Devout Catholic DEBATES Vegan Activist on College Campus

by birtanpublished on September 9, 2020

Hey come on sit down how you doing I'm ed hi Dean Scott yeah I'm good thank you I'm from London in England yes have you been no place it's my favorite City but Providence is quite nice as well okay cool um so I'm here at Brown University and I have a tablecloth and tablecloths

Says can you justify not being vegan and so you sat down and so I was wondering what justifications do you have to not be vegan oh can I hold it you can if you'd like so I have more of a question because I don't wanna argue about like

Animal like whether or not you can kill animals because it's like that comes to more of like a what you think is more on what's not and it'll just that's too hard to argue so I want to ask like what do you think so if we get rid of all

Animal farming like what happens to the like millions of people that work in in farming agriculture and like I come from a community that's like dominated by it so it would like completely kill like millions people as their jobs and all

That so yeah I think this is a very important question and I think one thing that happens often in the vegan debate is there becomes some sort of a battle line strong worth like vegans versus farmers or agricultural workers and

Vegans have you know we think that farmers are animal abusers and such okay so I think that's a really important point to raise and so the first thing to consider bloody else is gonna blow and the first thing to consider is I think

That that many this is gonna be a generalization so bear with me that many farmers can switch to plant-based agriculture and we see this particularly in the US with dairy industry a lot at the moment it's a lot of dairy industry

Or dairy farmers and industry officials a switch and what they do in to plant-based agriculture and so that the problem then becomes if for those who have that option and a are unsuitable land to kind of accommodate for arable

Farming we didn't need to create a an economic system that allows them to do so because you've got machinery and you've got equipment that allows you to produce animal products and it's not as simple as just swapping because it costs

Money you've got a rent equipment etc so in the US but also in the UK around from our government gives huge amounts of tax tax subsidies to animal agriculture to keep these products profitable and to drive the prices down for consumers and

So last year the US government gave the dairy industry a 1 billion dollar bailout because the dairy industry is struggling at the moment and so this allowed them to recoup the costs from plant-based milks but also from changing

Habits and things and so I say keep these tax subsidies as they are and give them to animal farmers but they're given some animal farmers with the incentive that they have to switch to plant-based agriculture and now therefore means that

They can support families they can support the transition and they also enter into what we would consider to be kind of an ever growing economy and look at plant-based farming now it's something that all the transit

Suggesting is going to go from strength to strength so in terms of safeguarding financial you know future of financial ventures it makes much more economic sense for them to do that but I have to be fair because some farmers do not have

The means to switch to plant agriculture maybe their land isn't suitable maybe the you know the live in an area I guess in the UK a lot sheep farmers it's not so many farmers here the sheep farmers you can graze sheep on hills but you

Can't produce plants on hills and so you can't make that transition so simply and so what we need to do is me to create a system that caters for farmers that can't just switch right there's a couple of options firstly we've got to consider

The shift to veganism is gonna be very gradual we're not gonna be faced this problem tonight we have many decades presumably to think of these solutions and one of those solutions is something called vertical farming which means that

You can build a building you could take any building here theoretically any kind of warehouse building in a city or outside of a city and you can create a system of farming with insides and so what that does is that provides jobs but

It also creates a system of Agriculture that is more sustainable uses less water uses less energy you'd have to worry about invasive species GMOs pesticides fertilizers but this theoretically then for those who

Cannot grow crops on the land that they use we could create jobs and systems of vertical farming and employ people and farmers from animal farming into those professions instead so that they still have a job of in agriculture it's just a

More progressive and evolved form of Agriculture yeah so I think my biggest problem with that is is it obviously requires you forcing people to change their way of life and it comes back around to changing people because if

They want to eat me like someone like me yeah I if I want to eat me I should like in America like you know we all say freedoms our wheat out freedom is our biggest principle

And I think that intrudes on that is and then especially intrudes on it when you are forcing people to change their occupation and learn something new and also forcing people to pay for that because you're forcing it's gonna cost a

