.
@@Sahtoovi Three things are clear from your answer:
1) You did not understand Alex's argument.
2) You are not closely following the woke cult. Advocation is just the cherry on top, it is not a necessary feature to be a victim of cancellation and revisionism
3) You are not being honest. Clearly you don't agree with what you wrote: "we should also expect similar treatment from people of the future"
@@GeroG3N 1) Or you just can't accept the fact that people can have their own opinions
2) I don't care, I'm not part of the woke cult, never claimed to be
3) YOU did not understand MY argument. How ironic.
I agree in the sense that criticism should be targeted, on a case by case basis, identifying moral evils which should not be condoned nor repeated. The whole idea of cancelling someone on this basis, like Alex argues against, is a problem with morally complex human beings. That said, some people really were defined by their horrendous actions and should therefore not be held in a respectable light.
This is brilliant! But I take the second consistent option. I'm totally fine with taking down statues of MLK. I honestly don't understand this need for idolatry towards historical figures.
Agreed
Does anyone else ever wonder what other ethical blind spots we have? Ever since I became vegan I have constantly wondered what else have I been doing wrong?
I haven't been able to pinpoint many things but some are:
Buying from sweatshops.
Buying food such as avocados from South America.
Environmental damage, I appreciate it's not purely an ethical thing but we can acknowledge that this is something that effects everyone and everything.
Maybe there's some obvious things I'm missing?
Smart consideration! Let's just think about what lies behind chocolate, in terms of child exploitation and deforestation. People love to feel reassured by Fair trade certified, but we know there are many limitations in the controls. And, anyway, I think that our morality is constantly evolving and, therefore, we cannot know how many things we believe are right today in the future will still be considered right. But that's ok!
@@ilovenature9077 and I'm sure chocolate is just the tip of the iceberg! I just don't want to look back on my life knowing I did any other immoral things. But I can already safely say that becoming vegan has tackled the biggest issue that I am aware of.
@@henrywalton5967I'm vegan too, but I think the biggest problem is consumerism and wanting to pay little money for things, causing exploitation of people and resources, as well as pollution. For me, a vegan but consumerist person is less ethical than a flexitarian but non-consumerist person. Fortunately, we can be vegan and not consumerist.
It is something I've thought a lot about myself. "Buying from sweatshops" is the one I keep coming back to. What makes this particular issue so hard is that it isn't so simple as "boycott the product." We can almost put a stop to animal cruelty entirely by refusing to buy their products, but not buying products from sweatshops may not have the same effect. When we stop purchasing meat, cows stop being raised for slaughter. If I don't buy a Nike shoe, the sweat shop worker who made the shoe is still alive and still needs money to live. The people who work these horrible jobs aren't stupid. If they could get a more humane job they would. They are working in the sweat shops because it is the *only* form of work available. I wish the fix was as easy as "don't buy sweat shop problems." However, I think in this case, it is going to require systemic, legislative, and cultural change from the countries where sweat shops are prominent. This doesn't mean we (as consumers) are absolved from helping/not contributing to the problem. At this point, I'm just not sure how I can do that.
Not every problem is as easy to fix as animal suffering, and the overwhelming majority are not even willing to fix that one. If anyone knows reasonable ways to make a real difference for sweatshop workers, please educate me.
@@sexyned99 We must fight to redistribute our wealth globally. You cannot justify the purchase of products involving human exploitation with the fact that they must survive. Imagine if the same excuse was used to justify the exploitation of prostitution, perhaps even minors. This attitude is a bit mean, because it's like wanting to take advantage of their bad luck. Of course, I understand that you are in good faith, but I find this reasoning very wrong and absolutely immoral.
I don't have a problem with future generations tearing down our monuments. In fact, I think it's the right thing to do. A civilization's monuments should reflect their priorities. As priorities chance, it's only natural that monuments chance.
Alex is just on another level, what a great blessing to be alive at the same time as him.
