I'm not super proud of my behavior in this video. There were a few factors that made this a difficult conversation: I had a hard time understanding his accent, it was the end of a 3 week tour, and Harvard didn't want us there (they kicked us out after 20 minutes). If I could go back, I would spend more time validating his position (even though it's whataboutism) and trying to find common ground. What did you think?
I'd say you were too damn nice to that person. His whole argument was nothing but the Tu Quoque fallacy. I wish you called out the fallacy harder. That being said, I very much appreciate you and what you do.
When I sense someone from the public is not genuine in trying to respect the right of others, I will preface my answer to their question with " I'm happy to address that, but first I'd like to know if you're raising this concern because you generally care about others or you're trying to justify your actions?" Great job!
I totally get it, it happens to everyone! You’re coming from a place of compassion and it’s hard not to let the frustration bottle up when people just don’t want to show care. Stay positive, and keep up your great work! I love your content!!
He comes from an Asian country it seems. If my assumption is correct, they boil dogs and cats alive in scalding water or oil. They have the ability to enjoy that and feel absolutely nothing. They are insensitive by their own nature. Actually, if it moves, they eat it. If it doesn’t move, it’s not food… then they go to Harvard and become doctors.
Yea I don’t think there was any winning that dude over. Clearly bad faith, super triggered and showing off for his friend. I’m not sure I would have been as calm as you.
Also, there's a reasonable rebuttal that "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" meaning you do what you can, what's reasonable, to prevent exploitation (going vegan is really fairly easy for most people) but recognize that systemic change needs to happen to more fully eliminate exploitation from our individual lifestyles.
These are the type of idiots who would say it's ok to abuse animals every day because you stepped on an ant by accident. Just deflecting and not taking responsibility for their actions. Weak.
@@Klaus_Nobb Whether you decide to associate it or not, doesn't alter the fact that it IS the product of abuse and suffering. How do you think those body parts end up at the supermarket? From animals voluntarily committing suicide?
They even say that animals are killed for growing crops but they don't ever think about ants that we step on. When faced with reality one loses all the rationality unfortunately . All the Harvard students and people like Neil made me realise this and many more you would think are intelligent. Just about money and taste buds for most. If they start showing reality of how the food is made large populations will quit it immediately if there is a good alternative..
When I'll be over 70, I really don't want to tell anyone: "I don't want to change, because I'm over 70." Ugh! So old and yet so immature. Both my parents went vegan at age 72.
It is never too late to stop doing the wrong thing! Better late than never. Einstein stopped eating meat near the end of his life, but never went back. He has some impressive quotes promoting the end of meat eating, if you Google it. Today, he would be vegan.
I was about to comment something like that XD Imagine going to Harvard with this level of intellect. What does that say about the standards they have :) When I'm thinking about it, Isn't Harvard just another school you can pay to be admitted? You don't actually need to have good grades if you have the money?
@@Desmond_Baden What are you talking about? He won the argument. She stated that animals have rights and when he pushed back on that she revealed that she was just making that up, completely destroying her argument in the process.
@@someguy2135Me too went vegan at sixty and have been vegan seven years now. She definitely could do it. I make my own yogurt out of cashews and oats and it's amazing! There are plenty of non dairy yogurts to buy also.
I went vegan at age 63 after watching "Earthlings" and was not vegetarian ever! Age is only a number. The 70 year old could live another 15-20 years, and think of the animals she could save by being vegan!
A smart phone can't be directly attributed to cruelty to humans in the same way meat, dairy, eggs, leather fur etc can. The former may be linked but the latter is a guarantee.
Both Natalie and Ed have recently proven that just because you go to Harvard doesn't mean you're different from everybody else. You treated them better than I would've. 👀
Facts!! I was like who dropped the ball and let this guy in so much deflecting. That is how all meat eaters…I remember this meat eater said oh your vegetables come in plastic. I’m like you dummy so does your meat.😂
this is ridiculous on so many levels i can't even comment. i wouldn't eat your pig if you called it Wilbur and put a collar on it. but move over piggy, you are bacon and i love bacon. it's simple. eat what you want...and ignore people who eat what you do not want to eat.... if it came right down to it, locking her in the room with a cat for a week, that cat would die, and she'd FREAKING EAT IT
You didn't lose it. You remained calm and polite even though he was being rude and obtuse. He felt threatened because you were asking him nicely to make better choices. Toxic masculinity makes him produce regurgitated myths he thinks he's heard someone else use.. "appeals to futility" are the cornerstones of ignorance. Slowing down your speech was a great method of getting him to listen. Thank you. 🙏🏽💚🌱
@ScienceNow- 😅 ...no kid, education isn't communism, it's education. That's why it's called education, and not communism. I understand you think animal abuse is normal and necessary, but it's not. You should learn about the subject before commenting publicly.
My phone is second hand (refurbished), it was cheaper than newly bought, works perfectly fine, and I had a guarantee for 2 years after I bought it. I've had it for 3 and a half years now without any issues. I totally recommend refurbished second hand electronics, when possible, and from stores where you can get a couple years guarantee!
Not buying from a sweatshop doesn't help anyone that works in a sweatshop. People choose to work there because it's their best option. If the sweatshop closes down, then these people are forced to find harder jobs like working on a farm or even turning to prostitution. -If you only buy fair trade, then you are only giving money to people who are fortunate enough to get fair trade jobs. -If you only buy local, then you aren't helping sweatshop workers at all. But you are helping people who live close to you. And if you live in a developed country, this means you are helping people who are already better off than people who live in underdeveloped countries. - If you only buy used items, then you are only helping the environment not the workers. (This is still the most ethical option imo.) Now I'm not defending sweatshops at all, I'm just stating the reality. This idea that people not buying from a sweatshop makes any difference to the sweatshop workers is just incorrect.
