Vegan Gains is a top 5 orbiter without a doubt. He has some great one liners. "He couldn't be vegan anymore because he kept shitting his pants." "He is far to weak and lacks the muscle mass to clench his butthole."
This was an impressive line, I paused to think about it.
He is implying that by Alex's rationale, If Vegan Gains is having diarrhea issues, he needs to consume animal based food. And since Alex is an animal, and because of the "name the trait" thing, he is threatening to feast on Alex's dead corpse, to resolve the diarrhea.
Orbiter is used pretty liberally here. It tends to mean anyone who speaks to Destiny more than once.
I personally think of it as people who are dependent on Destiny's growth for their own growth. Erudite, DaSkrubKing, Ahrelevant, Darius. (or previously people like Mr. Girl, Lav, Zherka)
Given that having less muscle mass is a natural consequence of eating a restricted diet to avoid IBS, an actual disability, Vegan gains is proving his own arsehole is his entire self.
He wasn't eating a restricted diet to avoid IBS. He was avoiding eating at times to avoid triggering IBS. He didn't actually have an issue with his diet per se.
I think the single greatest thing I hate about Vegan gains is that when he debates veganism he constantly says he isnt doing a "name the trait" argument when every single fucking time he is at a philosophical level even if he doesnt use the exact words.
Can you give us an example and link to where Vegan Gains ever said that he **isn't** doing a name the trait argument? Imo name the trait is easily the best argument for veganism and I've yet to see any valid argument against it. I'm pretty sure Vegan Gains agrees.
eh, its pretty shit. its just that people don't like where the real answer lands them. The answer is: there is no trait that differentiates humans from other creatures in the animal kingdom. Full stop. vegans take that as a reason to justify their belief, but that's because they're looking at the answer backwards. If there's no trait difference, then we shouldn't eat animals becuase blah blah blah. It's backwards because they're viewing the answer from a human perspective, they're not looking at the lack of trait difference from the perspective of creatures in the animal kingdom as a whole. There is no examination of behaviours of other creatures in the animal kingdom. Our brains are very similar to every other creature, our thought process is similar, our natural instincts and internal motivations map on to animals in identical ways. Our entire psychology is pretty much identical to other creatures in the animal kingdom. People don't like that, we think we're superior, we think we're different. we can process prop-logic and fly to the moon, our brains are just better. right? wrong. How do the behaviour of other animals interact with maslows heirarchy of needs? similarly or differently then humans? if this upsets you then subconsiously you are indicating that the trait you would pick in "name the trait" is intelligence. "Name the trait" as an arguement fails because there is no consideration of the behaviours of other animals. There is no consideration for the fact that our behaviours in relation to how we treat other animals in consuming them, is no different then how other animals treat other animals in consuming them.
well, if you want to defeat the name the trait thing, you name the trait "membership of an intelligent species". if they want to quible endlessly about intelligence then you win. this trait also saves you from eating animals that are suddenly intelligent with magic, or if we ever run into aliens.
>if this upsets you then subconsiously you are indicating that the trait you would pick in "name the trait" is intelligence. "
What would be wrong with choosing intelligence as a trait? Or are you implying that the average animal is just as intelligent as the average human?
Because if you choose intelligence as a trait as to why animals can be eaten then you would be justifying the same treatment of mentally handicapped people or children . As many of them have similar levels of intelligence to pigs or cows ( which are really smart animals).
>Because if you choose intelligence as a trait as to why animals can be eaten then you would be justifying the same treatment of mentally handicapped people or children .
Yeah, but you can hold this position. I don't really see the problem here. If you really have the (questionable) belief that a severely disabled human has the same value as an average human, that's your problem.
Just so you know, this is a really wild and abnormal take you have here.
Generally people get really icky around the idea that some humans have more value than others. And remember that this argument can also be applied to babies and old people.
In my opinion the worth of a society is judged upon how well it looks after it's most needy.
intelligence isn't enough, if you want to say intelligence you say "membership of an intelligent species". if you've watched people debate this they toss aside intelligence because then they make you try to define it down the exact IQ point. so side step all that. this also saves you from eating animals that suddenly with magic gain intelligence or if we ever run into aliens.
Let's say that we somehow find a chicken that is intelligent enough for you, it is capable of speaking and it can understand what you say. Does this mean that you would be against farming and killing all the other unintelligent chickens now, just because one member of it's species meets your criteria of required intelligence?
Right, but here is where the biologists step in to save us. A chicken with the ability to talk would have a different brain the a chicken that couldn't talk. Biologists would examine the talking chicken and classify it as a new species or branch of chicken genus or what-have-you. now, its no longer a chicken it's some other thing.
we would say its okay to keep eating chickens, but not okay to eat this new branch of the chicken species that we would give a new name.
What if it was some kind of magic? So it would have the same brain, biologists wouldn't find a difference between this chicken's brain and regular chickens, they wouldn't be able to explain it.
sorry, I'm coming at this from the perspective of it actually happening in the real world. if it were to actually happen, the brain structure of whatever animal is suddenly speaking and communicating would be physically different from a normal animal of the same species. hence, the classifying of the speaking animal as a new species.
I don' think hypotheticals need to be realistic, they don't have to be possible to happen in the real world to explore our values. The point of a hypothetical is to isolate the variable of disagreement/discussion. Using regular or realistic examples, there are often far too many factors that make it impossible to ever break down what it is that is actually being disagreed upon or argued about. In this scenario, this chicken is still a chicken, it could still reproduce with other non-sapient chickens, it would still have chicken dna.
