Debates: abortion, veganism, god 9.15

[@General_Idea]

Mike - your lines of reasoning are absolutely brutal. God has free will and does no evil. Ergo why not create humans with free will (constrained) and have no ability to do evil etc. Please more. You deserve so much recognition.

[@argentiskyblau159]

This is a joke right? LOL

[@RuberSocks]

As a vegan of 10 years, I never heard of low creatine lowering IQ. I looked it up, and sure enough, the study, "Oral creatine monohydrate supplementation improves brain performance: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial " shows a substantial increase in vegans/vegetarians. It shows: 1. Remembering roughly 1 more digit in long-number memory tests. 2. Answering roughly 4 more questions correctly in the 23 question Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices test, which tests general cognitive function via pattern recognition. The study, "The impact of dietary intervention on the cognitive development of Kenyan school children" supposedly shows similar results, but it is not publicly available to read the specifics. Are vegans less smart? Other factors like how we tend to take multivitamins more, likely make us smarter, but there is no study on this unfortunately.

[@jm3606]

Haven’t you noticed all the bold claims printed on energy drinks about increased brain function from creatine. These companies had to do some kind of research on the topic, Im very curious too.

[@JonOchoa]

Hey @mikebrigandi_ At around 15 minutes, you rightfully shared that human life has sufficient value to not be murdered, regardless of how smart the person is, yet you support murdering some human beings in the womb because they are not sentient. Although I hear you dismiss their being human at such a young age as only being a clump of cells, may you see that they too, as ignorant as they might be (even so far as to not know how to feel or perceive yet), have sufficient value to not be murdered as well. I appreciate you sharing these discussions/debates, and I hope you realize sooner than later that every body (even those only one and two cells big) should not be murdered. May God bless you

[@edusch]

Well, he shared that it is not intelligence the defining factor, but sentience. He mentioned that a clump of cells is not sentient, while a fully developed animal definetly is. But even if you grant rights to a clump of cells without sentience, there is a concurrent right problem in the abortion situation. Nobody should have the right to use your body without your permission and approval. So, it is quite complex actually. Very different and way more complex than the killing of animals because "meat taste good yummi yummi"

[@JonOchoa]

Hello @edusch, I agree with your point about nobody should have the right to use your body without your permission and approval, but the created child never violates this right. A man fertilizing a woman’s egg is the permission and approval granted for the child to use the womb, which is the room reserved for early human growth. And in cases which an innocent child is created from a rape, the rapist violated the right and should be held responsible for reparations. And certainly, holding accountable a rapist or ignorant parents who do not know how they gave permission to the child they created to use the mother’s womb is very complex, but abortion inflicts unjustified suffering and death on innocent children.

[@edusch]

@JonOchoa look, let's think about this. You mentioned "innocent child", but I was clear that I was talking about "a non sentient clump of cells", that's way way before childhood. Nobody is advocating killing innocent childs. You mentioned that the **pist should be held responsible, and that's just one part of the problem. What about the pregnant woman? Shouldn't she have more rights than a clump of cells? I mean, she have way more to lose, since she is in fact sentient and aware. Think about him traumatic already was to being **ped, then she needs to carry for 9 months a being that she wouldn't like to carry. This will transform her body. Then, probably, she would give the baby for adoption, or even if she decides to be the mother of the baby, both things can be traumatic...

[@JonOchoa]

@@edusch Thank you for further discussion, and I hope we might come to understand one another. The first obstacle is that we disagree on what a fertilized human egg is. I find a fertilized human egg is a person, while you see these persons as clumps of non-sentient cells. Where does your moral compass or logic point if you were to go along with my proposed definition? If they are indeed persons, do you believe people should be able to either kill them or have them killed? When I accept your definition of a fertilized human egg prior to sentience as a clump of non-sentient cells, my logic finds a few different scenarios play out. 1. I see that either the clump of cells will naturally grow to be sentient or pass prior to sentience. In the former scenario, they are no different than you, me, their mother or father and therefore deserve the same rights granted to us currently-sentient clumps of cells. In the latter, either nature will run its course or medical teams can provide care to safely abort a still baby. 2. When currently-sentient clumps of cells (fathers and mothers of their not-yet sentient clumps of cells {babies}) expand their ability to love more than initially desired, every human clump of cells win from the creation to their creators to the community to the world to heaven. 3. In the video, @mikebrigandi_ mentioned favoring the lives of younger beings over the lives of older beings in cases where the younger beings are likely to be more productive for society. Therefore if you are correct that ladies are unable to overcome the suffering from the love of caring a child created from a **pe, and Mike is correct that societies should desire the lives of beings that are likely to be more productive for society, then the logic would follow to favor the life of the not-yet sentient clump of cells because once sentient, would not have carried the weight of burden from the **pist, and likely has more years to be productive for the community then the parents.