Lot of money a lot more money than then you might think I would imagine – especially with with vertical farming someone has to pay for these buildings someone like the farmer you can't give these farmers especially like cattle

Farmers that that their cattle grazes like you said like hilly land and that that is and you're saying you want to restore that to natural wasn't natural natural land and so your tent you're stripping them of that land but doesn't

Want okay so we talked about a once there's a one provide justification for the action just dis simply because we would like to do that and we enjoy the product about does that mean that the the consequence of the actions then

Justifies well no but if the consequence isn't like a necessary evil but that's so but we would say that consuming animal products is unnecessary right no I'm saying if it's not if the consequence is not innate an innate evil

Okay so you're saying that the the consequence just because I want to kill someone doesn't mean I can kill or not like but that's innate evil like I can't do that right so we tout the idea of freedom has been a Liberty freedom to

Autonomy being a big one freedom to speech obviously but also but more important to a lack of exploitation so when we consume when we go into a supermarket now and we buy a plant based product our freedoms not being denied to

Us but if we buy an animal-based product then we've actively denied freedom to an animal and an animal who is not an object would therefore be classed as a someone because they're individuals with which sentence so we've denied freedom

To someone whereas we've not denied freedom to ourself three blowers plant-based products we've just merely accepted this sensory pleasure this is not a justification for harming sentient life

My argument to that would be that these animals aren't necessarily I forget the word I was going to use but they aren't necessarily as they don't have as much so if you keep an animal in and it's like cuz your argument is that they are

Like unjustly like held and they're taking these freedoms away and we're taking the freedoms away from these animals well I said if we if in the US and learn from the UK we hold freedom as being a pinnacle of yeah and civilized

And involved society that is only fed that free to be granted to others outside of that human centric viewpoint yeah so like in the Constitution its freedoms aren't given to animals it's just one given to all humans when the

Constitution was relevant well now the Constitution now I'm talking about saying that they said that morality and views of what constitutes a civilized society can evolve and change it's not they're not in sold beings

Though they're not installed so they're a household this is when this went to become religious so there's no problem but at the same time and a soul doesn't necessary to find worth of life and even if we even if if you believe and that an

Animal is devoid of a soul in non-human animals devoid of a soul that doesn't justify persecuting them or harming them just because they can't ascend to wherever afterlife we may go to visiting that in this life with it and then

Justified to cause them suffering or not we're Perce to keep we're not persecuting them as and we're not just like holding them and like torturing them and stuff what the 4000 what does what persecution so I think I think that

It's not persecution because if something's done for the the happiness or the something's done to these animals could obviously you could say like oh you could do other things trapping but something's done to these animals that I

Believe are less than humans mm-hmm and I would I would think most people agree on that that they're less than humans that if it's if it's more if it's to make humans the more dominant and more important species

Happy then that's justifiably so ok so I don't believe that to be vegan you have to place non-human animals as the same level Schumann's you can believe that humans are a higher being and they have a higher right to life and I'm not gonna

Lie arguably on that one but what I will say is that all we have to do is then we have to work out why it is that we consume animals and so if we use some taste as the cornerstone for why we consume animal products the question

Isn't are non-human animals the same as humans or do they have the same value as humans the question is do non-human animals have a higher value than our taste buds so the question really should be what do you think is high value taste

Or life taste and there's a human taste so you okay so then we have to find a justification for that and so by that by that logic you are saying it's sensory pleasure morally justifies an action no I'm saying in the case of this because

What you animals some more code is a pleasure than I then like that's justifying like a rave exactly but this is but taste is sensory pleasure yeah so when you say that taste justifies taking life you are saying that sensory

Pleasure is a morally justified becomes a moral justify if the pursuit of sensory pleasure justifies an action excuse me if it's been then every action that we as humans make it becomes justified simply because we enjoy it and

That could become I enjoy kicking a dog and then that actually of kicking the dog is justifiable because I find sensory pleasure from doing so yeah no I just I disagree because the difference is is that these like I like I just