You can't be serious. I might come to think you are a harvard student. ;) These statements are quite short-sighted. There is fairtrade products made in the same countries where sweatshops are. More people buy fairtrade, more fairtrade will be produced. Still think people should try to buy as local as possible in every country. The environment would love that. Import and export are products of industrialisation, capitalism and globalisation and it's definitely harmful to the planet and it's inhabitants.
Collective consumer choice can become a critical mass if enough individuals say they're going to buy fair trade. Since fair trade is often sold at a slight premium, producers can afford to adhere to these standards if they choose and if enough consumers are making that choice they will go where the money is. Free range eggs have become a norm in supermarkets, but it wasn't always this way and consumer choice is the reason (putting aside the argument for eating eggs in general).
Sometimes planting those seeds seems like such a grueling and hopeless enterprise - however even with the likes of this person talking about cell phones - it is worth it. I trust it will be sooner than later.
The vegetarian woman said that she wouldn't want to give up yogurt. Plant based yogurt is widely available! I always have a tub of plain unsweetened plant based yogurt in my refrigerator. Trader Joe's and Forager are my favorites. It makes a great alternative to sour cream too.
It's truly like watching little kids winge about not liking this or that food flavour. Pallet development is a real thing, if one changes from oat milk to soy milk there's a small period of adjustment to the flavour and then you're good to go.
Those two may be intelligent, but they are a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect for morality. They will pat each other on the back for "winning" the debate with "that crazy vegan," when they actually lost every point. Great job, Natalie. You showed a lot more patience than most people would have. At a certain point, you have to acknowledge that some people are just not worth the time or effort. You refuted every one of their feeble excuses. They are helping the vegan cause by being Devil's Advocates for veganism. You are either Vegan, ignorant, or an Excusitarian.
@@MasterMoron She acknowledged that rights are a human construct. That doesn't mean that rights (both human and non-human) don't exist. All sentient beings deserve to be free of needless killing and cruelty.
Don't grant the phone/shirt exploitation argument. There is no reason to think that not buying a phone will help those workers in any way. Odds are it will make their lives worse; lower wages in worse conditions at some other job. People take the best job they can get.
Speaking of, is anyone aware of a charity similar to GiveDirectly that focuses on exploited workers in Asia? They are paid a pittance, so it wouldn't be hard double their income. I think they have worse lives than the poor in Africa, so I'm not sure why GiveDirectly focuses so much on Africa.
Probably the best career opportunity out there is working as a field worker harvesting produce. Excellent working conditions, pay, benefits package, Some of those places start out at between twenty to twenty five dollars an hour
Saying i'm over 70 and can't change is a pathetic excuse . I'm nearly 69 , been vegan almost 9 year's now , and before that a vegetarian for 40 year's, so yeah , of course one can change , it's easy to become vegan. When i was a vegetarian i had cognitive dissonance, but when i realized id been a hypocrite for so long i changed....vegan for life
How does not buying phones increase utility? Like, how does it make life better for the worker? It needs more of a collective effort. When it comes to animals, even if you going vegan won't save all animals you can rest assured knowing that animals aren't bred into existence for your consumption. This argument is in such bad faith because he doesn't even think that not buying a phone is something worthy of him doing.
Well, the guy stinks at this. It's actually kind of disappointing that he's a HARVARD STUDENT. 1st of all the guy keeps trying to BULLDOZE you. Which means he's often trying to stop you from talking by talking over you, and giving you little chance to get a word in edgewise. He's trying to dominate the conversation rather than engaging in conversation/debate. Which is often a telltale sign that the person doesn't really have much of an argument to make and he's trying to distract from the fact that he doesn't have a strong argument to make, by trying to keep you from making your argument/counter-argument. 2) And so he deflects from the argument at hand by trying to turn it into an argument about sweatshops. Animal rights and sweatshops are 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES, but he turns to the latter because he doesn't have any real answers for the former. And in doing so he tries to make you out a hypocrite, but then BY HIS OWN LOGIC he doesn't care about sweatshops. Because he most likely has a cell phone and other products from sweatshops himself, So what he is doing is letting you know that he not only doesn't care about animal rights, he also doesn't really care about the violation of HUMAN RIGHTS that goes on in sweatshops. (again if you go by the logic he is using) So he doesn't care about animal rights, nor does he care about human rights (at least when it comes to sweatshops), which begs the question what exactly does he care about?? 3) He tries to justify the comparison of eating and killing animals to owning a smartphone in terms of TRADEOFFS that have to be made. This means he is equating the momentarily sensory pleasure of eating something you like to something that has become an essential part of contemporary everyday life (having a cell phone) for a great many people. The former is a moment of pleasure that people can easily get by without indulging in, but the latter has become more of a necessity of contemporary everyday life that a lot of people would find it more difficult to do without in today's world. (for a variety of reasons). All-in-all not a good comparison. But it seems to be the only thing he had. 4) He argues that your ideas on animal rights are only YOUR OPINION. But the building blocks of any kind of rights (including human rights) are opinions. Throughout history, the struggle on any kind of rights was based on OPINIONS of right and wrong.. There are people even in the contemporary USA who would deny his human rights as an Asian foreigner in America. Or perhaps just as a person of Asian descent in America The people who fight against that do so because of their OPINIONS. One hopes this guy is not on the Harvard debate team. Or is attending Harvard law school
And she deflected from the argument on hand by talking about dogs being kicked, which has nothing to do with eating meat. Eating meat for some people is just as necessary as owning a smart phone is for others. Human rights are in the U.S. Constitution. It's not just an opinion. Animal rights are made up as they don't exist.
