Ambika Seghal | Beyond Meat Debate | Propositon (1/7) | Oxford Union
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2022
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
In the wake of damning new evidence, the contribution of meat consumption to carbon emissions is at the forefront of global conversations. In this debate, fears of environmental damage and ethical concerns for animal rights clash with millions within the meat industry facing unemployment, religious and cultural traditions being condemned, and those with medical requirements risking disapproval for putting their health first. In light of these competing concerns, we must confront one of the most urgent issues of our time: should society finally move beyond meat?
--------------------------------------
Proposition Speakers
1. Heather Mills
Former model, businesswoman, media personality, and activist. She launched VBites, a vegan food company, and plans to create a ‘vegan Silicon Valley’ in the North of England.
2. Professor Jeff McMahan
White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford and author of The Meat Eaters. He has been a vegetarian for more than 50 years and continues to query the ethics of killing animals.
3. Carol Adams
Writer, vegan feminist, and animal rights advocate. She is known for having written The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, and was inducted into the Animal Rights Hall of Fame in 2011.
--------------------------------------
Opposition Speakers
1. Mikhaila Peterson
Canadian podcaster who runs the blog Don’t Eat That. She eats a meat-only ‘Lion Diet’ and claims this has helped her overcome autoimmune and mood disorders.
2. Peter Stevenson OBE
Chief Policy Advisor to Compasssion in World Farming and recipient of the RSPCA Lord Erskine Award. He was lead author of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation review of animal welfare legislation.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
I was expecting a "on top of that, coke is vegan" argument after hearing all those sniffs.
I know she's probably just got the sniffles but I could not stop laughing at this😂
Those sniffs are so distracting indeed 😅
It is vegan - so maybe :-D
Generally Sinus congestion can be traced to a toxic colon (bunged up) LOL the irony of which in this context is precious
LOL! I had a couple coke thoughts going through my head.
This is what debates at top-notch universities look like? Lol, it's a joke...
That was a rather, um, NASTY comment.
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@TheVeganVicar do I fuckin look like a dumb vegan?
@@ivankaseljanka great comment! 🤣
@@ivankaseljanka Does contain what it says on the tin!🤣😂🤣
And this is why college/university has become a waste of time.
Maybe if the first speaker had had some meat she wouldn't need to sniff so loudly between sentences.
Lol I didn't hear it till I read your comment, now it is the most annoying thing in the world.
The irony is she's a meat eater which she explains in the first minute of the video. I agree though, her problem likely was her diet. Needs to eat more carbs and veggies to heal that carny brain fog.
@@rasputozen Her problem was the nosebeer she had before going on stage, and carbohydrates wouldn't help her do anything but get cancer.
Evidently not, because she already eats meat. In fact, that meat is probably why she needs to sniff all the time.
I am an Alcoholic but would like to come to a debate and Talk about why we should stop drinking.
Lol exactly 😂🤣 this chics the most brain dead individual I have ever listen to argue on anti meat xD bet she thinks fire is cold 🥶
those types are the best. "I eat meat, you eat meat, but I'd defend banning it just to be able to signal my virtues."
At least an alcoholic would be suffering the consequences of binge drinking and is considered a disorder, but eating meat does not seem to lead to health problems. I could imagine a struggling alcoholic trying to convince me to not abuse alcohol but in this case I can't see her repentance for her meat consumption. She seems carismatic but not convincing.
I'm an alcoholic and every week I chat with fellow alcoholics on why we've stopped drinking.
They’re called AA meetings and they are full of alcoholics talking about why they should stop drinking.
I cannot shake off the thought that her arguments were no better than those of my classmates back when we were 14
Because that’s how dumb it is thinking giving up animal abuse is even debatable 😂😂😂 u don’t have to be Stephen Hawkins to see that animal abuse is wrong 😂
@@alfiewoodley01 true but her arguments are pretty darn superficial
@@alfiewoodley01 if it is animal abuse then frankly I don't care. Equating human life to an animal is upsurdity to the highest degree, in which I think it proves militant vegans/vegetarians are utterly and hopelessly narcissistic and devoid of natural reasoning. It was because humans started eating meat that we evolved and it was because of the use of animals that we advanced.
well .. at least they where lightyears ahead of the feminist hate monger on her side.
I remember this one kid getting pissed and cussing me out because I was snickering at his poor points. I don't even remember the topic, but an angry freshman screaming "Go to hell, asshole!" was more compelling than whatever this was.
Wow. I guess she cannot even convince her ownself that her own argument is right. A meat eater convincing others to become a vegan. 👏
How modern of her, right ? 😂
This whole debate utterly futile.
@@vikashsharma9837, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
It makes perfect sense, you need to stop eating meat so there is meat for me.
@@CallandorBG you may want to tell that to her. She does not even have that conviction in herself. If she had, she would have taken action herself.
animals no,
cocaine ok, sniff... ?
sniff, sniff
I’m so sick of the absolute classism in so many colleges they think they know reality? They only know reality in their own lives and none of others.
(By this I mean what the privileged have to say about the poor in colleges, including the outrageous costs and what not)
Are you VEGAN? 🌱
exactly, well said
And of course they're socialists.
As a British PhD student, I can whole heartedly say I'm absolutely delighted to not be studying at Oxford, if this is the calibre of academic they put forward as among their best to debate this topic.
Wow. That was barely passable as a last-minute thrown together year 7 'intro to debate' piece of homework.
I'm shocked it's not any idiot can get in it's the village idiots and nobody else
I completely agree with you.
The union is not affiliated with the university other than the fact university students are members. It’s a club.
