#and the arbitrary inability to eat literally anything | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

illustir · 4 years ago

Text

Highlights for Progress and Poverty

Foul things fled, fierce things tame; discord turned to harmony! For how could there be greed where all had enough? How could the vice, the crime, the ignorance, the brutality, that spring from poverty and the fear of poverty, exist where poverty had vanished? Who should crouch where all were freemen; who oppress where all were peers?

Where the conditions to which material progress everywhere tends are most fully realized—that is to say, where population is densest, wealth greatest, and the machinery of production and exchange most highly developed—we find the deepest poverty, the sharpest struggle for existence, and the most of enforced idleness.

This fact—the great fact that poverty and all its concomitants show themselves in communities just as they develop into the conditions toward which material progress tends—proves that the social difficulties existing wherever a certain stage of progress has been reached, do not arise from local circumstances, but are, in some way or another, engendered by progress itself.

The new forces, elevating in their nature though they be, do not act upon the social fabric from underneath, as was for a long time hoped and believed, but strike it at a point intermediate between top and bottom. It is as though an immense wedge were being forced, not underneath society, but through society. Those who are above the point of separation are elevated, but those who are below are crushed down.

The miner who, two thousand feet under ground in the heart of the Comstock, is digging out silver ore, is, in effect, by virtue of a thousand exchanges, harvesting crops in valleys five thousand feet nearer the earth’s center; chasing the whale through Arctic icefields; plucking tobacco leaves in Virginia; picking coffee berries in Honduras; cutting sugar cane on the Hawaiian Islands; gathering cotton in Georgia or weaving it in Manchester or Lowell; making quaint wooden toys for his children in the Hartz Mountains; or plucking amid the green and gold of Los Angeles orchards the oranges which, when his shift is relieved, he will take home to his sick wife. The wages which he receives on Saturday night at the mouth of the shaft, what are they but the certificate to all the world that he has done these things—the primary exchange in the long series which transmutes his labor into the things he has really been laboring for?

Increase in the amount of bonds, mortgages, notes, or bank bills cannot increase the wealth of the community that includes as well those who promise to pay as those who are entitled to receive. The enslavement of a part of their number could not increase the wealth of a people, for what the enslavers gained the enslaved would lose. Increase in land values does not represent increase in the common wealth, for what land owners gain by higher prices, the tenants or purchasers who must pay them will lose. And all this relative wealth, which, in common thought and speech, in legislation and law, is undistinguished from actual wealth, could, without the destruction or consumption of anything more than a few drops of ink and a piece of paper, be utterly annihilated.

Thus wealth, as alone the term can be used in political economy, consists of natural products that have been secured, moved, combined, separated, or in other ways modified by human exertion, so as to fit them for the gratification of human desires.

Capital is only a part of wealth—that part, namely, which is devoted to the aid of production.

For labor always precedes wages. This is as universally true of wages received by the laborer from an employer as it is of wages taken directly by the laborer who is his own employer.

For the creation of value does not depend upon the finishing of the product; it takes place at every stage of the process of production, as the immediate result of the application of labor, and hence, no matter how long the process in which it is engaged, labor always adds to capital by its exertion before it takes from capital in its wages.

It is never as an employer of labor that any producer needs capital; when he does need capital, it is because he is not only an employer of labor, but a merchant or speculator in, or an accumulator of, the products of labor.

Nor what Malthus failed to show has any one since him shown. The globe may be surveyed and history may be reviewed in vain for any instance of a considerable country20 in which poverty and want can be fairly attributed to the pressure of an increasing population. Whatever be the possible dangers involved in the power of human increase, they have never yet appeared. Whatever may some time be, this never yet has been the evil that has afflicted mankind.

The millions of India have bowed their necks beneath the yokes of many conquerors, but worst of all is the steady, grinding weight of English domination—a weight which is literally crushing millions out of existence, and, as shown by English writers, is inevitably tending to a most frightful and widespread catastrophe.

The real cause of want in India has been, and yet is, the rapacity of man, not the niggardliness of nature.

