Sv3rige & MIlk Jar vs. Vegan Gains & Ask Yourself

Watch on YouTube · 2017-08-07 · 256 min

[video] 0:00 Show up any second. Oh, okay. We have Sparage there. Yo, is that how we say your name? Is it Sparage? Sparia. Oh, man. I can't possibly say that. Are you okay with Sparage? Are you okay with our English failure over here? It doesn't matter. Yeah. Where are you from? What's that kind of name? Ah, there we go. We have them both here. All right.

[video] 0:27 Do you have a pair of headphones? It sounds like you're just listening through your laptop speakers or something. Me? Your what? I'm putting them on. Okay, good.

[video] 0:39 Patrick just donated 20 sec in the super chat. You will destroy these fucktards, he says. Not my words, his. Okay, so everyone in the super chat, I won't be able to respond right away when the debate's going on, but after the stream, I will respond to all the super chats, just so everybody's aware.

[video] 1:00 Okay, sorry, is that echo still happening, or is it gone now? Because my headphones are fucking not working right now. Okay, it sounds like it's gone for me, so. Okay. All right, so did you guys want to start it right now? Everybody good? Well, we should introduce the proposition. Yeah. Okay, so our proposition is veganism follows from universal human rights and is nutritionally superior to carnism. So if you believe in the concept of human rights, you should believe in the concept of animal rights. And we also believe veganism is a nutritionally superior diet to a diet which includes meat or includes only meat, like your guy's diet. My diet doesn't include only meat. Oh, it doesn't? Okay, sorry. So, well, mostly meat or very large quantities of meat?

[video] 2:01 Did he just freeze?

[video] 2:05 I said he just joined. Oh, okay. There's like two milk jars in here. They're awesome. That's weird. Man, why is your internet life so fucked over here? You're talking to the conversation twice. Because I only have, I think it's because I have Linux, and it just does weird stuff with the Chrome plugins and everything. All right. Yeah, so we're taking the pro, and then they're taking the con. of that proposition. Veganism follows from universal human rights and is nutritionally superior to carnism. So I don't know who wants to kick it off. We're just going to have a conversation. If anyone's talking over each other, Rational Alligator can pop in. Well, isn't Rational Alligator moderating? Yeah, we're just describing the nature of the debate, what's going to happen. Are we all agreed? Everyone's on the same page there? You're fine with that? Yeah. Yes, I'm fine. All right. Yeah, totally.

3:05 Yeah, I want to start about nutrition.

[video] 3:07 Sure.

3:09 Okay, so you don't agree that it's the least nutritious diet there is, obviously. So if you take any kind of foods, and for veganism it's only plant foods, and compare it to any other diet, which has any other foods, then if that diet doesn't have some nutrients, it would be considered a less nutritious diet. or if it would have very little nutrients, it would be the least nutritious diet there is, which is veganism. Would you not agree that only if you take the foods, you simply measure the nutrients of any kind of foods, which is how you generally measure a nutritious diet,

[video] 3:50 Okay, so what you're saying is your diet is more nutritious because it has more nutrients, especially in certain areas, I suppose, like, I don't know, iron or zinc or something like that?

4:05 No, I'm talking about nutrients that you don't get in plants at all.

[video] 4:09 Oh, none. So can you name a specific one?

4:12 Right, I can name you. So there's no plant out there that has vitamin A. There's no plants that have that. Two animal versions of B6, B12. There's vitamin D, which is an animal hormone, which you also cannot supplement. There's polycalciferol that's converted in the liver to calcidiol and then in the kidneys to calcitriol. Again, you have free nutrients that no plant has and never will. And there's vitamin F, DHA, EPA. conjugated linoleic acid then there's vitamin k2 then there's the amino acids and sulfonic acid taurine creatine carnitine carnosin then there's cholesterol hemi iron over 15 at least and then there's of course the hormones which you will never get from plants testosterone estrogen progesterone and so on so for people who cannot make their own hormones it's also important but that's something else

[video] 5:10 Okay. Well, a lot of those nutrients you just named aren't essential, like certain – some of the amino acids, cholesterol, that's not essential, heme iron, nonessential nutrient. So when you're saying veganism is less –

[video] 5:27 a less nutritious diet, it's not exactly, like you're not actually making a strong argument here because a lot of these nutrients you're naming, they're non-essential. Like your body produces, it's, what was it? conjugated linoleic acid, CLA. Vitamin K2 is actually produced endogenously by your own gut bacteria. It's extremely hard to induce a vitamin K deficiency because your own gut bacteria produces K2. The only way to reliably induce a K2 deficiency is by giving out an extremely heavy course of antibiotics. And even then, vitamin K deficiencies most commonly occur in children. So for an adult, not really too big of an issue. Also, when you're talking about vitamin A, I actually mentioned this in my response video to you, and I actually put this in the comment section of your vitamin A video.

[video] 6:27 Your body adequately converts pro-vitamin A carotenoids into fully formed vitamin A. Yeah, yeah, for sure.

6:34 Because I don't want to talk about the conversion. I'm just saying With the simple definition of looking at foods without putting them in your mouth, if you look at plant foods, there's 50 nutrients at least that you cannot get only if you measure those foods. And that's how you generally define a nutritious diet.

[video] 6:52 Oh, okay. I get what you're saying.

6:53 Any diet that has any animal foods is automatically more nutritious. And then we can talk about the conversion.

[video] 7:00 Okay, so you're saying just because these animal foods contain fully formed versions of these certain nutrients like vitamin A, it's therefore more nutritious? Of course. Okay, well, then I have to... Can I interject for a second? Are you getting this stuff I'm posting in the group chat? Group chat? If you click on the chat box in your upper left corner, you should be seeing it. Oh, I see. You're linking stuff from PubMed. Yeah, and CBI. Okay. Well, I'm not sure what you're – I mean, if you're going to link studies, you should probably tell us what exactly you're doing. Well, it said there's the studies that show vegans are deficient in creatine, and then there's another one that shows they're deficient in iron. OK, well, the thing is- And then I got another one that's for vitamin A, which we were just discussing.

7:59 Yeah, I've got tons about that. But I didn't want to get to that now. OK, well, the thing is- I was just asking the simple question, which you cannot even exactly disagree, because it's just how it is. There's so many nutrients that are found in plants.

[video] 8:15 I'm posting these to my Twitter, so at MrMilkJar if any viewers want to look at the studies themselves, I'm posting them on my Twitter as I'm posting them here. Just so we don't get too far ahead of ourselves, like Svirage was saying, okay, well, because animal foods are the only foods that contain fully formed vitamin A and other nutrients, I guess, therefore a meat diet is more nutritious. Well, if you understand that you can get vitamin A on a vegan diet, maybe not fully formed, but your own body can produce it, I don't see what value there is in that.

8:52 I'm only asking a simple question. Which, as I said, you cannot even disagree. If you look at the simple definition of how it is in the English language, we generally define a nutritious diet by looking at what nutrients are in the foods without ingesting them because you could also take grass and humans cannot do anything with grass. So it doesn't matter what happens after you eat them because that's something that we can talk about. And there's tons of studies. that prove that you cannot convert these things, but that's not even my point. It's just that you generally, I'm giving you the easy way out here, just agree that it's less nutritious.

[video] 9:30 Okay, well, wait a second here. The reason we're talking about these nutrients in the first place is basically because you're saying a meat-eating diet is more healthful. So I think we should actually look at the overall health outcomes of each specific diet. So do vegans actually have a higher rate of vitamin A deficiency compared to... I just posted a link. I got two links to that right there. Yeah. Okay, Milk Jar, we can't be sitting here delving into studies together. I mean, Richard's not posting a bunch of studies that you... I don't want to delve into them. Whoa, whoa, whoa, don't cut me off, don't cut me off. When you're having a debate, I mean, you're generally talking on the basis of knowledge you already have, and you're debating that knowledge. I mean, we're not here to do a research stream or something like this, so I don't know... really what you're getting at.

[video] 10:21 Like, if there's a study that's vital to a specific point you're making or something like that, maybe, but you can't just be, you know, fucking spamming us like a creationist with all your, you know, with the information you want us to see and expecting us to delve into that during the debate. I'm not expecting you to delve into it during the debate, it's just there. I can say it's not true. that vegans can get their vitamin A, and you're gonna be like, what do you respond to that when I say vegans can't get vitamin A? Okay, we can go to that, but we should stay with what we're on, and we'll let Richard get back on the nutrition stuff, because that's his expertise. Isn't rational alligator moderate? Why don't we go back to where we were? Let's look at, we'll go back to what Richard and Sveric were saying a minute ago. Can rational alligator please just tell people when to talk? I don't think we need to get there right off the bat. I don't need to direct the entire conversation here. Yeah, man, Milk Jar, it's just a free-flowing conversation.

[video] 11:20 He's just going to come in if people are talking over each other like you keep doing or if someone's filibustering. Other than that, it's just freeform. yeah okay so again like there's no studies that I know of where or at least any meta analyses especially where vegans have a higher prevalence of vitamin a deficiencies all the studies that will know you actually just linked to studies that show there's certain nucleotide polymorphisms that affect vitamin a conversion this has nothing to do with vegans having higher rate of vitamin a deficiencies i don't think you actually know what you're reading do you understand anything about gene polymorphism

[video] 11:57 I can't say that I have any particular expertise, but this doesn't really have anything to do with vegan populations having higher rates of vitamin A deficiencies. It's humans in general. Yeah, I know, but that has nothing to do with vegan populations having a higher rate of vitamin A deficiency compared to non-vegans. And I want to say a little thing to Sparage here also, which is the point you were making earlier seemed fallacious to me, because you're saying, you know, the diet that is the most nutritious, and then you're defining most nutritious as the one that just contains the most nutrients. Well, it's not really the question. Is it the questions whether you're getting what you actually need to survive? The fact that one diet contains more nutrients, if some of those nutrients aren't necessary, how does that matter? Well, meat has only... That's why Richard's more on point when he's talking about, is it healthful?

12:43 Meat has all the nutrients that we require and plants have nothing that we require.

[video] 12:48 What is a nutrient that you, sorry, I don't want to take over Richard's fucking zone here with the nutrition, but what is it that you can't get as a vegan? What is it that you need? That's what we're talking about now. Yeah, okay, so what do you need that you can't get as a vegan?

13:01 Okay, so gene polymorphism, you should look into it after the debate because in general, humans, as proven in the studies, there's over 50% of humans who have this, who have abnormal genes. And there's more than one allele in the locus, which is the DNA sequences on the chromosome, the DNA molecule. It interferes with using enzymes. And you need these enzymes to convert any kind of beta carotene, any kind of carotenoids into vitamin A. And as proven in two studies at least, humans cannot do it. And that's simply because we never did it. And we never relied on it. And vegans nowadays expect everybody to simply be able to do this. And we will never be able to. And this is why there's also baby deaths with vitamin A deficiency, because babies especially cannot do it at all.

[video] 13:54 We are living in modern times where targeted supplementation is very easy. Can you explain why targeted vitamin A supplementation in these cases is not as healthy as, say, eating something very high in vitamin A like liver or like butter or something like that?

14:13 But what would you supplement it with? Because those are animal vitamins. So that's not a vegan – there's no vegan version of it, same as vitamin A.

[video] 14:19 No, there is. We can synthesize vitamin A, like fully formed vitamin A. So is a supplement food? We're talking about what's the most beneficial food diet, supplement. No, that's a cheap move. You can't do that. You can only argue for veganism without supplementation. I mean, that's not what we're arguing for. Well, listen here. Is food a supplement? Well, listen. You're making a good point here, but just listen for a second. In Canada, well, in all of North America, but especially in Canada, vitamin D deficiency is incredibly common. We have a huge issue with it, and we've actually passed a law a number of years ago where by law, Every milk producer has to artificially add vitamin D to their milk to kind of help quell vitamin D deficiencies in Canada. So targeted supplementation, it's not just a vegan thing. This is very common in our food supply.

[video] 15:19 So if you're going to say, well, you have to take a supplement, I don't really see that as a valid argument.

15:26 I didn't say that, but you cannot, as a vegan, you cannot supplement retinol, which is vitamin A. No, you can.

[video] 15:34 Well, you can supplement retinol. Well, no, you can produce retinol, like, artificially. You don't need to take it from an animal source. I've researched it.

15:45 There is no such thing. It's always for retinoids. It's all that they supplement. Vitamin A supplements for retinoids, which are the pigments.

[video] 15:52 No, you can produce retinol without actually having to use an animal source is what I'm saying.

16:00 There's no proof of this. Retinol. Okay, well, you know what?

[video] 16:11 I'm pretty sure like maybe after the debate I can actually research this, but I just did a quick search on Amazon and I can actually find vegan retinol supplements.

16:24 I look for it also.

[video] 16:26 Okay.

16:27 My whole point anyway is that this is not obviously how we would get vitamin A in nature.

[video] 16:34 That's just an appeal to nature though. The fact that something is a particular way in nature, that doesn't tell you if it's good or bad. Can we repeat what the debate is about? No, no, no. Whoa, whoa, whoa. You guys need to concede on that. You can't appeal to nature. Hold on. Can we repeat what the debate is about? Sorry. What's the topic of the debate? Veganism follows from universal human rights. It is nutritionally superior to carnism. Yeah, we can talk about nutrition right now. But you're saying that basically supplements... fall under uh under food which is ridiculous if i can get in here for a second i don't think anyone is arguing for non-supplement like their position of veganism is not don't eat any supplements ever so i don't think that's what when they say veganism that falls under Supplements are included. I think that's— Yeah.

[video] 17:33 I mean supplements are included in an omnivorous diet. Even by law in Canada, if you are a dairy producer, you have to include vitamin D into your milk product.

17:43 That's because they pasteurize the milk.

[video] 17:45 Obviously, in raw milk, there is vitamin D. Well, again, the reason they pasteurize milk is that people don't die of bacterial infection. So there's a benefit to that. Who died of bacterial infection from raw milk? From raw milk? I'd imagine it's been a problem for a number of years. I'll tell you. This is how they tell you people die from raw milk. It's all done by survey. If you go to the hospital with bloody diarrhea, and they're going to give you a survey. Have you had this? Have you had this? Have you had this? If you had raw milk a month ago, and you're in there with bloody diarrhea, and they inject you with antibiotics, and you die from anaphylactic shock, Even if you drank a glass of raw milk a month ago, they're still going to pin that death on raw milk. And there was even one case where a girl in California supposedly died from raw milk.

[video] 18:42 People ended up calling the family, and it turned out that not only was that girl the only girl in the family who didn't drink raw milk, but she actually died from drowning.

[video] 18:57 I think that's going a little too far. I can concede that maybe the reporting for these sorts of things isn't that accurate.

[video] 19:21 But again, like just because you can point out to certain cases where okay, well they waited a month beforehand and they're… There's no proof. They're kind of making… That's what I'm saying. It's all done by survey. Okay, well a lot of things are done by… Like I don't understand… That's not science. I'm just saying that's not science. Well, it is. It might not be like – well, it is science. It's just like you can argue, okay, well, the reporting might not be that reliable, but I think it's a bit too far of a jump to say, okay, well, no one has ever died from consuming like tainted raw milk. There's no proof. Why blame it on the raw milk? Why not blame it on the spinach they ate a month ago too? Okay. Well, we can actually talk about that. A lot of plants are actually cross-contaminated with E. coli from the meat industry. So how is it science to say that raw milk killed them and not the – I mean this is all just like – you're just making things up.

[video] 20:19 Well, I'm not making things up. There are surveys. It's perfectly legitimate to argue these surveys aren't the most accurate thing. They're not useless. Is death by raw milks even essential to our position? We can look that up after and see if anyone's ever died of raw milk, but it's not necessary to demonstrate which diet is healthier. You're just saying that even omnivores need vitamin D supplementation, and we're saying that they only need it because the milk is pasteurized. You're saying, well, you shouldn't drink raw milk because people die from it. Okay, well, listen. Regardless of whether or not it's pasteurized, it is. All milk that you can get is pasteurized, unless you live next to a dairy farm, you're close to the dairy farm or something like that. I live in the middle of New York City. Right? Where do you get raw milk? I get it delivered to me. Okay. Do you think a milkman can do that? Yeah, anyone can do that.

21:20 In Germany also.

[video] 21:22 You're saying like, what is it? What's the population of the United States? Anyone in New York City who's ever asked me where do I get raw milk, they began getting raw milk the same place I have. Okay, so you're saying like the population of the United States, I don't know, 250 million people, like everyone could get raw milk? Not right now, but if it was legalized and farmers were allowed to independently sell their raw milk. I mean, all milk used to be raw. Why do you need to get whatever nutrient it is you need from the raw milk, though? I mean, clearly the vegans aren't dying, so... Okay, I actually have another question for you before you continue. So how much vitamin D is actually in, say, like a 250 milliliter serving of raw milk?

[video] 22:14 I'd imagine it would vary somewhat, but like about how much?

[video] 22:25 Did you hear me? Yeah, I'm looking it up. Well, OK. And while he's looking that up, I'd just like to get Sparage to concede on that. You understand you can't appeal to nature. Yeah. Why? Well, because what's natural isn't necessarily what's good. I mean, you can point to natural things that are good or that aren't good.

22:42 So the fact that something's natural, I'm all for nature and that's that's completely the opposite of what I believe.

[video] 22:49 OK, so are viruses natural?

22:53 I'm not sure. There's definitely man-made ones.

[video] 22:56 I mean, yeah, of course, but do you, I mean, surely you understand that there's viruses and dangerous bacteria and stuff in nature as just one example.

23:04 That's something completely else because viruses are dead, whereas bacteria is alive. Those are micro-animals.

[video] 23:10 Wait, wait, wait, but it's part of nature. A virus is part of nature. Yeah, I think viruses are very good. I'm happy every time I get a virus. Even swine flu or something like that? Swine flu is man-made.

23:25 Yeah, that's definitely man-made.

[video] 23:26 Okay, well, I don't think it's made in a laboratory, but, like, conspiracy theory stuff. Okay, I mean, the thing is, also, I don't want to derail it from nutrition, so we can stay on that if you want, but in terms of using the nature argument, that is, like, a massive fallacy that anyone who has even, like, just basic knowledge of philosophy or logic is going to say, okay, these guys have no clue what they're talking about if they're appealing to nature. So, that's a spot that we can go with this, but... Not going to be easy for you guys. I'll be happy to go with it. To argue that what is natural is what is good by definition? Yes. You understand that's literally like a standard. I understand that it's a fallacy. Yeah. So do you understand that there are bad things in nature or whatever? Here, let's go. Let's finish the nutrition. I mean, let's keep going on nutrition. We can go back to that. You guys are not going to win that point.

[video] 24:19 Okay, so did you find out how much vitamin D is actually in a single glass of raw milk, like a normal 250 milliliter serving? It's hard because it's all interspersed with pasteurized milk stuff. Right, right, right. It's a little hard to find. Okay, well, anyway, like, my point was, with something like vitamin D, deficiencies are incredibly common, especially in North America, I think in the United States, like, over 80% of blacks are vitamin D deficient, so it corresponds very strongly with skin color as well.

24:57 Yeah, but that's the thing, you have people in Russia, Scandinavia, Canada, they just don't get sunlight. most of the year, maybe eight months a year, and even hardly little in the summer, and then what's the way to get vitamin D? The only way to get this animal hormone is to eat saturated fat. That's the only source of vitamin A, FK2. That's it. Okay.

[video] 25:20 Well, you can actually get D2 from mushrooms, and that is actually adequate for maintaining D3 status. Also, there are vegan... Well, no, you can. It is actually adequate for raising D3 status, and also you can, in fact, get vegan vitamin D3 supplements. It's made from lichen. It's a type of... I guess all mushrooms are fungus, but I think it's a type of fungus anyway. You can look at it on Amazon, vegan D3.

25:54 I already know that.

[video] 25:56 Well, did you know that... high fiber diets reduce the serum half-life of vitamin D3. Okay. I'll paste that for you right now. Okay, well, the thing is, you can talk about it's harder to get certain nutrients on a vegan diet all you want, but the whole point of arguing about this in the first place is to kind of see who has the best overall health outcomes, and by virtually every metric, vegans have the best overall health outcomes, lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, certain forms of cancer, like multiple studies have shown that vegans have the lowest overall risk of cancers, although some of them show that vegans do have an increased rate of colorectal cancer, and that can be attributed to certain things like B12, low omega-3 status, things like that.

[video] 26:50 But overall health outcomes, vegans do extremely well, better than the standard American population. So if you're going to say a vegan diet is the least nutritionally... like adequate diet, okay, well, even despite that, vegans do extremely well. So if you could actually, if you're actually knowledgeable enough about this, okay, vegans have trouble getting iron, zinc, calcium, like you name the nutrient, well, okay, a mindful person like yourself could make sure you get enough of those nutrients on a vegan diet, and you could perhaps even be healthier.

27:31 What you don't understand is that there's a lot of problems with converting things. People have diabetes thyroid problems. They cannot convert anything. And what about people like me who there's millions of people like me who cannot eat any red or orange fruits or vegetables because of allergies.

[video] 27:46 Oh, do you have like a citric acid allergy?

27:49 Any red or orange food since I was a kid.

[video] 27:52 Oh, really? Okay.

[video] 27:57 I don't deny that vegan diet is harder for some people for sure, but again, if we're going to look at the majority of the population, let's take away certain exceptions like yourself where you can't eat certain fruits or vegetables or you have some sort of allergy. Would you say generally for the majority of the population, vegans do extremely well? Again, lowest rates of heart disease, diabetes, and even overall low risk of cancer. We have a lot of studies.

28:24 that we made a paste and there's tons of studies that show that vegans are unhealthy and deficient in vitamin A and taurine. Dr.

[video] 28:37 I have a study right here that shows, first of all, children develop rickets after prolonged periods of strict vegetarian diets, peer-reviewed study, posting it on my Twitter right now. Okay. Dr. Another one, links between vegetarians and lower birth weight and earlier labor, another peer-reviewed study posted on my Twitter right now. This is vegetarian, so for vegans it's much worse. Okay, listen, the American Dietetics Association, which is the largest organization of nutrition professionals on the planet, over 100,000 registered nutrition professionals, they've made a peer-reviewed statement stating that fully vegan diets are perfectly adequate for all stages of life from pregnancy to adulthood. Post their peer-reviewed statement. So, okay, sure.

[video] 29:32 Um, like, I don't, like, you can find these, like, these single studies that show, okay, well, in this particular population, um, vegans fared worse, but, I mean, if you look at the overall, like, the overall data, the opinions from experts, um, like, again, vegan diets fare extremely well, lowest rates of chronic disease, um, You really think a vegan diet is the most nutritionally deficient diet even though compared to at least a standard American population, we're faring much, much better. I don't understand how you can make that statement. You're not faring much better. I have all these studies. Everything I posted shows you're faring much worse than even standard American diet. Okay. Give me one second. Forget raw meat diet. Even standard American diet like McDonald's, people are faring better.

[video] 30:32 You're saying people who eat a McDonald's diet, quote unquote, are faring better than vegans? In most ways, yes. Really? Name one. What about heart disease? Name one person? No, no, no, like I'm saying, you're saying vegans have higher rates of heart disease compared to people following a quote-unquote McDonald's diet. Yeah? Yes, you're saying that. Okay, even though the Adventist health studies have shown that vegans have a, what, 53, or maybe it was even 58% reduced risk of ischemic heart disease. Okay, so with the Adventists, first of all, all of the oldest ones, at the very least, eat fish, eggs, and milk. And they don't eat meat, but— Well, fish is meat. Well, yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. But yeah, they don't eat red meat, but they eat fish, eggs, milk.

[video] 31:31 And a very key thing for the Adventists is, up until very recently— in their religion, it was strictly prohibited to get vaccinations. So they don't have mercury in their body. They don't have squalene. No, they do have mercury. One can of tuna has something like 25 times the amount of mercury in a vaccine. They don't have mercury injected directly into their veins. They don't have squalene. They don't have foreign animal proteins directed. Just so you're aware, vaccines aren't injected intravenously. They're intramuscular. It's not directly into your veins when you inject a vaccine. Some vaccines are in your veins. Are you sure? Yeah. Intravenous vaccines. I'm pretty sure all vaccines are intramuscular. I could be wrong.

[video] 32:29 Some like go up your nose and stuff like that, but I don't know of any vaccines that are intravenous. I've got an intravenous vaccine. Really? Okay. For what?

[video] 32:41 I think it was the hepatitis B vaccine. Okay. We're kind of getting all over you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm just saying I've gotten an intravenous vaccine. I remember him finding my vein and putting it in there. So, I mean, just if you had to sum it up, why are you saying that a flesh diet or a vegan diet is less healthy?