“Cocaines a hell of a drug “ Rick James…
she herself has demonstrated that the pros of meat in her argument outweigh the cons. her existence is a opposition argument
Where is part 2?
Knowing full well that my question is provocative, but my first thought on "Murder is Bad" is: Do Vegans oppose abortion? Or do they find some way to say, "My Body, My Choice"? So, no problem if humans murder developing human beings. If the latter, then leave people to enjoy meat if they do, because...Their Body, Their Choice. ( If vegans generally are entirely consistent in opposing abortion, then I at least respect their intellectual integrity and convictions on "Life". )
Prison if you step on a turtle egg, but killing a 8 month old baby in the womb is encouraged. Peta hates humanity.
I had to read this 3 times to make sure I understood what the hell you were saying. Your argument it based almost exclusively on a false equivalency principle, and as such would never come close to swaying any pro-choice person as they understand the galaxy wide difference between a "developing human being" - which is inside their body, made partly from their DNA, and being provided nutrients from their body to enable the maturation to a point of viability - and an animal that is in no way directly connected or influenced by any human in its basal existence and would thrive with or without human intervention.
TL;DR - Your "provocative question" is pure sophistry.
@@CthulhuTheory not exactly. The argument above is on to something. A developing human being is still life, correct? Otherwise I would think we can eat eggs. Why can’t we eat eggs? Is that no longer immoral?
@@CthulhuTheory - TLDR back atcha. Your spinning around in evasive pseudo-intellectualism is comical. Try stand-up, otherwise your support of a human being developing all the way to birth being free game for "murder" is: Disgusting. ( And you obviously need to read it a 4th time, because you are a bit slow on the uptake of the moral dilemma presented. )
@@jimcricket1 - Great point, mate! And you are on to the blatant backwardness of turtle eggs being incredibly valuable, but who the hell cares about human zygotes and developing human beings. Not an "it" that the extremists of Pro-Choice and the like refer to developing in human wombs.
Beyond Meat for the plebs, meat for the elite. Same with air travel. This is the future.
Imagine a giant boot stamping on a human face, that's our future
You vill eat ze bugs, and you vill own nothing
Let’s hope this does not happen.
@@clovermark39 Let's be active to make sure it doesn't happen.
What do you think you're getting in meat that you can't get from plants and your own body's metabolism?
If eating meat would defeat social justice and increase CO2 emissions, I'd go carnivore today
So right now you're just increasing CO2 emissions?
@@theslyngl I'm trying to but it's kinda expensive
More CO2 means more plant growth.
Check the channel Garland Farms for some perspective of plant agriculture
UPLOAD PART 2
Mikhaila Peterson has her part on her channel
@@silverhiver That's not Part 2
Is nasal discharge vegan?
I love how the first debater couldn't even convince herself.
How am going to take her serious?
She mentions "Christian ethics", but doesn't define it or explain what she means. At. All.
They're a joke.
@@AllThePeppermint i bet shes not christian, but it has nothing to do with christianity anyway
You know people also make this point against vegans. They're like they're vegan that's why they're saying that. People who don't want to listen always find excuses to.
@@mmmmmmmmmmm111 She isn't vegan. She just thinks everyone else should be vegan while she continues to eat meat.
That's why no one takes her serious
@@AndersRosendalBJJ, Are you VEGAN? 🌱
I love how the video description says that Mikhaila "claims" her diet helps her, as if she has no actual proof or evidence of it.
I can't believe Harvard's standards have fallen this low ... 🤦
Agreed, but remember, this is Oxford 😅
@@caitroseco6752 Thanks for the correction. Either way, it's sad to see all of these elite places of higher learning flushing themselves down the proverbial toilet.
The word "claims" in this context is completely appropriate.
@@backyardsausage yeah, and notice how it took six months for Mikaela’s (pretty sure I spelled that wrong, sorry) symptoms to go away AFTER she started eating nothing but meat, which begs the question, how did she really know that cutting ALL plants was the answer? It’s no surprise she got a reaction trying to reintroduce plant foods after cutting them out completely because she dramatically changed her gut microbiome. And then there’s the added issue that her story is making her money…I mean, I think she probably is telling her truth, but it’s worth considering that Mikaela makes a lot of money giving people private carnivore classes or whatever you want to call them. Although I have no idea what Mikaela could possibly be teaching them. The diet consists of water, ruminant meat and salt. Not much else to say.
@@caitroseco6752 She does podcasts. I'm not aware that she'd be doing any consultations.
The audience people were bracing hard (literally biting their lips) not to burst out laughing, lol
That was a relief to notice. Every time I hear the leftist "logic" spewed out, I'm concerned that all neurons around will be committing su ic ide. Glad people are waking up to the woke stupidity.
@@lochness7952 That old roa$tie has failed to notice that she's White herself. Mirin the self-loathing of the bored White women.
@@lochness7952 I'm not gonna lie, whenever I hear people start to argue about what they eat, I know that I'm in the wrong room, and time to hit the door.
They end up laughing at the next bird.
"I have a confession"... I've snorted coke before making my case.
That sniffing is so distracting I can't even pay attention to what she is saying.
Someone get that girl a tissue please
Do they realize their arguments about the animals as living beings are also arguments against abortion?
if it doesn’t fit their agenda it doesn’t matter if it’s true….
Hahaha I was thinking the exact same thing!!! I refuse to listen to the moral judgements passed down by a group of people so hypocritical. If your going to be a hypocrite keep your judgements to yourself!
That's not true, since it depends when your definition of "life" begins. I would argue that the life of an animal which has been born and is experiencing life is more valuable than a bunch of human cells in the womb which can't survive outside it.
