Wow, it sounds like some people are more than a little confused. Dog, no, I did not say that a statement of fact can't be an ad hominem. I said that the statements of fact that I made in certain debunks were not ad hominems. Look at you straw manning me there! I also did not say that an authority must be an individual. At all. I said the body of scientific knowledge is not an authority. That's two straw men. I don't remember your comment, but judging by how arrogantly you put forward your incorrect analysis of my video, I really doubt that you were being "nice". I'm salty towards people who put forward baseless criticism and refuse to back down when corrected, and it looks like you do that a lot. And Doug, no, I did not conflate an individual with the scientific community. That's a ridiculous and meaningless statement, since the scientific community is not an individual. So perhaps both of you can calm down and watch again to see that you're getting very aggravated over your own fictionalized version of the video. Ok?
@@dogwolfbear Don’t apologize! I understand your frustration especially if what you said about how he treats commenters who disagree with him is true. It might come off that way from your perspective perhaps because of some misunderstandings from both sides. But then again I haven’t seen those comments so I can’t judge. If you want to convince somebody, It might be better to comment in a way that’s less defensive if that makes sense.
Ok, Dog. Continue to lecture me on why I should concede things that are incorrect, and why being incorrect qualifies as "disagreeing" with me instead of just being wrong. You just blew right past what I said about ad hominem and continue to misrepresent the video. Yes, if someone is merely stating a fact, it's not an ad hominem, period. It has to be put forward as an argument for it to be a logical fallacy. And yes, the "group" of all scientists, which equals the entire scientific community of millions of people from every country on earth, which represents the entire body of scientific knowledge, is not an authority. Sorry. And you pretended that in saying this, I am insisting that an authority specifically be an individual person, which I didn't say. For someone who whines about others not "conceding", you certainly do not concede any of these ridiculous claims you're making.
As Matt Dillahunty has said in the past, we shouldn't just namedrop fallacies in an argument anyway and just explain in our own words what we think is wrong with the other person's reasoning.
I do both because it's not a proof or argument to simply call someone claims or arguments the name of a fallasy, you must explain why it's that fallacy.
@@177SCmaro the newest response to being told the name of the fallacy AND how they’re using the fallacy / how it applies is to simply say “it isn’t that fallacy - you don’t know what that fallacy is - *recite a textbook definition*” then argue it isn’t that specific fallacy and make fun of you for being an easy target in their rhetoric
@@177SCmaro why do that? That’d be like hitting yourself in the face with a brick wall intentionally. The newest form of discourse is to call someone a label as soon as possible - in group biases are prevalent online now more than ever.. they just have to call you a troll once and you’re done
Ad Hominem: "You're stupid, therefore you're wrong." NOT Ad Hominem: "You're wrong, therefore you're stupid." Note: To clear things up, the second quote is a valid, yet an unsound argument. It doesn't commit the ad hom fallacy. The context for this is found in the video. If a person wants, for whatever reason, to insult another person in the middle of a debate or discussion, then they must demonstrate why the other person's argument or claims are wrong first if they want to avoid commiting the fallacy. Saying "You're wrong, therefore you're stupid" is a valid, yet an unsound argument. It's just a simple and neat way of showing how to not commit an ad hominem when insulting another person. Also, there's no need to insult in the first place. Note 2: In the comments I've shown that I'm wrong and stupid. Thanks for the heads up and correcting my mistakes.
You are wrong because [gives detailed explanation], you fucking moron. "Omg ad hom, ad hom !!" Basically some people scream ad hom everytime there is an insult, that obviously isn't used in place of an argument. edit: pretty much what he said ehh
@Piano Raves Your premise is incorrect. The burden of proof is on you to prove that he threw an ad-hominem, you'd have to first demonstrate that it has been found. Therefore, God exists.
@@Yonatan24 By saying that the burden of prove lies with me you're strawmanning my argument and also commit a strong ad hominem fallacy. That the burden of prove lies with me is non of you business, Gregory. Therefore, the greco-roman empire of atlantis exists.
@@pianoraves You've poisoned the well so badly, I had to use all of my aquarium de-toxifier on it. I literally just bought it last week. Edit: My fish might de because of this. You've committed the existential fallacy.
have you ever actually tried LSD or done any psychedelics? Why are you speaking about experiences you've never felt? You're equivalent to the idea of someone who's colour blind making conjecture about how there is no experience of experiencing colour because you are not able to experience it. I'm not saying 'the Christian god is real.' I'm saying that people who say things like what you're saying, often say 'I would believe in God if he spoke to me or contacted me' but then anytime anybody claims to have experienced such a thing, you call BS.
@@dravenwag Did you know that magic wish granting Leprechauns are real? All you have to do to know this for a fact, is to cut off your own genitals with a sharp rock! Afterwards the Leprechaun shows up, and you get to wish you genitalia back! You can't doubt me right? *Not if haven't tried it, right?* ...do you see how silly this argument is? This is how you sound. Claiming that you saw weird things, and had weird thoughts, while on mind altering drugs, isn't unbelievable. Claiming it as actual proof of gods or the supernatural... Is. Of course.
@@LastBastian Here’s the thing though - experiences on LSD and other psychedelics are extremely replicable. Almost everyone who takes psychedelics will describe the same or very similar features of a “trip” - oneness with nature and everything in the universe, feeling like they’ve been thrown into another dimension, heightened perception and sometimes “speaking to god”. Now the speaking to god aspect doesn’t mean they hear a voice or see a physical manifestation, it simply means they feel a deep conscious connection with the world and universe around them, which they interpret as “god” because we don’t have the language to describe it any other way. As for cutting off your genitals and seeing leprechauns vs taking an acid trip - one is inherently life threatening and hurts you while the other is comparatively safe. Mutilating yourself is not comparable with taking LSD as one has fundamentally negative consequences (ie. now you can’t pee because no genitals and blood everywhere) and the latter more often than not has overwhelmingly positive consequences (people often describe taking psychedelics as life changing, including myself). You also have to make a risk assessment - how badly do you want to see the leprechaun vs what you have to do to get there. I would argue the risk involved in doing so would be a million times larger than taking a dose of LSD - which is one of the safest drugs you can possibly take.You’re probably wondering “How can a class A substance be safe?” and the answer is that you’ve been lied to for decades. I suggest reading Michael Polans book “How to Change your Mind” about the nature of psychedelics, their history, their suppression and also current psych and neuroscience research that’s going on at Johns Hopkins university with psilocybin. Cheers friend ♥️
@@vees_magic_barbell Yes, it makes you feel things. The point is that chemically altered feelings being offered as some kind of "proof" of gods, afterlife, psychic powers, etc... Is rather silly. The argument that "you haven't done drugs, so you don't get it." Is flawed reasoning. As my intentionally absurd Leprechaun analogy demonstrates. Until lsd use is shown to imbue those taking it with demonstrable access to info they didn't have before, or other tangible knowledge or abilities... Then it is no more reasonable for me to believe it gives you access to mystical forces, than it is for you to believe cutting off your junk gives you access to Leprechauns.
You usually see videos and articles helping you detect fallacies, decreasing the false negatives. This video is on decreasing your false positives. Specificity matters as much as, if not more than, sensitivity. Nice one.
Not true. Evangelical and Catholic churches are trying to reach record COVID infections with their congregations by Christmas and the Supreme Court just gave them the go ahead. It's all part of God's plan as prophesied in the Bible.
12:55 another issue i found is that appeal to emotion, often referred to as "pathos" is not inherently a logical fallacy. It's simply one of the three types of rhetoric, that is perfectly fine to use in an argument. Not all arguments have to be purely logical, I say this as an Engineering student and I value logic. Appeal to emotion becomes fallacious if it's disguised as pure logic.
The correct time to use a logical fallacy is when you're losing a debate and you want your opponent to waste the rest of his time pointing out your fallacy.
It's strange that people seem to expect a moral argument to not elicit any emotion. The field of morality is laden with difficult subjects - if you're emotionally moved by a moral argument that's a sign of its soundness, no?
Not necessarily. From a utilitarian standpoint it is possible that the lowest amount of net suffering comes from torturing a few for the sake of the many in some kind of hunger games scenario. However I would agree that since we don’t have a scale with which to measure and compare pleasure and pain, trying to make logical arguments from the at least partially false, subjective perspectives we each hold is the best we can do.
@@suchawolfy in that situation the problem is less with the moral decisions you make and more with the scenario itself being crafted to only give you bad options
I’m not fully on board that appeal to emotion IS in fact a fallacy. Morality is literally grounded in our natural emotions. If all humans were sociopaths and had no emotions, a lot of our moral arguments would seem ridiculous. Morality is grounded in our emotional states as humans. But still a good video.
i would have to agree with suchawolfy here that its not a sign of its soundness but could be a byproduct of it. The reason you are moved emotionally by a moral argument could be that you're unfairly convinced of its soundness or that youre evaluating its importance from unsound moral grounds and finally that it is a sound moral argument that elicits an emotional response in someone using a sound moral system.
It depends on the audience. Confidence can move a courtroom, but not a crowd. Screaming might move a crowd, but bore a courtroom. Adapting to the situation is how you find yourself skilled as a speaker; both being utilitarian and populist when it's appropriate.
Those short clips are actually so brief and understandable. Pretty much like summaries of an entire discussion or a video and im loving it. I was wondering for a while if that was actually Alex's own new channel...seems like it is....and its amazing.
@@meggie19 Agreed. I didn't phrase this post correctly. I was speaking of an interlocutor who doesn't really know what a fallacy is or how to use them.
12:54 But since murder is typically defined as the unjustifiable/unlawful killing of another human, changing the definition of murder to be "killing a life without good reason" is an appeal to emotion (but not necessarily an equivocation, given that you did state the definition prior to use, and aren't using it's other meanings), and then to "killing an innocent life without good reason" to meet your specified ethical context, and then saying people are supporting murder is an appeal to emotion by specifically eliciting emotional responses that hinder them from considering the truth value of the premises (such as whether murder is or should be defined in the way you have defined it, if taste, nutrition, nutritional efficiency, the fullness effects of meat, etc. are good reasons, and what "innocent" means in context of the food chain). I know you said that an appeal to emotion is an argument that relies on playing on emotions _instead_ of evidence or logical arguments, but the appeal to emotion fallacy does not require that instead component. Thus, an otherwise rational argument can potentially possess an appeal to emotion. Because accusing someone of supporting murder necessarily clouds their judgment of rationally assessing the truth value of the argument. 13:07 It doesn't matter if you intended to use innocent only for the ethical situation, society definitely understands that innocent carries emotional baggage (and I don't personally find innocent to be particularly emotionally charged, but I recognize that the zeitgeist of America definitely does attach emotional baggage to the term due to the prevalent contentions over lack of justice pervasive in American history and present), and an appeal to emotion doesn't require intent to deceive or manipulate, just as a strawman argument doesn't require intent to deceive (although you've clearly attached some connotation of deception to that particular fallacy). I also think it is disingenuous to say that people accusing you of appealing to emotions for using "innocent" are "immediately assuming the only reason" you're using "innocent" is for emotional reasons. This seems like a misrepresentation of their position, and perhaps their argument, and your rebuttal that that's not the situation targets the misrepresentation, and not their argument itself. 13:22 They "may" say, but unless they do say, you're misrepresenting their argument. "Innocent" in the definition of false imprisonment is different than "innocent" in the definition of murder, and both are different than saying someone supports the killing of an innocent person without good reason. And I think your example was good to represent your meaning, but if your implication was that innocent was necessary to the definition of both "false imprisonment" and "murder" through analogy, which you didn't state so I do not know if you meant to convey that, then that would be fallacious as well. I think you were just saying that "innocent" was necessary to the context that you were attempting to express, which was fine. But just like "person" was integral to the definition of "false imprisonment", I think the same is true of "murder", as the animal kingdom has no concept of murder, and while we may say Scar murdered Mufasa, we don't say that one lion murdered another (at least, not in a non-metaphorical way). To your citation, the person's rebuttal, generous listening seems to indicate that "innocent" in front of "life" in the context of your statement appeals to emotions because of the emotional baggage of innocent and murder and your claim that people who eat meat for taste alone are supporting murder, which I don't think is sound, given that lab grown meat tastes like meat, and no murder was involved in the process. Thus, eating meat for taste alone is distinct from how the meat arrives at one's plate. Not to mention that meat arriving at your plate by meats of animal slaughter or factory farms' poor treatment is an appeal to consequences, namely that you eating meat can result in an increase or sustaining of an industry that treats animals in a way you disapprove of to provide the meat for you to consume. So, a meat-for-taste-alone eater supports murder due to the consequence of how the meat industry grows and subsequently treats animals to provide that meat. The murder part seems more like an appeal to emotion than the innocent part to me, but in the totality of the situation, "innocent life" does add a strong ethical, and thus emotional, component to the situation that doesn't really add meaning to the scenario, because "killing of a guilty life without good reason" is still also murder, as is "killing of a life without good reason" could arguably still be murder (I mean, since we're adjusting murder so greatly, I don't see why we need to stop at "innocent life", but I also don't know the context of the ethical situation of your tweets, so perhaps that context would resolve my ignorance), so the innocent adds an emotional baggage that simply is unnecessary to the redefinition of murder to include the slaughtering and processing of animals in preparation for consumption. It does make sense how someone could infer that the only reason to use "innocent life" over the alternatives suggested above is to elicit a particular emotional response (namely guilt), which dissuades an individual from rational consideration of the premises, be that intentional or not is moot.
It also seemed to me that Alex, when refuting the twitter comment, said first that he didn't use the word as the commenter assumed he did (the trust me argument) and then proceeded to another example to back himself up where the word innocent was used, saying that it was a necessary word to use to define the word life in that case. That is so, but it still doesn't hold in the initial example where the word is not needed to define life in that context - which supports your claim. At least that how it seems to a dullard like myself. Thank-you, far smarter than I, for challenging Alex, who is admittedly well on his way to remarkable success, and for many reasons. I have both of you to thank for helping to keep my old brain oiled.
Appeal to emotion is something you use constantly in your use of the triggering word RAPE in conjunction with animal fertilisation. You need to look at several facts associated with your beliefs and validate them, instead on relying on your peers saying "Believe me, I'm right" which it seems you do.
He uses the term 'murder' a lot when talking about animals for emotional effect. Animals are killed they aren't murdered, murder applies to human killing only
The problem with innocence and murder in relation to animal rights, is that both do have quite specific conotations in language. You first agree, that murder has this baggage most of the time, but not all of the time - if you define it as "taking innocent life". The problem is, you have used another word with similar kind of baggage in your argument. "Innocent" is usually undestood as the opposite of guilty. Animals cant shift from innocence to guilt. So to use innocence as a descriptor for an animal is logically superfluous - implying, that using it in this context is an appeal to emotion. There is a counterargument, that in the "definition of murder", we are not talking about animals at all. Its a generalized definition. That is completely fair. But if you were to use this argument, you then have to show, that animals should be defined as "innocent", which gets you back to square one in regards to appealing to emotion. Its going to be pretty hard to argue, that animals should be understood as definitionally "innocent", while the related concept of "guilt" does not apply... Another point to be considered is in the strawman part - There is some merit to the claim of "strawman", because you have not actually proven, that "taste is the only reason" is (logically) TRUE. You have done the first part of course - you did prove, that every SINGLE ulterior reason (like nutrition) is flawed. Agreed. But when arguing against each of these reasons alone, the overarching complexity is lost. For instance, you can disprove: 1."I need animal products for nutrition" + 2."Vegan diet is too expensive" ... But for the purposes of the argument, you are collapsing a complex reality into simple statements... Some of the ignored implications might form valid arguments when put together - For example: "A person can dedicate X-amount of time, Y-amount of money and needs Z-amount of "nutrients". It is true, that he can get Z, within X. It is also true, that he can get Z for Y. But it is NOT necessarily true, that he can get Z for Y within X " ... Unless you can prove the above (Z for Y within X) for every person (or every relevant person), you have to concede, that "reasons other than taste" are possible...
Yeah in the first part he's implicitly saying that it's perfectly fine to eat guilty animals, which you demonstrated is absurd so there is absolutely no reason to add the word innocent, especially because of it's connotations
@@dustinhaas8538 There are many other problems with the word "murder" in the vegan context, but I wanted to limit it to the logical fallacy only... But for instance, to define murder as "taking an innocent life" would be completely ridiculous for the vast majority of applications of this word. A car accident would be murderous. A disease would be murderous. A falling tree would be murderous... etc. Its just not a great idea to use it... I understand and share the sentiment... emotionally... but that is exactly why using it logically (or redefining it beyond recongition) is an appeal to emotion.
Great video Alex. I agree, you did no such fallacy here but I respectfully believe that your argumentation is still flawed in some way. Lets talk about inocent animals: ok, it is not difficult to imagine that a 6 month lamb is innocent. But then, if an animal can be innocent, it means it can be guilty right? What would make an animal guilty? A shark assaulting a surfer? A mosquito transmitting malaria to a person? A parasitic worm blinding a child? A mouse trespassing and living in a house and stealing food? Are some animals guilty as a specie because of their criminal way of life, like mosquitos or parasitic worms? So in order to keep this point valid, you need to describe what would make an animal not innocent, otherwise, it will become an appeal to emotion fallacy. I do not think you can, and therefore there is no such thing as an innocent animal, there are just animals, wich weakens your point.
In reference to a human vs an animal, the intelligence factor makes them necessarily innocent in every situation, as we know better. Is there a situation in which a child is guilty of a crime when they literally do not know better? I don't think this works like you think. You're assigning blame to the action rather than the choice of being able to withhold it.
@@felicityc Ok, so you think humains are superior than other beings because of their intelligence. Humans are the adults of the creation. The man is a bit like the daddy of the animals. I don't. We assign blame to an action because we live in a society and for it to work, we set rules. Outside the society, for exemple in the wild, or in contact with other societies, those notions of innocent, guilty, or wrongdoing, go out of the window.
As a pro-tip you can press the 'channels' button on someone's page where you can generally see if another channel is related to theirs. (For example his music channel called Casualex)
It really is interesting how people have an emotional reaction to something and claim that you coerced them by using the word. If you used the word correctly as representative of reality and then that makes you feel bad then there is something that goes against what you believe and need to re-evaluate your stance. It doesn’t mean we are making things up to make you emotionally agree 🤷🏻
Fundamentally wrong. We notice the purposeful use of the word intended to elicit emotion and call it out not because we feel bad, but because we recognize the flaw in the argument. Murder by definition inherently incorporates the word "innocent", and both definitions require the intended and purposeful actions of the PERSON in question. As animals cannot commit crimes nor do things which are "good" or "bad", they therefore can neither be innocent nor be the target of murder. So to include the word innocent, when it is already part of the definition of murder is like saying (The ATM machine). Either he is stupid (which I dont believe), or he includes the word ON PURPOSE to elicit emotion. And to prove this further, he claims you can switch "murder" with "imprisonment", yet the word imprisonment doesn't already incorporate the word innocent. So his example literally proves that he is wrong (also note how he switched to "person" in this case) Maybe you need to reevaluate your stance and why you have to do backflips to justify something that is literally a category error?
@@enigmaticaljedi6808 All fine and well, just remember the fallacy fallacy. Just because someone argues in a fallacious way doesn't mean they are wrong. The arguments still works when one uses the descriptive words "killing" and "suffering", making the act immoral still. So either one has arguments against, or one is illogically defending the meateating position.
@@enigmaticaljedi6808 i disagree this is why, an animal can commit an act of violence and there will there will be consequences. As many overly aggressive dogs are put down because of doing something morally wrong to humans like randomly attacking for whatever reasons. These animals however haven't, so therefore they are inocent animals, being slaughtered for the taste of their flesh. Moral consistency is key, is there a intrinsic moral difference between the value of the life of dogs and pigs, cows and cats? So why slaughter them needlessly. It seems like a no brainer, but culture should justify unnecessary suffering. Vegans will have to question there moral consistency and change there ways if they believe animals suffering is an issue, veganism is minimum we can do. @earthlinged
@@DeadEndFrog You are correct, which is why the counter argument doesn't just stop at pointing out the fallacies. Sadly the argument doesn't still work when using killing or suffering, as moral acts are NOT about the target of such acts but about those who have the INTENT of committing them. There is a reason why pre-meditated murder is treated differently to manslaughter. Also note, that some people equivocate on the word "suffering" and claim that even to end the life of an animal prematurely would constitute suffering. Buttom line. Morality is a construct of SOCIAL SPECIES, designed to guide behavior for the well being of that species. If you want to extend this to animals, you MUST MAKE A CASE for them being included. Simply saying they are included "cos ma feels" isn't sufficient. But all of that is irrelevant to the actual topic here, which is why Alex goes out of his way to use purposeful language designed to elicit emotion and why he is now trying to justify his actions while ignoring the fallacies he is committing. He doesn't choose the words you suggested for a reason, and the fact in the examples he gave here he repeatedly keeps using topics and switch in/out humans for animals as if they are completely interchangeable shows at best a sub conscious bias on his part, but at worse a purposeful misdirection
Great video, Alex. Thank you for sharing this. Often, ignorant people as well as pseudo intellectuals falsely accuse others of committing logical fallacies, while in the same sentence (almost without fail) they commit the fallacies themselves! It seems like some people learn the names of fallacies, and (attempting to sound "smart") they go around claiming that others are committing them (when they're clearly not), because they're too dumb or dishonest to care about the truth.
I think part of the disconnect is that people confuse "fallacy" for "bad argument". An example was your discussion of an ad hominem attack. Attacking someone personally may not be logically fallacious, but it's generally not a good way to argue.
I think one reason why the “innocent (nonhuman) animal” argument might has awoken this persons anger, is in part due to the question if an animal can be innocent. I would argue that for a nonhuman animal to be innocent a guilty nonhuman animal would have to exist (at least in theory). But nonhuman animal lack the capability to consider the moral implication of an action therefore can't be guilty (in the same way that a bacteria or a stone can't be guilty). If you would argue that for that reason all nonhuman animals are innocent than innocent is just a pleonasm not giving any additional information to your argument.
