Twitter and Anti-intellectualism

it’s interesting how shoe, a self identified secularist and classical liberal, is acting like a religious fundamentalist here. I’m sure she’d actually agree if I said the relative unimportance of religion in American life, combined with the modern injunction to create your own meaning where religion once filled that void, has led to many secular people adopting worldviews and patterns of thinking identical to someone who believes they are right because God told them. I just think that she’d bounce the second it started applying to her

It’s a joke. Go out and talk to a girl dude.

I like tasty burger mmm yummy

"thats a hard horse pill to swallow"

Long story short- this whole quite idiotic debacle starts because some don't wanna confront the issue of what stimulates overproduction and wastefulness.
Under all the health, morals and survival aspects that such discourses are resting on there is the fact that current society and current people don't want to aknowledge how wastefull they are- eating plants and "chemically made" meat won't change anything, it will just be yet again overproduced and wasted, spawning another outrage that changes nothing. Non of these movements adress this- because many of them only want to seem as good intentioned or themselves don't even want to aknowledge the main issue.
And to the latter part, the one that does not want to aknowledge the main quite greedy and shortsighted, capitalist allowed, problem, they do it becauase it either makes them feel bad about themselves (depressed and dirty even) or they don't wanna admit that they don't have an easy answer- their audience, hell, humans at large want quick and easy answers to problems, and these answers are sxtremaly shortsighted and usually still return to the same problem they supposed to answer.

In tldr- the vegan debacle leads nowhere, because it's the same wastefull and overproduction as meat industry, just with plants this time and is propagated by sea of people who either want to farm goodiepoints, don't wanna admit that answer is complicated and requires massive changes or themselves wanna be "on the good side" because knowldging the problem makes them feel dirty. And all of these sides tend to as pointed: change nothing, because of skirting around the main issue- which is greedy overproduction and waste, something that is not a part of human nature, it's a fkin childish trait humanity refuses to unlearn

whats so funny is that while shoes tweet is a bad debate argument, if ur having a more chill conversation its an alright answer. unfortunately the question was posed as and treated as moral philosphical debate and not just a random jokey fun time thought experiment, so everyone got pissed at her

The whole problem with many modern appeals to natural law is a misunderstanding of what it means. Natural law is classically understood to be defined by God’s intentional design, thus making it from a Christian perspective definable and good. Appealing to nature or any other objective moral compass outside of God simply doesn’t work. With this context, the argument would be coherent, since one is specifically forbidden in the Law and the other is permitted.

I'm a big fan of little Joel and a little fan of Big Joel, but I think there's something wrong with the argument in this video. Our reaction is more adverse to one than the other because of the extra component of moral degeneracy, although this lets us show a consequentialist approach is reductive, isn't it also wrong to put too much into what's taboo in social norms. Both commit harm to the animal, and if we accept that is in some way bad, both have a bad moral outcome and both have a bad consequentialist outcome. The moral degeneracy is worse for b*stiality sure, but isn't killing the animal more or less the worst you can do. This seems to present us with two bad actions but ambiguous or open in which is the greater evil. If we choose to value one meal below an animal's life, the only thing we can agree on is that they are both wrong, the only thing we can agree on is we should do neither. For fun, I tried to write this comment like how Big Joel talks.

As a consequentialist (and an ethical vegan) I do agree with you that the two behaviors paint very different pictures about the character and intention of the people doing them. And those differences are…consequential! I would not want someone who molests animals anywhere near me or anyone I care about. Whereas although I wish my animal eating friends and family more fully shared my views on animal rights I still love and trust them and don’t think they are defined by the darkest corners of the production system they’re engaged in.

Both of your main analogies fall prey to the same type of argumentation, and even the natural fallacy.

"dogs don't want to have sex with people", maybe. But - one might argue - definitely a lot of dogs want and do hump human legs. Enthusiastically. We may want to examine why that is. We certainly know better than to want to abuse this for personal gratification.

The way this particular issue is discussed shows a lot of expectation bias that make it impossible to discuss a taboo, EVEN if we actually arrive at the same conclusion.

It precludes arriving at the right conclusion for the right reasons.