@@TeedottJay being concious isn't what gives living things value, unless you wouldn't mind being killed in your sleep. You *would* mind, saying "but I would have woken up and had a meaningful life!" The same is true of the human waiting to be born.
@@jefflavenau6805 We disagree on this point and that’s ok. I understand you. Being asleep and not being born are not equivalent to me, whereas to you they are. When sleeping, you still have brain activity and biological functions and can still feel pain, you can dream, you are breathing. A fetus up until a certain point of pregnancy isn’t formed enough to be able to experience anything, there are no nerves formed to feel pain or even a brain. So yes, you can be against killing animals/humans but be pro-abortion and not feel like a hypocrite, but that’s just my opinion.
This debate has convinced me that the only reason people are vegan is because thay don’t know anything about agriculture.
It's the exact opposite. Anyone who thinks feeding 8 billion people requires more agriculture than feeding 8 billion people + 80 billion land animals has a fundamental misunderstanding of not only agriculture but math and logic in general.
@@rasputozen case in point.
Exactly!
@@rasputozen Without the manure from ruminants, we are left with (Dow) chemicals to “fertilize” the crops. How is that good for the soil, which is also a living thing?
Maybe it’s BigChem who’s behind the push to plant based, since it benefits them greatly.
@@canileaveitblank1476 Wrong. Composting unused plant matter directly is orders of magnitude more cost-efficient, comes with the added benefit of free bio-heating that can be harvested and utilized on site, and is equally as fertilizing as manure.
Its the cognitive dissonance to score woke brownie points for me
Are you VEGAN? 🌱
👌
The dissonance is strong with this one.
@Antreas., Did you know that in ancient Bhārata (India), a person who consumed ANY type of animal was known as a “Chandāla” (dog-eater) and was not even included in mainstream society, but was an outcast?🥩
So, you ADMIT that you’re an animal-abusing criminal, Mr. Dog-eater? 😬🙄😬
When you stop and think about it. It really is quite amazing that we are so numerous as a species but we all usually eat well enough to not die. The world is really rich in nutrition.
The most successful large (vertebrate sized) animals are those that are really tasty to humans
an yet still millions of people starving
@@misery978 There is more than enough food to feed everybody, but it isn't exactly an even spread across the planet. In more remote or impoverished parts of the world, one accident with a supply line can be catastrophic.
@@silverblade357 i fully agree with you. Our distrobution method has led to a portion of the world starving. Well that and Corporate greed.
Wow! What a factless, political, man hating, emotional, hypocritical argument! She’s convinced me primarily because she’s fortunate enough to attend one the elitist schools in the world and is so benevolent she has the time to tell the rest of us what to do whilst not doing it herself!
Lincoln college is elitist?
Plus also the way she dresses is weird.
Factless?" She doubtlessly made many claims that purport to be facts. If you dispute any of them, you should specify which ones. For example, she stated the fact that male chicks are ground alive or suffocated as part of the egg industry. They breed new laying hens on a regular basis. Do you dispute that fact?
@@someguy2135 Don’t tell me what I should do.
@@MichaelB2L The video we are discussing shows a debate. I may have assumed that you wanted people to believe your claims. Making critical remarks without backing up your claims or being specific, is not going to convince anyone who seeks the truth about this important debate topic.
Wow! What a convincing argument. When she told us to eat the bugs, my heart dropped.
Cleaning the room < eating them bugs
Muh bugs, yum yum
@@jamesstmanhattan you can eat them now
@@jamesstmanhattan, Are you VEGAN? 🌱
I'm not eating any bugs. Only bugpeople eat bugs. Being made to swallow a fly is something a high school bully would do to you.
No thanks I'm straight!
@Cystum Qrash I'm willing to eat any bug that is delicious. but none that aren't.
Also, why is part 2 not available? Is someone embarrassed to have their views online?
She took too long on her proposition, but it seems that making lengthy meandering speeches is a normal thing in these sort of debates. She only started making her 2 points at 4:30. Before that was just all fluff .
I’m always bewildered by how seemingly intelligent people could have such unintelligent opinions.
Are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@TheVeganVicar from his comment I’m assuming he’s a meat eater
@@TheThirdNight this dude is going about the comment section, asking people if they are vegan, lol.. the mentality of a Jehova's witnesses 🤣
Maybe they're not intelligent? Maybe she's just a midwit.
@@ivankaseljanka "I ALREADY FUCKS WITH JESUS"
Where is the Opposition (2/8) video? It's not on OxfordUnion's page.
If this is the top university in the world...humanity is over. and where is the part 2?
She skipped a part where we are killing millions of small criters, bugs and birds with standard farming proceses to rise vegetables, fruits and other crops
Millions is a pretty small number next to the hundreds of billions that are slaughtered for their meat each year, or the trillions that are killed as millions of acres of rainforest are destroyed each year to make room for farm animals and the crops that feed them, or the trillions of marine animals that are pulled out of the ocean each year.
That's why farming vegetables, fruits and other crops is preferable.
@@jamesbyrne3033
You are vastly underestimating the numbers of small animals that need to die.
A black garden ant nest can have up to 40,000 workers alone...
The amount of insects and rodents killed to grow crops for animal feed is insane. Eat plants directly. Go vegan! Less animals deaths.
@@nicolaspirlet
...similar numbers need to die for the vegetable fields you are talking about too...
@@DrunkenAussie76 No. And it's just plain logic. Just think about it for one second. If you grow plants to make an animal grow, it needs to be repeatedly fed until the day that you eat it. Instead, if you grow plants and eat them directly, you'll need much less land. People tend to forget that food is grown for animals to eat. Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world's supply of calories.
This whole argument is torture.
Notice the term "Beyond Meat" as the main argument instead of "Plant Based" or "Vegan". We all know who she's in the pockets of.
