Philosophical Vegan Forum

Red wrote: You obviously didn't watch the Johnathan Haidt video I linked, which explains how it's something we can demonstrate.

You know, I don't feel like debating somebody who is not even on this forum. If there are some arguments that are convincing to you there, share them.

Red wrote:You don't have to 'say' that I'm right, I am right, as anyone who would look at the graph for 20 seconds would agree.

First, how was such a graph even generated? I am studying computer science and I have no clue how to verify the data there is correct.

Red wrote:How did vegan channels such as Unnatural Vegan get as big as they are?

First and foremost, luck. At first, Unnatural Vegan was known as FitOnRaw and was not even promoting veganism, but some other crazy (though mostly vegan) diets.

Red wrote:I'm also not just going to be talking about veganism, which will help expand the appeal.

And I thought intersectional activism was generally agreed not to work well. Besides, if you take a stance on many issues, there is a high chance you will be very wrong on at least one of those issues.

Red wrote:many people on the internet aren't as stupid as you think Teo

Are you really implying an average YouTube viewer is smarter than me?

Red wrote:And now you've gone off the deep end yet again by parroting typical anti-vegan arguments

I am not. I am mostly vegan. I am just against bad activism.

Red wrote:You haven't even seen my script.

I was talking about the MinuteEarth video.

Red wrote:Please stop using the term 'soft science,' you're pretty much just using it as a buzzword at this point.

I'm not using that as a buzzword, I am using it to refer to something that seems scientific, but is very hard to evaluate. How do you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most of the beef today comes from grain-fed, rather than grass-fed, cows? It's probably true, but it's very hard to prove.

Red wrote:I wasn't going to bring up global poverty, but it will be implied when I discuss climate change.

Climate change is more of an argument against grass-fed cows, rather than against meat as it is currently produced.

Red wrote:Most people aren't aware about how much of an issue it is.

Most of the people aren't too concerned about climate change, if they believe in it at all.

Red wrote:and for a growing population, feeding the world with meat is not sustainable.

Do you seriously think you are able to convincingly refute all of Allan Savory arguments for believing otherwise?

Red wrote:Employers tend to have a different view on the matter,

Why do you think that's the case?

Red wrote:Which is why you should RESEARCH effective charities

And it's very hard to research. If you get it wrong, you'll very likely never know that.

Red wrote:Look into charity evaluators such as GiveWell.

Never heard of those. Why should I care?

Red wrote: That's what I was referring to when I said gaining a specialty.

But, see, it's not gaining specialty. That stuff is taught to all programmers at the university, even though it's worse than useless to most of them.

Red wrote: Just sit around and do nothing when you have an exam in a week.

My guess is that it wouldn't make a significant difference.

Red wrote:How do you learn to code?

Good question. I don't know either. But you don't need to know the right answer to recognize a wrong one. Going to university is an obviously wrong answer.

Red wrote:How will you apply what you learn?

Freelancing, probably.

Red wrote:Any time you say shit like this I'm just gonna say r/iamverysmart

I don't understand what you mean. Why is that shit?

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pm You know, I don't feel like debating somebody who is not even on this forum. If there are some arguments that are convincing to you there, share them.

Are you pretending to be this stupid?

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmFirst, how was such a graph even generated? I am studying computer science and I have no clue how to verify the data there is correct.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Your favourite logical fallacy.

Do we have anything else to go off of? I would try SocialBlade, but their new format requires a subscription to get all the stats.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmFirst and foremost, luck. At first, Unnatural Vegan was known as FitOnRaw and was not even promoting veganism, but some other crazy (though mostly vegan) diets.

Doesn't matter, they were still discussing something that's even less mainstream than veganism.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmAnd I thought intersectional activism was generally agreed not to work well.

Where did you hear that?
Intersectionality is different from whatever you're referring to.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pm Besides, if you take a stance on many issues, there is a high chance you will be very wrong on at least one of those issues.

Not if you follow the science. I know that's difficult for someone as crazy and biased as you, but it's possible for many people.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmAre you really implying an average YouTube viewer is smarter than me?

...Almost anyone is. That's a pretty low bar.

Smarter people will be attracted to smarter content.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmI am not. I am mostly vegan. I am just against bad activism.

Why does this qualify as 'bad activism?' Actually, don't bother telling me, I don't trust your opinion on this (or basically anything for that matter) anyway.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pm I'm not using that as a buzzword, I am using it to refer to something that seems scientific, but is very hard to evaluate.

I'm just reminded of this whenever you use the term: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pm How do you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most of the beef today comes from grain-fed, rather than grass-fed, cows? It's probably true, but it's very hard to prove.

