A tree leaf is more valuable.. he wasted oxygen that a single leaf makes..

Lol the tree benefits me more than him. 😂

I was 'like' #100. I think I'll burn my victory cigar on the tree that is more valuable than Dennis Prager. ;)

I would take billions of trees before I even mention that conman name

One produces the valuable oxygen we need to live, while the other one is just a pathetic waste of it...

That was hitler

Hahahaha. Nice 🙂

@John-Paul Hunt bruh

Just don't ask Lovecraft's cat though

@@opala2209 Lovecrafts cat? Ohhh you mean the *21st century schizoid man*

That *actually* made me laugh out loud 😂👏

Wow! What a coincidence, same here, but in my case is it was a cockroach.

Ohh sh!t maybe I do value humans less

The tree didn't lie his ass off and instead provided value to every breathing being on the planet.

Same but for me it was a mosquito at least you can argue they are just messed up population control

Like seriously i myself don't want to live in a world or reality even heaven if there are no non human animals , i simply can not live without watching these birds , these squirrels without petting the street dog which every time wage it's tail seeing me just for a belly rub , without the magisty of these lions , the sence of fear tigers evoke, the stupidity of sea horses , the Rhinos My planet, our planet the Earth is indeed a cruel place but this is our planet and i don't care if by trying to save my lovely planet in this vast enveloping cosmic arena i am disappointing any supernatural dictator

"You know why dogs have no money? No pockets." Jerry Seinfeld

😂😂😂

This about sums it up for me

The like to dislike ratio of this video must be the single best piece of evidence we have for failing education systems around the world. Alright, I'm not religious and I'm a vegetarian and in the process of going Vegan before uni while also believing that PragerU is not at all a credible source of information. However, in this video, you made some painfully obvious mistakes it forces me to ponder the idea that you are allowing emotion to distort your thinking. 1. Value When talking about the worth of different animals you have simply forgotten that to someone who believes in Judaism or Christianity believes that animals have been created with the intention of serving human being, take the following. Genesis 9:2-3 "The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Therefore according to the believers of these religions an animal is only valuable in so far as it can be used to satisfy a human want, therefore we a religious person can value one animal above that of another given it has an increased ability to satisfy the desires of that human. The type of satisfactions simply does not matter (unless prohibited in the bible) what matters when talking about animal value to a religious person is how it can be used to satisfy a want. You are doing a theology and philosophy degree at Oxford and you didn't know that? As stated, I'm not religious, however you must repent for making such an argument. And before someone responds saying that "But Cosmic skeptic was just showing that animals also just matter and therefore wouldn't have value either". But this argument would only make sense assuming he wasn't religious, think about it. 2. The holocaust First of all, they do like 5-minute video's you saying "bUT oThEr PeOPLe DIeD OTheR ThAN jEws" it just plainly a pathetic attempt of you to try and make yourself look smart and by extension him stupid by bringing up other people died, yes you are right but what kinda contribution does this make to your argument? The answer is.......it doesn't and your petty point scoring doesn't make you look good in the eyes of anyone who has a triple digits IQ. not to mention how you present it in such an emotional way as if you have detected a perception to deceive by Mr Prager or feel as if he has completely misrepresented the content of the video.....which he has, because the video isn't about the holocaust is it, the ethnicity of the people who died exists completely separately from the primary point he is making. Have you forged such an emotional reaction? Do you do as such to seem more credible? Or are you just plain stupid? I can do a similar thing to you right now look. "OMG you mentioned that slavery was justified under Christian nations but why didn't you mention the oppression of gay people and women during this time period rather than just Africans, I would expect someone so ostensibly and sensitive about the impact of religion on the world to respect the memory of everyone who suffered under the moral principles of Christian nations not just slaves!" You see the idiocy you fool But fuck me you only continue to transform into more of a little weasel as you go along. You then go onto do two things, both ridiculous. You say "They are making a comparison, not an equation", distinguishing between to things completely equal and two things similar. But this point doesn't mean anything like the very fact that people would compare that two shows by deductive reasoning that they must have enough if common and therefore Mr Prager responds to this, he never said they were equal he said other people proclaim it to be so and worse....which you admit yourself. Next, you somehow manage to ascend to newfound levels of stupidity. You say that animal slaughtered is technically correct according to the definition which is true but you completely miss the point. When those activists say "Holocaust" they know exactly what people are going to think of and they know exactly the comparison they are making, don't play word games. You remind me of my friends saying "You can't murder an animal because murder is the killing of a human" yeah you're correct but it's not at all the point is it. Then you use this proper definition of a holocaust against a different definition Mr Prager is using and then use this as a "got you moment" as you seem as he has deductively shown he is against killing animals on an industrial level even though the two definitions are clearly the deciding factor, be that of Human death and Animal death, and we are back at square one again then aren't we. Oh and now I'm later into the video I've discovered that Mr Prager does make it clear that people other than Jews were killed, good job their pal wrong andddddd wrong again. 3. Animal testing Mr Prager was specifically talking about people who believe that animal testing is wrong no matter the outcome. This is addressing people who believe that one of the animal's rights is not to be tested on no matter the outcome, the principle must be upheld to these people, just animal rights Kantians. 3. Singers quote Oh yet another stupid point, I guess this time I can only call you stupid for putting it in the video and not coming up with it though. The quote "Either the animal is not like us in which case there is no reasoning for performing the experiment; or else the animal is like us, in which case we ought not to perform on the animals what would be considered to be outrageous if performed on us" This is where the real exposing happens, this quote completely undermines everything that you said at another point in the video. In the quote Mr Singer clearly conflates the matter of the being in question and the moral worth of the being in question, somehow showing that if the matter of the animals was compatible with humans this would give them equal moral worth, now this is contradictory to what you said earlier in the video when you made it clear that matter does not determine morality. You have decided to present any piece of evidence suits you in that specific sub-section of the argument with no concern for long run philosophically consistency. You're a philosopher, you must be consistent. plus point; Hitler linked himself to religion through the philosophical perception of German idealism, specifically put forward by Friedrich Schleiermacher. Stop being so smug, stick to the main points and cut the video by at least 10 minutes. You are just as bad as Mr Prager to me, go educate yourself and "don't make another video until you have done so" if only for the sake of the pain in my head.