Tree turn to stone lol stone age download videos m.ruclips.net/video/8E8-kg7SQ4k/видео.html Download video evidence of super massive tree w/leaves longer m.ruclips.net/video/NovvYzzOI70/видео.html petrified large trees download videos m.ruclips.net/video/3_CniMGNyXs/видео.html Animals m.ruclips.net/video/P29XXLX40g4/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html Download videos m.ruclips.net/video/Qwjz_UkzKvM/видео.html _____________ Mudfossils Giant hairs and sweat glands download videos m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html Titan Muscle m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html Mudfossils Giant download m.ruclips.net/video/0_upHPBH7Tg/видео.html Megalithic Seamless Perfect walls download videos m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html Peru Wall m.ruclips.net/video/fmvTqmhxlbQ/видео.html Download videos Puma Punku Decodeded m.ruclips.net/video/BPekF0OqWyg/видео.html From a Rock and it is a Gusher m.ruclips.net/video/Z1qrk5Q49Sw/видео.html Wise up channel download videosm.ruclips.net/video/KH2Gp0ciwkA/видео.html Download videos ANCIENT HIGH TECHNOLOGY m.ruclips.net/video/HgN51djJhXs/видео.html machines technolocal m.ruclips.net/video/9TKhTRqFJ5I/видео.html Download videos ANCIENT TECH BEEN FOUND m.ruclips.net/video/Pmzz4JQ82Lo/видео.html Download video TECH TURNED TO ROCK m.ruclips.net/video/RL-aWrUt4Uw/видео.html elephant m.ruclips.net/video/_kVyLYUolZ0/видео.html Dry Dock or IMPRINT OF A SHIP download video m.ruclips.net/video/iaNTxwm4SyM/видео.html STEEL OF GIANT STRUCTURES NOW TURNED SOFT ROCK m.ruclips.net/video/3hNT1sMTf7k/видео.html Download video Tomb Of The Kings 'lol' m.ruclips.net/video/Ut27sA8rcoE/видео.html IMPRINTS in rock tech Past m.youtube.com/watch?v=GTgWP5vZM ________________________ Titans download videos m.ruclips.net/p/PLewamc6Dtp7FYzJVu-TtjH3EkW7RJAyVc m.ruclips.net/p/PLyk-JRol2OkHnOtghXbNlJfPIXMm9X9Ax m.ruclips.net/video/1angjWHG1kk/видео.html petrified giants m.ruclips.net/video/62gNrlTkOKE/видео.html Download videos m.ruclips.net/video/DahmnTSe0E4/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html Ball sphere Giant Balls are Biology not Concretions m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/7P7i3pf-pes/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/q6CVOkuyzy0/видео.html _________________________ Giants download videos m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/e-90KoNKK0E/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/QqOuhDQrOdw/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/9UKljodqMyc/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/hSk2shVV9kg/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/47Z65dbXHKw/видео.html Mud fossils m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html&list=PLEpr4aa9rk9rWRN1b-9-HKcrt04R5Egsk&index=2&t=0s m.ruclips.net/video/iZADYbNEwOw/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html&list=PLQrS3ZMc_7j30fm7y1VZIEVxVbsZY83H3&index=13&t=0s Mud fossils m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html ______________________ Pyramids solved 1 m.ruclips.net/video/ajlNSyzE-p4/видео.html 2 m.ruclips.net/video/WNgNZSAfFSQ/видео.html 3 m.ruclips.net/video/X61ePmInjG4/видео.html 4 m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html 5 m.ruclips.net/video/JHCq6IUUqiI/видео.html 6 m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/zTlTiYNTyDg/видео.html 4 temple m.ruclips.net/video/YK1bwnqXvX4/видео.html Documentary Quest for the Lost civilization m.ruclips.net/video/T5DNvYMtkyk/видео.html _________________________ Tartaria Read www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/19/victorian-women-forced-to-give-up-their-babies-new-exhibition www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once.40/ thebridgelifeinthemix.info/history/history-big-lie-understanding-tartaria/ eclypticstudios.com/home/?p=3025 bennettleeross.com/history/the-golden-age-the-gilded-age-the-new-age-and-beyond/ weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/22/the-lost-civilizations-of-north-america-were-they-tartarian-cities/ guidesblog.org/2019/02/21/our-missing-history-mud-floods-giants-free-electricity-depopulation-and-lies-videos/ weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/atmospheric-etheric-energy-aee-antiqui-tech-of-the-tartars/ secretenergy.com/tag/tartary-flag/ www.metacenterchicago.com/2018/09/16/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once/ www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartarian-power-plants-and-the-invading-parasites-that-co-opted-them.295/ www.stolenhistory.org/video/ Wireless m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=Tartaria+wireless Some Truths You Probably Don't Really Want to Hear! (an eye opening video) m.ruclips.net/video/HhQJqfTaH3I/видео.html Mud Floods The Untold Story About Our History m.ruclips.net/video/Q9IOhkUT9IA/видео.html Tartarian Empire mudflood m.ruclips.net/video/gQQiCVMKSZQ/видео.html Antennas of the past m.ruclips.net/video/BV-E50qIxmk/видео.html free energy Antennas m.ruclips.net/video/XtYhYaeWj64/видео.html Resonant Frequencies m.ruclips.net/video/asYztIkNsoc/видео.html architecture in Japan in 1900 m.ruclips.net/video/RxA1xiSZxXA/видео.html _______________________ I and Js m.ruclips.net/video/2alOn7ni4Nw/видео.html 1000 Years of Fake History m.ruclips.net/video/qJ2q5t6Vp_Y/видео.html Fake Years of History - Dark Ages Never Existed m.ruclips.net/video/heJdBGUu9CI/видео.html 1773-1920's; The Ruin m.ruclips.net/video/CyBhengRZ-Q/видео.html Tartaria: The Largest Country Hidden By Fake History (Part 1) m.ruclips.net/video/wWuLMBdzJNg/видео.html 18 civil war m.ruclips.net/video/_UMJKObmPb4/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/dUty71ovS5Q/видео.html 1865 Birth of a Civil Hoax m.ruclips.net/video/2KOhJq3enSY/видео.html Staged Historic Photos m.ruclips.net/video/L9RON_--Qc4/видео.html _______________________ Tartaria Introduction -A Civilization Erased?, Lost in Time 1 m.ruclips.net/video/a-OwGciMRUQ/видео.html Tartaria & the Mud Flood Part 3 A Civilisation Erased?, Lost in Time m.ruclips.net/video/1S1QC6H4kEk/видео.html __________________________ El Hyperloop de TARTARIA MUNDIAL. THE OLD tunnels m.ruclips.net/video/KXMxLbF-_ZI/видео.html Airships in Tartarian China Mauritania and Peru m.ruclips.net/video/p5-2FIp5hI0/видео.html History of Balloons Of Electrostatic Tethering m.ruclips.net/video/H0g1bOeZ9ao/видео.html Airships Balloons are the same resembles tha vehicle of today m.ruclips.net/video/_kvhDuR5twk/видео.html magnetic flying machines and the electric fararday m.ruclips.net/video/ouJ8fj7Rf98/видео.html ______________________ Solfeggio frequencies therapy Read walterbitner.com/2015/08/21/the-legacy-of-guido-darezzo/ coloraturaconsulting.com/2012/06/27/composer-biography-guido-darezzo-c991-1033/ subtle.energy/silent-solfeggio/ markalburgermusichistory.blogspot.com/7991/01/guido-darezzo-991-1034.html?m=1 freqe1.com/solfeggio-rising/solfeggio-frequencies/ miraclesandinspiration.com/solfeggiofrequencies.html www.attainablemind.com/2010/04/solfeggio-frequencies-binaural-beats.html?m=1 Sound Frequency That Cures Diseases & Disorders w/Guest Sharry Edwards m.ruclips.net/video/1xENoF8gG54/видео.html m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=solfeggio+frequencies+medicine m.ruclips.net/video/GJYS5_nMa0I/видео.html Documentary m.ruclips.net/video/5O8LPnlh_sM/видео.html _________________________ 5G dispatchesfromtheasylum.com/2019/02/26/5g-and-gmo-electromagnetic-waves-and-genetic-engineering-profit-driven-destruction/ www.thinkaboutit.online/globalists-killing-humanity-with-5g-technology/ www.thelibertybeacon.com/corona-virus-fakery-and-the-link-to-5g-testing/ patriots4truth.org/2018/10/18/5g-can-end-humanity-as-we-know-it/ wholetones.com/ltr/1 www.knowingthetruth.com/5g-wireless-corona-virus-connection-exposed/ m.ruclips.net/video/sg5XSt2b4Fs/видео.html 5g interview m.ruclips.net/video/mrBiLbhvZCs/видео.html ruclips.net/video/DyiQ80BMSQQ/видео.html Documentary m.ruclips.net/video/9mK93gHFWXs/видео.html&feature=emb_rel_pause c123movies.com/generation-zapped/ m.ruclips.net/video/xDy2tHCPdk8/видео.html 5g antenna m.ruclips.net/video/sgRQwdFGvdA/видео.html
Meat is a more efficient way of receiving some nutrients than plant based alternatives. It also takes less time to prepare than plant based substitutes. A lot of vegans don't get health checks. If they did, they might find that things like the iron levels in their blood are very low. I was vegetarian for ten years. My iron levels got so low that even iron injections didn't work. Going back to a omnivorous diet was the only thing that got my iron levels back to normal.
Yeah, it is sad but what he is talking happens a lot. Sometimes the issue is that we do not explain ourselves well. So of course the other person will have a hard time to understand our argument. Sometimes it is best to ask the person what they understood of our argument first, instead of accusing him of strawman
Insulting word = Ad Hominem Emotional word = Appeal to emotion You can see how the mentality is similar, and how misusing one can make you more prone to misusing the other.
I didn’t think was possible for your content to get better - I thought your content was at its peak. But somehow you keep raising bar. Thanks for all you do, Alex!
@CosmicSkeptic In your explanation of appeal to emotion somewhere around 13:30, "innocent" in the case of false imprisonment is based on the existence of laws which lead to imprisonment. On the other hand, the use of "innocent" in the tweet does not (in my humble opinion) base itself in the existence of a law. This feels wrong. Would you mind elucidating your stance on this?
"innocent" is the default state, not the state of not being imprisoned. one is innocent until proven guilty. you can maybe convict a cow through some wild legal hoops but that just proves the point :\
4:02 - 4:25 Incorrect unfortunately, by definition a straw man fallacy needs intent. Just mistaking the opposing position is just that... Mistaking. Definition: 'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.' Think of it this way: you are metaphorically putting up a straw man and attacking it, BECAUSE it is so easy to to defeat. That is not the case with a mistake. And when u are mistaking a position for another, u might think its harder or just as hard to argue, but ur opponent might think ure making it easier for yourself. Who is right? This is why intent matters. Because intention to misrepresent in debate inherently implies u are making it easier for yourself. There is little other reason to intentionally misrepresent an opponent.
Some of the people in the examples had a valid logical point. Especially the guy with "appeal to emotion" - he agrees with the position of veganism, but (correctly) objects to some of the rhetoric used. It can be quite easily demonstrated, that he is right... Im surprised Alex missed it.
@@psychepeteschannel5500 You need to provide some example on this. The one tweet that was shown in this video is clearly a misuse of the word "appeal to emotion". And what does "correctly object to rhetoric" even mean?
@@Ermude10 Hi Ermude. I posted it in response directly to Alex, please find it below ;) Hi Alex, The problem with innocence and murder in relation to animal rights, is that both do have quite specific conotations in language. You first agree, that murder has this baggage most of the time, but not all of the time - if you define it as "taking innocent life". The problem is, you have used another word with similar kind of baggage in your argument. "Innocent" is usually undestood as the opposite of guilty. Animals cant shift from innocence to guilt. So to use innocence as a descriptor for an animal is logically superfluous - implying, that using it in this context is an appeal to emotion. There is a counterargument, that in the "definition of murder", we are not talking about animals at all. Its a generalized definition. That is completely fair. But if you were to use this argument, you then have to show, that animals should be defined as "innocent", which gets you back to square one in regards to appealing to emotion. Its going to be pretty hard to argue, that animals should be understood as definitionally "innocent", while the related concept of "guilt" does not apply...
@Psyche Pete's Channel "The problem is, you have used another word with similar kind of baggage in your argument. "Innocent" is usually undestood as the opposite of guilty." I see, I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you. However in this case, I think the intention wasn't to appeal to emotion, but rather make a distinctive and generalized definition that would apply well to murder, and he failed to find a word that didn't carry any emotional connotations. I think all of these kinds of things would be so much easier to discuss and reach a better understanding of if people wouldn't just simply call out and accuse each other and skip the whole "here's why I think you're wrong".
@@Ermude10 I completely agree with you. But at this point, the responsibility for this starts to fall more on the vegan side (from what I have seen)... If even someone like Alex, who is a very experienced and well read ... lets say... philosopher - missed these kinds of problems and claims absolute moral truth on his side of argument, imagine how many "normal" vegans are going around like this. I feel like veganism has enough moral ground to be the only choice, that is also why I am one :-) ... BUT the vegan position doesnt win every discussion by logic alone... Vegans are becoming like Ben Shapiro. A lot of great points and good logic... but then a serious blunder of overconfidence. btw. the other problem I see is with the strawman part. Alex can flawlessly prove, that each single reason is invalid - leaving ony "taste pleasure"... but these refuted reason still form valid arguments when combined. Like this: "A person can dedicate X-amount of time, Y-amount of money and needs Z-amount of "nutrients". It is true, that he can get Z, within X. It is also true, that he can get Z for Y. But it is NOT necessarily true, that he can get Z for Y within X " ... Unless you can prove the above (Z for Y within X) for every person (or every relevant person), you have to concede, that "reasons other than taste" are possible.
You can't get from an is to an ought Therefore every ethical argument has to fundamentally be an emotional argument After all even if your argument is valid you still need to ground it in something the person cares about Just because you formulate an argument in a formally logical way, doesn't mean the actual appeal isn't an emotional one
It would be an appeal to morality more than anything. Since I myself don't have any emotion when he give me that argument, but I understand it by my own morality
I think there are more factors when it comes to eating meat, not just flavour, but also convenience and accesibility. It is true we can get the same nutrients from other sources, but they are often not as easily accessible and may take some extra effort to get (may differ in different parts of the world). Yet another factor is the price, some of the substitutes may simply be more expensive, to get the amount of calories and nutrients required
True though I guess it is/should be up to a person to bring up those factors rather than just say or suggest nutrients are just completely unavailable.
12:17 Murder isn't defined as "taking innocent life without good reason". If murder is defined so broadly as "taking innocent life without good reason", then what is homicide? What is manslaughter? Further, taking one's own life (suicide) arguably fits that broad definition of murder... since in a large proportion of suicides, while depression is certainly a reason to take your life, it's rarely ever a *good* one. Murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of a person by another. Both murder and manslaughter are specific legal categories of homicide (also parricide, infanticide, etc). Homicide and suicide are specific categories of killing. Murder has little to do with whether the life taken was innocent but has more to do with intent of the killer and circumstances that lead to the death. A search for vigilante killings that resulted in murder sentences should quickly prove this. Even when there is reasonable motivation, it's generally not up to civilians to enact forceful intervention or justice - it's the job of the police, the courts and prison system to deal with that. Take the case of Byron David Smith for example, whose house had been robbed multiple times by thieves. One day he parked his car down the road, holed up in his house with a gun and when the thieves returned, he shot and killed them in the basement (the thieves' point of entry into the house). He was sentenced to life with no parole for first-degree murder. On the flip-side, a man discovered his daughter being sexually assaulted by rapist Jesus Mora Flores, and killed Flores. He was not indicted, but not because Flores was guilty of committing a crime - it was because of the imminent threat to the daughter's life. More specifically - and more accurately - the fuzzy "without good reason" part of the murder definition given, as per the courts, would be something close to "without the immediate threat of grievous bodily harm or death to self or others, or to prevent a felony in one's residence" - which is the "unlawful" part of the actual definition. Anyway, I don't know why I'm even writing all this. I guess the reason is that when I hear vegans say "meat is murder" or another variation on the slogan, it's not convincing because even besides the unconventional definition, I don't react to the death or killing of humans emotionally the same way that I react to that of animals. So not only is there a logical and intellectual disconnect but also an emotional disconnect when that particular talking point gets used.
Concerning your example at 5:07, I do not consider your statement "We dont dont have the right to harm an animal for the sake of taste pleasure" a straw man given the assumption that this sentence is meant literally. However, if it is meant as a reason to be vegan then you have not considered alternative views sufficiently. For example what if people do it out of convenience, necessity, religious belief, ... . Then you have certainly strawmanned the oposing position by claiming "the ONLY thing you cant get elsewhere is how it tastes." I do not agree by the way that you cannot get the taste pleasure elsewhere, since vegan/vegetarian alternatives are becoming quite convincing. I think it is also worth pointing out that "You do not have the RIGHT ..." is a rather strong claim. Did our ancestors behave wrongly by hunting and eating game? At what point did it become wrong? Even today we have starving people that might depend on any kind of meal they can get, perhaps a rat, a pidgeon, or some other animal local to that region. I would pose that, not from a moral standpoint but some other undefined one, our ancestors where justified in doing so, assuming we would not exist as we do today otherwise.
while not fully the point of your comment this here is the reason i don't think i will ever become a vegan, it has been shown that long time vegans have a hard time or in some cases become incapable of digesting meat. in a survival situation whether because you got lost in the woods, got stuck on a deserted island, or maybe your government collapsed causing the downfall of society, you want to be able to get a meal out of anything and everything you can. i personally don't want to be in a situation where i need to eat and i can't hunt the nice calorie rich animal in front of me because i can't digest it anymore.
Premises 1: any being capable of suffering has moral worth. Sure cows are capable of suffering, so are chickens and the innocent nematodes that inhabit nearly every piece of fruit and vegetable you eat. But yet some have a great moral aversion to eating a cow and lesser moral aversion to eating a peach. Why? They seem to think that moral worth of a cow is somehow greater than a moral worth of a innocent nematode. As if the moral worth is a on some sliding scale.
@@yasmeenshaker6353 What would it take to prove they suffer? We only really know our own suffering, other than that we can only infer it. When we see someone in a situation that would make us suffer it is reasonable to conclude they are suffering. But for creatures very different from us such inferences such inferences are questionable. Anthropomorphism is a mistake. "Suffering" is a broad term. People experiencing physical harm suffer and so do those with a broken heart or fans whose team just lost. Whatever suffering is we know it is achieved via the nervous system. The more capable to the nervous system the greater the capacity to suffer. nematodes have a simple nervous system, they probably don't suffer to much. Pigs have a complex one, they probably suffer a lot. Chickens are somewhere in between. I can't tell you where you should draw the line between what you will or will not eat. There is no simple easy answer to that question.
on the meat eating subject. I disagree that you can get the same nutrition from non-meat sources. not only in most instances is the nutrients different or in lower quantities, they are also often far less bioavailable and require more enzymatic reactions (which some people may have polymorphisms blocking the reactions) to break down and use by the body. another example is fat type, omega 3's are highly bioavailable from fish sources but not very bioavailable in plant sources. Another example; vitamin B12 and vitamin K2 are abundant in animal sources but often scarce in the vegetable kingdom, or iron is a far less bioavailable source in a vegetable form. I completely agree that veganism/vegetarianism is ethically correct, but, some people are not genetically geared to cope well on that type of diet, I've experimented with non-meat diet and it was not good for me. anyway another good video :)
I don't tolerate beans and legumes very well. So this would be a problem out the gate. Undoubtedly, if I went vegan, I would then have to/be compelled to do high carbohydrate and ultimately that has consequences.
Alex, the main problem your viewers have with you recent videos is that you shifted your focus from religion and philosophy to actively fighting for veganism every time you get the chance. At the same time, you seem to lose the eloquence and wit that we all loved you for in the past. This video, innocently stating that it deals with the wrong use of logical fallacies, is actually another place to respond to some critics of your veganism videos who had bad arguments. I also specifically remember that you did include videos of animals suffering in your video, that were somewhat out of place there, so I am not sure the appeal to emotion criticism can be dismissed that easily. Your new focus on veganism is very dominant in your recent work. You might be right and you certainly have made your point. Those videos are simply not as thought-provoking or entertaining as your former and -at least I personally - subscribed for other content.
I might be misunderstanding somtehing, but the tweet at 5:20 did not say that "getting proper nutrition" was an argument for why you sould eat meat, right? In fact i dont think the tweet makes any argument except that you "strawmanned the omnivourous side of the fence" and that taste is not the only argument for eating meat. To be clear, i agree with you on veganism in general, i just think you missunderstood this tweet, but please correct me if i am wrong.
Well the real trouble is that the tweet doesn't mention the other reasons for eating meat besides taste pleasure, it just says there are other reasons. Alex assumed they meant nutrition and I assumed they meant nutrition as well tbh. Because besides nutrition and taste, what reason is there to eat food? If they didn't mean nutrition then it is really their mistake for not stating whatever these other reasons were.
@@Pumbear Sure... I'm just saying that Alex (and apparently you), are wrong in that assumption. The point about strawmanning still stands though, so i guess it's kind of irrelevant anyways haha.
I'd say that using the term 'innocent' in the context of animals is indeed an appeal to emotion. How is an animal innocent? - term relates to humans and the question of guilt. If you are talking about animal slaughter / killing it is just that, adding the term innocent is unnecessary. If you determine an animal as innocent there must be something it is innocent of - what is it 'not guilty of? Slaughtering of farm animals isn't killing 'innocent' animals, it is just killing them - what are they innocent of? I can't just say you are 'innocent' I don't know what the charge is, I don't know what we are assessing the guilt of.
@@doofy3111 He hasn't made that clear though has he? He's just saying an animal is innocent - the term is an unexplained adjective in his context - it used by humans to negate guilt and in his usage is nothing more than a conveyer of emotion.
@@doofy3111 If I go out and murder someone, it is a murder. The media may say the murder of an 'innocent person' but what are they innocent of? stealing cars maybe? if the murdered person commits vandalism we don't say a guilty person was murdered do we? The animals that go to the slaughter house everyday aren't 'innocent' they aren't guilty either, they are simply being killed - any use of the word innocent just alludes to human qualities and carries emotional baggage.
An insult without the "and therefore Alex must be wrong" can still be an Ad Hominem because the clear intent is to get the audience to think less of Alex, and therefore less of his argument. It also appeals to the emotion of the audience if the insult stirs up contempt, ridicule, anger, shame, disgust, etc, against Alex in the eyes of the audience (audience includes Alex himself). The explicit syllogism isn't there, but the clear intent/result is the same.
I disagree with the appeal to emotion section for one reason. The twitter example has two parts, innocent AND without good reason whilst the imprisonment example uses only the former. Thus I see them as not playing on a level field. I could argue that 'without good reason' already covers innocence or not, but adjectives in a way like this can be used to smuggle in emotional language to sway the opinion of an audience. I wouldn't say this is the case in this specific example, but perhaps similar sentences in another context can be. Yet this wouldn't be a fallacy per se, because if emotional language is used this way the person isn't stating right or wrong because of the adjectives. Then it is a narrative tool which can be considered underhanded. Also, the definition of "taking an innocent life without good reason" would include the accidental taking of life.
There are no long term studies on a diet completely void of animal foods, nutrition science isn't black and white and there is so much more to understanding nutrition. For every study in favor of a "plant-based diet," (key word, plant-based, because there aren't any long term vegan diets,) is a study just as reputable that can contradict it. Saturated animal fat and cholesterol is required for every metabolic process and is required to synthesize vitamin D from the sun, a vitamin vegans get even less than meat eaters already. Heme iron being the only iron bioavailable to humans, and the only iron that can properly reverse anemia. Veganism lacks B12, obviously, with supplementation varying in efficacy, adequate amounts of fat soluble vitamins such as D3, K2(MK4, MK7, MK9), bioavailable vitamin A (retinol) and vitamin E. Eating only plants will offset your omega3-omega6 ratio, plants and vegetable seed oils contain large quantities of inflammatory omega6 fatty acids that is difficult to balance out. Then you have to take the gut-microbiome into consideration, and how healthy your digestive system actually is. There's a multitude of factors that effect digestibility of certain foods. Like antinutrients, which can wreak havoc on the gastrointestinal tract. The paper value on the back of a box means absolutely nothing to the human body and you cannot assume we can be optimally healthy on a vegan diet long term regardless of how meticulous your attention to your nutrition intake and supplementation. When it comes to the environmental issue, I'd like to mention the large amount of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, etc. and harmful synthetic vitamins and minerals that are used in conventional plant agriculture, used to kill pests by the millions. Wild rabbits, deer, mice, voles, birds, anything that would cause harm to the crops. Also happens to cause soil depletion, wreaks havoc on water supplies and natural habitats due to runoff excess plant feed being dumped, which happens on many of the farms you get your GMO monocrops from, often resulting in the deaths of an immeasurable amount of animals. Feed runoff has caused red tide. The carbon emissions of conventional farming alone, animal and plant, both are causing extreme detriment to the ozone layer... I could go on and on, but I urge you to look into these things a bit. Giving all these variables into account, how c an you argue that we eat animal foods for "taste pleasure" when we are in fact biologically an obligate omnivore. Animal foods cannot be mimicked or replaced, we cannot conclude your claims to be true until we have a scientifically validated case of a human subsisting off strictly plant foods from birth to death, also meaning the mothers breast milk cannot contain nutrients from animal foods as well. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941825/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502319/ academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/633S/4690005 www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5983041/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967179/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3303980/ www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/cholesterol#:~:text=Cholesterol%20is%20important,-Cholesterol%20is%20produced&text=We%20need%20a%20small%20amount,body%20to%20produce%20vitamin%20D openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000898 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335257/
if humans are obligate carnivores, why does meat cause plaque buildup in arteries? Do you think that animals that eat their meat raw from the dead animal's carcass suffer from heart disease?
@@carlpereira2784 Meat doesn't cause atherosclerosis, there's a multitude of various factors that need to be accounted for. Calcification of the arterial walls doesn't just happen because you ate meat, that's illogical outdated epidemiological studies that have been disproved over and over again. BMI, blood pressure, nutrition, lifestyle all hugh factors and you can get heart disease regardless of your meat intake. Butter increases HDL, eggs increase HDL, LDL transports calcium deposits and only puts them in the wrong place if you're unhealthy by other means, you can be unhealthy and get heart disease even if your LDL is low. It comes down to lipid density, K2 intake, D3 levels and oxidative stress from omega-6 dominant fatty acid profile, like what the plant-based diets are high it. Refer to the linked studies for more information.
so i could eat a vegan diet with natto for k2, algal oil based omega 3 supplemets for EPA and DHA (as well as flaxseeds for ALA which converts to EPA and DHA) as well as getting vitamin D3 from the sun/ mushrooms placed in the sun/ a vegan D3 supplement and i would be fine.
