tl;dl: PP claims he has a Hegelian argument, and at least knows that he is going against Hegel's own views. In order to argue that he is a Hegelian, he must prove his commitments in the Hegelian speculative manner, which he does not (and cannot). Regarding the first part of a two part argument: 1) Animals are inherently valuable 2) Consciousness is inherently valuable 3) The inconsideration of sentient beings is inherently wrong. 4) Veganism is an ethical duty/obligation. He never provides a concept of value, one he must derive. We're talking about normative forces here, ones that aren't subjective projections. If animals and consciousness are valuable, why do animals not not recognize this? That one needs a rational argument for this at all shows that animality or consciousness as such are not where value is determined. None of this is Hegelian in the slightest. PP constantly merely asserts his *subjective belief* that rights are determined at consciousness and its desires, and not at the will like Hegel determines. The issue with this is not that he goes against Hegel's words, but he goes against the speculative method in which the way one determines concepts has deep consequences for posterior developments. If consciousness is where ethics begins, then consciousness is where the explanation of recognition and duty emerges, and animals would have duties as much as rights even if we are not considering the will as Hegel did. Regarding the second part of the argument: 1) Veganism is a development of equality 2) Hegel's views of animals is wrong and outdated 3) Hegel thought women were lesser 4) In considering animals I consider myself Hegel is not an egalitarian. His philosophy is necessarily hierarchical by the very nature of the Concept's levels of self-construction. There is no way to construct a Hegelian conclusion of a flat ontological value like one may pretend to do with Analytic and Continental pseudo-philosophy. The concept of animality is not a historically determined concept, but a logical one. The only thing PP could think of being actually outdated was that he mistakenly believes that animals losing the will to live is suicide. Hegel's thoughts on women as lesser was indeed a subjective error, but our relationship to animals has no error of this kind. Our changing attitudes of benevolence toward animals is not out of learning they deserved better, but out of a growing compassion in our cultures. Women, on the other hand, told us they deserved rights and fought for them. These are not valid analogies. The only Hegelian point PP makes is that in considering animal interests I am considering myself, but he misunderstands this as meaning that there is a flat equality rather than a relative equality of hierarchical measure, and he mistakes this as being the consideration of conscious interests rather than the consideration of concrete freedom as it is at the animal stage.
I asked him if he would be down to discuss Chinese philosophy since he likes China, and since it has a lot to do with Socialism With Chinese Characteristics. He said sure, but it has been a few weeks since then, and I suppose he's not interested and knows his viewers would not find it interesting either. He and I don't see eye to eye on dialectics. An argument over it was our first encounter years ago, and I went on his stream; it ended up being a whole lot of nothing.
1:33:33 it’s the last line in Ethics, where Spinoza argues for why he had to phrase himself in such a difficult way to understand: “But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.”
I think PP’s key misinterpretation of Hegel is assuming all disparate consciousnesses are fractured pieces of god, and are only understood as disparate because their consciousness is in process of reunification to a single self recognising absolute spirit in a single mind that includes all living beings. Which is an extremely naive mystical reading of Hegel, that even if it were true it still does not necessitate veganism. Even if animals were also a part of our own mind and we would not want to cause yourselves suffering, as you have said already- consciousness negates itself. Within PP’s mind monism, eating an animal is no different than abandoning a perception which is revealed as false, as it harms the part of the mind which assumed that perception was true. He just mixes utilitarianism with this specific type of mind monism that assumes all parts of the singular existing absolute consciousness should be treated equally.
To anyone who eats animals because they dont have rights. Stop eating them to respect human rights then. Animal farming is devastating to the environment that human live in, and to the climate in which we live under. It makes no sense to me while vegans spend so much effort on the issue of animal suffering when there is so much human suffering being done by this. Species always takes itself into account first. When there is less human suffering, then maybe we will worry more about animal suffering. Stop eating meat for your own god damn good.
interesting, only i doubt personal consume boycott would be effective. i mean if even people would stop eating meat for that moral reason, i bet when the meat prices drop a little, those people or other groups are tempted to eat meat again. liberal ideas aren't helpful here. also people smoke.
