Depending on his values, he might be more likely to switch to a purely plant based diet if he knew more about the advantages for our environment, zoonitic disease, antibiotic resistance, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and his own health, if he does it correctly.
@@someguy2135Imagine manipulating people to be unhealthy. 😂 predation is essential for biodiversity learn about ecosystem's, regeneratively farmed animals are carbon negative and support both the ecosystem and environment and they also don't require antibiotics because they live on pasture instead of on infectious conditions and are fed their natural diet (grass) which supports their immune system. Disease doesn't happen in healthy animals, monocrop agriculture causes the most deforestation plus plenty of death which is most likely what your food comes from. Eating animals is essential for human health, we've adapted to predominantly eat animals for the last 2 million years and had them in our diet for the last 3 million years.
Excellent outreach and communication as always Natalie! One thing that stood out - “artificial insemination” sounds too benign, I think “forcible impregnation” is better and more accurate (if you don’t want to say rape, though that is what it is).
I think it can be good to start with what you'd agree with before posing questions that inevitably strike a cord of self preservation, and inevitably cloud introspection.
I almost always get a good response to the BBQ culture aspect when I probe into how much weight the plants in the sauces, spice rubs, and sides have in our enjoyment of those foods. The parts of the dish that we have a cultural connection with are often related plenty to the style of cooking, the spice profile, the veg added etc and there's no reason you have to view boycotting animal products as a sacrifice when we can acknowledge the ways in which changes in culture and tradition are what give us our sense of community and unique culture. I can imagine that in 100 years time we'll be talking about food tourism through the lens of how uniquely each community adapted to broad adoption of plant-based cooking. There's no inherent moral value of a tradition, a tradition is only good or bad when we analyze it's components with critical ethical scrutiny
4:06 its frustrating when we sometimes default to "yeah for sure" when people are talking about how meat tastes good. We owe it to ourselves to try and not add these throwaway pleasantries just to build rapport. Simply remaining quiet is fine 😅
I'd argue most people eat animals simply because it tastes good, to deny that it seems to me that it would then make it more difficult for them to understand our position, and possibly believe they are justified in eating animals in a way that we aren't, if they get the impression that we do not think animals taste good. Indeed, however, it would be strange if we view it from a different angle. For example, I'm sure human flesh tastes good, but would we, if someone like Jeffrey Dahmer say that humans taste good, reply "yeah for sure", I'd say probably not... I like to be honest when I speak about veganism, and indeed when I did eat animals I did enjoy the taste, and so if someone would bring that up, I would acknowledge that it does, but firmly be against the implication that it somehow justifies enslaving and killing these animals for the mere taste.
@@thecrazyeagle9674 if I grant what you're saying is true and that most people simply eat animals because it tastes good then the moment something tastes the exact same or slightly better that person would stop eating animals all together, which is not the case. You don't need to pretty much verbally agree with someone that You also agree someone's dead body tastes good in order to continue the conversation, like I said, you can be silent and let him finish the rest of the thought. There's no necessity or use to agreeing with something like that. If you're talking to someone that eats dogs because they taste good or physically abuses people because it makes them feel good, you wouldn't say "yeah for sure"
@@nolow_life Yes there is use cases to agreeing with the statement, as you're establishing that you agree on something. If you cannot find any common ground, you cannot ever debate morality. If your claim is that it's ineffective to agree with them, then you have a burden of proof to show that, which I very much doubt you have. Indeed I wrote before that it would be strange to reply to Jeffrey Dahmer saying that humans taste good with "yeah for sure", but would it really be an incorrect statement? of course not. We would however not say "yeah for sure" if someone abuses people because we as compassionate humans do not gain pleasure from abusing people, and so we wouldn't agree with the statement.
@@thecrazyeagle9674 😂 do you know how many things you can agree on that doesn't involve a shared affinity over a corpse? HUNDREDS . You think if she stayed quiet the guy was going to storm off or something? Get real. For the second time, my point, is that it was completely unnecessary and if YOU don't believe so then you need to prove that the conversation would have went AWOL if she simply stayed silent while he continued answering the question. Perhaps you're not even aware of the point I'm talking about, because you seem kind of ignorant to it right now. The "yeah for sure" was a throwaway statement in the midst of his opportunity at speaking. Words matter and the way we use them matters. Again... There are PLENTY of ways to find common ground without conceding a shared interest in the fruits of exploitation. With More in person social interaction you'll discover exactly what I'm talking about
@@nolow_life "You think if she stayed quiet the guy was going to storm off or something? Get real. " Yet you claim that she should not have said anything? What was the disastrous effect of her saying "yeah sure"? Literally nothing. You're the one who is complaining about three words she said. Again, the only thing that matters for the animals is the most effective strategy to make people vegan. Whilst I appreciate the advice to go and talk to people more, this is certainly not a point against anything what I said. If you're claiming however, that not saying this would be the most effective strategy to promote veganism, then again, the burden of proof is on you. If you cannot demonstrate this, it doesn't matter, because again, being vegan is for the animals.