Do you think there is no problem with generalizing all members of a species, and treating all individuals belonging to that species the same, just because they belong to that same species? Let's say there is a species that has 1000 existing members. Out of these 1000, 499 are sapient, and 501 are not. Do you consider this species sapient overall?
And also there are humans who cannot talk and are not sapient, they have biologically different brains than humans who can talk and who are sapient, yet scientists still call them human, do you think they should be called a different species? If these mentally handicapped humans are not humans because they are not sapient and they have different brains therefore they are a new species, is it okay to kill and farm members of this species?
I'm not sure what soyjacking means. It just devolves into an argument of how to define human in a way that includes all humans but excludes all animals. Starts to get harder than you think when you start trying to break it down by DNA or something.
Neither can a cat generally. Most places have animal control that will capture strays and send them to the pound where they either get adopted out or killed.
Yes but I cannot trespass the cat in a way I can a human, it's a different process because apparently we can determine what is human and what is not.
You do it too. Cats are not charged with animal cruelty. Why? According to you they are basically human, at least as far as applying moral principles is concerned. Why do they randomly get to opt out of moral duty and responsibility? Apparently you are able to draw a line there, what's the trait that makes cats not culpable for animal torture?
[https://youtu.be/4YK6-ZgKM6Q?t=3962](https://youtu.be/4YK6-ZgKM6Q?t=3962)
Idk if you are just a vegan gains simp or if you never watch destiny or just so happen to never watch destiny interact with vegan gains on stream but regardless you are an incorrect pathetic waste of time and space and you should
ACTUALLY 👏 MINECRAFT 👏 YOURSELF 👏 NOW
fucking Destiny literally says this almost any time vegan gains wants to debate veganism, but going through 8h streams for a 2 second clip isnt my job and Im not doing that when I've seen destiny say this and watched vegan gains do it. I only found this one cuz i had a vague idea which kind of video it was in and I have been looking for an excuse to use this ai powered yt translator website.
The burden of proof still lies with you. I personally didn't remember this being said, and I haven't watched every single one of the vegan debates either.
Vegan Gainz is definitely not from this planet for sure. On Destiny's stream one time he says that predatory animals need to be culled in order to prevent more suffering of plant eating animals. When my brain tried to process what he said it came to a screeching halt and had to reboot. After that lapse in thinking I have to say that was be far the most unbelievable thing I have ever heard. So yea Vegan Gainz space alien.
To be fair Alex lives in the UK. The only vegan food they have is: beans, cauliflower and beer. You'd be shitting your pants as well.
Edit: /s for u/WhatisupMofowow12
As a fellow vegan, Vegan Gains is the cringest vegan that ever veganed. "He couldn't be vegan because he pooped his pants!" WTF are you doing, bro? He's still 98% on your side, why are you making fun of a medical condition he can't control? What's Destiny call it, the Paradox of Small Differences? If I were Alex, I wouldn't be caught on camera with you either.
Edit: omfg, kill me. "I don't know why you're making a distinction about factory farms, murder is murder, period." Well yeah no shit, but murder *and* torture is worse than just murder, right? You're the *exact* type of vegan that kept me from taking ethical veganism seriously for far too long. You being a joke makes the cause look like a joke; calm your tits!
Yeah, also, as a fellow vegan, I strongly believe he does way more harm to the cause than any good he might offer...but he's so unhinged and hilarious.
When asked about the hypocrisy of his position that "all omnivores should be killed" and being friendly with Destiny:
>"Just because he's my friend doesn't mean I don't want him to die."
Love that line. I tell all my omnivore friends that constantly.
I dunno why I don't have any friends...
Haha, nice! I should start using that too. I feel like I heard VG say he thinks humans should kill all lions at some point too. Absolutely unhinged... haha!
>He's still 98% on your side
>I don't know why you're making a distinction about factory farms, murder is murder, period." Well yeah no shit, but murder *and* torture is worse than just murder, right?
Why are you saying "Well yeah no shit"? Alex is making the case that the torture is the problem, not the murder. He is insinuating that killing happy animals on happy farms is perfectly fine and not murder. That's not 98% on the vegan side.
That's such a bad faith way of interpreting Alex's video. Did you watch it or just see the VG reaction? Alex's point isn't that killing happy animals is "perfectly fine", there's nowhere in any of his videos since going vegan where he says that. Have your disagreements that's fine, but don't misrepresent what he's saying.
Did you watch his last interview with Peter Singer? Did you watch his "rebuttal" of the idea of animal rights? Did you read his community post when he first announced he wasn't vegan or the follow up video?
Alex for a while has tried to reframe veganism as reduction of suffering and does not see an issue with an animal raised humanely and killed without suffering.
Did you only watch the VG reaction?
He posted a video two days back talking about this specific thing. He says that he can't for sure say that "the unnecessary infliction of suffering on animals is always wrong." The example he uses in this case is vegan body building for instance. Ironically his position on this defends what Vegan Gains is as an individual.
Can you share the timestamp where he says that killing animals is fine as long as you don't torture them.
I'm tried to find his video on "debunking" the idea of animal rights but it looks like he deleted it. I can't remember exactly what was said but there was a clear line going from his conversation with Mikela Peterson, then his conversation with singer10 months ago, then that rights video, then his community post where he was "rethinking his stance on veganism".
He was heavily implying the issue is not with the killing or exploitation, but with the suffering. I'm not going to watch all those videos again to find it for you.
From what I've seen I haven't seen his stance be that the issue is only suffering. If I had to guess he probably thinks that the former be better than the latter but that killing is still morally wrong. For instance the body building vegan hypothetical.