Factory farming is inhumane and locally devastating due to toxicity buildups, but traditional animal farming isn't. The world in the pre-industrial age was full of wild herds and mega-herds in the savannas and prairies, and these were part of what allowed for the long-term health of these biomes. Allan Savory showed what a terrible misunderstanding and mistake it was to think that the problem was overgrazing when it in fact was that our mismanagement of herd animals was causing undergrazing and desertification. There is nothing wrong with free range and homestead animal farming.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Traditional animal farming isn't scalable now that we are 7 billion people on earth who needs to be fed. It's a completely irrelevant discussion to whether or not people should continue to eat meat. It's the biggest copium argument to rationalize continuing to eat meat when nobody who isn't an old rich guy can even afford this. But sure, we should have more wild animals in nature, but to that extent we can maybe talk about eating them when they are getting overpopulated or if they die a natural death. Cause it's still a waste of resources nomatter what. You could feed 4x more people on the same amount of land (or maybe more since these occupy more land than industrial animals. 10x the energy is going to waste in converting nutritious plants into nutritious meat.
@@dkemil You misunderstand what I wrote. You claim people *should* not eat meat. My response is that the reasons you give are empirically false and not consequent to the supposed facts. There are ways to eat meat that are ethical, therefore there is no categorical imperative to not eat meat. The scale has nothing to do with it. My response was not that we *should* eat meat. Veganism is not an ethical or moral position, I do not conceive it as such. Whether you do or do not eat meat has no moral or ethical weight, it is neutral. It is like having good aesthetic taste, it is a reflection of personal development. The issue of ecological degradation is not dealt with on personal consumption. This is a public policy issue on the level of a state polity. When that policy changes, no one will have a choice in whether to continue or not, just as child labor is not a choice to continue or not. Sure, you can try to get away with it, but you'll be violating a law that will get you severely fined and shut down at worst.
I don't know the guy personally, but intellectually, as someone who has now also spent quite a bit of time with Hegel, he does not seem very Hegelian. Perhaps more utilitarian monistic Buddhism with Christian millenarian characteristics? Also, worth emphasizing, yet again, your video on animal rights wasn't an anti-vegan video, but just describing why animals are moral patients not moral agents.
Animals don’t commit suicide. Aristotle is coming for you, beware! “It is said too that the king of the Scythians had a high-quality mare all of whose colts were good; the king, wishing to breed from the best out of the mother, brought it to her to mate; but it refused; but after she had been concealed under a wrap it mounted her in ignorance; and when the mare’s face was uncovered after the mating, at sight of her the horse ran away and threw itself down the cliffs.“ (History of animals) That is a joke of course thanks for the video.
He see himself not as a Hegelian in a sense of being 100% true to Hegel but he thinks Hegel has drawn a few wrong conclusions, so he maybe neohegelian is a better word
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I disagree in some way. I agree with you in terms of the dialectic of the logic I think. My general counter point would be to say that at some points in the dialectic Hegel could have made different turns. Or that things are not always as clear. For example in the Philosophy of Right, he makes the conclusion in paragrap 112 that in the enactment of my ends in order to preserve my subjectivity, my subjectivity is sublated into objectivity. It ceases to be only immediate (roughly translating here from German, sorry for that). He concludes there is now an outward subjectivity, which is identical with to me, and he concludes that this is the will of others and that I have a positive relation to the will of others. I don’t really see where he deduced the "will of others" there. So this is an example where Hegel argumentation seems to me not so strong as for example his exposition of the notions of the Logic. And this is just an example. Here is my question: Are all of Hegels steps in the Phil. of Right really a necessary chain like in the Logic or is there more room for interpretation here, or more openness, where we can argue "No, at this point in the dialectic, a more fitting conclusion (meaning a negation or sublation) would be this and this". Edit: We shouldn’t analytically try to read our own positions into Hegel, I fully agree with that. We should try to read Hegel as Hegel. Yet, I think to be fair, it‘s probable that Hegel wouldn’t have made the same conclusions in his Phil. of Right if he lived say 1000 years earlier, no? His philosophy is influenced by his time, surely, and I‘m not saying we should merely interpret it has historical, we should follow the arguments. But it‘s possible he has drawn biased conclusions because of his own era in his writing on Right and History.
