Regarding that rhetorical trick he opened up with, that's an example of what happens when people accept whatever someone else speaks with authority in front of a willing audience, which does nothing to really support the rest of his thesis since he's speaking with authority in front of a willing audience. One could in theory have actually measured the circles rather than guessing by eye, but the audience is never given that chance. However, there is no objective measurement that can be done to determine whether it's right to kill animals for food. Or whether whether it is right or wrong to enslave other humans, for that matter. Morality is not a matter of measurement, so this example he's using is total rubbish. This dude's rhetorical crap evaporates if you examine it closely.
Pointing out that the fancy packaging doesn't look like how the food is actually produced isn't news to anyone who is at least a semi-functioning adult.
Yeah, the US kills a lot of animals for food. That's what happens when you have a population of about 300 million people, with many of them living wealthy enough lives to eat meat and dairy products on a regular basis. Like anti-abortion types, veganists seem to love spouting large figures, while seemingly forgetting that meat eaters have no real reason to be concerned about the number of animals killed for food, because as far as meat eaters are concerned, there is nothing wrong with killing animals for food in the first place. "By the time I'm finished today, there'll be over a million animals that have been slaughtered" ...and?
Nobody told me I "had to" eat meat to get protein. Other sources are available. But meat
is a good source of protein, as much as vegans might like to avoid that fact. Nor did anyone tell me that I
had to consume cows' milk, and only cow's milk, to have a good source of calcium and thus strong and healthy bones. I enjoyed some rather nice cheeses this Christmas, one made from ewes' milk and one of them made from goats' milk.
Nobody told me my diet was "natural", and I know full well that it isn't. How many strawmen is this cunt going to roll out?
Oh my fuck, is he really going there with the pictures of strawberries and piglets? Yes, I think he is. Fruits are specialised parts of plants that have evolved to be eaten by animals, that's why (human tinkering aside) they smell nice you fucking weasel. Pigs evolved to
not be eaten by predators, and our selective breeding after that didn't select for traits that make pigs easier to eat raw.
How animals are turned into meat is not a fucking secret, oh my fuck!
What a load of patronising wank! People participate in the process all the time, mainly because that's their fucking job.
People would have problem with butchering a hog in a lecture theatre mainly because it's not the right place to do it. Maybe they'll have welfare or hygiene concerns. Or maybe they would have come expecting a talk, not a demonstration of butchering technique. This guy really likes to make broad-brush assumptions about his audience. As for myself, I would have no problem with people coming to see a hog being butchered. In fact if anything, I think more people should at least try to get their hands dirty like that. So, no hypocrisy here, phew!
Few people seem to like the idea of cleaning sewers for a living, but that doesn't make them hypocrites for making use of indoor plumbing.
No, I would happily give dog meat a try. I don't judge other cultures harshly for eating animals that I would consider to be pets, because I'm mature enough to know that other cultures see things differently. What kind of fucking audience is he talking to, a bunch of schoolkids?! Nah, I reckon schoolkids would be bored by this dude's bullshit. So most people in the West see dogs as pets not food. So fucking what? Does this dude not know that animals can be domesticated for reasons other than being a food source, right?
Right and wrong aren't universal unless you're one of those who believe in some kind objective morality. Welcome to Moral Philosophy 101.
So culture isn't natural any more? What is, then? Also, this guy seems to be equating "natural" with "good" or "normal". That's a fallacy.
Three year old kids will pet pretty much any animal they can get their grubby little paws on. Why are you bringing this up when practically all human cultures will agree that a three year old child has yet to properly develop their moral faculties? Besides, if we decided on what to eat based on the preferences of most three year old kids, then vegetables would be banned and sweet shop items would feature heavily. Three year old children are not a useful guide for morality, you dumbshit.
Holy fucking shit, apparently this knob has a degree. It's in Humane Education, which sounds like bullshit if I ever heard it. I wonder what "institution" is handing out those.