Ok I think you're going a little overboard here. Or you're woefully unfamiliar with the greatest thinkers of this era. Even Alex, I'm sure, would say that you're getting carried away with nonsensical levels of praise and adulation. The argument in this video isn't even a good one.
To this day you're the best and most real content creator on this app
Moving an offensive statue from a town square to a museum, then visiting the museum with your kids and place it in historical context is the way to go. That way no one gets cancelled and no one gets offended. Win-win.
Their reactions to your final sentence about MLK were hilarious. Definitely worth checking out the full video for that one.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alex. Thank you.
SHARING
I mean, yeah, I would expect future generations to look back at our generation and find numerous things we do morally abhorrent. And I would expect societies in THAT society's future to do the same to that future society, and so on. If you recognize that future societies will see you as having been morally bad, then to want them to potentially have statues or honor you (or to even care what the future society thinks of you) seems extremely arrogant and self-obsessed to me. I don't care what society thinks of me or what statues might get torn down in the future as long as we continue to progress towards a more equal, better society.
*Nailed It!!*
Damn, I love how passionate Cosmic Skeptic is about the horror of industry meat, egg and dairy! And here in the US, taking down statues of the Civil War losers, that were put up specifically to remind people of color that they weren't equal, is, in my opinion, different from taking down all racists, which would include Lincoln. Hell, most any whites from history. Our country was equal opportunity racists. #not all. But most, racists to African, Island, Native, Asian, Latin, did I miss anyone. Oh yeah, weirdly, Irish and Itslian and Jewish! Pretty much everyone. 👍🥰💝✌
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
I had written a very well articulated comment about how the humans may not necessarily become morally superior to us in modern times. But now the comment has mysteriously disappeared.
It's a good argument, but it presumes that anyone 'cancelling' historical figures today is doing so consistently, and with any other motive than a political one.
Alex O'Connor is the most articulate young person and he always has an interesting slant on the primary issues of the day. He's an excellent debater as well.
Beautifully put. What a slam dunk!
Was Kruschev getting rid of Stalin's statues and re-naming Volgagrad such a bad thing. Was the removal of the statues of Saddam Hussien something to be condemned. Should the Indian government not been allowed to rename Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. Should Zimbabwe have been forced to keep the name Southern Rhodesia
Imo, there should be no statues of anyone that could be taken for hero worship. Kill your heroes in your mind.
So satisfying to watch
I have the same take and it’s so obvious to me precisely because of Veganism
Bravo!
Maybe eating chicken isn't the greatest idea anymore.
Truth
*buying chicken
Ah, finally something that isn't about his vega... oh, nevermind.
Alex, your argument commits a _(performative) contradiction_ here, as I understand it.
· On the one hand, you criticise (P) the “cases of historical cancel culture” for their “presumption of moral clairvoyance”, because that forces them (Q) to bite the bullet that “future historians” will judge their own “ethical blind spot” of eating meat, etc. So, no one should presume any “moral clairvoyance”.
· On the other hand, performatively, to assert the certainty of (Q), which is the consequent of your criticism, you presume moral clairvoyance yourself. Since (Q) is a prediction about the future, and not a present fact like (P) is, you are presuming to know what the “judgemental eyes” of _future_ historians will see. So, you presume some “moral clairvoyance” anyway.
· Therefore, you criticise their presumption moral clairvoyance in (P) while you rely on it yourself to assert the certainty of your consequent (Q); and that looks like quite a performative contradiction. Is that a fair analysis?
I know next to nothing about philosophy and debate and correct arguments, but..... when the magic gift of antibiotics fizzle out, and millions are displaced due to climate change, and ecosystems collapse due to habitat loss fueled by animal agriculture....I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine people in 10-50 years being like wtf all for cheeseburgers
(Just to emphasize: animal agriculture is a major contributing factor, but not the sole one, to such things)
I feel it'll be wrong to mention "common sense" in my reply and yet, being too pedantic and obsessed with terminology is such a huge reason in the US why leftists are unpopular. Same for vegans. All that matters is effective communication.
