• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m not watching your YouTube video. if you can’t articulate a compelling reason, just say so.

    What absolutely trash reasoning. “Please type up a compelling reason just for me, I don’t want to watch a well researched and produced discussion on the topic.” It’s bordering on sealioning.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I did watch that video. probably a dozen times. it gets posted often. I shouldn’t be expected to debunk an argument that isn’t made.

      I rewatched* it after I made my comment though, and it does not establish what they claimed. it doesn’t cite sources**, and it’s primary thesis is “it’s complicated”

      edit(s):

      * i actually listened to it. but just now, after i made this comment, i scrubbed it and i found:

      ** they do some pretty hard-to-see and also hard-to-research citation in the form of citing academic papers in the bottom right of the screen around the time they are making the claim. and let me tell you, poore-nemecek is the basis of the lca analysis (which i could have guessed), and that lca analysis is flat out bad science. it’s certainly not a compelling reason to be vegan.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Those are very fair objections and that video isn’t perfect - I was only objecting to your apparent refusal to consume a video. A lot of content these days is produced in video form so it’s not reasonable to reject an argument based on media - some topics just aren’t well expressed in a written form.

        But, TL;DR I wasn’t criticizing your opinion or decision - just the common response of rejecting something based on the media it’s presented in.