>>220773Well, I could've said 60%, but the answer is between 40% and 60% omnivore. It still only takes a small amount of meat to get as inefficient as a vegan diet.
As for the video, incredibly tedious first off. It goes on about basic logic for 15 minutes, without making any actual arguments, when we could have just been linked to a video about basic logic. Then he gives an absolutely awful, overcomplicated logical argument claiming utter nonsense. Let me just point out what they claimed, except instead of the loaded statement "all animals have moral value" I'll use the statement that "all sheep have wings."
P1: if 'a' is a view in category x iff 'a' affirms a given pegasus is wing-equalizible to a given sheep while having wings, then 'a' can only deny the given sheep has wings on pain P^~P
P2: 'a' is a view in category x iff 'a' affirms a given pegasus is wing-equalizable to a given sheep while retaining wings
C: therefore, 'a' can only deny the given sheep has wings on pain of P^~P
It's basically an argument that "No matter how many traits you swap between humans and animals, you can't find a point in which it's okay to kill humans, therefore animals are human and must never be killed," which is moronic because a human with a dog's brain might attack someone, and that person might defend themselves, and rightly kill the human who was trying to chew their throat out. It's okay to kill humans that are a real and present danger to you, no matter what's wrong with them, and honestly it might be an act of mercy, if you piecewise replace their body parts with that of an iguana until the human can't survive anyway.
It's like saying that since there's no point in which pegasus wings get too small for them to be pegasusses, therefore sheep must have wings. Except that there is a point, and sheep don't have wings.