Natalie ( if I have her name correctly), is possibly one of the best negotiators and debators I've seen. Probably on a par with someone like Earthling Ed ( or better in some ways). Recently, I watched another vegan who's YT handle is "The Militant vegan". Don't get me wrong because I think she's doing a cracking job by causing maximum cognitive Dissonance but her approach is in some way very aggressive. Personally, I don't have a problem with her being aggressive but I do think shouting etc could be counter productive. It could lead some people to think : OK if this animal rights woman has called me a hypocrite & an abuser then I'll eat more animals - screw her! I do condone and support direct Action and the burning down of labs, meat lorries & so on. Direct Action, breaking the Law all have their place but if you're going to use "The Socratic method" for anything it's better to promote yourself as a calm person with a normal level headed personality. This should help dispell the myth that "Animal Rights Activists are crazy". Moreover, if a meat eater has a pleasant experience with someone like Natalie who put very little to no pressure on the interviewer to "Go Vegan" your going to get a better overall results I think. That said, I would say militant Vegan girl have their place and use. Joey Carbstrong is kind of in-between the two above described methods I think. I live in Taiwan & have just released my first video. It's just me talking to myself. But, I thought ok stop dithering no matter how bad the videoay be. In Taiwan I will be more successful taking an approach like Natalie whereby both she and I use Psychological skills and knowledge to help put the meat eater at ease. It's all very well saying how disgusting someone is by funding the Holocaust on animals but there comes a time when oneigjt needs to ask :" Am I doing this outreach work to satiate my own anger over animal abuse or am I debating with meat eaters so they beçome, eventually, Vegan.
@@valentinbreindl533 the same goes for regeneratively farmed animals plus the cows fertalize the soil. It's much easier to guarantee organic meat than plants at least where I live.
"Do you think the world would be better if we evolved away from using animals as resources?" I suspect this is the crux of the pervasive "nature/lions" argument. People don't judge a otter for eating a fish but they do think it's fucked up if that otter rapes a penguin. Because treating animals has been a food resource has been a helpful mindset that has helped us survive as well as served the keep other species from over-populating and destroying the ecosystem. Those reasons don't really apply to modern animal agriculture but I always feel like the best analogy ffor eating meat isn't slavery or the holocaust but war and violence in general. We've evolved to make fists and throw rocks and treating other countries as conquerable resources has built empires while militaries keep countries safe but we acknowledge war is barbaric. Though we still have standing armies so if war is the best analogy for our relationship to eating meat, maybe we'd want to keep some farm animals around in case there are situations where someone needs them (certain medical conditions?) but we understand that we hope we don't have to do it.
0:25 i have no problems with anit racists or anti pedo's... i get it... but i still want to be for those things.. but i have nothing against people who are agaist them lol
She wants to make the case for animal rights but doesn't want to get into debates? What the hell does that mean? It means she doesn't want to hear his opinion and she just wants to proselytize to him 🙄🙄🙄🙄
I don't think we should be calling people "meat eaters". Imaging referring to your family or friends as "meat eaters". Hey "meat eater", what's up? What are you doing today MEAT EATER? It's a really strange way to refer to people. Earthling Ed titled his latest book "how to argue with a meat eater" too, I don't like it.
Personally I think it's appropriate. I like referring to "meat" as "flesh" specifically because it's provocative. Similarly referring to eating meat as eating "dead animals" is effective in concisely and directly relating the food people eat to how it gets there.
Totally agree, i always use "non vegans " , as imo using the words "meat eaters" suggests that veganism is a diet . Also "non vegan " terminology incudes vegetarians .