Labor was thus applied in the most inefficient and wasteful manner, and labor was dissipated in aimless idleness that, with any security for its fruits, would have been applied unremittingly.

I know of nothing better calculated to make the blood boil than the cold accounts of the grasping, grinding tyranny to which the Irish people have been subjected, and to which, and not to any inability of the land to support its population, Irish pauperism and Irish famine are to be attributed; and were it not for the enervating effect which the history of the world proves to be everywhere the result of abject poverty, it would be difficult to resist something like a feeling of contempt for a race who, stung by such wrongs, have only occasionally murdered a landlord!

I assert that, other things being equal, the greater the population, the greater the comfort which an equitable distribution of wealth would give to each individual. I assert that in a state of equality the natural increase of population would constantly tend to make every individual richer instead of poorer.

Stop labor in any community, and wealth would vanish almost as the jet of a fountain vanishes when the flow of water is shut off. Let labor again exert itself, and wealth will almost as immediately reappear.

Land, labor, and capital are the factors of production. The term land includes all natural opportunities or forces; the term labor, all human exertion; and the term capital, all wealth used to produce more wealth.

The natural order is land, labor, capital; and, instead of starting from capital as our initial point, we should start from land.

Rent, in short, is the price of monopoly, arising from the reduction to individual ownership of natural elements which human exertion can neither produce nor increase.

Thus interest springs from the power of increase which the reproductive forces of nature, and the in effect analogous capacity for exchange, give to capital. It is not an arbitrary, but a natural thing; it is not the result of a particular social organization, but of laws of the universe which underlie society. It is, therefore, just.

Nothing can be capital, let it always be remembered, that is not wealth—that is to say, nothing can be capital that does not consist of actual, tangible things, not the spontaneous offerings of nature, which have in themselves, and not by proxy, the power of directly or indirectly ministering to human desire.

Every one knows the tyranny and rapacity with which capital when concentrated in large amounts is frequently wielded to corrupt, to rob, and to destroy.

For labor and capital are but different forms of the same thing—human exertion. Capital is produced by labor; it is, in fact, but labor impressed upon matter—labor stored up in matter, to be released again as needed, as the heat of the sun stored up in coal is released in the furnace. The use of capital in production is, therefore, but a mode of labor.

One man will not work for another for less than his labor will really yield, when he can go upon the next quarter section and take up a farm for himself. It is only as land becomes monopolized and these natural opportunities are shut off from labor, that laborers are obliged to compete with each other for employment, and it becomes possible for the farmer to hire hands to do his work while he maintains himself on the difference between what their labor produces and what he pays them for it.

Wages depend upon the margin of production, or upon the produce which labor can obtain at the highest point of natural productiveness open to it without the payment of rent.

Three things unite to production—labor, capital, and land. Three parties divide the produce—the laborer, the capitalist, and the land owner. If, with an increase of production the laborer gets no more and the capitalist no more it is a necessary inference that the land owner reaps the whole gain.

And, hence, that the increase of productive power does not increase wages, is because it does increase the value of land. Rent swallows up the whole gain and pauperism accompanies progress.

The changes which constitute or contribute to material progress are three: (1) increase in population; (2) improvements in the arts of production and exchange; and (3) improvements in knowledge, education, government, police, manners, and morals, so far as they increase the power of producing wealth.

Under such circumstances, though nature is prolific, the man is poor. It is an easy matter for him to get enough to eat; but beyond this, his labor will suffice to satisfy only the simplest wants in the rudest way.

For, if labor-saving inventions went on until perfection was attained, and the necessity of labor in the production of wealth was entirely done away with, then everything that the earth could yield could be obtained without labor, and the margin of cultivation would be extended to zero. Wages would be nothing, and interest would be nothing, while rent would take everything. For the owners of the land, being enabled without labor to obtain all the wealth that could be procured from nature, there would be no use for either labor or capital, and no possible way in which either could compel any share of the wealth produced. And no matter how small population might be, if anybody but the land owners continued to exist, it would be at the whim or by the mercy of the land owners—they would be maintained either for the amusement of the land owners, or, as paupers, by their bounty.