@@lendrestapas2505 >My general counter point would be to say that at some points in the dialectic Hegel could have made different turns. Or that things are not always as clear. These things have to be *proven.* One "can" believe and hope anything merely possible, but only what is actual matters. Neither you nor he has proven an alternative.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy i‘m not claiming to have proven, I just wanted to explain how one can be a Hegelian while not drawing all of the same conclusions as Hegel by arguing that at x point in the dialectic Hegel should have concluded something different than he has. If I may, would you mind explaining or referencing an explanation why Hegel starts with freedom in the Phil. of Right? Is there a justification?
To me the debate is easy as far as the argument is "who is more pro lifer" and shet, obviously perspective philosophy (I doubt he is consistent with abortion tho he is too liberal he wont be pro lifer there I can bait that out of him 100%) but the answer to the debate is simple you concede that yea arguably a human vegan diet preserves more wild life or whatever. Is it necesary? do we want to do that? we are the top of the foodchain its up to the individual morals. Personally I don't wanna be that level of "pro life" idgaf, I wanna gain muscle quicker. Until a vegan makes a vegan protein shake that is just as nutritive as the omnivore diet at the SAME price. I'm down to be a vegan because I already almost never eat for pleasure but I know they wont do it.
@@Wlof25 yea I know which is inconsistent with Vegans, Vegans are reptards because the idiots for some reason draw the line at humans the undeniable master warrior race of this planet just because they are so effective at Darwinism he hates them basically, they can abort themselves but do not abort wild animals. His morality for life and consciousness stops at humans within that argument lol. If I was him. At least I would be consistent and say yea all life is "precious" or some gay sh!et like that but he aint.
@@ElDrHouse2010 Life is suffering insofar as there is suffering we can't prevent, but we CAN prevent the suffering of animals, reπard. Nothing gay about combatting suffering, but there is a lot of gay when you just "embrace" the injustices of the world without challenging it. You need to get stronger buddy. Animals suffer more than any human on earth - are you telling them to get stronger even though they can't?
I think its legitimate. Historically, women and certain racial groups weren't considered people and thus weren't worthy of moral consideration. In a similar way, I think he's making the point that we live in a specific time period where animals aren't considered worthy of moral consideration, but that in the future we could.
@@Attalic >Historically, women and certain racial groups weren't considered people and thus weren't worthy of moral consideration I'm glad you think so little of human subjection that you think it's the same as animals, a mere "misunderstanding," like "oops, didn't realize you were deserving of rights despite you telling me and trying to kill me to get them." Yes, very similar to those poor animals in cages.
@@Attalic Obviously animals are worth of moral consideration in the sense that we morally consider them for ourselves, but that's irrelevant to whether they themselves have 'rights', and the question is philosophically from the Logic of Hegel's work can animal rights be derived? And the answer it seems is that no animal rights cannot be derived. And if Perspective Philosophically is going to claim to be a Hegelian then he ought to actually do Hegel's Logic well. This isn't anti-vegan or pro-vegan btw--this is just describing the ontological status Right and whether or not animals have them. It's a gross comparison because Logically African-Americans and women have rights but animals do not--they are of a different kind than us--they lack Language. Go actually watch the video if you want to get what's being said on this.
![AMA on God [Hegelianism and Christianity]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iqEBxc9RnJo/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Aesthetics of Ugliness - Karl Rosenkranz [1]](/img/n.gif)
tl;dl: PP claims he has a Hegelian argument, and at least knows that he is going against Hegel's own views. In order to argue that he is a Hegelian, he must prove his commitments in the Hegelian speculative manner, which he does not (and cannot).
Regarding the first part of a two part argument:
1) Animals are inherently valuable
2) Consciousness is inherently valuable
3) The inconsideration of sentient beings is inherently wrong.
4) Veganism is an ethical duty/obligation.
He never provides a concept of value, one he must derive. We're talking about normative forces here, ones that aren't subjective projections. If animals and consciousness are valuable, why do animals not not recognize this? That one needs a rational argument for this at all shows that animality or consciousness as such are not where value is determined. None of this is Hegelian in the slightest. PP constantly merely asserts his *subjective belief* that rights are determined at consciousness and its desires, and not at the will like Hegel determines. The issue with this is not that he goes against Hegel's words, but he goes against the speculative method in which the way one determines concepts has deep consequences for posterior developments. If consciousness is where ethics begins, then consciousness is where the explanation of recognition and duty emerges, and animals would have duties as much as rights even if we are not considering the will as Hegel did.