@@benwaggler3541 The person you're talking with knows you're intentionally substituting in these words to make it sound as grotesque as possible and they may become less receptive because they see you have an agenda. I've been using the phrase "eating animals" instead of "eating meat" as I felt meat is too generic for what it is. And instead of "vegan" I'll say I'm pro life towards animals because (1) everybody loves animals until they hear the word vegan, (2) there are similarities with the human pro life position: * Believes it's murder and can't believe society thinks it's all fine * Thinks people should avoid committing said murder by resisting their carnal temptations * Notices how quickly people turn into angry demons when told they're not allowed to kill anymore * Protests outside the killing facilities * Knows Bible verses supporting their belief
Would you prefer something like non vegan? Indeed it may seem plausible, but how about we stop using euphemisms? Talking about things at face value I believe can have great benefit. Would we not call people "humans", but of course, it would be weird to say Hey "human", what's up. It is simply a fact of the mater that they eat animals, and so, the label is justified. Any label that you think of, will always sound weird, because we don't actually use labels when talking to people, we use their names or pronouns. I'm a vegan, but would people say Hey "vegan", what's up? No of course not.
@@Combative_Dissident Hey, thanks for spreading your tedium. Egomaniac world is always fascinating in the juxtaposition of its complete self-obsession and yet complete lack of self-awareness.
Dude clearly has an open heart and a lot to learn. A few more seeds planted over time and he could definitely go vegan.
Depending on his values, he might be more likely to switch to a purely plant based diet if he knew more about the advantages for our environment, zoonitic disease, antibiotic resistance, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and his own health, if he does it correctly.
@@someguy2135Imagine manipulating people to be unhealthy. 😂 predation is essential for biodiversity learn about ecosystem's, regeneratively farmed animals are carbon negative and support both the ecosystem and environment and they also don't require antibiotics because they live on pasture instead of on infectious conditions and are fed their natural diet (grass) which supports their immune system. Disease doesn't happen in healthy animals, monocrop agriculture causes the most deforestation plus plenty of death which is most likely what your food comes from. Eating animals is essential for human health, we've adapted to predominantly eat animals for the last 2 million years and had them in our diet for the last 3 million years.
I wonder if he paid attention to the the vegan episodes of Rick and Morty
Couldn't help but think the exact same thing
Which ones?
@@thecrazyeagle9674 The episode where the organs of dead people turned into spaghetti comes to mind
Excellent outreach and communication as always Natalie! One thing that stood out - “artificial insemination” sounds too benign, I think “forcible impregnation” is better and more accurate (if you don’t want to say rape, though that is what it is).
Great interview, a potential vegan on his way .
Ban Slaughter
BAN ANIMAL SLAVERY!🥺🥺🥺💔💔💔🐄🐖🐔🐟🦊🐻🦝🪳🐐♥️♥️♥️
Never gonna happen 😂 you can get rid of factory farmed animals though
I think it can be good to start with what you'd agree with before posing questions that inevitably strike a cord of self preservation, and inevitably cloud introspection.
I almost always get a good response to the BBQ culture aspect when I probe into how much weight the plants in the sauces, spice rubs, and sides have in our enjoyment of those foods. The parts of the dish that we have a cultural connection with are often related plenty to the style of cooking, the spice profile, the veg added etc and there's no reason you have to view boycotting animal products as a sacrifice when we can acknowledge the ways in which changes in culture and tradition are what give us our sense of community and unique culture.
I can imagine that in 100 years time we'll be talking about food tourism through the lens of how uniquely each community adapted to broad adoption of plant-based cooking. There's no inherent moral value of a tradition, a tradition is only good or bad when we analyze it's components with critical ethical scrutiny
Great job Natalie, you're an amazing activist. Really enjoyed this conversation.
I nice open discussion.
👋
GO VEGAN 🎉
Thank u Natalie, this is great
Great work😊😊😊🐄🐖🐔🐟🦊🐻🦝🪳🐐♥️♥️♥️💕💕💕🌸🌸🌸🤗🤗🤗
I saw a student trying to turn a trick in the background at 5:35 . Fancy.
Not sure “turn a trick” means what you think it means :)
4:06 its frustrating when we sometimes default to "yeah for sure" when people are talking about how meat tastes good. We owe it to ourselves to try and not add these throwaway pleasantries just to build rapport. Simply remaining quiet is fine 😅
I'd argue most people eat animals simply because it tastes good, to deny that it seems to me that it would then make it more difficult for them to understand our position, and possibly believe they are justified in eating animals in a way that we aren't, if they get the impression that we do not think animals taste good.
Indeed, however, it would be strange if we view it from a different angle. For example, I'm sure human flesh tastes good, but would we, if someone like Jeffrey Dahmer say that humans taste good, reply "yeah for sure", I'd say probably not...