100 %
Where's part 2?
Regardless of what she's saying, the delivery of this was a train wreck. Painful to get through.
Not only she sniffs more than Tony Montana but she stumbles too much with her words
I see none of you people complain when Slavoj Cizek is sniffing. Besides that, delivery and the person presenting the argument should have zero significance in a moral defance, as that is ad hominem argument.
There's a reason she can't get herself to stop eating meat! Her body is telling her what it needs. Humans only thrive off of animal fats/proteins. Regenerative farming is what will truly save our plant. I completely respect vegans, and find their efforts admirable, but I don't at all agree that it's best for our planet or our health (in fact, it's detrimental to health for most).
Thrive
your facts are not facts.
You say this:
"Humans only thrive off of animal fats/proteins."
and hundreds of thousands of nutrition and dietetics professionals say this:
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned
vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide
health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are
appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy,
childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes."
I wonder which of you knows more about what the human body needs?
@@jamesbyrne3033 Stop spreading misinformation. Hundreds of thousands of nutrition and dietetics professionals say that? What nonsense. Maybe some say a Vegan diet is adequate to live on, but it is by no means the ideal. Anyone with half a head on their shoulders knows that.
@@danrichards9823 There is in fact overwhelming evidence within the fields of heart disease, lung disease, brain disease, cancer, diabetes, parkinsons disease, alzheimers disease research that points to a plant based diet being optimal for your health.
Sniff Sniff
I love meat
Sniff
I will eat meat
Forever
Barbie at my place, bring some snags and nose beers to share
Eating meat is the only ethical choice "sniff sniff" ooh pass me some of that roast beef please.
She's not defining ethics in this debate, so I hope opposition takes this opportunity
Oxford Union debates are a lot like TED Talks, at one time they used to have high standards. These days it is just a free for all of inane ideological nonsense. I note that 2 of 8 is not posted, I can only imagine that was the one speaker with some compelling argument for eating meat, wouldn't want anyone to see that would we. Out of the 7 speakers shown, not a one presented a compelling rational argument, and most were an outright embarrassment.
This issue has been debated ad nauseum for years and we all know both sides quite well by now, the vast majority choose meat.
I remember Ted talks circa 2010...
Very informative.
"I, myself, am a meat eater"
What??
She is a meat eater and yet argues in favour of the motion that we should stop eating meat. The hypocrisy is staggering. She should apply her own principles to her life before lecturing others about the ethics of eating meat.
I disagree. It’s because living in the West not eating meat is hard. my grand uncle and aunt came to the us from India in the 1950s and they were vegetarian and it wasn’t possible to continue that life when they came to the USA
It’s certainly tough.
The sniffles made me check out of this altogether! Damn! So irritating!
As if plant farming doesn't have a gigantic effect on the environment. We'd have to increase space for that as we decreased herd farming to replace the food supplied. Then there's the pesticides and herbicides. Use would dramatically increase. Plus the protein and other suplimemtal nutrients aren't as good as those that come from meat so you'd have to eat two to three times the amount to get the same amounts.
Most of the land now used is two feed animals. Animals need to eat plants -> the human eats the animal is an unnecessary indirect way to gain calories. We would free up way more land if everyone would follow a vegan diet
@@DerBambl I can see you know nothing about farming. The land cows use for food isn't fertile/productive enough to grow much more than grass. Its why it would take so much resources to try to grow anything useful on it
@@1funnygame You dont even need the land if everyone ate plant based. Not every animal eats grass. And even the animals that do eat grass are often fed soy or other deliberately grown plants , which do need fertile land
@@DerBambl I’m sorry but the vast majority of land cannot he used to grow crops.
@@simonmcintosh6565 Yes and as i wrote, we wouldnt even need it due to the better efficiency of plant based diets AND a big chunk of land that do grow crops now are used for animal food anyway
Nutritional choices should be based on what is healthy nutritionally not by "ethics" whatever that means in this context
why?
@@jimmyjam6197 If you eat the plant based crap that is worse for you than McDonalds and then die from the new "illness" because you're obese, nutrient (B12, D3, Collagen, etc) deficient, Or get anemia, Or have a stroke, Or suffer atrophy. then you may as well have shot yourself in the knee. It would also prove that the diet is bunk garbage... which it is.
You can be healthy and ethical Walter, you don't need to pick one.
@@jamesbyrne3033 We evolved alongside our food and so have no choice in the matter (animals in zoo's are fed very specific diets so as to keep them healthy (they are expensive) and they die readily when fed improperly. Humans are more adaptable but still are bound by natural law (eat enough sugar and you get diabetes) etc .Unlike in a healthy group of animals where gene expression is uniform (ie they look alike a function at a similar level) the varied human diet is responsible for the differences between various human groups and the differences aren't subtle.
@@matrix268 Like what? Lactase persistence?
These people are so bored in their lives they literally question everything that what humans has done since the beginning of our species
May i ask, gentlemen. Why there are no links to other videos? And where is the part 2/8?
Where is proposition (2/8)???
Gotta love how she was Zizek'ing throughout the speech.
Haha.. just without the depth of nose squelching
Mikhaila Peterson uploaded her side opposing the motion on her channel
What was part 2?
Where's part 2/8? Or is the numbering wrong?
"Animal eat meat"
"Cus animal not as smart as human"
"Human eat meat"
"Cus human brain dead"
"Piers Morgan"
"Me eat meat"
"You no eat meat"
Are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@TheVeganVicar I am not
I don't think there's any health issues which arise on eating meat. If eating meat is wrong, then eating plant based food is also wrong. Even plants have life. Some of the scientific studies show that even plants respond to wounds. I don't think eating meat is wrong as long as we don't do it out of greed.