[video] 33:03 Because there's no evidence, first of all, of any vegans... you know, society that you could, first of all, study in any way beyond gathering, you know, groups of vegans and testing what they're deficient in. Yeah, but there's a lot of things that haven't been achieved so far that would obviously be good. I mean, you can't find, like, a crime-free society, but I'm sure... Well, every single group of people you... Right? Okay, well, every single group of people you point to are not vegan. Okay, milk chart... Except for vegans. Okay, milk chart, like...

[video] 33:38 Well, go to the Wikipedia article on Okinawan cuisine. Wikipedia. Well, that's like the main place to go. I mean, the only thing you have saying they don't eat meat is this Okinawan diet book. No, no, no. I'm not saying they don't eat any meat. I'm saying they eat very little meat. No, I'm saying they eat sweet potatoes and some vegetables. They eat 300 grams of meat per day. And that's what everything except that stupid Okinawa diet scam book says. 300 grams of meat per day. 100 grams of pork. or lamb and 200 grams of fish per day. Okay, listen. I think they don't have perfect servings of 100 grams of pork or lamb. I think you're mixing things up. They do eat pork or lamb on special occasions like special holidays. On average, they eat 300 grams a day.

[video] 34:38 Okay, well... I still feel like we're going in a weird direction here because, I mean, we're talking about the Okinawans, but the whole structure of the point you just made was fallacious. Okay. You're saying the fact that it hasn't been done on a large scale in history before. I mean, the fact that X hasn't been done before isn't an argument that it's not good or an argument that it's bad. It's not an argument for either. Well, let's talk about the people. Your point is to argue that it's healthy, like the Okinawans... Well, Milk Jar, let's just go back here because you often do this thing where you make a huge logical jump. We were talking about the Adventist vegetarian studies. Vegans among that population have the lowest risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer. That's what the Adventist health studies have shown. Do you agree with that or disagree with that? Svary, can you Skype me those links so I can post them on my Twitter, proving that that is not true? Okay, well, wait.

[video] 35:34 The findings of the Adventist Health Study 2 found that vegans have the lowest risk of heart disease, diabetes, and certain forms of cancer. They still have the overall lowest risk of cancer. Certain cancers like... cancers of the gastrointestinal tract were higher among vegans, but for overall cancer risk, vegans had the lowest risk of cancer. Those were the findings of the Adventist Health Study. Whether you believe it or not, those were the findings of the study. Like, can you agree that that was the findings of the study? I don't know which study you're referring to, but... The Adventist Health Study, too. Okay, can you post the link so I can know exactly what study you're talking about? Yeah, sure. I mean, I could find it for you. But the thing is, you were talking about vaccines, and you're saying, okay, well, it was a huge thing in their religion that no one was allowed to get vaccines.

[video] 36:30 Like, you're making a huge jump here that, okay, well, these, you know, people were eating mostly plant-based diets, they had better overall health outcomes, but for some reason you're just making the logical jump, oh, it's because they didn't take vaccines. No, it's also because they're not vegan.

[video] 36:52 Sorry? Well, I just said, like, the vegans in the study had the lowest overall risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer. Actually, in the Adventist Health Study, I should clarify a few things. Like, in the Adventist Health Study 2, the men actually had the greatest reduction in heart disease. The women, I think, it might have been comparable to the meat eaters, or maybe even slightly more. So there's something weird going along with the... females in that study. But anyway, I don't understand how you can make the just assumption, well, the only reason they were healthier is because they didn't have any vaccines. In that study, they didn't separate the centenarians from everyone else. I don't see how that matters. Because if you separate the centenarians out, none of them are vegan. Well, that really doesn't matter. Why not? Okay, well, there's a thing called... Well, no, listen, like, we can...

[video] 37:47 You can have a higher average life expectancy, but you can pick out certain people out of the population that live longer than everyone else but eat meat. That doesn't mean their diets are responsible for them living longer. That could almost entirely be due to their genes. Those are the people bringing up the average. The people that are at the top bringing up all these averages, none of them are vegan. They're so healthy that they can bring up the average as drastically as possible. So these are the people we need to be looking at. We need to be looking at the people that are pushing the averages up for everyone else, not the people that are just actually bringing the average down than if you looked at the people who weren't vegan. Okay, well, Milk Jar, again, vegans had the lowest risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer out of every population. Just because you can pick out a few centenarians that aren't vegan, that doesn't mean their diet was absolutely ideal.

[video] 38:45 They're kind of outliers in that data set. They're the top of the data set. Well, they're outliers. There's very few people living over 100, and the point I'm trying to make is the people… Why aren't there vegans living over 100? Well, listen. There's fewer vegans, so just by statistics, there's going to be fewer vegans living over 100. Not in the Adventists. There's a large portion of vegans. Well, no, there's fewer... in the Adventists, there's fewer vegans still. It's like saying, okay, well, very few people are astronauts, well, there's no astronauts that are vegan, therefore veganism prevents you from becoming an astronaut. Like, there's fewer vegans, so you're just not going to see as many vegan centenarians. And the thing is, vegans in that study, they had the lowest rates of chronic disease. So if they had the best overall health outcomes, like maybe there's not as many centenarians, but if they had the best overall health outcomes,

[video] 39:45 Like, you don't think that means anything? Like, having much lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, like, I'd rather, like, even if, like, removing the statistical problem aside, like, if I could choose to either live to 87, never experience any chronic diseases, or live to 101 and have to deal with heart disease, diabetes, or cancer and have to take medication, I'd choose the shorter life that has a better overall quality. And that's assuming that you're in fact right, that veganism leads to a shorter life, which I'm not seeing any evidence for.

40:19 Here's a link to the Adventists. The longest living ones eat fish every day. Right, uh, well... It's a meat-based diet.

[video] 40:25 Well, again, um... Was this the, actually, was this the Adventist Health Study 1 or Adventist Health Study 2? Because, uh, the Adventist Health Study 1, uh, started back in the 70s, and then the Adventist Health Study 2, I think that was, uh, 90s. And I'm not sure if it was the second one that actually included vegans where the fish eaters lived longer. I'd have to look that up later. But anyways, the point is… The link is on the Twitter for anyone who wants to look at it, that the FS has seen fish. Yeah, well, the point is, you're kind of making a huge assumption here. Like, the group that has the lowest rate of chronic disease happens to be the group that has the highest adherence to a plant-based diet. So, group that eats the least amount of meat and animal products.

[video] 41:15 You could argue that the people who live the longest are the ones eating fish, but that still doesn't refute the fact that the people who have the least amount of chronic disease, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, are the vegans. So you're kind of making a huge assumption here that, okay, well, including fish in your diet makes you live longer. That's a bit of a huge assumption. That could just be a statistical thing. It's a coincidence. Well, it could. Well, I'm not saying it's just a coincidence, but statistics could very easily play a role in this because there are fewer vegans. It's a pattern. Well, there are fewer vegans. It happens every time. Well, no, listen, if you actually read the Adventist Health Study findings, the researchers actually talked about B12 and omega-3 ratio. That's actually partly responsible for the higher rate of colorectal cancer in the vegan groups.

[video] 42:10 And again, this is a point I made earlier, if low B12 status and omega-3 ratios, like are what's responsible for vegans living shorter lives, well, you have knowledge of that, and you can make diet and lifestyle changes to make sure you don't have B12 deficiencies or Omega-3 deficiencies, and you can actually live longer and improve your health. I don't see why you're just making the assumption, fish must be healthier, I must include fish in my diet. Your vegan diet includes shooting up drugs such as B12. B12 isn't a drug. It's a vitamin. Actually, there are people who lack intrinsic factor who even if they eat raw animal liver, they can't get enough B12. Their stomach just can't absorb it, so you do actually have to get injections whether you're vegan or not if you lack intrinsic factor. No, no. Okay. Here's the comparisons of B12 levels between vegans

[video] 43:10 and non-vegans that are on Twitter right now. I agree that most studies show that vegans tend to have higher rates of B12 deficiency. I totally agree with that. The point I'm making is some people can't absorb B12 through their stomach and they need injections. That's all I'm saying. Certain people lack intrinsic factor in their stomach. And some people are born brain dead. Yeah. Well, he's saying it in response to your point that, oh, you have to take some drug-injecting diet. It's like, well, there's just some people who, whether they're carnist or a vegan, they'd have to inject the B12. That's what he's saying. Yeah, there's like 0.5% of meat eaters. I don't think he's making a broader point from it. I think he's literally just responding to you trying to call it a drug diet or whatever. Yeah, it's a drug, yeah. It's a synthetic chemical.

44:00 But you include synthetic drugs from Big Pharma in your diet as if that's food. And it's so incredibly ridiculous that you want people to eat that kind of a diet, include Sarkozy, Santon, Bayer, as if that's food. How can anybody follow you?

[video] 44:17 Oh, wait, wait. I'm not sure what Big Pharma drugs are essential to veganism, but the person who lacks intrinsic factors...

44:23 Instead, that's a part of veganism. Big pharma veganism.

[video] 44:27 No, sorry. Listen, if you lack intrinsic factor, what the hell does that have to do with veganism? 0.5% of meat eaters lack that. Okay. Sorry, I haven't researched this myself, but are you saying that vegans lack intrinsic factor more often than meat eaters? Vegans lack B12. No, I'm totally agreeing with that. I'm totally agreeing with that. I'm talking about intrinsic factor. What's intrinsic factor? When you point to something like that also, you have to realize you're kind of making a bit of an error because you're saying... Vegans have this problem more often than flesh eaters. You know, I don't know if you're thinking, therefore, it's intrinsic... Much more often. Man, just... Much more often. Milk jar, I'm talking. Let him finish. So, you can... Okay, sorry, let me regather my thoughts.

[video] 45:19 You can't say, because vegans have whatever it is, B12 deficiency, more often, therefore, that's some kind of problem that's intrinsic to veganism. I mean, that's just something you could correct through taking the right nutrients, right? So and if it's not an argument against one second, if it's not an argument against veganism intrinsically, then I don't really know what you're talking about. I mean, just take take the supplement, be healthy as a vegan. It's not it's not an argument against veganism itself. It's an argument against an inadequately planned vegan diet, which is a different thing. The fact that you have to plan it so stringently and take all these chemicals to even be able to survive. Plan it stringently and take chemicals is a bit of an exaggeration. I mean, if you want to be healthy as a carnist or a vegan, you probably have to watch what you eat. Make sure to eat healthy food. Just get it. Just eat enough organs. Eat enough, you know, everything. It's not hard.

[video] 46:19 Yeah, just eat enough hemp seeds and then you're good as a vegan. I don't know. No, you're not. No, you're not.

46:25 I have all these studies. It's like you're not good. You cannot convert. Then you cannot get DHA and EPA. There's definite proof of this. It is not converted.

[video] 46:37 Well, again, conversion rates, like conversion rate of EPA and DHA from ALA, it's actually, it becomes higher the longer you're plant-based. But again, you can take algae-based DHA supplements, meat, fish oil. That's not a chemical. That's from algae. Like, that's the exact same source that fish get their It's chemically extracted. Okay, and the problem is— You can't just eat that. There's no problem. You can do that if you want and put chemicals in your body, but I'm saying your diet requires use of chemically extracted nutrients or just straight-up synthetic chemicals. You can't survive living food. Okay, listen, if you're worried about synthetic chemicals getting into your body, then you should actually go vegan because there's this thing called biomagnification. There's environmental pollutants, and as you go up the food chain, environmental pollutants become more concentrated.

[video] 47:36 So if you're worried about that, then you should definitely go vegan. Okay, so what environmental pollutants are on the Amish farm I buy my food from?

[video] 47:46 I know meat actually has more cadmium. That's for sure. Where is the cadmium coming from? It's just in the soil. From the soil? Or is it coming from environmental pollution? Well, cadmium is just in the soil. Are you sure about that? Yeah. It's naturally in the soil. Well, again, from the studies that I've read, it's basically everywhere. You mean the factory farm? Well, listen. From the studies that I've seen, it's basically everywhere. The studies on... I'm not talking about fish. I'm talking about terrestrial animals. They have... They actually have less cadmium per gram than plant sources, but the cadmium is more bioavailable in animal products. So again, that's just one example. And again, just because something's organic, that really doesn't mean much.

[video] 48:46 Your studies are from fucking garbage Monsanto farms. Right, okay. The natural farms I get my food from are not polluted. They don't bioaccumulate toxins. Well, again, you can't prevent environmental pollutants from just leaking everywhere just because a farm is certified organic. There's no pollutants in nature. There's no pollutants in nature. Yeah, there is. There are pollutants. Yeah. Listen, the ocean is natural and there's pollutants in the ocean, okay? What are the natural pollutants in the ocean? Natural pollutants in the ocean? What do you mean? Well, mercury is natural. Arsenic is natural. What are you talking about? Dr. They're not harmful in the way they are. Dr. Mercury and arsenic is not harmful. Dr. Yeah, the mercury in fish when eaten raw has never been proven to be harmful.

[video] 49:44 In fact, not even when eaten raw. There's been studies in Sicily in the oceanside regions where they consume tons of fish, way more than almost anyone else. And they were found to have absolutely no higher levels of mercury toxicity in their bodies. That's just one study I remember. So there's no proof that the mercury naturally occurring in fish has any bad effects on us. Yeah, there's quite a lot. Mercury has been shown to cause developmental issues in children, not even just with IQ, but with attention deficit disorders. Not the mercury in fish. Yeah, yeah, the mercurian fish, like tuna especially. Oh, you mean the canned tuna? Like it really doesn't fucking matter. It's like tuna's tuna, dude.

[video] 50:41 Like the source of the tuna may be like the area, there's certain areas. Well, there's certain areas that are more polluted than others, but like I'm saying... It's packed with chemicals, it's in a can, lined with bisphenol A. leaching metals and plastics all day. I mean, that's not tuna that they're being tested with. That's like Okay, so... It's like toxic soup. Okay, dude, like, there... Like, there isn't mercury coming from the cans of the tuna. Like, I can agree with you that there are BPA-lined cans, but... Yeah, Milk Jar, are you actually saying that mercury itself is healthy? Anytime... I'm not saying it's healthy. What I'm saying is that anytime... No, it's obviously not healthy, right? So you agree mercury's not healthy? I'm saying that anytime... Can you answer that, though? Is mercury healthy? depends on what state it's in. Okay, so when is Mercury healthy for you? Because I'm pretty sure that Mercury is not healthy, that they would like poison people with Mercury back in the day.

[video] 51:43 Yeah, what I can tell you is any fish-eating populations where they've done this... Wait, wait, wait, we're not talking about fish though. We're saying Mercury. Just forget fish for a second. Mercury not in fish is definitely harmful. So Mercury is good for you when it's in fish? Yeah, and I say that because any study that's ever been done on high fish-eating populations... But wait, you're... That's false. ...that eat high mercury fish, they have no heightened level of mercury in their bodies. Okay, wait, we're not... Okay, you're talking about the connection between fish and getting, like, mercury poisoning, which you can get into that, but, like, first you'd want to just agree on whether mercury is actually a healthy thing to be putting in your body or not. Then you can argue about what it is or isn't in. So it sounds to me like you're saying mercury is sometimes healthy and sometimes not healthy, depending where you get the mercury from. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just like, you know, if I get protein from my meat, it's healthy.

[video] 52:41 But if I get protein from a chemically extracted or synthesized powder, it's not healthy. Is anthrax, like, occasionally healthy if you get it from the right source? It's natural. I don't know. I don't know anything about anthrax. Watch your brain.

[video] 52:58 Also, I don't know what kind of time limit you guys have. Do you have a cap here? I don't. Okay. Because we just don't want to burn you out and then not have time for ethics is all. We just want to save time. No, no, we have plenty of time. At least like 15 or 20 minutes. Okay, and I really want to make sure we talk about the Eskimos. Oh yeah, sure. Great job. Okay, you guys keep going. You know what? We talked about vitamins and everything for a while. Especially these fat soluble vitamins that you're talking about, like vitamin D, vitamin K, vitamin A. The issue with getting those vitamins from animal sources is you have to ingest a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol, which is a well-known risk factor for heart disease. One of the reasons why a vegan diet is so beneficial for health and the reason why vegans have such a low prevalence of heart disease is because we eat very little saturated fat and absolutely no cholesterol since plants don't contain any cholesterol.

53:56 Do you have a clue at all what causes heart disease?

[video] 53:59 Yeah. Well, if we're talking about atherosclerosis, abnormally high cholesterol levels is basically what causes atherosclerosis or clogged arteries.

54:10 Do you understand what happens on a cellular level?

[video] 54:15 Yeah, basically the cholesterol in your blood causes inflammation. Cholesterol is then able to slip under the arterial wall and then it builds up. Foam cells actually try to attack the cholesterol because it thinks it's like some sort of invading organism. The foam cells soak up cholesterol. It starts to expand over time and then clogs your arteries and then clots can actually break off and then cause a heart attack.

54:42 Okay, right. Before I answer, do you understand what our cells are made out of?

[video] 54:47 Yeah, cholesterol, but again, I know, like I've already seen this argument before, there's a healthy normal physiological range for cholesterol, and if you go above that range, you're putting yourself at high risk of heart disease.

55:00 Which changes all the time.

[video] 55:02 What do you mean, which changes all the time?

55:04 Because the officials, they give you new numbers all the time. So a decade ago, it was higher, and now it's lower. So they are reducing it all the time. So kids get statins nowadays.

[video] 55:16 well the thing is they like if you actually look into these medical authorities were recommending like your cholesterol to be within a certain range they're not actually basing it entirely off the scientific data what they're doing is they're looking at the research which has strongly indicated that a healthy normal like a healthy normal cholesterol score is between 90 240 milligrams per deciliter for total cholesterol and 50 to 70 milligrams per deciliter for LDL-C cholesterol. And what they figure is, okay, well, nobody could eat a diet so low in saturated fat and cholesterol that they'd achieve that level. So what they do is they say, okay, well, what's something that most people can actually try to do? And they set the bar kind of low. So I think now the general recommendation is between 160 to 200 milligrams per deciliter for total cholesterol.

56:09 when it's not actually based on research so okay so i have first i have studies and statistics to completely prove that the higher cholesterol is the longer you're going to live and the lower your risk for heart disease and what happens is that you get inflammation because of insulin which is caused by a high carb diet because the first people who got heart disease were the egyptians who were eating a high carb diet a high grain and high fruit diet and what happens then is that the calcium gets stuck there and it creates chaos everything that flows around in your body and then cholesterol comes because it's an antioxidant to heal the place and sometimes there will also be cholesterol there simply because it's healing and it's like a car crash where everything is inflamed and what they found there always mostly is vegetable oils it's plant oils because they get hard in the body where a saturated fat is stable that's what it means saturated fat so it's always liquid it's always It cannot possibly clog up anything.

[video] 57:08 It's ridiculous. Okay, you made a few errors there. First of all, Egyptians weren't the first people to get heart disease. It's actually common across almost every culture. If you read the Horus study, they analyze many different cultures, even hunter-gatherers from Africa. They were... They were studying mummy, like mummified remains. From when? So it's not just Egyptians that were mummified. They had a whole ritual around it, but basically any culture that was able to preserve soft tissue, that's what the study involved. So mummified... Well, listen, you can look at almost every culture. If you can find mummified remains, there's signs of atherosclerosis in those mummies. In the horror study, I can link this later, in the horror study, they're... There's a hunter-gatherer population.

[video] 58:07 I think it was in Uganda, someplace in Africa. They had a rate of atherosclerosis of 60%. So it's not just the Egyptians that had atherosclerosis. And again, if you're saying insulin is what causes atherosclerosis, well, protein is insulinogenic. So if you're eating meat, you're raising your insulin levels, which I guess you could agree causes atherosclerosis if you're eating enough meat. A little bit, yeah. Okay, so we can concede on that point. If you eat too much protein, you can cause atherosclerosis. And I'm assuming especially animal protein, because animal protein is especially insulinogenic, because it has more isoleucine, leucine, valine, and methionine, which especially raises insulin levels.

58:52 I think it's adult population.

[video] 58:54 Go on.

58:55 Populations that eat a high-protein, high-fat diet, none of them ever had heart disease.

[video] 58:59 No, no, they absolutely did.

59:00 Only ones who eat high-carb diets do.

[video] 59:02 No, no, they absolutely did. There's mummified remains of Eskimos that had heart disease, very, very clear signs of atherosclerosis, so that's totally false. Even like explorers back in the 1960s, they actually reported that the Eskimos had the same rate of heart disease as Americans at the time. Yeah, 1960s. Well, yeah, they weren't eating McDonald's back in the 1960s.

59:24 No, but they were already eating grains and all that stuff. It depends on which ones you mean. But when Weston Price went there, he spoke to the doctor, and he said that they lived over 100 years old, and nobody ever had heart disease. And this is recorded.

[video] 59:39 Uh, yeah, like, all I can say to that is, cool story, like, I've heard all this crap before. Like, we can talk about the Eskimos later. That's not an argument. Well, we can talk about the Eskimos later because Milk Jar brought it up. And lastly, the only diet that has been proven to reverse coronary artery disease is a whole foods vegan diet. No, whole foods vegan diet. You can look at Caldwell Esselstyn's research, literally dozens of patients. You can look at his own studies. Coronary artery disease was reversed with a whole foods vegan diet. You cannot find one single study where coronary artery disease was reversed with a ketogenic diet. You can claim that all you want, but I'll tell you right now, you're insane by saying that.

1:00:23 That's insane, really?

[video] 1:00:25 Okay, like, again, if fruits, vegetables, grains, that's what causes heart disease, then how can a whole foods vegan diet reverse coronary artery disease rather than making it worse? Why do vegans have the lowest rate of heart disease, particularly ischemic heart disease, when aren't we eating more fruits, grains, vegetables? This whole story doesn't make any sense.

1:00:47 I don't believe that you do, but the thing about all of these studies is that they say vegans have a low rate of the risk for heart disease, they usually say. And then what they look at is that they have lower cholesterol, which actually means that you have a higher risk for heart disease. So that's simply a conclusion that they come from based on false information.

[video] 1:01:05 That's a very interesting point you made, because there's actually studies on

[video] 1:01:12 genes that affect your serum cholesterol, so the PCSK9 gene in particular. So what it does is, the PCSK9 gene, it codes for a certain protein that binds to cholesterol receptors, and if you have a mutation in that gene, it can cause abnormally low serum cholesterol levels in your blood. People with these PCSK9 gene mutations that have abnormally low serum cholesterol scores, they have dramatically reduced risk of coronary artery disease, and I mean prevalence. Like not just, okay, doctors are assuming because they have lower cholesterol levels, they assume that they have lower risk. No, like the actual prevalence of coronary artery disease is much lower in these people with low serum cholesterol scores. And this is totally separate from their diet. Just because they have genetically lower cholesterol levels, they have vastly reduced risk of heart disease. So what you just said is complete nonsense.

1:02:11 Okay, so… I'll check that out, but even if it was true, and I'm not saying that it is, You gotta understand that the all-cause mortality never changes for people because they may be put on drugs. Most vegans don't drink alcohol or smoke simply because they try to follow a healthy lifestyle, simply because they get brainwashed to follow that. So all of this changes everything. And do you understand what all of your sex hormones are made out of?

[video] 1:02:37 Hold on. Can we please get back to the study? Wait. Let me just finish this. Before we go on to something else. Wait, let's finish.

1:02:47 What are all of your sex hormones made out of? What's the precursor? What's the precursor to testosterone?

[video] 1:02:53 Well, again, it's cholesterol, but actually ingesting dietary cholesterol and having higher serum cholesterol levels, it's not actually associated with higher testosterone levels.

1:03:03 But that's the reason vegans have been proven to have less vitamin D and less testosterone. There's four studies that prove that. The less meat you eat, if you don't eat meat, you have lower testosterone, simply because you don't have the cholesterol to make vitamin D, the animal hormone, and the sex hormones.

[video] 1:03:22 I've linked this study numerous times. Like, vegans have lower IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor 1, but as far as bioavailable androgens, testosterone, they don't have low testosterone levels.

1:03:35 That simply regulates cell growth. That's nothing bad, if you're implying that.

[video] 1:03:40 Well, no, I'm saying vegans tend to have lower IGF-1 levels, like by about 8% to 10%. But, yeah, it is. Okay, I'm going to have to interject now. We're talking about, you know, rates of different IGF testosterone, whatever. You know, these are studies about, you know, what rates of a certain chemical people have in their body. But I think what's more interesting is to look at something like – like the study I'm posting to my Twitter right now, which proves that... Why don't you link it in the chat as well, just so I can see it. All right. Give me a second. All right, it's in the chat now. And this study is about just general erectile dysfunction... and hypergonadism associated with veganism. So this is a specific... No, it's soy product consumption. Again, you don't even know what the study's about.