I like to be honest when I speak about veganism, and indeed when I did eat animals I did enjoy the taste, and so if someone would bring that up, I would acknowledge that it does, but firmly be against the implication that it somehow justifies enslaving and killing these animals for the mere taste.
@@thecrazyeagle9674 if I grant what you're saying is true and that most people simply eat animals because it tastes good then the moment something tastes the exact same or slightly better that person would stop eating animals all together, which is not the case. You don't need to pretty much verbally agree with someone that You also agree someone's dead body tastes good in order to continue the conversation, like I said, you can be silent and let him finish the rest of the thought. There's no necessity or use to agreeing with something like that.
If you're talking to someone that eats dogs because they taste good or physically abuses people because it makes them feel good, you wouldn't say "yeah for sure"
@@nolow_life Yes there is use cases to agreeing with the statement, as you're establishing that you agree on something. If you cannot find any common ground, you cannot ever debate morality.
If your claim is that it's ineffective to agree with them, then you have a burden of proof to show that, which I very much doubt you have.
Indeed I wrote before that it would be strange to reply to Jeffrey Dahmer saying that humans taste good with "yeah for sure", but would it really be an incorrect statement? of course not.
We would however not say "yeah for sure" if someone abuses people because we as compassionate humans do not gain pleasure from abusing people, and so we wouldn't agree with the statement.
@@thecrazyeagle9674 😂 do you know how many things you can agree on that doesn't involve a shared affinity over a corpse? HUNDREDS . You think if she stayed quiet the guy was going to storm off or something? Get real.
For the second time, my point, is that it was completely unnecessary and if YOU don't believe so then you need to prove that the conversation would have went AWOL if she simply stayed silent while he continued answering the question. Perhaps you're not even aware of the point I'm talking about, because you seem kind of ignorant to it right now. The "yeah for sure" was a throwaway statement in the midst of his opportunity at speaking.
Words matter and the way we use them matters. Again... There are PLENTY of ways to find common ground without conceding a shared interest in the fruits of exploitation. With More in person social interaction you'll discover exactly what I'm talking about
@@nolow_life "You think if she stayed quiet the guy was going to storm off or something? Get real. "
Yet you claim that she should not have said anything? What was the disastrous effect of her saying "yeah sure"? Literally nothing. You're the one who is complaining about three words she said. Again, the only thing that matters for the animals is the most effective strategy to make people vegan.
Whilst I appreciate the advice to go and talk to people more, this is certainly not a point against anything what I said. If you're claiming however, that not saying this would be the most effective strategy to promote veganism, then again, the burden of proof is on you. If you cannot demonstrate this, it doesn't matter, because again, being vegan is for the animals.
Natalie ( if I have her name correctly), is possibly one of the best negotiators and debators I've seen. Probably on a par with someone like Earthling Ed ( or better in some ways).
Recently, I watched another vegan who's YT handle is "The Militant vegan". Don't get me wrong because I think she's doing a cracking job by causing maximum cognitive Dissonance but her approach is in some way very aggressive.
Personally, I don't have a problem with her being aggressive but I do think shouting etc could be counter productive. It could lead some people to think : OK if this animal rights woman has called me a hypocrite & an abuser then I'll eat more animals - screw her!
I do condone and support direct Action and the burning down of labs, meat lorries & so on.
Direct Action, breaking the Law all have their place but if you're going to use "The Socratic method" for anything it's better to promote yourself as a calm person with a normal level headed personality. This should help dispell the myth that "Animal Rights Activists are crazy".
Moreover, if a meat eater has a pleasant experience with someone like Natalie who put very little to no pressure on the interviewer to "Go Vegan" your going to get a better overall results I think.
That said, I would say militant Vegan girl have their place and use.
Joey Carbstrong is kind of in-between the two above described methods I think.
I live in Taiwan & have just released my first video. It's just me talking to myself. But, I thought ok stop dithering no matter how bad the videoay be. In Taiwan I will be more successful taking an approach like Natalie whereby both she and I use Psychological skills and knowledge to help put the meat eater at ease.
It's all very well saying how disgusting someone is by funding the Holocaust on animals but there comes a time when oneigjt needs to ask :" Am I doing this outreach work to satiate my own anger over animal abuse or am I debating with meat eaters so they beçome, eventually, Vegan.
Dudes got a Rick & Morty shirt on. I have a Rick & Morty rolling tray!
He has watched videos and found it sad, why don’t stop with the abuse? Selfish
Regeneratively farmed animals is much more ethical than monocrop agriculture used for vegan food and better for health, environment and ecosystem.