@@carlpereira2784 Yes, nato has K2, but K2 being a fat soluble vitamin you need to consume it with fat/have adequate dietary fat and bile production to properly covert and absorb any amount of the vitamin. While algae supplements have preformed EPA/DHA, the efficiency of absorption varies from person to person and a lot of people have algae allergies and cannot take those supplements you mention. Thirdly, not everyone lives in a hemisphere of which they can get the necessary sun exposure for adequate D3 synthesis, also the issue of vegans not having high enough LDL/HDL levels to do said synthesis. Plus the conversion rate and degradation issues with consuming mushrooms for D3, because mushrooms contain mostly D2, with widely varying D3/D4, in UV treated mushrooms only, with small amounts that can't provide significant dietary D3. So on and so fourth, there's a lot to cover. So considering the multitude of variables in nutrition science we need to take the totality of evidence into consideration and not make assumptions like "taste pleasure" when you don't have nutrition background of any sort. Mr. @CosmicSkeptic is only making subjective claims which do not hold validity in objective reality. Again, obligate omnivore by nature's design that will not be altered through unnatural and under researched plant "alternatives," just because we can get it "somewhere else" does not indicate those means are healthy or practicable. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6835948/#:~:text=The%20human%20conversion%20rate%20of,23%2C24%2C25%5D. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18220672/ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25117997/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3349454/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331567/ healthfully.com/advantages-disadvantages-algae-8235187.html
When it comes to your argument: "p1 : any being capable of suffering has moral worth. p2 : cows are capable of suffering c: therefore cows have moral worth." Is only sound if both premises are true. Just stating them as premises doesn't make them true by definition. Hence I would agree this is a logical argument, but I wouldn't agree it's necessarily a sound argument. I may be inclined to agree with the premises, but I don't know they are true, I merely assume them to be true. Without proof that both premises actually are true, I can't agree to the qualification of the argument being sound, I can merely agree that the argument is logical. Though to be fair, if an argument is merely logical and not necessarily sound, I'm already quite happy as it doesn't happen that often in these youtube comment sections.
We have the same nervous system my guy, we evolved the same cells Pain is universal in mammals and you can't believe those screams are just for no reason
@@felicityc So we are suddenly narrowing down the catagory of "any being" to just 'mammals'. Are you setting me up for a changing the goalpost fallacy or what? As I said before, I'm happy already if the argument is merely logical (as in valid), demanding arguments to be sound is a bit too much to ask from human beings of which most can't even manage to present an argument that's merely valid. Thanks for demonstrating my point. Unless of course you mean to argue that any being that doesn't scream can't possibly be suffering, your response doesn't address my position. If you mean to argue this, I'd like to see your argumentation for it. But I doubt this is what you intended. I can consider the possibility that fish can suffer, even though I never heared a fish scream. But let me ask you another question. Can you name me an example of a being capable of suffering that hasn't suffered. If so, how do you know it's capable of suffering?
Your not though. Remember always, you are the teacher and the student. Information is always all around you. No matter what your looking at there is a pn abundance of information there. Videos like this seem like a fast track. But they are not. It's more of a focus point, allowing you to concentrate on this type of thinking. But it doesnt teach you, you do that.
@@lankystudent I am a fan of SPA the three greates and Kant. My motto is do whatever you want and be free as long as you dont hurt yourself or others. Also it is ok to feel understanding for terrible people who had a reason for what they did. I believe you need some purpose in life And happiness how we seee it in the western world is a wrong construct
@@lankystudent i think so I will read up on him. It is way to matirialistic. I think yeah money can bring happiness to a point, but our culture of bying for fun and focusing on money over paision is extreme.
@@ingvildkvakestad I agree. How old are you? What made you take a philosophy class? I think you would like the philosophy of JSM from what you've said.
@@mikha6139 Emotions are actually a vital part in our decision making process. No decision can be made on purely "logical" grounds, and we often use our emotions as a heuristic guide for which arguments and statements require more scrutiny and which can be accepted easily, which ultimately allows to learn new things while protecting us from bad information in an efficient manner.
@@mikha6139 It was my lack of emotion that almost had me being a eugenics touting neo-nazi in my adolescence. It is by using our own experiences of empathy and suffering and then using logic to expand them beyond our own social circle that we make social progress.
I'm not in the youtube game but I feel like you should never let what someone else made dictate what you make! More than one person can and absolutely should make a video on the same topic. Everyone brings something different to the table. I'm glad you made the video.
I am afraid I disagree with cosmic skeptic here. 6:44 he claims that he doesn't strawman the omnivorous position, but he instead defends that he accurately represents the position and shows that it is false. But when he said this, he had just finished misrepresenting the omnivorous position... He thinks that giving value to the nutrition is limited to the list and amounts of nutrients. and he demonstrates that by implying that responding to someone that says "I eat meat because of nutrition", by telling him that he can find nutrients present in meat elsewhere is a sufficient and complete response. But it is not, nutrion doesn't only deal with nutrients, it deals with bioavailability, it deals with nutrient density etc... So indeed, cosmic skeptic, you are strawmanning the omnivorous position, you are misrepresenting the position whilst arguing against it. Now we just need to deliberate if you are doing it on purpose or not.
One of the premises of his argument is that one can get the proper nutrition without meat. He does not defend that premise here. If you dispute the premise, the argument will not be convincing to you. Do you dispute the premise that the average person can get the required nutrients without meat?
Tree turn to stone lol stone age m.ruclips.net/video/8E8-kg7SQ4k/видео.html evidence of super massive tree w/leaves longer m.ruclips.net/video/NovvYzzOI70/видео.html petrified large trees download videos m.ruclips.net/video/3_CniMGNyXs/видео.html Animals m.ruclips.net/video/P29XXLX40g4/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html Download videos m.ruclips.net/video/Qwjz_UkzKvM/видео.html _____________ Mudfossils Giant hairs and sweat glands download videos m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html Titan Muscle m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html Mudfossils Giant download m.ruclips.net/video/0_upHPBH7Tg/видео.html Megalithic Seamless Perfect walls download videos m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html Peru Wall m.ruclips.net/video/fmvTqmhxlbQ/видео.html Puma Punku Decodeded m.ruclips.net/video/BPekF0OqWyg/видео.html From a Rock and it is a Gusher m.ruclips.net/video/Z1qrk5Q49Sw/видео.html Wise up channel download videosm.ruclips.net/video/KH2Gp0ciwkA/видео.html Download videos ANCIENT HIGH TECHNOLOGY m.ruclips.net/video/HgN51djJhXs/видео.html machines technolocal m.ruclips.net/video/9TKhTRqFJ5I/видео.html Download videos ANCIENT TECH BEEN FOUND m.ruclips.net/video/Pmzz4JQ82Lo/видео.html Download video TECH TURNED TO ROCK m.ruclips.net/video/RL-aWrUt4Uw/видео.html elephant m.ruclips.net/video/_kVyLYUolZ0/видео.html Dry Dock or IMPRINT OF A SHIPdownload video m.ruclips.net/video/iaNTxwm4SyM/видео.html STEEL OF GIANT STRUCTURES NOW TURNED SOFT ROCK m.ruclips.net/video/3hNT1sMTf7k/видео.html Download video Tomb Of The Kings 'lol' m.ruclips.net/video/Ut27sA8rcoE/видео.html IMPRINTS in rock tech Past m.youtube.com/watch?v=GTgWP5vZM ________________________ Titans download videos m.ruclips.net/p/PLewamc6Dtp7FYzJVu-TtjH3EkW7RJAyVc m.ruclips.net/p/PLyk-JRol2OkHnOtghXbNlJfPIXMm9X9Ax m.ruclips.net/video/1angjWHG1kk/видео.html petrified giants m.ruclips.net/video/62gNrlTkOKE/видео.html Download videos m.ruclips.net/video/DahmnTSe0E4/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/livMiiz_wuw/видео.html Ball sphere. Giant Balls are Biology not Concretions m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/7P7i3pf-pes/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/q6CVOkuyzy0/видео.html _________________________ Giants download videos m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/e-90KoNKK0E/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/QqOuhDQrOdw/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/9UKljodqMyc/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/hSk2shVV9kg/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/47Z65dbXHKw/видео.html Mud fossils m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html&list=PLEpr4aa9rk9rWRN1b-9-HKcrt04R5Egsk&index=2&t=0s m.ruclips.net/video/iZADYbNEwOw/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html&list=PLQrS3ZMc_7j30fm7y1VZIEVxVbsZY83H3&index=13&t=0s Mud fossils m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html ______________________ Pyramids solved 1 m.ruclips.net/video/ajlNSyzE-p4/видео.html 2 m.ruclips.net/video/WNgNZSAfFSQ/видео.html 3 m.ruclips.net/video/X61ePmInjG4/видео.html 4 m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html 5 m.ruclips.net/video/JHCq6IUUqiI/видео.html 6 m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/zTlTiYNTyDg/видео.html 4 temple m.ruclips.net/video/YK1bwnqXvX4/видео.html Documentary Quest for the Lost civilization m.ruclips.net/video/T5DNvYMtkyk/видео.html _________________________ Tartaria Read www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/19/victorian-women-forced-to-give-up-their-babies-new-exhibition www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once.40/ thebridgelifeinthemix.info/history/history-big-lie-understanding-tartaria/ eclypticstudios.com/home/?p=3025 bennettleeross.com/history/the-golden-age-the-gilded-age-the-new-age-and-beyond/ weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/22/the-lost-civilizations-of-north-america-were-they-tartarian-cities/ guidesblog.org/2019/02/21/our-missing-history-mud-floods-giants-free-electricity-depopulation-and-lies-videos/ weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/atmospheric-etheric-energy-aee-antiqui-tech-of-the-tartars/ secretenergy.com/tag/tartary-flag/ www.metacenterchicago.com/2018/09/16/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once/ www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartarian-power-plants-and-the-invading-parasites-that-co-opted-them.295/ www.stolenhistory.org/video/ Wireless m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=Tartaria+wireless Some Truths You Probably Don't Really Want to Hear! (an eye opening video) m.ruclips.net/video/HhQJqfTaH3I/видео.html Mud Floods The Untold Story About Our History m.ruclips.net/video/Q9IOhkUT9IA/видео.html Tartarian Empire mudflood m.ruclips.net/video/gQQiCVMKSZQ/видео.html Antennas of the past m.ruclips.net/video/BV-E50qIxmk/видео.html free energy Antennas m.ruclips.net/video/XtYhYaeWj64/видео.html Resonant Frequencies m.ruclips.net/video/asYztIkNsoc/видео.html architecture in Japan in 1900 m.ruclips.net/video/RxA1xiSZxXA/видео.html _______________________ I and Js m.ruclips.net/video/2alOn7ni4Nw/видео.html 1000 Years of Fake History m.ruclips.net/video/qJ2q5t6Vp_Y/видео.html Fake Years of History - Dark Ages Never Existed m.ruclips.net/video/heJdBGUu9CI/видео.html 1773-1920's; The Ruin m.ruclips.net/video/CyBhengRZ-Q/видео.html Tartaria: The Largest Country Hidden By Fake History (Part 1) m.ruclips.net/video/wWuLMBdzJNg/видео.html 18 civil war m.ruclips.net/video/_UMJKObmPb4/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/dUty71ovS5Q/видео.html 1865 Birth of a Civil Hoax m.ruclips.net/video/2KOhJq3enSY/видео.html Staged Historic Photos m.ruclips.net/video/L9RON_--Qc4/видео.html _______________________ Tartaria Introduction -A Civilization Erased?, Lost in Time 1 m.ruclips.net/video/a-OwGciMRUQ/видео.html Tartaria & the Mud Flood Part 3 A Civilisation Erased?, Lost in Time m.ruclips.net/video/1S1QC6H4kEk/видео.html __________________________ El Hyperloop de TARTARIA MUNDIAL. THE OLD tunnels m.ruclips.net/video/KXMxLbF-_ZI/видео.html Airships in Tartarian China Mauritania and Peru m.ruclips.net/video/p5-2FIp5hI0/видео.html History of Balloons Of Electrostatic Tethering m.ruclips.net/video/H0g1bOeZ9ao/видео.html Airships Balloons are the same resembles tha vehicle of today m.ruclips.net/video/_kvhDuR5twk/видео.html magnetic flying machines and the electric fararday m.ruclips.net/video/ouJ8fj7Rf98/видео.html ______________________ Solfeggio frequencies therapy Read walterbitner.com/2015/08/21/the-legacy-of-guido-darezzo/ coloraturaconsulting.com/2012/06/27/composer-biography-guido-darezzo-c991-1033/ subtle.energy/silent-solfeggio/ markalburgermusichistory.blogspot.com/7991/01/guido-darezzo-991-1034.html?m=1 freqe1.com/solfeggio-rising/solfeggio-frequencies/ miraclesandinspiration.com/solfeggiofrequencies.html www.attainablemind.com/2010/04/solfeggio-frequencies-binaural-beats.html?m=1 Sound Frequency That Cures Diseases & Disorders w/Guest Sharry Edwards m.ruclips.net/video/1xENoF8gG54/видео.html m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=solfeggio+frequencies+medicine m.ruclips.net/video/GJYS5_nMa0I/видео.html Documentary m.ruclips.net/video/5O8LPnlh_sM/видео.html _________________________ 5G dispatchesfromtheasylum.com/2019/02/26/5g-and-gmo-electromagnetic-waves-and-genetic-engineering-profit-driven-destruction/ www.thinkaboutit.online/globalists-killing-humanity-with-5g-technology/ www.thelibertybeacon.com/corona-virus-fakery-and-the-link-to-5g-testing/ patriots4truth.org/2018/10/18/5g-can-end-humanity-as-we-know-it/ wholetones.com/ltr/1 www.knowingthetruth.com/5g-wireless-corona-virus-connection-exposed/ m.ruclips.net/video/sg5XSt2b4Fs/видео.html 5g interview m.ruclips.net/video/mrBiLbhvZCs/видео.html ruclips.net/video/DyiQ80BMSQQ/видео.html Documentary m.ruclips.net/video/9mK93gHFWXs/видео.html&feature=emb_rel_pause c123movies.com/generation-zapped/ m.ruclips.net/video/xDy2tHCPdk8/видео.html 5g antenna m.ruclips.net/video/sgRQwdFGvdA/видео.html Read www.elanafreeland.com/morgellons-synthetic-biology Watch iron and clay Transhumanism m.ruclips.net/video/GQQDK_o2VP4/видео.html
I think you are on shaky ground with the 'innocent' analogy. If a couple are stoned to death for adultery, you could argue that as the people who put them to death thought they were guilty, then the people killed are perceived as innocent only by people who do not share their belief system. So to someone with strong Abrahamic religious beliefs, a cow is neither innocent or guilty. It is part of Gods bounty for Man to do as he sees fit. So in effect the usage of words like this do have a judgemental aspect to them in much the same way the anti-abortionists use the term pro-life and an aborted foetus is an innocent baby.
@@GaganSingh-nx2yv It should be. That's why the death penalty is not okay. If the state kills an innocent person, they're no longer fit to lead, frankly. It means something is wrong.
Wikipedia makes a similar point to yours, in describing Appeal to Emotion as invalid if the "appeal" is made within the context of the ethical argument: "The appeal to emotion is only fallacious when the emotions that are elicited are irrelevant to evaluating the truth of the conclusion and serve to distract from rational consideration of relevant premises or information. . . 'Look at the suffering children. We must do more for refugees.' is not uncontroversially fallacious, because the suffering of the children and our emotional perception of the badness of suffering may be relevant to the conclusion. To be sure, the proper role for emotion in moral reasoning is a contested issue in ethics, but the charge of "appeal to emotion" often cannot be made without begging the question against theories of moral cognition that reserve a role for emotion in moral reasoning." However, I think there is something you overlook which actually derives from your conclusion, and is nicely summarized in the quote above. Maybe the lines are kind of blurry here, but "look at the suffering children" could be interpreted as a mere input in a syllogism (children are suffering->ethics dictates we act), but it can also feel very much like a standard Appeal to Emotion (look at the SUFFERING of the children, dammit!!). Which is it really? There are many cases where appeals to emotion are more than just a rhetorical technique, although I would argue there is nothing wrong with that either. If I recount and describe the suffering of pigs, then listeners are simply hearing the facts, and the importance they themselves grant to this sort of emotional experience does the heavy lifting. That importance is the core of ethics; without ascribing at least some moral value to something somewhat arbitrarily, we would have no use for it at all, and empathy is a powerful component in that sort of decision (maybe that says something about the origins of morality, even). One can see where this might go awry: if I tearfully present the case of someone who committed murder to swing a jury, I have used the Appeal to Emotion in a way most of us would have no trouble calling problematic. The difference here is that we are not swaying them toward an incorrect conclusion; we are able to independently employ an ethical logic to arrive at the same outcome. If we believe that people's own moral logic dictates they grant animals moral worth, it is not fallacious to make them experience that internal inconsistency via the emotions that prove it.
Alex: Thanks for the explanation! About "innocence", I would add that the word comes from Greek/Latin. I:Without/negation and Gnosos: Knowlege/awareness. (one that is unaware O doesent know about a thing).
That is the Fallacy Fallacy-- _Hey, that's fallacious therefore it is wrong!_ But that doesn't follow. It could be fallacious and true by accident. A fallacious argument simply cannot prove its conclusion, the conclusion can still be true.
@Krish Nair My reasoning that 2+2=4 1. 2x2=4 2. The + and x sign are the same Therefore, 2+2=4 My argument is flawed, and thus cannot prove the conclusion, but the conclusion is still correct
I would recall Niven's 17th Law. No cause is so right and just that you cannot find a fool among the ranks of its followers. The logic behind the position may be solid, but there are vegans who would still use fallacies in arguing for it. There are people who believe the same things you do, but for reasons you don't agree with.
I did notice a lot of mainstream vegans to commit to appeal to emotion when I was first introduced to it, but I didn't look up what really veganism is about so I ignored it. Not until Alex made a video about veganism I took it at face value since the arguments were genuinely reasonable.
@@azap12 and that demonstrated the value of grounding an position logically, and avoiding fallacious arguments. It's not about scoring points in a debate, but actually getting people to think about their own position.
@@bskec2177 I've seen the same thing, but appeal to emotion has its place, too. You know, lots of people walk around and rationally know that they are contributing to massive ammounts of suffering and destruction, but ultimately you have to FEEL like you are. It's not until people feel emotionally invested enough that they will stop. You have to feel for the victims of your actions so that it outweighs your selfish aims. First you have to establish the fact that your actions relate to the suffering directly, logically. The next step is to feel the accountability. That's what documentaries like dominion and actual videoclips of animals do. I actually see the cows suffering in my minds eye when I'm at the store, which compells me to not buy the products even if I love the taste of them. Some might feel an instant projected cringe at me saying that, but it is what keeps me motivated to care. I don't think we get anywhere on pure logic alone. Action is motivated, and motivation is emotional investment. I think logic and feeling must both be in the mix to instill change. For some the logic might be more compelling, while to others emotional retoric might be. But to people who lack emotional insight or empathy (which is many, I suspect) the emotions are a turnoff.
I agree with your arguments and while I am not a vegan, I accept your points that I do eat meat for taste and that it is 'murder' in the strictest sense of the definition but humans have come to define 'murder' to be of a fellow human. This is largely due in part to language culture and these words exist across many societies and languages - there is a very strict word which means killing another human being. Given that we are an apex species, compared to cows, we get to dictate what is murder and we have defined murder to be human on humans. Murder is for humans and carries more emotional weight. Killing is for anything in nature and is more a technical term with a lighter emotional weight, which is why we say that they have to kill the cow to get the beef, rather than they have to murder the cow to get the beef.
A video about the intuition behind emotions vs conditioned emotions is soemthing i would love to see. Even any little clip about your understanding of intuition.
Every non-vegan replies to vegans on Instagram: 1.) "Holier than thou" 2.) "Get off your high-horse" 3.) "Claiming the moral high ground" 4.) "Veganism is a cult" 5.) "Pushing your ideology" 6.) "Appeal to emotion"
I always find the "veganism is a cult" mantra to be rather strange. Between just eating fruit, veg and grain, and grown men breastfeeding from other animals, which of those seems more like a cult?
I found one possible mistake: The whole meat flavour argument thing. Suggesting that meat eaters only eat it for the flavour since they can get nutrients from a vegetarian source is a fallacy since it is possible that they eat it, well, for both nutrients and flavour. The combination nutrients + flavour is an entirely different concept than only flavour or only nutrients, i.e. just eating salt or just swallowing vitamins, or perhaps thinking mathematically 2 (flavour) + 3 (nutrients) = 5. I am not defending meat eaters or vegans, I am pointing out an inconsistency.
B12 vitamin is only in meat in large enough quantities to actually matter nutritionally. It _is_ available in some plants, but not in enough quantities to actually be useful fir a human body. Human body cannot produce B12 on its own. B12 is necessary for, among other things, proper formation of red blood cells and production of ATP in mitochondria. So yes, meat is just as much about nutrtion as well as the taste. Meat also contains protein required for building of muscles. Lack of these proteins are why most vegans are wimpy and weak, with string-like arms and legs. I have yet to see a muscular vegan that hasn't gone vegan like last week (because their muscles haven't had time to deteriorate yet) .
In the appeal to emotion segment of the video you are redefining murder to fit more accurately for non-human animals. The actual definition Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. When using the actual definition it highlights the appeal to emotion. In a conversation about actual murder, yes, it is necessary to include the “innocent” part as it differentiates it from other forms of homicide, but when it comes to non-human animals it just can’t be defined this way. So when you say the the MURDER of INNOCENT animals it’s just disingenuous.