The steam plow and the reaping machine are creating in the modern world latifundia of the same kind that the influx of slaves from foreign wars created in ancient Italy. And to many a poor fellow as he is shoved out of his accustomed place and forced to move on—as the Roman farmers were forced to join the proletariat of the great city, or sell their blood for bread in the ranks of the legions—it seems as though these labor-saving inventions were in themselves a curse, and we hear men talking of work, as though the wearying strain of the muscles were, in itself, a thing to be desired.

Free trade has enormously increased the wealth of Great Britain, without lessening pauperism. It has simply increased rent. And if the corrupt governments of our great American cities were to be made models of purity and economy, the effect would simply be to increase the value of land, not to raise either wages or interest.

Periods of industrial activity always culminate in a speculative advance of land values, followed by symptoms of checked production, generally shown at first by cessation of demand from the newer countries, where the advance in land values has been greatest.

Take the case of any one of these vast masses of unemployed men, to whom, though he never heard of Malthus, it to-day seems that there are too many people in the world. In his own wants, in the needs of his anxious wife, in the demands of his half-cared-for, perhaps even hungry and shivering children, there is demand enough for labor, Heaven knows! In his own willing hands is the supply. Put him on a solitary island, and though cut off from all the enormous advantages which the co-operation, combination, and machinery of a civilized community give to the productive powers of man, yet his two hands can fill the mouths and keep warm the backs that depend upon them. Yet where productive power is as its highest development they cannot. Why? Is it not because in the one case he has access to the material and forces of nature, and in the other this access is denied?

The proximate cause of enforced idleness with one set of men may be the cessation of demand on the part of other men for the particular things they produce, but trace this cause from point to point, from occupation to occupation, and you will find that enforced idleness in one trade is caused by enforced idleness in another, and that the paralysis which produces dullness in all trades cannot be said to spring from too great a supply of labor or too small a demand for labor, but must proceed from the fact that supply cannot meet demand by producing the things which satisfy want and are the object of labor.

When we speak of labor creating wealth, we speak metaphorically. Man creates nothing. The whole human race, were they to labor forever, could not create the tiniest mote that floats in a sunbeam—could not make this rolling sphere one atom heavier or one atom lighter. In producing wealth, labor, with the aid of natural forces, but works up, into the forms desired, pre-existing matter, and, to produce wealth, must, therefore, have access to this matter and to these forces—that is to say, to land. The land is the source of all wealth.

The reason why, in spite of the increase of productive power, wages constantly tend to a minimum which will give but a bare living, is that, with increase in productive power, rent tends to even greater increase, thus producing a constant tendency to the forcing down of wages.

Land being necessary to labor, and being reduced to private ownership, every increase in the productive power of labor but increases rent—the price that labor must pay for the opportunity to utilize its powers; and thus all the advantages gained by the march of progress go to the owners of land, and wages do not increase.

That as land is necessary to the exertion of labor in the production of wealth, to command the land which is necessary to labor, is to command all the fruits of labor save enough to enable labor to exist.

No increase of the effective power of labor can increase general wages, so long as rent swallows up all the gain.

Wherever the material condition of the laboring classes has been improved, improvement in their personal qualities has followed, and wherever their material condition has been depressed, deterioration in these qualities has been the result;

To make people industrious, prudent, skillful, and intelligent, they must be relieved from want.

Capital not only ceases to earn anything when not used, but it goes to waste—for in nearly all its forms it can be maintained only by constant reproduction. But land will not starve like laborers or go to waste like capital—its owners can wait. They may be inconvenienced, it is true, but what is inconvenience to them, is destruction to capital and starvation to labor.

The advantage but adds to rent.

We have passed out of the socialism of the tribal state, and cannot re-enter it again except by a retrogression that would involve anarchy and perhaps barbarism.

To affirm that a man can rightfully claim exclusive ownership in his own labor when embodied in material things, is to deny that any one can rightfully claim exclusive ownership in land.

The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world and others no right.