@Moron No, talking about dogs being kicked isn't really deflecting. That would be expanding on the issue of animal rights. Both fall under the umbrella of animal rights and protections. And she used it as a means to try to determine where the guy might draw the line on such matters. While the guy went to sweatshops SIMPLY TO DEFLECT. Animal rights (including meat eating) and sweat shops really are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. And how so is eating meat just as necessary for some people as owning a smart phone is for others? Are you talking about certain health conditions that make a meat-free diet unhealthy and not viable for certain people? If so then it's fine for such people to eat meat. (assuming such people do exist, which I believe I've heard such people do exist) But I suspect the percentage of people that would be true for would-be FAR LOWER than the percentage of people to whom owning a cellphone is a necessity in today's contemporary world. But in any case, THAT IS AN ARGUMENT THE GUY SHOULD HAVE MADE. AT LEAST IT IS AN ARGUMENT ON THE MATTER AT HAND. I mean I can play DEVIL'S ADVOCATE and come up with better arguments for the eating of meat than this guy did. But then he didn't really come up with any arguments on that. He merely deflected.. As for the idea that animal rights DON'T EXIST, that is simply not true. USA law (and the laws of a lot of countries) do grant animal rights and protections. It's just that the laws don't go nearly as far as a lot of us would like. But the laws and the countries do recognize the concept of animal rights
@@keng4847he did make the argument that some people eat meat and Natalie essentially admitted that it's okay for those people to eat meat, which in my mind destroys her entire argument. It doesn't matter what percentage of people need to eat meat versus what percentage of people need to use smart phones. As long as it is a necessity then it will always exist. Even if say, only 5 percent of people need to eat meat then the meat industry is still necessary to provide those people with the meat they need, just as the cell phone industry is necessary to provide cell phones to those that need them.
@Moron "He did make the argument that some people eat meat" Huhh?????????????? His whole point was to champion the eating of meat. AND OF COURSE, IT MATTERS WHAT THE PERCENTAGES ARE. If only a TINY PERCENTAGE of the population needs meat for health reasons, then some sort of meat industry might still be necessary,, BUT ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE. The number of animals being slaughtered would be FAR FEWER than they presently are. And it would be done as a necessity for that small percentage of people for whom a meat-free diet isn't viable; not just because a lot of people don't want to give up meat. And the smaller the scale of the meat industry, the easier it becomes to see to it that it is run on a more humane basis. And like I said, the number of people who need cell phones is most likely FAR HIGHER than the number of people who NEED MEAT.
Whilst it's understandable to have questions and concerns surrounding veganism and its practical application, resorting to tactics like guilt-tripping or deflection rarely leads to productive dialogue. Veganism, at its core, represents a commitment to minimising harm to animals as much as possible within individual circumstances. It's a journey of continuous learning and improvement, driven by a desire to align personal choices with deeply held values of compassion and ethical responsibility. Attributing harm to others based solely on assumptions or anecdotal evidence, like claiming a phone inherently causes harm without considering its specific production and usage, can be misleading and unproductive. It's important to remember that everyone navigates ethical consumerism within their unique circumstances, and focusing solely on perceived inconsistencies can overshadow the genuine efforts individuals make to minimise harm. Well done Natalie.
Listen more than you talk. Harvard can't teach you everything - this kid needs a lesson in critical thinking, respect, and how to have civil discussions.
I mean it's analogous to claiming that a vegan is a hypocrite because they don't do more good for society. You're not perfect therefore I can be even worse than you! What a terrible argument. Pretty crazy that guy goes to Harvard yet lacks basic critical thinking skills.
@@CarnemexadaDeontically, it is the the basic rights of the animal, such as the rights to life and liberty. Consequentially, it is the extreme torment of tens of billions of land animals annually. There is no trait present in animals that, if present in humans, would justify eating humans for food. Thus, eating animals cannot be rationally justified unless you want to sacrifice human rights.
Were all these people actually associated with Harvard ? What is wrong with vegan yogurt, it is delicious, healthier and no one has to suffer and die because someone can't possibly imagine living without eating another's species milk that was meant to grow a baby cow. The dairy and egg industry is extremely cruel. Please stop supporting the cruelty ! Imagine being 70 years old and so closed minded. Great vegan outreach, Natalie, you have such patience to deal with incredibly self centered people. It is so easy to go vegan !!
@@Carnemexada the rational obligation to abstain from eating animals is; there is no rational excuse for abusing, torturing and violently murdering kind innocent defenseless sentient beings when you could easily and cheaply choose something else to eat that doesn't cause suffering and death to anyone. Taking someone's life for a sandwich when you could easily choose something else to eat is certainly not rational, it would be rational if you were a psychopath and enjoyed abusing and murdering animals.
@@Carnemexada obviously you are triggered by my response to you. Again, there is nothing rational about taking someone's life when you can easily choose something else to eat. Vegans don't deliberately breed and murder animals, crop deaths could be reduced by at least 70% because the majority of crops are grown to feed animals not people. Stop using crop deaths which are unavoidable to make yourself feel better for deliberately murdering sentient beings when you can easily choose not too ! There is no justification for not being vegan and you know it !
@@Carnemexada your comment is rubbish, if you are a psychopath who enjoys abusing and killing animals unnecessarily then you most likely find it rational to do so. There is nothing rational about taking someone's life when you can choose from thousands of wonderful nutritious food items that don't cause suffering and death to anyone. Regenerative agriculture sounds good in theory, but using and killing animals certainly is not high animal welfare. Animals are here with us they are not for us. The hospitals are full of meat eaters suffering from stroke,heart disease high blood pressure, osteoporosis, cancer, diabetes type 2,obesity to name just a few diseases caused from eating animals and their secretions. Animal products are from adequate health and nutrition for humans.
You could've lost it twice as hard and I'd still be applauding. Only suggestion would be, instead of saying "I'm trying to connect with people who care about animals," how about "I'm trying to connect with people who have compassion towards animals, and you've made it clear that you have some personal growth to do before you reach that point."
