Vegan boy got absolutely obliterated

>Why does it matter that he eats doughnuts out of comfort?

Because it is the same argumant meat eaters use to justify their habit. "uuuh why it matters if I eat meat out of comfort??"

>Is there something wrong with enjoying life rather than watching everywhere you step to make sure you do not hurt someone?

Thats the whole Athene Cult shit, he doesnt say its wrong to enjoy life this way (like the hypocrite VG) , but he has as strong argument why its right to live in this "Value Logic as your core value" - lifestyle

He was saying something about a moral baseline being how to decide that, right? And direct violations are wrong. Existence causes death but going out of your way to cause more harm is wrong. Was there any opposition to that?

Then you'd have to dedicate your life to others to not be a "hypocrite" and that's futile

Vegan donuts don't cause the suffering and/or death of animals, what's so hard to understand about this. The whole veganism argument comes down to whether or not you care about the animals suffering or not.

For me, exploiting and causing the suffering or death of any sentient being when it is completely unnecessary to do so is a moral wrongdoing. Human or otherwise. It's as simple as that.

The reason most vegans feel compelled to actively argue against meat eaters is that the animals can't argue for themselves, so someone must give them a voice.

That's a retarded argument and has nothing to do with veganism. "You can't singlehandedly save the world so there's no point in doing anything". Also veganism is a passive action (not actively contributing to animal agriculture), rather than a active action (going out of your way to donate time/money), so it's not even analogous

How is he a hypocrite? Why is it cult like to value logic?

>go vegan
>get shredded while stuffing myself full of nutritious food

You omnivores don't know what you're missing. Cutting/all year shred is easy as fug.

>But he did save a life by eating vegan donuts

Yes he did, but while he was eating a donut he just didnt save a life because he didnt donate the money to charity, and athene was using this as an argument why he is a hyprocrite.

Its was a really long discussion 2h and you have to follow it chronologically to understand what athenes goal was:
>pointing out he is a hypocrite and making people realize that they base their decisions based on emotions and physical needs if laws dont get in the way.

vg is a proponent of veganism though so he's active in it

I'm at work, can someone give me the tldr?

if you follow athene's logic then it's ok to manipulate people though and use them as tools. that isnt nice ;-----(

Wow Athene still exists? Its been like a decade

>animals
>sentient
I hate to break to to you, but Disney and Pixar movies are not real life

>vegans feel compelled to actively argue against meat eaters
>Gideons feel compelled to actively give out bibles

Veganism is a religion.

I watched the debate, Athene is retarded and wouldnt answer basic questions.

Athene is a YouTube debater now? Is he still the best paladin in the world?

>Vegan donuts don't cause the suffering and/or death.

The argument in the debate was:
He could have eaten lentils and save the money on an animal shelter. But his desicion was not to, so the consequence was that an animal didnt go into his animal shelter and died in a slaughterhouse instead.

>Vegan donuts don't cause the suffering and/or death of animals

Production of all foods causes suffering and death of animals, i.e. pesticides. Production of plants causes less obviously, but why not only eat plants which cause the least?

>do you consider yourself a healthy person?
>yes
>so why do you eat donuts? check mate

turned it off

How does this justify unnecessary suffering and death? I can't save all the animals in the world from dying therefore it's ok to kill and eat them?

Not him but I don't think that was his argument. Rather we only do morally good stuff that we feel comfortable with. Eating lentils and donating the money saved instead of eating donuts is morally greater. But VG isn't willing to give up that comfort in order to save more animals.

>it's ok to manipulate people though and use them as tools

Im not sure if this is right, because when they get manipulated it causes suffering aswell which is bad for the suffering person and for the person who has to deal with the suffering.

But then it comes down to the argumentation "what is suffering" and how to determine in every situation what the right desicion is. And how that is possible I have no idea

Because you are cherry picking what you consider unnecessary, and pick what you are interesting in changing based solely on convenience. You don't actually care, so the entire point is a red herring.

