Philosophical Vegan Forum

Things that are original in that video are:

1) Claim that the evidence that non-N95 masks work is as thin as the evidence that ketogenic diets help against epilepsy.

2) Claim that governments that will do something sensible about public health, such as banning prophylactic use of antibiotics in farmed animals, are unlikely to get elected.

3) Claim that the fact that the USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet it also is the developed country that is the highest in violent crime is evidence that prisons do not actually deter crime.

4) The argument "If owning a gun is a privilege to be earned rather than an inalienable right, why do governments then deserve to have militaries? If having used marijuana is a proof you are too dangerous to own a gun, then Varivode Massacre in 1995 is a proof that the Croatian government is too dangerous to have a military, isn't it?".

5) The claim that death penalty is not a good idea for the same reason having antivirus software on your computer is not a good idea. "The point is, antivirus software probably makes us less safe because they sometimes make legitimate software stop working, which has just as bad effect as malware do. You can trust me on that, because I am a computer science student. Similarly, any real judiciary system that has death penalty will sometimes put innocent people to death. So, death penalty probably makes us less safe."

6) A response to Gary Yourofsky's argument for death penalty. "A vegan activist Gary Yourofsky has another argument for death penalty, and that is that it is supposedly more humane to kill murderers than to force them to be in jail for life. That is the reason many vegans support death penalty. However, I don’t think that’s a good argument, because you cannot use one big government policy to justify the another. Prisons are one big government policy and they cannot be used to justify death penalty."

7) Using World War 2 in Croatia as an argument against interventionism.

What do you guys here think, did Varivode Massacre in 1995 really happen? I am not entirely convinced it is reasonable to believe in it. The basic principle of social sciences is to never doubt the statistics provided to by the governments. Well, according to English Wikipedia, the Croatian government first claimed nobody died in Varivode. Varivode was, according to English Wikipedia, at first dismissed as propaganda, and only later did Croatian government admit that it happened, but denied any involvement in it. I don't know what social scientists do when the government first denies some massacre happened, and only later admits it happened. Croatian Wikipedia has an article about Varivode, but it makes no mention of the massacre. Also, the name "Varivode" appears to be rather ironic. Why would somebody call a place "cooked meat" except to make a good story about a massacre?