[video] 1:04:38 It's in regards to soy product consumption. You don't have to eat soy if you're vegan, so you're making a false assumption. And you say soy has no effect... Yeah, if you actually look at meta-analyses, it shows that it has no effect. This is a single study. Yeah, you're looking at studies... Well, this is barely a study. This is actually a case study. So one single person had this issue. This is actually one of only two case reports in all the medical literature where somebody had a hypogonad effect from soy. So their testosterone reduced significantly. This is one of only two case reports. So this, again, if you consider one single person, some 19-year-old kid who has diabetes, clearly wasn't eating a very healthy diet to begin with. No, I have many more studies than this. And why are you dismissing the meta-analysis?

[video] 1:05:31 Well, dude, why are you dismissing a meta-analysis and you just use this one single case report I'm posting a lot more right now. Okay. Well, like just link one or two of the best studies like preferably meta-analyses.

[video] 1:05:50 All right. Here's all the ones I have on hand right now and they're all posted to my Twitter as well. Okay. Again, like this doesn't have anything to do with veganism. Like if you think soy is bad for you, then don't eat soy. You don't need soy. No, there's studies in there that have nothing to do with soy.

[video] 1:06:12 Well, you're going to need to be specific, bud. You can't just throw a pile of studies at us vastly more than we can possibly read through on livestream. Well, if you can't go through all the studies, I guess I've made my point. In a debate, you need to actually make your point from logic. You can't just post shit we don't have time to look at and say I'm right. All right, the latest one. Look at that one. Let's look at specifically that one. And what specifically are you claiming on the basis of the study you just posted? I find it annoying we're even having to do this, but if we're going to look at them, what exactly are you saying from the study?

[video] 1:06:48 That vegans have sex hormone problems due to their lack of cholesterol mainly and their consumption of You know, high phytoestrogen plants such as soy and flax. Okay. You know, all beans have lots of estrogen in them. Okay, dude, so you're saying meat eaters never eat beans, flax, soy. I'm saying they shouldn't. Okay. And, you know, you can be vegan and not eat soy, even flax seeds. So this really doesn't have anything to do with veganism. You're going to be fruitarian? Beans? Okay, well, there's also lentils, like legumes. Yeah, they have phytoestrogens in them too. Okay, yeah, again, there's no association between phytoestrogens and problems with hormone concentrations if you have meta-analyses. All you're doing is picking out these single studies. And if you actually read the studies, I'm not going to bother here, but if you look at the p-values, none of these results are actually significant. The one study you showed, it said borderline significance.

[video] 1:07:49 Look at the last study. Yeah, I am. It actually shows. It says this was not significant. Again, if you look at the p-values, at best, they're borderline significant, these results. And if you look at meta-analyses, the conclusions from the biggest meta-analyses, like soy product consumption, neither soy isoflavones or soy consumption is associated with negative hormonal changes. Okay, it said there's no significant changes for the lacto-ovo, so they're still getting cholesterol, and a lot of it.

[video] 1:08:33 Okay. And there's still a noticeable change.

[video] 1:08:40 Listen, if you actually look at the larger meta-analyses rather than the single studies, there's no association between phytoestrogen consumption from soy and negative hormonal changes. You can show me all these smaller studies all you want, but as far as scientific weight, they don't have much. Well, I'm sure like I hope I don't need to explain something this basic, but like the reason that you have a bar for statistical significance is because your results are always going to err on one or the other side of the correct measure because you can't measure things directly for obvious reasons. So if you don't actually get it out of the insignificant range, then you could do another study and it might come up a bit below. So you need to actually find something that's statistically significant. These are all statistically... Not all of them, but there's many statistically... I thought you just sent a study that didn't show any statistically significant effect.

[video] 1:09:41 Okay, listen, like, you... In order to... You can show me, like, you can show me a study like this where, okay, eating a mixed diet rather than a vegetarian diet, it, like, added maybe 50 to 100 nanograms per deciliter of testosterone... In order to get a significant performance benefit from higher testosterone levels, you need to raise your testosterone to super physiological levels. This is why bodybuilders, powerlifters, any athletes, that's why they don't take these over-the-counter testosterone boosters because... they only increase your testosterone by like 10 to 30% at most and usually it's like a transient effect so it goes up and then down as you, like throughout the day. You need to like literally double your testosterone levels to get any real performance benefits.

[video] 1:10:31 So even if you could conclusively prove, okay, eating meat will raise your testosterone by, I don't know, 50 to 100 nanograms per deciliter, it literally would do nothing, literally nothing.

[video] 1:10:46 Like, again, you can talk to any fucking steroid user you want. Like, people who have actually done this shit, they're not injecting, like, 50 to 100 nanograms of testosterone into their ass and then getting a huge performance benefit. No, they're injecting, like, three grams of fucking gear per week to get any benefit.

[video] 1:11:06 So what does this have to do with anything?

[video] 1:11:10 Well, no, you're showing me, like, these studies where there's barely any real significant changes in testosterone from either eating soy or eating a vegetarian diet where, like, if you read the study, it's a change of about 50 to 100 nanograms per deciliter. I'm telling you that would literally do nothing. There's other studies that show a significant difference. The thing is, there's not enough vegans to even study. So these studies are all on vegetarians. Yeah, that's another problem. Okay, so now you're admitting you're making assumptions again. So if it's worse on vegetarianism, why would it be better on veganism? Okay. Well, you know that vegetarians consume dairy, right? And you know milk actually contains female hormones, estrogen, and progesterone. There are actually studies on female hormones and dairy, and it actually does lower testosterone and raise estrogen in men.

[video] 1:12:09 If you drink the milk from the cows that are being pumped with chemical hormones, it will do that. It's just naturally occurring in these animals. Estrogen is very important to bond calcium to bone. It just does naturally occur in these animals. Are you saying that raw milk doesn't have the estrogen? The estrogen doesn't have the same effects as the chemical estrogen in the cows. you know chemical injected okay well i think i understand actually sorry i don't want to cut you off but you keep like i just notice a bit of a habit which is whatever the bad thing is about meat it's actually chemicals from i don't know who maybe the illuminati the actual meat itself is healthy but then you don't actually explain the mechanism of why why the version of it in the you know canned product or whatever causes something negative but then the version of the nutrient that you're like worried about or whatever it may be in the animal product itself that doesn't cause some kind of problem.

[video] 1:13:07 You have to actually like kind of explain the mechanism there. You can't just dismiss whatever negative health effects are associated with the meat as like, oh, it's just because of it's the packaging or it's the chemicals. Like to say that you need to actually get mechanistic with it. All right. So what I'm saying is that when you're saying dairy gives you estrogen or whatever, You can't point to one study other than the chemical mass-produced food That's the only thing you can ever point to but but that's just an appeal to ignorance because what sorry you finish your thing Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's ignorant. No no no no no no that you know you're not interpreting what I said fairly there I said it's an appeal to ignorance, but you can finish your point. It's it's ignorant to say that natural milk or natural meat causes whatever when you have no studies at all that look into this, not one study.

[video] 1:14:04 Okay, here's the problem with what, like, you do this all the time. I've seen, like, all your videos now. What you do is you basically, you make a claim, and then when somebody tries to refute your claim or... Even when you're just stating things, you're basically making these large assumptions. We have studies that show cow's milk raises serum estrogen levels and lowers testosterone. It's the chemical milk. Where's your study on real milk? Show me your study on real milk. quote-unquote, like, again... Yeah, yeah, yeah. Show me evidence or else my position is true by default. Yeah, yeah, show me evidence or I won't believe you. No, no, show me evidence or my position is true by default. That's the appeal to ignorance. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying show me evidence or I won't believe you. Listen, are there any studies on whole raw milk that shows it does not do this? Yeah. Okay, can you link a few?

[video] 1:15:05 Read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price.

[video] 1:15:10 Okay, listen. You realize there's a massive bias when you're taking Weston A. Price studies, right? What's the bias?

[video] 1:15:20 They're actually funded directly by meat and dairy organizations. On their website— They get donations from Amish farmers? Well, listen— This is the big meat and dairy industry? They're getting donations? No, no, no. Dude, dude, calm down.

[video] 1:15:39 They're getting donations from Amish farmers who want protection to continue selling raw milk because it's illegal and they're giving donations to Weston A. Price to get legal protection. Okay, so you're saying Weston A. Price has a financial bias for raw milk and stuff like that? Yeah, basically nothing. It all goes to legal fees. I have a feeling that if we could find that a vegan organization funded a study, you would probably dismiss that as biased research. So, I mean, I can't make a concrete point there, but I'm just saying that there's a level of confirmation bias that I think a lot of people are noticing with the way you're talking here. Who profited from Weston A. Price donations other than the lawyers that they got to defend the farmers that the government wanted to throw in prison? Well, presumably the companies that lobbied them, but... The companies? You mean the Amish farmers? Do you think they're only getting donations from Amish farmers? They're not just getting donations from Amish farmers, dude.

[video] 1:16:38 You can actually go on their website and look who's actually funding them. Alright, give me a link. What do you mean, just start their website? Let's discuss this funding. Let's discuss it. Milk Jar, Rationaligator. You want to move on. You're not moving on. Listen to the mod.

[video] 1:17:03 Let's not get bogged down in this. I mean, I think you guys have made your point on the specifics of it. Let's get back to the general issues. Forget the specific study and the specific accusations of whether or not it's legitimate. I think people will figure that out themselves. Is it safe to say this is –

[video] 1:17:25 We're getting off topic. Let's get back on. I will press you on this after the debate. What is the specific point that you're trying to make? What is it that you think they're not listening to? They're claiming that these giant meat companies are funding Weston A. Price and Weston A. Price is making all this… It literally doesn't matter. The point I'm trying to make is it literally doesn't matter. Let's just say for the sake of argument, it's only Amish farmers that are supporting Weston A. Price, okay? For the sake of argument, let's agree on that. Weston A. Price's studies included thousands of people. Yeah, okay, great. Okay, let's just say for the sake of argument, they get their funding from only Amish farmers, and they're looking out for those small kind of farmers who are doing everything natural and everything like that. No big, huge corporate donors. Regardless, they went...

[video] 1:18:15 They have a bias to make sure that they publish studies or any kind of research that supports these Amish farmers or else they won't get donations. It doesn't matter.

[video] 1:18:34 Milk jar bias isn't just about profit. If someone's paying a company or an organization or whatever, they're not gaining a financial profit. They're literally the person spending the money. They're hoping for some other outcome, like maybe deregulation of raw milk so they can save money. Weston A. Price doesn't pay for any studies. Okay, listen, you understand people who work in nonprofit organizations still get paid. It's called financial compensation. I can't remember what the technical term is for nonprofit organizations, but they still actually get paid. There are people in these organizations who want to make sure they still keep getting donations so that they can actually get a livable wage. You understand that, right? Like, just because it's non-profit, that doesn't mean these people are not interested in money.

[video] 1:19:26 So, like, they do have a bias to ensure that the people who are donating to them get what they want. So they do have a bias to put out research that supports raw milk, dairy consumption, I don't know, organic grass-fed free-range meat that supports the consumption of these products because that's where all their money comes from. And we're not saying, therefore... And we're also not saying, you know, therefore their research is wrong. I mean, whether it's wrong is a logical matter, but just pointing out that there's a financial bias there, I mean, I think that's a pretty reasonable thing to do, especially because Weston A. Price are, like, known in the vegan community because they fund a lot of this pro-meat, pro-dairy... Weston A. Price doesn't fund any research. You know what I'm saying. No, they don't. You're just picking some... I don't think that's a useful avenue to go down to for... Anyway, I don't think this really matters anyway, but basically...

[video] 1:20:22 Let's get back to the heart disease topic because I don't think that was totally settled. I just want to know, I think Sverdge talked about this a little bit, but I brought up the point that saturated fat and cholesterol is very strongly linked to heart disease, and the only diet that has been shown to reverse coronary artery disease is a whole foods vegan diet. So why hasn't anyone been able to reverse coronary artery disease using a ketogenic diet, raw meat diet, you name it?

[video] 1:20:54 Do I have like two to three minutes to talk about that? Oh yeah, sure. Go ahead. All right. So all of your studies that you're pointing to that supposedly prove that the vegan diet reverses coronary heart disease— Well, there's only one. Well, there's only one in existence. Yeah. Well, that study, it uses—basically says that all the markers for heart disease, not for vegans. No, no, no, no, no, no. I don't think you understand the study I'm referencing. Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn is the one who conducted this research. They actually got angiograms of the patients done, and the angiogram showed that they had diseased coronary arteries. Then after they did the vegan diet intervention, their arteries opened up again and healed themselves. Yeah, sure. I can find that pretty quickly for you. If you just give me a minute.

1:21:53 I don't believe that you're that ignorant that you haven't heard that the ketogenic diet has healed it many more times.

[video] 1:21:59 No, no, I haven't. Maybe you should post a link or something.

1:22:03 I'll post this video also. I'll post tons of links.

[video] 1:22:07 Yeah, sure. Do you know the – I forget what it's called –

[video] 1:22:16 I think it's called the Warburg effect. Do you know the Warburg effect? No, I've never heard of that. Anyway, here's the link. I just dropped it in the chat. You can take a look.

[video] 1:22:35 If you just scroll down a little bit, it'll show you the, I think that's the angiogram. It shows coronary angiography. So yeah, diseased distal left coronary, left anterior descending artery. And after 32 months of a plant-based nutritional intervention, cholesterol lowering medication, the artery regained its normal configuration. So it basically went back to normal.

1:23:02 Does it say what they ate?

[video] 1:23:04 Yeah, Whole Foods Vegan Diet. It was conducted by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn. So even if you don't find this adequate, like what it actually states in the text, you can just look on his website and everything what he actually recommends for his patients. So basically it's a lot of fruits, vegetables, legumes, beans, whole grains, absolutely no sugar and no oils. And no nuts and seeds actually either. So it's a very low-fat vegan diet, and it's whole foods, so no processed foods either.

1:23:37 I posted a link before in a study that proves that vegans have a high risk of heart disease. It's in the… Yeah.

[video] 1:23:45 It's where? Oh, did you link it? Is it the one before milk jar? The big one. Yeah, yeah. Where? Can you link that one again?

[video] 1:24:02 Well, anyway, that's the only type of diet that is being proven to reverse coronary artery disease. I honestly think you don't know what you're talking about. You've actually made a video on this topic before where you claim there's all this scientific research showing that high cholesterol levels actually prevent heart disease, and you linked absolutely no scientific research. I talked about that in my response video to you. Um, so, like, I don't know. I honestly think you're mentally insane. Like, I don't mean that as just a mean-spirited insult. I actually do genuinely think you're insane. And I believe... I do think you actually believe what you're saying, but what you actually believe isn't true. So what about... I also believe that you're lying on purpose, but you're definitely very mentally ill. Well, to be fair, you can't call him mentally ill because he went and had to do the psychological evaluation. Called him sane. But it's not exactly central to the debate.

[video] 1:24:59 Well, he said he has hallucinations and talks to great aliens. And in 2016, they...

1:25:07 Well, he gets a tingly feeling pleasure from torturing and killing animals.

[video] 1:25:14 I'm going to trust the psychological expert who says he's sane. Nothing he says is sane. Anyway, it's beside the point. Sorry? Do you guys have any big points you want to make in terms of the nutritional arguments?

1:25:30 I wanted to still talk about vitamin K because you said about the bacteria that makes you not have a problem. But do you understand where the bacteria is in our digestive tract?

[video] 1:25:41 All right, let's talk about that. Hold on. We never got to finish the study you linked me. So everything you need to know about this study that you linked me is on page 363, where it says this study had severe limitations. And basically, in the study, it lists every reason why this isn't scientific. OK, like what? Just read the whole paragraph. This study has severe limitations. It had no control group, first of all, which is like immediately. OK, well, listen, you clearly didn't really read it. Yeah, there was no control group. Well, it would be kind of hard to pass an ethics board. These were people with severe heart disease. They were on death's door. They had established cardiovascular disease. So if you're going to have a control group,

[video] 1:26:34 You're going to tell me that people with severe cardiovascular disease, they're going to go into a study where they receive absolutely no treatment, whether it be a dietary intervention or like drug intervention. So that would never pass an ethics board. Yeah. Secondly, they were self-selected. Well, secondly, they were self-selected like, okay, like again, these were Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn's own patients. So yeah. Well, then I can point to Agnes von der Planitz's own patients.

[video] 1:27:09 What? He has the same types of reports with the quote at the end, this study has severe limitations, proving the same thing. I'm sorry, so he actually has angiograms of his patients where they have disease coronary arteries then after the intervention they reversed coronary artery disease. We're trying to get all of his study information off of his laptop because before he died, he was making the book with all of his studies, with all the tables and everything. What type of diet does he promote?

[video] 1:27:47 Raw meat, raw dairy, raw honey, raw eggs. Okay, well, I thought... Raw vegetable juice. So, do you actually agree with Sparage that insulin is what causes heart disease?

[video] 1:28:02 I think there's a relation. I don't know enough about it to talk about it. I just think it's very strange that you'd promote a guy who promotes eating raw honey when it's literally pure sugar. Well, raw honey has a very different effect on you than cooked honey. For example, my mom is diabetic, and I've been trying to get her on the primal diet for years. For some reason, she still refuses. She's shooting up insulin and everything. She doesn't want to get out brains? I never told her to eat cow brains, but I just tried to basically get her on a ketogenic diet. One thing she did agree to try with me is, in Agnes' book, it says take 100% raw honey. First of all, you got to realize most of the raw honey in the store, like 90% of it, is not raw. They're committing food fraud. I got honey that I know is 100% raw, and I gave her a teaspoon of raw honey.

[video] 1:29:00 and a like a two sugar cubed sized piece of raw cheese and we measured her insulin before she ate it and then after she ate it and her insulin significantly went down and that's because real raw real raw honey you got to realize honey is nothing but bee vomit and uh it is sugar like broken down Yeah, but it's pre-digested sugar, and rather than spiking your insulin level when my mom ate it— Wouldn't that make it actually more because it's actually like pure glucose? Her blood sugar went down after, and we tried this several times. She's diabetic. Blood sugar or insulin? Whatever she's measuring when she's poking herself, which I think is her blood sugar level, it basically had the same effect as injecting insulin into her. Okay, that's interesting. Like, again, this is...

[video] 1:30:00 It's also an anecdote. Yeah, this is an anecdote, so, like... No, if you look, you can look into it. There haven't been any studies on this, but it's just... Right, okay. The same as the heart study that you linked to me, it's not a peer-reviewed, controlled study. Well, it is peer-reviewed. It's just, like, it's just that they, like, in every study, there's study limitations. They have to admit that. Yeah. The limitations you're talking about are... Like, you're taking things out of context. Like, you're saying, okay, they admit that a study limitation was there was no control group. How the fuck could they have a control group when every single patient had severe, like, severe heart disease? I don't care how they can have a control group. I'm saying there's no control group and it's not science. What do you mean? How are you supposed to have a control group when these patients are- I don't care how you're supposed to. I'm saying they're wrong. It doesn't matter if there's a control group. They reversed their coronary artery disease. That's the only study in existence that shows that.

[video] 1:30:57 This is the first thing I learned in science class in sixth grade is that it's not science unless you have a control group and only one variable. No, that's absolutely not true. That's what I learned in sixth grade science. Well, okay, uh, you might not have been paying attention or your teacher was an idiot, but yeah, this is legitimate research. They reversed coronary artery disease using this dietary intervention. Doesn't matter if there's a control group. So did, so did Ajahn Asmodeus. Okay, listen, listen, are you saying that if they had a control group, which they did nothing with, didn't give them any drugs, any dietary intervention, their heart disease would have magically disappeared? I'm saying that I'll start taking that study seriously when there's a control group. Okay, you're doing this thing where you're raising the burden of proof to a certain level that you'd never reach it, okay? And it seems like systematic, man. It seems like whenever we present evidence, you just move the goalpost, and whenever you present evidence, it's like, oh, well, it completely proves my point.

[video] 1:31:57 Yeah, like, dude, you won't accept the study when there's no control group, when this is the only study in existence where they reversed coronary artery disease. You talk about this dead guy's laptop. Okay, well, I don't give a shit about that. This is the only study in existence where they reversed coronary artery disease. using a whole foods vegan diet, and then like you consider that bullshit because there wasn't a control group, but you consider one single case study where some 19 year old kid who has diabetes ate soy, like a shit ton of soy, over 20 servings per day, and he got like hypogonadism, like his testosterone levels fell, you consider that legitimate, but I'm not saying that's legitimate. I'm not saying that's legitimate on its own. It hosts like seven other studies. And I'm still trying to go to the broader point and just understand why you're saying that veganism is less healthy. Like you're saying veganism, it's more likely to give you hypergonadism or like what's the overall case you're making?

[video] 1:32:57 Okay, who are the only people in history that en masse did not eat meat? We've already pointed out, man, that's not actually a line of argument. If something hasn't been done in history before, that doesn't tell you whether it's good or bad, whether it's doable or not. It doesn't tell you anything. No, no, what I'm asking has been done in history before. Yeah, but... I'm asking you... No, no, no, you just changed. But you're saying that... You can't say veganism is unhealthy from the fact that it hasn't been done on a population scale in history. That's not an argument. You can't say anything is not anything because it hasn't been done on a population scale in history before. That's not the question I asked. It sounded like it, but you can try again. All right, let me try again. Yeah, go for it. Because I'm going to ask a question first, and then I'm going to bring up the point I made after you asked the question. Of course, of course, and I want you to do that. But just remember, the overall thing I'm trying to get at here is, what is the overall argument you're making against veganism? Because we keep going into all this minutia, but I'm just not seeing the center of it all.

[video] 1:33:56 Yeah, the core of what you're saying here, if you can. Well, actually... We haven't really got to what I'm trying to say because we've been talking about studies this whole time, which I'd really like to get away from. Okay, let's get to the core then. Basically, what I was saying just now is that, for example, the only group of people that we have in history that didn't eat any meat is the Indian Hindus, historically. And Buddhists? And Jains? Yeah, and all those people... they all drank their own urine to make up for the deficiencies. I wonder if you're just a really clever troll, but go ahead, though. Wait, so you don't agree that they all did urine therapy? Honestly, I don't know the history, but I just want to hear your overall point that you're making.

[video] 1:34:54 Well, the only vegan I know long-term that's somewhat doing okay drinks all of his urine. You don't think Richard's doing okay? Yeah, I've been vegan for six years. No, I don't. I think you're, I mean, even Jasmine says you're like losing your mind. Losing my mind. You know, there's this thing called workload stress. You have work-related stress. And Milk Jar, we're going to let you get back to making your overall point here, but this is kind of, again, you doing the same type of thing where it's like, you know, Richard, like his, whatever's going on with him, if he has some kind of mental thing going on, that must be because of veganism. But if we ever say something's because of meat, it's like, well, no, mercury's not bad when it's in fish. It's just bad everywhere else. So there's a level of cherry picking and confirmation bias going on here. But, you know, continue. Go ahead and make your point.

[video] 1:35:44 Well, what I was talking about just now is that historically, every group that didn't eat meat did drink their own urine because they knew that they had to do that to make up for all the deficiencies. Okay. I'm not sure about that. Are you saying urine therapy or drinking your own urine actually originated from following a vegetarian diet? Yes. And also, was that your your whole point? That's the core of your argument against veganism? No, no, that's not. That's just something I wanted to bring up. OK, so let's no, no worries. Let's just let's get to the core, though. The core I'd like to discuss is just the historical data, first of all, that, you know, You're going to say this is the appeal to nature fallacy. I probably will, yeah. Well, I know you will. Go ahead, though. And I'm just going to say that that's the fallacy fallacy. No, no, no. Wait, wait. You can't just, sorry, but you can't just say that anytime someone calls a fallacy, they're engaged in the fallacy fallacy.

[video] 1:36:43 Well, that's what the fallacy fallacy is. Because you can't explain it. No, no, no. By that logic, you know, fallacies would not even be a thing. There are fallacious modes of reasoning. So what's the fallacy fallacy? I'm not sure exactly. I think the fallacy fallacy is when you just call something a fallacy without actually making a point of your own, and then you expect it to be correct.

1:37:04 No, no, no.

[video] 1:37:05 That's when you can't explain it, and you cannot explain it. Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait. That's not what the fallacy fallacy is. That's fine, that's fine. What is the fallacy fallacy? The fallacy fallacy is assuming something isn't correct just because it falls under one of the list of fallacies. Okay, so that's... Which the fallacy fallacy falls under too. I'm not saying that because something is natural, it's good or it's bad. I'm saying you can't tell whether it's good or bad from the fact that it's natural. So by your own definition there of the fallacy fallacy, which I haven't looked up, I don't know what it is. Um, it wouldn't be. How do you know what all these fallacies are if you don't have the fallacy list? Well, I mean, I don't know all the fucking fallacies by name. Well, you should if you're going to be calling out all these fallacies because the fallacy... Whoa, whoa, whoa. To clearly spot a particular fallacy, you don't need to be some kind of logic master.