If Alex's rhetoric were less 'performative', would his message be less effective? I'm afraid that's what matters to me. Due to limited time and attention spans, getting your message across is of paramount importance. How we say things matters more than what we say.
A favorite example of mine: when a climate change scientist had about 30 seconds to convince the Pope to care about climate change. He knew he'd have to choose his words incredibly carefully, to be completely mindful of his audience. I've used his sentence before to get friggin Americans to stop saying things like climate change won't be THAT bad.
I dunno I'm just rambling, it's too late for me. It truly is sad though, how much misery and suffering is created for the sensory pleasure of a minority of the planet. Not to mention, how much worse the effects of climate change will be because again, but cheeseburgers tho.
Anyway. I know none of this will satisfy you. I for one am grateful for how Alex phrased his argument, even if it doesn't please technical folks.
Alex is demonstrating that they aren't being consistent, not that they need to be consistent. Nothing wrong with the argument.
@@Marz2727 I agree with that statement, but that's not what my objection aims at. I've updated the text to clarify it :)
Ya, I remember watching the whole video.
So his reasoning is "yeah but what about this instead" We can deal with more than one thing at a a time.
I would sincerely hope that future Generations would judge me with great criticality because they will have come so far. They will see the type of people we were and they will not celebrate us, they will instead see us as a lesson.
I had a tough time letting go of chocolate. So happy to see there are alternatives to dairy now used in its production.
I couldn't have agreed more. Everytime my pre existing opinions match his, i feel validated to some extent. Honestly, it helps me understand why a particular proposition makes the most sense.
My dear sir, well argued
Beautifully said
This is not just about the moral failings of historic figures. It's who we choose to publicly honor and why. There is no rational reason not to reconsider the reasons we honor historical figures. The whole purpose is to emphasize what we value. If that changes, so be it. We often honor artists for their work with no regard for their personal lives and that's how it should be.
An individual or group may have defaced a statue of Churchill but it's unlikely to be taken down because it's about how his leadership helped save the UK from the nazis. That's worthy enough. There are other statues we find unworthy and offensive like confederates who's statues should be removed because they were traitors.
There is unlikely to be a statue honoring whoever created the modern meat industry but there is no reason to dishonor people just because they ate an historically ordinary diet.
damn well put 👍
How do you say "verdammter Brunnen hingestellt" in English?
@@romanski5811 i'm not german
@@VeganCossack
It's "damn well put".
When you put down a damn well somewhere.
Wow. Just wow.
Every time my brain prepares language like this to defend my own veganism, I bail out at the last second and choose more diplomatic words. Takes courage.
Also, while this 100% defends Churchill, surely there exists a line somewhere between Churchill and Hitler, at which point on the Hitler side of the line it is no longer acceptable to display a statue to honor and celebrate them. Drawing the line is difficult, but it should be easy for us all to agree that there is a subjective line.
Not sure talking about statue worthiness is really the main point of this full debate. It's certainly a different thing than discussing whether a person's many positive accomplishments deserve to be canceled.
So good
NAILED IT!!!
In every case of a public monument you should in my opinion ask yourself the following "what does this represent and perpetuate". We don't put up statues to remember history we do so to glorify stances and people. Whilst Churchill in many ways was awful the statues of him glorify his part in fighting the axis powers not his racism.
This is Alex at his VERY BEST. In so few words, he has provided such important, provocative information that the whole world needs to hear and heed. When will we ever wake up?
Man, if there is one person on Earth who can get me to stop and think about someone that i've already made up my mind about it certainly is this wordsmith here. But I also think there is a difference between taking down a statue so as to not celebrate a slaveowner (or "cancelling) and removal from history entirely. I think the very act of creating a statue of someone in the first place is no different that placing them on a pedestal and erasing (or at least ignoring) their faults. Statues confer a skewed version of reality onto not only the person they represent but also the rest of us who are often reminded only of the good qualities of those people at the expense of seeing them as actual human beings who are all flawed in some way. I view it as perhaps a lower grade version of deification.
But also, Alex is very convincing so I can't say I'm entirely decided one way or another.