>Vegan donuts don't cause the suffering and/or death of animals
no but your lack of action, (i.e. not donating money that you spend on expensive vegan doughnuts to animal regfugees and whatnot that save lives and prevent suffering) directly causes animals to suffer, for you to enjoy those doughnuts some innocent puppy THAT YOU COULD HAVE SAVED dies in the streets.

he was setting a trap here, you dumb faggot

maybe you would understand if you would watch it till the end

He personally is, but it's not required of someone taking up veganism. I don't go out of my way to advocate for veganism aside from shitposting on Veeky Forums at work

>they base their decisions on emotions and physical needs if laws don't get in the way
Literally every decision someone makes are based on these.

These amount to an appeals to futility and are logical fallacy. You don't spend 100% of your time and effort saving animals/you don't live 100% free from animal exploration, therefore everything you do is in vain. Which is false. But I do agree we should always strive for the 'better' options, but just because we don't doesn't invalidate veganism or justify meat eating.

The decision to eat that doughnut out of comfort isn't necessitating the death of an animal, though.

A lot of animals are sentient, but only humans are sentient and also sapient.

>fatty detected

You do know that the fresh vegetables you eat during the winter, are grown in mexican slave labor camps right?

It doesnt justify that. And Athene didnt claim that.
Athene didnt debate about veganism at all, he debated on why VG is a hypocrite.

This entire twitch debate was just an advertisement for Athenes cult idea

The point of the argument is you do not have moral high ground because you don't do everything you can to stop suffering regardless of how effective it is but you still lord your superiority over others when you're just as logically inconsistent.

>necessitating the death of an animal, though.
Neither does dairy.

Appeal to futility. It's like saying you didn't go to school to be a doctor, so all the patients lives you could have saved are now dead because of you. It's not an argument.

>You do know that the fresh vegetables you eat during the winter, are grown in mexican slave labor camps right?
Which is why I want all the Mexicans out of the country so we can't use them as slave labor.

>eat 3 packs of doughnuts out of comfort $25
>buy 5 imprisoned rats into your super cool happy animal cage $25

one desicion gives you pleasure and is comfortable
the otherone saves a rat from suffering in a cage
Its all in your hands

not gonna bother watching that but how do you get destroyed by someone who went from making comedy content to creating an actual cult to scam people

Even if that were true, the animals we keep as livestock are not sentient and are as dumb as they come. Have you ever dealt with cows before

Explain how all those patients you could have saved are any less dead because you did not become a doctor.

this is true and a burden you do not care about.

obviously your free time is more important to you than innocent people but meat eaters are the scum of the earth.

Athene guy is fucking retarded and I don't get how VG didn't call him out on it.

How the fuck is VG a hypocrite for eating donuts on his birthday while advocating a healthy lifestyle.
And the second point is even more retarded
>hurr you're a hypocrite for not doing more than you already do

That guy is a literal autist and it's hilarious how the comments call him intellectually superior for creating non-arguments that you literally can't respond to because of how loaded they are. In a philosophy 101 class you'll meet guys like this all the time and they're annoying as fuck.

And VG is an annoying idiot too. But I can understand why he left early.

But the money saved could be donated to save animals, so you'd rather eat out of comfort than save lives.

You are shortening its lifespan, no?

There's no logical inconsistency. That argument can be made for every vegan. It's called an appeal to futility fallacy.

>You aren't doing everything in your power to maximize the mitigation of suffering and death of animals, therefore it's ok to eat meat

This doesn't make any sense

>go vegan
>lose test

No thanks

Hah, fun fact, were suffering an overpopulation of dogs because everybody wants to save them

Also, instead of saving your hypothetical puppy in the street, why not save a human child that's being aborted instead?