Jerry Seinfield had obviously never met Gunther IV who supposedly has a net worth of between $375-$400m lol I so want that dog to bite me so I can sue him

Hahaha underrated comment 😂

I don't know what's wrong with the argument can anybody be kind enough to enlighten me?

@@uselesshero.official it's circular reasoning

@@uselesshero.official It's like saying this floor is made of floor, truly flawless and unparalleled logic, with its only caveat being completely pointless.

@Meister Incognito Well obviously, since we exist due to the evolutionary process.

That's the idea, he's recruiting.

It's just abrahamic for people who don't want to include muslims

@@hankboog462 Its not really the exact same, there are differences.

@Don genuinely how? I'm not being facetious, how is "judeo christian" not the same as abrahamic just without Muslims if Abrahamic means Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

@@hankboog462 Because "judeo christian" referes to elements shared by early bibical ideas while abrahamic refers only to general elements that are shared in all of the abrahamic religions, regardless of the historic time or area. But yes they are similar.

Yeah, lol.

HAS to be*

The animations are shit too lol

Well...Maybe a poor animal for that question :p

Not to me either.

Antediluvian Atheist “Are you worth more than another human?” not to the other human.

D yep. it goes both ways.

@@user-yr1tb3rl6v Yep. The point is 'worth' is based on a point of view. 'To whom?' is the measure of worth.

Prageru: humans are infinitely valuable Also prageru: The Case For The Death Penalty

Valuing human life doesn't mean valuing criminality.

@Sam Bacon It is neither a requirement, neither is it antithetical to it. It is one of the tools that can be used to deter crime and uphold the rule of law.

Sorry, I don't take opinion pieces as the gospel truth. And the death penalty is absolutely appropriate for the most heinous violent crimes.

@Sam Bacon The papers you cite in no way prove that capital punishment is not effective. They only prove that capital punish is at least as effective a method of punishment as other forms, if not more effective.

I thought it was a BS degree

I’m glad you don’t gave a pesky social program to pay for it.

You can get Ma.D. and Fo.O.L degrees from Prager U (Also from Trump University)

The Humanist manifesto says, "We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity..." If this worth is inherent, then CosmicSkeptic's video is not cogent. He bases the worth of human persons on the complexity of their arrangement. Humans are just complex arrangements of matter. But then the worth of a human is not inherent; it is something they have by reason of their complexity. So humans that are not so well arranged like paraplegics and such, are of less moral worth. But the statement above says that every human is of equal worth and value.

Exactly!

If you care about trees, you would want more carbon emissions. Photosynthesis baby!

@@oceanic16 I disagree. How does carbon create more trees? Answer: it doesn't. You need to plant them. We need trees to get rid of carbon pollution but too much carbon is too much for trees to handle. And photosynthesis is created by sunlight.

But some chriastans maybe thinks that praying is enough....

@@theovanrossum8652 crack open a biology book and learn.

Explain how Dennis could be making a strawman when he's not arguing against any one person or argument. By definition you can't make a strawman if you aren't addressing a specific person or argument. Cosmic Skeptic on the other had is very guilty of making a strawman, as he's arguing directly against Dennis and is misinterpreting his argument.

@Hail Abraxas Again, he did not make a strawman. He's simply stating the fact that secularism does not allow for objective moral worth or value. That's not to say a secular person cannot believe in these things, just that they can't do so while being logically consistent.

Prager cant even make good arguments against his strawman version of secularism

@@greg77389 the exact definition of a strawman argument is constructing a false or misleading representation of the others argument..you are incorrect

@@mykehog6646 Exactly my point. "constructing a false or misleading representation of the others ARGUMENT." Dennis is not doing that.

Under-appreciated comment right here 👆

If you look at it in those terms the tree is far more valuable than Prager. At least the tree's existence does cause some benefit for the rest of the planet and it's inhabitants - not something you can claim for Prager.

va m from the planets perspective it don’t matter, the planet is just a rock

LMAO. So true.

