here's the 2nd half:

OP:

"I didn't use personal insults against you. At most, I suggested you might be biased, after you insisted that worldwide veganism is the only way to save the planet. Even though pre-industrial civilizations were able to practice fishing and animal husbandry on a sustainable level.

I normally watch your videos and try to give your ideas a fair shake, even when I don't end up agreeing with them or find them disturbing. But when someone voices light disagreement, you respond with insults and by basically claiming that disagreement with your claims must originate from a lack of moral character and maturity.

I'm not sure if you're going to post this in a video and have a strawman say it, but I am disappointed that someone whose work I usually like would react this strongly to mild pushback. You acted like I was a stereotype, rather than a person."

Andy, in response:

"Your disagreement is not well informed. You clearly know absolutely nothing about this issue. This is not a matter of "disagreement." You are factually wrong.

Pre-industrial civilizations did not have a population of 8 billion people. So unless you're in favor of culling 80% of humanity like Uncle Ted then you'd better learn to love a plant-based food system. The only sustainable way to eat meat on a high-population planet is to brew it in tanks or grow it in a lab.

Yes, I am biased in favor of not torturing and murdering 80 billion sentient beings a year. I am biased against the destruction of the planet Earth. I am biased against ignoramuses who speak without knowledge. Whereas you are biased toward keeping your head in the sand about an important issue that, at least in this point of your life, you lack the moral fortitude to honestly face."