Alex. When called out on making a straw man your counter argument is that the opposing side is merely wrong. You do this by stating something as fact, which unfortunately it is not. nutritional science is a topic where there is a big lack of consensus. And the traditional view on it. I. e. not what is generally considered fringe is the opposite of what you stated as fact. Nutritional science as a field is mostly considered alternative. F. ex. There are a lot of experts and scientists that don't agree that the nutritional value of any substance is the same regardless of it's source. This is a debate mostly focuses on "natural sources" vs. produced in a lab. And while traditional nutritional science generally scoffs at the idea that natural sources of nutrition is better, there is a lot of evidence that show that the chemical make up of nutritional substances do not exist within a vacuum when it comes to how our body reacts to them. F. ex. claims about trace nutrients having an effect on how our micro-bacteria react is one of several concepts that is heavily discussed and experimented on. On the flip side though. Is the idea that a vegan diet can sustain all our nutritional needs. On this subject, the stances are often flipped. I. e. Traditional nutritional science say that no, there are certain essential nutrients that are not available in plants. While the idea that all nutrients are available in plants is generally an alternative/fringe view. However, on this subject the alternative (i. e. fringe) views are not in consensus either and the answer is therefore not as clear cut as you lay it out to be. F. ex. When it comes to essential amino acids (proteins) the traditional view is that there is a lack of plant sources for some of these essential amino acids. The alternative view is that plant based proteins can cover all our needs. Again there is a lack of consensus on this topic. However, lets assume that a plant based diet can supply enough essential amino acids. There are still some essential nutrients, that simply does not exist in plants. F. ex. one of the most essential fatty acids is Omega-3. Omega-3 exists in plants, but Omega-3 is not 1 acid. It is in fact, as far as current knowledge and classification, at least 3 different fatty acids that come in different chemical makeups. And only 1 of those are present in plants. EPA, the other two DHA and DPA are only present in animals. DPA in particular is mostly found, in high amounts, in marine based mammals, which is potentially problematic with the current state of marine ecosystems. The worst part of this is that traditional nutritional science claims that EPA is not important, arguably not even useful for humans. While DHA is crucial for our survival. However, there is also a lack of consensus on this. There are many scientific claims and studies that claim that EPA can be used by our bodies, but even most of those claims are generally speaking about animal based EPA, not plant based. Most likely related to some kind of chemical make up we either do not fully understand, or at the very least, is outside my knowledge on the subject. Getting an understanding on these subjects is particularly hard because there is such a lack of consensus. I find your dismissal of this criticism as cherry picking. Especially as it seems to be picking stances that are held by sides of a debate that will often hold opposing views to yours on other topics. I also find your dismissal of the appeal to emotion argument to be lacking. Your video on "The absolutely worst form of cognitive dissonance", which is where I recently saw you receive this criticism, did not have a logical argument at all, it was only an appeal to emotion. The fact that your whole argument rested on your misuse of the term cognitive dissonance proves it. As cognitive dissonance is in itself a form of internal appeal to emotion. I mean. How on the nose do you need it to be. As for the moral worth argument. I reject your premise, as you yourself would have not too long ago. The argument is indeed without fallacy, but "moral worth" is a meaningless term. First some kind of definitional understanding would have to be established. I could use the same argument for any made up concept. Then you go on and make a false equivalence in the innocent example. Considering how well you know these fallacies, I almost believe you are being dishonest. I agree, that the use of innocent vs. guilty does not have to be an appeal to emotion. However the point being made on twitter seemed to be that the use did not serve any other purpose than it's opposites connotation. Again. I am not sure I agree with that guys argument, but your rebuttal is actually worse. You then present an argument where innocent is a necessity, pretending like there is equivalence between the two arguments. You, of all people, should know that is not the case. Again. I don't disagree that your use of innocent should not be considered an appeal to emotion. However, there seems no equivalence between the use of innocent with murder and the use of innocent with falsely imprisoned. I. e. We do actually call the killing of someone not innocent as murder, under the law, as well. Innocence is therefore not a requirement for considering something as murder. I assume, in good faith, that you used it because it is common definition that many people make. So I concede that point, but there is definitely no equivalence between that argument, and the false imprisonment argument. My sense of the whole vegan debate, and the reaction you seem to be getting to it. Is that it seems you have loosened your standards a bit when it comes to these arguments. I know you don't accept that criticism, but it does come off as that. Because you do make such concessions, where it seems like, you will not, when it comes to other topics.
what consensus? i have yet to see this. not to mention the tons of people who do survive fine without it. i really dislike the nutrtion argument 'cause our country lives on fat and garbage and did for a while, and it just seems like special pleading to suddenly care about vitamins that are literally stacked to the roof in the supermarket if you went down that aisle for anything but preworkout >On the flip side though. Is the idea that a vegan diet can sustain all our nutritional needs. On this subject, the stances are often flipped. I. e. Traditional nutritional science say that no, there are certain essential nutrients that are not available in plants. While the idea that all nutrients are available in plants is generally an alternative/fringe view. However, on this subject the alternative (i. e. fringe) views are not in consensus either and the answer is therefore not as clear cut as you lay it out to be. the stances aren't flipped. why do you assume people are only eating lettuce and no other sources of vitamins can exist? that's the problem I have. Traditional science can say we're killing ourselves with over-saturation of sugars too but everyone will just laugh at you
@@felicityc Way to make a lot of assumptions. I am saying there is no consensus. Yet, Alex made a factual claim, which indicates a consensus on the matter. One that the "mainstream" nutritional science doesn't agree with. I mentioned specific examples which are essential nutrition that are not vegan. You can go buy Omega 3 in the supermarket, but unless it is made from animal sources it will not include DHA or DPA, only EPA. Do you also realize that most supplements are not vegan? There are more rare products that are hitting the market now that are made from algae, which does include DHA, instead of fish, however these are very expensive and have potentially other issues. We are omnivores so we can survive on almost any diet for quite a while. However, a lack of omega 3 over too long of a period can lead to serious health issues. It is not just a question about luxury. The lack of collagen in our diet can also cause issues, and it is argued today that the fact that we eat so much less collagen now than we used to, even with a meat based diet is one of the main reasons for the rise in low bone density in humans. Well, like I said nutritional science is not so clear cut. Traditional nutritional consensus is actually that sugar is not bad for you, but rather that fat is. Ignoring the relationship between the two. This has been in "mainstream" consensus, without any meaningful scientific evidence for decades and is only recently started to change. However the leading nutritional organizations in the world are still classifying fat as bad and sugar as ok. Which is why most doctors still recommend you limit your fat intake before they recommend you to limit your sugar intake. However talk to a nutritional expert outside of those organizations they will almost always say the opposite. It is changing though. The main issue with nutritional science is that there are so many claims out there often based on some scientific research that was done in getting a product to market and that nutritional needs are so individual. Because our gut bacteria are as varied as our fingerprints. And while there are cutting edge scientific experiments being done on our gut bacteria, cutting edge does not equal consensus. And mapping out something as complicated as this will take time. In no way am I assuming that people that are vegan only eat lettuce. You however seem to assume that I do. So who is assuming here? I am talking about nutritional science, which is a topic that I work daily with so I read a lot about it and the lack of consensus is an issue within the field. It makes it really hard to make any form of truth determinations about it.
I can see how the false imprisonment analogy totally makes sense, based on the technical definition of 'innocent', as denoting a wrongful or unsound conviction. In the first instance, though, the accuser might just be sceptical about innocence in a wider sense, and reacting to the use of the word negatively for that reason. Suppose he/she is adopting an extreme (Randian?) view of society, where cannibalism is deemed morally acceptable, and it's every individual's lookout if they want to avoid being eaten. In this 'dog eat dog' world, innocence would have little or no meaning, as a defence against harm.
One thing that I think is funny about people misusing ad hominem is that pointing out hypocrisy to undermine someone's argument is almost never called out despite how common it is and how cleanly it fits in the definition.
The word innocent its self seems to me to exist to purposely invoke emotion due to the Latin from which it's derived. So if your defining false imprisonment wouldn't the better more solid argument be the imprisonment of a wrongly convicted person instead of imprisonment of an innocent person? So if your using innocent one could say you are trying to invoke emotion whether consciously or unconsciously. Am I off base here?
My take on it is that adding the word innocent IS an appeal to emotion. Because it got no place in the argument. Is a wolf innocent? Is me killing a rapist not murder? The argument would be perfectly sound without the word innocent. It is only in there BECAUSE it appeals to emotions.
I'm afraid you've committed the 'Nicholaus is Wrong' Fallacy. I took the liberty of naming it after myself because this fallacy occurs when someone makes a point with which I am in disagreement, thereby automatically rendering their entire argument invalid _and_ unsound.
Tree turn to stone lol stone age m.ruclips.net/video/8E8-kg7SQ4k/видео.html evidence of super massive tree w/leaves longer m.ruclips.net/video/NovvYzzOI70/видео.html petrified large trees download videos m.ruclips.net/video/3_CniMGNyXs/видео.html Animals m.ruclips.net/video/P29XXLX40g4/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html Download videos m.ruclips.net/video/Qwjz_UkzKvM/видео.html _____________ Mudfossils Giant hairs and sweat glands download videos m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html Titan Muscle m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html Mudfossils Giant download m.ruclips.net/video/0_upHPBH7Tg/видео.html Megalithic Seamless Perfect walls download videos m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html Peru Wall m.ruclips.net/video/fmvTqmhxlbQ/видео.html Puma Punku Decodeded m.ruclips.net/video/BPekF0OqWyg/видео.html From a Rock and it is a Gusher m.ruclips.net/video/Z1qrk5Q49Sw/видео.html Wise up channel download videosm.ruclips.net/video/KH2Gp0ciwkA/видео.html Download videos ANCIENT HIGH TECHNOLOGY m.ruclips.net/video/HgN51djJhXs/видео.html machines technolocal m.ruclips.net/video/9TKhTRqFJ5I/видео.html Download videos ANCIENT TECH BEEN FOUND m.ruclips.net/video/Pmzz4JQ82Lo/видео.html Download video TECH TURNED TO ROCK m.ruclips.net/video/RL-aWrUt4Uw/видео.html elephant m.ruclips.net/video/_kVyLYUolZ0/видео.html Dry Dock or IMPRINT OF A SHIPdownload video m.ruclips.net/video/iaNTxwm4SyM/видео.html STEEL OF GIANT STRUCTURES NOW TURNED SOFT ROCK m.ruclips.net/video/3hNT1sMTf7k/видео.html Download video Tomb Of The Kings 'lol' m.ruclips.net/video/Ut27sA8rcoE/видео.html IMPRINTS in rock tech Past m.youtube.com/watch?v=GTgWP5vZM ________________________ Titans download videos m.ruclips.net/p/PLewamc6Dtp7FYzJVu-TtjH3EkW7RJAyVc m.ruclips.net/p/PLyk-JRol2OkHnOtghXbNlJfPIXMm9X9Ax m.ruclips.net/video/1angjWHG1kk/видео.html petrified giants m.ruclips.net/video/62gNrlTkOKE/видео.html Download videos m.ruclips.net/video/DahmnTSe0E4/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/livMiiz_wuw/видео.html Ball sphere. Giant Balls are Biology not Concretions m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/7P7i3pf-pes/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/q6CVOkuyzy0/видео.html _________________________ Giants download videos m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/e-90KoNKK0E/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/QqOuhDQrOdw/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/9UKljodqMyc/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/hSk2shVV9kg/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/47Z65dbXHKw/видео.html Mud fossils m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html&list=PLEpr4aa9rk9rWRN1b-9-HKcrt04R5Egsk&index=2&t=0s m.ruclips.net/video/iZADYbNEwOw/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html&list=PLQrS3ZMc_7j30fm7y1VZIEVxVbsZY83H3&index=13&t=0s Mud fossils m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html ______________________ Pyramids solved 1 m.ruclips.net/video/ajlNSyzE-p4/видео.html 2 m.ruclips.net/video/WNgNZSAfFSQ/видео.html 3 m.ruclips.net/video/X61ePmInjG4/видео.html 4 m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html 5 m.ruclips.net/video/JHCq6IUUqiI/видео.html 6 m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/zTlTiYNTyDg/видео.html 4 temple m.ruclips.net/video/YK1bwnqXvX4/видео.html Documentary Quest for the Lost civilization m.ruclips.net/video/T5DNvYMtkyk/видео.html _________________________ Tartaria Read www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/19/victorian-women-forced-to-give-up-their-babies-new-exhibition www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once.40/ thebridgelifeinthemix.info/history/history-big-lie-understanding-tartaria/ eclypticstudios.com/home/?p=3025 bennettleeross.com/history/the-golden-age-the-gilded-age-the-new-age-and-beyond/ weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/22/the-lost-civilizations-of-north-america-were-they-tartarian-cities/ guidesblog.org/2019/02/21/our-missing-history-mud-floods-giants-free-electricity-depopulation-and-lies-videos/ weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/atmospheric-etheric-energy-aee-antiqui-tech-of-the-tartars/ secretenergy.com/tag/tartary-flag/ www.metacenterchicago.com/2018/09/16/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once/ www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartarian-power-plants-and-the-invading-parasites-that-co-opted-them.295/ www.stolenhistory.org/video/ Wireless m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=Tartaria+wireless Some Truths You Probably Don't Really Want to Hear! (an eye opening video) m.ruclips.net/video/HhQJqfTaH3I/видео.html Mud Floods The Untold Story About Our History m.ruclips.net/video/Q9IOhkUT9IA/видео.html Tartarian Empire mudflood m.ruclips.net/video/gQQiCVMKSZQ/видео.html Antennas of the past m.ruclips.net/video/BV-E50qIxmk/видео.html free energy Antennas m.ruclips.net/video/XtYhYaeWj64/видео.html Resonant Frequencies m.ruclips.net/video/asYztIkNsoc/видео.html architecture in Japan in 1900 m.ruclips.net/video/RxA1xiSZxXA/видео.html _______________________ I and Js m.ruclips.net/video/2alOn7ni4Nw/видео.html 1000 Years of Fake History m.ruclips.net/video/qJ2q5t6Vp_Y/видео.html Fake Years of History - Dark Ages Never Existed m.ruclips.net/video/heJdBGUu9CI/видео.html 1773-1920's; The Ruin m.ruclips.net/video/CyBhengRZ-Q/видео.html Tartaria: The Largest Country Hidden By Fake History (Part 1) m.ruclips.net/video/wWuLMBdzJNg/видео.html 18 civil war m.ruclips.net/video/_UMJKObmPb4/видео.html m.ruclips.net/video/dUty71ovS5Q/видео.html 1865 Birth of a Civil Hoax m.ruclips.net/video/2KOhJq3enSY/видео.html Staged Historic Photos m.ruclips.net/video/L9RON_--Qc4/видео.html _______________________ Tartaria Introduction -A Civilization Erased?, Lost in Time 1 m.ruclips.net/video/a-OwGciMRUQ/видео.html Tartaria & the Mud Flood Part 3 A Civilisation Erased?, Lost in Time m.ruclips.net/video/1S1QC6H4kEk/видео.html __________________________ El Hyperloop de TARTARIA MUNDIAL. THE OLD tunnels m.ruclips.net/video/KXMxLbF-_ZI/видео.html Airships in Tartarian China Mauritania and Peru m.ruclips.net/video/p5-2FIp5hI0/видео.html History of Balloons Of Electrostatic Tethering m.ruclips.net/video/H0g1bOeZ9ao/видео.html Airships Balloons are the same resembles tha vehicle of today m.ruclips.net/video/_kvhDuR5twk/видео.html magnetic flying machines and the electric fararday m.ruclips.net/video/ouJ8fj7Rf98/видео.html ______________________ Solfeggio frequencies therapy Read walterbitner.com/2015/08/21/the-legacy-of-guido-darezzo/ coloraturaconsulting.com/2012/06/27/composer-biography-guido-darezzo-c991-1033/ subtle.energy/silent-solfeggio/ markalburgermusichistory.blogspot.com/7991/01/guido-darezzo-991-1034.html?m=1 freqe1.com/solfeggio-rising/solfeggio-frequencies/ miraclesandinspiration.com/solfeggiofrequencies.html www.attainablemind.com/2010/04/solfeggio-frequencies-binaural-beats.html?m=1 Sound Frequency That Cures Diseases & Disorders w/Guest Sharry Edwards m.ruclips.net/video/1xENoF8gG54/видео.html m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=solfeggio+frequencies+medicine m.ruclips.net/video/GJYS5_nMa0I/видео.html Documentary m.ruclips.net/video/5O8LPnlh_sM/видео.html _________________________ 5G dispatchesfromtheasylum.com/2019/02/26/5g-and-gmo-electromagnetic-waves-and-genetic-engineering-profit-driven-destruction/ www.thinkaboutit.online/globalists-killing-humanity-with-5g-technology/ www.thelibertybeacon.com/corona-virus-fakery-and-the-link-to-5g-testing/ patriots4truth.org/2018/10/18/5g-can-end-humanity-as-we-know-it/ wholetones.com/ltr/1 www.knowingthetruth.com/5g-wireless-corona-virus-connection-exposed/ m.ruclips.net/video/sg5XSt2b4Fs/видео.html 5g interview m.ruclips.net/video/mrBiLbhvZCs/видео.html ruclips.net/video/DyiQ80BMSQQ/видео.html Documentary m.ruclips.net/video/9mK93gHFWXs/видео.html&feature=emb_rel_pause c123movies.com/generation-zapped/ m.ruclips.net/video/xDy2tHCPdk8/видео.html 5g antenna m.ruclips.net/video/sgRQwdFGvdA/видео.html Read www.elanafreeland.com/morgellons-synthetic-biology Watch iron and clay Transhumanism m.ruclips.net/video/GQQDK_o2VP4/видео.html
all nutrients ultimately come form plants, there's no denying that. so any possible nutrient can be extracted or synthesized from plant matter. but what you probably mean to say is that you can't get these nutrients in exactly the same form you'd get from animal products. that's true. however I doubt Alex means to deny that. given the context, what he likely means is that there's a viable plant-based alternative to any nutrient you'd get from animal products.
There is also the fact that it is not feasible for everyone in the world to switch to a vegan diet, much agricultural land in use now isn't suitable for any human edible plants in practical densities to farm. Protein rich crops are often very restrictive in the soil and climatic conditions they can effectively be grown in. Even if you could grow them elsewhere, you would have to transport them to the areas where they can't be grown, people living there would have no local food production. Their food price would go up and their ability to make money for said food would go down, creating food deserts. I've been extremely poor for a few prolonged periods in my life and animal protein was the only protein that kept me from total starvation. Plant based protein would have cost me way too much. Assuming everyone in the world can just swallow the extra costs it might involve locally is a very privileged position to take. Also, you would have to stop breeding domesticated animals, many breeds have no chance to survive in the wild without human intervention, effectively killing off those breeds. I also know some vegans with legume allergies, they are not at all healthy because of their restrictive diet and it doesn't seem they will live long lives. Having everyone with legume allergies follow that path seems very detrimental to their health. So for everyone to become vegan you would have to reduce the worlds population, concentrate it in areas where you can effectively grow protein rich crops. Destroy countless domesticated animal breeds and shorten the life of people with certain allergies. Some of these problems can probably be fixed with enough time and research, but they can't be fixed right now. I support peoples choice if they want to be vegan, but it's a privileged position that is not possible for everyone, and if everyone would switch over right now, there would be massive consequences, not all of them good.
@@dv7533 nobody ever suggested that the entire planet's population should or can transition into a diet of exclusively plants over night, so I am not sure why you bring that up. it's always been about what is practicable to you right now. in the long run though, a mainstream plant based diet is going to allow for a far larger world population than one that requires mass animal agriculture.
I agree with you but probably not how you would imagine. I think we can theoretically get everything from non-animal entities. But not logistically. Not everyone has the access or finances to go fully vegan, especially in extremely impoverished areas of the world.
@@holleey I know you didn't suggest an immediate full transition, that would be a straw man fallacy on my part if I did think that, but not everyone thinks through consequences like that. I have had people suggest exactly this to me. Most conversations don't include implementation time, preparations and exceptions. Excluding these considerations from the conversation for the sake of simplicity I think is harmful to the conversation. I have also had vegans suggest a full immediate transition to me despite knowing the consequences, for them their ideology was infinitely more important than practical considerations like human suffering. Not all vegans base their dietary restrictions on logical and pragmatic reasoning, some are so dogmatic it's more like a cult. Among vegans there is a wide array of opinions, from reasonable to cultist. Just like most groups of people.
"I care about animals" can mean generally rather than all, isn't necessarily contradictory with there being some or even many exceptions, though the stronger and more specific "I care about all animals" can be made outright inconsistent and invalid with there being any exceptions.
I think this is your best video and am disappointed that I did not view it earlier. The concepts of "logical fallacies" while interesting and helpful in formulating arguments, I find don't work in real life. Firstly to call out your adversary of for using a fallacy distracts from the main debate and we fall into a yes I did no you didn't. Secondly the are other principles that should govern discussions. The ad hominem argument can simply be stated to be "have respect for the other person." I could go on but thanks.
I appreciate this short but I think necessary video. You actually caused me to pause and think over anytime I have called out or accused someone of a fallacy and if I were correct in it. This video definitely needs to circulate so all of us can be more thoughtful in our approach. 👍
There is a difference between the use of the word innocent in the imprisonment versus the murder example. Innocent is a necessary component in the definition of false imprisonment, whereas it is not for murder. For example if A kills B's child and then B killed A, B would still have committed murder, even though A was not innocent. I have often seen murder defined as the *unlawful* killing of a person, not the killing of an innocent person. Hence, innocent children killed as a side effect of war-fighting (so-called "collateral damage") weren't murdered. Their deaths are state-sanctioned (legal) and so not murder.
Thanks for the shout out! Great video :)
Professor Dave explains does not understand an argument from authority, and in his video he conflating an individual with “the scientific community”
Wow, it sounds like some people are more than a little confused. Dog, no, I did not say that a statement of fact can't be an ad hominem. I said that the statements of fact that I made in certain debunks were not ad hominems. Look at you straw manning me there! I also did not say that an authority must be an individual. At all. I said the body of scientific knowledge is not an authority. That's two straw men. I don't remember your comment, but judging by how arrogantly you put forward your incorrect analysis of my video, I really doubt that you were being "nice". I'm salty towards people who put forward baseless criticism and refuse to back down when corrected, and it looks like you do that a lot.
And Doug, no, I did not conflate an individual with the scientific community. That's a ridiculous and meaningless statement, since the scientific community is not an individual. So perhaps both of you can calm down and watch again to see that you're getting very aggravated over your own fictionalized version of the video. Ok?
People need to calm down. Both videos are good and there’s no need to compare. Even Alex said Dave’s video was great and everyone should watch it.
@@dogwolfbear
Don’t apologize! I understand your frustration especially if what you said about how he treats commenters who disagree with him is true.
It might come off that way from your perspective perhaps because of some misunderstandings from both sides. But then again I haven’t seen those comments so I can’t judge. If you want to convince somebody, It might be better to comment in a way that’s less defensive if that makes sense.
Ok, Dog. Continue to lecture me on why I should concede things that are incorrect, and why being incorrect qualifies as "disagreeing" with me instead of just being wrong. You just blew right past what I said about ad hominem and continue to misrepresent the video. Yes, if someone is merely stating a fact, it's not an ad hominem, period. It has to be put forward as an argument for it to be a logical fallacy. And yes, the "group" of all scientists, which equals the entire scientific community of millions of people from every country on earth, which represents the entire body of scientific knowledge, is not an authority. Sorry. And you pretended that in saying this, I am insisting that an authority specifically be an individual person, which I didn't say. For someone who whines about others not "conceding", you certainly do not concede any of these ridiculous claims you're making.
If you pay for premium, it gets rid of the ad hominems
Brilliant
lol good one
Ahhhhh!!! I see what you did there.
AAAAAAAAAYYYE!
@@uncreatedskeptic9968 I didn't, please help😂
As Matt Dillahunty has said in the past, we shouldn't just namedrop fallacies in an argument anyway and just explain in our own words what we think is wrong with the other person's reasoning.
I do both because it's not a proof or argument to simply call someone claims or arguments the name of a fallasy, you must explain why it's that fallacy.
Matt called alex "dishonest "
@@177SCmaro the newest response to being told the name of the fallacy AND how they’re using the fallacy / how it applies is to simply say “it isn’t that fallacy - you don’t know what that fallacy is - *recite a textbook definition*” then argue it isn’t that specific fallacy and make fun of you for being an easy target in their rhetoric
@@rckli I would remind such a person that simple denial and appeals to the dictionary are not argument's/proofs.
@@177SCmaro why do that? That’d be like hitting yourself in the face with a brick wall intentionally. The newest form of discourse is to call someone a label as soon as possible - in group biases are prevalent online now more than ever.. they just have to call you a troll once and you’re done
Ad Hominem: "You're stupid, therefore you're wrong."
NOT Ad Hominem: "You're wrong, therefore you're stupid."
Note: To clear things up, the second quote is a valid, yet an unsound argument. It doesn't commit the ad hom fallacy. The context for this is found in the video. If a person wants, for whatever reason, to insult another person in the middle of a debate or discussion, then they must demonstrate why the other person's argument or claims are wrong first if they want to avoid commiting the fallacy. Saying "You're wrong, therefore you're stupid" is a valid, yet an unsound argument. It's just a simple and neat way of showing how to not commit an ad hominem when insulting another person. Also, there's no need to insult in the first place.
Note 2: In the comments I've shown that I'm wrong and stupid. Thanks for the heads up and correcting my mistakes.
You are wrong because [gives detailed explanation], you fucking moron.
"Omg ad hom, ad hom !!"
Basically some people scream ad hom everytime there is an insult, that obviously isn't used in place of an argument.
edit: pretty much what he said ehh
Not Ad Hominem but wrong
Laughed so hard at this haha
@@someaussiekidd I'm quoting Alex from the video.
@@youwaisef haha yes I mean when he said this in the video I laughed very hard
Really throwing an ad hominem at Dave Explains by making this video.
😂
Gangster
@Piano Raves Your premise is incorrect. The burden of proof is on you to prove that he threw an ad-hominem, you'd have to first demonstrate that it has been found. Therefore, God exists.
@@Yonatan24 By saying that the burden of prove lies with me you're strawmanning my argument and also commit a strong ad hominem fallacy. That the burden of prove lies with me is non of you business, Gregory.
Therefore, the greco-roman empire of atlantis exists.
@@pianoraves You've poisoned the well so badly, I had to use all of my aquarium de-toxifier on it. I literally just bought it last week.
Edit: My fish might de because of this. You've committed the existential fallacy.
i’m too drunk to watch this video but you have beautiful eyes
Ad hominem compliment fallacy! Ad hom-pliment... huehuehue
source?