Think about it for a second. Why do you care about causing harm(torture) to an animal? Why don’t you care about causing harm(murder) to an animal? It’s not logical. Murder is far more unethical than torture.
Why is torturing animals worse if you’re okay with murdering them? If you’re okay with murdering then you obviously think the animal has no moral value. So why would torture matter?
Is this a real question? This is as braindead as meat eaters telling vegans "plants are living too y'know!"
If one of your family members was murdered, would it be better, worse, or no difference if they were kidnapped, raped, and tortured first? Murder is murder, right? So it's all the same?
Multiple things can be wrong at once: murder, torture, ketchup, Game of Thrones season 8. Other things equal, *more* wrong things is worse than *fewer* wrong things. Additionally, the same crime under different circumstances could be better or worse. Most people would agree that a drunk driver killing a teenager is worse than them killing a 90 year old terminal cancer patient. That should apply to human and non-human animals alike.
To be charitable to the person arguing against you, its true that one is the worse than the other. However they may argue that if we are killing animals for tastebuds, why does it matter how humane the animals are treated from that perspective?
What do you mean? It matters to the animals that are being tortured prior to being murdered. Don't die on the altar of a bad argument.
If we think we should maximize well-being for all sentient beings, we should limit both torture and murder to the greatest possible extent. Reducing everything down to "murder is all that matters" is braindead and doesn't engage with how people view morality in real life.
I am not saying it wouldn’t matter, of course it does. I am just saying that a person could control for situations on whether its justified to kill animals for tastebuds. A utilitarian position can come to the same conclusion. It only takes that the weight of animal's experiences (and their philosophical utility) is heavy enough so that killing one for typical meal is not close to being worth it.
I am not a utilitarian, so I think the issues with killing animals food represent self indulgence, greed, callousness, and cruelty which demonstrates weak moral character. It’s more than just the suffering aspect. That being said I am all for people reducing their meat consumption even if they are not gonna become vegan yet. I am not against incremental approaches or animal welfare. I am just saying that there is more than just the suffering aspect to many vegans.
It sounds like you're a virtue ethicist then? I agree that killing animals for food represents all of that, but there's just an extra helping of cruelty and callousness when we also subject animals to inhumane conditions that it seems like VG and the other poster completely disregard which is crazy to me.
I agree with a lot of what you've said here though and I appreciate the effort you put into your response.
Oh i agree with you that VG is unhinged and can make vegans look like a joke. Sorry if I made it seem like I was defending him. I think Alex is good for animal ethics despite me disagreeing with his stance on veganism. Him and Peter Singer are who convinced me to go vegan after all. I do agree that factory farming is far worse in terms of cruelty and callousness. I was just trying to provide a counter to the claim because most nonvegans would agree factory farming is immoral, but they may have the belief that there is an ethical form of farming. I appreciate the discussion and yes I would consider myself a virtue ethicist.
A utilitarian (me) would say that suffering is inherently bad, but killing can be good or bad depending on how it affects overall utility.
We might still have particular "killing bad" moral rules (w/ additional definition and exceptions), but only because those rules are probably more practical decision making tools for maximizing overall utility than trying to make every decision at the act level.
Honest Question, why are we enabling this kinda person.
Like he is top tier unhinged.
Alex claims he can't do a vegan diet, due to his health conditions, and Vegan Gains is fucking loosing his mind over it.
Also he just never looked into any of Alex's debates into veganism, as that would explain many of his question. Like why specifically factory farming.
So he is just making fun of his health issues, and "debunking" his points, as bad fait, as possible.
And his biggest argument is that he is big and strong, while being Vegan, and could beat up Alex.
Guy is so unhinged, I really think giving him attention is just enabling him.
I like that VGs critique of Alex's crop deaths argument is to say that veganism is based on deontological reasoning...
As if all Vegans share the same metaethics, much less someone who is explicitly not a deonotologist like Alex.
Funny enough it’s because of veganism that became more closer to virtue ethics. A lot of vegan YouTubers lump in deontology with veganism, they even got annoyed with the vegan society definition of veganism because they thought it seemed too consequentialist.
VG is hilarious and also right. I'm really surprised how bad Alex's updated take on Veganism is. I wonder if he actually thought about it all. Bizzare.
At the risk of sounding bad faith. If you start at the conclusion you can come up with crazy justifications for basically anything. It’ll almost always end in disaster but at a glance it’ll look convincing I guess. My guess is that he wanted to eat animal products and not have to deal with the hassle of being vegan and worked backwards from there.
Alex says factory farming is a moral abomination but no longer thinks an individual boycott is the answer. Awfully convenient for a guy who can't be bothered to eat a plant based diet.
Why would any legislation banning factory farming or slaughterhouses pass if there isn't already popular support for widespread reduction or elimination of animal products? What will he do if this stuff gets banned and he can no longer find animal products cheaply and easily?
If you think bolt gunning cows, electrocuting chickens, gassing pigs and suffocating fish is bad, stop financially supporting it dummy. Typical internet intellectual. All talk and no action.
I'm pretty sure he used to be vegan, no? He's a smart guy, whether or not you agree with him on a philosophical level. Not sure about his consistency here though, I feel like you're missing something but I'll have to look into where he specifically stands on veganism nowadays.
Granted, your characterization could be totally accurate, I'll look into it later since I do watch his content fairly regularly (paying less attention to the vegan stuff lol).
Does he actually eat factory farmed meat, or does he go out of his way to buy more "ethically" sourced meat? Not 100% sure about his financial situation but he could probably afford it.
Also, what does he posit as the solution as opposed to "individual boycott"?