Previously said it's I agree with certain certain sensory pleasures can be wrong so did fine so in your aura in your eyes taste is eclipsed we're so eating any animals acceptable eating a dog's fine

Okay so if you wanna eat a dog yeah so okay logical consistency is important so okay so we say that taste is a fine sensory pleasure what about all the other senses can we justify touch sight smell are they also justifiable or do

They also provide moral justifications for actions moral vacations reactions just touch I guess thought that would be the next big one touch so it depends on on what it's necessarily for because there are na

Evils that can be done with so we have to but when we when we use arguments to to create moral justifications those arguments have to be able to be applied consistently of ways that they're not they're not proper justifications yeah

We're applying they're somewhat disingenuous Lee so if we if we say sensory pleasure is it provides moral justification because I enjoy the taste we have to say that every action that provides this pleasure to one of our

Senses is justifiable because we've we've condoned the action food taste but we don't believe that so I'm not saying that it's necessarily justifiable because it tastes good that's not why it's that's not what makes it I'm saying

If the issue as I'm saying it I'm saying that it doesn't make it evil I'm not saying it makes it good or necessary I'm just saying that a picture yeah I don't believe you're evil for doing it okay that just to make mustn't any nice

Animals is evil but but with but then if it's not taste then what is your justification for eating animal no no I'm not I'm just saying that I just feel like there's no way through through so the taste I'm using the taste as a

Reason a reason that humans like it yes yes yeah and so humans humans like the meat and I'm saying that it's not wrong to eat these animals because and the reason is my reasoning isn't necessarily the taste it's the fact that we can do

What we want with these animals because they are less than human so you believe that might makes right I don't know what that means so the idea that because we can't physically impose our dominance we're then justified to do so no because

I can physically impose my dominance on like a two-year-old okay well let's take humans out animals can we do anything we want to animals because we are a physically superior species anything that is for the that isn't an

Innate evil okay so but what like is did is done for a good purpose but say but if we don't have to I think good purpose it's done for a good person or to find what a not bad purpose so we gotta define

Them what a good purpose and I'm so a non evil purpose so if it's done for the purpose of like then you could say like you could do sexual things to animals or torture animals or something like that that's an evil purpose to suffice an

Eater too but we could give yourself an evil yes or a bad pleasure it's and there's there are bad pleasures well why is like same reason a serial killer yes gets pleasure from killing people that's bad because it's a black it's a

Bad pleasure yeah so the pleasures you get from torturing things or killing things or like killing humans but yes killing so torturing or having I don't want to say it again it was weird but yeah yeah so those are bad pleasures

Whereas simply it's not a bad pleasure because because it still comes at the the victimization of the animal in the same way that in the same way that the victimization of the animal it doesn't matter because but then why does salting

Because they're not humans but then so that we are allowed to know because the evil is in is in the reasoning for the action so but if animals I bear no moral consideration the respect that we can kill them to eat them and that's a wrong

Action then why is then why is then why is using animal for sexual satisfaction any different because again that sensory pleasure there's this taste satisfaction and this sensory satisfaction we could wear them that'd be visual satyr so I I

Think I think so this is where religions gonna come back and yes my being it because that's where you get morality from a lot of you Merle I mean there's an eight moral things but yeah more of like a thing to point to I guess you

Could say so I think certain pleasures are are wrong simply because you're doing it for a wrong reason and like so say I'm just trying to think of a pleasure that I think is wrong that doesn't have

To do with harming others like yeah yeah like I'm trying to think something that's not like uncomfortable to talk about yeah is screwed who cares like masturbation or something like right

Like imma imma Catholic I'm a devout Catholic so I think that that's wrong because of the it's a bat it's an evil pleasure it's not done for a good purpose or a good reason whereas whereas this killing and eating an animal for

The pleasure of it killing and eating an animal for the pleasure of your taste is not an evil thing things tasting good like eating dessert and having it taste good those things feeling good isn't the same thing right so yeah I don't know