[@edusch]

@JonOchoa 1 - yes, that's why we are talking on "pre-sentient beings". To be consistent, you need to be against next day pills, since it is post some hours of fertilization. 2 - disagree completely. Many cases show the opposite. Many cruel things in the world. Many bad parents. To expect that a unwanted child would have a good creation is kind of wishful thinking. 3 - yes, of course it is worse to kill a baby than to kill an old lady. The logic is that the baby have more to lose, more years coming ahead from his/her life. That's why of course killing sentient animals is way worse than killing non sentient beings. That's why it is not logical to give more rights to non sentient beings than fully sentient individuals like the pregnant woman.

[@SlipperyManBean]

Mike I love these videos and it would be amazing if they were in podcast form like on apple podcasts so that I could listen to them while I am walking

[@Skreenager89]

Free trial youtube? If not you could subscribe. Listen on the go then

[@richardb7495]

The more I listen to people that are pro life and anti-veganism the more hubris arrogance and pride. I see. Keep on doing what you’re doing, Mike.!

[@antoniusgrave1348]

Veganism is not an ethical stance like vegans love to claim. Its s cultish religious dietary stance.

[@argentiskyblau159]

Life starts at conception, this is a scientific fact, it's incontrovertible. And animals don't have any rights.

[@jordanv3323]

57:50 “I don’t have to engage in your hypotheticals” Is unfortunately how many vegan debates go. Infuriating ah

[@jordanv3323]

Hypotheticals hold a purpose; in this case to see if the guest thinks having souls is really what counts morally, or if it’s not. Considering he probably wouldn’t be ok with murder if we didn’t have souls, the soul by itself isn’t actually what he thinks morally distinguishes us from other animals

[@Timedesigner]

5:40 I also want to evict the 5lbs of diarrhea that invaded my body after I ate an entire family meal from taco bell all by myself

[@Unholy_11]

I’m pretty sure humans aren’t the top of the food chain, aren’t we somewhere on the trophic scale as pigs?

[@5avaa]

I'm honestly gonna consider switching to a plant based diet but in todays world its pretty much impossible not to indirectly cause suffering, because clothes and technology are made in unethical ways and even some plant based foods, they require some resources that lead to for example deforestation that leads to the death of animals While I think it's a good thing to personally try to minimize this I'm afraid it doesn't have much effect because humans are never gonna all work together to solve this 😮‍💨

[@richardb7495]

@@5avaa it’s really more about practically minimizing suffering. None of us can completely eliminate that it’s unrealistic.

[@MoistVegan]

Average consumer eats 100 animals a year.

[@5avaa]

​@@richardb7495 I wish there was a straight forward way to do that, but every day for literally anything we consume were making a compromise to condone suffering If becoming vegan really does minimize it the most then great

[@5avaa]

@@MoistVegan Idk where you got that number from but even if its a lot less that's still terrible, but surely there are also vegan foods that are bad for the environment

[@richardb7495]

@@5avaa it’s a learning curve and there’s no right or wrong or black-and-white answer, but I do believe that veganism does tend to minimize the most suffering

[@edusch]

The 55:00 caller is so arrogant and full of himself without even THINK about the questions, think about the differences and perceptions we have due to society and culture. He is full of himself, just repeating "how can you compare babies to animals?!?!?!?!?!"