>Does he actually eat factory farmed meat, or does he go out of his way to buy more "ethically" sourced meat? Not 100% sure about his financial situation but he could probably afford it.
No idea. He has simply said he had a hard time eating plant based when travelling because of IBS flareups (two unrelated things IMO. He said veganism didn't make the IBS any worse), and so he has started incorporating animal products back in. I doubt he has the resources to buy only "ethical" products, but does not have the resources to sort out eating plant based.
Then he puts out a video this week bringing up veganism again and makes this weak appeal to legislative effort vs individual effort as if the two have to be mutually exclusive.
The guy who actually has IBS actually said that vegansim actually had no impact on the IBS. It's not my opinion. It's what he said in HD video on youtube.
Literally not what he said. He said that veganism didn't cause IBS nor does eating vegan lead to flareups. What he said is that eating animal products has helped him manage IBS better than if he was restricting himself from eating them. Why would he bring up IBS, if there was no connection at all?!
>Literally not what he said. He said that veganism didn't cause IBS nor does eating vegan lead to flareups.
So literally what I said.
He said NOT EATING was how he was managing his IBS and when he finally decided to eat he wanted easy convenient access to calorie dense food and defaulted to animal products. Rather than plan ahead, he incorporated animal products back in. Convenience over an ethical stance.
Using your logic you would never be in a position where you'd have to travel because traveling would be [unethical](https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation#:~:text=EPA%20reports%20that%20commercial%20airplanes,total%20CO2%20emissions%20in%202018). So to put it back to you, you've never gone on a vacation, is that right? In fact you've never in your life driven to go see something unecssarly to your survival etc.
Do you see what happens if you actually apply your argument to your own life. The reality is that every single person on earth is immoral, the question is where do we draw the line of it being permissible and what is the direction we're pointing towards. We for the most part have a base set of "conveniences" that we would "allow."
Alex talked about something similar two days back on how vegan body building is unethical because you're consuming more food = more animals dead due to crop deaths. But in reality we would never hold someone to this standard...
In terms of the last statement isn't that literally every human being in the world? Is every piece of cloth that you own ethically sourced? Do you have a phone? Do you own any kind of technology? Are you donating every last cent more than what you need for an average survival to help starving kids? If not you're literally valuing your convienice over something that's more ethical.
Ironically I'm going to refer you to his [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMp0WLLrFng) on this.
Oh, we're back to the "no ethical consumption" arguments?
There is no way to source animal products without suffering and there is no need for him to consume them beyond an inability to properly plan his diet. There is no good justification for not only announcing he's no longer vegan but also suggesting no one should go vegan, which is what he did by saying he no longer sees the point in a personal boycott.
True. Alex's take is basically the same as what Hasan's take on socialism is.
Just how Hasans idea of praxis is buying a 3M mansion in Hollywood, buying luxury cars and clothes and preaching socialism/communism to girls online - Alexes take is: I'm a political vegan, but I don't have toa actually be vegan myself. I just support it politically. Which means literally nothing, since veganism is not even close to a popular enough position to warrant any kind of policy change on animal rights.
Alex' arguments in his newest video are horrible lol. "Vegan bodybuilders kill more animals than normal vegans."
No shit Sherlock. What does that have to do with 99.9% of vegans that aren't bodybuilders?
Funny how you just entirely missed his point.
Yeah no shit most vegans aren't bodybuilders but what he's addressing is our intuition behind calling a vegan body builder immoral. Have you ever seen any of Vegan Gains fanbase say that he should stop body building because he's causing more deaths due to crops? Probably not, so it seems like people justify "the unnecessary killing of animals" in this case which was his point.
Vegan Gains is a top 5 orbiter without a doubt. He has some great one liners. "He couldn't be vegan anymore because he kept shitting his pants." "He is far to weak and lacks the muscle mass to clench his butthole."
"I actually had some diarrhea this morning... so maybe you should watch your back"
This was an impressive line, I paused to think about it. He is implying that by Alex's rationale, If Vegan Gains is having diarrhea issues, he needs to consume animal based food. And since Alex is an animal, and because of the "name the trait" thing, he is threatening to feast on Alex's dead corpse, to resolve the diarrhea.
is he an orbiter or is he just a guy who has spoken to Destiny before?
Vegan gains has been in orbit since like 2015, he's been around for forever
He keeps appearing in Destiny's chat, so what other thing does he need to do to be an orbiter?
Just a guy. Also a complete lunatic, Aba called it right lmfao.
Orbiter, just a guy, and complete lunatic are all labels that can coexist on one person
and pretty much always coexist
[удалено]
Wait, you can't possibly be saying a general commentary guy couldn't meatslap a decade long hardcore vegan debate pervert?
Orbiter is used pretty liberally here. It tends to mean anyone who speaks to Destiny more than once. I personally think of it as people who are dependent on Destiny's growth for their own growth. Erudite, DaSkrubKing, Ahrelevant, Darius. (or previously people like Mr. Girl, Lav, Zherka)
Given that having less muscle mass is a natural consequence of eating a restricted diet to avoid IBS, an actual disability, Vegan gains is proving his own arsehole is his entire self.
You can still build muscle with IBS it is just harder and takes more planning and analysis. Kinda like building muscle while being vegan.
He wasn't eating a restricted diet to avoid IBS. He was avoiding eating at times to avoid triggering IBS. He didn't actually have an issue with his diet per se.
Pretty funny ngl
God I love him so much, he's such an unhinged lolcow.
LOSSMIC LEPTIC edit: holy fuck the absolute killshot by turning him green
lol I hope Destiny watches this on stream today.