[video] 1:38:03 I mean... All right, well, let's... Wait, wait, wait. We can move on with your point, but... Okay. Saying something is natural, therefore it's good. That is an appeal to nature. And you can't get out of that by saying, you know, fallacy, fallacy, though, because... Like, I just don't comprehend how that makes sense. You could say that to any fallacy. Calling a fallacy is somehow a fallacy. I would just like to be able to discuss what we're saying by actually saying the argument rather than simply spouting out the word fallacy. Yeah, but I'm just saying, if you're saying something is good because it's natural, that is a fallacy. And the fact that you don't want to hear the word fallacy doesn't do it for me. All right, let me explain why something being natural... Converts to it being good for me, okay You can do that, but if you want to get on to the core of what you're saying go ahead But I'm just telling you I'm not on board with that nature shit. We can go back to it alright, so what I'm saying is that Like for example, especially in Weston A.

[video] 1:39:00 Price's work, and even when we get to the Eskimos thing, I'm gonna have a study that the vegans always cite to show how Eskimos die early and everything, and how that specific study, which they all cite, actually says the opposite of what you're saying, but we'll get to that. But what I'm saying is that all people that have been studied that are on their ancestral diets that they've been doing for thousands of years, exactly the way that those are, living that perfect primitive lifestyle that they've always been living, none of them have been shown to have any sorts of disease at all. Totally, totally incorrect. And even if it were correct... Well, that's what I want to discuss. Wait, wait, but even if that is correct, which is obviously a thing to discuss, that's not an argument against veganism. That's just an argument for some other diet. Not even necessarily for that diet over veganism. Well, then I want to argue for it.

[video] 1:39:59 Okay, but wait, wait, you want to argue for that, but do you actually have an argument like against veganism though or against like to get to the actual proposition of the debate against the notion that veganism is nutritionally superior? Because it's just kind of going all over the place. Every study I've posted so far, every study I can post. Well, you don't actually understand the studies you're posting. That's being very clear. You've been posting things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic or very loosely relate to the topic. You claimed vegan diets lower testosterone. Then you linked some stuff on soy where there's a few case reports where somebody had low testosterone levels on soy, which has nothing to do with veganism. Please. Please look through all of the studies I post in relation to testosterone. You can do that later and make a video about it or something. All of the studies are not on soy.

[video] 1:40:56 Yeah, whatever. And I also I just need to chirp in here. Sorry, Sparage, you haven't talked much. I really don't want to cut you off. You should talk after here. But I just want to say one thing. I've looked up this fallacy fallacy. That's a completely false accusation to use against me. This fallacy fallacy is claiming that something is true or false because it falls under a specific fallacy. So you're saying, you know, if you say something's an appeal to nature. That's not actually a claim that the thing is good or bad. You're not saying whether it's good or bad. You're just saying that the line of argumentation that it's good because it's natural is false. So just being clear there, that's not a fallacy fallacy. But go ahead. It is. Oh, I want to make it very clear. Milk jar. I'm not claiming that because you're appealing to nature, your overall point that a raw meat diet is healthy or not healthy is true or false. I'm just saying that specific line of reasoning is false. That's not a fallacy fallacy. That's just calling out an appeal to nature. I'm okay with that. Okay. Yeah, like, MilkJar, well, I guess Sparage wanted to say something.

[video] 1:41:56 You should speak.

1:41:57 No, I just wanted to ask if I should post a paste bit with all of the links. Why didn't you post that?

[video] 1:42:03 I'll post that on my Twitter. Like, I didn't post it on Twitter, but it's actually in the chat. Let's get to the ancestral diet thing, because you were claiming that if you actually look at studies on ancestral populations, if they're eating their natural diet in that area, they don't get heart disease. That's not true. I just linked the horror study in the chat. You can look at... Atherosclerosis through 4,000 years of human history, they even had… Which one? You posted three. No, just right at the bottom, the very last one. Even in a pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer population, they had very high rates of atherosclerosis. 60% of the mummies they found had atherosclerosis. And that has nothing to do with what was being pumped into their veins when they were being mummified?

[video] 1:42:57 I don't think they actually practiced mummification like the Egyptians did. A mummy isn't necessarily a ritual. What can happen is they can be buried under sand and the dryness of that environment or something weird going on there can just preserve the soft tissue. Alright, so this study right here, it says CT scans of 137 mummies from four different geographical regions or populations spanning more than 4,000 years. So 4,000 years is not pre-agricultural. No, they were pre-agricultural. They weren't practicing agriculture in that particular area. Ancient Egypt, ancient Peru, ancestral Puebloans of Southern America. and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands. I don't know about the last one, but all three of those were agricultural.

[video] 1:43:57 Yeah. Well, look at the entire study. Atherosclerosis was common in four pre-industrial populations, including pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers. So the actual, like one of the populations, I believe it was the Unangan hunter-gatherers, they weren't practicing agriculture at the time. So you have five mummies from Unangan hunter-gatherers. Yeah, like again, I'd love to see a study with hundreds or thousands of mummies, but they're kind of hard to come across. Well, we have studies with thousands of live people from Dr. Weston A. Price in 1920. You're talking about the Eskimo thing, right? Well, there's the Eskimos, there's the... Yeah, that has been debunked long ago. What happened was the first explorers into the Inuit populations up in the far north, they just assumed that they had low prevalence of heart disease.

[video] 1:44:55 They never actually checked to see if that was the case. And upon further examination, they actually had the same rate of heart disease as Americans at the time. And critics actually, like Ansel Keys, they actually said, chances are they have higher rates of heart disease. It's just that they're such a small population spread out across a wide area of land that it's just hard to study these people. Okay, okay, so let's discuss that. Yeah, okay. All right, so when I was looking into this, I went to nutritionfacts.org. And I found their article specifically on the Eskimos. And I'm going to make a video about this soon just so I can get a really good explanation of all this. But one of the studies, one of the main studies that they cited for going back and checking the Eskimos

[video] 1:45:54 and seeing if they had the heart disease was this study by I.M. Rabinowitch. And even in this video that I'm looking at on nutritionfacts.org, it specifically states, yeah, hold on, let me get the exact quote. I don't know, I'll make a video about this later. But the quote said that basically we found in the study by Ian Rabinowitz, the quote said, we found that. Upon investigation, the Eskimos, on average, had absolutely no better protection against heart disease than, you know, the white people there basically was the same. Right. OK. OK. So then if you look at the end of the study,

[video] 1:46:52 He goes on to explain that there's two distinct Eskimo populations that he studied. And one of them was the ones that were like working for the police and everything. And they would get just big bags of sugar and big bags of flour and all this stuff. And he said basically when we were studying these people, we found that all their problems were the same. as all the white people that were living in Alaska. And then he goes on to say, he spends like 10 pages on when he studied on the other side of Alaska, he found Eskimos that had absolutely no food of modern civilization. And he found that on every single front, They had no heart disease. They had no cavities. They had no cancer.

[video] 1:47:51 They had no tuberculosis. They had none of this stuff, and this is the exact same study. Okay, what about heart disease? They had none of it. No? Okay, so how did he determine that they did not have atherosclerosis? He did some sort of x-ray or I forget what he said. Intermediate thickness? Was it like an ultrasound? I think this is the part it said. He said the above findings fit in with the x-ray examinations of 39 films of Eskimos taken in Hudson Bay and Straits by Dr. Burchard.

[video] 1:48:28 19 showed definite calcification of the arteries, an incidence of 48.7%, whereas of 24 films on Baffin Island, four only showed calcification, an incidence of 16.6%, in spite of the fact that the average age of the Hudson Bay and Strait group was 44.6 years old. whereas that of the Baffin Island group was 50 years. These findings, I mean... That doesn't, like, even there it says, like, atherosclerosis was still common. I don't actually... I'm going to have to read the whole thing, but in the white people, first of all, that they tested, the incidence of atherosclerosis was 48.7%, which is the same as the rate that the Eskimos that they tested, which were on those foods, was.

[video] 1:49:25 And then they went to another area, and it was only 16.6%, which is much different from... That's different. Much different. You're going to have to wait for the video, because I have... Okay, for now, I'll just take your word for it. But, yeah, that you making... So can you at least agree now that your claim that if you study populations that were eating their native diet, like... like atherosclerosis never occurs, do you agree now that you were incorrect on that statement? No, because the one that I just read was another group that still had some food from the modern civilization. So I didn't get to the point right now. I'm going to have to— We'll wait for your video, but right now— I have about 10 pages of this video. You're saying the further away they got from their traditional diet, the greater the rate of heart disease?

[video] 1:50:33 The greater the rate of every disease, heart disease, cancer, cavities. All right. So right now, Inuit populations in Canada, on average, they live 10 years less than your average Canadian. So wouldn't you expect them to live longer since they're sort of more adherent to their traditional diet? No, they're not adherent anymore. They're all on welfare. They're all on welfare and they get all their food from the government. I don't know about that. They're all alcoholics.

[video] 1:51:15 Well, listen, I know a lot of Native American, like a lot of these, what do you call them?

[video] 1:51:26 I can't remember the name, but I know a lot of Native American populations, they have issues with alcoholism and shit like that. I've actually known quite a few people who've lived up north. One of my friends was a school teacher up there, and basically very few people had jobs, and they pretty much had to rely on hunting to get their food. Food up there is incredibly expensive because it all has to be shipped in. Back in the 90s, he was telling me that a can of Coke cost $5 for a specially small can. Your claim that they all get

[video] 1:52:03 Like they're all on welfare. They all eat junk food. I don't know how true that is because from what I've seen, they actually get most of their food from like hunting, just wild game out there. And then maybe they get some food from like, I don't know, government subsidies. No, they're on the same exact programs that all the other American Indians are because we stole their land. And the program is you get pounds of wheat, pounds of sugar, and you don't have to do anything. You can drink alcohol all day and huff gas and smoke crack and whatever it is you do, and the government will pay for it because we took your land. And all native populations in the Americas, they all get these ultimate welfare programs that are greater than anything a normal American gets. So it doesn't matter that a can of Coke is $5 because we pay for it. Okay. Because it's reparations.

[video] 1:53:02 Well, it's keeping relevant to the health argument, right? Well, it kind of is. I'm just trying to kind of point out that, okay, maybe they're not totally adherent to their natural diet, but they're more adherent than the rest of Canada. No, they're not. They're not? You're saying they eat more junk food than the rest of Canada? Yes, because the government completely pays for anything they want. Okay, so you think... Inuit people living far up north where there's like permafrost, you're saying they eat more junk food than the typical Canadian. Okay. Yeah.

[video] 1:53:40 I'm open to it. I don't know what the fuck they do. I thought everything costs more up there because they have to fly it in. But if they eat more junk, just link us some evidence on that one. Again, I don't have any actual research on this myself, but from what I know anecdotally from a few friends who lived up there, I also knew an ice road trucker who actually had to ship food up there. Pretty much all of them, they mostly adhere to hunted game And then as like a treat maybe, they might get some like food that's being shipped in. But a lot of them are poor. They don't have many jobs.

[video] 1:54:17 Look at the welfare programs they have. Well, like I'd imagine it doesn't really give them that much. It gives them all the food they want. Okay. I haven't really looked into this too much myself, but I don't know. I'd rather – I don't think I can just take your word on this. Like it sounds crazy that they eat more junk food than the typical Canadian. What about – Every other native population that we give reparations to is completely fed and completely taken care of with every need that they ever have by the government. They even have special privileges. Well, I've seen those reserves. They're kind of shitholes. You're kind of making it sound like these fancy, I don't know, like a ton of money through these welfare checks. No, that's what welfare does to people. It turns them into pieces of shit. Okay. Welfare doesn't help people. Welfare turns you into a government dependent.

[video] 1:55:17 Okay. It basically kills you. The best way to kill people is just to put them on welfare and just feed them sugar all day. Okay. Again, I can't just take your word for it that these people are relying on junk food. It costs so much money to ship that food in. I can't imagine them relying on imported food. They spend it. They have unlimited money and we owe them. So they're millionaires. They're not millionaires. They don't get money. They get food stamps. You just said they have unlimited money. Yeah, to spend on food. I think you mean it's like money in the form of food stamps, right? Yeah. Okay. All expenses paid.

[video] 1:55:55 All right. Well, you know what? I'll have to look into this later. Don't know if I totally buy that. But again, you haven't really shown any evidence that people eating like their traditional native diet, they don't develop heart disease. Like again, if you refer back to the horse study I showed, even pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers got atherosclerosis quite frequently. And it's likely because they relied on a lot of hunted game, which is high in saturated fat and cholesterol. And it's very strongly linked to heart disease.

[video] 1:56:27 I mean, I have like a list of like, you know, 20 points in this one study. I mean, if you want to spend 20 minutes on this right now. Well, I think the cholesterol argument is really significant because heart disease is the number one killer worldwide, especially in developed nations. So do you want to talk about that more? Like, I'm sure Svarage wants to talk about that.

1:56:49 Yeah, we always ate meat. And now since we started eating a high-carb diet, because of the food pyramid from the government, now everybody has heart disease. What is there to think about why people have heart disease now when they never had it?

[video] 1:57:02 OK, well, Sviraj, first of all, if you actually look at statistics, you can just Google it right now, meat intake has increased quite significantly since the 1900s. Also, right at the turn of the 20th century, we started using vaccines, especially child mortality decreased tremendously. The number one killer used to be influenza, and then it became heart disease. And the reason is, people started living longer, and heart disease is very strongly associated with life expectancy, and meat intake increased. I don't see a correlation between increase in carbohydrate consumption.

1:57:42 Dr.

[video] 1:57:43 It's not carbohydrate consumption. The heart disease rate increased right after margarine and Crisco and all these plant oils were introduced to replace natural animal fats. Well, again, we can make… I'm not denying that plant oils, especially margarines and hydrogenated oils are linked to heart disease. That's what made it happen. Well, again, you're making this huge assumption again where you're finding correlation between like margarine consumption and heart disease well okay a correlation exists there and I wouldn't deny that consumption of these plant-based oils contributes to heart disease but what I'm also arguing is that consumption of meat also contributes to heart disease and you're just flat-out denying that like you can look at you can just google it a consumption of oil and heart disease like there's a correlation there consumption of meat and heart disease there's a correlation there

[video] 1:58:42 People ate much more animal products before this happened. I mean what you can say – No, again, I can get – Can I keep talking? Yeah, sure. Can I keep talking? You can get your information from the USDA, but the thing is in America, we used to import almost no food, which is what we do now. If you're not importing all your food in America –

[video] 1:59:08 you're going to be eating mostly animal foods because fruits and vegetables do not, you know, grow in most of America for even, you know, a quarter of the year. And, you know, all these people, you know, there wasn't like a census agent going from farm to farm asking what people ate. All these people weren't included. It was the people who were being tested were the people in cities who were eating canned food, sugar, white bread, white flour, margarine. They were eating all this garbage. These are the people that were tested. If you're living on a farm in Wisconsin, you're going to be eating at least 80% to 90% animal products. There's no other option. You're saying they didn't have anything like bread or potatoes.

[video] 2:00:01 They did, but it was very limited. They had cows year-round. That was the basis of it. Like in Wisconsin, for example, just taking a random state, every single farm had cows. They drank milk every day. You understand wheat is not that perishable. You can keep it for quite a long time. There's ways of preserving potatoes, like pickling foods. I'm not saying in certain areas they ate a lot of meat, especially maybe in certain rural areas, but as far as the entire population of the United States. Seventy years ago, basically the entire population of the United States lived on farms. Okay, well if you actually look at USDA data, I just sent a link in the chat box, meat consumption has risen quite steadily since about 1920.

[video] 2:00:59 They don't have any data for what people on farms are eating. Okay, who cares? Again, U.S. meat consumption has risen since the 1920s. Like, are you saying, like, just think about it like this. You can raise so much more cattle because of, like, just modern agriculture. We have petroleum. We can enrich soil now. Like, we feed grains, like corn and soy. Sorry, I dropped for a few minutes there. My bad. Yeah, like we have grains that we feed to these livestock. It's so much easier to get a shit ton of more meat produced than it was back then. Like meat consumption... No, it's not. Yeah, it is meat consumption raised. Yeah, meat consumption raised. This has nothing to do with how much... The graph you sent me has nothing to do with how much meat each person is eating.

[video] 2:01:53 This has to do with the centralization of the agricultural industry, which increased the amount of food that's being documented, being produced. It says U.S. meat consumption right on the graph. Yeah, so in 2020, let's say this year, probably 99% of all meat that was produced in America was registered by the USDA. Every single pound of meat was registered. OK, I can actually give you a better graph where it shows estimated loss at retailer. So this is a relatively accurate estimate of actual meat consumption. And again, since the 1920s about meat consumption has steadily risen. Is this the last link you sent me? Yeah, yeah. Red meat has gone down since around the 1970s, 1980s, but poultry has increased significantly. Okay. This is a list.

[video] 2:02:51 This is statistics on documented meat consumption. Well, it said USDA uses meat available in our food supply minus estimated loss at retail. So that's pretty accurate. That's a pretty accurate approximation of how much meat people actually consume. I'm not talking about just production in the 1920s There was no you know 95% of meat production was not registered by the usda, okay? But again, I was graph this graph is just okay. Well. Let's cut it off at the 1960s still increasing still in the 1960s less than 50% of meat production was registered and Okay, do you have an actual source to confirm that? The USDA was not approving every piece of meat in the 60s.

[video] 2:03:47 The reason they can do that now is because there's about 20 times less farms around now

[video] 2:03:57 I think you mean it's become more centralized. Exactly, and it's trackable. Even before computers, you know how hard it was to... First of all, there were no computers back then, and second of all, it was completely decentralized. Okay, so basically what you're arguing is that meat consumption hasn't increased. I'm arguing that meat consumption has lowered. Of course. Since the turn of the 20th century, like 1900s. Yes.

[video] 2:04:27 Okay, well, that's absolutely crazy.

2:04:33 You've got the food pyramid, and everybody since then is eating a plant-based diet. I'm not saying vegan. And since 2005, the food pyramid is completely vegan. So how could it be increasing? Because everybody follows this. In Europe, 90% of people eat a plant-based diet.

[video] 2:04:50 Listen, people aren't following the food guide. I'm sorry. Again, if you look at not only the Adventist Health Studies, but the American Diabetes Association has even done a study. Vegans are the only diet group within the healthy BMI range. They also have the lowest risk of diabetes. Again, this isn't from the Adventist Health Study. This is the American Diabetes Association. Are you saying there's some sort of weird vegan bias? the American Diabetes Association. Again, if these plant foods are the cause of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, how come vegans have the best overall health outcomes again?

2:05:25 Dr. Well, that's not my experience because my channel is full of ex-vegans, and so many of them got diabetes from a whole grain, whole foods, grain diet. It's just not the truth. It's my experience.

[video] 2:05:39 You guys have a lot of anecdotes. Like, dude... You can talk to people on my channel.

2:05:44 There's tons of vegans who get sick, including my wheelchair, obviously.

[video] 2:05:49 I've been on your channel, and I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Like, I've seen the comments. Um... I don't mean to insult you again, but, like, I don't think you're mentally sane. Like, I think you believe what you're saying, but... You have hallucinations, Richard. Well, I actually know when I'm having hallucinations. The difference with Sparage is he sees people, like, eating raw flesh when he's... Except when you're talking to grey aliens. That was... You understand what trolling is, right? Yeah, yeah. Let's not get too far off topic. Sure, sure, that's definitely trolling. But still... Like, dude, all you have is anecdotes, and then I actually have research, and then you're just basically saying it's all bullshit. I posted tons of research. Well, no, you posted tons of research that's either completely irrelevant or it doesn't have much scientific weight. You guys have also, and let's not forget, you guys have also dismissed quite a lot of research.

[video] 2:06:48 That's what you've been doing too. Dr. No, we don't ... Okay, whatever.

2:06:52 Dr. Look, I have the studies that completely prove that you cannot make vitamin A. There's over 50% of humans, simply genetically, cannot do it. Every vegan who does the promotion for this diet You should always put a warning. You likely won't get vitamin A. And then you have people following you blindly, and a lot of them will die from it. Really, people do.

[video] 2:07:15 That sounds like an extraordinary claim. Did you just say that 50% of people, that they can't convert vitamin A from plant sources?

2:07:23 Only 50%. Really, it's 70-80% if you count the thyroid problems, the diabetes, the people who are allergic to these foods who cannot eat them at all.

[video] 2:07:31 Okay, Svarage, again, if that was true, then why don't we ever see rampant vitamin A deficiencies among vegan populations? I literally cannot find a single study where vegans tend to be vitamin A deficient.

2:07:47 But since when is veganism popular? Maybe 2010. How long do vegans last? Most of them last one, maximum three years. That's when they run out of the B12 and vitamin A that is stored in their livers. And also...

[video] 2:08:03 Okay, but logically speaking, that's an appeal to ignorance. You're not actually providing evidence. You're saying the contrary hasn't been proven, so my point must be true. You don't know that they're going to become deficient of something.

2:08:13 Okay, there's very few vegans... I've got the studies.

[video] 2:08:19 There's very few vegans that last more than five years. Okay, very few. Okay, how many people... 10% of people in America have tried veganism. yeah but that's that's not a great argument i mean there's most people can i finish can i finish sorry yeah go ahead 10 of people in america have tried veganism at any given time two percent of people are vegan and there's a constant flow of new vegans coming in so they're constantly coming in and out They'll go some time and then they start feeling like shit and then they leave unless, for example, they're brainwashed enough to stay or if their livelihood depends on it like with vegan gains. Okay. Milkchar, I could do this with any population of people. Okay. Well, 10% of people go on a diet and they can't follow it and then they gain weight back.

[video] 2:09:15 10% of people go to the gym, they lose a bit of weight, get better, and then they just fall off the wagon and don't go back to the gym. like, again, this isn't really a great argument. There's two problems with that. Wait, wait, wait, this time let me talk. There's two problems with that because in practice, first of all, I'd want to see the numbers for the vegan drop-off rate and just see what it's like. I haven't actually seen the numbers there. And then kind of the more important point in principle is what Richard just said, which is The drop off rate, unless you got some kind of mechanistic explanation of why that drop off rate is caused by some health problem inherent in the diet, that's not actually telling you something bad about the thing that's being dropped off of. So, like, for example, you know, the vast I think maybe not the vast majority, but certainly the majority of people who go and try Brazilian jujitsu drop out before the first few months. Right. It doesn't actually mean that BJJ is not a valid craft. It just means it's hard, you know, and I wouldn't even say veganism is hard. But again, the drop off rate doesn't actually tell you if the thing is inherently good or bad.

[video] 2:10:12 How can you say veganism isn't hard when every time someone stops being a vegan, what you say is you didn't do it right? Why is it so hard to do it right? Eating a lot of meat, they don't have these drop-off rates. where people tell them you're not doing it right. They grow up eating it. The same thing happens with every other diet, literally every other diet. The drop-off rate for low-carb diets, ketogenic diets, it's pretty freaking high. Again, if we're comparing it to any other diet, the dropout rate isn't anything more. I don't have figures on it, but every person I know has gone on a low-carb diet. Okay, another anecdote. Personal anecdotes. Yeah, and the thing is, Milk Jar, you're assuming that because of the drop-off rate, which, again, yeah, you just admitted, like, you don't have the actual numbers for it. That's fine. We don't know what the number is. But you're saying that because of the drop-off... Wait, wait, wait. Just a sec. I gave you the numbers. Wait, wait.

[video] 2:11:10 You gave us the number for the drop-off rate from veganism with a source? I didn't catch that. 10% of people in America have been vegan. Only 2% of people are vegan right now at any given time. Less than 2% of people actually. Okay, so, I mean, there's... Okay, well, just one second. I mean, there's the obvious fact of, like, that number. I just want to know where that comes from. I want to know how they ask people. I know, you know, depending on how you do a survey, people will answer a lot of weird shit. So, I'm not saying that number is wrong. I just, I need a bit of convincing there. But the more important point is that... Wait, wait, wait. But the more important point is that the drop-off rate doesn't tell you anything about the inherent healthiness of the diet. I mean, you can use it as an inductive point. You can be like, maybe this goes towards the general interpretation that there's something wrong with the diet, but that's not actually deductive evidence. It's not actually showing you there's something wrong with the diet itself.

[video] 2:12:09 What it tells you is that there's a very tiny pool of people that you can look at to see what long-term veganism looks like. There's almost no data on it. Milk Jar, if you actually look at Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn's research, the guy I just linked to you where he reversed coronary artery disease… Oh, the research with… Yeah, that didn't have a control group, therefore it's no good. Raise the bar high so I can just dismiss everything. That guy, over 80% of his patients were adherent to his dietary intervention. So what does that tell you? Yeah, that's what he says. No, like that. OK, well, wait, wait, wait, wait. That that's that's also just milk jar. Like that's the kind of unreasonable confirmation bias and like kind of unfairly sort of partisan type of skepticism that you're deploying here. I mean, why? Why are you so skeptical of everything that comes from the vegans? Yet, you know, the Weston A. Price Foundation, it's all good. It's fine. Totally legitimate research.