Also, I kind of view "cancel culture" as simply societies evolving ethics. I'm guessing that if the term was around 200 years ago they would have said the north was trying to "cancel" slavery. Granted that there are occasionally times when mob mentality, fed by media or social media nowadays, goes too far. But that's not specific to our time in history.
So be it, who says that MLK deserves a statue that must exist in every possible imaginable moral dimension in the future? Am I missing something here... are we operating from the assumption that once erected there is some inherent value in the existence of that memorial that outweighs every other conceivable consideration? It seems to me the more reasonable assumption is that with the passage of time and the evolution of ethics, more applicable figures WOULD constantly replace the old.
You can't just say "it was those times and morals have changed" when empathy has been around before humans have even existed. It what social animals do and have done for hundreds of millions of years, so anyone saying "it was different times" is talking out of their arse when even guinea pigs show empathy to eachother.
Statues are like idols. They're nothing more than a waste of useful materials. How does having statues benefit our society? It doesn't, it just promotes inequality. We can learn and remember the lessons of the past without statues imposing completely unethical hierarchy. Just my opinion. Peace to you all.
Brilliant
If you think you can cancel historical figures, you are misunderstanding the meaning of cancel.
True. Maybe there's a legitimate use for the word "cancel" but the way it is used now, it could literally mean anything, including mere disagreement or criticism.
That's why "canceling" is not a thing at all in almost all cases.
Flippin hero right here.
I know this isn’t the right platform to mention this, but this moral obsession nowadays makes me feel overwhelmingly depressed at a stage where I don’t even know exactly what I can say and what not. Everyone and everything is just way to rational, just let the statues be and see them as a reminder as who we once were. You can’t change the past, doesn’t matter how disgusting it was. Sometimes scars can be a graceful thing as well we don’t need to be ashamed of them, don’t be blind. - People don’t know who to support or who to denounce, if we say “I don’t care, I don’t want to worry about it” you’re already seen as part of the problem of systemic racism so we just say “Yes, that’s just fantastic”.
I was watching today a documantery about Gengis Khan and the horrible atrocities he and his army made. But in Mongolia there is a huge statue of him reminding the Mongols they were "great" once. No one there is going to demolish it because they need it to be there for their own reasons. The question is how Mongols comprenend their history and that is the point, we cannot change history but we can see it with a new persepctive.
This was so perfectly stated.
Bro if you live in the US , you have freedom of speech. Use it.
@@taramoon9307 I’m German
Traducción para los que no entiendan inglés:
«Por último, incrustada en los casos de la cancelación cultural histórica está la presunción de clarividencia moral. No sólo cancelamos figuras públicas actuales por las cosas que dicen y hacen, sino también figuras históricas. La foto de portada de este evento de esta noche es una imagen de una estatua de Winston Churchill con las palabras "era un racista" pintadas en ella.
Churchill obviamente no fue un ejemplo moral en cuestiones de justicia racial. Con bastante razón condenamos sus abusos y prejuicios históricos, pero para aquellos que piensan que es correcto cancelar personajes históricos por sus violaciones éticas, les advierto que consideren con qué ojos críticos los futuros historiadores un día los mirarán cuando salga a la luz que ustedes mismos no eran un bastión de la perfección moral.
Es muy obvio que la sociedad actual está participando en acciones que los historiadores del futuro mirarán con horror y vergüenza. El candidato más obvio aquí es nuestro abuso actual de animales no humanos en granjas industriales para que podamos disfrutar del sabor de su carne y secreciones. Las granjas industriales son motores industrializados de crueldad animal y el futuro mirará hacia atrás con vergüenza por cómo alguna vez toleramos esto con los brazos cruzados.
Pero no es justo de mi parte decirlo, ¿verdad? No es una comparación justa, quiero decir que eres una buena persona, haces cosas buenas, a veces haces caridad, etc.
Es posible que tengamos un punto ciego ético en algo como el abuso animal, pero quién puede culparnos, sólo somos humanos.