Instead, a lot of right wing and conservative discourse comes to the right conclusions for the wrong reason (discussed in this video), the wrong conclusions for the wrong reasons, and the wrong conclusions for the right reasons.

Expectation bias short-circuits discusisons, and is one of the main things that leads to the natural argument carrying so much weight.

That said: Eating humans would be perfectly okay. If, and only if: a) the human enthusiastically consents, and b) the human is dead.

Expectation bias poisons the well of the discussion, by means of making any counter arguments complicit with the condemned act.

There's a very simple reason why a hardline consequentialist (hi, I am that person) should care about motive: Motive is a signal of future behaviour. If you have a strong motive to do a bad thing, you're unlike to just do it once*. Motives are therefore clearly *consequential to your future behaviour.

Ignoring the future is a pretty common problem for consequentialists, unfortunately.

Women

What is difficult about it? Causing suffering is worse than killing.

Wow you’re a pseudo intellectual, shoeonheads tweet, the very first thing you don’t understand is satire, it’s satirical of all the liberal need for a “source” of obviously bad things

I like how “your wrong because your obviously wrong” is the only argument against the imaginary globalists

Look, criticize debate culture all you want, but please do it with an actual argument or reasoning or anything, like, why dose having a debate on the moral difference between bestiality and meat eating show the flaws in debate culture or whatever, maybe its the debate bro in me, but i want to here an argument explaining that

I kinda want a cartoon “Marx innit” shirt 😂

But there are losers who like it look at the furries

I really do like the points Joel makes in this video, but I’m not convinced by his argument for the distinction between eating meat and bestiality.

I’m not convinced that intending/wanting the suffering of the animal is the motivation of (at least all) bestiality. Rather I think that similarly to eating meat, the suffering of the animal is a side effect of the primary goal - eating meat or pleasure (not of the sadistic kind). In other words, I think the same you can claim that a meat eater is not actively seeking to do harm to animals, (at least some of the time) those who participate in bestiality are also not.

Regardless of views on eating meat, I think most people would agree that the process of acquiring meat, especially in the modern age, does do harm. Perhaps you could argue that there is a difference in proximity to the consequences (I.e. suffering of animals) generally speaking, as most people aren’t at least somewhat visually aware of whatever harm caused every time they eat meat. However, then you would have to concede that the distinction between bestiality and eating meat is not an inherent characteristic. Thus, there would circumstances in which you could not defend this distinction with this argument.

Brain think good, will subscribe.

God men are annoying, especially you.

This is a 21 minute video of a white male getting angry over a shitpost, feed us trolls!

I actually think ShoeOnHead's argument was sound: eating meat is natural, and fucking animals isn't. (For humans.)
The argument that "bigots have said that homophobia isn't natural to justify their bigotry" isn't really an argument against "the appeal to nature". For obvious fucking reasons. Are you fucking kidding me?
"Your argument isn't sound, because idiots use that type of argument incorrectly; in bad faith, but also they lie about it." Um... no, go fuck yourself.

"If it was natural to eat humans, would you defend it?" I don't know, man. If the world was completely different, then yeah, maybe how I perceived this completely different world would be different than I currently perceive our world as currently constructed. What a dumb argument to make.
"But what if 1 +1 = 3? What then?" Well... then things would be different. That's what we call a nonsequitor.

Great video but I wish you would have done the same critique of your own pure views.

why does he sound like nile red?

classic soyboy loser. No clear definition of natural? Funny its in the dictionary, you can find "beware" but not natural, sure... "as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people" and that you even comparing fucking animals with eating food is just disgusting. I mean what kinda sick fuck are you?

I watched this video and came out of it with “smart guy read twitter post. tell me in confusing way what it mean. me not understand”

Shoeonhead is the kid at the playground who asked if she could play with the other kids and then gets mad and says the game is stupid when she loses

Someone needs to start pointing out how they look just as foolish as those libs asking for a source as to why bestiality is wrong when they are genuinely unable to come up with one. If it’s that obvious why are you unable to?

Ok but why are people trying to argue against a tweet arguing against beastiality. Idc what “fallacies” are in the tweet. Beastiality is animal abuse and nit picking the tweet really rubs me the wrong way. It’s like people support beastiality or something… This whole thing is just annoying… Also, the fallacy doesn’t even make sense as a fallacy. I could say that it’s natural to eat food so therefore we should eat food and if you tried to prove me wrong then you would starve to death.