The wide-spreading social evils which everywhere oppress men amid an advancing civilization spring from a great primary wrong—the appropriation, as the exclusive property of some men, of the land on which and from which all must live. From this fundamental injustice flow all the injustices which distort and endanger modern development, which condemn the producer of wealth to poverty and pamper the non-producer in luxury, which rear the tenement house with the palace, plant the brothel behind the church, and compel us to build prisons as we open new schools.

If chattel slavery be unjust, then is private property in land unjust.

There is nothing strange in the fact that, in spite of the enormous increase in productive power which this century has witnessed, and which is still going on, the wages of labor in the lower and wider strata of industry should everywhere tend to the wages of slavery—just enough to keep the laborer in working condition. For the ownership of the land on which and from which a man must live is virtually the ownership of the man himself, and in acknowledging the right of some individuals to the exclusive use and enjoyment of the earth, we condemn other individuals to slavery as fully and as completely as though we had formally made them chattels.

The ownership of land is the basis of aristocracy. It was not nobility that gave land, but the possession of land that gave nobility.

Whatever be the increase of productive power, rent steadily tends to swallow up the gain, and more than the gain.

The direct responsibility of master to slave, a responsibility which exercises a softening influence upon the great majority of men, does not arise; it is not one human being who seems to drive another to unremitting and ill-requited toil, but “the inevitable laws of supply and demand,” for which no one in particular is responsible.

Because I was robbed yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that, is it any reason that I should suffer myself to be robbed to-day and to-morrow? any reason that I should conclude that the robber has acquired a vested right to rob me?

The primary and persistent perceptions of mankind are that all have an equal right to land, and the opinion that private property in land is necessary to society is but an offspring of ignorance that cannot look beyond its immediate surroundings—an idea of comparatively modern growth, as artificial and as baseless as that of the right divine of kings.

The child of the people, as he grows to manhood in Europe, finds all the best seats at the banquet of life marked “taken,” and must struggle with his fellows for the crumbs that fall, without one chance in a thousand of forcing or sneaking his way to a seat.

It is not that there is any real scarcity of land in California—for, an empire in herself, California will some day maintain a population as large as that of France—but appropriation has got ahead of the settler and manages to keep just ahead of him.

E. R. Taylor.

What is necessary for the use of land is not its private ownership, but the security of improvements.

It is not necessary to say to a man, “this land is yours,” in order to induce him to cultivate or improve it. It is only necessary to say to him, “whatever your labor or capital produces on this land shall be yours.”

Give a man security that he may reap, and he will sow; assure him of the possession of the house he wants to build, and he will build it. These are the natural rewards of labor. It is for the sake of the reaping that men sow; it is for the sake of possessing houses that men build. The ownership of land has nothing to do with it.

The complete recognition of common rights to land need in no way interfere with the complete recognition of individual right to improvements or produce.

If the best use of land be the test, then private property in land is condemned, as it is condemned by every other consideration.

A great wrong always dies hard, and the great wrong which in every civilized country condemns the masses of men to poverty and want, will not die without a bitter struggle.

That is to say, while the value of a railroad or telegraph line, the price of gas or of a patent medicine, may express the price of monopoly, it also expresses the exertion of labor and capital; but the value of land, or economic rent, as we have seen, is in no part made up from these factors, and expresses nothing but the advantage of appropriation.

The employers of labor would not have merely to bid against other employers, all feeling the stimulus of greater trade and increased profits, but against the ability of laborers to become their own employers upon the natural opportunities freely opened to them by the tax which prevented monopolization.

All fear of great fortunes might be dismissed, for when every one gets what he fairly earns, no one can get more than he fairly earns. How many men are there who fairly earn a million dollars?

We should reach the ideal of the socialist, but not through governmental repression. Government would change its character, and would become the administration of a great co-operative society. It would become merely the agency by which the common property was administered for the common benefit.

And so in society, as at present constituted, men are greedy of wealth because the conditions of distribution are so unjust that instead of each being sure of enough, many are certain to be condemned to want. It is the “devil catch the hindmost” of present social adjustments that causes the race and scramble for wealth, in which all considerations of justice, mercy, religion, and sentiment are trampled under foot; in which men forget their own souls, and struggle to the very verge of the grave for what they cannot take beyond. But an equitable distribution of wealth, that would exempt all from the fear of want, would destroy the greed of wealth, just as in polite society the greed of food has been destroyed.

