Stupidity is Real: Matt Dillahunty & Unnatural Vegan.
30 January 2018 [link youtube]
The video is only 5 minutes long, and it requires no prior knowledge of the Vegan Gains vs. Matt Dillahunty debate (on veganism).
Youtube Automatic Transcription
you said that your views on animal
morality are speciesist so with that did you mean that it is okay to kill animals and let's say in the context like needlessly when you don't need to so if you're at a grocery store if you have access to a grocery store and you can either choose to eat a fully vegan diet or if you choose to eat on an omnivorous diet it's okay to needlessly kill an animal for food just because it's a different species on you is that what you meant by speciesist yeah so this is the thing what I mean about people arguing dishonestly because when you say is it okay to needlessly kill an animal you are injecting all sorts of context into this my position is really simple I am not convinced that eating meat is immoral okay well there needs to be a context I mean if you needed to eat me to survive like if you were an indigenous person and you lived in a tribe I'd say it is morally acceptable to eat meat because you need to do survive but okay you're obviously not in that position you have access to a grocery store you don't need to kill animals to live and be healthy okay so you're basically me so you're basically claiming that it's okay to needlessly kill animals because they're not a part of our social contract and it doesn't affect us no see this is this is what I talk about when you guys are so repeatedly dishonest I did not say I'm not dishonest yes yes you are Richard and I'm gonna prove it to you and everybody else again right now because I already called you out for the same thing a few minutes ago I had no point said that it was okay to needlessly kill animals you cannot take shut up man shut up you cannot take my position Andrey spin it and paint it with your poisonous fallacious framing the problem here is that you are assuming that I am making a case for something being morally permissible when I am saying that I have not been convinced that something should be morally impermissible there are moral obligations and their moral virtues and I am happy to acknowledge that someone who never kills an animal and lives their life that way may be more morally virtuous than me I better of fact I'll say it now I think they are that is not the same as a demonstration that there is a moral obligation to not kill animals for food and when I talk about where I draw lines and why it has to do with rights the ability to understand rights and the social contract we make and where we extend it - you're basing your moral outlook on - on two things on what social contract and reciprocation of rights no no I'm not I'm basing my moral outlook on well-being I'm basing my moral position well-being period period and when I talk about where I draw lines and why it has to do with rights the ability to understand rights and the social contract we make and where we extended to not once to Dillahunty mention social contract or anything that resembles social contract theory it has to do with rights the ability to understand rights and the social contract we make and where we extend it to not once to Dillahunty mention social contract or anything that resembles social contract theory well-being period okay well do you think I'm basing what rights I are given based on the the things that you just mentioned cluding reciprocation but not the individual ability for an individual to reciprocate but the categorical potential for reciprocation within a group okay well Matt you if your morale like if the basis for morality is well-being then you should be in favor of veganism because it's not within the best interest like it doesn't animals do you kill and eat them okay so the issue here is rights whether or not we should extend no no the issue here is whether or not there's a moral obligation is writes whether or not we should extend no the issue here is whether or not there's a moral obligation to not kill and eat animals not whether or not it might be morally virtuous okay so why do you believe it's not a moral obligation because nobody from your side has made an argument that it should be a moral obligation the default the default is freedom until there's a good reason to limit that freedom the default is maximal right freedoms you need with the kill animals what sorry you want you think it's an infringing on your freedom to needlessly kill animals that can think and feel just like you buy oh wow okay [Music] evolution
morality are speciesist so with that did you mean that it is okay to kill animals and let's say in the context like needlessly when you don't need to so if you're at a grocery store if you have access to a grocery store and you can either choose to eat a fully vegan diet or if you choose to eat on an omnivorous diet it's okay to needlessly kill an animal for food just because it's a different species on you is that what you meant by speciesist yeah so this is the thing what I mean about people arguing dishonestly because when you say is it okay to needlessly kill an animal you are injecting all sorts of context into this my position is really simple I am not convinced that eating meat is immoral okay well there needs to be a context I mean if you needed to eat me to survive like if you were an indigenous person and you lived in a tribe I'd say it is morally acceptable to eat meat because you need to do survive but okay you're obviously not in that position you have access to a grocery store you don't need to kill animals to live and be healthy okay so you're basically me so you're basically claiming that it's okay to needlessly kill animals because they're not a part of our social contract and it doesn't affect us no see this is this is what I talk about when you guys are so repeatedly dishonest I did not say I'm not dishonest yes yes you are Richard and I'm gonna prove it to you and everybody else again right now because I already called you out for the same thing a few minutes ago I had no point said that it was okay to needlessly kill animals you cannot take shut up man shut up you cannot take my position Andrey spin it and paint it with your poisonous fallacious framing the problem here is that you are assuming that I am making a case for something being morally permissible when I am saying that I have not been convinced that something should be morally impermissible there are moral obligations and their moral virtues and I am happy to acknowledge that someone who never kills an animal and lives their life that way may be more morally virtuous than me I better of fact I'll say it now I think they are that is not the same as a demonstration that there is a moral obligation to not kill animals for food and when I talk about where I draw lines and why it has to do with rights the ability to understand rights and the social contract we make and where we extend it - you're basing your moral outlook on - on two things on what social contract and reciprocation of rights no no I'm not I'm basing my moral outlook on well-being I'm basing my moral position well-being period period and when I talk about where I draw lines and why it has to do with rights the ability to understand rights and the social contract we make and where we extended to not once to Dillahunty mention social contract or anything that resembles social contract theory it has to do with rights the ability to understand rights and the social contract we make and where we extend it to not once to Dillahunty mention social contract or anything that resembles social contract theory well-being period okay well do you think I'm basing what rights I are given based on the the things that you just mentioned cluding reciprocation but not the individual ability for an individual to reciprocate but the categorical potential for reciprocation within a group okay well Matt you if your morale like if the basis for morality is well-being then you should be in favor of veganism because it's not within the best interest like it doesn't animals do you kill and eat them okay so the issue here is rights whether or not we should extend no no the issue here is whether or not there's a moral obligation is writes whether or not we should extend no the issue here is whether or not there's a moral obligation to not kill and eat animals not whether or not it might be morally virtuous okay so why do you believe it's not a moral obligation because nobody from your side has made an argument that it should be a moral obligation the default the default is freedom until there's a good reason to limit that freedom the default is maximal right freedoms you need with the kill animals what sorry you want you think it's an infringing on your freedom to needlessly kill animals that can think and feel just like you buy oh wow okay [Music] evolution