[video] 2:13:10 Because it's historical evidence going back, you know, at least 100 years.

[video] 2:13:17 What is historical? Sorry, I mean, again, I don't want to get way... All right, let me answer you. Let me answer you. For example, the main gist of Western and Price's research in the Nutrition and Physical Degeneration book was he wanted to find a group of people on Earth that had perfect teeth because he was a dentist. And what he did is... He went around to basically any country he could where he could find primitive people that were living the same exact way that they were living for thousands of years that were living alongside their close genetic relatives that were living on their foods of modern commerce. And his study was very simple. It centered around going to each of these groups and comparing the rates of cavities between the both of them.

[video] 2:14:17 And he compared other things, too. But the main gist of it was comparing the cavity rate. And unfortunately, I didn't bring all the numbers with me. But one of the things you notice is that every single group that was on Foods of Modern Commerce had basically the same rate of cavities, around like 30% or 40% of cavities. And this was across the board, foods of modern commerce, all 30, 40, sometimes 50% of cavities in all of the group's teeth. And for example, with the Eskimos, he examined hundreds of Eskimos. He didn't find one cavity in an Eskimo. I've actually seen some of that research. Okay, so the problem here, I've seen you do this before too. Like I know you had irritable bowel syndrome or something. I had a lot more than that. Yeah, like IBS, other problems. My worst problem was gallstones. Okay. Okay.

[video] 2:15:14 So like, the thing here is you're kind of making an assumption again, like, okay, because a diet seems to be good for this one particular issue. Therefore, it's good for absolutely everything. Okay. What I'm saying is the teeth thing. He documented that. you know, um, immaculately, like, extremely detailed. Right, okay, yeah, like, it is, like, I'll agree, it's great. He has reports on other things as well, but when you look at the teeth, it's, like, so... Right, I don't disagree, like, it's great research, but again, you're kind of making a huge assumption here. Okay, um, a meat-based diet or some sort of traditional kind of human diet is better for dental health, okay? So therefore, it's like this particular diet that these people are following, is it perfect for every aspect of their health? You have to actually demonstrate that. Again, you're just making an assumption.

[video] 2:16:08 Well, with the Eskimos, he also found in looking at – when he was looking at the teeth, he was also looking at cancer specifically as well. And he found that to get the first dental cavity in an Eskimo, it took them actually – Like the first Eskimo that went on the Foods of Modern Commerce, all the first ones, they didn't even get a cavity. But then in the second generation that were born on that diet, they all got cavities. And with cancer, it took them three generations before the first Eskimo got cancer.

[video] 2:16:49 He did a ton of stuff like this. There wasn't one instance he found. He examined hundreds of these people. That's more people than the study you gave me about the heart disease.

[video] 2:17:05 Again, it's a totally different topic, but I'm not going to disagree with you that processed food contributes to cancer, but again, the population with the lowest overall risk of cancer are vegans. There's some cancers like cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, which tends to be a bit higher, and researchers have kind of— Sorry?

[video] 2:17:32 Sorry? Link me the study. Okay, well, I can find a few, but again, like, just because you can find one single benefit of a certain diet, that doesn't mean the diet is entirely beneficial in every aspect. I mean, isn't there, like, one or two things in cigarettes that if you look at in isolation, you could be like, that is good for you? But then you look at the whole picture and it's like, okay, it's obviously not good for you. Like nicotine in cigarettes actually prevents Parkinson's disease. Like nicotine actually does prevent Parkinson's. So cigarettes do have that one benefit of preventing Parkinson's. Therefore, they're healthy, right? So this is why you can't like cherry pick the pieces of data. You have to look at the bigger picture. It's why Richard used a lot of meta-analyses, right? As opposed to these one-off... I'm linking the study in the chat right here, but this actually compared vegetarian diets and incidence of cancer to a low-risk population of meat eaters. This is vegetarian.

[video] 2:18:31 No, it says vegetarian, but it talks about vegans in the study. They separated the two groups. Vegans had the lowest risk of overall cancer, and they had a special protection against female-specific cancer. I'm not sure exactly how many vegans. I haven't read this in a while, but again, this isn't a low-risk population, so actually healthy population of meat eaters compared to vegans and vegetarians, and vegans still had lower overall risk of cancer. Okay. Did the study have a control group? What do you mean a control group? There's meat eaters, vegetarians, and vegans. Are you saying a control group that ate nothing? There were meat eaters in this study? Yeah. There were meat eaters, vegetarians, and vegans. I'm looking for the meat eaters right now. Meat eaters would, I suppose, be the baseline because that's what the vegetarians and vegans are being compared to.

2:19:22 Are you only posting epidemiological studies?

[video] 2:19:26 Well, I could link some mechanistic data if you want.

2:19:33 Because it's just not science, that's the thing.

[video] 2:19:36 Also, before... Wait, wait, why are epidemiological studies not science? And Milk Jar was actually posting epidemiological research as well. That might be true. Sorry? Okay, so either you guys are posting stuff that isn't science, or it is... Well, I actually, like, my heart disease, like the study I just referenced with heart disease, with Cadwell-Esselstyn, that was an intervention study, that wasn't epidemiology.

2:20:04 Okay, that's why I'm asking.

[video] 2:20:06 Sorry, just to be clear, Sferic, what's the problem with epidemiological research?

2:20:11 Because if you're going to say that it's It cannot by definition prove cause and effect, but you talk in a way that it does.

[video] 2:20:21 No, I'm not saying it proves cause and effect. I'm just showing you that vegans actually do in fact have better overall health outcomes, so your statement that vegan diets are nutritionally deficient and horrible for health is just plain untrue.

2:20:35 As far as that goes, there's also been recent studies that vegans have more cancer.

[video] 2:20:40 Okay, like what? I'm not going to disagree. You can find a few where I'm sure there are... And just remember with the cancer stuff also, I mean, I hear Richard making the point that the overall cancer rate is so-and-so for vegans, and then you guys talking, what, about specific types of cancer? So we want to be... clear. I mean, I think we've conceded there might be, you know, specific types of cancers, I don't know about this shit, where, you know, the risk is higher for vegans, but the overall cancer risk, I'm under the impression, is lower for vegans. Okay, can we talk about the study that Vegan Games just sent me? Yeah, sure. Okay, so all of the participants on the you know, non-meat-eater side, even though, you know, in this study they included pescatarians, which is a meat-eater. But this is all coming from the Adventist health studies.

[video] 2:21:40 Okay. So you're comparing a group of people that consume no pesticides, they consume no food additives. No, no, that's not true. They consume pesticides. What are you talking about?

[video] 2:21:55 In Loma Linda? What are you talking about? Organic farming doesn't mean it's pesticide-free. Okay, they consume much less pesticides. They don't consume GMOs. They don't get vaccines. They don't take most harmful medical drugs. Okay, another argument from ignorance. You're basically just making a total assumption here. What's the assumption? their lower rates of cancer are due to all these other factors rather than their diet. Are you honestly saying that not getting vaccines and sticking to mostly organic foods has more of an impact on your health than your actual food choices? Probably almost as much or near there. Okay, and again, if you actually look at cancer risk and things like pesticide exposure and vaccines, there isn't a very significant correlation there.

[video] 2:22:55 Yeah, you can read that Monsanto propaganda. Meanwhile, you go to Argentina.

[video] 2:23:04 And you have, what was it? Like a million people got cancer just because they're spilling pesticides all over the country. But wait, wait, wait, milk chart, milk chart. You can't just call something Monsanto propaganda and then dismiss it. It's not an argument. Why did a million people in Argentina get pesticide poisoning? Wait, wait. Go back to Isaac. Okay, listen. It wasn't a pesticide. It was a herbicide, and they were living so close to it, and they got super high exposure rates. That's why there was a huge... It wasn't just the people living close to it. It was a million people. I don't know about that. I've heard of... It's a million people. Most of them were not even living near farms. I've heard of herbicide exposure in South America. It was Roundup. Yeah, that's a herbicide, not a pesticide. And you understand that most GMOs are made to resist Roundup? Yeah. And you understand that most of the GMO soy and corn isn't for human consumption?

[video] 2:24:05 I mean, it's all pesticides. It's not just Roundup. Pesticide and herbicide are two different things. Both, whatever. Both pesticides and herbicides. They're in all our food, and they cause massive health problems. Okay, wait, wait, but there's also, I mean, if it's in everything, like, you want to compare like with like. You don't want to try to compare some pesticide-free, fleshy diet with a... You're comparing a basically pesticide-free group of people, as well as a vaccine-free group of people, as well as a food additive-free group of people, You're comparing them to the general American population and saying that this means veganism is good. You're completely discounting the harmful effects of chemical exposure. Well, this cancer study I just showed you, these people were all part of the Adventist cult. That's what I'm saying. Exactly. Including the meat eaters. Yeah, they don't know. The general population they compared them to was not from... Yeah, they were.

[video] 2:25:05 It was from the Adventist population. Some of the Adventists do eat meat.

[video] 2:25:13 There goes that, you know, whole control group problem, eh? Okay, like, again, I, like, if, okay, like... There's no indication that the meat eaters were... Okay, like... Were taken from the Adventist Health Study. If you're going to claim... Well, it says right there, participants were taken, 69,000 participants of the Adventist Health Study 2. What are you talking about? Non-vegetarians, lacto, pesco, vegan, and semi-vegetarian compared in the Adventist Health Study. So what do you mean? And how many meat eaters in the study weren't even eating that much meat? Yeah, I mean, I'm sorry if I'm the retarded one here, but, I mean, Milk Jar, you're complaining about us comparing, what, the Adventist to standard American diet, but there is a control in the Adventist study of actual flesh eaters, so you can look at flesh eaters who are on all the pesticide-free whatever shit, and you can look at vegans who are on that same thing?

[video] 2:26:13 I mean, where are these flesh eaters? Like, none of the stores in Loma Linda carry... non-fish meat. But you can't claim, just to be clear, what I'm getting at is you can't say that we're not comparing like... Wait, wait, wait. One second. Hey, hey, hey. One sec. I'm talking. You can't say we're not comparing like with like if we're taking everyone from the Adventist population when making the point. Because that's not comparing Adventist to standard American.

[video] 2:26:51 So what's the decrease between the meat eaters and the vegans and vegetarians? Oh, the risk ratio? Let's see. For overall cancer, the hazard ratio was 0.84, so 16% protection in both genders combined. For female-specific cancers, hazard ratio was 0.66, so that would be 44% protection against female-specific cancers like breast ovarian cancer.

[video] 2:27:22 And lacto-ovo vegetarians appear to be associated with decreased risk of cancers of the gastrointestinal system with a hazard ratio of 0.75, so 25% production. And again, I mentioned before, fermented dairy products in particular have protection against cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

[video] 2:27:42 So like even in a low-risk population— I'm going to have to see the study because what if it was like five people that ate meat that were in this study and 69,000— No, there weren't. How many were there? I'd imagine they tried to make it as equal as possible. Well, don't imagine. Let's see because obviously it's not always as equal as possible. Well, again, I'd imagine there's far fewer vegans in the study compared to meat eaters, but whatever. You can read it later if you want. You know what I think we should do? We should kind of make a final ending statement about our ideas on nutrition, then move on to ethics. Yeah, the chat's going a little hyper just saying, ethics, ethics, ethics, like over and over. Okay.

[video] 2:28:25 Alright, so I guess I'll start. In large-scale epidemiological studies, consistently, vegans have the best overall health outcomes with lower rates of obesity, hypertension, cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes. The, like, large

[video] 2:28:48 Okay, like the American Dietetics Association, largest organization of nutrition professionals on the planet, agree that vegan diets are totally nutritionally adequate for all stages of life. And the only diet that's been proven to reverse coronary artery disease is a whole foods vegan diet. There's just every indication that whole foods vegan diets are nutritionally adequate and have benefits for prevention of chronic disease. So that's my ending statement.

2:29:15 Could we quickly talk about the K2, about the bacteria? Yeah, sure. We can quickly talk about that.

[video] 2:29:21 I don't see a reason not to humor him on that because he's been very quiet. Yeah.

2:29:28 So you said that it's created by the bacteria. Where is it created? Do you understand that?

[video] 2:29:34 Oh, I don't know exactly what part in your intestine that it's created in, like maybe the small intestine or what, I don't know.

2:29:43 That's the important thing because we, just like all other carnivores, don't have bacteria in our stomach, whereas all the ones who eat plants, such as leaves, grass and branches, which humans find disgusting, obviously, because we are not supposed to eat plants. We don't have anything, and also in the small intestine, then in the large intestine, which is very short for us.

[video] 2:30:05 You're talking about a different thing. You're talking about a stomach that, like a second stomach that has bacteria to digest plant matter. I'm not talking about that. There's bacteria in your colon that helps to break down certain foods. Fiber, we can break down fiber to a certain extent and convert it to short-chain fatty acids because of the bacteria in your stomach.

2:30:26 Yeah, but very little, whereas the animals that eat mostly plants they yeah they have a bigger gut and they have a better ability to do that for sure but anyway in the large intestine and that's the thing and then you it out and that's it so the only thing you feed is not yourself but the soil when you go and do your thing in the forest that's the only purpose of it because you don't absorb anything in the large intestine it just goes out of you That's the thing, that's the difference between us and plant eaters because they get it in the stomach and then they get it, they absorb it.

[video] 2:31:06 Okay, well the thing is, it's still true that it's very hard to induce a vitamin K deficiency because we do produce a significant amount in our intestines and it is absorbed. Like the only way to reliably induce a K2 deficiency is by using a heavy dose of antibiotics.

2:31:24 So you're saying that we... absorb nutrients in the large intestine?

[video] 2:31:29 I don't know where K2 is actually produced in your intestinal tract, but it's clear that it is absorbed wherever it does exist.

2:31:39 So that's your belief, based on what?

[video] 2:31:42 Well, based on actual research. Like again, K2 deficiencies are very hard to produce.

2:31:45 But you don't even know where it's produced, so what kind of research was that?

[video] 2:31:50 Well, again, it's from actual studies that could only reliably produce K2 deficiencies using antibiotic treatments. So clearly, it's made in your intestines, and it is absorbed. I just don't know enough about it to know where specifically in your intestine it's going to be absorbed.

2:32:12 Yeah, but that's the problem because we don't absorb any nutrients.

[video] 2:32:15 OK, well, is vitamin K a nutrient of concern for vegans? Of course. It is? OK. And OK. K2. Oh, so K2 specifically? Yeah. Okay, well, the only studies on K2 intake that shows positive findings have only come out of one country. If you look at studies from Germany, K2 intake is actually associated with a greater risk of heart disease. So there's no clear evidence that K2 intake is actually beneficial for prevention against heart disease, because K2 is a fat-soluble vitamin, and most people get it from... animal sources that are very high in saturated fat and cholesterol, which is a risk factor for heart disease, which is why there's mixed findings in these population studies.

2:33:04 Right, but this has nothing to do with science because I can link you to tons of studies that prove that saturated fat even helps against heart disease. Well, you keep saying that.

[video] 2:33:15 Again, can you show me one study where a diet with unsaturated fat reversed coronary artery disease?

2:33:21 Anybody who's watching this also just watch my documentary, The NWO Diet, which is the first ever anti-vegan documentary.

[video] 2:33:28 Oh, I've seen that. It's just a compilation of different talks from quacks and frauds. I've seen that already. They really give no evidence whatsoever.

2:33:36 That's the argument, man.

[video] 2:33:38 Well, it is. They repeat fallacies. They rely on epidemiological research that is by design flawed. It can't find a relation between saturated fat and cholesterol consumption in heart disease because they're studies that are cross-sectional and don't calculate cholesterol levels at baseline. I've talked about this before. It's the only research showing that saturated fat is not a nutrient of concern that doesn't cause heart disease. It's just all flawed research. Yeah, this seems to me like a major, just one sec. This seems to me like a major point because it seems like all of this pro-cholesterol stuff is just by definition engaged in the base rate fallacy where it just doesn't calculate cholesterol at baseline. And you can't actually, if you can't observe a specific trend or you observe a trend that's not there based on whether you take the baseline into consideration or not, and you don't take it into consideration, that's just base rate fallacy.

[video] 2:34:37 So you'd want to find something that controls for cholesterol at baseline and still shows that it's good for you. Sparage, I'd encourage you to make a video about this on your channel and go into detail about all the research that talks about saturated fat. But I think we've kind of exhausted this topic here.

2:34:55 All right. I've made already one. It's pretty detailed, so I will make another one.

[video] 2:35:01 Okay, well, maybe you could... Yeah, I think I actually responded to that one, and you didn't actually link any research, you just made statements and assertions. I'd recommend you just make an updated video where you actually go through the research and link the studies you use, so that I can actually criticize them. But, like, right here in this debate, you don't really have much to go on, and we've kind of exhausted the topic here, so... Unless we have something else to say about K2, I think we should move on to ethics. No, no. Okay, so I guess move on to ethics then? Do you guys have closing statements you want to get in there?

2:35:44 I never really got an answer about the nutrition. As I said, that is the least nutritious diet there is. I never got a response from you.

[video] 2:35:52 Oh, least nutritious diet. Well, again, if veganism is the least nutritious diet, then I don't understand how vegans have much greater health outcomes compared to the standard population.

2:36:05 But you're not giving me an answer. By my definition of looking at the foods, there's 50 nutrients that you can get.

[video] 2:36:13 You're looking at Adventists who have absolutely, you know, basically no harmful chemical consumption. Right, right, again, you're just making total assumptions. And they don't eat refined sugar, which is probably one of the worst things.

2:36:27 Oh, wait a minute, let him answer to what I said. Is it not the least nutritious diet by that definition?

[video] 2:36:35 Like, you can make up whatever definition you want, but, like, really the point I'm making...

2:36:39 It's just a general definition of nutritious food. When you compare diets, you look at the nutrients in the food. You look at the vegan diet, there's over 50 nutrients that is not in the food. So what is there to...

[video] 2:36:52 I have one thing to say there though. I kind of point out what's wrong with that line of reasoning earlier. You can't just measure, you can't just say this food contains more nutrients and is therefore more healthful. You have to actually look at if those nutrients are necessary for health.

2:37:08 So vitamin A, B12, all of that.

[video] 2:37:11 I mean, if you have a food that contains a whole shit ton of some ingredient or nutrient that's not necessary for health, it's not necessarily the most nutritious food.

2:37:21 You require vitamin A to store the protein and the muscles for...

[video] 2:37:26 Yeah, we can talk about vitamin A specifically, but vitamin A, I thought we had already pointed out that you can get vitamin A as a vegan and that the rates of deficiency aren't even higher for vegans.

2:37:39 That is a rule that you can't, and there's no response to it.

[video] 2:37:44 Okay, sorry, let me get just one in there, which is even if you could show studies demonstrating that vegans have higher rates of A deficiency, you can't actually demonstrate that veganism itself is unhealthy because you have a higher rate of something if that higher rate isn't intrinsic to veganism.

[video] 2:38:05 I don't know if this is a good time to maybe shift over towards ethics, if anyone's got anything else to add there. I just like to add that, you know, the Adventists, they actually don't eat refined sugar. That's like part of the diet. I don't know where you're getting this. I find that very hard to believe. Doesn't the Adventist study contain carnists? So if you're comparing kernels... Yeah, but if you're comparing... Yeah, if the sample size is too small, that's fine. I would accept that. But I'm just saying... Which I would assume it would be because they don't have... Well, of course you'd assume that. Richard, do you know offhand...

[video] 2:38:52 Richard, do you know offhand what the sample size on the carnis in the Adventist study is? No, I don't know offhand, but... Well, you should find out before acting like you have some valid information. Like, Milchar, you first claimed that the longest living people in the Adventist population eat fish. Like, fish is meat. Yeah. So now you're saying that's not a significant enough population, so that data is totally bullshit? Well, Richard, it is significant when it goes to his point, but it's not significant when it goes to your point.

2:39:22 Right, exactly.

[video] 2:39:25 You didn't answer my question about... For some reason, they classify fish eaters as non-meat eaters. I don't know why they do that. They should classify the fish eaters as meat eaters. I don't know why they don't do that, and that's very... you know, that really throws a whole wrench. Well, not really. Like, it's just a different term. Like, you can include the pescatarian population as meat eaters. It's not a huge deal. But anyway, Spheridge was asking me about, like, what I consider... Yeah, you never answered.

2:39:55 Yeah, what? About the least nutritious diet there is, if you... The general definition of it, if you look at the food... You have your own definition, like, again, vegans... How else would you define a nutritious diet? You look at the foods, the nutrients in the food, what else is there?

[video] 2:40:11 Okay, well, a lot of the studies I've seen, vegans tend to get more intakes of fiber, antioxidants, vitamin A, which, like, again... Are you saying that fiber is a nutrient? Well, fiber is a necessary part of a healthy diet.

2:40:27 Dr. Yeah, how is that?

[video] 2:40:28 How? Well, it significantly reduces your risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain forms of cancer, so it absolutely is a necessary part of a healthy diet.

2:40:35 Dr. So indigestible plant matter that causes constipation and leaky gut… Well, it doesn't cause constipation. Dr. …is necessary for health?

[video] 2:40:41 No, it doesn't cause constipation. I think what you're doing is you're referencing at least one or two studies I've seen where people with a specific chronic constipation condition eating high fiber or high mass foods, they get constipated. But no, fiber is actually associated with less constipation. Constipation is actually extremely prevalent among the Inuit, people who eat very little to no fiber. And one of the ways they eat constipation-

[video] 2:41:12 No, no, no. One of the ways they relieve constipation is by eating moss out of caribou stomach. Yeah, that's because the caribou pre-digested it. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. They're basically eating shit. Okay, great. Again, fiber is not associated with constipation. When they take it out of the caribou's stomach, there's no fiber in it. The caribou already broke down all the cellulose. Okay.

[video] 2:41:49 And, like, what's your point?

[video] 2:41:54 You're saying that the Eskimos eat fiber from the caribou's stomach to counteract their constipation. Right. Okay. Well, there would be some fiber in there as it's plant matter. No. The cow breaks down or the caribou breaks down all the cellulose. Okay. Well, if it's totally broken down, then there wouldn't be anything. It'd just be gel. It is basically gel. Have you seen what they eat out of the stomach? No, like, anyway, my point is... It's almost... It's like one step away from... Dude, again, there's no association between fiber intake and constipation. Like, the more fiber, the more whole plant foods people eat, the less prevalent constipation is.

2:42:38 The only people who are constipated are the ones who eat a lot of fiber because it's indigestible and you're... Oh, really? I know it from myself when I was vegan.

[video] 2:42:46 Yeah, I was constipated when I... Total anecdotal claim. Again, if you actually... Everybody, like, look, very few people get enough fiber. If you don't eat... Okay, let's just... Is there actually evidence that constipation is higher with vegans? If not, like, why are we even on this?

2:43:07 With vegans, people eat fiber. I'm not sure about vegans.

[video] 2:43:11 Where's the evidence that vegans have higher rate of constipation? Where's the evidence that meat eaters have higher rates of constipation? Did the average American whose diet is 70% vegan... They're, like, 70% vegan. Well, yeah, because if they have constipation, Richard, it's due to the 70% vegan and not the 30% fast-fooder. Or that goes for any disease or problem, obviously. You understand, like, sugar, refined flour, white rice, it's all vegan, but it contains absolutely no fiber.

[video] 2:43:44 Well, the bread they eat has lots of fiber. No, white bread doesn't contain any fiber, or hardly any. It's refined. It's not mostly white, but they eat, like, pasta, they eat... Yeah, and most pasta is white pasta, which has either zero or hardly any fiber. Like, most Americans don't even get the government-recommended amount of fiber.

2:44:05 No, man, it's all grains, it's all fiber.

[video] 2:44:08 No, it's refined. The fiber is taken out.

2:44:12 You can't take out all of it.

[video] 2:44:14 Yeah, it's virtually zero. Like, just look it up on chronometer or something. Look, I'll do it right now. Chronometer... Okay, just name the food. Like what, white bread? So what's the recommended amount of fiber per day?

[video] 2:44:29 I'd say you should shoot for at least 60, but you should try to get about 80 grams of fiber per day. Like everything you eat should have fiber. Okay, so do we have like numbers based on... how much fiber people are eating and how constipated they are.

2:44:49 One slice is two grams of fiber in bread.

[video] 2:44:52 Okay, wait, just a second. Fiber, one point, like, okay, so I looked up white bread on Cronometer. It has 1.4 grams of fiber per two slices of bread. That's like nothing. So, like, white refined bread has virtually no fiber in it. Same with every other refined grain. And they're vegan, but they have no fiber. You have to eat a whole foods plant-based diet to get enough fiber. So yeah, plenty of Americans, 70% of their diet is vegan, but a lot of them are eating white rice, white refined pasta, white bread.