It's a matter of COUNTING, dumbass. You don't need a scientific evaluation for this.
https://www.thoughtco.com/feedlot-organ ... eef-127669

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmClimate change is more of an argument against grass-fed cows, rather than against meat as it is currently produced.

I was going to bring that up too, but either grass fed or grain fed, both are terrible for the environment.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmMost of the people aren't too concerned about climate change, if they believe in it at all.

Are they right in believing that?

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmDo you seriously think you are able to convincingly refute all of Allan Savory arguments for believing otherwise?

Not everyone has heard of Allan Savory's arguments, you know. A lot of meat eaters understand the environmental issues of animal agriculture (the goal is to push them towards veganism).

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmWhy do you think that's the case?

I don't know. If I were to guess, it may have to do with work ethic and also showing passion for the field.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmAnd it's very hard to research. If you get it wrong, you'll very likely never know that.

Several organizations have already done so.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmNever heard of those. Why should I care?

Because they rank charities based on effectiveness.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pm But, see, it's not gaining specialty. That stuff is taught to all programmers at the university, even though it's worse than useless to most of them.

Employers may prefer it if you have one though.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmMy guess is that it wouldn't make a significant difference.

Sure, go ahead then.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmGood question. I don't know either. But you don't need to know the right answer to recognize a wrong one. Going to university is an obviously wrong answer.

There are plenty of courses online for free for learning the basics of some languages. Higher level stuff in STEM benefits from having an expert available to help correct errors.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:19 pmI don't understand what you mean. Why is that shit?

Because no one asked, and no one cares. No one is impressed by these things.

Red wrote:Are you pretending to be this stupid?

I don't understand what is stupid about it. Are you expecting me to watch a 17-minutes-long video in a foreign language without subtitles because maybe there are some convincing arguments about how effective activism is hard science? If there are some arguments that are convincing to you there, share them.

Red wrote:Your favourite logical fallacy.

I don't think that's personal incredulity fallacy. Personal incredulity fallacy is "I don't understand it, therefore it's unlikely, even though I am not an expert in the field.". I do have some expertise in computer science, I am studying it at the university. So, saying I don't understand something related to it and therefore consider it unlikely is not personal incredulity fallacy. It's like @brimstoneSalad makes the difference between fallacious appeal to authority and an appeal to a qualified authority.

Red wrote:Doesn't matter, they were still discussing something that's even less mainstream than veganism.

I don't understand what you mean. It's veganism itself that's become politicized and associated with far left (or, in some countries, far right), and that's why people hate discussion about it.

Red wrote:Intersectionality is different from whatever you're referring to.

So, what is intersectionality? I thought it was basically taking stance on as many social issues as possible.

Red wrote: I know that's difficult for someone as crazy and biased as you, but it's possible for many people.

OK, how do you know you are one of those people who can follow science?

Red wrote:Almost anyone is.

Almost everyone can't make a YouTube video in Latin. And almost everyone can't make a compiler. You seriously think most people have made something more impressive than those things?

Red wrote:I'm just reminded of this whenever you use the term

OK, what does "soft science" mean to you? Also, @brimstoneSalad, do you agree with me that claims that farmed animals aren't an efficient way to feed the growing population of humans are soft science claims (not that they are probably not true)? Claims that factory farming leads to antibiotic resistance is a hard science claim, it takes only a basic understanding of evolutionary biology to be understood, and people who deny that sound rather silly. But the science of how meat is contributing to global poverty appears to be hard to prove. How do you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most of the beef today doesn't come from grass-fed cows?

Red wrote:It's a matter of COUNTING, dumbass.

Incompetent people can easily screw up counting, just like they can screw up measurements.

Red wrote:You don't need a scientific evaluation for this.

I keep getting error 462 when I try to visit that web-page. Can you copy the relevant parts of it here, please?

Red wrote:I was going to bring that up too, but either grass fed or grain fed, both are terrible for the environment.

Probably. But the claim that grain fed cows are terrible for the environment due to antibiotic resistance is a hard science claim. Claims that grass-fed cows destroy the environment are soft science claims.

Red wrote:Are they right in believing that?

Well, I think that they are. That the dangers of climate change have been vastly exaggerated.

Red wrote:Not everyone has heard of Allan Savory's arguments, you know.

So? You are trying to also reach misinformed people, rather than just the ignorant ones, right?

Red wrote:If I were to guess, it may have to do with work ethic and also showing passion for the field.