Exactly
Well guess what animals are fed on.
How about uploading the whole debate not in parts?
Why was this debate split into separate videos? Surely would have made more sense to upload the full thing (or both)?
It's a strategy for gaining more traffic on a youtube channel. Would you prefer 1 million views on one video or 1 million views on 8 videos?
The best way to eat bugs, is to make make bug flour and filter it through a chicken or salmon.
Anyone have a link to part two?
The fuck where's part 2?? Literally 7 of 8 parts uploaded at the same time but part 2 missing?. 🧐🧐🧐
Public debate. Make the full thing Public.. and don't edit it down to these 10 min clips with cuts in between; upload the full 2 hour video why don't u? 🤨
Is that cocaine or just a cold? *sniff*
I'm vegan for personal reasons, not so much political reasons. I love animals, love eating healthy plant based goodies. WHY IN THE WORLD DID THEY GET A MEAT EATER TO REPRESENT THE VEGANS THOUGH?!🤣🤣
Oooh believe me, this was much less embarrassing than the other woman making a case against meat because patriarchy, white privilege and non-binary gender crap. You do not want to miss that one 🤣🤣 Check Mikhaila Peterson's speech (for meat) and in the comments she links the mentioned woman's epic "defense" of veganism.
@@lochness7952 I've heard about this and can't wait 😂
Its just a strategy, to tell the meat eating people that, she is one of them, we can all change together. lol
@@all7inelt Makes sense
@@alethiastafford6061 Ya, can you tell me why did you become a Vegan if you don't mind ?
Where can I see part 2/8?
Speaking of the first girl with the silly dress, I've always told my kids that when someone qualifies the word "justice," they are no longer talking about justice. "Social Justice" isn't justice. Is there a single word we can use instead of "social justice." I ask, because the answer is obviously not justice.
They are all abstract nouns, including "justice". So they have no actual "true referent" meaning - only culturally developed meanings which change over time. Better to teach your kids that, perhaps?
@@T-aka-T The devolution is purposeful.
Watching this was the worst 9 minutes of my life... Peterson smokes her ! Time for a medium rare steak 😋
Peterson uses rhetotic & cherry picked science. She only smokes her if you fall for such devices...Ambika uses scientific consensus.
@@falcodarkzz your funny 😁
@@soulharmony928 It's true, or do you seriously believe a meat diet increases head circumference of babies by 40%? Please, please don't tell me you believe that standalone fact, which peterson mentions...
@@falcodarkzz I'll give you that one ..! Maybe it's 20%! I find it hard to believe that the world is better off not eating meat and replacing the qualities of meat with supplements. I get that probably an this is a guess..that 70% of meat is bad quality. But organic grass fed beef or free range chicken as part of your diet . Even if its just a couple of times a week . I personally believe it's essential to many. Clearly not to all.. But hey.. maybe we should mandate it 🤣😂🤣
Where is the second part, the first argument for the opposition?
Where is part 2? On the OxfordUnion youtube page, I found part 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, but no part 2.
What if your nation can't produce or import grains from other nations.???
You can't eat grass...
Only thing eat the one who eat grass 😂😂😂
What does she think happens to all of those animals when the world is vegan?
It's all very aspirational but it would be great if these people could explain what happens in their utopia.
Are they suggesting we never eat animals under any circumstances? If so, what are the consequences of that. All animals live happily ever after?
Any ideas on what we do about culling to preserve eco-systems if all animals deserve to live?
All those animals that exist now wouldn't exist in these numbers in nature without constant human intervention to create more.
thanks for having logic braytown
Billions of animals are bred into existence. The world doesn’t go vegan overnight because we still have to convince people like yourself. There are tribes and indigenous persons that cannot eat anything but animals thats not who the discussion is about. Its about you choosing a meal 3 times a day. There are a lot of nuance issues but again sure it would be awesome to be perfect but that’s not what its about it. It really about the best you can do.
For me their life, their entire existence is not worth a 5 minute meal I had Tuesday that I’ll never remember.
We don’t have to go to the extreme niche situations those will come later.
God's sake. Animals are bred into existence for our consumption. There's no argument as to where they all go...They sustain themselves and die out naturally, or are humanely killed and eaten by the last of the international meat eaters. Maybe not in my life time, but if there is a world left in 50 years, they will all (Not) be eating meat...
@@The40yearoldVegan If people like you try to force veganism onto people like me...
Guess who's for dinner.
Where can I see the entire debate and conclusion?
Where's the full debate?
Should of got cosmic skeptic on, he a really good speaker on the pro vegan argument even if you don’t agree with him he puts forward a good argument
Although I found her arguments to be unconvincing and missing the point, I think we should still respond to this video positively! Thanks for being up for an open debate :)
no; actually.
There is no reason whatsoever for that.
The points were flat-out laughable in many cases.
And I actually think that females *SHOULD* be at home making babies, instead of pretending to play at politics.
What?
@@aether-elephant the arguments presented by her, and especially the other presenter on this side of the argument are perfect examples of why the 19th amendment to the constitution should be repealed.
Well Ibdont know if responding positively is even possible but to respond respectful without character attacks is fair and actually most productive in order to reach concensus of truth and whats right.
@B Li No bitches? 😟
Where’s part 2?
Murder? Hate to point this out, but the word murder means “an unlawful killing”; where is it unlawful to kill a cow for sustenance? Maybe India, but that’s just cows and it’s a religious observance more…..
There's many definitions of murder. There are definitions that don't include law and humanity. It can mean to wantonly slay.
@@80slimshadys regardless of your made up definitions murder means in true definition, an unlawful killing…..deal with it.