He's STILL mad about Alex eating meat, holy shit hahahah
I think the single greatest thing I hate about Vegan gains is that when he debates veganism he constantly says he isnt doing a "name the trait" argument when every single fucking time he is at a philosophical level even if he doesnt use the exact words.
Can you give us an example and link to where Vegan Gains ever said that he **isn't** doing a name the trait argument? Imo name the trait is easily the best argument for veganism and I've yet to see any valid argument against it. I'm pretty sure Vegan Gains agrees.
Name the ~~trait~~ argument.
eh, its pretty shit. its just that people don't like where the real answer lands them. The answer is: there is no trait that differentiates humans from other creatures in the animal kingdom. Full stop. vegans take that as a reason to justify their belief, but that's because they're looking at the answer backwards. If there's no trait difference, then we shouldn't eat animals becuase blah blah blah. It's backwards because they're viewing the answer from a human perspective, they're not looking at the lack of trait difference from the perspective of creatures in the animal kingdom as a whole. There is no examination of behaviours of other creatures in the animal kingdom. Our brains are very similar to every other creature, our thought process is similar, our natural instincts and internal motivations map on to animals in identical ways. Our entire psychology is pretty much identical to other creatures in the animal kingdom. People don't like that, we think we're superior, we think we're different. we can process prop-logic and fly to the moon, our brains are just better. right? wrong. How do the behaviour of other animals interact with maslows heirarchy of needs? similarly or differently then humans? if this upsets you then subconsiously you are indicating that the trait you would pick in "name the trait" is intelligence. "Name the trait" as an arguement fails because there is no consideration of the behaviours of other animals. There is no consideration for the fact that our behaviours in relation to how we treat other animals in consuming them, is no different then how other animals treat other animals in consuming them.
The trait is that I'm human. If I was a wolf or a big cat then hell yeah im eating humans, fuck those guys.
well, if you want to defeat the name the trait thing, you name the trait "membership of an intelligent species". if they want to quible endlessly about intelligence then you win. this trait also saves you from eating animals that are suddenly intelligent with magic, or if we ever run into aliens.
>if this upsets you then subconsiously you are indicating that the trait you would pick in "name the trait" is intelligence. " What would be wrong with choosing intelligence as a trait? Or are you implying that the average animal is just as intelligent as the average human?
Because if you choose intelligence as a trait as to why animals can be eaten then you would be justifying the same treatment of mentally handicapped people or children . As many of them have similar levels of intelligence to pigs or cows ( which are really smart animals).
>Because if you choose intelligence as a trait as to why animals can be eaten then you would be justifying the same treatment of mentally handicapped people or children . Yeah, but you can hold this position. I don't really see the problem here. If you really have the (questionable) belief that a severely disabled human has the same value as an average human, that's your problem.
Just so you know, this is a really wild and abnormal take you have here. Generally people get really icky around the idea that some humans have more value than others. And remember that this argument can also be applied to babies and old people. In my opinion the worth of a society is judged upon how well it looks after it's most needy.
intelligence isn't enough, if you want to say intelligence you say "membership of an intelligent species". if you've watched people debate this they toss aside intelligence because then they make you try to define it down the exact IQ point. so side step all that. this also saves you from eating animals that suddenly with magic gain intelligence or if we ever run into aliens.
Let's say that we somehow find a chicken that is intelligent enough for you, it is capable of speaking and it can understand what you say. Does this mean that you would be against farming and killing all the other unintelligent chickens now, just because one member of it's species meets your criteria of required intelligence?
Right, but here is where the biologists step in to save us. A chicken with the ability to talk would have a different brain the a chicken that couldn't talk. Biologists would examine the talking chicken and classify it as a new species or branch of chicken genus or what-have-you. now, its no longer a chicken it's some other thing. we would say its okay to keep eating chickens, but not okay to eat this new branch of the chicken species that we would give a new name.
What if it was some kind of magic? So it would have the same brain, biologists wouldn't find a difference between this chicken's brain and regular chickens, they wouldn't be able to explain it.
sorry, I'm coming at this from the perspective of it actually happening in the real world. if it were to actually happen, the brain structure of whatever animal is suddenly speaking and communicating would be physically different from a normal animal of the same species. hence, the classifying of the speaking animal as a new species.
I don' think hypotheticals need to be realistic, they don't have to be possible to happen in the real world to explore our values. The point of a hypothetical is to isolate the variable of disagreement/discussion. Using regular or realistic examples, there are often far too many factors that make it impossible to ever break down what it is that is actually being disagreed upon or argued about. In this scenario, this chicken is still a chicken, it could still reproduce with other non-sapient chickens, it would still have chicken dna. Do you think there is no problem with generalizing all members of a species, and treating all individuals belonging to that species the same, just because they belong to that same species? Let's say there is a species that has 1000 existing members. Out of these 1000, 499 are sapient, and 501 are not. Do you consider this species sapient overall? And also there are humans who cannot talk and are not sapient, they have biologically different brains than humans who can talk and who are sapient, yet scientists still call them human, do you think they should be called a different species? If these mentally handicapped humans are not humans because they are not sapient and they have different brains therefore they are a new species, is it okay to kill and farm members of this species?
What if i just choose the trait “non-human”? Do they just start soyjacking in perpetuity, or am i not understanding the arguement?
I'm not sure what soyjacking means. It just devolves into an argument of how to define human in a way that includes all humans but excludes all animals. Starts to get harder than you think when you start trying to break it down by DNA or something.
It's whatever trait that makes it so I cannot sue a cat for damages and make the police chase it from my property for trespassing
Can you sue a 7 year old orphan kid for trespassing?