2:45:25 How do you logically explain it? How could that help if you have indigestible plants in your stomach?

[video] 2:45:31 Well, it is partly, okay, well, fiber actually does help your digestion. It helps move food through your stomach. And a lot of the fiber is actually broken down by your gut bacteria into butyrate, which is the short-chain fatty acid. And also fiber helps feed the beneficial bacteria in your stomach as well.

2:45:52 I get all of that. I checked broccoli, and it's 2.6 grams of fiber. It's pretty much the same as bread. There's nothing gone.

[video] 2:45:59 No. If you actually compare either per unit of mass or per calorie, broccoli has a lot more fiber in it.

2:46:08 It would be almost half. Bread would have almost half as much from the source I just checked.

[video] 2:46:16 Like, dude, I don't care. Unless you have evidence that vegans have higher rates of constipation than meat eaters.

2:46:23 I didn't even say that. I just said people who generally eat fiber.

[video] 2:46:26 Maybe we should move on from the fiber and go towards ethics. What do you guys think about what the mod just said? Who wants to stay on nutrition? Who wants to move on to ethics? The chat is saying ethics like crazy right now.

2:46:40 What do you guys want? All I wanted was a response that, by the general definition, it's the least nutritious diet there is, and he doesn't respond to it.

[video] 2:46:49 I responded to that. Saying that something contains more nutrients, therefore it's more healthy, is not that logically sound.

2:46:55 It doesn't make sense. But I didn't ask about health. I said, is it less nutritious? It's the least nutritious diet there is. There is no diet that does has little nutrients because any diet, even a vegetarian diet, already has a lot of those animal nutrients.

[video] 2:47:08 Wait, but can you get the nutrients you require on a vegan diet?

2:47:13 As the studies have proven, no, but that's not even my point. My point is generally taking foods and looking at the nutrition in the foods, a vegan diet is missing over 50 nutrients at least. There's even more.

[video] 2:47:25 Yeah, we still have the best overall health outcomes, so you're basically answering a question that nobody asked.

2:47:29 Whatever you say, but you're not answering the question. Is it not the least nutrition diet there is?

[video] 2:47:33 No, it's not. I think that they've made it pretty clear on the one side, their argument about nutrition is focused on a definition that sits around human health.

[video] 2:47:52 And the healthiest diet for people to eat if you're taking a different approach to your definition there I don't think you're countering their definition in any way other than the linguistic change there So maybe if you guys can think of a concrete disagreement there if not maybe just moving on from this point because we're kind of circling the same stuff as we were doing at the beginning here. I was kind of thinking the same thing, which is if we're continuing with this point of whether which diet is more nutritious or not, we definitely need to talk about what the definition of nutrition is because levels of nutrients contained in the thing, that doesn't actually tell you if it's healthy or not.

2:48:30 I didn't even say that. I asked a simple question. If it's less nutritious, which you cannot eat.

[video] 2:48:35 Wait, wait, wait. Yeah, just define nutritious. What is nutritious to you?

2:48:40 Right. You look at any kind of foods in any diet and you look at the nutrients in the food without putting them in your mouth. And you look at the vegan diet, it's missing 50 nutrients. So the only way you could answer is, yes, it's a nutritious diet.

[video] 2:48:54 Okay, but again, so that's a false line of reasoning, right? Because you're looking at nutrients that aren't essential for health and saying a vegan diet lacks these nutrients. Well, what the fuck does that matter?

2:49:05 So vitamin A, B12, vitamin D, not essential for health?

[video] 2:49:08 Well, no, I think we're talking about things like

2:49:10 what are they like some of those non-essential amino acids like we're talking about those let's talk about b12 right now no wait get vitamin a that's i think i think the group really wants us to move on to ethics here there's uh yeah we really have to move on to ethics we've kind of it's the least there is i just like to say like one last thing one minute is that um

[video] 2:49:34 I found the numbers on this. Five out of six people who give up meat eventually abandon their vegetarian ways. So that's 10% of people have been vegan or vegetarian at one point, and then 2% are that at any given point. That just shows you that there's almost no one told me that. One sixth isn't 10%, but sorry, go ahead. No, no, I said 5 out of 10% of all Americans have been vegan at one point, and only 1 out of 6 of them remain vegan after a few years. Yeah, and as we've said, the drop-off rate doesn't tell you about how effective the diet or anything is. No, it just tells you that you don't even have anyone to look at for long-term studies.

[video] 2:50:29 There's like no one to even look at. Like, yeah, there is. I mean, there are people who have followed a vegan, like, you can even... Oh, man, guys, guys, look at the chat right now. Literally everyone is saying ethics. There's no one who... Why don't one of you guys make an argument that veganism follows from universal human rights? Why don't you set that up a little bit? Yeah, I'll get going on that. I mean, I'm just going to say the same thing that I would always say, which is you can't, you want, you guys want universal human rights. You can't differentiate animals from humans in a way that if true of humans would cause you to reject universal human rights for us. So it's a double standard. What's the reason for denying the logical extension of those rights to animals? Well, first of all, if you do that, you'll have to extend them to plants also because... No, you don't. Why? Why? because plants have been shown to respond to pain, threats to their existence. Okay, so that's intelligence, that's not sentience.

[video] 2:51:28 Computers can do those things. Reacting to chemicals in the environment, that's not actually telling you that the thing has a subjective reality. So what tells you that an animal does? Well, I mean, it has a brain, has a nervous system. It's a good start right there. It's the same thing. It's all electrical stimuli just like a computer does. Okay, well, you understand that humans have a subjective reality, right?

[video] 2:51:53 I understand that. Okay, so you're going to appeal to solipsism. You don't know if any of us are real? I mean, I don't have to do that, but it's just like... Well, I'm just saying by your logic of we can only... I'm the only one who I can deductively establish to be sentient. Everything else is... You can only inductively prove it. That's the whole mind-body... No, I think... Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't cut me off. Hey, hey, hey. Sorry, that's the problem of other minds. You can't deductively prove that any other thing in the universe is sentient. That's the problem of solipsism. That argument would cut against universal human rights, because if you're saying you can deprive animals of rights on that basis, you can also do it to all the humans. You can't prove our sentient deductively also. So that would go towards my argument. Okay, I think that plants have just as much sentience, if not more, than animals do.

[video] 2:52:45 Okay, so do you understand what sentience is? Could you just define that term for me? Well, self-awareness, I guess. Well, it's having a subjective reality, a first-person experience of reality. Okay, so let me ask you this. Are you aware of the experiments with Mr. Baxter? Okay, I'm not sure what specific experiments you're talking about, but see, the thing is, now you're in my wheelhouse, and I'm not going to go down the kind of rabbit hole of talking about a whole ton of little experiments. I'll stick to the main concept that you're getting at, which is intelligence versus sentience, okay? Well, I haven't talked about the experiment that proves... Well, you can try it. You can try, but there's no experiment that... There's no experiment that proves that they are sentient. There's experiments that prove that they are intelligent. If computers possess those qualities, you know, we don't say computers are therefore intelligent because they can react to temperature. We can program them to react to different chemicals or electrical stimuli.

[video] 2:53:44 That doesn't actually demonstrate that they have a subjective reality. That's a completely separate thing. All right. So I'm going to have to go over this study a bit. Mr. Baxter, he was the premier polygraph expert for the entire U.S. government. He actually... set up our government's polygraph program. Could I interject for just one second? I'd really like to just get this whole thing out there. Are you going to let me get the whole thing out there? Yeah, I am. Just so everyone knows, polygraph tests are not considered legitimate, and they're not allowed in court of law in the United States, just so everybody knows. So they're not actually science. Tell us how they show you. Okay, so he just decided one day to hook up a plant to a polygraph and just see how it reacts to, you know, things like such as being, you know, cut or yelled at or any of this other stuff.

[video] 2:54:43 And he found that, you know, just like if you yelled at a human, it would get, you know, a spike on the polygraph. Or if you, you know, if you punched it, the polygraph would spike. you know basically everything was the same and then he took it a little further he he started comparing something else while he was doing the polygraph he was just doing control experiments he had the plant sitting there all alone no one doing anything to it and he noticed that when he when he started eating like some yogurt he Every time he took a bite, the plant's polygraph would spike.

[video] 2:55:29 So what he ended up doing further experiments, one of the experiments he did was he took, well, first thing he did was he had his partner read the Playboy magazine and he would just read it in the same room as the plant. And as soon as he opened it up and his heart rate would spike, the plants would spike along with him. And then he just started doing other experiments. He would have his partner and himself, they would just stand there and they would just imagine the plant on fire. And as soon as he started thinking those thoughts of the plant going on fire, the plant started spiking the same way that it would if you were yelling at it. But the thing is with humans, if you just think nasty thoughts at it like that, there's no reaction. But with the plant there was. And what he did basically culminated

[video] 2:56:23 him doing experiments where he took the brine shrimp, just all these little tiny shrimp, and he had the plants in one room and he had the brine shrimp in another room across his lab. And he set a timer so that an hour after he left his house, the cup of brine shrimp would tip over and the brine shrimp would go into a solution that killed them.

[video] 2:56:53 So he set up the device that would kill the brine shrimp, and he ended up, he drove away for an hour, and then once he was an hour away, just to make sure that nothing he did would interfere with the experiment, he basically, he drove an hour, and then the brine shrimp were killed, and he had the polygraph billing, and when he came back, he noticed that as soon as the shrimp died, there was an incredibly massive polygraph spike, even though they died in a different room. And you've repeated this many times, and it happened each time. Okay, so with what you're talking about there, I mean, a lot of that stuff sounds to me like woo-woo, and I'd be curious to see the actual data. When you're talking about plants responding to thoughts and stuff, I've never seen that conclusively demonstrated. It sounds like bullshit. Milk jar, milk jar, milk jar, don't cut me off.

[video] 2:57:47 And then when you're talking about the things that actually have been proven, like plants responding to electrical stimuli, sound, whatever, that's just intelligence, not sentience. So none of that's an argument for sentience. Everyone should just look into it for themselves. It's been proven that all these reactions... Yeah, milk jar, there's none of that. Okay, first of all, the stuff that you're asserting, I don't see any evidence for it. When you're saying, you know, there's this guy... You don't even know who Baxter is. Yeah, Milk Jar, I don't know who he is. No, no, and... Okay, and do you know... Milk Jar, do you know who Professor Golgamak is? I mean, he did a research, and it shows that veganism is always healthier in all circumstances. It shows plants aren't sentient. You know, like, you don't seem to get how fucking... Sorry, I don't mean to swear. You don't seem to get how a debate works. You can't reference random studies or shit that's not... What are you going to do about it? Let him finish, let him finish. Milk jar. I'm going to point out that that's not a valid argument, okay?

[video] 2:58:41 If you want to talk about things that are actually within the realm of common knowledge, like plants reacting to stimuli, that's intelligence, that's not sentience. And if you want to talk about stuff that's not within the realm of common knowledge, like if you want to talk about plants responding to thoughts, well, I mean, we don't have time to look at fucking studies about plants, like, what do you call that? Like parapsychology or whatever you're looking at? Like that stuff is... Yeah, man, that kind of stuff is woo-woo. There's not actually any evidence that that's true. You don't even know who Baxter is. That's not an argument. We haven't looked into this at all. I actually have. These studies you're talking about with the polygraph test, polygraphs are incredibly sensitive to anything. Literally blowing on them will set the stupid fucking thing off. Planes flying overhead, cell phones, that all sets them off. Mythbusters actually did an episode on this, and they even did an experiment on plants.

[video] 2:59:41 If you separate it in a room where it has no exposure to anything, and you even cut off some cell phone interference and shit, literally nothing happens. You can think about hurting the plant all you fucking want, if it's off in a room where it's actually cut off from even cell phone interference, nothing will fucking happen. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if that's true or not, I mean, I'm just, when you're talking, yeah, Mythbusters, is that another Illuminati, uh, you know, scheme there? Um, Milk Jar, you're claiming that plants... Milk Jar, you're claiming, Milk Jar, you're claiming that plants react to thought. There is not any concrete evidence of that. Now, I'm sure you've got some... I mean, if you believe in Mythbusters, then that's what actually they concluded. that mythbusters has never I'm sure those guys are you know as far as I know actual scientists they're not going to conclude that plants respond to fucking thought because they don't watch the episode Yeah, they didn't conclude that. I've seen that episode.

[video] 3:00:41 The further they isolated the polygraph machine, the less happened. So, again, Milk Jar, your argument here completely fails. Okay, the things that are actually within the common knowledge that are legitimate to make reference to in a debate, that's about plant intelligence, not sentience, doesn't prove they have a subject of reality. The other things, like plants responding to thoughts and having psychic powers, that is stuff you haven't provided any evidence for. So, you can provide some evidence... or we can move on, but that's not a valid argument. Man, you just can't stay quiet while someone talks, eh? Try to be respectful. No, saying, you know, some random person, uh, they believe this is true. He's not a random person. No, no, milk jar. Do you have, do you have concrete evidence? Do you have, like, uh, repeat, okay, do you have, do you have a repeated study? Milk jar. Stop cutting me off. I'm trying to speak, okay? Do you have actual, you know, repeated studies performed by multiple people, a meta-analysis, anything like that, showing that plants respond to thought?

[video] 3:01:38 No, you don't. Bullshit. I think the audience will make their own... You want me to do this for you? You want me to stop everything? You're full of shit. I think the audience will be able to solve that one themselves. I think they will too. Do you even have any evidence that polygraph tests are even effective on humans? You don't. They're not even admissible in court. I didn't say they're effective at telling someone lies or not.

[video] 3:02:08 They're effective at measuring physical responses to stimuli. Well, again, they're incredibly sensitive. You could literally punch over top of a polygraph machine, and it being connected to nothing, and it will actually have spikes. Yeah, and Milk Jar, with you, it's all this random anecdotal shit that we've not had any time to verify, and then honestly, anyone... Milk jar, stop cutting me off. I'm trying to speak, okay? I don't cut off you. I try my best not to. Please be respectful. Okay, so you can't... Milk jar, shut the fuck up. I am talking, okay? So look, as I've said before, okay? The stuff that's within the common knowledge that you made reference to, that's plant intelligence. It's not sentience. The stuff that's outside the common knowledge, I see no evidence for it. So you have zero, you have nothing there. So do you want to provide... Milk jar! Shut the fuck up, I'm talking. Do you want to provide evidence? Milk jar, shut the fuck up, okay?

[video] 3:03:07 So, milk jar, milk jar, shut your fucking mouth, okay? This is so much worse if we let each other finish. Yo, yo, yo, yo, yo. I muted him temporarily, so just go on. Thank you, I appreciate that. Jesus, man, learn to be respectful. I don't have fucking temper of Buddha here. Okay, so as I said, the stuff that you're talking about that falls within the common knowledge. So when you're talking about a plant responding to electricity, plants responding to heat, plants responding to sound or to touch. That, that's all within the common knowledge. That is all evidence of intelligence. We can program those things into computers. That's not evidence of subjective reality. Then the stuff that you're referring to that's outside of the common knowledge, I see zero evidence for it. So you're currently standing on nothing. Do you want to provide something for your argument to stand on or do you want to move on to the next thing? Because there is nothing valid on the table right now. Okay, I think, Milkjar, you can unmute yourself because I'm not seeing any controls to unmute you.

[video] 3:04:05 Can you hear me now? Yeah, I can hear you. Okay, so I'd just like to hash out this whole intelligence versus sentience thing a bit more. Could you please just go over that a little bit more? Yeah, so sentience is subjective experience. Intelligence, I mean, it's got multiple definitions, but you're talking about, you know, responding to data by coming up with some kind of nonstandard response to it. You're talking about deriving knowledge from data. You're talking about responding to stimuli in some way beyond just, you know, what basic natural forces would cause you to do, like gravity and whatnot. So intelligence, you're talking information processing. Sentience, you're talking subjective reality. So fundamentally different things. What's the test for sentience? Okay, so this again goes to the argument from solipsism, right? You can't deductively prove sentience. Sentience is something that you only have inductive evidence for when you're talking about anyone other than yourself, okay?

[video] 3:05:00 So unless you'd accept the argument that we can't deductively prove that other humans are sentient, therefore it's okay to stab them to death, bolt gun them in the head, consume their corpse, you can't apply that to animals without creating a double standard. So as per the proposition of the debate, veganism is consistent with universal human rights. Carnism fundamentally is not. Okay, so what you're saying is that there is no test for sentience.

[video] 3:05:28 Well, I mean, there's not a way to... Do you understand the difference between a deductive and inductive proof? Please elaborate for me. Sure, sure. No problem at all, man. I have no problem respectfully talking about it. You just can't be cutting me off. Sorry to get mad at you. So when you're talking about something that's deductively proven, that's something that, assuming the premises are true, it's proven to 100%. So if we say all men are mortal, milk jar is a man, then milk jar is mortal follows logically. And you... cannot deny that conclusion without rejecting one of the premises when you're talking about something that is inductive proof you're talking about something that's a probabilistic conclusion so if you're saying you know i don't think that humans can jump over you know two meters high or you know three meters high or some because i've never seen another i've never seen a human do that so then you're not that's not actually deductive proof but you're stacking up the total amount of instances of someone jumping and you're saying i've never seen them hit

[video] 3:06:23 over three meters so that seems extremely improbable so again deductive proof concrete conclusion inductive proof probabilistic conclusion so when it comes to plant sentience or sentience of any kind you can only inductively prove sentience outside of yourself the only way the only case where you can deductively prove sentience is yourself that's the problem of other minds that's solipsism and if you're going to appeal to solipsism that will also apply to other humans not just animals or plants Okay, so what are your reasons for concluding that animals have sentience? Well, I mean, they have the essential things we have that we know are vital to our sentience. So they have a brain and a nervous system. In humans, you know if you alter the brain, if you fuck around with the brain, it alters consciousness. If you terminate the brain or damage it critically, then you damage or terminate consciousness critically. So that, it would be pretty strange if the same were not true of animals. So it's a strong inductive basis for assuming they're sentient.

[video] 3:07:22 I would say pretty much as strong as the inductive assumption that other humans are sentient as well. Okay, so you're saying that... And a way to... And I'll add something to that. If you want to make it into an ethical argument, then the thing is, with another human, how many tweaks or changes could you make to that human before you'd feel comfortable saying, well, I'm now comfortable discriminating against that human because I'm... proof enough now that they are not sentient, right? It's certainly not around the point where they still have fucking sense organs and a brain and a nervous system and are running around doing shit and eating food and whatnot like animals are, right? Okay, I'd like to discuss the how much could I tweak them before I'm okay with killing humans, but I just want to talk about... We don't even have to, it's just a little point, but yeah. No, I'd like to talk about that because that's important, but what you were saying with the...

[video] 3:08:16 You're saying so because we can do certain things to an animal's brain that'll modify its behavior, then that means that it's, uh, that's what leads you to believe that they're sentient? No, we just know that human sentience is dependent on brains, so there's no reason to assume the same wouldn't be true in animals.

[video] 3:08:37 So you're going off the assumption that the only possible way for any type of organism to be sentient is by having a brain. Not necessarily. A brain or something equivalent. Like we might be able to create sentient AI eventually by creating something kind of like a computer brain. But yeah, there's no reason to assume that something other than a general brain type organ or system would produce consciousness.

[video] 3:09:06 Like, and again, too, animals sort of have a similar type of behavior to us. Like, they do have a brain and nervous system, and along with that, they can feel fear. Like, well, they can react in a way that is indicative of, like, feeling fear, pain. They can show affection. So they have a lot of similar qualities to us. I mean, plants react to all of those things as well. Oh, really? Right, right. So they can show fear, right? Yeah, they do. When you think about burning them. Okay, well, that's bullshit. That you need evidence for. That's way outside the realm of common knowledge. But when you're talking about actually burning them, plants do react to that, and you can detect a spike if you're measuring electricity in the plant. But that, again, that's intelligence. That's not sentience. And again, to be totally clear, the stuff about psychically causing them to feel fear, there's no evidence for that. Look up Dr. Baxter. Not an argument.

[video] 3:10:06 So do you want to keep going on plant sentience, or have you been trounced enough? Do you want to move on to the next point?

3:10:10 This is also in my documentary, the NWO diet.

[video] 3:10:14 Well, Sverdj, do you want to try to point out why plants are sentient? Because they're not.

3:10:19 No, I'm just saying. I didn't think so. Okay.

[video] 3:10:24 Okay, like, again, even if you could prove that plants have some degree of sentience, are you really going to claim that they are just as or more sentient than any other animal?

[video] 3:10:39 I think they're just as or more sentient. Really? So a flower has the same capacity to have a subjective experience of the world. They can feel fear, pain, anger, love, happiness, sadness. And I'll tell you, Milk Jar, anyone who is into neuroscience or something like this, who's studying that in school, they are laughing at you right now in the chat. I'm just telling you. Because we understand that most of these things are dependent on a brain. You can't do them without a brain. There's a neuroscience that would agree with me. and I'll make a video about that. Yeah, sure. Right. Neuroscientists who argue that plants have a subjective experience. Milk Jar, I'm just saying you didn't know the difference with intelligence and sentience in plants. So you going and saying, well, there's neuroscientists who agree with my definition. One second, man. You're saying, well, okay, well, then you don't comprehend the definition. But you're saying, you know, there's neuroscientists who agree with me when you've demonstrated before that you don't understand the distinction between intelligence and sentience. I bet you're going to reference articles from people talking about intelligence.

[video] 3:11:37 You said yourself there's no specific test for sentience. No, there's no specific test for sentience to deductively prove it, but you can inductively assume it. Yeah, okay, milk jar. You're assuming... Yeah, you inductively assume things. So, for example... Okay, well... Milk jar. Yeah, milk jar. What you're trying right now is extremely silly. We do assume things, and there's things that we know to assume things. Okay, well, watch this then. Milk jar. Are you comfortable with being, you know, murdered, killed, because someone can't deductively prove that you're sentient? Or would you expect them to rely on the inductive evidence? I'm comfortable with defending myself against anyone who wants to murder me. Why would you try that? The thing is, look, we're all humans here. We can think, and we're not just logic robots. Milk Jar, you do not want to live in a world where people can just fucking murder each other. You don't want to go into a court... Okay, you want to live in a world where murder is legal?

[video] 3:12:37 yeah okay so you don't believe in universal human rights point proven what the fuck do you want from me man yeah i don't believe in universal human rights it's all man-made i believe in uh okay so i should be able to kill you and okay now and to be to me and to be really specific the debate wasn't about whether you believe in universal human rights it's whether veganism follows logically from them which you haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary there but if you're rejecting universal human rights and saying that you don't think that we need protections around things like murder, I would personally suggest to the audience watching this right now that you are so profoundly ethically confused. If you think that, that you shouldn't be taken seriously. So, you know, I'm like in the same way that I'm not going to, I don't really, if I talk to a flesh eater, want to start by talking to them about insects or talking to them about medical research, some kind of context where exploitation could maybe be justified or, or where the anthropomorphic gap is so large that it's hard to empathize with the creature in question.

[video] 3:13:35 You know, for the same reason, it's like, why the fuck am I talking to you about whether a cow should have a right if you don't even think humans should have rights? Yeah, Milkshirt, like, I also want to add, you know, usually when we, like, you're going down this rabbit hole of, like, ethics don't really exist, it's a man-made concept. Like, I normally only see this sort of talk when it's about meat and diet, right? Like, if somebody were to start talking about pedophilia and, like, men raping five-year-old girls, would you start talking about, like, you know, ethics don't really exist. It's a man-made concept. Like, is that what you... He might. What do you think there? Yeah. Um... Is that okay? There's a few interesting things about that. For example, I think it's pretty straightforward. Can I talk? Yes, sorry about that. Go ahead.

[video] 3:14:28 I just like to look at two populations that practice something you could call pedophilia. I mean, I would call it pedophilia. But for example, I live in New York. Sure. If I go two miles that way, on any given morning, there is a child that was recently born that's being offered up to a man to have his genitals mutilated and have his blood sucked out. That's fucked. Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. Ritualistic circumcision is totally fucked up. Should I... Yeah, so that's pedophilia on top of ritual mutilation. It's weird, because, I mean, whether it falls into pedophilia, it's like... It's pedophilia. They're sucking a baby's dick. I know. It's totally morally wrong. It's just the technical definition of pedophilia. It's sexual attraction to children. That's not necessarily pedophilia. It's just a weird... I know. They could say they're doing it for some kind of health or some reason like that.

[video] 3:15:28 They're not actually attracted to the kid. But it's still fucked. Whatever. I don't support it. So what are you saying from that? I think it's incredibly disgusting. Yeah, for sure. If anyone did that to one of my family members, I'd be... I'd be very upset. I might get violent.