What do you think about the argument that: if we take money out of or boycott these ‘iPhone slave labor sweat shops’ that this could be a worse outcome for them? The alternative could be buying used phones or finding some ethical alternative(?) but wouldn’t the slave shops be worse off if we take money away from them? How would they be better off if we boycott them? Someone help me understand.
There's some complexities to this topic tied to geo-political situations, and the governments of these specific countries, but in general I think the answer is no. If people demand that phones be built with labor that is not exploited like this by buying alternatives that they know has far less exploitation, the sweat/slave shops will have no choice but to change or go out of business. If we did this for all products, no matter what came in place of that sweat/slave shop would be far less exploitative.
@@benwaggler3541 If they could change and have more rights for workers that would obviously be great but If the shops go out of business and people lose their jobs, isn’t it worse? How is taking money away from impoverished people going to lead to improvements? If anything it seems like it would lead to more exploitation.
@@benwaggler3541 If sweat shop owners go out of business, then sweat shop workers lose their jobs & might have to turn to prostitution instead. Not defending sweat shops here, in no way, but boycott doesn't seem to solve the issue of the workers.
@@SweetPotatoTyler The problem of people's labor being exploited is due to a system of global capitalism. Workers in what are considered "developed" or "1st world" countries were once massively exploited on the same levels as these modern day sweat/slave shops. Until workers recognize this exploitation, unite, and seek to democratize these workplaces, exploitation will continue. As a person not exploited to the same degree today, what do you suggest individuals like yourself do to try to better the lives of the workers in these sweat/slave shops? I suggest you try as best you can to make sure your money, your demand, goes to ethical businesses that do not take part in that exploitation.
Because I can’t have a zero impact on the world by my presence, then I should not bother with trying to reduce my impact. Also, because not everyone is reducing their impact, then I shouldn’t bother trying to reduce my impact. It’s interesting to me, a boomer, how intransigent some of these young people can be but how quick they are to slight me with the term “boomer” when they don’t like what I say or do. That young fellow has had interactions with vegans before. He was armed with those great irrefutable comebacks.
Excellent!!! Concerning that so many vegetarians don't seem to get how the egg and dairy industries work. So much education needs to happen generally, starting with schools. We need to stop lying to kids about where their 'food' comes from. Thanks for being a voice for the voiceless from a South Australian Animal Liberationist and Morally superior vegan. Loved that end bit.
I am shocked that Harvard University "kicked us out" after 20 minutes. My maternal grandfather graduated from there in June 1906 as did two other relatives later. So much for fostering learning. Sorry that you were expelled by goons and thugs. Harvard must go fully vegan PDQ.
His argument is not about doing the right thing. It’s about virtue signalling. Natalie could be the most hypocritical evil person, and it wouldn’t justify somebody else supporting animal cruelty. If I met someone who was speaking out about racism and it turned out that they were a hypocritical racist, it wouldn’t make it ok for other people to be racist. Btw I think Natalie is a good person. Just speaking in hypotheticals.
Fantastic outreach Natalie! As difficult as he was, the vegetarian was very difficult as well. As it is with so many vegetarians (we both know that). Age argument? Geesh! I have to admit, I haven’t gotten that one yet. Ridiculous! There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. Weak argument on her part. As far as the Harvard student, who was obviously trying to prove you wrong, when we all know that not harming animals is right, you handled it well! I love how you shut down the argument at the end. He was impossible, with his rants about your clothing and phone. Very typical behavior by someone who wants to continue to harm animals. Skirt the issue to inanimate objects when you are talking about sentient beings. Keep up the great work for the animals. They are so lucky to have you for their voice. And vegans are lucky to have you to learn from, when speaking for non-human animals. Much love Natalie
Why didn't you rebut the 'yOu hAvE A SWeaTShop PHoNe' with the people do the best jobs available to them, so it might be worse to boycott them because now they don't have any source of income?
This was a really good video. I particularly liked how you answered the british guys point around phones, who by the way seemed like a spilt brat who's clearly never been told to be quiet.
It's hard to be compassionate sometimes when everyone around you thinks like that kid. It's tiring and draining me hearing things against not wanting to unnecessarily abuse animals.
I'm not super proud of my behavior in this video. There were a few factors that made this a difficult conversation: I had a hard time understanding his accent, it was the end of a 3 week tour, and Harvard didn't want us there (they kicked us out after 20 minutes). If I could go back, I would spend more time validating his position (even though it's whataboutism) and trying to find common ground. What did you think?
I'd say you were too damn nice to that person. His whole argument was nothing but the Tu Quoque fallacy. I wish you called out the fallacy harder. That being said, I very much appreciate you and what you do.
When I sense someone from the public is not genuine in trying to respect the right of others, I will preface my answer to their question with " I'm happy to address that, but first I'd like to know if you're raising this concern because you generally care about others or you're trying to justify your actions?" Great job!
I totally get it, it happens to everyone! You’re coming from a place of compassion and it’s hard not to let the frustration bottle up when people just don’t want to show care. Stay positive, and keep up your great work! I love your content!!
He comes from an Asian country it seems. If my assumption is correct, they boil dogs and cats alive in scalding water or oil. They have the ability to enjoy that and feel absolutely nothing. They are insensitive by their own nature. Actually, if it moves, they eat it. If it doesn’t move, it’s not food… then they go to Harvard and become doctors.
Great outreach!
Hoodie guy is so aggressively ignorant.
Classic example of an idiot who thinks he has a valid argument but is too stupid to realize it isn't.
Pretty much most people. Sadly for the animals.
He thought he was making thought-provoking and ground-breaking comments.