Regenerativly farmed plants is much more ethical than monocrop agriculture used for animal feed and better for health, environment and ecosystem.
@@valentinbreindl533 the same goes for regeneratively farmed animals plus the cows fertalize the soil. It's much easier to guarantee organic meat than plants at least where I live.
Great video fair play lass.🌱🌅🍀
"Do you think the world would be better if we evolved away from using animals as resources?"
I suspect this is the crux of the pervasive "nature/lions" argument. People don't judge a otter for eating a fish but they do think it's fucked up if that otter rapes a penguin. Because treating animals has been a food resource has been a helpful mindset that has helped us survive as well as served the keep other species from over-populating and destroying the ecosystem. Those reasons don't really apply to modern animal agriculture but I always feel like the best analogy ffor eating meat isn't slavery or the holocaust but war and violence in general. We've evolved to make fists and throw rocks and treating other countries as conquerable resources has built empires while militaries keep countries safe but we acknowledge war is barbaric.
Though we still have standing armies so if war is the best analogy for our relationship to eating meat, maybe we'd want to keep some farm animals around in case there are situations where someone needs them (certain medical conditions?) but we understand that we hope we don't have to do it.
Well said. Be vegan everyone 💚💚💚💚💚💚
Vegan for the animals 💗💗💗💗
That dude. Kind of a stick in the mud.
Great video
Thank you for speaking up for animals 💖💖💖💖
HUMANE slaughter?!
The CULTure brags: Boiled Alive.
Got Sick?
0:25 i have no problems with anit racists or anti pedo's... i get it... but i still want to be for those things.. but i have nothing against people who are agaist them lol
Being vegan is a choice of love and civility. Go vegan forever 💚 💚 💚
no it doesn't, you just want to believe that about yourself
She wants to make the case for animal rights but doesn't want to get into debates? What the hell does that mean? It means she doesn't want to hear his opinion and she just wants to proselytize to him 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Coo coo
I don't think we should be calling people "meat eaters". Imaging referring to your family or friends as "meat eaters". Hey "meat eater", what's up? What are you doing today MEAT EATER? It's a really strange way to refer to people. Earthling Ed titled his latest book "how to argue with a meat eater" too, I don't like it.
Personally I think it's appropriate. I like referring to "meat" as "flesh" specifically because it's provocative. Similarly referring to eating meat as eating "dead animals" is effective in concisely and directly relating the food people eat to how it gets there.
Totally agree, i always use "non vegans " , as imo using the words "meat eaters" suggests that veganism is a diet . Also "non vegan " terminology incudes vegetarians .
@@benwaggler3541that's true also , i use the word " flesh " , although i prefer " non vegan " as mentioned .
@@benwaggler3541
The person you're talking with knows you're intentionally substituting in these words to make it sound as grotesque as possible and they may become less receptive because they see you have an agenda.
I've been using the phrase "eating animals" instead of "eating meat" as I felt meat is too generic for what it is. And instead of "vegan" I'll say I'm pro life towards animals because (1) everybody loves animals until they hear the word vegan, (2) there are similarities with the human pro life position:
* Believes it's murder and can't believe society thinks it's all fine
* Thinks people should avoid committing said murder by resisting their carnal temptations
* Notices how quickly people turn into angry demons when told they're not allowed to kill anymore
* Protests outside the killing facilities
* Knows Bible verses supporting their belief
Would you prefer something like non vegan? Indeed it may seem plausible, but how about we stop using euphemisms? Talking about things at face value I believe can have great benefit. Would we not call people "humans", but of course, it would be weird to say Hey "human", what's up.
It is simply a fact of the mater that they eat animals, and so, the label is justified. Any label that you think of, will always sound weird, because we don't actually use labels when talking to people, we use their names or pronouns. I'm a vegan, but would people say Hey "vegan", what's up? No of course not.
Enjoyed a "celebrity" lamb stew today, with penne pasta.. but likely "going V" within 50yrs.😜👍⚰
But how will you get attention if you stop being cold and annoying on purpose?
Celebration of death and sarcasm... All in bad faith. Hope you find what you're looking for. Hint: it's probably love and compassion
@@jordanstarr2992 I've never been happier.. likely diet related.. 😃
@@WeAreCameron Just taking a break from a tedious s/s project. V world is always fascinating in its insularity.
@@Combative_Dissident Hey, thanks for spreading your tedium. Egomaniac world is always fascinating in the juxtaposition of its complete self-obsession and yet complete lack of self-awareness.