Regarding the second part of the argument:
1) Veganism is a development of equality
2) Hegel's views of animals is wrong and outdated
3) Hegel thought women were lesser
4) In considering animals I consider myself
Hegel is not an egalitarian. His philosophy is necessarily hierarchical by the very nature of the Concept's levels of self-construction. There is no way to construct a Hegelian conclusion of a flat ontological value like one may pretend to do with Analytic and Continental pseudo-philosophy. The concept of animality is not a historically determined concept, but a logical one. The only thing PP could think of being actually outdated was that he mistakenly believes that animals losing the will to live is suicide. Hegel's thoughts on women as lesser was indeed a subjective error, but our relationship to animals has no error of this kind. Our changing attitudes of benevolence toward animals is not out of learning they deserved better, but out of a growing compassion in our cultures. Women, on the other hand, told us they deserved rights and fought for them. These are not valid analogies. The only Hegelian point PP makes is that in considering animal interests I am considering myself, but he misunderstands this as meaning that there is a flat equality rather than a relative equality of hierarchical measure, and he mistakes this as being the consideration of conscious interests rather than the consideration of concrete freedom as it is at the animal stage.
Growing compassion out of our cultures = learning that animals deserve better.
Haz started the debate eating a Hamburger, that was where I knew he was a true Hegelian.
Antonio, please can you explain at some point what Speculative Turn involves or provide some reference where you talk about it
I think a discussion with Haz on Hegel/Marx would be interesting, as he comes from a more Marxist-Leninist materialist perspective.
I asked him if he would be down to discuss Chinese philosophy since he likes China, and since it has a lot to do with Socialism With Chinese Characteristics. He said sure, but it has been a few weeks since then, and I suppose he's not interested and knows his viewers would not find it interesting either. He and I don't see eye to eye on dialectics. An argument over it was our first encounter years ago, and I went on his stream; it ended up being a whole lot of nothing.
@cassiopeain Yeah I second that
1:33:33 it’s the last line in Ethics, where Spinoza argues for why he had to phrase himself in such a difficult way to understand: “But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.”
I think PP’s key misinterpretation of Hegel is assuming all disparate consciousnesses are fractured pieces of god, and are only understood as disparate because their consciousness is in process of reunification to a single self recognising absolute spirit in a single mind that includes all living beings. Which is an extremely naive mystical reading of Hegel, that even if it were true it still does not necessitate veganism. Even if animals were also a part of our own mind and we would not want to cause yourselves suffering, as you have said already- consciousness negates itself. Within PP’s mind monism, eating an animal is no different than abandoning a perception which is revealed as false, as it harms the part of the mind which assumed that perception was true. He just mixes utilitarianism with this specific type of mind monism that assumes all parts of the singular existing absolute consciousness should be treated equally.
Is this in regard to the second debate that he had with him with the first? Anyway, thanks for the video and efforts
This is the first debate
To anyone who eats animals because they dont have rights. Stop eating them to respect human rights then. Animal farming is devastating to the environment that human live in, and to the climate in which we live under. It makes no sense to me while vegans spend so much effort on the issue of animal suffering when there is so much human suffering being done by this. Species always takes itself into account first. When there is less human suffering, then maybe we will worry more about animal suffering. Stop eating meat for your own god damn good.
interesting, only i doubt personal consume boycott would be effective. i mean if even people would stop eating meat for that moral reason, i bet when the meat prices drop a little, those people or other groups are tempted to eat meat again. liberal ideas aren't helpful here. also people smoke.
Yeah, Hegelianism is actually sympathetic to your position--refreshing to see someone not mistakenly take the content as anti-vegan.
Factory farming is inhumane and locally devastating due to toxicity buildups, but traditional animal farming isn't. The world in the pre-industrial age was full of wild herds and mega-herds in the savannas and prairies, and these were part of what allowed for the long-term health of these biomes. Allan Savory showed what a terrible misunderstanding and mistake it was to think that the problem was overgrazing when it in fact was that our mismanagement of herd animals was causing undergrazing and desertification.