@@GloryCarrier22 Bruh you're a clown. Go look at the verb context in the Merriam Webster dictionary. You're using an appeal to definition fallacy and playing the cherry picking semantics game. There is no ''true'' definition. There are different contexts for definitions, there is no single meaning if it has multiple. Everyone knows what murder means 🤡when it's said. It's intentionally killing against someone's will.
It always comes down to whether meat is essential and required for good health and longevity. And I stand firmly saying that it definitely is essential for optimal health for the vast majority of people (if not all), and for an incredibly large amount of people, myself included, not eating meat causes direct and serious health complications.
This is the point you must focus on to truly determine "whether meat eating is ethical" or not. You can't ask people to give up the food they're physiologically most adapted to eating, and as a consequence just offer their health and suffer. How is that ever ethical?
We consume animals for health. If you choose not to, then you're more than free to do so. But you can't force other people to give up their health by giving up meat-eating.
And to add to that: I eat beef that is pasture-raised and grass-fed throughout all of its life. During summers it grazes on grass with the other cows, and during winters it eats feed made from the same grass. I eat around 220 kilos of that particular beef a year. That amounts to approximately one entire cow carcass. One direct life taken a year per my rightful choice to eat meat. The cow probably eats and stamps insects during its lifetime, so indirectly there's probably a relatively significant amount more lives lost as a consequence of my way of eating. If you can point out which other lives I didn't think to include here, you can express them.
But what about the lives lost eating a plant-based diet? You're directly causing no animal deaths as a result of your way of eating, but what about the lives lost indirectly? There has to be very large amount of insects, birds, lizards etc that are killed by agricultural machinery used to treat and harvest the crops. In addition to that, a lot of pesticide must be used to ensure proper crop yield. Pesticide that is meant to kill all living animals on the crops.
So there is lives lost no matter what way you eat. And I might even argue that the net loss of lives can actually be greater when eating plant-based.
The net loss of lives can't possibly be greater on a plant based diet. We breed BILLIONS of animals into existence with the sole purpose of murdering them. That's billions more mouths to feed each year. What do you think they're eating? Yep, that's right, crops. The very same crops that inadvertently cause all those deaths you yourself described. Now imagine if we all ate a plant based diet and there weren't billions of animals bred into existence. That would be billions less mouths to feed. That would be far less land required and quite obviously FAR less inadvertent small creature deaths! I can't believe I'm breaking this down for you
@@SalihMunur You're wrong. By far the vast majority of feed lifestock eat is actually indigestible by humans. FAO has done studies on this. I can't link it because the comment gets deleted, but google this: "Livestock. On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate".
According to the study 86% of the feed fed to lifestock is actually completely inedible by humans. So mostly grass, crop leftovers and crop production byproducts. That's the vast majority of the feed they eat. The other 14% that's also edible by humans are grains. But as the study points out, it only takes 3 kilos of grain to produce 1 kilo of beef. And if we're comparing the nutritional value of 3 kilos of grain to 1 kilo of beef, beef is superior on every metric.
And I gave you an example of the effects of my own beef consumption just above. The cows eat literally nothing but grass for their entire life-cycle.
So you're misinformed and over-exaggerating the situation to favor your stance.
@@napakamu9670 sounds like you're reading propaganda because every single word you just uttered is completely untrue. Looks you need to do some better research. You even dodged the extra 'billions of mouths to feed' issue! Logic has just flown out the window
@@SalihMunur You didn't read what he typed, did you?
4:47 Can confirm. I've done that before myself, in fact. It's called 'hunting.' It can be done in such a way that the animal is slain quickly and painlessly, and in slaughterhouses for cows, it often _is_ done in such a manner. The blood must be drained from the carcass for sanitation reasons, to keep the food clean. But I want to speak to the underlying assumption here, that veganism is a way to avoid consuming life in order to live, and that just simply isn't true, at least not right now. It is conceivable, that one day, we will be able to grow all of the plant-based foods we need in hydroponic high-rises, once our technology improves, but such a day is a long ways off yet, and perhaps much farther than even I realize, depending on what the demand for such a system looks like. But, that is what it would take, for the production of plant-based foods to be a bloodless affair; as farming stands now, every year, habitat is destroyed and small animals like snakes and gophers are killed as fields are prepared anew for planting and harvesting, and the animal death toll is much higher in the case of ground that has been allowed to lay fallow for a year for replenishment as part of a crop rotation cycle. Life has always consumed life to live, and there really is, for the foreseeable future at least, no getting around that fact of life.
5:12 I dunno, have you seen Piers Morgan? I bet his marbling is top grade. A little bit of salt, pepper, and garlic powder, and we may have found the next iberico. But seriously, I'm well aware that many animals are quite intelligent, including animals we use for food. I don't think that is a reason to _not eat_ them though. We have other, very legitimate reasons for not eating people. . . although, there are eco-cannibalists who believe it is okay to, and indeed practice, the consumption of dead human bodies, usually acquired from morgues with special permission. This practice is much more common in Europe than America. Anyway, it's too easy to come by disease, especially if your ancestors, however distant, once ate human brain matter. Worse, human meat shares more in common nutritionally with coyote, bear, or pig than it does beef. Pork is already high in vitamin A, and meat from other carnivorous and omnivorous animals is so high in vitamin A as to be poisonous to humans. Philosophically and ideologically, a hard agreement among our own species, to not eat our own, makes cooperation among ourselves easier and more sustainable. Other species may lose out, but that's their problem, and our gain.
