ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #dcbeb9 (color 2)
Video Format : 22 (720p) openh264 ( https://github.com/cisco/openh264) mp4a.40.2 | 44100Hz
Audio Format: Opus - Normalized audio
PokeTubeEncryptID: 1a9883472b2c86b160d11102e57efb03e96290969073f477efbbfbc177656a1e60405a0a155646b6621d2d5242fa6099
Proxy : eu-proxy.poketube.fun - refresh the page to change the proxy location
Date : 1714817834548 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text : bmFja1pIc3hQMWMgaSAgbG92ICB1IGV1LXByb3h5LnBva2V0dWJlLmZ1bg==
143 : true
6,437 Views ⢠Feb 26, 2023 ⢠Click to toggle off description
There's a few interesting discoveries to be had. For one it's always interesting to see how subtle warpings of facts can lead to very different perspectives. It's also interesting to contemplate what such work tells us about the worldview of the writer. It's also interesting to see how evolutionary arguments are misused in the name of an agenda.
All of this comes into play with this PETA article on veganism but there's a mirror of this sort of ideological work going on among the Carnivore and Paleo subcultures online.
____________________
đ Further Reading:
- PETA article: www.peta.org/living/food/really-natural-truth-humaâŚ
- The Atlantic article: www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/02/when-hâŚ
- A carnivore history article: fitawakening.co.uk/2022/08/17/carnivore-history/
________________
â Support the channel (thank you!)
âś Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
âś Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy
_________________
đŹ More from The Living Philosophy
âś Discord discord.gg/XNd4gTpfu9
âś đ¨ Subscribe with email: thelivingphilosophy.substack.com/
_________________
â Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
4:48 The Atlantic Article's History of Human Meat-Eating
8:08 PETA's Account
17:16 Reflections and Conclus
Views : 6,437
Genre: Education
Date of upload: Feb 26, 2023 ^^
Rating : 4.954 (5/433 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2023-12-29T23:57:25.288454Z
See in json
YouTube Comments - 212 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
Without trying to sound too flippant, if our dietary choice is predicated between a Big Mac and a Greggs vegan sausage roll then we have collectively lost the plot.
41 |
As a vegan, I despise most of what PETA spews. They're classically more sensationalist than sensitive in their writing. Some fellow vegans I know also dislike their rhetoric. I appreciate their attempts at trying to inform people of what happens behind closed doors as in the case of factory farming, but most times it's done in ways that blatantly shame the reader instead of capturing their attention and making them ask questions. I would much rather watch an Earthling Ed video than read anything they put out.
36 |
Not only does Peterson only eat meat, he only drinks water, perhaps with a bit of lemon.The man has become a medieval-style monk. I'm not sure what to make of all this, but I appreciate the way you hashed it out. Thanks.
18 |
Thanks for a largely unbiased perspective on this issue. Your channel is a goldmine.
11 |
Thatâs a really interesting highlight from the articles! I like this step back from the articleâs content and structure to analyze its more core belief(s). Thanks!
|
Dude, once again a impressive work. You manage to unpack an intricate war of ideas beneath a seemingly simple battle, where the possibility that a clear winner exist is not even questioned.
Love one of your last sentence : "today's human is as human as our ancestors".
I once taught about an interesting way to describe the difficulty to arrive at a definitive truth regarding some aspects of human behavior, let it be our diet (carnivore vs vegan), our amorous relationship (mono vs polygamy), the structure of our society (patriarchal vs matriarchal), etc.
I call it "the curse of flexibility".
The idea is that, due to their ability to adapt, humans evolve in a "shade of gray" where it is impossible to pin down an "authentic" way of living as a "true" human.
To illustrate that, here is one example (found in Robert Sapolski's book: "behave") that compares humans with other apes by linking their social structure to the difference in physical traits between male and female. In one extreme you have the gorilla, where male and female exhibits strong differences (the male are much bigger, stronger, more aggressive, etc.) which leads to a rigid polygamous, patriarchal social structure. On the other extreme you have other kind of apes (unfortunately I do not remember which ones) where there is almost no differences between male and female when looking at the same biological markers. This is then related to a (somewhat) rigid monogamous, balanced social structure.
And where does human stands on the scale of such biological markers? In the middle! Which means that, depending on details, one could argue for one extreme or the other as the "authentic, true" human social structure!