There is nothing wrong with free range and homestead animal farming.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Traditional animal farming isn't scalable now that we are 7 billion people on earth who needs to be fed. It's a completely irrelevant discussion to whether or not people should continue to eat meat. It's the biggest copium argument to rationalize continuing to eat meat when nobody who isn't an old rich guy can even afford this. But sure, we should have more wild animals in nature, but to that extent we can maybe talk about eating them when they are getting overpopulated or if they die a natural death. Cause it's still a waste of resources nomatter what. You could feed 4x more people on the same amount of land (or maybe more since these occupy more land than industrial animals. 10x the energy is going to waste in converting nutritious plants into nutritious meat.
@@dkemil You misunderstand what I wrote. You claim people *should* not eat meat. My response is that the reasons you give are empirically false and not consequent to the supposed facts. There are ways to eat meat that are ethical, therefore there is no categorical imperative to not eat meat. The scale has nothing to do with it. My response was not that we *should* eat meat. Veganism is not an ethical or moral position, I do not conceive it as such. Whether you do or do not eat meat has no moral or ethical weight, it is neutral. It is like having good aesthetic taste, it is a reflection of personal development.
The issue of ecological degradation is not dealt with on personal consumption. This is a public policy issue on the level of a state polity. When that policy changes, no one will have a choice in whether to continue or not, just as child labor is not a choice to continue or not. Sure, you can try to get away with it, but you'll be violating a law that will get you severely fined and shut down at worst.
I don't know the guy personally, but intellectually, as someone who has now also spent quite a bit of time with Hegel, he does not seem very Hegelian. Perhaps more utilitarian monistic Buddhism with Christian millenarian characteristics? Also, worth emphasizing, yet again, your video on animal rights wasn't an anti-vegan video, but just describing why animals are moral patients not moral agents.
Animals don’t commit suicide. Aristotle is coming for you, beware!
“It is said too that the king of the Scythians had a high-quality mare all of whose colts were good; the king, wishing to breed from the best out of the mother, brought it to her to mate; but it refused; but after she had been concealed under a wrap it mounted her in ignorance; and when the mare’s face was uncovered after the mating, at sight of her the horse ran away and threw itself down the cliffs.“ (History of animals)
That is a joke of course thanks for the video.
I am good here don’t know that channel but i will take your word
He see himself not as a Hegelian in a sense of being 100% true to Hegel but he thinks Hegel has drawn a few wrong conclusions, so he maybe neohegelian is a better word
You either follow the method or you don't. Analytically picking positions from Hegel does not make you a Hegelian of any kind.
Yeah, being a Hegelian is not about taking Hegel's word as gospel because Hegel said it but genuinely doing the method and discovering Logic Truths.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I disagree in some way. I agree with you in terms of the dialectic of the logic I think. My general counter point would be to say that at some points in the dialectic Hegel could have made different turns. Or that things are not always as clear. For example in the Philosophy of Right, he makes the conclusion in paragrap 112 that in the enactment of my ends in order to preserve my subjectivity, my subjectivity is sublated into objectivity. It ceases to be only immediate (roughly translating here from German, sorry for that). He concludes there is now an outward subjectivity, which is identical with to me, and he concludes that this is the will of others and that I have a positive relation to the will of others. I don’t really see where he deduced the "will of others" there. So this is an example where Hegel argumentation seems to me not so strong as for example his exposition of the notions of the Logic.
And this is just an example. Here is my question: Are all of Hegels steps in the Phil. of Right really a necessary chain like in the Logic or is there more room for interpretation here, or more openness, where we can argue "No, at this point in the dialectic, a more fitting conclusion (meaning a negation or sublation) would be this and this".
Edit:
We shouldn’t analytically try to read our own positions into Hegel, I fully agree with that. We should try to read Hegel as Hegel. Yet, I think to be fair, it‘s probable that Hegel wouldn’t have made the same conclusions in his Phil. of Right if he lived say 1000 years earlier, no? His philosophy is influenced by his time, surely, and I‘m not saying we should merely interpret it has historical, we should follow the arguments. But it‘s possible he has drawn biased conclusions because of his own era in his writing on Right and History.
@@lendrestapas2505 >My general counter point would be to say that at some points in the dialectic Hegel could have made different turns. Or that things are not always as clear.