I would like to make a point about battery farms however, since you mentioned the chickens being gassed; if it were up to me, I'd outlaw such practices, for several reasons, both sanitary and ethical. Yes, free-ranged chickens will raise the price of chickens, as they're more difficult and more costly to raise in that way, and fewer of them can be raised at a time. We don't need to stop eating chickens to prevent the kind of cruelty rightly complained of here. As for the fish. . . it is impossible to functionally harvest fish without causing them some length of pain. Out of water, they will die relatively quickly. Yes, in nets, they will suffer, but fish don't suffer any less when caught individually with fishing poles. So, the answer then is to stop eating fish, right? Simply put, I am someone who is willing to accept a certain level of cruelty inflicted upon other creatures that I plan to eat, and the practice of fishing does not exceed that level of cruelty.
5:30 Should we? We necessarily don't grant animals many of the same privileges and rights that we grant humans. What's more, such animals don't grant such rights or privileges to themselves or others. You can't simultaneously consider yourself like unto, yet somehow also above, the wolf. You want to grant a wolf its right to life because it is a living being, yet you think you are necessarily above eating meat, where a wolf is not.
7:05 Not intolerably so though, if you don't run ridiculous taxes and other welfare and entitlement programs.
7:20 Sure there is. We could raise a great deal more cows than what we are, especially if we devoted a tenth of the subsidies to beef farming that we in American devote to corn and soybeans.
7:30 They might though, if the argument was framed right. Better, more sanitary conditions for the animals means higher quality food for little Johnny, and you can bet his mother is going to care about that, and we all know which voting bloc is the primary driver of change.
7:50 Well, I mean, I wasn't going to say anything. . . but, since you brought it up, shouldn't you be doing your womanly duties? :) The argument here is a comparison to the life they could have lived, would have lived out in the wild. The fact is, animals live much happier, lower-stress lives on farms than they do out in the wild, where they don't succumb to disease and predation at any lower rates than they are killed off for food.
8:10 That cuts both ways though. Consider what I just said about subsidies and who votes for what.
8:20 I simply don't agree. Granted, I'm American, so I have propositional concerns about my nation that the English simply do not (or at least _should not_) have about theirs. I am more concerned about unalienable constitutional rights coming under constant assault than I am animals. I care more about the abortion debate than I do animals, and I _barely_ care about the abortion debate, because I am looking at what is most critical for the social health of the nation, I am concerned for keeping the American creed intact.
9:00 Yeah, I just bet she was looking for her chance to call men useless. Of course of course, she's _defending_ male animals. . . I wonder if she's ever defended _men_ on the grounds that society currently does, though it should not, treat them as useless and disposable, should not, throw them in to what was once upon a time referred to as a 'meat grinder.'
Did you know that in ancient Bhārata (India), a person who consumed ANY type of animal was known as a “Chandāla” (dog-eater) and was not even included in mainstream society, but was an outcast?🥩
So, you ADMIT that you’re an animal-abusing criminal, Mr. Dog-eater? 😬🙄😬
"Sure there is. We could raise a great deal more cows than what we are, especially if we devoted a tenth of the subsidies to beef farming that we in American devote to corn and soybeans."... a fair chunk of soybeans are used as livestock feed in the states and China I believe is the #1 importer... would make more sense to ease grazing laws in the midwest/mtn region and supplement the grains for fall feed
“It can be done”
The word is “can”, which means they are often not always killed painlessly and quickly. It's not clear what people mean either when they say “painless”. Today it's considered humane to gas pigs, yet watching the videos of them being gassed, you see that they are clearly having traumatic experiences. Cruel experiments confirmed that. Still, it’s “humane”. The demand for meat is high and slaughterhouses are trying to kill animals as quickly as possible to make a profit, which probably has led to the reason why the bar for “humane” is set so low.
Calling vegans hypocritical ignores the totality of harm.
The life of small animals like gophers, or snakes matter, but they are killed in plant production mostly because of the demand for animal feed. Calorie by calorie, the amount of animals killed is also tiny compared to death in the meat, dairy, egg industry. All the welfare issues animals have during their lives is not taken into account either.
Wolves are obligate carnivores, unlike humans who are omnivores, and wolves are not moral agents like humans are.
Corn and soybean is produced for animals to a large extent, and it’s not just a by-product like some people believe. The vast majority of soy for example in the USA is for animal feed. It is subsidized as well, which is why meat is far less expensive than it should be. Let people pay the actual price for these unethical products, and don’t bail out the dairy industry all the time.
Animals on farms could simply not be bred into existence, which solves all welfare and rights issues.
Men’s issues are not even comparable to animal issues of being ground up alive, nor as easily solved.
@@nullethosechoes:
Watch and LEARN:
Milton Mills, MD: Are Humans Designed to Eat Meat?
th-cam.com/video/sXj76A9hI-o/w-d-xo.html
@@TheVeganVicar That sounds like TOTAL BS.
Where is part 2???
What happened to part 2?
Earthling Ed is the best debater when it comes to veganism. This doesn't even come close.
I am reading his book at the moment.
You are right, he is fantastic at presenting the arguments.
I hope more people buy his book and get over themselves and their destructive desires / impulses.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 I read it and enjoyed a juicy steak after. At the end of the day when it's all said and done Humans survived, evolved and thrived on an Omnivorous diet that is just a fact. To eat Meat is to be Human. While I agree modern Western agricultural practices needs a MASSIVE re-think and overhaul that still does not mean one has to deny their humanity and stop consuming the very things that allowed his species to grow, survive and thrive. Just as the Chimpanzee will often eat Meat, just as the Gorilla will often consume Meat so must we.
@@PeaceDweller Wouldnt´t you agree that IN THE PRESENT humanity has come to a point, where eating meat (and thus killing, and often torturing) animals isn´t necessary to survive and thrive? I agree that it was in the past, but if you only look at now, the immediate present?