Want might be banished, but desire would remain. Man is the unsatisfied animal. He has but begun to explore, and the universe lies before him. Each step that he takes opens new vistas and kindles new desires. He is the constructive animal; he builds, he improves, he invents, and puts together, and the greater the thing he does, the greater the thing he wants to do. He is more than an animal. Whatever be the intelligence that breathes through nature, it is in that likeness that man is made.

There is no such thing as the pursuit of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Our very amusements amuse only as they are, or simulate, the learning or the doing of something. The moment they cease to appeal either to our inquisitive or to our constructive powers, they cease to amuse.

And it shows how prolific is our human nature. As the common worker is on need transformed into queen bee, so, when circumstances favor his development, what might otherwise pass for a common man rises into a hero or leader, discoverer or teacher, sage or saint.

Consider these things and then say whether the change I propose would not be for the benefit of every one—even the greatest land holder? Would he not be safer of the future of his children in leaving them penniless in such a state of society than in leaving them the largest fortune in this? Did such a state of society anywhere exist, would he not buy entrance to it cheaply by giving up all his possessions?

That each society, small or great, necessarily weaves for itself a web of knowledge, beliefs, customs, language, tastes, institutions, and laws. Into this web, woven by each society, or rather, into these webs, for each community above the simplest is made up of minor societies, which overlap and interlace each other, the individual is received at birth and continues until his death. This is the matrix in which mind unfolds and from which it takes its stamp. This is the way in which customs, and religions, and prejudices, and tastes, and languages, grow up and are perpetuated. This is the way that skill is transmitted and knowledge is stored up, and the discoveries of one time made the common stock and stepping stone of the next. Though it is this that often offers the most serious obstacles to progress, it is this that makes progress possible. It is this that enables any schoolboy in our time to learn in a few hours more of the universe than Ptolemy knew; that places the most humdrum scientist far above the level reached by the giant mind of Aristotle. This is to the race what memory is to the individual. Our wonderful arts, our far-reaching science, our marvelous inventions—they have come through this.

The incentives to progress are the desires inherent in human nature—the desire to gratify the wants of the animal nature, the wants of the intellectual nature, and the wants of the sympathetic nature; the desire to be, to know, and to do—desires that short of infinity can never be satisfied, as they grow by what they feed on.

and this unequal distribution of the wealth and power gained as society advances tends to produce greater inequality, since aggression grows by what it feeds on, and the idea of justice is blurred by the habitual toleration of injustice.

A community divided into a class that rules and a class that is ruled—into the very rich and the very poor, may “build like giants and finish like jewelers;” but it will be monuments of ruthless pride and barren vanity, or of a religion turned from its office of elevating man into an instrument for keeping him down.

It is in this way that petrifaction succeeds progress. The advance of inequality necessarily brings improvement to a halt, and as it still persists or provokes unavailing reactions, draws even upon the mental power necessary for maintenance, and retrogression begins.

Political economy and social science cannot teach any lessons that are not embraced in the simple truths that were taught to poor fishermen and Jewish peasants by One who eighteen hundred years ago was crucified—the simple truths which, beneath the warpings of selfishness and the distortions of superstition, seem to underlie every religion that has ever striven to formulate the spiritual yearnings of man.

What has destroyed every previous civilization has been the tendency to the unequal distribution of wealth and power.

That our legislative bodies are steadily deteriorating in standard; that men of the highest ability and character are compelled to eschew politics, and the arts of the jobber count for more than the reputation of the statesman; that voting is done more recklessly and the power of money is increasing; that it is harder to arouse the people to the necessity of reforms and more difficult to carry them out; that political differences are ceasing to be differences of principle, and abstract ideas are losing their power; that parties are passing into the control of what in general government would be oligarchies and dictatorships; are all evidences of political decline.

There is a vague but general feeling of disappointment; an increased bitterness among the working classes; a widespread feeling of unrest and brooding revolution. If this were accompanied by a definite idea of how relief is to be obtained, it would be a hopeful sign; but it is not.