>being vegan for the animals
not gonna make it
amen brother, I get 1/1 protein/weight without even trying, everything is delicious as fuck

>go vegan
>still slamming new muff every week

meh, I don't notice a change in sex drive

>get laid
problem solved

this was like watching someone who was part of the debate club in college debate someone who has never won an argument before

complete mismatch of intellectual level

The issue is not that you are vegan, it's that you lord yourself over people when you aren't consistent in your beliefs, which makes you a hypocrite.

Becuase it's comfortable not too, obviously, pretty sure that's the whole point

>shortening its lifespan
>necessitates death
Goalpost where art though

Also that isn't what an appeal to futility is. An appeal to futility would be me saying, why should I stop eating meat, it won't change anything.
Asking you to take your own moral reasoning seriously instead of when it is convenient is not futile.

Just like vegans that misuse appeal to nature all the damn time.

>still slamming new muff every week
>On Veeky Forums arguing about whose diet is morally superior

Pick one

>I don't get how VG didn't call him out on it
>And VG is an annoying idiot too

i think you do get it

what i dont understand is why people watch internet """celebrities""" debate

>Vegan
>Get laid

Top kek there mate.

I'm sorry but the only thing he has won is donuts tho

Again, there's no inconsistency.

An omnivore's comfort in eating meat or animal products necessitates the suffering and/or death of another sentient being.

Choosing to spend more money on another vegan option doesn't necessitate the death of another sentient being. Yes, choosing not to eat that expensive vegan doughnut and donating the difference to saving an animal would be more ethical, but there's no logical inconsistency.

Honestly are you even trying? First off this isn't remotely kek worthy of a thing to say, secondly if you actually believe this you are revealing a power level nobody needs to know of.

who let the virgin in here

The animals are my main reason but I also like the health aspect. I don't tend to use that as an argument though because autists just start flinging medical studies at each other

Vegans believe in reducing ones personal contribution to animal suffering as much as possible. That's it. Not donating to animal shelters doesn't constitute a inconsistency in our beliefs.

Veeky Forums made me. Plus I'm a hikki neet and it's rest day so what else am I gonna do but watch stupid youtube videos and incoherently shitpost.

>Choosing to spend more money on another vegan option doesn't necessitate the death of another sentient being.

All production of food results in some degree of animal death, either through use of pesticides, clearance of land to grow crops etc.

So if production of donuts resulted in more death than eating lentils would you still eat them over the latter?

>An omnivore's comfort in eating meat or animal products necessitates the suffering and/or death of another sentient being.
which is true of inaction caused by choosing comfort over beliefs.

don't bitch at me for not being comfortable saving animals from abstaining from meat when you're not comfortable saving animals abstaining from everything but lentils or you're a hypocrite.

The comments on Vegan grains video is just leftist retardation
Literal autism

This is why I prefer meat eaters, cause they're chill and not spergy

>Vegan slampieces

Who would win: One steroid loaded vegan or one donut?

>athene's shoulder width
holy shit

>controlled opposition to discredit the vegan movement

>reducing ones personal contribution to animal suffering as much as possible
if you were to reduce animal suffering by donating to animal shelters would that not reduce your personal contribution to animal suffering by reducing animal suffering or adding negative animal suffering?

your inaction is causes an animal to suffer just as me eating meat does, but you're more comfortable with it because you don't see those animals that you're not saving.

>Goalpost where art though

It necessitates suffering, especially when you take away its calf after giving birth every time.

I just got back from China yesterday, m8. When I move back to China next month I'll go back to slamming hairy Chinese muff on the reg.

There's a clear difference here and you're grasping at straws.

Choosing an expensive vegan doughnut doesn't cause an increase in demand in animal agriculture. If everyone were vegan then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

Not him, but, if everyone went vegan there would still be people chanting about their morally superior diets because they only eat plants with the lowest carbon foot print to produce or plants which need less land to produce.

Both of which would contribute to a reduction in animal suffering.