[video] 3:15:52 But when they're doing it, if they don't want to do it to me, I just leave them alone because it's none of my business. When it becomes my business, I'll retaliate because I'm not in the business of telling people how to live their lives. And an even more interesting population to look at with this stuff is the Australian Aborigines. Primitively, you know, they practiced even more horrifying things like all of the boys, you know, all of them would get like literally fucked and they would practice this thing called subincision where they take little boys penises and they split them down the middle from the bottom and then they treat it like a vagina and the older men would fuck the wound that they made in their penis, and they'd have, like, a double penis. Yeah, that's insanely fucked up. It's like primitive transgenderism. No, I'm just kidding. So what are you saying? Are you saying, therefore, those things are ethical?

[video] 3:16:49 So they've been doing that for a long time, and then the, you know, the colonists came, and they, you know, they took over, and supposedly, you know, they tried to change all that, but, you know, they're still doing it. and you know I look at pictures of and like writings about like the primitive Australian Aborigines and it's just been like it's like very clear from the historical evidence that they're among the happiest and healthiest people on earth when they were primitive now they're still practicing all the pedophilia and they're you know They have some of the worst health of anyone on earth. They're alcoholics. They're smoking crack. They're huffing gas. They're sniffing glue. They're doing all this stuff.

[video] 3:17:45 And you have this system of laws that comes in and says, you're doing something wrong. And for me, it is wrong. And I would never have something like that occur. But I don't believe in going into, you know,

[video] 3:17:58 a continent, for example, or anything else like that that has nothing to do with me. Uh, yep. Okay. Okay. There's... Do you want to go? You can go. Well, yeah, there's two things here. Like, you're kind of... Yeah. You're talking about, like, the right of a nation to have some sort of sovereignty. Yes, yeah. And you're also talking about, like, individual rights as if they're kind of the same thing. Yeah, I don't believe in individual rights. Okay, wait, wait. I want to get something in here, which is... Okay, one second, Milk Jar. We can talk about whether it's legitimate to implement laws in other countries and the kind of pragmatic challenges involved in doing that. That's one thing. But the actual proposition of the debate is whether veganism follows from universal human rights. And regardless of whether you want to implement it or we can talk about all that, it still follows. So... Do you have an argument against the notion that it follows?

[video] 3:18:55 Well, my argument was the plants thing, and we're already done with that. We don't have to keep talking about that. So you would say outside of that, you have no argument that veganism doesn't follow from universal human rights? Well, I just think that humans are just distinctly... you know, I personally, for me, it's like, uh, and I think, you know, that's how most people really are regardless of how they talk about. It's like the more something is like them, the less problem they have with, um, Okay, wait, wait, wait, milk jar. Yeah, but now you're talking descriptively about who people have the easiest time, you know, empathizing with or extending their morality to. I mean, sure, I'll acknowledge that. Even sometimes, like, you can make an argument that it's easier to extend morality to people within your race than without your race.

[video] 3:19:53 That doesn't actually, it's not actually an argument for not extending morality to people outside of your race or outside of your species or whatever, right? You're just talking about descriptively how difficult it is to do so. No, I think they shouldn't do it. No, I think they shouldn't do it at all, because animals don't do it. They have no problem eating another animal alive. Sir, you think they shouldn't do what? I didn't follow you right there. Like have any problem with, you know, killing something outside of themselves, because animals have no problem doing it. And they're happy overall. They might get killed by a rival tribe member, but people now, they're not happy. People now are miserable because they're not in tune with what they're supposed to be. I'm not going to attribute happiness differences between people in primitive cultures and developed world to the level of pedophilia or something, if that's what you're getting at. But...

[video] 3:20:54 What I'm confused with here is, you know, the proposition of the debate, at least the ethics part, is veganism follows from universal human rights. So do you have an argument against that, or is your only argument that plants are also sentient, so you should extend rights to plants? Yes. That's your only argument? Yes. Okay, so I would say until you actually present concrete evidence that a plant is sentient, you've got nothing. I told you guys where to look. I'll make a video about it. And that's all about all I can do right now. Okay. All right. What about you? We can either move on or just keep talking about how I don't have proof. Well, no, no, that's fine. That's fair enough for me. I mean, if you're saying I have no argument against the proposition that veganism follows from universal human rights. I told you what my argument is. I'm going to say that. I'm going to include that. You didn't listen to my whole sentence. Just try to control your brain. Don't be so antsy to jump in, you know?

[video] 3:21:52 So, if you're saying, I don't have any argument against the proposition that veganism follows from universal human rights, except for this plant sentience idea, which I don't have evidence for that I can actually demonstrate right here, then, you know, fair enough, but you haven't won the debate. So, Sveric, do you disagree with that? Well, I mean, clearly you do if you're taking the con side. What's your argument? Do you have any kind of valid reason for thinking that universal human rights shouldn't extend to animals? Could you define that? Well, I mean, let's just start with basics, okay? So you, obviously, you don't think murder's okay. You want to live in a society where you can't murder other humans, surely, right?

3:22:28 I find this whole thing ridiculous because the only thing I'm hearing is the same way Christians talk about Jesus. You're talking about the stuff that you have learned.

[video] 3:22:37 Okay, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Sferage, comparing it to religion isn't an argument. So I asked you a specific question, and I'd like an answer.

3:22:44 Well, veganism is a religion, so it's not a comparison.

[video] 3:22:46 Okay, okay, wait, wait, wait. You should answer the question. Will you take a stand in favor of human rights? Well, yeah, and to... well, just to be specific, like, the mod's trying to get you to answer, so we're all noticing you're not answering right now. You're talking about religion. That's a separate thing. So, Sparage, let me just ask you again and get a clear answer. Okay. So, you are against murder. You want to live in a society where we have laws in place to prevent murder, correct?

3:23:11 Are you talking about murder as in what...

[video] 3:23:14 Right now, we're just talking humans.

[video] 3:23:19 I mean, seriously, why are you even having to think about this? You want to live in a world where I can just walk into your house and just fucking stab you? Probably you want anti-murder laws, don't you? I want to live in a world where we have strong tribes. Milk jar, milk jar. We're asking Sparage right now. You've talked a shitload, man.

3:23:34 No, I don't.

[video] 3:23:35 He's been polite and quiet.

3:23:36 I'm all for nature. Killing is the most natural thing there is, so no.

[video] 3:23:42 Okay, so I would just point out that there's, like, I don't mean to be rude, but a level of stupidity on both of your parts for entering a debate where you're defending the con side of a proposition that veganism follows from universal human rights, and neither of you believe in universal human rights. So why you entered that debate, I have no idea. I already defended it. I only want to talk about terrorism anyway. Well, no, Jerry, you defended it. Well, Milk Jar, you defended it without evidence, but for Sparage, you're saying... Okay, okay, okay, Milk Jar. I'm sure a ton of people are going to just destroy that. So, Sparage, you're saying you would be for abolishing anti-murder laws, just to be clear?

[video] 3:24:26 It's not that simple. Well, it really is. Are you for the anti-murder laws or not? Do you want them removed or do you want them in place?

3:24:35 If I had a family, of course we would not murder each other because it's the family.

[video] 3:24:39 No, no, but we're not talking about your family, Sverdj. I'm sorry to jump in, but you keep going off point, so I'm going to redirect you. Do you want those laws in place or not?

3:24:50 You got to define what exactly would happen then.

[video] 3:24:53 A law saying... Yeah, sure, sure, sure. So an anti-murder law, just a law saying that you can't, you know, randomly go and kill someone for no justifiable reason. And please don't push to the cases where it's justified. Like, what about self-defense? And what about, you know, this kind of tricky situation we're talking? It's flat out murdering someone. You want a law in place where that is not allowed, surely, right?

3:25:13 That's the thing, randomly. Like, nobody actually... Are you talking about an accident? Because nobody just kills randomly.

[video] 3:25:21 See, man, that's literally exactly what I told you not to do. I mean, you're pushing to cases where it might be just... Well, how can you tell me what I shouldn't do? Well, because... Milk jar, because I'm trying... Sorry, Sveric, because I'm trying to get you to follow what I'm actually saying right here. So... Look, you can't talk about... When you start talking about the... When I ask you, do you want anti-murder laws, and you respond by talking about cases where it might be justified to kill another person, like self-defense, you're not staying on point. Because, like, we're gonna agree, generally, I would assume, that self-defense is a legitimate reason to kill someone. And we can find cases like war, like situations where it is legit to kill other humans. We're not pacifists, we understand those situations exist. But that is a red herring. You're diverting from the point of whether you support a general law banning murder. That's what I'm asking you. Do you support that or not?

3:26:08 It's hard to answer because what I support is nature. And if I had a tribe, we may fight other tribes and we would kill each other.

[video] 3:26:16 We're not talking about if you... Well, no, not quite. That's fair. We're talking about not in a world where if you had a tribe. We're talking... Where do you live right now? Where are you? Germany. Germany, okay, cool. So do you want the German government to pass a law saying it's fine to murder each other?

3:26:34 Randomly, just like that, for no reason, but nobody does it anyway.

[video] 3:26:38 Okay, but that's another red herring. We're not talking about who does that. There are people who would do it if you legalized it. Do you want that law passed or not? I think you know you don't, but I think you know what's coming if you say you want that law there. It's going to lead to veganism. So do you want that law there or not?

[video] 3:26:56 I think what he's trying to say is that, you know, we're in a certain society right now, but we believe in nature. We want society to cease to exist. Now, okay, now, look, milk jar, we can, we can, Richard, just calm down. Okay, look, we are, we can talk about nature and we can talk about whether nature is a justification, but that's a separate point. So you guys need to stay on point with what's being asked. Right now I'm asking, In this society, right here, do you support anti-murder laws or not? The fact that it's this hard to get an answer suggests that you kind of know what's coming if you answer. I support nothing in this society. Yeah, that's the thing. We're not talking to you. I'm talking to Sferage. Okay, so Sferage, just to be clear, you just said you don't support it. Yeah, I don't support it at all. Okay, so just to be clear, you would, if the German government wants to abolish the laws stopping people from murdering each other, you'd be for that? That's fine.

3:27:52 Actually, yeah, because then the society would collapse, so actually that would be awesome.

[video] 3:27:57 Okay, well, I mean, if you're for just murdering each other, then again, I don't know why I would talk to you about cows, because you don't even understand why humans should have rights. So, again, with both of you, it's like...

3:28:08 It's not about understanding, it's simply a religious belief. There's nothing to understand.

[video] 3:28:11 Okay, well, the thing is... Wait, wait, wait, one sec. It's just, we can go down these roads now, if you want, of whether what's natural is what's good, and whether veganism is a religion, but I would just point out, you both didn't do any good at defending against the actual proposition of the debate, Yeah, you can say that all you want, it's not going to make it true. Okay, and Milk Jar, you... Well, I'm sorry, but if you're saying, you know, I haven't seen any reason from you guys why we should not extend rights to animals in cases where it's legitimate to do so. Yeah, that's because your religion is preventing you from seeing the obvious that plants and animals are both sentient. Oh, my Lord. Okay, well, again, man, you keep appealing to something that you can't actually demonstrate. Milk jar, do you honestly think it's only vegans who think plants aren't sentient? You really think the majority of meat eaters think plants are as sentient as animals?

[video] 3:29:06 Well, and the other thing here is that, milk jar, your argument breaks down into absurdity also, because the evidence for plant sentience, it's no greater than the evidence for rock sentience. I've made this point before. Yes, it is. Rocks don't respond to polygraph tests. Yeah, they can. Rocks, rocks don't... Rocks, they can. Like, again, milk jar, get a poly... Show me a rock responding to that. Get a polygraph machine, connect it to a rock, do the same stupid experiments that that dude did on a plant. You will see a polygraph. And I would just say that, look, Milk Jar, the reason we moved on from the plant thing is because you can't provide valid evidence for it, and it's way out of the common knowledge. So for you to drop that, that's like, man, man, man. Man, you gotta... Why don't you just... Why can't you just wait your turn? Why can't you just wait your turn? Why can't you just wait your turn? Why can't... Milk Jar, just... Milk Jar, you can't talk over the mod. Milk Jar. Ration Alligator, can you just mute him when he does that?

[video] 3:30:10 I don't think I have muting powers. I can mute him, but... Yeah, I mean, if Ration Alligator says mute him, just please mute him, because he talks over people like crazy. So, again, back to what I'm saying. If you want, we can move on to whether what's natural is what's good. You're going to get hammered on that. You've got no chance of winning that argument. We can talk about... Okay, we can. Well, just calm your shit, man. Your brain is like a little ADD child. Then we can also talk about whether veganism is a religion, another point you're going to get mangled on. But the more important thing, which is the proposition of the debate, which is that veganism follows logically from universal human rights, I have not heard a valid counter-argument to that. So, you know, I'm waiting. Didn't we already agree that we went over this and we're done with it, with the plant sent in? Well, yeah, yeah, and you did not make your point. We made ours. Okay, you can say, all right. Yeah. All right, okay, fine. Correct, correct. Thank you. You know what? What I find especially weird about this...

[video] 3:31:06 is like, Milk Jar, you made a video, I think you sort of responded to me about the anti-natalism and vasectomy thing. Like, it's strange, you kept talking about how I'm anti-human and you're the one saying humans shouldn't have any rights at all and we should just be able to murder each other at our own discretion. Like, I just find that somewhat... I want all concepts of legalism in my world we would be living the same way we were living before money existed. That's what I want. So just to give us some direction right now, do you guys want to try to actually defend the debate proposition or do you want to move into whether nature... We're done with it. Okay, so I'm asking Sparage also, do you want to try to defend the actual debate proposition or do you guys want to move on to this? We can talk about nature and evolution or what was it, whether it's natural and whether it's a religion. Those were the other two you mentioned. Do you want to go on to those or not?

3:32:05 that veganism follows man-made rights? That's already clear.

[video] 3:32:08 No, no, that's... Whoa, whoa, whoa. Sverdj, the fact that you just summed the argument up as that shows that you have no comprehension of what's being said. The argument isn't that veganism follows man-made rights. The argument is that veganism follows logically from universal human rights. What's the difference universal human rights? Well, when you say veganism follows man-made rights, it sounds like what you're saying there is veganism is a subjective human belief system, right? Of course. Yeah, okay, so that's a separate point. When you're talking about whether something follows logically from something else, you're not talking ontology, you're not talking meta-ethics, you're not talking about... the state in which that right exists. You're talking about whether it follows logically from other rights that you've already accepted. But in your case, you don't accept them. So I don't know why you even tried to defend this proposition, because you're not for anti-murder laws. Yeah, right. So I don't know. Do you guys want to stay on it, or do you want to move on to... We can talk about nature. If you want to try that, that's going to be a death...

3:33:06 I wanted to just add one little thing about the plans. They also... react to sound, they hear when there's worms that want to eat them, they release chemicals to kill the worms. It's also been proven in experiments. Right, okay, well, I wouldn't debate that.

[video] 3:33:21 They also can sense, you know, a bug flying around, and they can, like, move in its direction to eat it. Right, like, you're talking about intelligence, not sentience. Okay. Like, I mean, I could, like, a calculator responds to external stimuli, too. Is a calculator sentient?

3:33:38 Mm-hmm. My point is that those are living organisms. They're alive and they live just like any animal. They eat and they protect themselves.

[video] 3:33:49 Right. It's micro animals. And do we believe in bacteria rights? Hey, ask yourself, do you own a fedora? I don't own a fedora. I don't understand how that's relevant. I mean, it's just an internet meme. Yeah, I mean, like implying someone like, oh, you're like fedora wearing internet atheist. It's not an argument, obviously. So let's talk about the nature because you guys aren't taking a direction. So you said that what's ethical is what's natural. So when you say... Why are you talking over him there? Are we agreed on some kind of argument? I think we've kind of gone off the rails here since you guys have kind of abandoned the initial statement here you were for. We're done with it. You want to keep talking about it? Well, no, I just want to clarify. You just want to clarify over and over again that I have no... Yo, Richard, just mute him when he talks over the mod. Okay. Well, okay. Fair enough. I think it's pretty fair to say they're not defending that anymore. Do you guys want to move on to talk about these other issues? Yeah, sure. I'd be down, sure.

[video] 3:34:49 Okay, okay. So what would you guys like to do? Do you want to start with whether veganism is a religion or do you want to move on to what was the other? Whether what's natural is what is good. Let's do nature. I mean, hold on. I'd like to first discuss... We got one vote for nature. What do you want, Milk Jar? You want nature or you want religion? My vote is nature. But before we start discussing if what's natural is good, I would like to first discuss if... if it's natural for humans to not eat meat in the first place. Okay, I'm going to ask the mod that we cannot go down that road. I don't know. That sounds to me like another direction that we don't need to go in. I think that's kind of included in the natural discussion. I think you're trying to form an argument that

[video] 3:35:40 veganism is bad because it's not natural which will come out in the other discussion so okay yeah because if we disprove that what's natural is what's good then it doesn't matter which diet is natural or not so so that would like just fall by the wayside once we discuss the point of whether natural equals good okay so we're gonna have to um argue if what's... We're going to have to assume that eating meat is what's natural for humans when we're discussing if what's natural is good, because otherwise the discussion is irrelevant. We don't have to assume that. We can just determine if what's natural is what's good. I think you're trying... To be clear, we're talking about what's natural in a general sense, right? We're not just talking about natural diet here. You're making an argument that being natural is an indication of... of being good and vice versa. Okay. I would have really liked, I would have really milk jar milk jar. That was a question to you from the question. I'm just trying to understand what you're arguing. Is that, is that correct?

[video] 3:36:38 Did I summarize like we are, are we talking, are you making this argument in a general sense that saying something is natural makes a statement towards it being good or bad? Or are you saying just diet? Because if you're going to just bring up evidence about diet, you're not proving the general point at all. You're not even addressing it. Yes, and if you're focusing, if you're saying what's natural is what's good only in terms of diet, then we need to talk about another question, which is whether special pleading is a legitimate form of reasoning. What's special pleading? That's where you say that a rule applies only in one context and you don't map it out to others, even if it creates a contradiction to not do so. Okay, so what I'd say to that is that I would rather talk about I think it would be important for people to hear the arguments about whether or not humans are meant to not eat meat. Because that's like a big thing that's discussed generally. Underlying is the general claim. Are you making the general claim?

[video] 3:37:38 Because you're going to turn around and just make, I think you're going to make the general, that's worth discussing, the natural good, like that entire thing. So are you willing to stand by that as a general claim? Or are you just putting this in the context of eating diets and things like that? I mean, I am willing to stand by that, but I think it's more important for us to argue whether or not it's natural. Why don't we argue? Why don't you guys talk about the general structure there first, and then you can zoom right in on the details and talk about... Obviously, the context is veganism. You want to get into that, but let's get the general point out because that is important. Yeah, because the thing is, if we disprove that what's natural is what's good, then all the time you spend trying to prove that flesh diet is natural, it wouldn't even matter because it's like if what's natural isn't good, then it doesn't matter what's natural.

[video] 3:38:32 So, I mean, I would just start out by making the extremely obvious point that there are things that are natural that are, you know, good and fine and enjoyable, like eating food or having sex or, you know, laughter or something like this. And there's things that are natural that really suck. Like if you want to talk about, you know, deadly viruses or bacteria, or if you want to talk about I don't know, rape or xenophobia. I mean, there's tons of natural things that are good. There's tons of natural things that are bad. So the fact that something's natural, it doesn't tell you whether the thing in question is good or bad. And to be clear, it's not a fallacy fallacy because no one's saying because it's natural or it's not or because you use the appeal to nature, therefore you are or aren't right or wrong about it being good or bad. We're just saying that specific line of reasoning is fallacious. Can you define good and bad? Well, I mean, we can get into a meta-ethical discussion about what is the nature of good, what is bad. Well, I'm answering you, Sviraj.

[video] 3:39:29 We can get into a big discussion about the nature of that, but I think any reasonable person would say that for the purpose of this conversation, which is about nature, we just need to operate on on a basic definition of good and bad like good is is just what makes us feel positive what makes our societies function what makes us yeah and bad is like what's yeah yeah like that's all we're needing right now so there's things in nature that are good there's things that are bad so the fact that something's natural doesn't tell you if it's good or bad and i feel pretty like stupid here having to explain the most basic fallacy in the book as if it's a like intellectual debate it's not so do you believe that there is a general good and bad All right, hold on. I'm going to take a piss. I'm going to be gone for about 30 seconds. Yeah, sure. That's a fast piss. Yeah, so what did you ask? Do I believe in a general good or bad? I don't understand the question. Can you refine it a little?

3:40:20 Something that you could say generally that's bad or generally that's good.

[video] 3:40:25 There's things that you can say are generally good or generally bad. Like murdering someone is generally bad, but there are specific instances where it's legitimate.

3:40:35 So it's not generally. So sometimes it's good.

[video] 3:40:38 Well, you're not talking about generally. It is still generally. You're talking about categorically, whether it is always good or always bad. There are things that can be usually good or usually bad. That's general. That does exist. That's true with murder. But categorically means always in all situations. And no, I don't think there's, there might be some like axiomatically evil things that you could say are categorically wrong, but that's, I mean, most things generally right or wrong is appropriate.

3:41:03 Right, but how could you say that it's generally like that if somebody wants to murder somebody and they, of course, get the pleasure out of it because maybe they want vengeance? How could we say that it's bad? Well, if you believe it's bad, but it's good for the murderer.

[video] 3:41:23 Well, this is the whole thing about my argument, is I don't base my reasoning on objective morality, on contending that murder is objectively bad or objectively good. I just say most people don't want murder, and if you don't want murder, then it's going to follow logically from that that you should extend that to animals. But you don't seem to be against murder to begin with. But the question we're on is nature right now. So we're saying, does the fact that something's natural make it good? You guys have said yes. And there's things in nature that we can say are pretty clearly generally bad. And I think you'd have to agree. Viruses are not good. They're not good for you. Rape, it's not good. It's not something that most people would say that's what we want our society to be like, right? See, I'm saying society isn't natural. Well, Milk Jar, let him respond. We were talking to Sparage. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you were... I just got back, so... It's all good. No worries. So what's your point now? Well, you guys have said what's natural is what's good.

[video] 3:42:22 And I'm pointing out there's things that are natural that are clearly not good and things that are natural that clearly are good. So you can play semantics with the definition of good or bad, but however you want to define it, unless you pick some radically fucked up definition of good or bad, then yeah, I mean, what's natural doesn't tell you what's good or what's bad.

3:42:40 How I define good and bad is what I welcome, what I don't welcome, but

[video] 3:42:45 again that if there's a rapist of course he will get the pleasure out of it because for whatever reason and that will be good for him so there is no example of a general good and bad okay but no no you just you just did the exact kind of fallacious thing that i'm talking about which is you're going to you're going to meta ethics you're starting to talk about the nature of right and wrong you're talking about how can you say that something is is like generally good or generally bad when people have different views of morality. We're not talking about that. We're talking about what follows logically from your view of morality. But when we're talking, so when we're talking about nature, we're not talking about, you know, are there people out there who think, you know, something natural like rape is good? Okay, well, therefore it's good in that context. I think rape is good. Do you actually think rape is good? Outside of society, yes. Okay, here's the thing. You have to put ethics into a social context because outside of a social context, ethics don't really exist. It's in a social context.

[video] 3:43:46 Sorry? I am putting it in a social context. Wait, wait. Outside of society. Outside of society, I'm talking about post-money society. But let's just keep it right on the point, which is whether what's natural is what's good.

[video] 3:44:04 I'm just curious if you guys will bite the bullet on every natural thing being good, because that's where we're going to have to go now. Okay, so viruses are good. Yes, viruses. Parasites. Let's just keep going. Parasites are good. Xenophobia, that's a good thing. Racism. Okay. In a free society...

[video] 3:44:25 Sparage, do you agree with him? We're not talking about that, we're talking about now. Sparage, do you agree with what he's saying? Is rape good? Is murder good? Are, you know, viruses good?

3:44:36 Everything, there is no good and bad, that's the thing. There's only, in nature, generally everything is, and then humans make up their own ratings for it, so in nature, there is no, these are our own perceptions of it. But when it comes to it comes to parasites most parasites are symbionts meaning that they live in harmony with the body so they feed off of the toxic things and viruses are actually can actually also help hey hey is there is there such thing as a parasite that you would not want inside you let's not talk about ones that might have a benefit are there is there such thing as a parasite that you would not want to get for a virus and really a lot of stuff that humans don't want

[video] 3:45:15 Okay, okay, wait, wait, because I'm not going to let you go to the, it can't be objectively good or bad, meta-ethics kind of stuff right there. You are personally saying that you don't want to get certain parasites, right?

3:45:30 As far as parasites go, I don't mind because from what I've found... Okay, but let's talk...

[video] 3:45:35 Okay, well, let's talk viruses. Are there some viruses that occur in nature that you would not want?

3:45:40 No, I couldn't name any.