Al punto ciego ético es a lo que oiría responder en el futuro: La cría intensiva fue responsable de causar pandemias, la resistencia a los antibióticos, arruinó nuestra salud, destruyó nuestro ecosistema y perpetuó la tortura animal. ¿Cómo se puede llamar a esto un mero punto ciego? Es indicativo de una pereza moral imperdonable.
Y adivinen qué, tendrán razón. Todos somos cómplices de crímenes imperdonables que algún día serán vistos con vergüenza, vergüenza y confusión acerca de cómo la gente moralmente sensata permitió que continuara.
Sabemos esto. Sin embargo, si es cierto que las figuras históricas deben ser canceladas sobre la base de sus anacronismos éticos, entonces no sólo estamos comprometidos a esperar que todos seremos cancelados en los próximos años por nuestras graves fallas éticas actuales, estamos comprometidos a abogar positivamente para que esto suceda.
Por supuesto, puede adoptar esa opinión si lo desea, sólo busco coherencia aquí. Pero si lo haces, espero con entusiasmo el día en que tengas que convencer a tus compañeros de que bajen las estatuas de Martin Luther King porque solía comer carne»
Damn Alex
Yes
True
Canceling historical figures bothers me because those doing the canceling don't seem to realize that, just as Alex says, future generations may well want to cancel them 50 or so years down the road.
Ever followed a meat eater into a public toilet? The stench is vile.
'Islam is to a man is as rabies to a dog'
Cancel Churchill for speaking truth
I don't understand what it means to "cancel" historical figures...
But I don't really see the issue with calling out the fact that Churchill was a racist... Maybe there's something I'm missing...
id argue that it's laziness to sit on our hands and NOT call out the deification of certain historical figures. Example: no one is "cancelling" christopher columbus. However there *are* people who are calling out the obnoxious, false narrative of columbus perpetuated by american conservatives.
You get graffiti on your statues (whatever the hell those are good for anyway) because when we try to shift education toward a more honest route, reactionaries and other historical relativists double down and insist that we should continue to deify great historical figures, paint them exclusively in a good light, and ignore/tuck away anything that might make people uncomfortable in order to protect the image of... dead people who couldnt care less because theyre dead.
The literal man-tears of americans who insist that discussing columbus as anything other than the fairy tale version presented in public schools is quite astounding.
And the appeal to consequences is disappointing - like yeah, no shit I'll be judged more harshly after I'm dead, what's your point? As a moral agent I'm supposed to do the best I can for the results, not for the report card.
exactly! they are dead. who cares? the only reason anyone would defend them is out of prejudice.
argument from self-interest. whether or not we fear the judgment of future people ought not alter the way we judge those from our past. how we wish to be viewed does not change the way we will be viewed, nor does it change the actual facts of our ethical action, nor does it change either of these with regards to the historical figures we view.
with regards to winston churchill, the man was not merely a racist, but also intentionally starved the bengalese under his direct political power, and advocated a nuclear holocaust against the soviet union, among other offences which are more or less severe depending on one's political opinions. drawing an equivalence between churchill and martin luther king jr. on the basis of neither being perfectly virtuous fails to recognize the real, concrete historical roles each played not only in their own time and in their own context, but in influencing history to this day. mlk represented a real emancipatory historical movement. winston churchill represented a continuation of perhaps the worst imperial project in human history, and his role in defeating the nazis was only a result of his accidental position in a larger great power conflict.
Exactly
At the end you just called them hypocrites. You didn't provide an argument. I guess what that would lead to is the idea that we shouldn't put any historical figure up on a pedestal and instead view them critically.
Alex, you may already know him, but I want to suggest Jake Tran's channel. Since you are very interested in ethics, I think you will find its contents interesting.
Every generation should judge the previous one. I don't think we should cancel Winston Churchill but certainly look at his flaws with scrutiny, not dismisse them just because Hitler was worse
he is sure a hitler to us indians
Hearing your arguments u convince of the opposite view
Side note: the surrogate you-too fallacy being played up at the end isn't the zinger he thinks it is. Like, okay if years from now enough people want mlk statues removed then so be it? We don't need statues and we don't need the cultural baggage that comes with them.