I say if it’s natural for other animals to do it’s fine, except for certain exceptions because I can’t be bothered👍. Eating airhead is one of them

! 1 second
There is something to talk about it shoe's point of being natural meat eaters.
We are natural meat eater and we have to survive doing that it tastes good has more nutration then any other food also in nature wolf eats other animal its a nature doing nature stuff.
If you gave me some pill that made me unable to eat meat and puke everytime i do so then i won't eat meat.
The problem with animal fucker's are that they don't need to fuck animal it does not provide anything but pleasure. Should we know why is it worse definetly which i know because i don't see the animal being killed every time i eat meat.
It says something about the individual as you pointed out to fuck animal.
Does shoe has to be a intelectual like a giga brained goddess to say Fucking animal is worse then eating animal because in 1 we are doing it for benefit to our health and on second we are doing it for pure pleasure.
Also its morally funking weird that you are mating with another species.
No i ask you why is this even a debate there are some stuff where debate should not be held.
1 on pedophilia.
2 on Interspecies Sex.
3 on peoples personal opinion that does not harm others.
4 People changing their sex to something else.
Let people do what ever they doing unless they are harming anything like human or animal.
In which case in my opinion they should be put in jail.

I would eat animal for taste alone but i would not do it if i had to eat a animal while its crying in pain while screaming.
At that point maybe becoming vegan is more morally right.

My head is not in the right place my arguments and point might contradict each other hard.

Based on how many times she brought up a horse specifically. I think she wants to fuck a horse.

Hi Joel.
Why are you pretending to not get the joke? I’ll spell it out for you: big tech falls all over itself to defend weird sex shit. That’s the joke. But you knew that already, didn’t you Joel? You know about the vice and salon pieces about pedophiles being virtuous. You’re not a stupid man.

So why are you pretending to-

Oh, I see. You’re one of them. Got it. Please stay away from children.

I don't understand the compulsion to try and justify one's morals at all. "Because I don't like it" is all every ethical framework boils down to in the end, so why not just have the conversation there, where it actually is?

murders are natural?
have you ever killed anything?
doing such things is very destructive to the mental well being of a normal person

its very very painful and there is just one way to overcome, that is facing your deed, owning it and accepting you did what you did which is very painful but if done frees you of a lot of pain

i don't know what kind of person would say murder is natural, maybe some kind of psychopath or whaterver

Here’s the thing about morals though: they’re all bullshit/subjective. Your can be founded on whatever you want and if naturalism is one of those pillars, why is that intrinsically less correct than minimizing the suffering of other species?

"why is animal sex bad but animal killing for food good?" because most of us agree animal sex is bad and animal killing for food is good. shut up and be concise, no more of this "here's what I think" nonsense

I mean she also deals with the same people who will call her a facist nazi for caling out weird pedo and suspect shit like the belinciaga debacle so if that is you argue daily then it is hard to tet out if that mindset

sounds like a question to the oxford all-souls exam

Who fucking cares

Your whole argument falls to pieces in the case of male animals with female humans. For example girls who do it with their dog, lets not pretend we not all been on the internet long enough to have encountered that.

Meat is an essential part of a balanced human diet, despite the delusional fake reality vegans have created. People should eat at least one piece of red meat a week. If you need to take food supplements, you do not have a healthy diet. So until lab created meat becomes viable, killing animals is an actual necessity. Having sex with animals is not. So no, they aren't anywhere close to being equally bad.

It begs the question what is “good” and “moral?”

In biology, an animal generally seeks to propagate its own genes. Eating other species? Good. Fucking other species? Not good. Then again, raping your own species?

Honestly I don’t think one is worse than the other. It’s just that one is far more appealing.

This video feels like shouting at a fridge for not reheating your meal. Having deep conversations about complicated topics wasn't ever the deal on Twitter. Shoe knows this very well, that's why she's not even trying.

Shoe's answer and Joel's answer are basically the same, Joel is just using more pedantic language.

This video is incredible

I enjoy watching Shoe's videos but man she did take a fat L here.
The video was great, and it looked fantastic! I feel like I could follow your arguments really well!