Obviously I'm not you can pick something else I know but like feeling so we gotta sensual like they're all sensory pleasures okay that's the thing and and your religion is dictated some sense you pledge has been justifiable nervous it's

Not but I believe that to be morality has to be applied consistently and I think and I do want it let's touch upon religion briefly I'm not I'm not hated yeah yeah in any way dispute yeah they're different and but in terms of I

Think historically we look at say look at Jesus and we said well Jesus consume barrels and the aggregate makers that Jesus consumed animals their time a necessity well you know you didn't have Whole Foods to go and get some you know

Beyond meat burgers right but society's progress through changed so much and one thing that we can all agree on religious and is that the God do you believe in would be a benevolent compassionate God right you know he wants to help and he

Wants what's best and he's you know so he's not in terment for humans okay but now okay I believe that it is a compassion and compassion and benevolent God and I believe that if God is truly benevolent then to inflict suffering on

To the animals that he created on this planet would they're both therefore be seen as a negative negative to him when that suffering it is not necessary for plus L so you've got to consider that the animals that we consume specialist

Take the chickens that pigs the cows that conventionally consume these animals have been genetically modified and selectively bred so a chicken will grow to slaughter si six weeks a dairy cow produced ten times

More milk than naturally would and so one essence we've done is we've taken God's creatures that he created and we've said you know good job but not good enough and so then we've selectively bred and genetically

Modified them to create them to fit our needs there's an innocent a sense by by this process of genetic modification we've played God and we try to take the the the act of creation upon ourselves which I probably seem to be quite

Blasphemous in a sense and so the animals that we conventionally consume when we go into supermarkets and not God's creations and they are we just took him and made him better but I've got to perfect them how can I make his

Creations but he didn't we're not making his creations better there's things on this earth no no no I know because it's his creation so why we're changing his creations if God is is perfect Nico's animals to be perfect then why do we

Alter them to fill our own needs because they're perfect okay so the thing why would God think I was acceptable so it's not wrong it's not wrong to change the way that an animal is – because like you said people are changing things are

Changing throughout time so morality changes evolution dictate reality and I don't think morality changes but it morality must change because one must have changed well I mean when the Ten Commandments were drawn up slavery was

Still justified so it was like a denture indentured servitude more like that are you talking about Old Testament slavery no I'm not even now I'm saying that the weeks and you know well mr. Avery abolish 300 years ago yes so more even

Less than under Ten Commandments it doesn't say slavery is good yeah talking about humans but at the same time what I'm saying is that if morality was defined when the ten commands came to be then surely from that point onwards

Everything that happened should have been deemed morally acceptable but it simply wasn't and in to this day we have not reached the pinnacle of moral evolution and so we still have to look at our options and assess where there is

To change and that's not somehow anti-religion to try and change as a society there's not anti-religion say that the Ten Commandments they'll cover all the moral laws that we should live by is this an acknowledgment that we as

A species have the ability to reflect and critically analyze our actions yeah and I think that that's a liberating thing to understand actually we have a form of autonomy that we would argue God has granted to us but that autonomy

Comes a responsibility to criticize and stuff flat God's not gonna dislike us for not harming animals if we come to the conclusion I think you have the perfect right to be vegan if you want exactly

And so so then if recessive if God is neutral aspect of killing or not killing animals then it comes down to Marva a personal individualistic aspect and so if we make the argument that God is neutral then the religion aspect of us

Still holds no credibility because it doesn't matter yeah and so then we have to look beyond religion or other justifications and so the question then becomes how do you as an individual without you know without the the mandate

From God's justify killing animals because it's not a mandate oh no I don't think if I never thought it was exactly so if God is happy of you not to kill them then why do you do so if doing so causes suffering and harm to them

Because like I said like I don't really care about the suffering and harm of the animal but why don't you because they're not human but but what so what what characteristics do humans possess that means souls okay but like okay so but as