>There's a clear difference here
No there is not.
I'm not comfortable sacrificing something that I enjoy in order to make animals lives better.
neither are you. only what we don't want to sacrifice is different.

nice strawman though, just because you eat meat does not mean you contribute to animal agriculture.

jesus christ, those arguments, the level of that ""debate"""

who would willingly watch that

You can smoke, you can drink alcohol, you can be fat, you can waste your life in front of your xbox while drinking mountain dew, you can have no job, you can cheat on your wife, but when it comes to food for some reason it is your OBLIGATION to live according to these 500 cherry picked studies, you HAVE to be perfect in this one specific area of your life, the rest can be a mess though

It matters because when you eat meat out of comfort you're killing human being for your pleasure

when you eat donut out of comfort you're not, great fucking argument athene, you sure showed him

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to argue here...

It's pretty important for health and environmental reasons. You can say "cherry picked" all you want but that's just lazy and dismissive.

Different person here but I'll try explaining something to you here:

>Person A enjoys beating babies faces in with a hammer
>Person B enjoys stealing babies candy

Person B now tells A to stop beating babies faces in. A says "But you hurt babies too! There is no difference at all between our actions!" and proceeds to beat babies faces in.

You are person A.

But person A's actions results in a reduction of greenhouse gases since that is one less mouth to feed. A reduction which might save countless marine life. Who is morally superior?

I'm stating that you're a hypocrite for whining about how I contribute to animal suffering when you do as well.

also stating that hunting doesn't add any demand on the meat market.

It's more similarly to
>Person A buys photos of beaten babies creating a demand for the market
>Person B Buys pictures of stolen candy from babies when he could have donated that to the "Stop Baby Beatings Foundation" which would have saved a few babies from being beaten.

but person B gives person shit about how he contributes to markets that hurt babies both of them are bad people, but person B is also a hypocrite for whining about other people hurting babies when he also contributes to hurting babies.

Funny stuff but at least try getting the point I tried to make:

This debate is not about being perfect but about becoming better.

>but person B gives person A shit about how he contributes

>I'm stating that you're a hypocrite for whining about how I contribute to animal suffering when you do as well.

Far less than you. You also need to take into account the extra suffering caused by the enormous amounts of grain fed to livestock.

So stop eating vegan donuts and donate the money saved to save more animal lives.

Does that not make you a better person?

Or is the magnitude of how much of a better person you want to become limited by the comfort of vegan junk food?

athene got annoying as fuck. I mean I get the direction he's going in and I mainly agree with it but he can EAD

See
A is clealry worse than B. By your logic only a perfectly moral being would be right in accusing anybody of being immoral and asking them to better their ways which is clearly not how we treat ethics in society. We judge bad actions while being imperfect all the time. Morality is not black and white is very very gradual.

Holy shit I havent seen athene sinc elike 08

What the fuck happened

man, veganboy got burnt to a crisp

Athens argument was fucking stupid anyways even though vg handled it poorly

You can always do more. What does he expect ? For them to live on the streets after selling all their possessions to aid the animals?

>You also need to take into account the extra suffering caused by the enormous amounts of grain fed to livestock.
part of the strawman.
>also stating that hunting doesn't add any demand on the meat market.

>Far less than you.

>a man steals 10lbs of candy from a baby
>another man steals 1lb of candy from a baby

>the second man says "I'm better than you for stealing less candy."

>By your logic only a perfectly moral being would be right in accusing anybody of being immoral
no, only a man who has knowingly contributed to animal suffering should judge people who choose to contribute to animal suffering
that doesn't mean a man who has eaten meat or vegan donuts can't judge a man who has murdered a human.

I am not arguing against questioning anybodies actions. I am however not convinced that your argument is in any way sincere. It seems to me that you are just trying to employ some kind of moral relativism to justify your own shitty habits.

Also: There are magnitutes of good and bad and those should clearly be considered.

>I don't like what you have to say therefore it's a strawman

ok dude