Ugh....
Christ I've never been that pissed.
He really does
To be honest, the early comments are mainly self-advertisement. They don't post because they disagree with you, they post to be the most upvoted xD
Well obviously. They can't agree or disagree if they're posting in a time shorter than the length of the actual video
I disagree
Works. 😂
@@RealPumpkinJay No one would do it if it wasn't working xD
Just like you. I upvoted you too!
You are the living proof on how I can disagree with someone and still think they are a rational, smart person.
"I believe in God because once I took LSD and spoke to him".
Best argument ever.
I've heard that one a disturbing number of times.
have you ever actually tried LSD or done any psychedelics? Why are you speaking about experiences you've never felt? You're equivalent to the idea of someone who's colour blind making conjecture about how there is no experience of experiencing colour because you are not able to experience it. I'm not saying 'the Christian god is real.' I'm saying that people who say things like what you're saying, often say 'I would believe in God if he spoke to me or contacted me' but then anytime anybody claims to have experienced such a thing, you call BS.
@@dravenwag Did you know that magic wish granting Leprechauns are real?
All you have to do to know this for a fact, is to cut off your own genitals with a sharp rock! Afterwards the Leprechaun shows up, and you get to wish you genitalia back!
You can't doubt me right? *Not if haven't tried it, right?*
...do you see how silly this argument is? This is how you sound.
Claiming that you saw weird things, and had weird thoughts, while on mind altering drugs, isn't unbelievable. Claiming it as actual proof of gods or the supernatural... Is. Of course.
@@LastBastian Here’s the thing though - experiences on LSD and other psychedelics are extremely replicable. Almost everyone who takes psychedelics will describe the same or very similar features of a “trip” - oneness with nature and everything in the universe, feeling like they’ve been thrown into another dimension, heightened perception and sometimes “speaking to god”. Now the speaking to god aspect doesn’t mean they hear a voice or see a physical manifestation, it simply means they feel a deep conscious connection with the world and universe around them, which they interpret as “god” because we don’t have the language to describe it any other way. As for cutting off your genitals and seeing leprechauns vs taking an acid trip - one is inherently life threatening and hurts you while the other is comparatively safe. Mutilating yourself is not comparable with taking LSD as one has fundamentally negative consequences (ie. now you can’t pee because no genitals and blood everywhere) and the latter more often than not has overwhelmingly positive consequences (people often describe taking psychedelics as life changing, including myself). You also have to make a risk assessment - how badly do you want to see the leprechaun vs what you have to do to get there. I would argue the risk involved in doing so would be a million times larger than taking a dose of LSD - which is one of the safest drugs you can possibly take.You’re probably wondering “How can a class A substance be safe?” and the answer is that you’ve been lied to for decades. I suggest reading Michael Polans book “How to Change your Mind” about the nature of psychedelics, their history, their suppression and also current psych and neuroscience research that’s going on at Johns Hopkins university with psilocybin. Cheers friend ♥️
@@vees_magic_barbell Yes, it makes you feel things. The point is that chemically altered feelings being offered as some kind of "proof" of gods, afterlife, psychic powers, etc... Is rather silly.
The argument that "you haven't done drugs, so you don't get it." Is flawed reasoning. As my intentionally absurd Leprechaun analogy demonstrates.
Until lsd use is shown to imbue those taking it with demonstrable access to info they didn't have before, or other tangible knowledge or abilities...
Then it is no more reasonable for me to believe it gives you access to mystical forces, than it is for you to believe cutting off your junk gives you access to Leprechauns.
You usually see videos and articles helping you detect fallacies, decreasing the false negatives. This video is on decreasing your false positives. Specificity matters as much as, if not more than, sensitivity. Nice one.
this post is funny because it's self-fulfilling LMAO
If history taught me anything, it's that achieving anything by Christmas is impossible.
Kinda.
... but only slightly less well-known is this: 'Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
lmao
Every time you hit subscribe an angel gets its wings....... clipped. 😊
Not true. Evangelical and Catholic churches are trying to reach record COVID infections with their congregations by Christmas and the Supreme Court just gave them the go ahead. It's all part of God's plan as prophesied in the Bible.
12:55 another issue i found is that appeal to emotion, often referred to as "pathos" is not inherently a logical fallacy. It's simply one of the three types of rhetoric, that is perfectly fine to use in an argument. Not all arguments have to be purely logical, I say this as an Engineering student and I value logic. Appeal to emotion becomes fallacious if it's disguised as pure logic.
Wrong ruclips.net/video/EYIlGsL4W4E/видео.html
The correct time to use a logical fallacy is when you're losing a debate and you want your opponent to waste the rest of his time pointing out your fallacy.
lol
It's strange that people seem to expect a moral argument to not elicit any emotion. The field of morality is laden with difficult subjects - if you're emotionally moved by a moral argument that's a sign of its soundness, no?
Not necessarily. From a utilitarian standpoint it is possible that the lowest amount of net suffering comes from torturing a few for the sake of the many in some kind of hunger games scenario.
However I would agree that since we don’t have a scale with which to measure and compare pleasure and pain, trying to make logical arguments from the at least partially false, subjective perspectives we each hold is the best we can do.
@@suchawolfy in that situation the problem is less with the moral decisions you make and more with the scenario itself being crafted to only give you bad options
I’m not fully on board that appeal to emotion IS in fact a fallacy. Morality is literally grounded in our natural emotions. If all humans were sociopaths and had no emotions, a lot of our moral arguments would seem ridiculous. Morality is grounded in our emotional states as humans. But still a good video.
i would have to agree with suchawolfy here that its not a sign of its soundness but could be a byproduct of it.
The reason you are moved emotionally by a moral argument could be that you're unfairly convinced of its soundness or that youre evaluating its importance from unsound moral grounds and finally that it is a sound moral argument that elicits an emotional response in someone using a sound moral system.
It depends on the audience.
Confidence can move a courtroom, but not a crowd. Screaming might move a crowd, but bore a courtroom.
Adapting to the situation is how you find yourself skilled as a speaker; both being utilitarian and populist when it's appropriate.
I love the bit in Dave's video where he says something like 'many people seem to think that cognitive dissonance is just being really dumb'
Those short clips are actually so brief and understandable. Pretty much like summaries of an entire discussion or a video and im loving it. I was wondering for a while if that was actually Alex's own new channel...seems like it is....and its amazing.
It’s like these terms are magical incantations, and if you pronounce them you are, somehow, “refuting” the other person.
Well, when used correctly, they can.
"In the name of logical fallacy..."
@@meggie19 Agreed. I didn't phrase this post correctly. I was speaking of an interlocutor who doesn't really know what a fallacy is or how to use them.
12:54 But since murder is typically defined as the unjustifiable/unlawful killing of another human, changing the definition of murder to be "killing a life without good reason" is an appeal to emotion (but not necessarily an equivocation, given that you did state the definition prior to use, and aren't using it's other meanings), and then to "killing an innocent life without good reason" to meet your specified ethical context, and then saying people are supporting murder is an appeal to emotion by specifically eliciting emotional responses that hinder them from considering the truth value of the premises (such as whether murder is or should be defined in the way you have defined it, if taste, nutrition, nutritional efficiency, the fullness effects of meat, etc. are good reasons, and what "innocent" means in context of the food chain).
I know you said that an appeal to emotion is an argument that relies on playing on emotions _instead_ of evidence or logical arguments, but the appeal to emotion fallacy does not require that instead component. Thus, an otherwise rational argument can potentially possess an appeal to emotion. Because accusing someone of supporting murder necessarily clouds their judgment of rationally assessing the truth value of the argument.
13:07 It doesn't matter if you intended to use innocent only for the ethical situation, society definitely understands that innocent carries emotional baggage (and I don't personally find innocent to be particularly emotionally charged, but I recognize that the zeitgeist of America definitely does attach emotional baggage to the term due to the prevalent contentions over lack of justice pervasive in American history and present), and an appeal to emotion doesn't require intent to deceive or manipulate, just as a strawman argument doesn't require intent to deceive (although you've clearly attached some connotation of deception to that particular fallacy).
I also think it is disingenuous to say that people accusing you of appealing to emotions for using "innocent" are "immediately assuming the only reason" you're using "innocent" is for emotional reasons. This seems like a misrepresentation of their position, and perhaps their argument, and your rebuttal that that's not the situation targets the misrepresentation, and not their argument itself.
13:22 They "may" say, but unless they do say, you're misrepresenting their argument. "Innocent" in the definition of false imprisonment is different than "innocent" in the definition of murder, and both are different than saying someone supports the killing of an innocent person without good reason. And I think your example was good to represent your meaning, but if your implication was that innocent was necessary to the definition of both "false imprisonment" and "murder" through analogy, which you didn't state so I do not know if you meant to convey that, then that would be fallacious as well. I think you were just saying that "innocent" was necessary to the context that you were attempting to express, which was fine. But just like "person" was integral to the definition of "false imprisonment", I think the same is true of "murder", as the animal kingdom has no concept of murder, and while we may say Scar murdered Mufasa, we don't say that one lion murdered another (at least, not in a non-metaphorical way).
To your citation, the person's rebuttal, generous listening seems to indicate that "innocent" in front of "life" in the context of your statement appeals to emotions because of the emotional baggage of innocent and murder and your claim that people who eat meat for taste alone are supporting murder, which I don't think is sound, given that lab grown meat tastes like meat, and no murder was involved in the process. Thus, eating meat for taste alone is distinct from how the meat arrives at one's plate. Not to mention that meat arriving at your plate by meats of animal slaughter or factory farms' poor treatment is an appeal to consequences, namely that you eating meat can result in an increase or sustaining of an industry that treats animals in a way you disapprove of to provide the meat for you to consume. So, a meat-for-taste-alone eater supports murder due to the consequence of how the meat industry grows and subsequently treats animals to provide that meat. The murder part seems more like an appeal to emotion than the innocent part to me, but in the totality of the situation, "innocent life" does add a strong ethical, and thus emotional, component to the situation that doesn't really add meaning to the scenario, because "killing of a guilty life without good reason" is still also murder, as is "killing of a life without good reason" could arguably still be murder (I mean, since we're adjusting murder so greatly, I don't see why we need to stop at "innocent life", but I also don't know the context of the ethical situation of your tweets, so perhaps that context would resolve my ignorance), so the innocent adds an emotional baggage that simply is unnecessary to the redefinition of murder to include the slaughtering and processing of animals in preparation for consumption. It does make sense how someone could infer that the only reason to use "innocent life" over the alternatives suggested above is to elicit a particular emotional response (namely guilt), which dissuades an individual from rational consideration of the premises, be that intentional or not is moot.
Mmm nvm my take was bad
I missed a line, good job
It also seemed to me that Alex, when refuting the twitter comment, said first that he didn't use the word as the commenter assumed he did (the trust me argument) and then proceeded to another example to back himself up where the word innocent was used, saying that it was a necessary word to use to define the word life in that case. That is so, but it still doesn't hold in the initial example where the word is not needed to define life in that context - which supports your claim. At least that how it seems to a dullard like myself. Thank-you, far smarter than I, for challenging Alex, who is admittedly well on his way to remarkable success, and for many reasons. I have both of you to thank for helping to keep my old brain oiled.
Appeal to emotion is something you use constantly in your use of the triggering word RAPE in conjunction with animal fertilisation. You need to look at several facts associated with your beliefs and validate them, instead on relying on your peers saying "Believe me, I'm right" which it seems you do.
He uses the term 'murder' a lot when talking about animals for emotional effect. Animals are killed they aren't murdered, murder applies to human killing only
The problem with innocence and murder in relation to animal rights, is that both do have quite specific conotations in language. You first agree, that murder has this baggage most of the time, but not all of the time - if you define it as "taking innocent life". The problem is, you have used another word with similar kind of baggage in your argument. "Innocent" is usually undestood as the opposite of guilty. Animals cant shift from innocence to guilt. So to use innocence as a descriptor for an animal is logically superfluous - implying, that using it in this context is an appeal to emotion.
There is a counterargument, that in the "definition of murder", we are not talking about animals at all. Its a generalized definition. That is completely fair.
But if you were to use this argument, you then have to show, that animals should be defined as "innocent", which gets you back to square one in regards to appealing to emotion. Its going to be pretty hard to argue, that animals should be understood as definitionally "innocent", while the related concept of "guilt" does not apply...
Another point to be considered is in the strawman part - There is some merit to the claim of "strawman", because you have not actually proven, that "taste is the only reason" is (logically) TRUE.
You have done the first part of course - you did prove, that every SINGLE ulterior reason (like nutrition) is flawed. Agreed. But when arguing against each of these reasons alone, the overarching complexity is lost.
For instance, you can disprove: 1."I need animal products for nutrition" + 2."Vegan diet is too expensive" ... But for the purposes of the argument, you are collapsing a complex reality into simple statements... Some of the ignored implications might form valid arguments when put together - For example:
"A person can dedicate X-amount of time, Y-amount of money and needs Z-amount of "nutrients". It is true, that he can get Z, within X. It is also true, that he can get Z for Y. But it is NOT necessarily true, that he can get Z for Y within X " ...
Unless you can prove the above (Z for Y within X) for every person (or every relevant person), you have to concede, that "reasons other than taste" are possible...
Yeah in the first part he's implicitly saying that it's perfectly fine to eat guilty animals, which you demonstrated is absurd so there is absolutely no reason to add the word innocent, especially because of it's connotations
@@dustinhaas8538 There are many other problems with the word "murder" in the vegan context, but I wanted to limit it to the logical fallacy only... But for instance, to define murder as "taking an innocent life" would be completely ridiculous for the vast majority of applications of this word. A car accident would be murderous. A disease would be murderous. A falling tree would be murderous... etc.
Its just not a great idea to use it... I understand and share the sentiment... emotionally... but that is exactly why using it logically (or redefining it beyond recongition) is an appeal to emotion.
Great video Alex. I agree, you did no such fallacy here but I respectfully believe that your argumentation is still flawed in some way.
Lets talk about inocent animals: ok, it is not difficult to imagine that a 6 month lamb is innocent. But then, if an animal can be innocent, it means it can be guilty right? What would make an animal guilty? A shark assaulting a surfer? A mosquito transmitting malaria to a person? A parasitic worm blinding a child? A mouse trespassing and living in a house and stealing food?
Are some animals guilty as a specie because of their criminal way of life, like mosquitos or parasitic worms?
So in order to keep this point valid, you need to describe what would make an animal not innocent, otherwise, it will become an appeal to emotion fallacy.
I do not think you can, and therefore there is no such thing as an innocent animal, there are just animals, wich weakens your point.
In reference to a human vs an animal, the intelligence factor makes them necessarily innocent in every situation, as we know better. Is there a situation in which a child is guilty of a crime when they literally do not know better?
I don't think this works like you think. You're assigning blame to the action rather than the choice of being able to withhold it.
@@felicityc Ok, so you think humains are superior than other beings because of their intelligence. Humans are the adults of the creation. The man is a bit like the daddy of the animals.
I don't.
We assign blame to an action because we live in a society and for it to work, we set rules. Outside the society, for exemple in the wild, or in contact with other societies, those notions of innocent, guilty, or wrongdoing, go out of the window.
ad hominem: exists
parents: I'm about to end this man's career
The last one reminds me of the scene in family guy where Lois just says 9/11 while running for office and the crowd goes nuts and cheers lol
I have thought that cosmic clips was made by someone else and actively didnt watch them to not see your content somewhere else.. damn
Same here.
Same here.
As a pro-tip you can press the 'channels' button on someone's page where you can generally see if another channel is related to theirs.
(For example his music channel called Casualex)
@@Pumbear I know I can check but didn't bother and just assumed, which is in itself a flawed thing to not do and just assume lol
@@adelkayani2595
Fair enough, I just gave some advice :)
It really is interesting how people have an emotional reaction to something and claim that you coerced them by using the word. If you used the word correctly as representative of reality and then that makes you feel bad then there is something that goes against what you believe and need to re-evaluate your stance. It doesn’t mean we are making things up to make you emotionally agree 🤷🏻
Emo is in the beholver, and is learned by!?
Fundamentally wrong.
We notice the purposeful use of the word intended to elicit emotion and call it out not because we feel bad, but because we recognize the flaw in the argument.
Murder by definition inherently incorporates the word "innocent", and both definitions require the intended and purposeful actions of the PERSON in question. As animals cannot commit crimes nor do things which are "good" or "bad", they therefore can neither be innocent nor be the target of murder.
So to include the word innocent, when it is already part of the definition of murder is like saying (The ATM machine). Either he is stupid (which I dont believe), or he includes the word ON PURPOSE to elicit emotion. And to prove this further, he claims you can switch "murder" with "imprisonment", yet the word imprisonment doesn't already incorporate the word innocent. So his example literally proves that he is wrong (also note how he switched to "person" in this case)
Maybe you need to reevaluate your stance and why you have to do backflips to justify something that is literally a category error?
@@enigmaticaljedi6808 All fine and well, just remember the fallacy fallacy. Just because someone argues in a fallacious way doesn't mean they are wrong.
The arguments still works when one uses the descriptive words "killing" and "suffering", making the act immoral still.
So either one has arguments against, or one is illogically defending the meateating position.
@@enigmaticaljedi6808 i disagree this is why, an animal can commit an act of violence and there will there will be consequences. As many overly aggressive dogs are put down because of doing something morally wrong to humans like randomly attacking for whatever reasons. These animals however haven't, so therefore they are inocent animals, being slaughtered for the taste of their flesh. Moral consistency is key, is there a intrinsic moral difference between the value of the life of dogs and pigs, cows and cats? So why slaughter them needlessly. It seems like a no brainer, but culture should justify unnecessary suffering. Vegans will have to question there moral consistency and change there ways if they believe animals suffering is an issue, veganism is minimum we can do. @earthlinged
@@DeadEndFrog You are correct, which is why the counter argument doesn't just stop at pointing out the fallacies.
Sadly the argument doesn't still work when using killing or suffering, as moral acts are NOT about the target of such acts but about those who have the INTENT of committing them.
There is a reason why pre-meditated murder is treated differently to manslaughter.
Also note, that some people equivocate on the word "suffering" and claim that even to end the life of an animal prematurely would constitute suffering.
Buttom line. Morality is a construct of SOCIAL SPECIES, designed to guide behavior for the well being of that species. If you want to extend this to animals, you MUST MAKE A CASE for them being included. Simply saying they are included "cos ma feels" isn't sufficient.
But all of that is irrelevant to the actual topic here, which is why Alex goes out of his way to use purposeful language designed to elicit emotion and why he is now trying to justify his actions while ignoring the fallacies he is committing. He doesn't choose the words you suggested for a reason, and the fact in the examples he gave here he repeatedly keeps using topics and switch in/out humans for animals as if they are completely interchangeable shows at best a sub conscious bias on his part, but at worse a purposeful misdirection
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way. You make me feel pretty smart, Mr. O'Connor. Thanks for sharing logic and reason.
Great video, Alex. Thank you for sharing this.
Often, ignorant people as well as pseudo intellectuals falsely accuse others of committing logical fallacies, while in the same sentence (almost without fail) they commit the fallacies themselves!
It seems like some people learn the names of fallacies, and (attempting to sound "smart") they go around claiming that others are committing them (when they're clearly not), because they're too dumb or dishonest to care about the truth.
Are unborn human babies humans? Are the alive? Are human babies alive after being aborted?
Very informative. Alex, when can we expect something in print from you?
I think part of the disconnect is that people confuse "fallacy" for "bad argument".
An example was your discussion of an ad hominem attack. Attacking someone personally may not be logically fallacious, but it's generally not a good way to argue.
I think one reason why the “innocent (nonhuman) animal” argument might has awoken this persons anger, is in part due to the question if an animal can be innocent. I would argue that for a nonhuman animal to be innocent a guilty nonhuman animal would have to exist (at least in theory). But nonhuman animal lack the capability to consider the moral implication of an action therefore can't be guilty (in the same way that a bacteria or a stone can't be guilty). If you would argue that for that reason all nonhuman animals are innocent than innocent is just a pleonasm not giving any additional information to your argument.
Thanks for the great explanations. They actually make me feel more comfortable getting into discussions
Always watch the ads, it adds up for Alex.
Thank you for this. Been struggling with understanding the dynamics to basic logical fallacies. This helped, Thank you.