We said before the transcendence – it's when afterlife doesn't justify the perpetuation of violence in this current life and so just because a cow won't live out divine eternity in heaven doesn't mean they should be harmed in

This life but I don't think they should be I think they can be okay so define what you mean by okay so of course they physically can be because they're not installed demons I think we can use them to over whatever you said okay so then

Before when you said about it being wrong to sexually abused animal wallet but then if we can use them in any regard that we want then any actually blame it no I think we just I think having it's like sex or whatever without

The purpose of having a kid is wrong so that's why I think that's right but I guess the point would be made that then if it's if it's if it's okay to eat an animal because they don't bear moral consideration because they don't have

Souls then again we have to apply that way of thinking logically which which would mean that any action that we wish to commit to an animal would therefore be justified simply because they don't have a soul and even if that's not true

That necessity option can be just if not necessarily so you have to you either have to justify everything I just defined nothing with the argument and so if it's nothing that means that that the eating them is in just no

Because there can be two different thing it's not because the reason that having sex with an animal is wrong is not because you're inflicting any sort of pain or anything on them it's because of the action that you're doing and the

Choice they're making exteriorly from the animal but why would why would right I don't care about the animal and the effect that that would have them so why do you care at all about the option because I think that like I said before

Like having okay so let's take sex out because that becomes a really smart so what about just what about just violence at all if the dog walks past now it can I kick them and punch them because they don't have a salt so that's what I said

Like fulfilling your exterior desire of hurting this this animal or beating or doing whatever to this animal that that is an evil desire inside is what makes it wrong not what not the pain that the animal what if I beat them to death to

Eat them I don't then you're once again you're doing oh if you're beating them to death I want the dog but I have no knife and so I just bludgeon them with the microphone until them but you're using the the the minut to explain that

Like that I could go so it is wrong because I could go down the street and go get food that but so is it justifiable for me to bludgeon the dog with a microphone if the sole intention is to feed them afterwards where are you

In this situation right here right now right no cuz you could you could go get something to kill the dog in a better way well no the dogs about to go and I've got a right now so you gotta act now so if you want that specific digit

Just more than anything yeah I'm kill it yeah so so it's justifiable to kill an animal with slaughterhouse but it therefore it's also justifiable to kill an animal it any means possible and any desire as

Long as the endpoint is to consume them as long as there's no yeah as long as within you there's no it's not to fulfill this desire of bludgeoning it as long as the bludgeoning isn't what's but so but the the designer is comes as a

Consequence of bludgeoning and so the the desire facility is the desert is a bloodshed you're not you're not doing it for the purpose of fulfilling your desire of bludgeoning the animal you're doing it

To fulfill your desire of eating the animal but the bludgeoning is a consequence of that desire and so if the idea is the animals are warranted no moral consideration then there should be no argument about what we can do there

Should be there should be no mind you subtleties about what we as humans can do to them because no because I said like I said I can have my belief that doing the sexual actions or whatever is wrong regardless of it you'd be doing it

To an inanimate thing individualistic reliefs don't define a sense of what should be societally adopted no we all have our individualistic beliefs people have sensuality since some people think there are so many individualistic

Beliefs the society doesn't operate on the idea that everyone has a right to decide what they do and don't think is wrong there has to be some follow up objective morality that we had here yeah and that generators might adjust don't

Believe that it's objectively immoral to kill animals so but we have to so if in the absence I guess in the absence of religion objective morality must be defined for whether or not an action has a victim who suffers and there can be no

Denying that animal is a victim who suffers yeah but it's not human it's not a human who suffers ok so this is where I draw my route morality I say that it's wrong to kill a human because humans are conscious centered and have

Individualistic experiences of life that are unique to them and they can suffer and feel pain and so that's thought to be morally in logic from system I have to say that the exploitation of non-human animals is wrong as well

Because they are sent in conscious and have individualistic experience of life that he unique toward in my soul checkbox that you would need there is where we disagree and so but then we're doing were placing the the the safe you