Every time someone defends a dead person from what they *think* os cancel culture, they are unwittingly making an ends justify the means argument. That it's okay to ignore how horrible they were because of the handful of great things they did. That the harm they caused should be excused because their good actions somehow outweigh it.
Isn't criticizing and rejecting biblical morality the exact same thing as what the people are doing that Alex criticizes? Will Alex maintain argumentative consistency by backpedaling his criticism of biblical historical figures, and employ the same historical relativism he uses to defend Churchill? Or will he evade and try to maintain two contradictory positions? (Will he even realize the contradiction?)
I like his point about looking at people in their contexts, however I disagree with the example of veganism. We still don’t know what the future will be like and the primary reason why people are vegan is because their moral choice not to kill other people comes from evolution and the golden rule. The fact is, the only logical reason why we’re moral is because we want to act in our self interest. Not killing each other is beneficiary for us however killing animals isn’t. They can’t contribute to society, nor can the majority form meaningful relationships with humans, therefore it is in our own interests to harvest them for food purposes.
So we're just pretending everyone in Churchill's time were racists and no one in his era ever thought he took it too far? Lmao
I have to say, this is probably your worst take ever.
> I KNOW I am a weak and immoral, cognitively dissonant person when it comes to animal abuse and the animal products industries. I HOPE the future people condemn me for that.
> Animal products industries is not some massive commonly-fought-for ethical dilemma in the same way that racism was in Europe back then. Even for his time, Churchill was infamously racist.
Look, it’s nice to talk about the seriousness of animal rights, but you cannot in the same breath ask me not to condemn Churchill for his racism. Society naturally condemns the moral and ethical standards it has moved beyond, and especially condemns those who stood against the changing views on said standards. Churchill was a weird racist, even for his time, and we condemn him as such. Supporting the animal products industries is not weirdly amoral by society’s current standards. No one will judge me in the same way we judge Churchill for his racism or George Washington for his entrapment slavery practices. They were bad for their time. The most you can say against me would be, that I am not ahead of my time. And yeah, I would love to be so mentally healthy and happy that I will be able to take a serious look at how I can stop the animal products industries being a part of my life. But there are some things that come before I can do that. I don’t care of people understand or not.
I support animal rights, while I remain a hypocrite by making use of the animal products industries. And I hope future generations can move past that and condemn our treatment of animals… including my own.
Why not be a responsible adult and change instead of being a hypocrite?
@@ASMRyouVEGANyet Because I have a lot more to stress and have anxiety about that I need to deal with first. Cool ableism, bro.
That makes you an even worse person honestly. If you understand and agree that animal agriculture is unethical while simultaneously funding it, then you are worse than the average person who doesn't understand. Who the fuck does something knowing its wrong just because "other people are doing it"?
@@taramoon9307 Was that my reason for doing it? Also, calm the fuck down. Do you fly jet airlines, or buy produce wrapped in plastic? Then sit down. We all do something we shouldn’t be, and we can all sit down and condemn one another for it. At least you know that I will never resist changes to veganism, I will vote to end animal products industries, and I can tell others why those industries are awful.
I’m on “your side,” I just don’t have the strength to go through with becoming vegan at this point in my life. I will seriously consider it in my future. And yes, I fully accept that people can think that decision isn’t good enough.
Also, I sincerely hope that you’ve come to an understanding about why avocados and sweatshops are problematic.
ok, then, for the sake of argument, you have said think again before cancelling anybody, etc. indeed, jusy exactly, some have only vaguely said what not to do--wanton cancelling. then the question becomes, of course, what must be done instead. indeed, what a mess! i know the entire discussion is sketchy in an ad lib context, but surely listeners deserve a few substantial ideas beyond what has been offered. if churchill and martin luther king be taken off the ropes of ongoing cancellation, what then, and why? should hitler somehow be given some changed public notice? or napoleon? teddy roosevelt? if each an easy call, would not andrew jackson, still on the american $20.00 bill, be another easy call? i remember that an old man in china told young supporters to cleanse the nation the results wer tragic. i would say even a milder version of all that is still too tragic to permit elsewhere.
you don't "Cancel them". You publicly verbally crucify and shame them. FFS Then the public decides.