@va m Might be better to say "biosphere" as opposed to planet, the plants are definitely valuable to our biosphere given that they help keep the rest of it alive.

@Humanity Galatica Uh no. Wrong. We create those things, the economy is simply an inanimate manifestation of the variety of trade between individuals.

As a conservative (in most ways) I must say that I agree with your assertion. We should stay indoors till this blows over. It’s too bad the adults in my life fail to see thing my way.

@@alexrogers777 I highly doubt he is arguing the economy is an object outside of human interaction. That seems to be a strawman argument.

@@ryanc1045 According to a lot of people then you wouldn't be a conservative.

@@tex8788 Destroys angry *neoconservative. But thank you

OH! I thought humanism was a dietary choice!

Right? Humanism is a movement that literally emphasizes the worth of humans over all else. If there is anything in this world that devalues human worth it's religions like Christianity.

@Maldrannon "authoritarian" is not a word I imagine would denote a better civilization. Quite the opposite actually. Just look at North Korea.

@Maldrannon Sure bud. And when your "benevolent authoritarian" gets tired of being nice and decides to take his place a god emperor, I am sure you will feel differently. Ever heard of the phrase "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? There is no such thing as a benevolent authoritarian government for long. Sooner or later it will turn into a crapshoot and you will be little more than a source of free income.

@@Ghost.Spectrum Why would humanism imply the abusive vices of an individual? All governments are authoritarian. It's just a matter of which class that authority serves. In some cases, that class may devolve into a single person and we would call that monarchy or dictatorship, but parliamentary government is meant to spread it across a wider body to prevent most abuse. It is still authoritarian, no matter what form it takes, but the authority is collectivized to some degree. If we're talking political humanism, that would seem to imply a government for the interests of the class we call human, which is a much wider disbursement than parliamentary systems typically cover. How would individual vices factor into a system like that?

I would also value any of your cats higher than Dennis Prager

I would value my neighbors cat that bit me more than Dennis Prager, and I don't even like that cat.

@@SennaHawx I value your comment about his cats higher than Dennis Prager.

Big oof

I don't know your cats but I would wager, based on my previous experience with cats, that they're far more useful to society than Mr Prager. And they definitely don't talk as much crap as him. 🐈

This is what we need more of in people

You don't have to be vegan to be conscious about the ethics of animal slaughter. Because the issue is not human nature. You could start with the viability of lab grown meat to be no different than slaughtered meat.

i want to like your comment but you have 69 likes and i dont want to destroy it

@@keanus6873 it is likeable now

Oh, they will, when Prager raises them up again for his benefit.

But the wisdom behind Prager University will prevail.

@@lancethrustworthy I don't think we'll be able to recognize that pile of hay and scrap by the time he's done beating them.

Example of that man is Carl Himself

@@junacebedo888 how so?

Sagan was an atheist. He denied it, but that is because he was defining atheists as those who claim to KNOW there is no god.

Damn this was brutal, keep it up..I m gonna quote this one to some deeply religious sh*thead

Secular values are now entirely dictated by science, namely psychology...

The fact you treat your dog better than you shows you are more valuable.

@@daviddeida my dog is sweeter and kinder than I can ever be so no I’ll consider my dog more valuable than myself

@@icouldntthinkofagooduserna6658 You value being sweet and kindness.Your does not.You have a notion of value far bedong a dog.That notion of value is very valuable.

@@icouldntthinkofagooduserna6658 thats your personal opinion of value, and i dont think its wrong. But from the outside view, and from a general view, since your smarter, more intelligent, and sentient, and contribute to society, you will be significantly more valuable than the dog.

Ur Just an dumbass No worries

The U stand for Urinal.

NoU

PropagandaU would be more accurate.

Propaganda Urinal

CherryPickersU

agreed

dennis definitely isn't lol

Conner Nickerson Yep. Thanks for debunking cosmic skeptic here. You don’t value humans.

no narc No, you may not. Fuck head. And less value than a tree may as well be no value at all. But you are right, I shouldn’t have suggested that. “You barely value humans”, or “you don’t value humans enough” would have been more accurate. But in any case you just added to Dennis’s point.

no narc “quite a leap” It is literally a very tiny leap. A non-sentient tree being worth more than a person. Is not a huge leap to not valuing people.

@JONAS AUSTIN Okey Jonas.

When those rocks turn to sand are they baby souls or a shattered soul...

@@lwmaynard5180 xD

humans are more valuable than trees because trees have no intrinsic value, without a limbic system trees have no emotional content and without a brian they cant perceive the world around them.

I'd be tempted to say he couldn't make any sillier argument than this one, but that's a challenge he may very well win in a very near future.

Ah mental gymnastics, a conservative favorite

@Skeptic Psychologist He also believes in the eternal punishment of hell created by a just god so no surprise there.