Only thing He was showcasing how coldhearted people can be. But he feels manly and strong when stating that he proudly Supports unnecessary suffering
#Pignorant
Yea I don’t think there was any winning that dude over. Clearly bad faith, super triggered and showing off for his friend. I’m not sure I would have been as calm as you.
Thats one way of saying he was an absolute tool.
Have Harvard standards fallen this low?😂🤦🏻♂️
i know right? He ain't doing a good job of representing Harvard here🤣
Made sense to me. I threw out my phone, and I can now eat dog meat in peace. Thank you random intelligent Harvard guy!
It all comes down to a choice: give up your phone and you can eat dog meat.
I am so sick of stupid people.
So am I that's why I stop talking to vegans lol
I'm sorry you had to deal with that guy. He was unbearable.
The sweatshops capitalism Vaush argument is SOOO cringey😭
Totally agreed
I didn't hear if he said differently, but I'm guessing he has a phone too. Not sure how that point holds any water.
Also, there's a reasonable rebuttal that "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" meaning you do what you can, what's reasonable, to prevent exploitation (going vegan is really fairly easy for most people) but recognize that systemic change needs to happen to more fully eliminate exploitation from our individual lifestyles.
I thought Vaush supported veganism, but just wasn't one himself out of selfishness?
@@BranoneMCSG Yes, I think that's correct.
Well done. You “ losing it” looks like me staying “calm”
Inside she was screaming and pulling her hair out.
These are the type of idiots who would say it's ok to abuse animals every day because you stepped on an ant by accident. Just deflecting and not taking responsibility for their actions. Weak.
Yes the same kind who say its ok to do anything that harms the environment to any degree, because other people live in houses and use electricity.
@@Klaus_Nobb That's the problem.
@@Klaus_Nobb Whether you decide to associate it or not, doesn't alter the fact that it IS the product of abuse and suffering.
How do you think those body parts end up at the supermarket? From animals voluntarily committing suicide?
They even say that animals are killed for growing crops but they don't ever think about ants that we step on. When faced with reality one loses all the rationality unfortunately . All the Harvard students and people like Neil made me realise this and many more you would think are intelligent. Just about money and taste buds for most.
If they start showing reality of how the food is made large populations will quit it immediately if there is a good alternative..
@@Klaus_Nobb Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable!!!
When I'll be over 70, I really don't want to tell anyone: "I don't want to change, because I'm over 70." Ugh! So old and yet so immature. Both my parents went vegan at age 72.
It is never too late to stop doing the wrong thing! Better late than never. Einstein stopped eating meat near the end of his life, but never went back. He has some impressive quotes promoting the end of meat eating, if you Google it. Today, he would be vegan.
Imagine using the same excuse to be racist.
My mom uses the exact same argument. It is frustrating.
@@Carnemexada What is the obligation to not commit rape and murder? Human empathy for sentient beings is a rational state.
@@Carnemexada
Same rational obligation to abstain from eating you 🙄😴
Their oppressive lifeystyle is questioned and they immediately become irrational☹️☹️☹️
So this is the standard of students Harvard accept into their university?
I was about to comment something like that XD
Imagine going to Harvard with this level of intellect.
What does that say about the standards they have :)
When I'm thinking about it, Isn't Harvard just another school you can pay to be admitted?
You don't actually need to have good grades if you have the money?
@@Desmond_Baden What are you talking about? He won the argument. She stated that animals have rights and when he pushed back on that she revealed that she was just making that up, completely destroying her argument in the process.
@@MasterMoron Literally not at all what even happened, someone clearly didn’t watch the video 😂
@@MasterMoron that is not even remotely accurate. 😂
MasterMoron living up to their name.
I made my mom watch Gary speech and she went vegan that day. She was 70! The older lady could do it too if she wanted.
Of course she could. I went vegan around the age of 60. Like most vegans, I now wish I had grown up vegan.
@@someguy2135Me too went vegan at sixty and have been vegan seven years now. She definitely could do it. I make my own yogurt out of cashews and oats and it's amazing! There are plenty of non dairy yogurts to buy also.
What speech?
@@MilosRoomfree to watch, called "the best speech you will ever hear" Gary Yourofsky, well worth your time, please share with others !
I went vegan at age 63 after watching "Earthlings" and was not vegetarian ever! Age is only a number. The 70 year old could live another 15-20 years, and think of the animals she could save by being vegan!
I’m over 70 tho is not a good justification for needless violence
You killed it Natalie
A smart phone can't be directly attributed to cruelty to humans in the same way meat, dairy, eggs, leather fur etc can. The former may be linked but the latter is a guarantee.
@@Carnemexada that animals value their lives just as much as you do yours.
Both Natalie and Ed have recently proven that just because you go to Harvard doesn't mean you're different from everybody else.
You treated them better than I would've. 👀
Facts!! I was like who dropped the ball and let this guy in so much deflecting. That is how all meat eaters…I remember this meat eater said oh your vegetables come in plastic. I’m like you dummy so does your meat.😂
Don't "Exploit workers" OH WAIT they CAN QUIT a job, can animals quit?
Pathetic excuse. If you bought another phone, he would go to the next BS,
this is ridiculous on so many levels i can't even comment. i wouldn't eat your pig if you called it Wilbur and put a collar on it. but move over piggy, you are bacon and i love bacon. it's simple. eat what you want...and ignore people who eat what you do not want to eat.... if it came right down to it, locking her in the room with a cat for a week, that cat would die, and she'd FREAKING EAT IT
@@kantraxoikol6914You said "i can't even comment" and then you proceeded to show just that, that you had the inability to talk any sense.
You didn't lose it. You remained calm and polite even though he was being rude and obtuse. He felt threatened because you were asking him nicely to make better choices. Toxic masculinity makes him produce regurgitated myths he thinks he's heard someone else use.. "appeals to futility" are the cornerstones of ignorance.