@@kallekontio2322 Absolutely not, because to eat Meat is to be human. Not eating Meat is denying one's humanity and nature. I know theres many bullshit studies out there purporting Veganism as healthy but there are just as many studies now saying the contrary. When it's said & done the studies are irrelevant as the nations with the lowest cases of heart disease & cancer are also nations that consume Meat & Fish regularly.
@@PeaceDweller I feel forced to conclude from your arguments that your humanity depends on you eating meat, and that in your opinion vegans aren´t real human.
Can you provide that statistic for me?
The only way I could be ethical and moral just to eat only dirt. All those people who kill plants are brutal Barbarian
Nah thats not how it works.
Nobody is requiring you to be morally perfect. Just because you can´t live completely flawlessly, doens´t mean you shouldn´t try to move in a better direction.
Where is part two?
names of the 3 chairs?
It's good to see OU getting in on this.
Regarding the sniffing, she's probably sick, due to having a comprimised immune- and metabolic system because of lack of bioavailable essential nutrients from meat and accumulation of plant toxins.
She said she loves gorging her nanny's chicken biryani. Were you even listening to her argument?
And what was the final motion?
where is part 2
I hear many good argument for moving away from large meat industry, in favor for small scale local farming and butchering. I can agree that the large meat industry is bad, just like certain practices done in favor of certain minor groups, but there is no good argument done to remove meat from the plate. So much of the arguments made lack solid logic and only goes for an emotional appeal, which has no tenable base in practicality.
Promoting veganism should be illegal
What happened to part 2.
Why does the person introducing their opponents get to make little comments about them that poison the well?
She called killing animals “murder.” This is what happens when you reject the Biblical worldview.
"This is what happens when you reject the Biblical worldview"
...except that murder is definitionally the unjustified killing of a human by another human...
murder
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
"the brutal murder of a German holidaymaker"
@@DrunkenAussie76 Exactly.
@@DrunkenAussie76 Right, where did that concept come from?
It is an indo - european origin word, but the concept is far older than religion itself.
Protip, thou shalt not KILL isn't thou shalt not murder...
@@DrunkenAussie76 Actually, the objective moral standard existed before the word. And a more accurate translation is actually “you shall not murder.”
"The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society..." .... Maybe it WAS!!!
1:47
She's bringing the 80s back, if you catch my drift. . .
"She don't lie she don't lie she don't lie. . . [fill in the blank]."
Where's part 2???
How on earth is this person not vegan yet?
Many of these arguments are not true in Norway. Norway has the worlds strongest animal welfare laws and much of the suffering she is talking about does not happen (except killing:)). I think stronger laws would be a good thing.
If what you say stands up to scrutiny then Norway is in a privileged position, unfortunately with over population and the lack of land in most countries, along with the drive for profit does not make this realistic/ practical. and probably not in Norway long term, but given the climate, it maybe more justifiable on a climate/ resource based argument.
I wonder where the animal feed comes from, and what methods are used that avoid some of the standard exploitative farming methods?
@@FanOMisery I see your point, but Norway is not privileged in regards to arable land. In Norway there is only 2.2% arable land, which is mostly grass. The politics in Norway incentives small farms which is better for the animals. It is common that a farm only has 30 cows.
There is a good system in place with many check ups and controls. So I don't think the system goes away any time soon.
The drive for profit is a hard one, but some of the systems for meat production are acutally less labour intensive and in the long run better for the farmer.
The animal feed is mostly grass but, also soy from Brazil and other things from other countries. Organic is only from Norway.
The systems are not perfect but, in regards to animal welfare, which was what my original statement was about, it is a lot better. If other countries strive for better animal welfare, I believe eating meat is not so ethicaly wrong.
Speaking of Orwellian double speak I was in my local BP today when a lady asked for vegan sausage rolls.
Lol!
The word 'sausage' can indicate the shape of something, not the content.
Why does this trigger you?
@@JB.zero.zero.1 Why does this trigger you?
Why is this in 8 parts?
The only argument from this side is an emotional one..not really much. What is needed is a proper regulation of meat industry. Banning things is not the way for any sector.
didn't she just explained that regulation isn't probable? government already subsidizes animal products so that they remain cheap enough for people to buy, and there's no incentive to regulate it, meaning no party (and thus government) has reason to "regulate"
The meat eating argument is mostly emotional. There isn't a rational justification for exploiting and treating nonhumans unfairly for resources that can be obtained elsewhere. The overwhelming excuse carnists will use is that it's tradition and pleasurable to eat victims corpses. This is purely emotional and irrational and tosses aside responsibility for something that ultimately just gives you pleasure. That's not logical, it's emotional.
If we lived in certain parts of the world, this wouldn’t even be a debate. You eat what you can find or hunt. Period. Shows how insanely privileged we are.
@@margaretqueenofscots9450 Yes, what a time we live in. We live in the times of the height of our species. It is a great privilege to be able to choose what you do and eat. It's also an even greater privilege to be able to give people money to torture and execute others for you when you have a choice not to. If you live in a place where you dont have a choice then morality isnt even in the equation. But you do live where you have a choice, so how do you justify choosing cruelty?
The flesh industry self-regulates & has powerful lobby groups.
I don't think you understand what's actually happening Kranti.
The scale of abuse toward other species will literally destroy us.
Educate yourself.
She did very well. I'm from a farming background and there are sheep with lambs within earshot now. Meat production is fraught with many unethical issues, but I will continue to eat it, cheese and eggs. I know vegans and to their best intentions I still like a number of them. I don't say you can't be vegan and healthy, but I've yet to meat one.