[@xtrumo.em2d296]

“Protect the whole world”, that’s rich 😂🎉

[@dedraterru4676]

1:30:35 "if god is a positive property, then god must be necessary, meaning that he has necessary existence" lmao wtf

[@painisvergina3693]

These clowns think veganism is the exact same as abortion

[@libertadvalerio870]

Win after win after win 😎

[@libertadvalerio870]

People really need to do their research before jumping on and attempting to debate you 🙄

[@antoniusgrave1348]

Lol, IQ is a nonsense measurement of intellect. Also, genetics is the main factor of intellect.

[@MoistVegan]

30:20 all plants have all 9

[@McRuffin]

Mike , you’ll have fun reading Isaiah 45:7 where it states god created evil. Some versions try to alter the scripture. But the KJV has kept it. Evangelicals seem to not be familiar with this scripture.

[@antoniusgrave1348]

Consumption and being a speciesist is more than enough of a justification to unalive an animal. The only moral problem is how you acquire and/or raise the animal.

[@mikebrigandi_]

so you think killing someone is okay as long as they have a few genes that a different than you making them a different species?

[@antoniusgrave1348]

⁠​⁠@@mikebrigandi_ What do you mean by “someone”? Another human? Or are you attempting to say another species? You do realize that “speciesist” means that i hold some species above others, with humans being at the peak of that pyramid?

[@socfoot7]

debate charile clirk

[@Intergalactic-v5z]

If you love animals so much, why do you eat all their food? (This is a joke, I respect vegans and their choices even if I’m not vegan)

[@antoniusgrave1348]

24:30 No, you cannot get the same levels of protein from fauna or fungus as you can with meat. When it comes to protein you only need 2lbs of fauna meat a week to sustain your life. With flora meat you need 10x that.

[@mikebrigandi_]

thats garbage. Tofu has plenty protein density, stop the excuses

[@antoniusgrave1348]

@@mikebrigandi_no it doesnt. Please show your source that demonstrates tofu has the same density or even similar density of protein as fauna meat?

[@GigglyardoYT]

20:50 lolololol

[@angeloishere4006]

That analogy you used about a burglar invading my body was horrible! That life you just call a clump of cells will be growing into a human being! Just because it’s in its early form of development doesn’t mean it’s okay to get it killed , these women that are getting abortions just need to stop being so reckless, if they don’t want kids.. take measures to avoid having kids in the first place! But killing a life that is in embryonic development is an unfair choice to that life that could’ve grown up to love life. If you women can’t handle the consequences of having sex then don’t have sex at all. And for you Mike, for someone that is in such favor of not killing animals I’m honestly shocked that you don’t care about your own species getting killed off before they even have a chance to breath.

[@goodbye6676]

Why should we care about it tho before it formed into a human being

[@mikebrigandi_]

I don’t really care for a clump of cells. Women shouldn’t be forced to give birth.

[@goodbye6676]

@mikebrigandi_ it's technically not a clump of cells when it becomes a fetus less significant still, but it won't have sentience, so it's permissible to abort. Do you not think the d&e abortion done in the 2nd trimester is at least a little disturbing? The way the procedure is done?

[@Tired_Sen]

Again, sentience is all that really matters. Not what "could've been".

[@mikebrigandi_]

@@goodbye6676 no. I don’t think fetus’s are aware or sentient in any significant degree.

[@antoniusgrave1348]

30:30 Animals are neither innocent nor guilty. You cannot use these concepts on animals. It’s just like an animal cannot be moral or immoral.

[@mikebrigandi_]

animals are innocent, they dont need to be killed

[@antoniusgrave1348]

@@mikebrigandi_ First, prove they are innocent? Second, They do need to be unalived in order for other species to continue living. Thats the circle of life. You cannot live without consuming death, whether that be flora or fauna.

[@Aishai26]

​@@mikebrigandi_That's not what innocent means. It can't be applied to animals. "Need" doesn't matter

[@mikebrigandi_]

@@Aishai26 why cant it be applied to animals?

[@Aishai26]

@@mikebrigandi_ Because animals can't be held responsible for their actions. They sense their environment and react in ways which lets them survive longer. There is no intentionality or understanding of right or wrong. So they can't be held accountable. Guilty or Innocent cannot be applied to animals because of this. Care to give an example of a "Guilty" animal?