@Skeptic Psychologist His God wants to torture people for an eternity(infinity?)because he infinitely values human beings? But Jews don;t believe in Hell-so let's just say that Dennis's racist God "chose" his people and as they traveled in the Exodus they destroyed brutally anybody that wasn't an Israelite.I guess God cared infinitely for those non-Hebrews so he decided to put them out of their misery.How absurd and ridiculous is this nonsense? And how absurd are the people that believe it.

There is an eternal hell because God loves us!

"I'm Dennis Prager, and I get paid 10 million dollars a year by the Wilkes brothers to say stupid shit on youtube, hooray for money!! I mean conservative values"

@Bob Smith come back when you're sober

And he's literally Hitler! Alex Jones! DRUMPF! We got 'em good!

@Bob Smith yeah whatever, apology accepted crazy guy 😉

@Bob Smith well Bob, you're making a strong case. I for one am convinced. Please proceed to tell me what you convinced me of 😉

I don't think this is very brilliant at all. Do you agree that the moral worth of humans is based on how complex an arrangement of matter they are? That's what he is saying in this video. Even the humanist manifesto says that human worth is inherent. I quote: "We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility." Humanist Manifesto III

I miss those drawers...

@thisbitch 123 By now he should be 19 or 20.

I remember the drawers! Lol

I agree that many secular humanists value human life highly.....I just wonder about the basis for this. Why would a secular humanist value human life? I don't see any reason to think more highly of humans on secular principles. Cosmicskeptic values humans more because they are more complex arrangements of matter. Doesn't that seem like a rather flimsy reason to value humans more than animals, who are also highly complex arrangements of matter?

I agree that many secular humanists value human life highly.....I just wonder about the basis for this. Why would a secular humanist value human life? I don't see any reason to think more highly of humans on secular principles. Cosmicskeptic values humans more because they are more complex arrangements of matter. Doesn't that seem like a rather flimsy reason to value humans more than animals, who are also highly complex arrangements of matter?

Secular Guy thanks for proving Praegers point.

@@joelvonthrum8658 wooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

@@joelvonthrum8658 To be fair, can we count dennis prager as human?

Nah Please don't think like this. Dehumanizing people you disagree with is usually done by fundamentalists and ideologues. It's disgusting no matter what the victim believes.

@@sophonax661 WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSHhhhhhhhhhhh

Damned good observation!

That's what their whole foundation is based on it seems. You really narrowed it down perfectly. If you pay attention, you really do catch onto which personality types are typically attracted to certain parties, clubs, faiths and other organizations. As a general rule, these folks are without a doubt, prime candidates for showing legit confusion at basic human/animal emotions and possible suffering,. They are some of the most callous, shamelessly selfish, nosy, controlling, uncaring, neglectful, hateful, self righteousness, short sighted, boorish people you will ever meet. Oh, and cold. I'm talking ice fuckin' brick, south-pole-moon-crater COLD..... with a smile on their face. It's like they simply cannot exist without someone or something being crushed under their heels that they can look down upon, or discriminate against on site. They seem to truly relish in bullying people who are harmlessly different or cannot/won't stand up for themselves, and then make fun of them for being "victims", or call them "triggered" for speaking up, or calling others "white knights" after witnessing the atrocities going on, and try to make peace. They will cry "persecution" and "end of days" when people have enough of their shenanigans, and their favorite targets seem to be people who are in dire straights and destitute. That being said, I can't say that I'm always the most sentimental, warm, cuddly, sugar sweet, non cynical, lovey lovey, sappy human out there, but these fuckers just take the biscuit.

Emily, Awesome comment! I am not sure where I picked it up, but I remember hearing something akin to 'the more love you give away, the more love you have.'

I have a finite amount of compassion for DP

Emily Griese Well, there is. Do you think everyone is born compassionate? What about psychopaths? Or people who are of a more ferocious and competitive bent? Do you think that compassion is every bit as utilitarian as being devoid of compassion? What about all of the world-conquerors across history who have been rewarded for being discompassionate? Have you ever been cruel or unfair, in your life, to anyone? If the answer is no, then you are an angel, and if the answer is yes, then even your compassion is not infinite, and therefore, compassion itself is not infinite. Furthermore, it is not even obvious that human beings are biologically programmed for infinite compassion or infinite mercy. If a person is extremely ugly or extremely weak, for example, is it more utilitarian, from an evolutionary perspective, to be merciful towards that person or to be cruel to him? And if you are born extremely ugly or extremely weak or extremely sick, trust me, you are definitely not going to accede very easily to the claim that our world is a vale of infinite compassion.

Trees and plants do suffer

@@zacharykenniston748 Explain how.

They are burned alive by the hundreds of trillions. The roots of a plant or tree act as a brain. Essentially they are like an upside down human or animal.

@@zacharykenniston748 So roots are sentient, are they?

From what I have heard and studied yes.

Nathan Thomson yes! exactly! ❤🌎🐾

And what about the animals?

Say that to my roaring V10 engine

And the health and stability of ecosystems also please. We are not alone in this world.

@@TheAlyssa2469 CHEERS!!!

Well, that's fair. We would be an alien species to them, so they should value themselves more

Yeah I wouldn't expect anything more. Why wouldn't they value their own species and civilization over an alien one?