Know a belief in front of what we know to be objectively true and I'm not at that point to question your belief in God but what I am saying is what we objectively know to be true is that these animals feel pain are at ascension

In conscious yeah but we have no there's no foundation other than than faith a culturally based faith to believe that animal doesn't have a soul and so then we're justifying killing trillions of animals based on an individualistic

Faith that there's no scientific foundation well then we could argue for the like existence of God or whatever but but then no point in that but then if I think there is scientific I think if science supports the existence of the

But if you look so so if we then take faith and we say that faith justifies an action that means that any action that we want can be justified simply because we as individuals have faith and in the the moral but I'm not just I'm saying

It's not an objective I'm not objectifying it because of faith I'm saying that it's not an objective wrong if there's nothing take away faith it's not objectively wrong but if you take away faith than what else if we

Take away say from the equation because I doubt and I think it's an objective reality that animals don't have souls but you can't even define where it's an objective reality if we as humans have souls this is that this is the thing

When we're dealing with what I think if situations that victims we have to deal with what it what is obviously true to us so what we know is animals suffer they feel pain they have families they love their families they have a desire

To experience happiness just as we do that just as we do but experience happen it's not not experience happiness in the ways that we do but experience happiness in this say in the essence that we wish to experience happiness so not in terms

Of the actual pursuit of happiness but there's the intrinsic value of happiness they wish to to feel this open like the previous guy said about insects they have desires and they want to eat like but as we established with the previous

Guy if we have a scale of consciousness and a scale of desire plant still come below insects and so the insect might be more justifiable than say the cows but the plants is still more justifiable than the insects and then I tell you

Where do you draw the line I draw the line of animals so if you said insects or animals ok so you don't think we should kill insects no if we don't have to I mean why if the squirrels wondered if

They sorry for spiders don't stamp inspire but if they're basically like the like yeah but what was the word he is by our biological machine machines right yeah so if they're basically biological machines that they don't

Really they're like you swat a fly it felt nothing it's gone it's dead but it's still I mean I I just don't think that am I gonna hold you as morally responsible as as cutting forever cow no but at the same time if there's no

Necessity for us to do it then just let them live that's that's the foundation of veganism is it's a very simple foundation it's just if there's no necessity for us to harm an animal just downs but then how do you just okay

So so all the way back to the beginning so so many people agree with you it's obviously not an objective it's not an objective wrong if a large large large large majority of people think it's okay to eat meat but that's the false

Consensus bias based on the fact that just because the majority people do sometimes and I think I think that yours is a false pie or false bias just because I still won't because I think it's okay to eat meat I don't think so

If we're appealing if we're making appeals to some sort of cognitive bias by saying well the majority of people do that's a dangerous disadvantage mentality to have I know I know that I wasn't using it to necessarily justify

The action I'm saying all right well finish my thought I was gonna say so if how do you justify forcing all of these people against their will like what I thought fosters to do anything I mean when you leave now you can go and

You combine your utopia like if you could change not your utopia so if if it was up to you you would say you were an idealistic world right I know but I'm just asking if you had your way why would you make it would you change the

Laws so it was now illegal and all these people were forced to do it I don't believe in laws and in terms of mandating people to live in a certain way I don't know I don't believe I think that prohibition it and it hasn't never

Historically worked and that's why I believe in education awareness I think the only way that we can progress as a society is by helping people within that society understand why their progression is an imperative as that's why I'm here

Today is not to tell you that it's not to follow you to a Whole Foods and watch you buy the tofu and then make you cook at home it's to say look there's an alternative never do that you know I'm saying is there's an alternative way to

Live okay and it's through understanding that there is an alternative that we can make more informed decisions but most of us have never fought about this and we've heard of vegans and we have ideas of what being vegan means it but if we

Ever actually sat down and tried to rationalize the action most of us never have and so but so if you think if I killed Brian Mercer over there does Brian so if I kill Brian yeah you don't think that

Should be illegal you think that like there should be no yes I do there should be a punishment but I believe that we need to foster a society with a notion of killing Paul Brian hare isn't even on the go yeah I