[video] 3:45:42 I mean, diseases like, I don't know, there's like, what about like malaria or like smallpox? Like, are those things that you would like to have or not? Yeah, I would like to avoid that, yeah. okay okay okay so that's something natural wait wait milk jar milk jar so that's something natural there's i'm sure there's other viruses and bacteria that you wouldn't want to have that's something natural that's not good okay yeah so and then can we also name something natural that is like you you i'm sure you don't think sex is bad i'm sure you think sex is fine surely you sell a bit or anything i don't i don't generally i'm not saying that What do you mean, generally or for me? Well, I'm saying generally for you. I'm not going to try to get you to make a categorical statement, but I'm saying for you. I mean, you generally are agreeing there's some fucking viruses and diseases you don't want to get that are natural. And you're also, if I push you enough, I'm sure you're going to agree that there are some natural things that you do think are good because that's your whole fucking argument. I mean, you think eating meat's natural and you think that's good. Let's just assume it's natural.

[video] 3:46:41 You agree that's a good thing, right? Smallpox doesn't exist in nature. Yeah, okay, okay. So we have milk jar, milk jar. You gotta just stop. Man, you're brutal. So, Sverdj, there you go right there. That's, you're contradicting yourself because you're saying some natural things are good and some natural things are bad, yet nature itself can tell you whether something's good or bad. So that, that's a contradiction. That doesn't make sense. No, how am I saying that? Well, I mean, you've said that some things in nature are bad, like some viruses, some bacteria, correct?

3:47:12 No, no, I'm not saying that they are... Okay, now you're changing.

[video] 3:47:16 I'm saying that... No, we're not talking about in nature. We're not talking about outside of your experience. We're talking about you personally, Sverdj. You just said in nature.

3:47:24 Don't say it.

[video] 3:47:26 No, no, okay, but Sverdj, things that occur in nature. We're not talking about whether from an objective frame, whether from a God frame it's good or bad. We're talking about in... you personally will say that some natural things you are down with, you think they're good, you personally think they're good, and there's some natural things that you personally think are bad, correct?

3:47:45 Yes, humans welcome some things, and then exactly the same things some other animals do welcome.

[video] 3:47:52 Totally, totally. So, if nature, if things that are natural can, in your opinion, be good or bad, then saying that something's natural does not tell you whether it's good or bad.

3:48:02 Right, but I'm not saying that. In nature, everything is... Okay, okay, wait.

[video] 3:48:07 Okay, wait, wait. If you're saying that... Okay, so you agree that something being natural does not tell you if it's good or bad.

[video] 3:48:14 It simply is. I don't... Okay, but I just want a yes or a no, man. Do you agree that saying something is natural does not tell you whether it's good or bad?

[video] 3:48:30 I'd just like to state that I'm coming from a totally different perspective than he is with this. That's okay. You can talk to him about it, but then don't assume that... Yeah, sure. We got you. We got you, Milk Jar. Let's just let Sparage answer. He's not representing you. Yeah, we got you. So, Sparage, you agree... Some natural things are good. You agree some natural things are bad. So you can't say that the fact that something's natural tells you whether it's good or bad because you just said the opposite.

3:48:57 Right, but I don't because everything simply is everything natural.

[video] 3:49:01 Okay, okay. And even if you want to make that move, Sviraj, which I think is an illegitimate move, but if you want to say, Morality doesn't exist. You know, it's just some construct. Everything just is. You can't tell whether it's good or bad. It has no innate characteristic. That still points out that the appeal to nature is fallacious because that denies that good even exists. So obviously, what's natural can't tell you what's good or bad if good doesn't even exist. So even your own argument doesn't go for what you're saying.

3:49:28 Your good is a human perception.

[video] 3:49:32 I covered that, okay? So again, if you want to say that all good, all morality is just completely subjective and there's no way to say that anything is good or bad, then the fact that something's natural doesn't tell you if it's good or bad. So that still proves my point.

3:49:52 I'm not really sure what you're saying.

[video] 3:49:54 Well, I can keep repeating it until you get it. So you say that some natural things... Well, okay, first of all, we can talk about this on two different levels. If you want to try the morality doesn't exist angle, then something being natural doesn't tell you if it's good or bad because morality doesn't even exist. So that proves my point. Or if you want to try the subjective angle of what you personally consider good or bad, you consider some natural things good, some natural things bad. So nature per se doesn't tell you whether something's good or bad. Right, but I don't. I already told you like five times. Yeah, so now you're going to metaethics. So I'm just thinking eventually once we go through this enough times, you'll catch what's happening here. So you're saying I don't believe good or bad exists. That's just a human construct, right? Yeah. So then the fact that something is anything, whether it's natural, whether it's robotic, whether it's circular, whether it's humanoid, whether it's alien, no adjective tells you if it's good or bad if good and bad doesn't exist.

[video] 3:50:49 So that if you deny the existence of morality, the appeal to nature in a moral context, you've rejected it already. Just by nature of your view that morality doesn't exist.

3:50:59 Did I make an appeal to nature?

[video] 3:51:02 Well, earlier you did. You guys were saying that... Well, no, no, no.

3:51:05 I didn't even talk about morals.

[video] 3:51:08 Okay, so now you want to talk about, I mean, you're avoiding the moral point, but now you want to talk about if what's natural is what's healthy, right?

[video] 3:51:16 That's going to be an even harder point for you to win because there's lots of natural things that are not healthy for you. I mean, you've already agreed. So, I mean, when you say that something, when you subjectively are like, you know, some bacteria and some stuff are bad, I mean, I'm assuming that's because you understand there's an underlying biological reality where those things fuck with your body, surely, right?

3:51:37 But nobody's saying that everything natural is. There's a human diet and a natural diet for every animal. So, of course, we should eat grass.

[video] 3:51:45 Okay, wait, wait, wait. So if you're saying that kind of thing, you might actually be conceding the point. So you're saying that something being natural, it doesn't tell you whether it's healthy or not. If something natural might be healthy, it might be not healthy. You don't know from the fact that it's natural.

3:51:59 Well, it's not natural for humans to eat grass, but it's a natural thing, grass.

[video] 3:52:04 Yeah, sure, sure. Well, let's, okay, well, we can talk about, let's talk about just natural things as in things that exist in nature and whether a human eating it is healthy. So you would agree that, you know, okay, you agree that some things in nature are bad for human health, correct? Yeah. Yeah, and you agree that some things in nature obviously are good for human health. Yeah. So the fact that something's natural doesn't tell you if it's good or bad for human health. Of course. Okay, there you go. So Sferage concedes on that. So what about milk jar? Do you still think...

3:52:37 I don't know what exactly you mean by natural. Do you mean natural as in natural human diet? Because then, of course, everything is healthy.

[video] 3:52:47 Well, no, because if we just go into diet, then you're going to go into... your whole zone of like, you'll bring out all these, all these studies, try to show all these things. So we're starting from a broader point as rational alligator said about just whether something being natural tells you if it's healthy or not. So outside of diet, let's talk about, you know, like diseases, let's talk about bacteria. You're acknowledging that, that something being natural doesn't tell you if it's good or bad. Now, Serge, it could still be that, you know, what you consider to be the natural diet, this like meat heavy primal diet, that that is actually good for human health. But the argument that is good for human health because it's natural, that is false.

[video] 3:53:37 Well, I don't think they've got a response to that. I mean, milk, like, I mean, if you guys, like, I think that it's the most basic fallacy in the book. So it's not hard to win the point.

3:53:47 I already responded to that.

[video] 3:53:50 Do you have any milk? So, yeah. To be clear, are you still saying what's natural is good? Yes, yes. Okay, so you, well, wait, you've already said that viruses and bacteria and all this stuff is good. And personally, I'm not even going to debate that. I would just say that it's so obviously not good. Everyone knows it. I'll just leave that in the hands of the audience. Well, I'm going to bring up some few, you know, scientific studies about that. I'm not going to be, I don't have them ready to post in the chat or in my Twitter right now. It's okay. Richard, did you say arsenic occurs naturally? Does arsenic occur naturally? So is arsenic, you think that's good for human health, Milk Jar? Getting like, where is arsenic in nature? Well, it's a mineral. It exists in nature. So how are you going to get mineral arsenic into your body?

[video] 3:54:48 at a rate that's going to kill you in nature. Wait, wait, we're not talking about that. We're talking about whether this thing is a mineral. We're talking about not, you know, you're trying to make the argument, well, it's not natural for us to eat it. So, you know, therefore it's not good. But the thing is, it exists in nature. It's a naturally occurring thing. So just because something occurs in nature, it doesn't tell you whether it's healthy or not to put into your body. I mean, a human in nature would never just dig up a block of arsenic and ship off a piece and swallow it like that okay but milk jar arsenic exists in nature it's a naturally occurring thing so i mean that's true i don't know about arsenic but if you're relates to humans is very good in nature okay but but is the thing itself good for humans to ingest No, it's not good for humans to eat. No, it's obviously not. It's also not good for humans to ingest, you know, corn.

[video] 3:55:48 Lead is natural. Okay, well, Milk Jar, that's a red herring. You love to move off the point. So, lead is natural? Yeah, I mean, I'm sure eating lead is not good. So, I mean, look, Milk Jar, you can try it. Okay, but you keep going to, is it natural to eat the thing? That's a red herring. We're talking about whether the thing itself is natural. I want to talk about if what occurs in nature, if anything that occurs in nature is good. Well, obviously not if you understand arsenic is not good. If you understand lead is not good to put in your body. Humans ingesting lead and arsenic does not occur in nature. It's so funny. It's like such a circular argument because you just don't understand. You just don't understand what's being said to you. Can you define natural? That's a huge confusing topic right there. To me, what's natural is anything that occurred before money existed. That's my personal definition of natural. Okay, so rape is good. Genocide is good.

[video] 3:56:47 There was no genocide before money. Sure there were. Whoa, that's an intense claim. That wouldn't have even been that long ago. People used the barter system. I mean, I'd also just point out that, like, look, we can get into these kind of debates about whether, like, whether rape is actually good or bad. But the thing is, so many people understand that that's false, that that almost seems just like a waste of time to focus on the debate. If you're going to say rape is ethical, no one's agreeing with your reasoning. I didn't say ethical. I said it's good.

[video] 3:57:23 Well, okay, well, no, what's it mean to be good? All right, so the reason rape is good is because, for example, in nature... Oh, shit. So the reason it's good in nature is it forces tribes... Genes into the next generation? No, it forces tribes to have unity and to work together to basically preserve against... you know, that happening to the people they care about. But is the actual act of rape, we're not talking about the resulting social, you know, codes against rape or institutions preventing rape. We're talking about rape itself, whether the act is ethical. And most sane people would say, no, it's probably not ethical to rape. If someone in my tribe raped someone else in my tribe, I'd say we should kill him.

[video] 3:58:23 Okay, but then surely you don't think rape is a good thing? If you want to kill people for it, you probably don't think it's a good thing. As part of the fact that it exists, it's like a part of nature's balance. It keeps, you know, having to protect from it, it keeps tribes and people strong. Uh, man, I think that you're just not listening when I'm talking because I literally, like, refute a point and then you just make it again. We're not talking about the resulting social codes or institutions that, you know, prevent against rape, which are good things, specifically because they stop rape from happening. We're talking about rape itself. Is rape a good thing? I think if a tribe becomes so weak that it becomes susceptible to being raped and destroyed and that it becomes destroyed, I think that's a good thing. So Holocaust was a good thing because the Jews were weak.

[video] 3:59:19 I'm talking about pre-society.

[video] 3:59:27 I don't understand. That's literally a might makes right argument. I don't understand why it matters whether it's a pre-society. Like, how would you define a society? Wait, sorry, he's going to be confused there. Milk Jar, we agree that might makes right in nature. We don't think that might makes right is ethical. Correct, Richard? You're on my page with that? Yeah, totally. Like, for example, you might be afraid of, you know, being killed. Like, let's say, you know, we're living in primitive times, and my tribe, you know, has periodic battles with other tribes, and, you know, I might die when I'm 30 because of that. Versus in this society, I don't have to worry about that really unless I get involved in gang violence or something like that. Whereas in that society, at certain times, it becomes an everyday reality. So I'm saying it's good.

[video] 4:00:22 I'd rather be a primitive person that died at 30 or 25 at the hands of someone else's axe and living free up until that point because I don't have to pay taxes, I don't have to answer to people telling me what to do, I don't have to avoid poisons everywhere. I can just live the way I want. You're kind of like gish galloping. Sorry, go ahead. What would you consider pre-society? Anything before money. Well, societies existed before money. It's just that people used the barter system, and people used money because it was just a more efficient way to trade goods. You can call it what you want, but what I'm saying is anything that happened before money is good. Okay, so genocides happen before money, so I don't understand how money makes something ethical or unethical. Milk Jer, you can't also... I'm not talking about ethics.

[video] 4:01:21 I'm talking about for me. This is my personal beliefs we're talking about. Okay, well, wait. Then I'm going to ask you to define... Okay, so you're saying that you like the world a particular way, but you agree that might not be ethical? I don't care about ethics. Yeah, so, I mean, I would say that if you say I don't care about ethics, you've lost the debate on ethics. Yeah, like, okay, so you're saying it doesn't matter that the Holocaust happened? You're just being massacred? That's fine, I don't care? My debate on ethics... Richard, Jews have money. Yeah, yeah, it's true. So they deserve to die. First of all, my debate on ethics was the thing about the plant consciousness. Like that's done. We're not even. Yeah, no evidence. That was my answer. Okay. That was my debate in terms of. Ethics. Now we're past ethics. Now we're talking about, you know, what I believe.

[video] 4:02:20 Well, now you're talking about what you believe, but the conversation that everyone else was trying to have is whether what's natural is what's good. Yeah, I'm saying that it is good. Okay, so, I mean, I personally, this is how I feel, you guys can choose where you want to go in this debate, but once the other side has conceded things like rape is good, murder is good, you know, genocide is fine, when someone says those kind of things, they have put themselves in such a fringe minority, ethically speaking, that, you know, we can debate you, Milk Jar, we can talk about whether genocide is a good thing. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Milk Jar, Milk Jar, let him finish, let him finish. So, you know, we can talk to you about those things, but I would personally suggest that if we push you to the point of saying rape's fine, murder's fine, genocide's fine, then, you know, the ethical debate for all intents and purposes is over.

[video] 4:03:10 So what do you want me to say? I personally don't know. I'm kind of thinking it might be wrap-up time because if, honestly, if your position remaining, you know, logically, I don't even think you're trying to remain logically consistent. If your position involves saying rape is fine, murder is fine, I think most people can understand you're wrong. We can debate whether or not I'm logically consistent because I believe that I am. Well, it's possible to be logically consistent and hold a really evil position. I mean, Hannibal Lecter is logically consistent. But the thing is, you've already the actual debate proposition. I mean, you've fucked up hard on it because the ethics part, at least, is saying that veganism follows from universal human rights, which you began by immediately rejecting universal human rights. So that was not a great start. No, I didn't. I began by immediately saying that if you give animals... these universal rights, then you have to give them to plants too. Okay, and that's relying on evidence that is lacking and that you're not going to be able to produce.

[video] 4:04:07 We can repeat that over and over again or we can move on. Well, what do you guys think? Is there anything else? Yeah, Richard, what's up? Anything else you want to hit here? What about Svarage? Let's ask him because he's just chilling there. Do you have anything else you want to say?

4:04:21 I want something else, but that's a different topic a little bit about ketosis. Just a quick question.

[video] 4:04:29 Does that interest you, Richard, or do we want to wrap up? Ketosis? Yeah, sure.

4:04:33 Why are babies and embryos in ketosis, and why is breast milk full of cholesterol and saturated fat? Why is it the first food that all humans get, and why are we in ketosis?

[video] 4:04:45 Okay, well, I don't know about the human embryos being in ketosis thing, I don't know anything about that, I'd have to research it, but as far as breast milk, like, a growing infant has much different nutritional needs than a full-grown adult, so, or even, like, a child out of, like, you know, breastfeeding stage, so, yeah, that's my answer to that.

4:05:04 But you believe that cholesterol and stuff is bad for us, so why would nature give it to babies?

[video] 4:05:11 Well, because they have different nutritional needs. They're growing at such a massively high rate, and their gonads don't function yet, so that would be why.

4:05:21 And then the cholesterol is fine.

[video] 4:05:23 Yeah, and then after they're out of the breastfeeding stage, cholesterol is bad.

4:05:27 Okay.

[video] 4:05:29 That's my response to that. Anyway, if you want to actually look at experiments on children on a ketogenic diet, a very high-fat diet, their rates of kidney stones are far, far higher than a normal population. 6.7% of kids on a ketogenic diet get kidney stones.

4:05:49 So like... Yeah, I want to see that.

[video] 4:05:51 Yeah, sure. I think I have it handy right here. Anyways, I think we should wrap up the debate, though, because... Closings? I did not get really a chance to explain... Okay, well, one sec, Milk Jar. Okay, one sec, Milk Jar. Richard, do you want to just do closing statements for everyone? So Milk Jar can say his delusional, insane rant, and Sparage can say his thing. We can say our things. Call it? Yeah, sure. Okay, why don't you guys go first? Go ahead.

[video] 4:06:22 Go on, Milchar. All right, so in nature, you know, people like, for example, hunter-gatherers, they, like the American Indians, for example, they had no word for work. Like, they would just go, like people today, when they want to, you know, take a break from their life and, you know, take a vacation or something, they go hunting. they go fishing and that's their break from life and you know they get to go on a two-day weekend to hunt or fish and then they go back to their boss and they work their ass off and then they give 40 of their money to the government and then they have all these health problems they have to worry about constantly which primitive people never had to worry about and you know they end up living you know a horrible life people are not happy at all in primitive times you know people

[video] 4:07:16 you know they were free they were on the land they had you know a sense of identity rather than what we have now which is like a globalist type world culture where everyone's the same like you know you go to you go here I'll go down the block everyone will be wearing fitted backwards fitted caps and their pants are hanging down their ass and you go to Africa or Japan and you'll see the same thing you know no one has their own culture anymore and they're lost they don't have you know family ties and like things that bring them meaning to their life they don't have individual cultures and um it gets to the point where like you know we're not human anymore we're just cogs in a machine and in primitive society you know we did have to worry about things like you know maybe a bear is gonna you know come and eat our baby while we're sleeping and things like that but it's like like this goes beyond just logic for me.

[video] 4:08:15 It's like when I'm out in nature with, you know, away from everything, you know, where I don't see, there's no helicopter hovering above me. There's no cars going by. And I have my feet on the grass and the animals are all around me and I'm breathing fresh air. Like it's like immediate peace. And the fact that I have to go back to my normal life after that, every time it just like, it always breaks my heart. And it's like, when you, you know, with the stuff like tribal warfare, it's like, oh, you don't, so you want to go back to a time when a rival tribe can like kill you and rape your woman and everything. And it's like, yeah, I'd rather go back to that time where I was free up until that point where I got an ax in my head. And, you know, I had to fight and stuff because even like fighting, you know, people are against it, but it's like,

[video] 4:09:12 you know animals do it like rams they beat the shit out of each other wolves beat the shit out of each other like this is just nature like just people like just animals just being what they are and i think it's so beautiful even the bloody and gory parts and it's like people they say like fighting's bad and all this stuff it's like you know i've never attacked anyone in my life i've never been in a fight outside of self-defense But it's like every time I've been in a fight, it's like the most alive I've ever felt. Like especially if you win. It's like there's no better feeling than like someone attacking you. And you just – they just end up a bloody pulp on the ground. Like this is better than any feeling I could get in this society. So I'm like it's all good to me. And that's what I want. I want like the love.

[video] 4:10:10 of a tribal society where everyone knows each other and knows everything about each other. They know each other's families and they work together as a group, not this individual stuff that we have now. I don't like individualism. Right now I'm individualistic because I don't fit in a society, but I'd like to be in a primitive state, which probably will never happen. But, you know, I see how these people live. Like, even today, there's primitive people and there's documentaries about them. And it's like, I'm so jealous of them. You know, I wish I had what they have. And some people, they like progress and science and just like getting to the next thing. Let's get to the moon. Let's get to this. But to me, it just like destroys my soul.

[video] 4:11:00 If I were to set up an MMA match with you, would you agree to it? If I trained first, yeah. I mean, you want to do that? You happy with that statement there, Milkjer? Good guess? Yeah. Okay, you want to go, Sviraj? Sure.

4:11:18 If anybody wants to look into this, if you're questioning veganism, then watch my documentary, The NWO Diet, and any questions about raw meat, me and Milkjer will answer it. If you, everybody, I've got tons of ex-vegans on my channel who got sick from veganism, and all of them feel amazing from raw meat, and you will feel as happy as you've never felt before. It's amazing. And, yeah, nature for the win.

[video] 4:11:45 That's pretty much it. All right.

4:11:50 One more thing. Is it okay if I mirror this video on my channel?

[video] 4:11:56 If you post it. He just wants to repost it. I'll post a link to your channel. Richard, he wants to re-upload the video so he has a version on his channel. You can even monetize it if you want.

4:12:10 I don't monetize for that.

[video] 4:12:11 I just want like 10 more seconds. Milk jar, your close is done. You're not plugging shit. Richard, do you want to do yours? Do you want me to do mine? I don't care. Yeah, I'll go first. So basically, I think like again, the vegan diet is the most healthy diet available to us. Lowest vegans have the lowest risk of chronic disease. Even though, if you could argue that vegans do tend to be more deficient in certain nutrients, like you can just easily make up for that by just very easy dietary changes or targeted supplementation. Really, all the mechanistic data and population data shows like a vegan diet is ideal for health and I don't think a Sferager milk jar was able to refute that point. And as far as ethics go, like they kind of take the point of ethics not existing really, I guess the audience can decide about that one. Like, I wouldn't want to exist in a society where, like, I wouldn't want to live in a society where rape is okay, murder is okay, genocide is okay.

[video] 4:13:11 Like, I think what we have now is the way forward and we should improve upon what we have, not just totally destroy it down and abandon civilization like they want. Agree. Do you want me to do mine? Yeah. Okay, yeah. So I would just say health-wise, I mean, I personally don't argue veganism is healthier. I'm convinced of that, but I don't have the skills to argue that health-wise. I certainly think it's equally healthy, and I think Richard made a good case that it's... Healthier. And I would just say... Milkchair, you're distracting me with whatever you're holding up to the screen. I would just say, when you talked about ethics, it seemed like you guys were cherry-picking pretty heavily. Like, whenever we would mention some negative effect of animal products, you would just chalk it up to something else. But whenever, you know, there's something that went in your favor, you're totally for it. And then in terms of ethics, this idea that, you know, veganism follows from universal human rights, you certainly didn't prove anything to the contrary.

[video] 4:14:08 The only argument you made to the contrary was relying on plant sentience, which you haven't put any evidence for. What's natural is not what's good. Veganism isn't a religion. Huge thanks to Rationalgator for moderating. Really appreciate it. The less the mod has to talk, the better. So I think we did, you know, okay-ish, except when I was screaming, fuck you or whatever I was yelling. And I'm going to go over to Jack Green's channel for a after debate stream. You can come if you want, Richard. So Jack Green, if you guys want to see some more. I was just going to answer the live chat, or sorry, the super chat for the next like 30 minutes. Just answer everyone's, all the people in the super chats questions and stuff. And Sparage, I linked the child ketogenic study with the kidney stones. That's the last link in the channel, so if you want to check that out. Thanks everyone for having the debate and thanks Rational Alligator for moderating. Thanks for having me out.

[video] 4:15:13 Okay, I just muted him. Maybe you should just kick Milk Jar. He's just trying to promote his shit. Yeah, anyway, I'll link Milk Jar and Sparage's channel in the video description after I upload this anyway, so if he wants people to look at that weird diet thing that he's promoting, then you all can do it if you're interested.

4:15:31 It's the saddest wonder planet.

[video] 4:15:35 Well, it's good talking to you guys. You guys want to call it now? Let Richard do his Q&A.

[video] 4:15:45 Wewanttolive.com with the number two. All right. Okay. All right. Thanks, everybody. Cheers. Okay. Have a good one. Wewanttolive.com with the number two. Can someone just, like, boot Milk Jar? Yeah. Like, the fact that he's doing that is incredibly obnoxious. Like, who would do that on someone's stream? Yeah, checked. Okay, there we go. He's gone. All right. Yeah. All righty. Do you want me to hang around or not? Do you care? Yeah, sure. I mean, if you want. I don't know if too much of the Super Chat is asking you anything in particular. I don't really mind. Sverd, do you want to hang around or are you heading out now?

4:16:27 I'm heading out. It's very late for me. I've got to sleep.

[video] 4:16:31 Yeah, man. Have a good sleep. Don't let the sun give you any crazy ideas.

[video] 4:16:37 All right, see you, man. And maybe later Sverdj and I can have a debate about Flat Earth. I think that'd be interesting. That'd be very interesting. Yeah, that'd be cool.