@@avalus6 I mean, because it's the right thing to do. Like, it seems obvious that the moral value of a thing shouldn't be determined by how similar the thing is to "Us". Also, because any spaceborne alien race would have a fucking trippy philosphy so honestly I can't say shit

@@firetarrasque4667 what decides the right thing to do?

@@avalus6 I understand that I can't objectively prove morality, but at the same time I'd say that it's pretty obvious that we shouldn't function on a moral system that equates "Good" with "Like Us"

Aden Travis I don’t even know which one you mean lol

Aden Travis It’s funny seeing the evolution of his hair over videos.

He’s slowly losing his sanity from having to watch PragerU

Oh no Boris Johnson must have instated a new bed head policy...

Shhh, the rugged look suits him

@Sam Bacon As I said...

@Greg Camp "It is difficult to obtain the friendship of a cat. They are philosophical creatures... they do not place their affections thoughtlessly." Theophile Gautier 😊

@@PercivalBlakeney Exactly. We have to earn a cat's love.

Nice

yep, cat's generally don't try to brow beat you into believing in bastet.

Wanna watch me destroy Islam? Well here I go "Do you not see that Allah causes the night to enter the day and causes the day to enter the night and has subjected the sun and the moon, each running [its course] for a specified term, and that Allah, with whatever you do, is Acquainted?" (QS. Luqman 31: Verse 29) This specific Quran verses makes it very clear that the Quran supports geocentrism. The verse says ( do you not see) that ( Allah has subjected the sun running in it's orbit or a specific term) meaning what ever the sun's orbit is it is something that can be seen other translations says ( do you not not consider) implying that the orbit of the sun is something that was acknowledged at the time But the galactic orbit can't be seen nor was it known at that time. the only orbit that the sun seemingly makes is the orbit from East to west This is the only orbit of the sun that can be seen by the people are was acknowledged as an orbit at the time. And in the ancient times it was a absolutely universal belief that the sun orbits the earth. And this verse is clearly referring to that ancient belief . So since Islam undoubtedly supports geocentrism than Islam is false.

karambadodox this is true

Mark Donald this is also true

@Mark Donald but wouldnt you say that alot of these so called Religious people are Hypocrites they are very Hypocritical they do alot of terrible things they preach to everybody else about sin but they are the biggest sinners

@Mark Donald also they claim to believe in God but they sure dont like hearing about jesus even though theor supposed to be christians its more like they are creating their own religion its more like they are Idol worshippers pagan worshippers than they are chrsitians becuase they act like going to chruch is more like being in a play or movie instead of it being real its more like god exist inside the church but once they are out of the church god doesnt exist meaning they have to worship god inside of it but when they are outisde of it they turn athiest than when they are inside the church they are born agian christians they switch religions they are a reborn christian in church but once church is over they are a Reborn Athiest so thats very confusing i mean if youre going to be something why fake your own religion for ? i would rather walk the walk then try to talk the talk meaning practice what you preach dont be a Hypocrite

@Mark Donald these so called religious people they really are Hypocrites i came across a person they talked about being so holy and stuff but they would pray for people one minute but the next minute they would say their is no god the next and also they would get angry at others for believieng in god and rant at them the next minute and then the next minute they would believe sounds very hypocritcal sounds like they are a sinner .

Tuesday's Creations “worth” isn’t determined by “rational thought” But rather by the ability to suffer. I think almost all vertebrates and most cephalopods are sentient and can therefore suffer, so we shouldn’t harm them even if they were dumber than a plant, because regardless of intelligence they can still suffer. Sort of like a human baby or a human with a neurological disease that makes them less intelligent. They aren’t as intelligent as normal human, but they can still suffer, and therefore it’s wrong to harm them. Within the animal kingdom all animals can suffer to varying degrees, but it’s almost certain that all vertebrates and cephalopods a sentient and can feel physical pain (as for insects, we can’t prove or disprove that they can feel pain, and therefore it’s wrong to harm them either) What varies more is phsycological pain. In this aspect humans probably have the most ability to suffer, but all vertebrates probably experience mental distress to varying degrees, for example a fish when kept in a tiny crowded ammonia filled tank is visibly freaked out and in physocological turmoil, same as chicken cramped in a factory farm.

I had a pet hairless rat that I had somewhat rescued from an awful state of neglect. For about a year I spent time every day tending to her needs, and she was always up with me before I went to work at 6am.. I would feed her crackers, and she would always run away and hide them in such a cute fashion. She liked to eat in bed, so she would haul food into her little nest. She went from being a little rack of bones to a pudgy little snicker doodle. She developed a tumor in her lower jaw, and she was inevitably doomed to starve to death, and live her last days in extreme suffering. There was nothing I could do, so I had to take her in and have her put down. Most people would never consider paying to have a vet kill such a rodent.. But I cried like a baby. She was my pet, and my responsibility. She had personality, and she communicated her happiness.. I wouldn't prioritize her life over a human, but I still respect her life.