This is the truth that we have ignored. And so there come beggars in our streets and tramps on our roads; and poverty enslaves men whom we boast are political sovereigns; and want breeds ignorance that our schools cannot enlighten; and citizens vote as their masters dictate; and the demagogue usurps the part of the statesman; and gold weighs in the scales of justice; and in high places sit those who do not pay to civic virtue even the compliment of hypocrisy; and the pillars of the republic that we thought so strong already bend under an increasing strain.

For the man who, seeing the want and misery, the ignorance and brutishness caused by unjust social institutions, sets himself, in so far as he has strength, to right them, there is disappointment and bitterness. So it has been of old time. So is it even now. But the bitterest thought—and it sometimes comes to the best and bravest—is that of the hopelessness of the effort, the futility of the sacrifice. To how few of those who sow the seed is it given to see it grow, or even with certainty to know that it will grow.

via English – alper.nl https://ift.tt/2QKOF7Q

#IFTTT #English – alper.nl

0 notes

feathery-dreamer · 8 years ago

Link

I’ve been told to watch this pathetic excuse of a video during an argument, now I’d like some of my brain cells back. I couldn’t sit through more than fifteen minutes of this shit, it was just too tiring and tedious (I started around 8 and it’s past 11.30pm here right now). I think I made my point anyway, it’s a good prediction that the rest will be as piss-poor as the first quarter.

For clarity’s sake, I’ll be bolding the minutes, “quoting the guy” normally and putting up the “anti-vegan arguments he quotes” in italics.

1) “remains of murdered animals”? The term “murder” refers to unlawful killing of a person, stop using it for shock value.

2) It’s “barbaric insanity” to eat meat? since when? People have been eating meat for thousands, if not millions, of years. Before animal husbandry was a thing, it was from hunts (when successful) and carrion. Civilized and sane people eat meat because it provides a bunch of elements I won’t bother detailing right now.

3) “moral superiority of veganism” ...lol okay, I guess people with iron or cholesterol deficiency are morally inferior.

4) We’re at the one-minute mark and there’s already some shitty chart that puts going vegan on the “reasonable” extreme.

5) "genocide” is killing off people for belonging in a certain group, not to eat their remains (that’d be cannibalism). Once again, a word has been repurposed for the sake of shock value and to make meat-eaters sound like monsters. This bitch just equated animal slaughter with the war crimes committed by the Nazi. Does that sound “reasonable to anybody? because it’s not.

6) “indoctrination” ...oh? You claiming to be superior and misusing words to manipulate the viewer isn’t “indoctrination”, I presume? I’ve heard that from extremists of all types, including the Islamists ruling my own birth country (Turkey).

7) “speciesism”? Literally every single animal prioritizes their own kind over others! Is that so fuckin hard to grasp? no, it isn’t! it’s basic survival instinct. We humans are animals, we aren’t above cows or sheep or chickens when it comes to instinct. We use other species because we’re animals just like them, not because we’re superior in any way.

8) Since we only eat the muscles, it’s completely logical to put the rest to good use. We’ve barely hit the two-minute mark out of 63.5 and I’m already sobbing from the stupidity of it all.

9) “indoctrination” again? Your digestive tract doesn’t give two fucks about your morals or propaganda. It’s adapted to the meat-eating that’s been occurring in your family tree for millions of years. Following tradition that suits your biology isn’t fucking “indoctrination”, it’s being logical.

10) You’re comparing use of animals to human exploitation. I’m not saying the meat industry is all rainbows and singing, but... really?

11) “psychopathic indoctrination” WELP! now you combined a misused word with your compulsive, hypocritical accusation. Two words, each representing an aspect of your inability to be coherent. Good fucking job, mate, keep up that attitude.

12) Since when is there “a taboo against criticism of animal abuse” or criticism of religion? Now I have ample evidence that you’re either delusional or manipulating people. We’re at the three-minute mark and you managed to add paranoia to the list.

13) “plants are sentient” Science says they are, mate. There’s ample evidence that plants have a chemical reaction to getting harmed, and thus “it can feel pain” isn’t a valid excuse to not eat animals.