It's extremely confusing, but at the same time fascinating :)
2 |
Love this video with live examples of articles, it made me digest better the lessons of the narrative
5 |
This video of yours got published in the middle of my rewatching (probably for the 5th time) Simon Amstelâs âCarnageâ (2017), hahah. Iâve been vegan for over 12 yrs. Looking fwd to new perspectives that might be presented in this video as soon as the movie ends :)
7 |
I love how you used logical fallacies in this; great explanation. I'm vegan for many reasons and started at a young age, and I have a soft spot for animals. I don't like corporate farming practices too. They are a lot different from Family Farms. Great job đ
19 |
Nice video! I think youâre right that this is indeed part of the culture wars. I agree largely with your remarks on the Peta article. I think part of the culture war that probably influenced why this came to be is over-correction by vegans. Vegans hold that humans are omnivores but can choose to be herbivores in this day and age, then some outsiders say âbut our canines mean weâre meant to be carnivoresâ. That remark is pretty meaningless on its own, and so we try to just avoid people bringing it up at all by providing a similar statement but in the other direction, like âour molars mean weâre supposed to grind our food side-to-side, unlike other carnivores and omnivoresâ. The problem is, is that itâs equally uninstantiated. Itâs a really dumb hill to die on. We need to concede humans are omnivores and go from there. This is what was done for some time until the recent years.
While this is a fairly benign example of vegans over-compensating, I think the most egregious example is the new âreduce animal sufferingâ rhetoric. It started, Iâm guessing, from the âcrop deathsâ argument. Itâs very easy to gloss over this nuanced problem by just saying âwell as vegans we just do our best to reduce animal sufferingâ. In doing so, this COMPLETELY changes the definition of veganism from a deontological animal rights based movement to a negative utilitarian welfare movement. And this has caused irreconcilable infighting.
6 |
I feel like some aggressive 'carnivores' act that way because deep down they know that those who limit their diets are more disciplined. This is coming from a meat eater btw. There's a definite cognitive dissonance going on with how we love pets and abhor animal abuse, yet are complicit in the horrific factory farm system.
61 |
Socrates says that rhetoric panders to the opinions, not the knowledge, of ignorant people and makes those ignorant people more ignorant than they were to begin with.
3 |
Cool video.
Personally, I donât care much for emulating some arbitrarily selected ancestors.
Iâm more concerned about what are the stats about diet with humans today, what are the environmental costs of different foods, and what are the ethical obligations (if any) we owe non-human animals.
9 |
The problem isnt should we eat meat or veggies. The problem is WHY should be mass consume mass produced meat that causes more harm than good. I think most vegans agree that mass produced meat that causes pandemics, horrible lifes for animals and consume a lot of resources are bad and we should not artificially keep the prices low so people buy tons and tons of meat (in the richer countries). I think no one would have a problem if we were more understandable of our ecosystem and an active part of it taking and giving (killing animals). But we as humans have a choice to not kill and we can dicuss the ethics or ecological problems in a different discussion. My point is we are not talking about the right issues and need to be critical of the big picture. I think you cant argue in any way that mass produced meat and mass consumption of it is good (economical, health, ethical, ecological etc).
3 |
Excellent critque of this particular battle in the culture wars. However, the term "meat eater" is a bit misleading, and I think deliberatley so by the Peta article. We are carniviours, but not like cats or dogs. We are actually "lipovours" - fat eaters. Our paleolithic diet was carniorous but unlike other predators it centered on fat, organ meat, and bone marrow and a moderate amount of fleshy protien. The same paleolithic stone tools mentioned in your video were used to crack open bones and cut throught the hides of large game allowing us to access energy dense parts of the kill. There are many other facts that debunk the Peta article, such as the inability to get all essential nutrients in a vegan diet without supplementation. To cut a long comment a little bit short I will say that while I disagree with Jordan Peterson on almost everything, else he has diet correct (thanks in large part to his daughter who solved her own health issues with a carnivour diet.)
2 |
Great episode
|
If humans have any essential quality it is adaptability. We have adapted our diets depending on the context.
|
Most of the article felt like an appeal to nature fallacy to me as well.
Great breakdown of it!
|
The Japanese like to associate themselves with eating vegetables and fish and westerners with eating meat, so meat eating is frequently employed for purposes of racial stereotyping, and by no means harmless stereotypes at that.
The Left says "stereotypes are harmful", while the right says "stereotypes are true", but what everyone ignores is the meaning and intent of stereotype when it is used. When Hon hon hon baguette" is employed to jab at French people, everyone is aware to what extent this is taken to accurately reflect what French people are like and the extent to which it is a joke, which is to say it is rather more of the latter than the former.
With Japanese media, this equation is reversed such that the stereotype is used as an indictment against other races as inferior uncultured savages and only when the media in question arrives on foreign soil is it's character as a joke shamefully employed to cover Japan's unbridled xenophobia so that they can insult other cultures, inflate the ego of their own, and take their money all at the same time.
2 |
@TheLivingPhilosophy
1 year ago
đPatreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy â Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 4:48 The Atlantic Article's History of Human Meat-Eating 8:08 PETA's Account 17:16 Reflections and Conclusio
1 |