@@sportsfails4998 I believe myself... and this may not be entirely rational, but I believe that everything... everything that is alive has the capacity to suffer in some way. I also believe that to suffer is to suffer... that is we can't talk about one living thing suffering less than another. It's why I get annoyed when people say, "Look at so-n-so, they're having a harder time than you." What's hard for you is hard for you. No matter what anyone else is suffering. To know that someone else is suffering something that most would regard as worse does not make your problem any better. It's OK for someone to think that way about their own problems, "It could be worse, there's plenty with worse problems than me," but it's totally wrong to apply that philosophy to someone else... that is to try to push that view on another.

@@DistantVision85 You have my deepest condolences. Whether a pet is a large 4 footed animal, small 4 animal or 2 footed with feathers, they all have worth to us. May you stay safe, happy and healthy during these times.

The kitty who shares our house (we do not "own" her) is worth more to my partner and me than most humans. Think about it: we feed her, pay a large chunk of rent so she has a roof over her head and will pay thousands for her medical bills. We love her - and she loves us back. She is a part of our family. We do not do those things for most of the 7.5 billion people on the earth, most of whom, quite frankly, are in dire need of the above.

Yep! Intellectual and moral consistency is rare. Huge respect for him

You'll start to see the light as the blood of animals leave your body.

@@ericscaillet2232 this statement doesn't make sense.

@@garethbaus5471 You're an animal.

It will be interesting to hear his justification of eating meat if his health begins to suffer under veganism. If he prospers, or even if he puts up some negatives, good luck to him. It isnt universal. As Hitchens said, I’ve set my watch.

Norel farjun Norel farjun the fact that you are able to discuss it means that it exists, at least as a concept. Value could be considered the way or method in which humans make decisions. It thus has an effect upon reality. It’s real, but in a different way.

Agreed, Norel

Yes, I agree, there is no such thing as "intrinsic value".

concepts cannot exist independent of a mind @@libertyfirst9280

So if meat eaters continue to decide to give animals the same value they do now, what gives vegans the right to claim moral superiority? It's their decision.

Could I get a source on "bivalves can be harvested sustainably from the wild"? It's my understanding that commercial fishing is devastating aquatic ecosystems, including shellfish beds.

Bivalves being consider a non sentient thing is arguable. See medium.com/@jd.feliz/the-case-for-vegans-eating-oysters-mussels-other-invertebrates-961747367305

@@venticuiliar9136 www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recommendations/seafood-a-z (see clams, mussels, oysters, scallops.) Hand gathered wild clams and scallops from certain fisheries are considered a good choice, whereas wild mussels and oysters are more difficult to harvest without damaging their beds. You can't go wrong with farmed bivalves though, and the majority of the species you will find at the supermarket will be farmed anyway. The Monterey Bay seafood watch website has a convinent A-Z guide that you can use to find out which seafood sources are sustainable; look for the green "best choice" option. Also, not all farm raised seafood sources are better for the environment than wild ones, for instance open net pen Atlantic Salmon farms can be devastating to wild salmon populations because they spread diseases and some individuals escape and interbreed with native species.

Which essential nutrients are found exclusively in animal products? I can't think of any.

@@henryblomfield4443 Vitamin B12. But we have supplements for that these days

"PETA [...] teaches that there is no difference between the barbecuing of chickens in America and the burning of Jews in the Holocaust." Me and Alex in the video simultaneously: "Oh, come on!"

@@gandawful Er... I think they forget that things are valued by emotional complexity...

If we are stardust, who cares for innocent victims of crime, and who cares for murderers on death row? We will join the stardust in infinite space. As a child of the sixties, society has been going downhill ever sense. And how is it that children of the seventies know better than this? Know better than what?

@@get9320 You know I'd never thought of it that way before, but you're right. I'll have to stop volunteering, put my rescue cats out on the street, kick out my veteran roommate and leave my representatives alone. Obviously, honesty precludes morality. Man, my bad!

@@get9320 why does it matter if we are stardust, moral highgrounded 60s person?

@@98danielray you are right, neither ideas or beliefs matter. Why should Cosmic Skeptic mind if PragerU makes videos?

@@get9320 how did you take that out of my comment?

That's a horrible thing to say. A human life is always.... wait... Prager? Sorry Keith, you're right. Save the cat.

I'd have a hard job deciding between my cat and a human I liked. Prager has no fucking chance.

@@bdf2718 I'm a dog person and I would save the cat over Mr. Prager.

I would save even a worthless piece of garbage like Dennis before I would save a hundred dogs or cats.

Rembrandt972 and you have every right to be immoral.

@jfsfrnd the story most know about and fewer believe and fewer have read.

@RenDi Supertramp Really? I would say that his view and not only his view is more like, belief start where reason can't go forward. Scientific means testable, repeatable and falsifiable. And I do "believe" that is the correct way to reason! But is science totally out of the realm of "belief" ? Think about it! Can you taste the black matter, black energy? Can you repeat the Big Bang? What about repeating the random popping in to existence of a first single cell? What about the entire Darwin's theory? Can someone repeat the so called process of evolution in order to be tested? How can you falsify the maths? Or the Logic? Can someone taste the inflation theory? Science doesn't have unequivocal answers, testable and fasifiable, to all of these issues and many others. Many of the answers are kind of : "I wish this was true", "we believe that this is the answer", "we can't tested but there are some clues that suggest..." . That's ok! I have no problem with this. But don't tell me that science is all about pure reasoning and provable facts.