Slowing down your speech was a great method of getting him to listen. Thank you.
🙏🏽💚🌱
@ScienceNow-
😅 ...no kid, education isn't communism, it's education. That's why it's called education, and not communism. I understand you think animal abuse is normal and necessary, but it's not. You should learn about the subject before commenting publicly.
That kid perfectly demonstrates how being emotive and triggered makes you unable to rationalize as a functional adult.
Unreal how well you handled those triggered! ❤
It's so easy, enjoyable and logical to choose vegan! ✌️💖
Except that it destroys your health. And you have to heavily supplement you're diet with vitamin B12 supplements.
Nice outreach. I think you handled it really well 👏. Calm and collected but still serious and on point.
This guy has clothes and phone and he is harming animals. So what? He doesn't care about people and animals?
Don't you just love it when someone who enjoys slaughtering animals comes at a vegan because she has a phone? Oh, the irony.
Your behavior was fine, you were brutally honest and I think that was the appropriate response to these two! Well done as always :)
No to speciesm, yes to life.Go vegan 💚💚
My phone is second hand (refurbished), it was cheaper than newly bought, works perfectly fine, and I had a guarantee for 2 years after I bought it. I've had it for 3 and a half years now without any issues. I totally recommend refurbished second hand electronics, when possible, and from stores where you can get a couple years guarantee!
Good point! Better for the environment too. Same with other second hand products.
5:16 His friend holding his cup to his face, eyes darting left and right 😅
😂
Not buying from a sweatshop doesn't help anyone that works in a sweatshop. People choose to work there because it's their best option. If the sweatshop closes down, then these people are forced to find harder jobs like working on a farm or even turning to prostitution.
-If you only buy fair trade, then you are only giving money to people who are fortunate enough to get fair trade jobs.
-If you only buy local, then you aren't helping sweatshop workers at all. But you are helping people who live close to you. And if you live in a developed country, this means you are helping people who are already better off than people who live in underdeveloped countries.
- If you only buy used items, then you are only helping the environment not the workers. (This is still the most ethical option imo.)
Now I'm not defending sweatshops at all, I'm just stating the reality. This idea that people not buying from a sweatshop makes any difference to the sweatshop workers is just incorrect.
Very well stated. I think this goes totally under the radar of most people.
Agreed, the morality of buying stuff made from human exploitation is more complicated than giving up animal products.
You can't be serious. I might come to think you are a harvard student. ;)
These statements are quite short-sighted. There is fairtrade products made in the same countries where sweatshops are. More people buy fairtrade, more fairtrade will be produced.
Still think people should try to buy as local as possible in every country. The environment would love that. Import and export are products of industrialisation, capitalism and globalisation and it's definitely harmful to the planet and it's inhabitants.
Collective consumer choice can become a critical mass if enough individuals say they're going to buy fair trade. Since fair trade is often sold at a slight premium, producers can afford to adhere to these standards if they choose and if enough consumers are making that choice they will go where the money is. Free range eggs have become a norm in supermarkets, but it wasn't always this way and consumer choice is the reason (putting aside the argument for eating eggs in general).
Sometimes planting those seeds seems like such a grueling and hopeless enterprise - however even with the likes of this person talking about cell phones - it is worth it. I trust it will be sooner than later.
6:03 & 10:45 - Good closures with someone as triggered and triggering as him. Admirable patience. Good job!!
You handled the British guy perfectly. Great job!
Ban Slaughter
Yes
100 percent !
She is so patient! That’s apreciated
👍 Whole food plant based for the environment and health; vegan for the victims!
You SHOULD be proud of your behavior Natalie. You were patient and thoughtful. Thanks for doing this work!
Thank you for speaking out against animal abuse✊✊✊✊
Omg that bloke is so annoying 😂 Natalie you are amazingly calm , great job xx
4:07
Wow that guy is dishonest.
He literally was accusing you of being a hypocrite and then denied it seconds later....
Narcissist behavior....
This is GREAT outreach!
The vegetarian woman said that she wouldn't want to give up yogurt.
Plant based yogurt is widely available!
I always have a tub of plain unsweetened plant based yogurt in my refrigerator. Trader Joe's and Forager are my favorites.
It makes a great alternative to sour cream too.
The plant based yogurt (coconut milk) I’ve tried usually tastes better than regular yogurt anyways lol.
It's also super easy to make your own in an instant pot! I do it with unsweetened soy milk
@@iamthepinkylifter Thanks for the tip. I think I have seen RUclips videos about how to do that.
Surely that guy was just visiting Harvard as a tourist. You can't actually be that dumb and get into Harvard, can you? Can you?!
Well there's Jared Kushner. Dumb + money makes it possible.
You mean brainwashed or indoctrinated?
It's truly like watching little kids winge about not liking this or that food flavour. Pallet development is a real thing, if one changes from oat milk to soy milk there's a small period of adjustment to the flavour and then you're good to go.
that phone guy is exhausting to listen to.
Nooo not the 'you have a phone' argument!
Hoodie guy SUCKS. Thanks for another great video
Those two may be intelligent, but they are a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect for morality. They will pat each other on the back for "winning" the debate with "that crazy vegan," when they actually lost every point. Great job, Natalie. You showed a lot more patience than most people would have. At a certain point, you have to acknowledge that some people are just not worth the time or effort. You refuted every one of their feeble excuses. They are helping the vegan cause by being Devil's Advocates for veganism. You are either Vegan, ignorant, or an Excusitarian.
How did they lose? They asked for Natalie's basis for her claim that animals have rights and she admitted that she just made that up.
@@MasterMoron She acknowledged that rights are a human construct. That doesn't mean that rights (both human and non-human) don't exist. All sentient beings deserve to be free of needless killing and cruelty.