Tree turn to stone lol stone age download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/8E8-kg7SQ4k/видео.html
Download video
evidence of super massive tree w/leaves longer
m.ruclips.net/video/NovvYzzOI70/видео.html
petrified large trees download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/3_CniMGNyXs/видео.html
Animals
m.ruclips.net/video/P29XXLX40g4/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html
Download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/Qwjz_UkzKvM/видео.html
_____________
Mudfossils Giant hairs and sweat glands download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html
Titan Muscle
m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html
Mudfossils Giant download
m.ruclips.net/video/0_upHPBH7Tg/видео.html
Megalithic Seamless Perfect walls download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html
Peru Wall
m.ruclips.net/video/fmvTqmhxlbQ/видео.html
Download videos
Puma Punku Decodeded
m.ruclips.net/video/BPekF0OqWyg/видео.html
From a Rock and it is a Gusher
m.ruclips.net/video/Z1qrk5Q49Sw/видео.html
Wise up channel download videosm.ruclips.net/video/KH2Gp0ciwkA/видео.html
Download videos
ANCIENT HIGH TECHNOLOGY
m.ruclips.net/video/HgN51djJhXs/видео.html
machines technolocal
m.ruclips.net/video/9TKhTRqFJ5I/видео.html
Download videos
ANCIENT TECH BEEN FOUND
m.ruclips.net/video/Pmzz4JQ82Lo/видео.html
Download video
TECH TURNED TO ROCK
m.ruclips.net/video/RL-aWrUt4Uw/видео.html
elephant
m.ruclips.net/video/_kVyLYUolZ0/видео.html
Dry Dock or IMPRINT OF A SHIP download video
m.ruclips.net/video/iaNTxwm4SyM/видео.html
STEEL OF GIANT STRUCTURES NOW TURNED SOFT ROCK
m.ruclips.net/video/3hNT1sMTf7k/видео.html
Download video
Tomb Of The Kings 'lol'
m.ruclips.net/video/Ut27sA8rcoE/видео.html
IMPRINTS in rock tech Past
m.youtube.com/watch?v=GTgWP5vZM
________________________
Titans download videos
m.ruclips.net/p/PLewamc6Dtp7FYzJVu-TtjH3EkW7RJAyVc
m.ruclips.net/p/PLyk-JRol2OkHnOtghXbNlJfPIXMm9X9Ax
m.ruclips.net/video/1angjWHG1kk/видео.html
petrified giants
m.ruclips.net/video/62gNrlTkOKE/видео.html
Download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/DahmnTSe0E4/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html
Ball sphere Giant Balls are Biology not Concretions
m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/7P7i3pf-pes/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/q6CVOkuyzy0/видео.html
_________________________
Giants download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/e-90KoNKK0E/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/QqOuhDQrOdw/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/9UKljodqMyc/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/hSk2shVV9kg/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/47Z65dbXHKw/видео.html
Mud fossils
m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html&list=PLEpr4aa9rk9rWRN1b-9-HKcrt04R5Egsk&index=2&t=0s
m.ruclips.net/video/iZADYbNEwOw/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html&list=PLQrS3ZMc_7j30fm7y1VZIEVxVbsZY83H3&index=13&t=0s
Mud fossils
m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html
______________________
Pyramids solved
1
m.ruclips.net/video/ajlNSyzE-p4/видео.html
2
m.ruclips.net/video/WNgNZSAfFSQ/видео.html
3
m.ruclips.net/video/X61ePmInjG4/видео.html
4
m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html
5
m.ruclips.net/video/JHCq6IUUqiI/видео.html
6
m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/zTlTiYNTyDg/видео.html
4 temple
m.ruclips.net/video/YK1bwnqXvX4/видео.html
Documentary
Quest for the Lost civilization
m.ruclips.net/video/T5DNvYMtkyk/видео.html
_________________________
Tartaria Read
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/19/victorian-women-forced-to-give-up-their-babies-new-exhibition
www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once.40/
thebridgelifeinthemix.info/history/history-big-lie-understanding-tartaria/
eclypticstudios.com/home/?p=3025
bennettleeross.com/history/the-golden-age-the-gilded-age-the-new-age-and-beyond/
weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/22/the-lost-civilizations-of-north-america-were-they-tartarian-cities/
guidesblog.org/2019/02/21/our-missing-history-mud-floods-giants-free-electricity-depopulation-and-lies-videos/
weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/atmospheric-etheric-energy-aee-antiqui-tech-of-the-tartars/
secretenergy.com/tag/tartary-flag/
www.metacenterchicago.com/2018/09/16/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once/
www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartarian-power-plants-and-the-invading-parasites-that-co-opted-them.295/
www.stolenhistory.org/video/
Wireless
m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=Tartaria+wireless
Some Truths You Probably Don't Really Want to Hear! (an eye opening video)
m.ruclips.net/video/HhQJqfTaH3I/видео.html
Mud Floods The Untold Story About Our History
m.ruclips.net/video/Q9IOhkUT9IA/видео.html
Tartarian Empire mudflood
m.ruclips.net/video/gQQiCVMKSZQ/видео.html
Antennas of the past
m.ruclips.net/video/BV-E50qIxmk/видео.html
free energy Antennas
m.ruclips.net/video/XtYhYaeWj64/видео.html
Resonant Frequencies
m.ruclips.net/video/asYztIkNsoc/видео.html
architecture in Japan in 1900
m.ruclips.net/video/RxA1xiSZxXA/видео.html
_______________________
I and Js
m.ruclips.net/video/2alOn7ni4Nw/видео.html
1000 Years of Fake History
m.ruclips.net/video/qJ2q5t6Vp_Y/видео.html
Fake Years of History - Dark Ages Never Existed
m.ruclips.net/video/heJdBGUu9CI/видео.html
1773-1920's; The Ruin
m.ruclips.net/video/CyBhengRZ-Q/видео.html
Tartaria: The Largest Country Hidden By Fake History (Part 1)
m.ruclips.net/video/wWuLMBdzJNg/видео.html
18 civil war
m.ruclips.net/video/_UMJKObmPb4/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/dUty71ovS5Q/видео.html
1865 Birth of a Civil Hoax
m.ruclips.net/video/2KOhJq3enSY/видео.html
Staged Historic Photos
m.ruclips.net/video/L9RON_--Qc4/видео.html
_______________________
Tartaria Introduction -A Civilization Erased?, Lost in Time 1
m.ruclips.net/video/a-OwGciMRUQ/видео.html
Tartaria & the Mud Flood Part 3 A Civilisation Erased?, Lost in Time
m.ruclips.net/video/1S1QC6H4kEk/видео.html
__________________________
El Hyperloop de TARTARIA MUNDIAL. THE OLD tunnels
m.ruclips.net/video/KXMxLbF-_ZI/видео.html
Airships in Tartarian China Mauritania and Peru
m.ruclips.net/video/p5-2FIp5hI0/видео.html
History of Balloons Of Electrostatic Tethering
m.ruclips.net/video/H0g1bOeZ9ao/видео.html
Airships Balloons are the same resembles tha vehicle of today
m.ruclips.net/video/_kvhDuR5twk/видео.html
magnetic flying machines and the electric fararday
m.ruclips.net/video/ouJ8fj7Rf98/видео.html
______________________
Solfeggio frequencies therapy
Read
walterbitner.com/2015/08/21/the-legacy-of-guido-darezzo/
coloraturaconsulting.com/2012/06/27/composer-biography-guido-darezzo-c991-1033/
subtle.energy/silent-solfeggio/
markalburgermusichistory.blogspot.com/7991/01/guido-darezzo-991-1034.html?m=1
freqe1.com/solfeggio-rising/solfeggio-frequencies/
miraclesandinspiration.com/solfeggiofrequencies.html
www.attainablemind.com/2010/04/solfeggio-frequencies-binaural-beats.html?m=1
Sound Frequency That Cures Diseases & Disorders w/Guest Sharry Edwards
m.ruclips.net/video/1xENoF8gG54/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=solfeggio+frequencies+medicine
m.ruclips.net/video/GJYS5_nMa0I/видео.html
Documentary
m.ruclips.net/video/5O8LPnlh_sM/видео.html
_________________________
5G
dispatchesfromtheasylum.com/2019/02/26/5g-and-gmo-electromagnetic-waves-and-genetic-engineering-profit-driven-destruction/
www.thinkaboutit.online/globalists-killing-humanity-with-5g-technology/
www.thelibertybeacon.com/corona-virus-fakery-and-the-link-to-5g-testing/
patriots4truth.org/2018/10/18/5g-can-end-humanity-as-we-know-it/
wholetones.com/ltr/1
www.knowingthetruth.com/5g-wireless-corona-virus-connection-exposed/
m.ruclips.net/video/sg5XSt2b4Fs/видео.html
5g interview
m.ruclips.net/video/mrBiLbhvZCs/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/DyiQ80BMSQQ/видео.html
Documentary
m.ruclips.net/video/9mK93gHFWXs/видео.html&feature=emb_rel_pause
c123movies.com/generation-zapped/
m.ruclips.net/video/xDy2tHCPdk8/видео.html
5g antenna
m.ruclips.net/video/sgRQwdFGvdA/видео.html
Meat is a more efficient way of receiving some nutrients than plant based alternatives.
It also takes less time to prepare than plant based substitutes.
A lot of vegans don't get health checks. If they did, they might find that things like the iron levels in their blood are very low.
I was vegetarian for ten years. My iron levels got so low that even iron injections didn't work. Going back to a omnivorous diet was the only thing that got my iron levels back to normal.
Thank you for clarifying the implication of a strawman charge. I’ll make sure to be careful next time.
Yeah, it is sad but what he is talking happens a lot.
Sometimes the issue is that we do not explain ourselves well. So of course the other person will have a hard time to understand our argument.
Sometimes it is best to ask the person what they understood of our argument first, instead of accusing him of strawman
Yay the notification bell is working!
It is 😀
I hate you all😭
Once every 666 years
One of most carefully and accurately worded explanations I've heard! Nicely done! Amazing what one can do with English when one knows how to use it.
Insulting word = Ad Hominem
Emotional word = Appeal to emotion
You can see how the mentality is similar, and how misusing one can make you more prone to misusing the other.
Nuance is not easy, neither is studying the uses of these words, it's easier for most people to just oversimplify and weaponize these terms.
@@s1lverbullet1234 the road of least resistance. I gotta do better.
You can also attack the motives, character, emotional state or any other aspect of the person and that is still an ad hominem fallacy.
Appeal to emotion can be non-emotional words and ad hominem can be necessarily uninsulting words.
RUclips Commenter.
My mate learned the term straw man, then called every point I made a straw man. This video is very necessary haha
I didn’t think was possible for your content to get better - I thought your content was at its peak. But somehow you keep raising bar. Thanks for all you do, Alex!
@CosmicSkeptic In your explanation of appeal to emotion somewhere around 13:30, "innocent" in the case of false imprisonment is based on the existence of laws which lead to imprisonment. On the other hand, the use of "innocent" in the tweet does not (in my humble opinion) base itself in the existence of a law. This feels wrong. Would you mind elucidating your stance on this?
"innocent" is the default state, not the state of not being imprisoned. one is innocent until proven guilty. you can maybe convict a cow through some wild legal hoops but that just proves the point :\
I agree. It doesn't seem that the work 'innocent' was necessary to use to define "life" in the tweet as it was in Alex's rebuttal example.
4:02 - 4:25 Incorrect unfortunately, by definition a straw man fallacy needs intent. Just mistaking the opposing position is just that... Mistaking.
Definition: 'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.'
Think of it this way: you are metaphorically putting up a straw man and attacking it, BECAUSE it is so easy to to defeat. That is not the case with a mistake. And when u are mistaking a position for another, u might think its harder or just as hard to argue, but ur opponent might think ure making it easier for yourself. Who is right? This is why intent matters. Because intention to misrepresent in debate inherently implies u are making it easier for yourself. There is little other reason to intentionally misrepresent an opponent.
That's literally what he said in the video, son. You typed all of this for nothing.
@@huguesdepayens807 '.. isnt always strawmanning on purpose' that doesn't exist. Watch the whole clip and pay careful attention to the wording
Everyone on twitter need to watch this video.... This should be a mandatory tutorial that you have to take before entering twitter XD
Some of the people in the examples had a valid logical point. Especially the guy with "appeal to emotion" - he agrees with the position of veganism, but (correctly) objects to some of the rhetoric used. It can be quite easily demonstrated, that he is right... Im surprised Alex missed it.
@@psychepeteschannel5500 You need to provide some example on this. The one tweet that was shown in this video is clearly a misuse of the word "appeal to emotion". And what does "correctly object to rhetoric" even mean?
@@Ermude10 Hi Ermude. I posted it in response directly to Alex, please find it below ;)
Hi Alex, The problem with innocence and murder in relation to animal rights, is that both do have quite specific conotations in language. You first agree, that murder has this baggage most of the time, but not all of the time - if you define it as "taking innocent life". The problem is, you have used another word with similar kind of baggage in your argument. "Innocent" is usually undestood as the opposite of guilty. Animals cant shift from innocence to guilt. So to use innocence as a descriptor for an animal is logically superfluous - implying, that using it in this context is an appeal to emotion.
There is a counterargument, that in the "definition of murder", we are not talking about animals at all. Its a generalized definition. That is completely fair.
But if you were to use this argument, you then have to show, that animals should be defined as "innocent", which gets you back to square one in regards to appealing to emotion. Its going to be pretty hard to argue, that animals should be understood as definitionally "innocent", while the related concept of "guilt" does not apply...
@Psyche Pete's Channel "The problem is, you have used another word with similar kind of baggage in your argument. "Innocent" is usually undestood as the opposite of guilty."
I see, I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you. However in this case, I think the intention wasn't to appeal to emotion, but rather make a distinctive and generalized definition that would apply well to murder, and he failed to find a word that didn't carry any emotional connotations. I think all of these kinds of things would be so much easier to discuss and reach a better understanding of if people wouldn't just simply call out and accuse each other and skip the whole "here's why I think you're wrong".
@@Ermude10 I completely agree with you. But at this point, the responsibility for this starts to fall more on the vegan side (from what I have seen)... If even someone like Alex, who is a very experienced and well read ... lets say... philosopher - missed these kinds of problems and claims absolute moral truth on his side of argument, imagine how many "normal" vegans are going around like this.
I feel like veganism has enough moral ground to be the only choice, that is also why I am one :-) ... BUT the vegan position doesnt win every discussion by logic alone... Vegans are becoming like Ben Shapiro. A lot of great points and good logic... but then a serious blunder of overconfidence.
btw. the other problem I see is with the strawman part.
Alex can flawlessly prove, that each single reason is invalid - leaving ony "taste pleasure"... but these refuted reason still form valid arguments when combined. Like this:
"A person can dedicate X-amount of time, Y-amount of money and needs Z-amount of "nutrients". It is true, that he can get Z, within X. It is also true, that he can get Z for Y. But it is NOT necessarily true, that he can get Z for Y within X " ...
Unless you can prove the above (Z for Y within X) for every person (or every relevant person), you have to concede, that "reasons other than taste" are possible.
You can't get from an is to an ought
Therefore every ethical argument has to fundamentally be an emotional argument
After all even if your argument is valid you still need to ground it in something the person cares about
Just because you formulate an argument in a formally logical way, doesn't mean the actual appeal isn't an emotional one
It would be an appeal to morality more than anything.
Since I myself don't have any emotion when he give me that argument, but I understand it by my own morality
I think there are more factors when it comes to eating meat, not just flavour, but also convenience and accesibility. It is true we can get the same nutrients from other sources, but they are often not as easily accessible and may take some extra effort to get (may differ in different parts of the world). Yet another factor is the price, some of the substitutes may simply be more expensive, to get the amount of calories and nutrients required
True though I guess it is/should be up to a person to bring up those factors rather than just say or suggest nutrients are just completely unavailable.
12:17 Murder isn't defined as "taking innocent life without good reason". If murder is defined so broadly as "taking innocent life without good reason", then what is homicide? What is manslaughter? Further, taking one's own life (suicide) arguably fits that broad definition of murder... since in a large proportion of suicides, while depression is certainly a reason to take your life, it's rarely ever a *good* one.
Murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of a person by another. Both murder and manslaughter are specific legal categories of homicide (also parricide, infanticide, etc). Homicide and suicide are specific categories of killing.
Murder has little to do with whether the life taken was innocent but has more to do with intent of the killer and circumstances that lead to the death. A search for vigilante killings that resulted in murder sentences should quickly prove this. Even when there is reasonable motivation, it's generally not up to civilians to enact forceful intervention or justice - it's the job of the police, the courts and prison system to deal with that.
Take the case of Byron David Smith for example, whose house had been robbed multiple times by thieves. One day he parked his car down the road, holed up in his house with a gun and when the thieves returned, he shot and killed them in the basement (the thieves' point of entry into the house). He was sentenced to life with no parole for first-degree murder.
On the flip-side, a man discovered his daughter being sexually assaulted by rapist Jesus Mora Flores, and killed Flores. He was not indicted, but not because Flores was guilty of committing a crime - it was because of the imminent threat to the daughter's life.
More specifically - and more accurately - the fuzzy "without good reason" part of the murder definition given, as per the courts, would be something close to "without the immediate threat of grievous bodily harm or death to self or others, or to prevent a felony in one's residence" - which is the "unlawful" part of the actual definition.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm even writing all this. I guess the reason is that when I hear vegans say "meat is murder" or another variation on the slogan, it's not convincing because even besides the unconventional definition, I don't react to the death or killing of humans emotionally the same way that I react to that of animals. So not only is there a logical and intellectual disconnect but also an emotional disconnect when that particular talking point gets used.
Can I just say HOW HAPPY I AM to have you on the side of the animals, Alex?
💚💚💚
Concerning your example at 5:07, I do not consider your statement "We dont dont have the right to harm an animal for the sake of taste pleasure" a straw man given the assumption that this sentence is meant literally. However, if it is meant as a reason to be vegan then you have not considered alternative views sufficiently. For example what if people do it out of convenience, necessity, religious belief, ... . Then you have certainly strawmanned the oposing position by claiming "the ONLY thing you cant get elsewhere is how it tastes." I do not agree by the way that you cannot get the taste pleasure elsewhere, since vegan/vegetarian alternatives are becoming quite convincing. I think it is also worth pointing out that "You do not have the RIGHT ..." is a rather strong claim. Did our ancestors behave wrongly by hunting and eating game? At what point did it become wrong? Even today we have starving people that might depend on any kind of meal they can get, perhaps a rat, a pidgeon, or some other animal local to that region. I would pose that, not from a moral standpoint but some other undefined one, our ancestors where justified in doing so, assuming we would not exist as we do today otherwise.
while not fully the point of your comment this here is the reason i don't think i will ever become a vegan, it has been shown that long time vegans have a hard time or in some cases become incapable of digesting meat. in a survival situation whether because you got lost in the woods, got stuck on a deserted island, or maybe your government collapsed causing the downfall of society, you want to be able to get a meal out of anything and everything you can. i personally don't want to be in a situation where i need to eat and i can't hunt the nice calorie rich animal in front of me because i can't digest it anymore.
Premises 1: any being capable of suffering has moral worth.
Sure cows are capable of suffering, so are chickens and the innocent nematodes that inhabit nearly every piece of fruit and vegetable you eat. But yet some have a great moral aversion to eating a cow and lesser moral aversion to eating a peach. Why? They seem to think that moral worth of a cow is somehow greater than a moral worth of a innocent nematode. As if the moral worth is a on some sliding scale.
Plants haven't been proven to suffer
@@yasmeenshaker6353 What would it take to prove they suffer? We only really know our own suffering, other than that we can only infer it. When we see someone in a situation that would make us suffer it is reasonable to conclude they are suffering. But for creatures very different from us such inferences such inferences are questionable. Anthropomorphism is a mistake.
"Suffering" is a broad term. People experiencing physical harm suffer and so do those with a broken heart or fans whose team just lost. Whatever suffering is we know it is achieved via the nervous system. The more capable to the nervous system the greater the capacity to suffer. nematodes have a simple nervous system, they probably don't suffer to much. Pigs have a complex one, they probably suffer a lot. Chickens are somewhere in between. I can't tell you where you should draw the line between what you will or will not eat. There is no simple easy answer to that question.
on the meat eating subject. I disagree that you can get the same nutrition from non-meat sources. not only in most instances is the nutrients different or in lower quantities, they are also often far less bioavailable and require more enzymatic reactions (which some people may have polymorphisms blocking the reactions) to break down and use by the body. another example is fat type, omega 3's are highly bioavailable from fish sources but not very bioavailable in plant sources. Another example; vitamin B12 and vitamin K2 are abundant in animal sources but often scarce in the vegetable kingdom, or iron is a far less bioavailable source in a vegetable form. I completely agree that veganism/vegetarianism is ethically correct, but, some people are not genetically geared to cope well on that type of diet, I've experimented with non-meat diet and it was not good for me. anyway another good video :)
I don't tolerate beans and legumes very well. So this would be a problem out the gate. Undoubtedly, if I went vegan, I would then have to/be compelled to do high carbohydrate and ultimately that has consequences.
Alex, the main problem your viewers have with you recent videos is that you shifted your focus from religion and philosophy to actively fighting for veganism every time you get the chance. At the same time, you seem to lose the eloquence and wit that we all loved you for in the past.
This video, innocently stating that it deals with the wrong use of logical fallacies, is actually another place to respond to some critics of your veganism videos who had bad arguments. I also specifically remember that you did include videos of animals suffering in your video, that were somewhat out of place there, so I am not sure the appeal to emotion criticism can be dismissed that easily.
Your new focus on veganism is very dominant in your recent work. You might be right and you certainly have made your point. Those videos are simply not as thought-provoking or entertaining as your former and -at least I personally - subscribed for other content.
I might be misunderstanding somtehing, but the tweet at 5:20 did not say that "getting proper nutrition" was an argument for why you sould eat meat, right? In fact i dont think the tweet makes any argument except that you "strawmanned the omnivourous side of the fence" and that taste is not the only argument for eating meat. To be clear, i agree with you on veganism in general, i just think you missunderstood this tweet, but please correct me if i am wrong.
Well the real trouble is that the tweet doesn't mention the other reasons for eating meat besides taste pleasure, it just says there are other reasons. Alex assumed they meant nutrition and I assumed they meant nutrition as well tbh. Because besides nutrition and taste, what reason is there to eat food? If they didn't mean nutrition then it is really their mistake for not stating whatever these other reasons were.
@@Pumbear Sure... I'm just saying that Alex (and apparently you), are wrong in that assumption. The point about strawmanning still stands though, so i guess it's kind of irrelevant anyways haha.
@@BillyGamerz
Well it could be a wrong assumption, but is it? What other reason is there besides nutrition and taste?
@@Pumbear I don't think nutrition is a reason. As i said, there are very few, if any, reasons to morally justify eating meat.
@@BillyGamerz
Ok.. So name a reason to eat meat that is not related to nutrition or taste...
I'd say that using the term 'innocent' in the context of animals is indeed an appeal to emotion. How is an animal innocent? - term relates to humans and the question of guilt. If you are talking about animal slaughter / killing it is just that, adding the term innocent is unnecessary. If you determine an animal as innocent there must be something it is innocent of - what is it 'not guilty of?
Slaughtering of farm animals isn't killing 'innocent' animals, it is just killing them - what are they innocent of?
I can't just say you are 'innocent' I don't know what the charge is, I don't know what we are assessing the guilt of.
My guess is innocent of anything that would make it ok to murder?
@@doofy3111 He hasn't made that clear though has he? He's just saying an animal is innocent - the term is an unexplained adjective in his context - it used by humans to negate guilt and in his usage is nothing more than a conveyer of emotion.
@@modelsteamers671 I see what your saying then
@@doofy3111 If I go out and murder someone, it is a murder. The media may say the murder of an 'innocent person' but what are they innocent of? stealing cars maybe? if the murdered person commits vandalism we don't say a guilty person was murdered do we?
The animals that go to the slaughter house everyday aren't 'innocent' they aren't guilty either, they are simply being killed - any use of the word innocent just alludes to human qualities and carries emotional baggage.
@@modelsteamers671 I’m getting lost with some of your examples, what does murder mean to you?
An insult without the "and therefore Alex must be wrong" can still be an Ad Hominem because the clear intent is to get the audience to think less of Alex, and therefore less of his argument. It also appeals to the emotion of the audience if the insult stirs up contempt, ridicule, anger, shame, disgust, etc, against Alex in the eyes of the audience (audience includes Alex himself). The explicit syllogism isn't there, but the clear intent/result is the same.
I disagree with the appeal to emotion section for one reason. The twitter example has two parts, innocent AND without good reason whilst the imprisonment example uses only the former. Thus I see them as not playing on a level field. I could argue that 'without good reason' already covers innocence or not, but adjectives in a way like this can be used to smuggle in emotional language to sway the opinion of an audience. I wouldn't say this is the case in this specific example, but perhaps similar sentences in another context can be.
Yet this wouldn't be a fallacy per se, because if emotional language is used this way the person isn't stating right or wrong because of the adjectives. Then it is a narrative tool which can be considered underhanded.
Also, the definition of "taking an innocent life without good reason" would include the accidental taking of life.
There are no long term studies on a diet completely void of animal foods, nutrition science isn't black and white and there is so much more to understanding nutrition. For every study in favor of a "plant-based diet," (key word, plant-based, because there aren't any long term vegan diets,) is a study just as reputable that can contradict it. Saturated animal fat and cholesterol is required for every metabolic process and is required to synthesize vitamin D from the sun, a vitamin vegans get even less than meat eaters already. Heme iron being the only iron bioavailable to humans, and the only iron that can properly reverse anemia. Veganism lacks B12, obviously, with supplementation varying in efficacy, adequate amounts of fat soluble vitamins such as D3, K2(MK4, MK7, MK9), bioavailable vitamin A (retinol) and vitamin E. Eating only plants will offset your omega3-omega6 ratio, plants and vegetable seed oils contain large quantities of inflammatory omega6 fatty acids that is difficult to balance out. Then you have to take the gut-microbiome into consideration, and how healthy your digestive system actually is. There's a multitude of factors that effect digestibility of certain foods. Like antinutrients, which can wreak havoc on the gastrointestinal tract. The paper value on the back of a box means absolutely nothing to the human body and you cannot assume we can be optimally healthy on a vegan diet long term regardless of how meticulous your attention to your nutrition intake and supplementation.
When it comes to the environmental issue, I'd like to mention the large amount of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, etc. and harmful synthetic vitamins and minerals that are used in conventional plant agriculture, used to kill pests by the millions. Wild rabbits, deer, mice, voles, birds, anything that would cause harm to the crops. Also happens to cause soil depletion, wreaks havoc on water supplies and natural habitats due to runoff excess plant feed being dumped, which happens on many of the farms you get your GMO monocrops from, often resulting in the deaths of an immeasurable amount of animals. Feed runoff has caused red tide. The carbon emissions of conventional farming alone, animal and plant, both are causing extreme detriment to the ozone layer... I could go on and on, but I urge you to look into these things a bit.
Giving all these variables into account, how c an you argue that we eat animal foods for "taste pleasure" when we are in fact biologically an obligate omnivore. Animal foods cannot be mimicked or replaced, we cannot conclude your claims to be true until we have a scientifically validated case of a human subsisting off strictly plant foods from birth to death, also meaning the mothers breast milk cannot contain nutrients from animal foods as well.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941825/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502319/
academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/633S/4690005
www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5983041/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967179/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3303980/
www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/cholesterol#:~:text=Cholesterol%20is%20important,-Cholesterol%20is%20produced&text=We%20need%20a%20small%20amount,body%20to%20produce%20vitamin%20D
openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000898
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335257/
if humans are obligate carnivores, why does meat cause plaque buildup in arteries? Do you think that animals that eat their meat raw from the dead animal's carcass suffer from heart disease?