Got news for you cup cake. People in the future will be eating Bacon too. It's not like we don't know where meat comes from already so your personal sense of "morality" will take future generations as far as this one has gone.
We definitely won't. It's incredibly unsustainable and with technology improving we will find better solutions.
Bruh…
But I don't care if I am cancelled in the future. If future will be so much morally better, good for them. That is kinda selfish argument. I do care if we remind people that "good old days" were not that good at all.
I went vegan when I was 16 shortly after learning about the severity of the exploitation of animals. To my knowledge, I do not have any other major moral blindspots. If I wanted to, I could consistently call for the canceling of historical figures. It sure would make me sound awesome. But the thing is, people aren't necessarily evil because they do evil things regularly. Mostly, they are willfully ignorant, selfish, easily influenced, and lacking critical thinking. This is certainly cause for criticism but not for full cancelation in most cases. There are some historical figures that should be canceled though, namely Winston Churchill who was responsible for mass starvation in India on top of being fervently racist against Indians.
all modern tech is cruel to animals, and is used for pleasures similar to taste.
seen as you are on youtube, that is an obvious blind spot you have.
yeah so maybe we shouldn't have statues of people propped up in the first place? the idea of statues themselves is very worship-y. I wouldn't call it frivolous to want to take down statues of racists (and in the future, carnists).
I don't think his argument makes much sense. First off, is he making the argument that there's nothing that could be found in a person's past, no matter how heinous, that could ever warrant the removal of their statue? And why should be people in an "evolved timeline" in the future be forced to abide the presence of someone they now deem to be abhorrent if they as a society deem it so? I'm sure many great figures of the past were rapist when that was deemed socially acceptable. Does that mean we should honor them with a statue, or issue some edict that their statue could never be removed? No one is talking about removing these people from the history books, by that doesn't mean that they should be revered or memorialized by literally every future society until the end of time.
or they will look back and laugh at people who claimed to be vegan
Veganism is not about removing all potential for animal harm from one's lifestyle. That would be impracticable for the vast majority of people living in industrialized societies. Veganism is about making the effort to minimize animal suffering to the greatest degree possible, nothing more.
@@grayman994 exactly why they will be laughed at.
"greatest degree possible" but "living in industrialized societies". as if its not possible to not live in one.
as if its not possible to not post YT comments.
hilarious.
beyond burger, beyond stupid.
get on the right side of history.
@@grayman994 care to now admit you are not vegan? and don't want to be?
nobody is and nobody does?
@@jedex4645 Firstly, there doubtlessly exist a number of self-sustaining vegan communities, even in your strict sense of the term. Think Buddhist monks, etc. Secondly, it can be argued that though industrialized society brings a number of ills, it also holds immense potential for increasing the wellbeing of life on Earth. Think advances in medicine, the capacity to supply the necessities of life, the ability to work less and play more, etc. My approach is to take the good things of civilization while working to bring down the systems that perpetuate violence, pain, and long-term environmental damage. I'd even argue that in many ways this approach has greater potential for improving life on earth than turning away from society and and attempting to live the "perfect" life. I'm looking to contribute to the creation of social structures that will ensure not merely my own happiness but also that of future generations. So yes, there exist many vegans in industrialized societies, trying their best to make the world a better place. Maybe you should question the thinking that made you think you aren't obligated to do the same.