@@MasterMoron If you don't understand how they lost then that shows your own abysmal level of comprehension.
@@MasterMoron As stated rights in general are "made up". Are you suggesting then that humans don't have a right to life?
@@someguy2135we're not talking about needless killing. We're talking about killing for food.
Don't grant the phone/shirt exploitation argument. There is no reason to think that not buying a phone will help those workers in any way. Odds are it will make their lives worse; lower wages in worse conditions at some other job. People take the best job they can get.
Speaking of, is anyone aware of a charity similar to GiveDirectly that focuses on exploited workers in Asia? They are paid a pittance, so it wouldn't be hard double their income. I think they have worse lives than the poor in Africa, so I'm not sure why GiveDirectly focuses so much on Africa.
Probably the best career opportunity out there is working as a field worker harvesting produce. Excellent working conditions, pay, benefits package, Some of those places start out at between twenty to twenty five dollars an hour
Saying i'm over 70 and can't change is a pathetic excuse .
I'm nearly 69 , been vegan almost 9 year's now , and before that a vegetarian for 40 year's, so yeah , of course one can change , it's easy to become vegan.
When i was a vegetarian i had cognitive dissonance, but when i realized id been a hypocrite for so long i changed....vegan for life
Not impressed with Harvard
How does not buying phones increase utility?
Like, how does it make life better for the worker? It needs more of a collective effort.
When it comes to animals, even if you going vegan won't save all animals you can rest assured knowing that animals aren't bred into existence for your consumption.
This argument is in such bad faith because he doesn't even think that not buying a phone is something worthy of him doing.
Well, the guy stinks at this. It's actually kind of disappointing that he's a HARVARD STUDENT.
1st of all the guy keeps trying to BULLDOZE you. Which means he's often trying to stop you from talking by talking over you, and giving you little chance to get a word in edgewise. He's trying to dominate the conversation rather than
engaging in conversation/debate. Which is often a telltale sign that the person doesn't really have much of an argument to make and he's trying to distract from the fact that he doesn't have a strong argument to make, by trying to keep you from making your argument/counter-argument.
2) And so he deflects from the argument at hand by trying to turn it into an argument about sweatshops.
Animal rights and sweatshops are 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES, but he turns to the latter because he doesn't have any real answers for the former. And in doing so he tries to make you out a hypocrite, but then
BY HIS OWN LOGIC he doesn't care about sweatshops. Because he most likely has a cell phone and other products from sweatshops himself, So what he is doing is letting you know that he not only doesn't care about animal rights, he also doesn't really care about the violation of HUMAN RIGHTS that goes on in sweatshops. (again if you go by
the logic he is using) So he doesn't care about animal rights, nor does he care about human rights (at least when it comes to sweatshops), which begs the question what exactly does he care about??
3) He tries to justify the comparison of eating and killing animals to owning a smartphone in terms of
TRADEOFFS that have to be made. This means he is equating the momentarily sensory pleasure of eating
something you like to something that has become an essential part of contemporary everyday life (having a cell phone)
for a great many people. The former is a moment of pleasure that people can easily get by without
indulging in, but the latter has become more of a necessity of contemporary everyday life that a lot of people
would find it more difficult to do without in today's world. (for a variety of reasons). All-in-all not a good comparison.
But it seems to be the only thing he had.
4) He argues that your ideas on animal rights are only YOUR OPINION. But the building blocks of any kind of
rights (including human rights) are opinions. Throughout history, the struggle on any kind of rights was based on OPINIONS of right and wrong.. There are people even in the contemporary USA who would deny
his human rights as an Asian foreigner in America. Or perhaps just as a person of Asian descent in America The people who fight against that do so because of their
OPINIONS.
One hopes this guy is not on the Harvard debate team. Or is attending Harvard law school
Excellent dissertation, go vegan
And she deflected from the argument on hand by talking about dogs being kicked, which has nothing to do with eating meat.
Eating meat for some people is just as necessary as owning a smart phone is for others.
Human rights are in the U.S. Constitution. It's not just an opinion. Animal rights are made up as they don't exist.
@Moron No, talking about dogs being kicked isn't really deflecting. That would be expanding
on the issue of animal rights. Both fall under the umbrella of animal rights and protections.
And she used it as a means to try to determine where the guy might draw the line on such matters.
While the guy went to sweatshops SIMPLY TO DEFLECT. Animal rights (including meat eating)
and sweat shops really are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
And how so is eating meat just as necessary for some people as owning a smart phone is
for others? Are you talking about certain health conditions that make a meat-free diet
unhealthy and not viable for certain people? If so then it's fine for such people to eat meat. (assuming such people do exist, which I believe I've heard such people do exist)
But I suspect the percentage of people that would be true for would-be FAR LOWER than the percentage
of people to whom owning a cellphone is a necessity in today's contemporary world.
But in any case, THAT IS AN ARGUMENT THE GUY SHOULD HAVE MADE. AT LEAST IT IS AN ARGUMENT ON THE MATTER AT HAND. I mean I can
play DEVIL'S ADVOCATE and come up with better arguments for the eating of meat than this guy did.
But then he didn't really come up with any arguments on that. He merely deflected..
As for the idea that animal rights DON'T EXIST, that is simply not true. USA law (and the laws of a lot of countries) do grant animal rights and protections. It's just that the laws don't go nearly as far as
a lot of us would like. But the laws and the countries do recognize the concept of animal rights
@@keng4847he did make the argument that some people eat meat and Natalie essentially admitted that it's okay for those people to eat meat, which in my mind destroys her entire argument. It doesn't matter what percentage of people need to eat meat versus what percentage of people need to use smart phones. As long as it is a necessity then it will always exist. Even if say, only 5 percent of people need to eat meat then the meat industry is still necessary to provide those people with the meat they need, just as the cell phone industry is necessary to provide cell phones to those that need them.