@@carlpereira2784 Meat doesn't cause atherosclerosis, there's a multitude of various factors that need to be accounted for. Calcification of the arterial walls doesn't just happen because you ate meat, that's illogical outdated epidemiological studies that have been disproved over and over again. BMI, blood pressure, nutrition, lifestyle all hugh factors and you can get heart disease regardless of your meat intake. Butter increases HDL, eggs increase HDL, LDL transports calcium deposits and only puts them in the wrong place if you're unhealthy by other means, you can be unhealthy and get heart disease even if your LDL is low. It comes down to lipid density, K2 intake, D3 levels and oxidative stress from omega-6 dominant fatty acid profile, like what the plant-based diets are high it. Refer to the linked studies for more information.
so i could eat a vegan diet with natto for k2, algal oil based omega 3 supplemets for EPA and DHA (as well as flaxseeds for ALA which converts to EPA and DHA) as well as getting vitamin D3 from the sun/ mushrooms placed in the sun/ a vegan D3 supplement and i would be fine.
@@carlpereira2784 Yes, nato has K2, but K2 being a fat soluble vitamin you need to consume it with fat/have adequate dietary fat and bile production to properly covert and absorb any amount of the vitamin.
While algae supplements have preformed EPA/DHA, the efficiency of absorption varies from person to person and a lot of people have algae allergies and cannot take those supplements you mention.
Thirdly, not everyone lives in a hemisphere of which they can get the necessary sun exposure for adequate D3 synthesis, also the issue of vegans not having high enough LDL/HDL levels to do said synthesis. Plus the conversion rate and degradation issues with consuming mushrooms for D3, because mushrooms contain mostly D2, with widely varying D3/D4, in UV treated mushrooms only, with small amounts that can't provide significant dietary D3. So on and so fourth, there's a lot to cover.
So considering the multitude of variables in nutrition science we need to take the totality of evidence into consideration and not make assumptions like "taste pleasure" when you don't have nutrition background of any sort. Mr. @CosmicSkeptic is only making subjective claims which do not hold validity in objective reality. Again, obligate omnivore by nature's design that will not be altered through unnatural and under researched plant "alternatives," just because we can get it "somewhere else" does not indicate those means are healthy or practicable.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6835948/#:~:text=The%20human%20conversion%20rate%20of,23%2C24%2C25%5D.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18220672/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25117997/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3349454/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331567/
healthfully.com/advantages-disadvantages-algae-8235187.html
What are your thoughts on psychedelics in general, Alex? Have you ever considered giving them a try for some reason or another?
Hey Alex, does your argument for veganism includes microanimals? Like Tardigrads, hydras or daphnias for example.
You mean the argument that sentience is sufficient for moral worth?
When it comes to your argument:
"p1 : any being capable of suffering has moral worth.
p2 : cows are capable of suffering
c: therefore cows have moral worth."
Is only sound if both premises are true. Just stating them as premises doesn't make them true by definition. Hence I would agree this is a logical argument, but I wouldn't agree it's necessarily a sound argument. I may be inclined to agree with the premises, but I don't know they are true, I merely assume them to be true. Without proof that both premises actually are true, I can't agree to the qualification of the argument being sound, I can merely agree that the argument is logical. Though to be fair, if an argument is merely logical and not necessarily sound, I'm already quite happy as it doesn't happen that often in these youtube comment sections.
We have the same nervous system my guy, we evolved the same cells
Pain is universal in mammals and you can't believe those screams are just for no reason
@@felicityc
So we are suddenly narrowing down the catagory of "any being" to just 'mammals'. Are you setting me up for a changing the goalpost fallacy or what?
As I said before, I'm happy already if the argument is merely logical (as in valid), demanding arguments to be sound is a bit too much to ask from human beings of which most can't even manage to present an argument that's merely valid. Thanks for demonstrating my point.
Unless of course you mean to argue that any being that doesn't scream can't possibly be suffering, your response doesn't address my position. If you mean to argue this, I'd like to see your argumentation for it. But I doubt this is what you intended. I can consider the possibility that fish can suffer, even though I never heared a fish scream.
But let me ask you another question. Can you name me an example of a being capable of suffering that hasn't suffered. If so, how do you know it's capable of suffering?
Mortymer 81 has a great series outlining fallacies.
I'm all for hearing the CosmicSkeptic spin on it. Looking forward to the series. Cheers!
I feel smarter just listening to you good sir
Your not though. Remember always, you are the teacher and the student. Information is always all around you. No matter what your looking at there is a pn abundance of information there. Videos like this seem like a fast track. But they are not. It's more of a focus point, allowing you to concentrate on this type of thinking. But it doesnt teach you, you do that.
@@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646 I'm both bamboozled but extremely empowered by that thank you
@@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646 my man i have to copy paste your comment in my notes and will go back to it regularly
@@schwxppxs5889 you fully have my permission to use my words as your own. I dont like owning philosophy. It should be free and shared.
@@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646 That was enlightening. You’re so right about all these videos feeling like a fast track.
I just joined a philosphy class. It was really fun.
Who are your philosophical heroes?
@@lankystudent I am a fan of SPA the three greates and Kant.
My motto is do whatever you want and be free as long as you dont hurt yourself or others.
Also it is ok to feel understanding for terrible people who had a reason for what they did.
I believe you need some purpose in life
And happiness how we seee it in the western world is a wrong construct
@@ingvildkvakestad Have you come across John Stuart Mill? Also, in what way do you see that happiness as we see it in The West is misconstrued?
@@lankystudent i think so I will read up on him. It is way to matirialistic. I think yeah money can bring happiness to a point, but our culture of bying for fun and focusing on money over paision is extreme.
@@ingvildkvakestad I agree. How old are you? What made you take a philosophy class? I think you would like the philosophy of JSM from what you've said.
I'm fine with appeals to my emotions. I might even let someone convince me that way.
Bro no, you have to be a reasonable man if you don't wanna get swayed by the likes of Hitler. (an example of a great orator/good rhetorician)
I think I would not discard my emotions that easy either, unless it goes against my own logic, but I don't think it often does
@@mikha6139 LOL. You're being a bit dramatic. Ironicly.
@@mikha6139
Emotions are actually a vital part in our decision making process. No decision can be made on purely "logical" grounds, and we often use our emotions as a heuristic guide for which arguments and statements require more scrutiny and which can be accepted easily, which ultimately allows to learn new things while protecting us from bad information in an efficient manner.
@@mikha6139 It was my lack of emotion that almost had me being a eugenics touting neo-nazi in my adolescence. It is by using our own experiences of empathy and suffering and then using logic to expand them beyond our own social circle that we make social progress.
I'm not in the youtube game but I feel like you should never let what someone else made dictate what you make! More than one person can and absolutely should make a video on the same topic. Everyone brings something different to the table. I'm glad you made the video.
Cool drinking game: take a shot every time Alex says "Right"
I am afraid I disagree with cosmic skeptic here. 6:44 he claims that he doesn't strawman the omnivorous position, but he instead defends that he accurately represents the position and shows that it is false.
But when he said this, he had just finished misrepresenting the omnivorous position...
He thinks that giving value to the nutrition is limited to the list and amounts of nutrients. and he demonstrates that by implying that responding to someone that says "I eat meat because of nutrition", by telling him that he can find nutrients present in meat elsewhere is a sufficient and complete response.
But it is not, nutrion doesn't only deal with nutrients, it deals with bioavailability, it deals with nutrient density etc...
So indeed, cosmic skeptic, you are strawmanning the omnivorous position, you are misrepresenting the position whilst arguing against it. Now we just need to deliberate if you are doing it on purpose or not.
One of the premises of his argument is that one can get the proper nutrition without meat. He does not defend that premise here. If you dispute the premise, the argument will not be convincing to you. Do you dispute the premise that the average person can get the required nutrients without meat?
@@Kevorama0205 I defy anyone to give me a non-controversial definition of "a proper nutrition".
Wow, mind blown... that was very well explained!
Tree turn to stone lol stone age
m.ruclips.net/video/8E8-kg7SQ4k/видео.html
evidence of super massive tree w/leaves longer
m.ruclips.net/video/NovvYzzOI70/видео.html
petrified large trees download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/3_CniMGNyXs/видео.html
Animals
m.ruclips.net/video/P29XXLX40g4/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html
Download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/Qwjz_UkzKvM/видео.html
_____________
Mudfossils Giant hairs and sweat glands download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html
Titan Muscle
m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html
Mudfossils Giant download
m.ruclips.net/video/0_upHPBH7Tg/видео.html
Megalithic Seamless Perfect walls download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html
Peru Wall
m.ruclips.net/video/fmvTqmhxlbQ/видео.html
Puma Punku Decodeded
m.ruclips.net/video/BPekF0OqWyg/видео.html
From a Rock and it is a Gusher
m.ruclips.net/video/Z1qrk5Q49Sw/видео.html
Wise up channel download videosm.ruclips.net/video/KH2Gp0ciwkA/видео.html
Download videos
ANCIENT HIGH TECHNOLOGY
m.ruclips.net/video/HgN51djJhXs/видео.html
machines technolocal
m.ruclips.net/video/9TKhTRqFJ5I/видео.html
Download videos
ANCIENT TECH BEEN FOUND
m.ruclips.net/video/Pmzz4JQ82Lo/видео.html
Download video
TECH TURNED TO ROCK
m.ruclips.net/video/RL-aWrUt4Uw/видео.html
elephant
m.ruclips.net/video/_kVyLYUolZ0/видео.html
Dry Dock or IMPRINT OF A SHIPdownload video
m.ruclips.net/video/iaNTxwm4SyM/видео.html
STEEL OF GIANT STRUCTURES NOW TURNED SOFT ROCK
m.ruclips.net/video/3hNT1sMTf7k/видео.html
Download video
Tomb Of The Kings 'lol'
m.ruclips.net/video/Ut27sA8rcoE/видео.html
IMPRINTS in rock tech Past
m.youtube.com/watch?v=GTgWP5vZM
________________________
Titans download videos
m.ruclips.net/p/PLewamc6Dtp7FYzJVu-TtjH3EkW7RJAyVc
m.ruclips.net/p/PLyk-JRol2OkHnOtghXbNlJfPIXMm9X9Ax
m.ruclips.net/video/1angjWHG1kk/видео.html
petrified giants
m.ruclips.net/video/62gNrlTkOKE/видео.html
Download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/DahmnTSe0E4/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/livMiiz_wuw/видео.html
Ball sphere. Giant Balls are Biology not Concretions
m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/7P7i3pf-pes/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/q6CVOkuyzy0/видео.html
_________________________
Giants download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/e-90KoNKK0E/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/QqOuhDQrOdw/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/9UKljodqMyc/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/hSk2shVV9kg/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/47Z65dbXHKw/видео.html
Mud fossils
m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html&list=PLEpr4aa9rk9rWRN1b-9-HKcrt04R5Egsk&index=2&t=0s
m.ruclips.net/video/iZADYbNEwOw/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html&list=PLQrS3ZMc_7j30fm7y1VZIEVxVbsZY83H3&index=13&t=0s
Mud fossils
m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html
______________________
Pyramids solved
1
m.ruclips.net/video/ajlNSyzE-p4/видео.html
2
m.ruclips.net/video/WNgNZSAfFSQ/видео.html
3
m.ruclips.net/video/X61ePmInjG4/видео.html
4
m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html
5
m.ruclips.net/video/JHCq6IUUqiI/видео.html
6
m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/zTlTiYNTyDg/видео.html
4 temple
m.ruclips.net/video/YK1bwnqXvX4/видео.html
Documentary
Quest for the Lost civilization
m.ruclips.net/video/T5DNvYMtkyk/видео.html
_________________________
Tartaria Read
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/19/victorian-women-forced-to-give-up-their-babies-new-exhibition
www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once.40/
thebridgelifeinthemix.info/history/history-big-lie-understanding-tartaria/
eclypticstudios.com/home/?p=3025
bennettleeross.com/history/the-golden-age-the-gilded-age-the-new-age-and-beyond/
weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/22/the-lost-civilizations-of-north-america-were-they-tartarian-cities/
guidesblog.org/2019/02/21/our-missing-history-mud-floods-giants-free-electricity-depopulation-and-lies-videos/
weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/atmospheric-etheric-energy-aee-antiqui-tech-of-the-tartars/
secretenergy.com/tag/tartary-flag/
www.metacenterchicago.com/2018/09/16/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once/
www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartarian-power-plants-and-the-invading-parasites-that-co-opted-them.295/
www.stolenhistory.org/video/
Wireless
m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=Tartaria+wireless
Some Truths You Probably Don't Really Want to Hear! (an eye opening video)
m.ruclips.net/video/HhQJqfTaH3I/видео.html
Mud Floods The Untold Story About Our History
m.ruclips.net/video/Q9IOhkUT9IA/видео.html
Tartarian Empire mudflood
m.ruclips.net/video/gQQiCVMKSZQ/видео.html
Antennas of the past
m.ruclips.net/video/BV-E50qIxmk/видео.html
free energy Antennas
m.ruclips.net/video/XtYhYaeWj64/видео.html
Resonant Frequencies
m.ruclips.net/video/asYztIkNsoc/видео.html
architecture in Japan in 1900
m.ruclips.net/video/RxA1xiSZxXA/видео.html
_______________________
I and Js
m.ruclips.net/video/2alOn7ni4Nw/видео.html
1000 Years of Fake History
m.ruclips.net/video/qJ2q5t6Vp_Y/видео.html
Fake Years of History - Dark Ages Never Existed
m.ruclips.net/video/heJdBGUu9CI/видео.html
1773-1920's; The Ruin
m.ruclips.net/video/CyBhengRZ-Q/видео.html
Tartaria: The Largest Country Hidden By Fake History (Part 1)
m.ruclips.net/video/wWuLMBdzJNg/видео.html
18 civil war
m.ruclips.net/video/_UMJKObmPb4/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/dUty71ovS5Q/видео.html
1865 Birth of a Civil Hoax
m.ruclips.net/video/2KOhJq3enSY/видео.html
Staged Historic Photos
m.ruclips.net/video/L9RON_--Qc4/видео.html
_______________________
Tartaria Introduction -A Civilization Erased?, Lost in Time 1
m.ruclips.net/video/a-OwGciMRUQ/видео.html
Tartaria & the Mud Flood Part 3 A Civilisation Erased?, Lost in Time
m.ruclips.net/video/1S1QC6H4kEk/видео.html
__________________________
El Hyperloop de TARTARIA MUNDIAL. THE OLD tunnels
m.ruclips.net/video/KXMxLbF-_ZI/видео.html
Airships in Tartarian China Mauritania and Peru
m.ruclips.net/video/p5-2FIp5hI0/видео.html
History of Balloons Of Electrostatic Tethering
m.ruclips.net/video/H0g1bOeZ9ao/видео.html
Airships Balloons are the same resembles tha vehicle of today
m.ruclips.net/video/_kvhDuR5twk/видео.html
magnetic flying machines and the electric fararday
m.ruclips.net/video/ouJ8fj7Rf98/видео.html
______________________
Solfeggio frequencies therapy
Read
walterbitner.com/2015/08/21/the-legacy-of-guido-darezzo/
coloraturaconsulting.com/2012/06/27/composer-biography-guido-darezzo-c991-1033/
subtle.energy/silent-solfeggio/
markalburgermusichistory.blogspot.com/7991/01/guido-darezzo-991-1034.html?m=1
freqe1.com/solfeggio-rising/solfeggio-frequencies/
miraclesandinspiration.com/solfeggiofrequencies.html
www.attainablemind.com/2010/04/solfeggio-frequencies-binaural-beats.html?m=1
Sound Frequency That Cures Diseases & Disorders w/Guest Sharry Edwards
m.ruclips.net/video/1xENoF8gG54/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=solfeggio+frequencies+medicine
m.ruclips.net/video/GJYS5_nMa0I/видео.html
Documentary
m.ruclips.net/video/5O8LPnlh_sM/видео.html
_________________________
5G
dispatchesfromtheasylum.com/2019/02/26/5g-and-gmo-electromagnetic-waves-and-genetic-engineering-profit-driven-destruction/
www.thinkaboutit.online/globalists-killing-humanity-with-5g-technology/
www.thelibertybeacon.com/corona-virus-fakery-and-the-link-to-5g-testing/
patriots4truth.org/2018/10/18/5g-can-end-humanity-as-we-know-it/
wholetones.com/ltr/1
www.knowingthetruth.com/5g-wireless-corona-virus-connection-exposed/
m.ruclips.net/video/sg5XSt2b4Fs/видео.html
5g interview
m.ruclips.net/video/mrBiLbhvZCs/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/DyiQ80BMSQQ/видео.html
Documentary
m.ruclips.net/video/9mK93gHFWXs/видео.html&feature=emb_rel_pause
c123movies.com/generation-zapped/
m.ruclips.net/video/xDy2tHCPdk8/видео.html
5g antenna
m.ruclips.net/video/sgRQwdFGvdA/видео.html
Read
www.elanafreeland.com/morgellons-synthetic-biology
Watch iron and clay Transhumanism
m.ruclips.net/video/GQQDK_o2VP4/видео.html
I think you are on shaky ground with the 'innocent' analogy. If a couple are stoned to death for adultery, you could argue that as the people who put them to death thought they were guilty, then the people killed are perceived as innocent only by people who do not share their belief system.
So to someone with strong Abrahamic religious beliefs, a cow is neither innocent or guilty. It is part of Gods bounty for Man to do as he sees fit. So in effect the usage of words like this do have a judgemental aspect to them in much the same way the anti-abortionists use the term pro-life and an aborted foetus is an innocent baby.
It isn't an analogy. Murder is a legal definition and i doubt a state legislated killing could be considered murder even if the person is innocent.
@@GaganSingh-nx2yv It should be. That's why the death penalty is not okay. If the state kills an innocent person, they're no longer fit to lead, frankly. It means something is wrong.
Wikipedia makes a similar point to yours, in describing Appeal to Emotion as invalid if the "appeal" is made within the context of the ethical argument:
"The appeal to emotion is only fallacious when the emotions that are elicited are irrelevant to evaluating the truth of the conclusion and serve to distract from rational consideration of relevant premises or information. . . 'Look at the suffering children. We must do more for refugees.' is not uncontroversially fallacious, because the suffering of the children and our emotional perception of the badness of suffering may be relevant to the conclusion. To be sure, the proper role for emotion in moral reasoning is a contested issue in ethics, but the charge of "appeal to emotion" often cannot be made without begging the question against theories of moral cognition that reserve a role for emotion in moral reasoning."
However, I think there is something you overlook which actually derives from your conclusion, and is nicely summarized in the quote above. Maybe the lines are kind of blurry here, but "look at the suffering children" could be interpreted as a mere input in a syllogism (children are suffering->ethics dictates we act), but it can also feel very much like a standard Appeal to Emotion (look at the SUFFERING of the children, dammit!!). Which is it really?
There are many cases where appeals to emotion are more than just a rhetorical technique, although I would argue there is nothing wrong with that either. If I recount and describe the suffering of pigs, then listeners are simply hearing the facts, and the importance they themselves grant to this sort of emotional experience does the heavy lifting. That importance is the core of ethics; without ascribing at least some moral value to something somewhat arbitrarily, we would have no use for it at all, and empathy is a powerful component in that sort of decision (maybe that says something about the origins of morality, even).
One can see where this might go awry: if I tearfully present the case of someone who committed murder to swing a jury, I have used the Appeal to Emotion in a way most of us would have no trouble calling problematic. The difference here is that we are not swaying them toward an incorrect conclusion; we are able to independently employ an ethical logic to arrive at the same outcome. If we believe that people's own moral logic dictates they grant animals moral worth, it is not fallacious to make them experience that internal inconsistency via the emotions that prove it.
Alex: Thanks for the explanation!
About "innocence", I would add that the word comes from Greek/Latin.
I:Without/negation and Gnosos: Knowlege/awareness. (one that is unaware O doesent know about a thing).
Can we consider that using the fallacy accusation lightly as an easy way to invalidate an argument is a fallacy itself?
@John Ploopy
My favorite fallacy. Essentially, it's the equivalent of Denying the Antecedent.
That is the Fallacy Fallacy--
_Hey, that's fallacious therefore it is wrong!_
But that doesn't follow. It could be fallacious and true by accident. A fallacious argument simply cannot prove its conclusion, the conclusion can still be true.
@Krish Nair My reasoning that 2+2=4
1. 2x2=4
2. The + and x sign are the same
Therefore, 2+2=4
My argument is flawed, and thus cannot prove the conclusion, but the conclusion is still correct
These comment are very helpful & concise. I feel like I'm on ELI5.
List of Vegan logical fallacies:
[tumbleweeds]
I would recall Niven's 17th Law. No cause is so right and just that you cannot find a fool among the ranks of its followers.
The logic behind the position may be solid, but there are vegans who would still use fallacies in arguing for it. There are people who believe the same things you do, but for reasons you don't agree with.
I did notice a lot of mainstream vegans to commit to appeal to emotion when I was first introduced to it, but I didn't look up what really veganism is about so I ignored it. Not until Alex made a video about veganism I took it at face value since the arguments were genuinely reasonable.
@@azap12 and that demonstrated the value of grounding an position logically, and avoiding fallacious arguments. It's not about scoring points in a debate, but actually getting people to think about their own position.
Lots of vegans commit the appeal to emotion fallacy.
However, the fallacy is not vegan.
@@bskec2177 I've seen the same thing, but appeal to emotion has its place, too. You know, lots of people walk around and rationally know that they are contributing to massive ammounts of suffering and destruction, but ultimately you have to FEEL like you are. It's not until people feel emotionally invested enough that they will stop. You have to feel for the victims of your actions so that it outweighs your selfish aims.
First you have to establish the fact that your actions relate to the suffering directly, logically. The next step is to feel the accountability. That's what documentaries like dominion and actual videoclips of animals do.
I actually see the cows suffering in my minds eye when I'm at the store, which compells me to not buy the products even if I love the taste of them. Some might feel an instant projected cringe at me saying that, but it is what keeps me motivated to care.
I don't think we get anywhere on pure logic alone. Action is motivated, and motivation is emotional investment. I think logic and feeling must both be in the mix to instill change. For some the logic might be more compelling, while to others emotional retoric might be. But to people who lack emotional insight or empathy (which is many, I suspect) the emotions are a turnoff.
Perfect video to watch during my smoke sesh 👌
I agree with your arguments and while I am not a vegan, I accept your points that I do eat meat for taste and that it is 'murder' in the strictest sense of the definition but humans have come to define 'murder' to be of a fellow human. This is largely due in part to language culture and these words exist across many societies and languages - there is a very strict word which means killing another human being. Given that we are an apex species, compared to cows, we get to dictate what is murder and we have defined murder to be human on humans. Murder is for humans and carries more emotional weight. Killing is for anything in nature and is more a technical term with a lighter emotional weight, which is why we say that they have to kill the cow to get the beef, rather than they have to murder the cow to get the beef.
A video about the intuition behind emotions vs conditioned emotions is soemthing i would love to see. Even any little clip about your understanding of intuition.
Excellent video. Shared on fb.
How did you comment 10 hours before the video was posted?
@@sinceretuitt1865 maybe the video was unlisted and he had early access to it
Every non-vegan replies to vegans on Instagram:
1.) "Holier than thou"
2.) "Get off your high-horse"
3.) "Claiming the moral high ground"
4.) "Veganism is a cult"
5.) "Pushing your ideology"
6.) "Appeal to emotion"
5 months of being vegan, still never had a single good argument against me. Its always one of the default responses lol
I always find the "veganism is a cult" mantra to be rather strange.
Between just eating fruit, veg and grain, and grown men breastfeeding from other animals, which of those seems more like a cult?
You don't think he's claiming the moral high ground? Please explain.
So Alex, I'm sure you're in favour of the killing of guilty animals without good reason?
Why would you be so sure about that? 🤨 wrong conclusion....
Isnt that a strawman fallacy...?
I found one possible mistake:
The whole meat flavour argument thing. Suggesting that meat eaters only eat it for the flavour since they can get nutrients from a vegetarian source is a fallacy since it is possible that they eat it, well, for both nutrients and flavour.
The combination nutrients + flavour is an entirely different concept than only flavour or only nutrients, i.e. just eating salt or just swallowing vitamins, or perhaps thinking mathematically 2 (flavour) + 3 (nutrients) = 5.
I am not defending meat eaters or vegans, I am pointing out an inconsistency.
He isn't claiming meat eaters only eat meat for flavour. He just says nutrients aren't a valid reason for eating meat.
B12 vitamin is only in meat in large enough quantities to actually matter nutritionally. It _is_ available in some plants, but not in enough quantities to actually be useful fir a human body. Human body cannot produce B12 on its own. B12 is necessary for, among other things, proper formation of red blood cells and production of ATP in mitochondria.