@RenDi Supertramp My friend, if you permit me to call you like this, I'm sorry to tell you but I think you probably missed the recipient or you didn't read my post! I've never said we should stop looking for answers using the science as a tool of reason. I'm not against science. I think I stated very well in my post. What other definitions of science should I look for? Those scientifical methods are not invented by me. So what's wrong with them? One of the leaders involved in Human Genom Project is Christian. The collider didn't test the theory of Big Bang less the theory of inflation. There are some other theories that can be tested with it, for instance how can the particles (AFTER Big Bang) got mass. Fossil records is just a story (another religion, this time with Random Selection as a God). Check what David Berlinski said about this. And yes...he is not a believer! So, are we talking about evidence or potential "stuff"? If everything is testable and falsifiable how come nobody can say what is dark matter or dark energy? How can you say that is testable? With all technology and knowledge they can't "produce" a single cell made from chemicals. They can't! They will never be able! That's it!

I agree with you, with one extra bit - I think that if the drowning human was a random child, I’d save the child, even if it meant forsaking my dog. I actually think that in that case the dog might try to save the child also if it could.

of all the the content creators right now, cosmic reminds me most of hitchens!

Do you think people value human worth more now than they did a 1000 or 10,000 years ago? I ask the question b/c I am wondering if this is something that is evolving in the right direction.

Thats a good point

He killed all the animals too, remember? They were only saved by Noah's Incest Boat.

+

Because he couldn't be bothered creating new ones to feed the humans. Always knew he was a lazy a**.

U right, that anime makes no sense

hey now, some would tell you that at least cattle don't talk back?

Nico Steffen Judeo-Christianity does not value women with cattle. Straw manning is retarded. Stop.

@@lukericker8325 The argument being made was that religion values men over women, with women being comparable to cattle. But pretending "Judeo-Christianity," is a thing; now there's a strawman.

Paul Elkin yes, and saying that it values women with cattle is a moronic and false straw man. Idiot. And how is Judeo-christian not a thing? Seriously.

Paul Elkin And it’s not like they even have a moral leg to stand on to be upset about that proposition. They don’t even believe morality exists.

Wayward Winchester funny

*Facts And Logic Destroy Carnist Nonsense Every Time* ;)

But will Alex be the one to land the final blow against God in the SPN finale?

@Louis Gedo you damn straight LOL

@Stannis the Mannis haha if anyone can, yep.

God: Hey Isaac, kill your wife to prove your love to me Isaac: Hey God, why don't you go and shove Lucifer's Pitch Fork up your Ass? God: Well I never! Then you don't love me Isaac? Isaac: Nope, never did, and now, never will.

Monk: Hey she-bear, kill that group of young men who insulted my bald head. She-bear: lolz okay

That was funny. Thanks.

Satan: Hey that one dude would probably not love you if his family and animals died lol God: Lol why don’t you kill them then Satan: ok *kills everyone but the man* Man: still loves God God lolz see told you *sips beer*

Fighter For Christ bruh what the fuck

The greatest heroes don't wear capes

I heartily concur! Man, what a disingenuous POS, something about that guy (apart from the obvious), just grates on me.

I, too, would save your dog and watch Prager drown.

This just shows how wicked humans heart are

Mark Donald he put his name on one of the most dishonest and insidious KZfaq channels with over 2 million subs

@jocaguz18 yeah but artificially growing tissue isn't going to give you an idea of how an organism as a whole reacts to something

@jocaguz18 That's fair, all I'm saying is that it's not completely unnecessary.

@jocaguz18 you kinda still do want to know how the whole animal will react since by testing the medicine in only specific parts it become more likely that you will miss something crucial

@jocaguz18 good job showing that youre a pompous fool

@jocaguz18 to expand on the topic of artificially created bio mass, think about this. We currently use animal testing as a whole to see all the effects something can have on an organism. To do that with synthetic bio mass, we will need to create a synthetic being. Does a synthetic being have less worth then a natural one. For me, they're both the same. We will not be able to take away pain or such from the being, as we must see every effect. This isn't an issue when we're just using synthetic bio mass for topical effects, but the need to experiment of living organisms isn't going to go away, synthetic or not.

Mike Blaid why are you ranking based on food choice...

@@jodinha4225 Some things are just too fun to not do.

Because they get to rank based on the feeling that they (vegans) are somehow morally superior. Reminds me of another institution......