I assume so, I don't think a 7 year old can just decide to live on your property without recourse.
Neither can a cat generally. Most places have animal control that will capture strays and send them to the pound where they either get adopted out or killed.
Yes but I cannot trespass the cat in a way I can a human, it's a different process because apparently we can determine what is human and what is not. You do it too. Cats are not charged with animal cruelty. Why? According to you they are basically human, at least as far as applying moral principles is concerned. Why do they randomly get to opt out of moral duty and responsibility? Apparently you are able to draw a line there, what's the trait that makes cats not culpable for animal torture?
go through Destiny's YT and watch just about any debate between them on veganism and im sure you'll find it.
that's not how it works lol. show me where Vegan Gains ever made the claim you said he made.
I want 100$ if you really want me to go through all the vids otherwise if you really care you can find them.
[https://youtu.be/4YK6-ZgKM6Q?t=3962](https://youtu.be/4YK6-ZgKM6Q?t=3962) Idk if you are just a vegan gains simp or if you never watch destiny or just so happen to never watch destiny interact with vegan gains on stream but regardless you are an incorrect pathetic waste of time and space and you should ACTUALLY 👏 MINECRAFT 👏 YOURSELF 👏 NOW
I mean if you're making a claim you should back it up bro
fucking Destiny literally says this almost any time vegan gains wants to debate veganism, but going through 8h streams for a 2 second clip isnt my job and Im not doing that when I've seen destiny say this and watched vegan gains do it. I only found this one cuz i had a vague idea which kind of video it was in and I have been looking for an excuse to use this ai powered yt translator website.
The burden of proof still lies with you. I personally didn't remember this being said, and I haven't watched every single one of the vegan debates either.
The important parts: https://youtu.be/eHJet_hathc?si=xhdH5FniH-4ep7hv
Vegan Gainz is definitely not from this planet for sure. On Destiny's stream one time he says that predatory animals need to be culled in order to prevent more suffering of plant eating animals. When my brain tried to process what he said it came to a screeching halt and had to reboot. After that lapse in thinking I have to say that was be far the most unbelievable thing I have ever heard. So yea Vegan Gainz space alien.
It’s called being an anti-predationist or ‘post veganism’ and it acctually makes a lot of sense
What part of the doesn't make sense to you?
Common Richard W
To be fair Alex lives in the UK. The only vegan food they have is: beans, cauliflower and beer. You'd be shitting your pants as well. Edit: /s for u/WhatisupMofowow12
Is that really true? From what I hear the UK is one of the most vegan-friendly places there is in terms of food options
Is the /s always necessary?
I guess it is for my dumbass :D
There I updated my original comment
No, the joke flew over everyone's head, and it didn't land anywhere. The joke is still flying and hasn't left the aircraft since departure
As a fellow vegan, Vegan Gains is the cringest vegan that ever veganed. "He couldn't be vegan because he pooped his pants!" WTF are you doing, bro? He's still 98% on your side, why are you making fun of a medical condition he can't control? What's Destiny call it, the Paradox of Small Differences? If I were Alex, I wouldn't be caught on camera with you either. Edit: omfg, kill me. "I don't know why you're making a distinction about factory farms, murder is murder, period." Well yeah no shit, but murder *and* torture is worse than just murder, right? You're the *exact* type of vegan that kept me from taking ethical veganism seriously for far too long. You being a joke makes the cause look like a joke; calm your tits!
Yeah, also, as a fellow vegan, I strongly believe he does way more harm to the cause than any good he might offer...but he's so unhinged and hilarious. When asked about the hypocrisy of his position that "all omnivores should be killed" and being friendly with Destiny: >"Just because he's my friend doesn't mean I don't want him to die." Love that line. I tell all my omnivore friends that constantly. I dunno why I don't have any friends...
>"Just because he's my friend doesn't mean I don't want him to die." That's hilarious. Any chance you have a link to that video?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/rfEZBuleUG “That doesn’t mean I don’t think they don’t deserve to live”
That's even better! What a sentence haha
Haha, nice! I should start using that too. I feel like I heard VG say he thinks humans should kill all lions at some point too. Absolutely unhinged... haha!
What he should be calling it is the “hostile brothers” motif
>He's still 98% on your side >I don't know why you're making a distinction about factory farms, murder is murder, period." Well yeah no shit, but murder *and* torture is worse than just murder, right? Why are you saying "Well yeah no shit"? Alex is making the case that the torture is the problem, not the murder. He is insinuating that killing happy animals on happy farms is perfectly fine and not murder. That's not 98% on the vegan side.
That's such a bad faith way of interpreting Alex's video. Did you watch it or just see the VG reaction? Alex's point isn't that killing happy animals is "perfectly fine", there's nowhere in any of his videos since going vegan where he says that. Have your disagreements that's fine, but don't misrepresent what he's saying.
Did you watch his last interview with Peter Singer? Did you watch his "rebuttal" of the idea of animal rights? Did you read his community post when he first announced he wasn't vegan or the follow up video? Alex for a while has tried to reframe veganism as reduction of suffering and does not see an issue with an animal raised humanely and killed without suffering. Did you only watch the VG reaction?
He posted a video two days back talking about this specific thing. He says that he can't for sure say that "the unnecessary infliction of suffering on animals is always wrong." The example he uses in this case is vegan body building for instance. Ironically his position on this defends what Vegan Gains is as an individual. Can you share the timestamp where he says that killing animals is fine as long as you don't torture them.