So yes, meat is just as much about nutrtion as well as the taste. Meat also contains protein required for building of muscles. Lack of these proteins are why most vegans are wimpy and weak, with string-like arms and legs. I have yet to see a muscular vegan that hasn't gone vegan like last week (because their muscles haven't had time to deteriorate yet) .
In the appeal to emotion segment of the video you are redefining murder to fit more accurately for non-human animals.
The actual definition
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
When using the actual definition it highlights the appeal to emotion. In a conversation about actual murder, yes, it is necessary to include the “innocent” part as it differentiates it from other forms of homicide, but when it comes to non-human animals it just can’t be defined this way. So when you say the the MURDER of INNOCENT animals it’s just disingenuous.
Alex. When called out on making a straw man your counter argument is that the opposing side is merely wrong. You do this by stating something as fact, which unfortunately it is not.
nutritional science is a topic where there is a big lack of consensus. And the traditional view on it. I. e. not what is generally considered fringe is the opposite of what you stated as fact. Nutritional science as a field is mostly considered alternative.
F. ex. There are a lot of experts and scientists that don't agree that the nutritional value of any substance is the same regardless of it's source. This is a debate mostly focuses on "natural sources" vs. produced in a lab. And while traditional nutritional science generally scoffs at the idea that natural sources of nutrition is better, there is a lot of evidence that show that the chemical make up of nutritional substances do not exist within a vacuum when it comes to how our body reacts to them. F. ex. claims about trace nutrients having an effect on how our micro-bacteria react is one of several concepts that is heavily discussed and experimented on.
On the flip side though. Is the idea that a vegan diet can sustain all our nutritional needs. On this subject, the stances are often flipped. I. e. Traditional nutritional science say that no, there are certain essential nutrients that are not available in plants. While the idea that all nutrients are available in plants is generally an alternative/fringe view. However, on this subject the alternative (i. e. fringe) views are not in consensus either and the answer is therefore not as clear cut as you lay it out to be.
F. ex. When it comes to essential amino acids (proteins) the traditional view is that there is a lack of plant sources for some of these essential amino acids. The alternative view is that plant based proteins can cover all our needs. Again there is a lack of consensus on this topic.
However, lets assume that a plant based diet can supply enough essential amino acids.
There are still some essential nutrients, that simply does not exist in plants. F. ex. one of the most essential fatty acids is Omega-3. Omega-3 exists in plants, but Omega-3 is not 1 acid. It is in fact, as far as current knowledge and classification, at least 3 different fatty acids that come in different chemical makeups. And only 1 of those are present in plants. EPA, the other two DHA and DPA are only present in animals. DPA in particular is mostly found, in high amounts, in marine based mammals, which is potentially problematic with the current state of marine ecosystems.
The worst part of this is that traditional nutritional science claims that EPA is not important, arguably not even useful for humans. While DHA is crucial for our survival. However, there is also a lack of consensus on this. There are many scientific claims and studies that claim that EPA can be used by our bodies, but even most of those claims are generally speaking about animal based EPA, not plant based. Most likely related to some kind of chemical make up we either do not fully understand, or at the very least, is outside my knowledge on the subject.
Getting an understanding on these subjects is particularly hard because there is such a lack of consensus.
I find your dismissal of this criticism as cherry picking. Especially as it seems to be picking stances that are held by sides of a debate that will often hold opposing views to yours on other topics.
I also find your dismissal of the appeal to emotion argument to be lacking. Your video on "The absolutely worst form of cognitive dissonance", which is where I recently saw you receive this criticism, did not have a logical argument at all, it was only an appeal to emotion. The fact that your whole argument rested on your misuse of the term cognitive dissonance proves it. As cognitive dissonance is in itself a form of internal appeal to emotion. I mean. How on the nose do you need it to be.
As for the moral worth argument. I reject your premise, as you yourself would have not too long ago. The argument is indeed without fallacy, but "moral worth" is a meaningless term. First some kind of definitional understanding would have to be established.
I could use the same argument for any made up concept.
Then you go on and make a false equivalence in the innocent example.
Considering how well you know these fallacies, I almost believe you are being dishonest.
I agree, that the use of innocent vs. guilty does not have to be an appeal to emotion. However the point being made on twitter seemed to be that the use did not serve any other purpose than it's opposites connotation. Again. I am not sure I agree with that guys argument, but your rebuttal is actually worse.
You then present an argument where innocent is a necessity, pretending like there is equivalence between the two arguments. You, of all people, should know that is not the case.
Again. I don't disagree that your use of innocent should not be considered an appeal to emotion. However, there seems no equivalence between the use of innocent with murder and the use of innocent with falsely imprisoned. I. e. We do actually call the killing of someone not innocent as murder, under the law, as well. Innocence is therefore not a requirement for considering something as murder. I assume, in good faith, that you used it because it is common definition that many people make. So I concede that point, but there is definitely no equivalence between that argument, and the false imprisonment argument.
My sense of the whole vegan debate, and the reaction you seem to be getting to it. Is that it seems you have loosened your standards a bit when it comes to these arguments. I know you don't accept that criticism, but it does come off as that. Because you do make such concessions, where it seems like, you will not, when it comes to other topics.
what consensus?
i have yet to see this. not to mention the tons of people who do survive fine without it. i really dislike the nutrtion argument 'cause our country lives on fat and garbage and did for a while, and it just seems like special pleading to suddenly care about vitamins that are literally stacked to the roof in the supermarket if you went down that aisle for anything but preworkout
>On the flip side though. Is the idea that a vegan diet can sustain all our nutritional needs. On this subject, the stances are often flipped. I. e. Traditional nutritional science say that no, there are certain essential nutrients that are not available in plants. While the idea that all nutrients are available in plants is generally an alternative/fringe view. However, on this subject the alternative (i. e. fringe) views are not in consensus either and the answer is therefore not as clear cut as you lay it out to be.
the stances aren't flipped. why do you assume people are only eating lettuce and no other sources of vitamins can exist? that's the problem I have. Traditional science can say we're killing ourselves with over-saturation of sugars too but everyone will just laugh at you
@@felicityc Way to make a lot of assumptions.
I am saying there is no consensus. Yet, Alex made a factual claim, which indicates a consensus on the matter. One that the "mainstream" nutritional science doesn't agree with.
I mentioned specific examples which are essential nutrition that are not vegan.
You can go buy Omega 3 in the supermarket, but unless it is made from animal sources it will not include DHA or DPA, only EPA. Do you also realize that most supplements are not vegan? There are more rare products that are hitting the market now that are made from algae, which does include DHA, instead of fish, however these are very expensive and have potentially other issues.
We are omnivores so we can survive on almost any diet for quite a while. However, a lack of omega 3 over too long of a period can lead to serious health issues. It is not just a question about luxury.
The lack of collagen in our diet can also cause issues, and it is argued today that the fact that we eat so much less collagen now than we used to, even with a meat based diet is one of the main reasons for the rise in low bone density in humans.
Well, like I said nutritional science is not so clear cut. Traditional nutritional consensus is actually that sugar is not bad for you, but rather that fat is. Ignoring the relationship between the two. This has been in "mainstream" consensus, without any meaningful scientific evidence for decades and is only recently started to change. However the leading nutritional organizations in the world are still classifying fat as bad and sugar as ok. Which is why most doctors still recommend you limit your fat intake before they recommend you to limit your sugar intake.
However talk to a nutritional expert outside of those organizations they will almost always say the opposite.
It is changing though.
The main issue with nutritional science is that there are so many claims out there often based on some scientific research that was done in getting a product to market and that nutritional needs are so individual. Because our gut bacteria are as varied as our fingerprints. And while there are cutting edge scientific experiments being done on our gut bacteria, cutting edge does not equal consensus. And mapping out something as complicated as this will take time.
In no way am I assuming that people that are vegan only eat lettuce. You however seem to assume that I do. So who is assuming here?
I am talking about nutritional science, which is a topic that I work daily with so I read a lot about it and the lack of consensus is an issue within the field. It makes it really hard to make any form of truth determinations about it.
You’ve completely straw manned my use of the straw man fallacy
*Irony ensues when he actually does this*
I can see how the false imprisonment analogy totally makes sense, based on the technical definition of 'innocent', as denoting a wrongful or unsound conviction.
In the first instance, though, the accuser might just be sceptical about innocence in a wider sense, and reacting to the use of the word negatively for that reason.
Suppose he/she is adopting an extreme (Randian?) view of society, where cannibalism is deemed morally acceptable, and it's every individual's lookout if they want to avoid being eaten. In this 'dog eat dog' world, innocence would have little or no meaning, as a defence against harm.
One thing that I think is funny about people misusing ad hominem is that pointing out hypocrisy to undermine someone's argument is almost never called out despite how common it is and how cleanly it fits in the definition.
The word innocent its self seems to me to exist to purposely invoke emotion due to the Latin from which it's derived. So if your defining false imprisonment wouldn't the better more solid argument be the imprisonment of a wrongly convicted person instead of imprisonment of an innocent person? So if your using innocent one could say you are trying to invoke emotion whether consciously or unconsciously. Am I off base here?
Professor Dave is pretty good, debated JLP I think, it was pretty fun.
Who is JLP?
@@Iamwrongbut Jesse Lee Peterson, a black conservative commentator and overall not a very bright person.
Video idea: debating people on r/debatereligion
My take on it is that adding the word innocent IS an appeal to emotion.
Because it got no place in the argument.
Is a wolf innocent?
Is me killing a rapist not murder?
The argument would be perfectly sound without the word innocent.
It is only in there BECAUSE it appeals to emotions.
I'm afraid you've committed the 'Nicholaus is Wrong' Fallacy. I took the liberty of naming it after myself because this fallacy occurs when someone makes a point with which I am in disagreement, thereby automatically rendering their entire argument invalid _and_ unsound.
Tree turn to stone lol stone age
m.ruclips.net/video/8E8-kg7SQ4k/видео.html
evidence of super massive tree w/leaves longer
m.ruclips.net/video/NovvYzzOI70/видео.html
petrified large trees download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/3_CniMGNyXs/видео.html
Animals
m.ruclips.net/video/P29XXLX40g4/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html
Download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/Qwjz_UkzKvM/видео.html
_____________
Mudfossils Giant hairs and sweat glands download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html
Titan Muscle
m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html
Mudfossils Giant download
m.ruclips.net/video/0_upHPBH7Tg/видео.html
Megalithic Seamless Perfect walls download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html
Peru Wall
m.ruclips.net/video/fmvTqmhxlbQ/видео.html
Puma Punku Decodeded
m.ruclips.net/video/BPekF0OqWyg/видео.html
From a Rock and it is a Gusher
m.ruclips.net/video/Z1qrk5Q49Sw/видео.html
Wise up channel download videosm.ruclips.net/video/KH2Gp0ciwkA/видео.html
Download videos
ANCIENT HIGH TECHNOLOGY
m.ruclips.net/video/HgN51djJhXs/видео.html
machines technolocal
m.ruclips.net/video/9TKhTRqFJ5I/видео.html
Download videos
ANCIENT TECH BEEN FOUND
m.ruclips.net/video/Pmzz4JQ82Lo/видео.html
Download video
TECH TURNED TO ROCK
m.ruclips.net/video/RL-aWrUt4Uw/видео.html
elephant
m.ruclips.net/video/_kVyLYUolZ0/видео.html
Dry Dock or IMPRINT OF A SHIPdownload video
m.ruclips.net/video/iaNTxwm4SyM/видео.html
STEEL OF GIANT STRUCTURES NOW TURNED SOFT ROCK
m.ruclips.net/video/3hNT1sMTf7k/видео.html
Download video
Tomb Of The Kings 'lol'
m.ruclips.net/video/Ut27sA8rcoE/видео.html
IMPRINTS in rock tech Past
m.youtube.com/watch?v=GTgWP5vZM
________________________
Titans download videos
m.ruclips.net/p/PLewamc6Dtp7FYzJVu-TtjH3EkW7RJAyVc
m.ruclips.net/p/PLyk-JRol2OkHnOtghXbNlJfPIXMm9X9Ax
m.ruclips.net/video/1angjWHG1kk/видео.html
petrified giants
m.ruclips.net/video/62gNrlTkOKE/видео.html
Download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/DahmnTSe0E4/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/livMiiz_wuw/видео.html
Ball sphere. Giant Balls are Biology not Concretions
m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/7P7i3pf-pes/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/q6CVOkuyzy0/видео.html
_________________________
Giants download videos
m.ruclips.net/video/B73pabdziwk/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/e-90KoNKK0E/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/QqOuhDQrOdw/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/9UKljodqMyc/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/hSk2shVV9kg/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/47Z65dbXHKw/видео.html
Mud fossils
m.ruclips.net/video/fCRJ4ZmRcz8/видео.html&list=PLEpr4aa9rk9rWRN1b-9-HKcrt04R5Egsk&index=2&t=0s
m.ruclips.net/video/iZADYbNEwOw/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/9ucbD7bdI-A/видео.html&list=PLQrS3ZMc_7j30fm7y1VZIEVxVbsZY83H3&index=13&t=0s
Mud fossils
m.ruclips.net/video/MdkQ3AfaPqY/видео.html
______________________
Pyramids solved
1
m.ruclips.net/video/ajlNSyzE-p4/видео.html
2
m.ruclips.net/video/WNgNZSAfFSQ/видео.html
3
m.ruclips.net/video/X61ePmInjG4/видео.html
4
m.ruclips.net/video/tRPIN81k1SU/видео.html
5
m.ruclips.net/video/JHCq6IUUqiI/видео.html
6
m.ruclips.net/video/uA9OkUSGHk8/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/zTlTiYNTyDg/видео.html
4 temple
m.ruclips.net/video/YK1bwnqXvX4/видео.html
Documentary
Quest for the Lost civilization
m.ruclips.net/video/T5DNvYMtkyk/видео.html
_________________________
Tartaria Read
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/19/victorian-women-forced-to-give-up-their-babies-new-exhibition
www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once.40/
thebridgelifeinthemix.info/history/history-big-lie-understanding-tartaria/
eclypticstudios.com/home/?p=3025
bennettleeross.com/history/the-golden-age-the-gilded-age-the-new-age-and-beyond/
weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/22/the-lost-civilizations-of-north-america-were-they-tartarian-cities/
guidesblog.org/2019/02/21/our-missing-history-mud-floods-giants-free-electricity-depopulation-and-lies-videos/
weewarrior.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/atmospheric-etheric-energy-aee-antiqui-tech-of-the-tartars/
secretenergy.com/tag/tartary-flag/
www.metacenterchicago.com/2018/09/16/tartary-an-empire-hidden-in-history-it-was-bigger-than-russia-once/
www.stolenhistory.org/threads/tartarian-power-plants-and-the-invading-parasites-that-co-opted-them.295/
www.stolenhistory.org/video/
Wireless
m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=Tartaria+wireless
Some Truths You Probably Don't Really Want to Hear! (an eye opening video)
m.ruclips.net/video/HhQJqfTaH3I/видео.html
Mud Floods The Untold Story About Our History
m.ruclips.net/video/Q9IOhkUT9IA/видео.html
Tartarian Empire mudflood
m.ruclips.net/video/gQQiCVMKSZQ/видео.html
Antennas of the past
m.ruclips.net/video/BV-E50qIxmk/видео.html
free energy Antennas
m.ruclips.net/video/XtYhYaeWj64/видео.html
Resonant Frequencies
m.ruclips.net/video/asYztIkNsoc/видео.html
architecture in Japan in 1900
m.ruclips.net/video/RxA1xiSZxXA/видео.html
_______________________
I and Js
m.ruclips.net/video/2alOn7ni4Nw/видео.html
1000 Years of Fake History
m.ruclips.net/video/qJ2q5t6Vp_Y/видео.html
Fake Years of History - Dark Ages Never Existed
m.ruclips.net/video/heJdBGUu9CI/видео.html
1773-1920's; The Ruin
m.ruclips.net/video/CyBhengRZ-Q/видео.html
Tartaria: The Largest Country Hidden By Fake History (Part 1)
m.ruclips.net/video/wWuLMBdzJNg/видео.html
18 civil war
m.ruclips.net/video/_UMJKObmPb4/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/video/dUty71ovS5Q/видео.html
1865 Birth of a Civil Hoax
m.ruclips.net/video/2KOhJq3enSY/видео.html
Staged Historic Photos
m.ruclips.net/video/L9RON_--Qc4/видео.html
_______________________
Tartaria Introduction -A Civilization Erased?, Lost in Time 1
m.ruclips.net/video/a-OwGciMRUQ/видео.html
Tartaria & the Mud Flood Part 3 A Civilisation Erased?, Lost in Time
m.ruclips.net/video/1S1QC6H4kEk/видео.html
__________________________
El Hyperloop de TARTARIA MUNDIAL. THE OLD tunnels
m.ruclips.net/video/KXMxLbF-_ZI/видео.html
Airships in Tartarian China Mauritania and Peru
m.ruclips.net/video/p5-2FIp5hI0/видео.html
History of Balloons Of Electrostatic Tethering
m.ruclips.net/video/H0g1bOeZ9ao/видео.html
Airships Balloons are the same resembles tha vehicle of today
m.ruclips.net/video/_kvhDuR5twk/видео.html
magnetic flying machines and the electric fararday
m.ruclips.net/video/ouJ8fj7Rf98/видео.html
______________________
Solfeggio frequencies therapy
Read
walterbitner.com/2015/08/21/the-legacy-of-guido-darezzo/
coloraturaconsulting.com/2012/06/27/composer-biography-guido-darezzo-c991-1033/
subtle.energy/silent-solfeggio/
markalburgermusichistory.blogspot.com/7991/01/guido-darezzo-991-1034.html?m=1
freqe1.com/solfeggio-rising/solfeggio-frequencies/
miraclesandinspiration.com/solfeggiofrequencies.html
www.attainablemind.com/2010/04/solfeggio-frequencies-binaural-beats.html?m=1
Sound Frequency That Cures Diseases & Disorders w/Guest Sharry Edwards
m.ruclips.net/video/1xENoF8gG54/видео.html
m.ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=solfeggio+frequencies+medicine
m.ruclips.net/video/GJYS5_nMa0I/видео.html
Documentary
m.ruclips.net/video/5O8LPnlh_sM/видео.html
_________________________
5G
dispatchesfromtheasylum.com/2019/02/26/5g-and-gmo-electromagnetic-waves-and-genetic-engineering-profit-driven-destruction/
www.thinkaboutit.online/globalists-killing-humanity-with-5g-technology/
www.thelibertybeacon.com/corona-virus-fakery-and-the-link-to-5g-testing/
patriots4truth.org/2018/10/18/5g-can-end-humanity-as-we-know-it/
wholetones.com/ltr/1
www.knowingthetruth.com/5g-wireless-corona-virus-connection-exposed/
m.ruclips.net/video/sg5XSt2b4Fs/видео.html
5g interview
m.ruclips.net/video/mrBiLbhvZCs/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/DyiQ80BMSQQ/видео.html
Documentary
m.ruclips.net/video/9mK93gHFWXs/видео.html&feature=emb_rel_pause
c123movies.com/generation-zapped/
m.ruclips.net/video/xDy2tHCPdk8/видео.html
5g antenna
m.ruclips.net/video/sgRQwdFGvdA/видео.html
Read
www.elanafreeland.com/morgellons-synthetic-biology
Watch iron and clay Transhumanism
m.ruclips.net/video/GQQDK_o2VP4/видео.html
I get the feeling you actually mean "stop misusing the accusation of fallacies".
I subbed to your other channel at least a week ago
Hello again.
@@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646 Hello!
@@LouisGedo hope your doing well.
@@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646 Yes I am......thank you! I hope you are as well.
At 6 minutes I think you make a little bit of a leap. I don't think everyone would concede that you can get the same nutrients being vegan.
all nutrients ultimately come form plants, there's no denying that.
so any possible nutrient can be extracted or synthesized from plant matter.
but what you probably mean to say is that you can't get these nutrients in exactly the same form you'd get from animal products.
that's true. however I doubt Alex means to deny that.
given the context, what he likely means is that there's a viable plant-based alternative to any nutrient you'd get from animal products.
There is also the fact that it is not feasible for everyone in the world to switch to a vegan diet, much agricultural land in use now isn't suitable for any human edible plants in practical densities to farm. Protein rich crops are often very restrictive in the soil and climatic conditions they can effectively be grown in. Even if you could grow them elsewhere, you would have to transport them to the areas where they can't be grown, people living there would have no local food production. Their food price would go up and their ability to make money for said food would go down, creating food deserts. I've been extremely poor for a few prolonged periods in my life and animal protein was the only protein that kept me from total starvation. Plant based protein would have cost me way too much. Assuming everyone in the world can just swallow the extra costs it might involve locally is a very privileged position to take.
Also, you would have to stop breeding domesticated animals, many breeds have no chance to survive in the wild without human intervention, effectively killing off those breeds.
I also know some vegans with legume allergies, they are not at all healthy because of their restrictive diet and it doesn't seem they will live long lives. Having everyone with legume allergies follow that path seems very detrimental to their health.
So for everyone to become vegan you would have to reduce the worlds population, concentrate it in areas where you can effectively grow protein rich crops. Destroy countless domesticated animal breeds and shorten the life of people with certain allergies.
Some of these problems can probably be fixed with enough time and research, but they can't be fixed right now. I support peoples choice if they want to be vegan, but it's a privileged position that is not possible for everyone, and if everyone would switch over right now, there would be massive consequences, not all of them good.
@@dv7533 nobody ever suggested that the entire planet's population should or can transition into a diet of exclusively plants over night, so I am not sure why you bring that up. it's always been about what is practicable to you right now.
in the long run though, a mainstream plant based diet is going to allow for a far larger world population than one that requires mass animal agriculture.
I agree with you but probably not how you would imagine.
I think we can theoretically get everything from non-animal entities. But not logistically. Not everyone has the access or finances to go fully vegan, especially in extremely impoverished areas of the world.
@@holleey I know you didn't suggest an immediate full transition, that would be a straw man fallacy on my part if I did think that, but not everyone thinks through consequences like that. I have had people suggest exactly this to me. Most conversations don't include implementation time, preparations and exceptions. Excluding these considerations from the conversation for the sake of simplicity I think is harmful to the conversation.
I have also had vegans suggest a full immediate transition to me despite knowing the consequences, for them their ideology was infinitely more important than practical considerations like human suffering. Not all vegans base their dietary restrictions on logical and pragmatic reasoning, some are so dogmatic it's more like a cult. Among vegans there is a wide array of opinions, from reasonable to cultist. Just like most groups of people.
"I care about animals" can mean generally rather than all, isn't necessarily contradictory with there being some or even many exceptions, though the stronger and more specific "I care about all animals" can be made outright inconsistent and invalid with there being any exceptions.
I think this is your best video and am disappointed that I did not view it earlier. The concepts of "logical fallacies" while interesting and helpful in formulating arguments, I find don't work in real life. Firstly to call out your adversary of for using a fallacy distracts from the main debate and we fall into a yes I did no you didn't. Secondly the are other principles that should govern discussions. The ad hominem argument can simply be stated to be "have respect for the other person." I could go on but thanks.
Anyone who accuses someone of appealing to emotion for simply saying the word should probably give up on understanding philosophy... for life.
I hadn't heard the expression "straw man" until about 2017. Is it a new/foreign expression?
what do you mean by foreign?
It’s not a new fallacy at all. You just missed the memo apparently.
have you heard of scarecrow?
@@rewrose2838 non-English
@@mandeepsuj1 The film?
This video is a logical fallacy because onions on space like classical music
I appreciate this short but I think necessary video. You actually caused me to pause and think over anytime I have called out or accused someone of a fallacy and if I were correct in it.
This video definitely needs to circulate so all of us can be more thoughtful in our approach. 👍
There is a difference between the use of the word innocent in the imprisonment versus the murder example. Innocent is a necessary component in the definition of false imprisonment, whereas it is not for murder.
For example if A kills B's child and then B killed A, B would still have committed murder, even though A was not innocent.
I have often seen murder defined as the *unlawful* killing of a person, not the killing of an innocent person. Hence, innocent children killed as a side effect of war-fighting (so-called "collateral damage") weren't murdered. Their deaths are state-sanctioned (legal) and so not murder.