Know but so if you think that I should get punished for that yeah then if that's an innate evil so like it's he's the same you sentient he's all the stuff just as animals are how come I shouldn't go to jail no you

Should but I don't believe it's simply mandating some creating a system of legal and illegal should define how we operate it I don't believe that solution to the problem of how we use animals is by making the action illegal I think

It's by showing people why it shouldn't happen to the point well if something doesn't have to be illegal for us not to do it we just have this societal recognition well you know hey let's let's leave those chickens alone and not

Cut their throats because I mean that whole psyches having helps but murder being illegal as probably stops a lot of murders yeah but it's so why not make it look for animals too because then it would stop a lot of animal murders I

Know I agree but it's an indictment of our system our species that that's the expense we have to go to and so yeah if so if if say from God forbid you and you'd never do this per se put in a piece of legislation in front of

Congress which was to ban farming and the farming I'm not gonna I'm not gonna go and advocate I'm trying to filibuster I want it to be passed but at the same time I'd be disappointed that that's the extent we have to go to to help people

Understand that we don't have to and shouldn't harm animals okay if that makes sense all right what a great conversation appreciate very thank you thank have a lovely day and all the best you appreciate month

You

Related Videos

hey guys techrax here coming at you guys with another giveaway this is gonna be an iPhone 5s two of these brand new phones not the one in this video guys this i...
hey guy there's a popular game in the app store called flappy bird right now and it's supposedly really annoying believe it or not I haven't played ...
hey guys tech Rex here so right here with me I have an Apple iPhone 5s this is the gold one I also have with me some liquid nitrogen yes this is the real deal a...
hey guys techrax here right here I have the iPhone 5s with me this is the champagne or the gold color I still can't really figure out if it's champagne ...
hey guys tear cracks here so this video really exciting video I have the new Samsung Galaxy s5 for you guys this is the long-awaited cellular devices releases i...
everyone techrax here in this video I've got the latest Samsung Galaxy s5 right here as well as the Apple iPhone 5s and we're going to be doing a simple...
everyone techrax here in this video guys have a really exciting device this is the Samsung Galaxy s5 charcoal black and I'm really liking I after seeing the...
everyone techrax here here with me off the Samsung Galaxy s5 this is a perfectly fine s5 it is cracked from the drop test that I had with also one minor neck as...
hey guys tetrax here so in this video I'm going to try and burn the newly released Samsung Galaxy s5 this is the shimmering white 16 gigabyte model and if y...
everyone techrax here so I got my burn Samsung Galaxy s5 and I wanted to see whether the heartbeat sensor would still work the heart monitor on your galaxy s5 a...
hey guys Tech Rex here so I'm really excited to bring you guys a giveaway for my channel but this time I'm actually teaming up with a buddy of mine your...
hey guys techrax here so in this video I'm going to be hopefully instructing you guys how to make your very own a tech sandwich slash burger slash meal so y...
hey guys techrax here so I've got a galaxy s5 here this is the copper gold hopefully you guys can see pretty well it is sunset so it's getting a little ...
hey guys techrax here so right here with me I have a professional deep fryer in here is already some canola or corn or whatever oil I don't know vegetable o...
hey guys techrax here so just trying to make this video short and quick i'm having recently i got five hundred thousand subscribers and yeah most of you guy...
hey guys texture so in this video I have a drop test on the latest LG g3 device now this is actually the gold-coloured LG g3 this has not been released in the U...
hey guys techrax here so in this video we'll teach you guys how to make your iPhone indestructible this is essentially a case that's been around for yea...
hey guys techrax here soon in this video we had a train run over the iPhone 5s so we actually did this in two different instances initially we had a Space Gray ...
hey guys tech cracks here so in this video we're going to be dropped testing the newly released Amazon fire phone this is exclusive for AT&T and I belie...
hey guys techrax here so right here with me I have the Amazon fire phone this is the one I dropped and you know I thought what better what else do I do with thi...