I mean, why do you believe that employers value those things? Those things are incredibly hard to investigate. Like Bryan Caplan says, most studies that try to establish how much higher education is worth are fundamentally flawed: people who finish the university are the people who did better at high-school, and what those studies show is that there is a correlation between being good at high-school and earning more in real life, rather than that there is some value in the diploma or in the things taught at the university.

Red wrote:Several organizations have already done so.

Why trust them?

Red wrote:There are plenty of courses online for free for learning the basics of some languages.

Well, most of the useful things I've learned about programming, I've learned from those online courses. But that's still not enough to earn some money.

Red wrote:Higher level stuff in STEM benefits from having an expert available to help correct errors.

Are you joking? Two of my professors teaching programming (no less) explicitly told me they wouldn't know how to build a compiler at all, yet alone better than me. Computer Science professors are people good at publishing papers about programming, not necessarily good at programming.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 am I don't understand what is stupid about it. Are you expecting me to watch a 17-minutes-long video

You didn't even click the video, it's 10 minutes.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amin a foreign language without subtitles

Oh, so now you're saying your English isn't good enough?

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 ambecause maybe there are some convincing arguments about how effective activism is hard science? If there are some arguments that are convincing to you there, share them.

It's for the sake of saving time.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 am I don't think that's personal incredulity fallacy. Personal incredulity fallacy is "I don't understand it, therefore it's unlikely, even though I am not an expert in the field.".

That is pretty much what you said.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amI do have some expertise in computer science, I am studying it at the university. So, saying I don't understand something related to it and therefore consider it unlikely is not personal incredulity fallacy.

One year of computer science clearly isn't enough to understand it then. Forgive me for trusting the website over you.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amI don't understand what you mean. It's veganism itself that's become politicized and associated with far left (or, in some countries, far right), and that's why people hate discussion about it.

Unnatural Vegan seems to have gotten popular after giving up the woo nonsense. 250k subs and tens of thousands of views per video is nothing to scoff at, and shows that changing for the more rational brings people in.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amSo, what is intersectionality? I thought it was basically taking stance on as many social issues as possible.

These days it mostly means that oppression can be connected to various parts of your demographics (like skin colour, gender, etc).

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amOK, how do you know you are one of those people who can follow science?

Follow the consensus.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amAlmost everyone can't make a YouTube video in Latin. And almost everyone can't make a compiler. You seriously think most people have made something more impressive than those things?

r/iamverysmart

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amOK, what does "soft science" mean to you?

I only use the term when there is an agreement that a field is a soft science.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amIncompetent people can easily screw up counting, just like they can screw up measurements.

There is an agreement amongst several organizations that the amount of grass-fed cows ranges from 3-5%.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amI keep getting error 462 when I try to visit that web-page. Can you copy the relevant parts of it here, please?

Why bother, you're just going to keep shifting the goalposts.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amProbably. But the claim that grain fed cows are terrible for the environment due to antibiotic resistance is a hard science claim. Claims that grass-fed cows destroy the environment are soft science claims.

I'm not explaining this to you Teo, and I highly doubt brimstone has the time or patience for your BS either. You figure this out yourself. Assume you're WRONG and look at what the experts say (I know you're not going to).

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amWell, I think that they are. That the dangers of climate change have been vastly exaggerated.

Yes, I am going to trust you on this Teo. Fuck all those scientists, right?

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amSo? You are trying to also reach misinformed people, rather than just the ignorant ones, right?

That doesn't make up the majority of them AFAIK. There are also many refutations of his crap that I can link to people.

People who use Savory's arguments as a justification for eating meat are very unlikely to be won over anyway.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 am

Red wrote:If I were to guess, it may have to do with work ethic and also showing passion for the field.

I mean, why do you believe that employers value those things?

Why do employers value a work ethic and actually caring about the field you're working in?

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amThose things are incredibly hard to investigate.

Which is why they look at research and other experience, since they don't have much else to go off of.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amWhy trust them?

Who else are you going to trust? They conduct these examinations as scientifically as possible.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced you just want an excuse to not donate anything to charity.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amWell, most of the useful things I've learned about programming, I've learned from those online courses. But that's still not enough to earn some money.

Since that stuff's easy and accessible, that would be expected. Which is why you should stay in school.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:11 amAre you joking? Two of my professors teaching programming (no less) explicitly told me they wouldn't know how to build a compiler at all, yet alone better than me. Computer Science professors are people good at publishing papers about programming, not necessarily good at programming.

You mean the academic professors in Croatia?

Your anecdotes are not evidence.

I'm locking this thread Teo. Don't annoy me or anyone else here by bringing this up somewhere else.