“CosmicSkeptic Should Go Vegan” is my response to Alex O’Connor’s pseudoscientific, illogical video entitled “A Meat-Eater’s Case for Veganism”, where he fails to make a case for this dangerous diet that is veganism.
In his video, CosmicSkeptic says he had spent a long time thinking about Veganism & came to the conclusion that eating anything other than a purely plant-based diet is immoral. So now, he finds himself at a crossroads. Being immoral, or going vegan. And he wants us, the viewers, to dissuade him from this course of action by using logic, because he loves the taste of meat. Let him go vegan, I say, but it won’t be because of some objective truth or any meaningful ethical claim. That, I am not willing to concede.
As it is the case with “ethical” vegans, Alex completely fails to make any logical argument for why eating food we must eat to survive is unethical.
However, as it is also the case with most “ethical” vegans, he assumes our species can survive without meat, when there is ZERO evidence for this claim & plenty of evidence to the contrary. But he must ignore reality, as this is is the only way Veganism can appear logical. If he were to admit that the vegan diet destroys human health, as it most certainly does & for obvious LOGICAL & empirically observable reasons, he would not be able to engage in what he loves to engage in. Useless, impractical, detached from reality philosophizing, or mental gymnastics.
So while I’m not willing to concede that the vegan diet is prescribed for human health and longevity AS A SPECIES, I will temporarily entertain Alex’s insane LaLa Land worldview, if only to demonstrate how stacking BS on top of BS can only result in a hot steaming pile of B and HS. Ok, that wasn’t entirely logical. But you get the point, a house built in quicksand is very easy to destroy in many ways. It essentially collapses on it’s own and may only need a slight nudge, from any direction. This is where I come in.
Alex, like a lot of vegans, – you guys are a corny, predictable NPC cliche – starts off his “argumentation” for Veganism with the debunked-many-times-over Name The Trait frame game. I think it’s time to make another video about NTT, but for the time being, this little refutation will have to suffice.
First of all, why is NTT legitimate? What’s the justification for looking at the world through these particular animal rights activist glasses? Why do I have to accept it? None of this is ever discussed when NTT is brought up as an argument. What grounds NTT? Why is it logical? Why does my food have to lack a trait that humans don’t possess? Why can’t food just be food because it is, has always been and will forever remain food? If none of these questions are even addressed, I can simply reject NTT as invalid.
But I once again entertain the nonsense. Because, once again, it is very easy to bring down a house built in quicksand. The trait, if you must have one, is “human”. The difference between people and animals is the fact that we are human and they are not. But, as soon as you provide this trait, Alex rejects it as invalid, thereby invalidating NTT. Because it was never valid in the first place. I win the stupid game, he moves the goalpost. What’s the use of playing the game when you say I can’t win it in the first place and will go to great DISHONEST lengths to “prove” this?
What’s funny, is that while proposing other pro-vegan arguments, Alex actually names a trait that makes humans different than animals, later also rejecting this trait as valid. WTF? Don’t ask for something just to simply reject it later when provided. Then, he also proposes a trait, or sentience, which makes us and animals equally morally valuable. Because he says it does. What’s interesting, is that the grounds he uses to reject the traits provided are the same grounds that invalidate the trait that he proposes, except he maintains that his trait, or sentience, is actually valid. It’s not valid. By his own admission. This kid is a huge hypocrite.
Then, he bastardizes a beautiful political theory thought experiment by John Rawls, turns it into an absurd non-version thereof, or an impossible LaLa Land scenario, calls this impossible scenario a legit hypothetical because he says it must be legit by the virtue of him saying it is legit, while later rejecting an ACTUAL hypothetical anti-vegan thought exercise as impractical, thus invalid. So a hypothetical is invalid because it’s only hypothetical and not a factual or current real life example, but his non-hypothetical, impossibly absurd thought exercise is legit because he says it is. This kid is a walking, talking contradiction.
Which is exactly why he should go vegan. He will fit right in. Then he’ll fail and we’ll get to find out if he really is an honest man.
Follow me on: twitter.com/CarnevalOne
Email me: Carneval@TutaNota.com
Support via Paypal: Carneval@TutaNota.com
#CosmicSkeptic #Veganism #Carneval