Comments by "Deus Ex Homeboy" (@DeusExHomeboy) on "Foie Gras & the Ethics of Force-Feeding: The Politics of Food" video.

  1. Outside of human societies, where most "moral values" are presonalised, arbitrary and herd-serving. The act of eating a sentient organism's body is not immoral in itself, but what makes the participant moral or immoral, is whether they (a) needed to kill it for their own survival, and (b) whether the organism died of natural causes. No matter how you justify it, ultimately it is unnecessary, denies billions of sentient organisms a natural life and then has them killed and dismembered to satisfy the habits of humans. Doing something undesired to one sentient organism is objectively equivalent to doing the same to another innocent sentient organism. If you wish to live by subjective morals that are detached from reality and can be bent anytime to preserve one's sense of "decency". I'm sure you'd have a little more problem with a human baby being raised in loving care, shown kindness and kept well and cozy, randomly strung up and decapitated one day unnaturally, then chopped up and packed for buyers to consume. But somehow you seem to conveniently presume that only your own specie and a few other cherry picked species of sentient organisms that you are "familiar and comfortable with", have some magical property that raises them above everything else. It's all made up, completely detached from reality. You might as well wear fake elf ears and ride a horse around while holding a bow, acting like you're Legolas the eld from Lord of the Rings universe. It's equally detached from objective reality. Why even try at this point? Your whole statement is a contradiction to itself. "probably not", I am doubtful now, as to whether you've done sufficient research to have confident in what you believe. It seems your statement is more of a symbol to convince yourself.
    8
  2.  @RobinTheBot  Hi, sorry to say this, but your statement is scientifically uneducated. Your claim that "human babies have a better understanding of fear compared to other animals", is baseless, most animals Develop cognitive complexity at higher rates than humans. And animals in the wild are NATURALLY SELECTED TO MAXIMIZE their Fear-related cognition than most humans, who actually end up depending on group alerts rather than their own intuition and cognitive capacity to process fear. And many fears that humans possess are often arbitrary and counter-intuitive, like the fear of god or ghosts. One can easily make the case that HUMANS are MORE DELUDED about fear and suffering (along with other cognition) compared to any other cognitively complex organism. The very fact that you foolishly and wishfully seem to be CONVINCED that humans will NEVER STOP CONSUMING 'meat', is proof that you again, understand nothing about human evolution and the increasing aversion our specie is developing in regards to immoral behavior and animal flesh. You have no concept of where humans will end up in a few hundred years. It's beyond what your brain has been capable of making models of. There will soon come a point where humans will get no diseases, and need to consume no organic matter for sustenance, but you are desperate to feel right, therefore you've deluded whatever understanding you could've developed of the world, just so your preferred narrative would feel justified and sensible to you. "Fight the fight that can be won." *wow edgy one-liners. If only that ever won anybody an argument lol. All the best with the single chance at life you have. Either try to understand the world for what it is, or waste away blowing the only chance you'd ever get to do so :).
    1