14) And lol “vegans are condescending”, of course we say that because you very clearly are. Arguing your superiority based on a lifestyle choice you can afford to make; if that’s not condescending, I don’t know what is.

15) “I need animal products to be healthy” is the most valid reason to not go vegan. If you think that’s just a knee-jerk “pathetically weak” argument to hate vegans, you’re a moron (but we already knew that, didn’t we kids?)

16) “dense cluster of pathetically weak argumentation, driven by fear of change and indoctrinated delusion”, “usually deployed in rapid fire, one after another, ad nauseum, until the vegan grows tired and gives up” ...I’m adding projection to the list haha~

17) So we’re at the four-minute mark, and with barely less than a full hour remaining, you’re only now starting to actually counter anything. Oh me, if all your counterarguments are like the previous, this should be goooood~

18) ...aaaaaand you already brought the “holocaust” bullshit and the arrogance back right away. I’d like to remark you still haven’t actually contributed anything to the discussion.

19) Your first argument boils down to: “redefining morality in a certain way doesn’t work because I can redefine it another way”. That’s funny, because you (and morons like you) have been redefining words to your convenience for a long time. There’s no “double standard” or “contradiction”, the definition of a word doesn’t have to include anything other than what’s in the definition. That’s what a definition fucking is, it tells you what is or isn’t covered by that word. Whaddya know, you managed to cram all of this nonsense between four and five minutes.

20) “Morality doesn’t exist” Sounds to me like you’ve been cherry-picking the worst anti-vegan arguments. Too bad your counter is equally weak here - even if morals didn’t exist, we still would hesitate to kill humans because survival of the species means we prioritize humans over animals.

21) Just past six minutes, you’re bringing up concern for the well-being of sentient beings. Does that mean you support people who eat meat because their doctor tells them to? Does that mean you’re against people forcing vegan diets on their dogs, creatures whose diet is mainly meat? I think, with number 15 up above, we already know the answer to that.

22) What you sum up as “self interest” and “arbitrary lines” are the self-preservation I described in number 7, the one you called “speciesism” because somehow it’s discrimination when humans do it.

23) At the seven-minute mark, “logical consistency doesn’t apply to morality” ...you’re the last person to criticize someone for arguing inconsistent logic lol

24) Once again, your “anthroperipheric” definitions fail because, unlike the “anthropocentric” ones, they leave out survival of the species. Morality may be subjective, but that doesn’t mean it’s 100% subjective; the “survival of the speices” aspect sure isn’t. That’s why killing other humans is called “murder” and considered a serious offense, whilst killing animals for consumption isn’t.

25) Oh-kay, now you made a mental leap from “killing X for consumption” to not “caring about X’s well-being”. Just because I eat meat doesn’t mean I don’t care how those animals are treated. Instead of arguing your “moral superiority” and strength, how about you encourage people to buy from a select few, non-abusive places? You had enough time on your hands to compile all this shit instead of doing something to stop the abuse. Something tells me you don’t actually care about those sentient animals’ well-being, as much as your image as a “morally superior” human.

26) We’re at eight minutes, I identified more errors in your logic than you were claiming to present; more are coming. According to that list, you're preparing to dismiss the opinion of a doctor as well as a person’s experience with morals.

27) “...not a single death or health problem attributed to veganism.” There are loads of health problems attributed to veganism. Just because you haven’t looked them up doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

28) You don’t know the diet of those athletes. It’s a good bet they’re taking loads of supplements to compensate for lack of animal foods intake. Unless they just happen to have access to all (and not just some) of the other foods, in enough abundance to compensate. Either way, they’re also being accompanied by personal trainers, medical professionals and a slew of other experts. Last time I checked, the common human being wasn’t as closely monitored; you occasionally visit a doctor you share with dozens of other people.

29) I just made it past nine minutes, not sure I should congratulate myself. You just looked up the general types of nutrient we need, whilst trying to “counter” an argument about specific nutrients. Even if you’d found foods containing the stuff you need, there’s no guarantee there’ll be enough of that thing in your diet. Most people don’t have the time to spend hours eating, they’re too busy running businesses or transporting people or doing surgery etc.