@@grayman994 it is very doubtful any exist.
my term? i took yours... which would involve these monks moving as little as possible to not scare any wild animals. so no, none exist.
i grant some modern tech can be considered vegan if it reduces suffering more than it causes, you are on YT.
are there not many meat eaters trying to make the world a better place?
you assume i don't have a consistent position that i have thought about?
well here it is, and i would bet it is also your actual position.
human wellbeing is what matters.
seen as your actions show you don't care about animal wellbeing if it negatively effects your own.
to my question in my previous post you could have just said "no i'm going to dance around because i am so attached to a silly word"
so why are you attached to a word?
you know you don't fit your own definition of it
truly fascinating.
I agree Churchill was racist- cancelled. Sure! Judge away future, cancel me if I'm bad.
MLK was with eating meat not way out of line. Winston Churchill was fighting his whole cursus honorum for the empire and colonialism and in his World war 2 context he was directly involved with the Bengal famine, wich could been seen as genocidal. Also, yes there were member of his own Party wich had a more paternalistic view in the racialised questions and critsied him for his more race-biological views. Canada also wanted to sent wheat and the British goverment under W C. said no thanks to that help and reserved food for british (at that point well or at least secure fed) troops in Europe and admittedly greeks, cause greek also was getting in a bad food situation (wich was partly caused by a british lead sea blockade). In that sense thinking about your british citizen of indian or even bengali descent shouldn't the british people consider a statue of a lion or britannica as a Symbol of the UK in place were fat indian hater stands? I can say removeing statues, also you can overdue it, will not end History and there is a context were there are good arguments and effects for removeing some. (Also Winson Churchill will not been canceld, Hitler (and no he is not = W Churchill, he much more horriblie) has no statues in germany or other places (i hope) and he isn't cancelled either)
The cruelty of part of the animal food industry is a real problem but condemning people for eating meat, fish, etc when that is part of our natural diet, that's taking it too far. Do we stop animals from eating other animals as well? And would we consider eating eggs an abortion? And should it be legal, as it is for humans (in several countries)?
He specifically talks about factory farms, not just eating animal products.
@@Chaylubb That is absolutely atrocious. Absolute torture. That should be erradicated
Before I went vegan, I also had the same misunderstanding of what vegans' have a problem with when it comes to eggs, but not necessarily abortions. It's about the mother being forced to lay hundreds of eggs a year, ≈50% of new born egg-laying chickens being ground up alive, and the absolute never-ending pain in every single stage of their lives. It is not about the egg having intrinsic value. Vegans disagree on when and if abortion is right or wrong.
Appealing to nature when it is wrong and unnecessary is not an argument, it's a fallacy. Legality is an entirely different question.
1) it's been proven that you can have a well planned plant-based diet (which is not difficult) and be perfectly healthy. Maybe take a multivitamin to make up for days you eat junk.
2) other animals do not have supermarkets. They do not have a choice on what to eat. You do.
3) do you always look to what other animals do in the wild to justify other parts of your behavior? There is a lot in nature that we have decided, as a society, is not acceptable behavior. So why cherry pick this one action?
@@ASMRyouVEGANyet There's so much to unpack on your comment. It would take me a while to comment on all that so I'll pick just one point. Number 3: I didn't specifically mention animals living in the wild (although that's part of my argument). What about pets or other animals living in captivity? I'm glad you mention supermarkets. Can people buy meat based products for dogs or fish based products for cats? What would you feed a lion living in captivity? What would feed a dolphin living in captivity? Please don't tell me I'm avoiding the issue. Where do you think that the meat included in rations for dogs comes from?
Isn’t this a justification for Nazi officers as well then? In their time what they did was justified. Everyone they knew supported and honored them for what they did. It was just normal for them. When you made the “Future humans will cancel you for eating animals” argument, it felt like you were genuinely making out the actions of Churchill (pulling food away from a region of India causing millions of Indians to starve then blaming it on said Indians for having too much sex) to being on the same level of cultural sympathy as increasing the demand of the killing of millions of animals. I get it I am a minimalist vegetarian and a big fan of yours. But also as an Indian, I don’t think you would use this same justification for people who killed millions in the west (like Hitler). I’m not calling you racist, I just feel like you should think about your biases and the victims/consequences of these historical figures the next time you make this argument.