These things have to be *proven.* One "can" believe and hope anything merely possible, but only what is actual matters. Neither you nor he has proven an alternative.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy i‘m not claiming to have proven, I just wanted to explain how one can be a Hegelian while not drawing all of the same conclusions as Hegel by arguing that at x point in the dialectic Hegel should have concluded something different than he has. If I may, would you mind explaining or referencing an explanation why Hegel starts with freedom in the Phil. of Right? Is there a justification?
To me the debate is easy as far as the argument is "who is more pro lifer" and shet, obviously perspective philosophy (I doubt he is consistent with abortion tho he is too liberal he wont be pro lifer there I can bait that out of him 100%) but the answer to the debate is simple you concede that yea arguably a human vegan diet preserves more wild life or whatever. Is it necesary? do we want to do that? we are the top of the foodchain its up to the individual morals. Personally I don't wanna be that level of "pro life" idgaf, I wanna gain muscle quicker.
Until a vegan makes a vegan protein shake that is just as nutritive as the omnivore diet at the SAME price. I'm down to be a vegan because I already almost never eat for pleasure but I know they wont do it.
He isn't a pro lifer. He thinks abortion is fine as long as there is no sentience, just like overwhelming majority of vegans.
@@Wlof25 yea I know which is inconsistent with Vegans, Vegans are reptards because the idiots for some reason draw the line at humans the undeniable master warrior race of this planet just because they are so effective at Darwinism he hates them basically, they can abort themselves but do not abort wild animals. His morality for life and consciousness stops at humans within that argument lol.
If I was him. At least I would be consistent and say yea all life is "precious" or some gay sh!et like that but he aint.
Based that you started throwing flak at people who deserve it. Great to see ballsy content.
God forbid people want to stop eating meat to stop animal suffering.
@@Wackaz life is suffering stop being so gay and embrace it, get stronger and move forward there is nothing more to it
@@ElDrHouse2010 Life is suffering insofar as there is suffering we can't prevent, but we CAN prevent the suffering of animals, reπard. Nothing gay about combatting suffering, but there is a lot of gay when you just "embrace" the injustices of the world without challenging it. You need to get stronger buddy. Animals suffer more than any human on earth - are you telling them to get stronger even though they can't?
@@Wackaz its gay
@@ElDrHouse2010 But liking your own comment isn't, kiddo?
Also, him comparing animal 'rights' to black slavery and women's rights doesn't sit will with me.
I think its legitimate. Historically, women and certain racial groups weren't considered people and thus weren't worthy of moral consideration. In a similar way, I think he's making the point that we live in a specific time period where animals aren't considered worthy of moral consideration, but that in the future we could.
@@Attalic >Historically, women and certain racial groups weren't considered people and thus weren't worthy of moral consideration
I'm glad you think so little of human subjection that you think it's the same as animals, a mere "misunderstanding," like "oops, didn't realize you were deserving of rights despite you telling me and trying to kill me to get them." Yes, very similar to those poor animals in cages.
@@Attalic animals are not people so I don't understand how this is a good comparison. Saying this as someone who doesn't know much about Hegel
@@Attalic Obviously animals are worth of moral consideration in the sense that we morally consider them for ourselves, but that's irrelevant to whether they themselves have 'rights', and the question is philosophically from the Logic of Hegel's work can animal rights be derived? And the answer it seems is that no animal rights cannot be derived. And if Perspective Philosophically is going to claim to be a Hegelian then he ought to actually do Hegel's Logic well. This isn't anti-vegan or pro-vegan btw--this is just describing the ontological status Right and whether or not animals have them.
It's a gross comparison because Logically African-Americans and women have rights but animals do not--they are of a different kind than us--they lack Language.
Go actually watch the video if you want to get what's being said on this.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I'm not sure how this passive aggressive remark is an argument.
"I haven't seen anyone intelligent enter the debate circus and remain intelligent." What about Destiny or Ask Yourself?
Destiny is stupid. Idk about the other, but I assume they are stupid too.
Destiny literally said he doesn't read books because he finds them too boring. In what world is he intelligent?
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy pretty sure Ask Yourself is a vegan formalist.
Haz entered the debate scene, dominated it and proved his genius.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Appreciate the response lol
Just say you love bacon
I don't like bacon. Stupidly overrated.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy
Whoosh