30) Exactly ten minutes of bullshit, we’re encountering the second decent counter of the entire video. I’ve yet to hear the “blood type” argument from meat eaters, to be honest, but I do agree it’s silly. In my knowledge, there’s no real link between the antigens on your red blood cells’ membrane and the types of foods you require. That depends on your ancestors’ diet, which (like I explained in 9) includes animal products for many of us.

31) You really think there are no health issues associated with veganism? <- that link took me five seconds to find. You talk about “burden of proof”, but you refuse to shoulder any of it yourself. You mock people for not having the muscle strength to type a search in Google, yet you won’t do it either.

32) “...none of them actually provide evidence that veganism can’t support their health.” Those arguments... literally ARE the evidence you demand. Are you sure you aren’t really just trying to make yourself look like a total moron? Because you’ve more than succeeded in the first eleven minutes of this video, the remaining 52mins can go home.

33) “vegetables don’t make you sick” no, but eating only vegetables can.

34) "Carcasses” don’t make you sick, eating them in excess does. See? I can reverse your arguments too. But where your counters ignore things that’re convenient to you, mine doesn’t.

35) Does IBS stand for irritable bowel syndrome? because that’s just a blanket term that covers a variety of different symptoms and ailments. I can think of a number of conditions that can make it harder to absorb nutrients from plants, or react more positively when animal proteins are present.

36) “Unless you’re actually in the situation, you can’t appeal to it...” and after twelve minutes: “you can’t appeal to hypothetical situations that you aren’t in...” Does that mean your previous arguments 27, 28, 31, 32 and 35 aren’t valid? I’m sure it does unless “logical consistency doesn’t apply to morality” for you. Also, good job bringing up the misuse of “murder” and “genocide” as buzzwords for your conveniency.

37) We’re controlling animal populations because, well, they reproduce enough to compensate for the losses. We don’t kill off humans because, unlike non-sapient animals, we have birth control. Besides, if we let deer populations grow, they won’t die off quickly and balance themselves; they’ll first eat all of the plants they normally eat (practically to extinction) and then starve to death. Does that sound like a moral alternative to hunting them? what about the well-being of those sentient creatures?

38) At the thirteen-minute mark now, you sure seem to love the words “murder” and holocaust”.

39) The... planet... will be destroyed because we kill animals? The planet has managed itself perfectly, even after meteor impacts and supervolcano eruptions. At this point, you’re treating humans like some sort of almighty demonic force.

40) “this argument could be made for slavery” ...centuries ago, yes; is that the time you’re living in? Because I’m sure I heard you imply, in your introduction, that those times were less complex and ethically inferior.

41) Farm animals had been bred over hundreds of generations to live alongside humans, rely on us to meet their basic needs (food, protection...). It’s perfectly reasonable to expect that, if released, they’ll either seek human company (and overwhelm people in the process) or get quickly killed off by predators in the wild. Even if it happens gradually and they don’t go extinct, there’ll still be suffering.

42) I just reached fourteen minutes, I wish I hadn’t agreed to watching the video. While you’re right that the extremes “animal apocalypse” and “animal extinction” can’t occur at the same time and place, there’s nothing preventing them from occurring in that order, and/or in different places.

43) “Clearly, there are still natural habitats in which our farmed animals can exist” and get killed in by predators. Which could then proliferate to excess, eating more and more prey until it runs out, then starving to death. We’ve already considered this scenario for herbivores in 37, didn’t we children?

44) The harmful practices you’ve brought up have been criticized by researchers, so now there are efforts to regulate and even forbid them. But agriculture itself isn’t to blame, and some of the things you list (such as deforestation and pollution) aren’t limited to animal farming. You even cover this when you mention the need for extra space for plant culture at fifteen minutes, yet you feel compelled to bring it up as a separate argument?

lol I’m so done

#veganism #fallacies #my thoughts #fail #sad #people #weird #hypocrisy #ignorance #fantasy vs reality #lol #wtf is this shit

0 notes