@@Trainwheel_Time you and the first guy didn't get it :D. He basically said he likes this channel a lot and now he is vegan it's his favorite vegan channel. That doesn't imply that he likes the channel any better than before. there is probably another channel he likes more that isn't vegan. Doesn't mean he likes that less because it isn't vegan

@didrik mortensen "I'm not saying taking a stance on one issue automatically requires you to be a virgin saint on all matters" after literally implying that it does. If someone was protesting in the street against racism, I imagine you wouldn't counter argue their beliefs by pointing out they might buy clothes from exploited child workers in other countries. Why bring it up when people make valid arguments that supporting animal exploitation and abuse is unethical? Presumably you would have an issue with someone causing unnecessary harm to an animal such as a dog simply for the pleasure of harming the dog. So why then does it become moral when the same act leads to an alternate sensory pleasure?

This idea of ‘the greater good’ is misleading. There’s no way of knowing if one of those 20 was already, or would go on to become a serial killer. Indeed, there’s no way for any of those 20 people to know if your loved one was already, or would go on to become a serial killer. The difference is you yourself probably have a good idea whether your loved one is or isn’t likely to be/become a serial killer.

Seth Petel - CORRECTION: be worried that people are being paid to PROJECT a skewed vision of reality to millions of those that don’t even question the rhetoric from their videos.

Bmanritchie oh absolutely. It’s terrifying that ignorance is becoming a commodity to some.

Why PragerU then? Jews probably have better thinkers among them

I’ve got some family that love Prager AND are convinced it’s an actual university. Yes they’re all Christian Republicans that voted for trump, why do you ask?

themaster408 some people put their stock in thinkers that have the same political views. I trust that prager (and those in his wheelhouse) are staunchly conservative....

Misamisato I know. I'm so happy. I hope more people in the Athiest Community Follow! ❤🌎🐾

Yay........ *Create a Better World by......GOING VEGAN*

question for vegetarians: if you’re trying to help animals why are you eating their food?

Livingston HAHAHAHA !! SO FUNNY... TELL CAROL AND THE BOYS PAPAP SAID HELLO !! !! MUCH LOVE... XOXO

@@genzeuronymous7787 With that logic, then why are you consuming resources that another human being needs if you value human lives so much?, because everyday we live in this world we are taking resources from another living being. There's no way around. The best way to avoid this would be by stop living, but I don't think anyone are willing to die for a silly reason like that.

that's Yuno's haircut from Black Clover, among others xD

Yeah definitely

So glad I'm the 69th like because hot damn he's looking smexy today.

@@carnivoroussarah Well ask him out

@@MaxPower641 I second this. I need a guy like him in my life.

@@carnivoroussarah Idk whether or not he's single but give it a shot. He could use a gf

Agreed. and not only - think porpoises, whales, elephants and primates.

@@pontiuspilot5887 Yeeh. Snakes are pretty cute to :3

what really boils my blood is the misrepresentation of arguments to push pragers agenda. i despise strawmanning with a seething passion.

A lot of the lectures from Prager-U are very common-sense philo' basic from how I see it. That being said though, a few (Yes there is a few) that spin a bit too clockwise even for me. Moreover I should say though, that Humanism is a false god if there ever was one. All your theory, philo', logos, and ethos, are attempts to harang meaning into a days numbered count down of chaotic neutral that we all call life.

Scott VonSwestenhousen yeah, but there's no such thing as a "false god" because that would mean there's a "true god" Humanism is about well being of all, that in of itself is morally righteous in my eyes; henceforth i am a humanist. Sure, i admit life has no meaning, and there's no god to give us morally virtuous values, but that doesn't mean we cannot take life and mankind by its horns and wrestle it into a meaningful, sentient existence with purpose. Morality is subjective, and that's not a bad thing, hell, all of life is subjective in the sense of interpreting things. So in a sense, you are completely right, but i think the way you're looking at it is wrong. We _should_ be humanist if we want our pointless world to be a better place.

@@filmtape5247 I never said there was no God, I said Humanism is a false one. Its our egos trying to "make it better then how it is" and yes I have a problem with some of that. Life has meaning, that is quite clear.. its to live. I'm not trying to bicker here btw. I'm just sick and tired of science being a religion and the gall it takes for some to say we need to be the "better" in this place when on closer view , I kindly doubt anybody really has the "answer" and if one is found its right back to ego (or super ego for that matter) disguising itself as a moral fortitude. But as you said "I think" and its just that.. I thought.

Scott VonSwestenhousen science is a method of figuring out what's true or not, hence the "scientific method" science is not an ideology; therefore it could never be a religion. I'm personally tired of people calling science a religion, where is the doctrine, worshippers, and churches of science? My point was if the universe is godless, it means there is no point to life. since it wasn't given a point by a creator, the only way to get a point to life is if you give it your own point. Whilst your tired of a scientific "religion." i'm tired of angry theist who cannot prove the existence of their oh so apparent god that totally exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not personal experience. Do you believe the people who claim to be abducted by aliens? No, because their claims are here say, with no valid supporting evidence. I don't believe people who claim god is real, because there claims are here say with no valid supporting evidence.

Yeah! I decide whose toy and slave I am! Oh, wait. Wrong context. But yeah, we don't require a god for people to be self aware, sexually reproducing, social animals, who necessarily find pleasure in more than eating, drinking and having sex, all though I eh... well... you know. But let's not go there :p SHRIMP COCKTAIL!