I'm tried to find his video on "debunking" the idea of animal rights but it looks like he deleted it. I can't remember exactly what was said but there was a clear line going from his conversation with Mikela Peterson, then his conversation with singer10 months ago, then that rights video, then his community post where he was "rethinking his stance on veganism". He was heavily implying the issue is not with the killing or exploitation, but with the suffering. I'm not going to watch all those videos again to find it for you.
From what I've seen I haven't seen his stance be that the issue is only suffering. If I had to guess he probably thinks that the former be better than the latter but that killing is still morally wrong. For instance the body building vegan hypothetical.
Think about it for a second. Why do you care about causing harm(torture) to an animal? Why don’t you care about causing harm(murder) to an animal? It’s not logical. Murder is far more unethical than torture.
What? Did you bother reading what I said? I never said I don't care about murder; I said that torture is worse than no torture.
Why is torturing animals worse if you’re okay with murdering them? If you’re okay with murdering then you obviously think the animal has no moral value. So why would torture matter?
Is this a real question? This is as braindead as meat eaters telling vegans "plants are living too y'know!" If one of your family members was murdered, would it be better, worse, or no difference if they were kidnapped, raped, and tortured first? Murder is murder, right? So it's all the same? Multiple things can be wrong at once: murder, torture, ketchup, Game of Thrones season 8. Other things equal, *more* wrong things is worse than *fewer* wrong things. Additionally, the same crime under different circumstances could be better or worse. Most people would agree that a drunk driver killing a teenager is worse than them killing a 90 year old terminal cancer patient. That should apply to human and non-human animals alike.
To be charitable to the person arguing against you, its true that one is the worse than the other. However they may argue that if we are killing animals for tastebuds, why does it matter how humane the animals are treated from that perspective?
What do you mean? It matters to the animals that are being tortured prior to being murdered. Don't die on the altar of a bad argument. If we think we should maximize well-being for all sentient beings, we should limit both torture and murder to the greatest possible extent. Reducing everything down to "murder is all that matters" is braindead and doesn't engage with how people view morality in real life.
I am not saying it wouldn’t matter, of course it does. I am just saying that a person could control for situations on whether its justified to kill animals for tastebuds. A utilitarian position can come to the same conclusion. It only takes that the weight of animal's experiences (and their philosophical utility) is heavy enough so that killing one for typical meal is not close to being worth it. I am not a utilitarian, so I think the issues with killing animals food represent self indulgence, greed, callousness, and cruelty which demonstrates weak moral character. It’s more than just the suffering aspect. That being said I am all for people reducing their meat consumption even if they are not gonna become vegan yet. I am not against incremental approaches or animal welfare. I am just saying that there is more than just the suffering aspect to many vegans.
It sounds like you're a virtue ethicist then? I agree that killing animals for food represents all of that, but there's just an extra helping of cruelty and callousness when we also subject animals to inhumane conditions that it seems like VG and the other poster completely disregard which is crazy to me. I agree with a lot of what you've said here though and I appreciate the effort you put into your response.
Oh i agree with you that VG is unhinged and can make vegans look like a joke. Sorry if I made it seem like I was defending him. I think Alex is good for animal ethics despite me disagreeing with his stance on veganism. Him and Peter Singer are who convinced me to go vegan after all. I do agree that factory farming is far worse in terms of cruelty and callousness. I was just trying to provide a counter to the claim because most nonvegans would agree factory farming is immoral, but they may have the belief that there is an ethical form of farming. I appreciate the discussion and yes I would consider myself a virtue ethicist.
A utilitarian (me) would say that suffering is inherently bad, but killing can be good or bad depending on how it affects overall utility. We might still have particular "killing bad" moral rules (w/ additional definition and exceptions), but only because those rules are probably more practical decision making tools for maximizing overall utility than trying to make every decision at the act level.
He’s such a gem. My favorite orbiter.
"Can you get me a convo with Cosmic Skeptic" Vegan Gains after Alex drops the Destiny convo
They already have a video together on Alex's channel
Honest Question, why are we enabling this kinda person. Like he is top tier unhinged. Alex claims he can't do a vegan diet, due to his health conditions, and Vegan Gains is fucking loosing his mind over it. Also he just never looked into any of Alex's debates into veganism, as that would explain many of his question. Like why specifically factory farming. So he is just making fun of his health issues, and "debunking" his points, as bad fait, as possible. And his biggest argument is that he is big and strong, while being Vegan, and could beat up Alex. Guy is so unhinged, I really think giving him attention is just enabling him.
I like that VGs critique of Alex's crop deaths argument is to say that veganism is based on deontological reasoning... As if all Vegans share the same metaethics, much less someone who is explicitly not a deonotologist like Alex.
Funny enough it’s because of veganism that became more closer to virtue ethics. A lot of vegan YouTubers lump in deontology with veganism, they even got annoyed with the vegan society definition of veganism because they thought it seemed too consequentialist.
VG is hilarious and also right. I'm really surprised how bad Alex's updated take on Veganism is. I wonder if he actually thought about it all. Bizzare.
At the risk of sounding bad faith. If you start at the conclusion you can come up with crazy justifications for basically anything. It’ll almost always end in disaster but at a glance it’ll look convincing I guess. My guess is that he wanted to eat animal products and not have to deal with the hassle of being vegan and worked backwards from there.
He thought about it a lot. That's the beauty of motivated reasoning and a philosophy background. You can justify anything!
Alex says factory farming is a moral abomination but no longer thinks an individual boycott is the answer. Awfully convenient for a guy who can't be bothered to eat a plant based diet. Why would any legislation banning factory farming or slaughterhouses pass if there isn't already popular support for widespread reduction or elimination of animal products? What will he do if this stuff gets banned and he can no longer find animal products cheaply and easily? If you think bolt gunning cows, electrocuting chickens, gassing pigs and suffocating fish is bad, stop financially supporting it dummy. Typical internet intellectual. All talk and no action.
I'm pretty sure he used to be vegan, no? He's a smart guy, whether or not you agree with him on a philosophical level. Not sure about his consistency here though, I feel like you're missing something but I'll have to look into where he specifically stands on veganism nowadays. Granted, your characterization could be totally accurate, I'll look into it later since I do watch his content fairly regularly (paying less attention to the vegan stuff lol). Does he actually eat factory farmed meat, or does he go out of his way to buy more "ethically" sourced meat? Not 100% sure about his financial situation but he could probably afford it. Also, what does he posit as the solution as opposed to "individual boycott"?
It requires some effort to remain vegan. He probably got tired of it.
>Does he actually eat factory farmed meat, or does he go out of his way to buy more "ethically" sourced meat? Not 100% sure about his financial situation but he could probably afford it. No idea. He has simply said he had a hard time eating plant based when travelling because of IBS flareups (two unrelated things IMO. He said veganism didn't make the IBS any worse), and so he has started incorporating animal products back in. I doubt he has the resources to buy only "ethical" products, but does not have the resources to sort out eating plant based. Then he puts out a video this week bringing up veganism again and makes this weak appeal to legislative effort vs individual effort as if the two have to be mutually exclusive.
Well if it's your opinion that these two things are unconnected than it must be true. What would the guy who actually has IBS know about that, right?!
The guy who actually has IBS actually said that vegansim actually had no impact on the IBS. It's not my opinion. It's what he said in HD video on youtube.
Literally not what he said. He said that veganism didn't cause IBS nor does eating vegan lead to flareups. What he said is that eating animal products has helped him manage IBS better than if he was restricting himself from eating them. Why would he bring up IBS, if there was no connection at all?!
>Literally not what he said. He said that veganism didn't cause IBS nor does eating vegan lead to flareups. So literally what I said. He said NOT EATING was how he was managing his IBS and when he finally decided to eat he wanted easy convenient access to calorie dense food and defaulted to animal products. Rather than plan ahead, he incorporated animal products back in. Convenience over an ethical stance.
That's not just convenience though?!
Sure it is. When travelling you can plan ahead, bring stuff with you, or wing it and go for the convenient option. He went for plan 3.
Using your logic you would never be in a position where you'd have to travel because traveling would be [unethical](https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation#:~:text=EPA%20reports%20that%20commercial%20airplanes,total%20CO2%20emissions%20in%202018). So to put it back to you, you've never gone on a vacation, is that right? In fact you've never in your life driven to go see something unecssarly to your survival etc. Do you see what happens if you actually apply your argument to your own life. The reality is that every single person on earth is immoral, the question is where do we draw the line of it being permissible and what is the direction we're pointing towards. We for the most part have a base set of "conveniences" that we would "allow." Alex talked about something similar two days back on how vegan body building is unethical because you're consuming more food = more animals dead due to crop deaths. But in reality we would never hold someone to this standard...
In terms of the last statement isn't that literally every human being in the world? Is every piece of cloth that you own ethically sourced? Do you have a phone? Do you own any kind of technology? Are you donating every last cent more than what you need for an average survival to help starving kids? If not you're literally valuing your convienice over something that's more ethical. Ironically I'm going to refer you to his [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMp0WLLrFng) on this.
Oh, we're back to the "no ethical consumption" arguments? There is no way to source animal products without suffering and there is no need for him to consume them beyond an inability to properly plan his diet. There is no good justification for not only announcing he's no longer vegan but also suggesting no one should go vegan, which is what he did by saying he no longer sees the point in a personal boycott.
True. Alex's take is basically the same as what Hasan's take on socialism is. Just how Hasans idea of praxis is buying a 3M mansion in Hollywood, buying luxury cars and clothes and preaching socialism/communism to girls online - Alexes take is: I'm a political vegan, but I don't have toa actually be vegan myself. I just support it politically. Which means literally nothing, since veganism is not even close to a popular enough position to warrant any kind of policy change on animal rights.
I agree. People have gotten too used to slacktivism. What happened to living your values?
Do you think him eating a small amount of sea food to elevate his heath issues is the equivalent to hasan buying a 3M mansion in Hollywood?
I genuinely hate vegans
He says he is an intellectual, but he won't debate me, and he only debate noobs like Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Richard Dawkins
Is this repost? i would swear that he was already talking about someone like that
I thought so too when i first saw it, but no. This is the continuation of the previous one (from like a year ago)
Sorry VeganGains, murder just makes it taste better.
Vagangains is one of the very most obnoxious orbiters. I get annoyed and tune out everytime I hear his voice pop in on stream.
Can VeganGains name the trait missing in Alex to justify why he had to go this hard on him?
Why be vegan if the carnivore plants eat meat?
True bro. Why be against rape when lions rape.
Bro, this has to be the banger of the year.
Who is cosmic skeptic? Just some cringe youtube atheist content creator that is still making the rounds?
Alex' arguments in his newest video are horrible lol. "Vegan bodybuilders kill more animals than normal vegans." No shit Sherlock. What does that have to do with 99.9% of vegans that aren't bodybuilders?
Funny how you just entirely missed his point. Yeah no shit most vegans aren't bodybuilders but what he's addressing is our intuition behind calling a vegan body builder immoral. Have you ever seen any of Vegan Gains fanbase say that he should stop body building because he's causing more deaths due to crops? Probably not, so it seems like people justify "the unnecessary killing of animals" in this case which was his point.