@Moron "He did make the argument that some people eat meat"
Huhh?????????????? His whole point was to champion the eating of meat.
AND OF COURSE, IT MATTERS WHAT THE PERCENTAGES ARE.
If only a TINY PERCENTAGE of the population needs meat for health reasons, then
some sort of meat industry might still be necessary,, BUT ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE.
The number of animals being slaughtered would be FAR FEWER than
they presently are. And it would be done as a necessity for that small percentage of people
for whom a meat-free diet isn't viable; not just because a lot of people don't want to give up meat.
And the smaller the scale of the meat industry, the easier it becomes to see to it that it is run
on a more humane basis.
And like I said, the number of people who need cell phones is most likely FAR HIGHER than the number of people who NEED MEAT.
Yikes he goes to Harvard?
The body language of the 70 year old person said it all
Whilst it's understandable to have questions and concerns surrounding veganism and its practical application, resorting to tactics like guilt-tripping or deflection rarely leads to productive dialogue. Veganism, at its core, represents a commitment to minimising harm to animals as much as possible within individual circumstances. It's a journey of continuous learning and improvement, driven by a desire to align personal choices with deeply held values of compassion and ethical responsibility.
Attributing harm to others based solely on assumptions or anecdotal evidence, like claiming a phone inherently causes harm without considering its specific production and usage, can be misleading and unproductive. It's important to remember that everyone navigates ethical consumerism within their unique circumstances, and focusing solely on perceived inconsistencies can overshadow the genuine efforts individuals make to minimise harm.
Well done Natalie.
Listen more than you talk. Harvard can't teach you everything - this kid needs a lesson in critical thinking, respect, and how to have civil discussions.
Great activism, beautifully handled 💚💚
Holy sh**.. I love you so much.
Well done. You handled this so well. 🐾✊💖💖💖
I mean it's analogous to claiming that a vegan is a hypocrite because they don't do more good for society. You're not perfect therefore I can be even worse than you! What a terrible argument. Pretty crazy that guy goes to Harvard yet lacks basic critical thinking skills.
@@CarnemexadaDeontically, it is the the basic rights of the animal, such as the rights to life and liberty. Consequentially, it is the extreme torment of tens of billions of land animals annually. There is no trait present in animals that, if present in humans, would justify eating humans for food. Thus, eating animals cannot be rationally justified unless you want to sacrifice human rights.
Were all these people actually associated with Harvard ?
What is wrong with vegan yogurt, it is delicious, healthier and no one has to suffer and die because someone can't possibly imagine living without eating another's species milk that was meant to grow a baby cow. The dairy and egg industry is extremely cruel. Please stop supporting the cruelty !
Imagine being 70 years old and so closed minded.
Great vegan outreach, Natalie, you have such patience to deal with incredibly self centered people.
It is so easy to go vegan !!
@@Carnemexada the rational obligation to abstain from eating animals is; there is no rational excuse for abusing, torturing and violently murdering kind innocent defenseless sentient beings when you could easily and cheaply choose something else to eat that doesn't cause suffering and death to anyone.
Taking someone's life for a sandwich when you could easily choose something else to eat is certainly not rational, it would be rational if you were a psychopath and enjoyed abusing and murdering animals.
@@Carnemexada obviously you are triggered by my response to you.
Again, there is nothing rational about taking someone's life when you can easily choose something else to eat.
Vegans don't deliberately breed and murder animals, crop deaths could be reduced by at least 70% because the majority of crops are grown to feed animals not people.
Stop using crop deaths which are unavoidable to make yourself feel better for deliberately murdering sentient beings when you can easily choose not too !
There is no justification for not being vegan and you know it !
@@Carnemexada your comment is rubbish, if you are a psychopath who enjoys abusing and killing animals unnecessarily then you most likely find it rational to do so.
There is nothing rational about taking someone's life when you can choose from thousands of wonderful nutritious food items that don't cause suffering and death to anyone.
Regenerative agriculture sounds good in theory, but using and killing animals certainly is not high animal welfare.
Animals are here with us they are not for us.
The hospitals are full of meat eaters suffering from stroke,heart disease high blood pressure, osteoporosis, cancer, diabetes type 2,obesity to name just a few diseases caused from eating animals and their secretions. Animal products are from adequate health and nutrition for humans.
Idk how you have the patience.
I find it just as wrong that animals eat meat I do not understand why animals murder innocent animals.
You could've lost it twice as hard and I'd still be applauding. Only suggestion would be, instead of saying "I'm trying to connect with people who care about animals," how about "I'm trying to connect with people who have compassion towards animals, and you've made it clear that you have some personal growth to do before you reach that point."
I'm British and I'll be honest, I struggled to understand a word the "Harvard" hoodie guy said.🤣
Good outreach; have a like and a subscription.
Crazy carnist.
Don't "Exploit workers" OH WAIT they CAN QUIT a job, can animals quit?
Pathetic excuse. If you bought another phone, he would go to the next BS
Strong!! I felt that you were very respectful, relevant, & articulate with your communication. Well done!
What do you think about the argument that: if we take money out of or boycott these ‘iPhone slave labor sweat shops’ that this could be a worse outcome for them?
The alternative could be buying used phones or finding some ethical alternative(?) but wouldn’t the slave shops be worse off if we take money away from them? How would they be better off if we boycott them? Someone help me understand.
This is why workers rights are important, but Americans call that communism.
There's some complexities to this topic tied to geo-political situations, and the governments of these specific countries, but in general I think the answer is no. If people demand that phones be built with labor that is not exploited like this by buying alternatives that they know has far less exploitation, the sweat/slave shops will have no choice but to change or go out of business. If we did this for all products, no matter what came in place of that sweat/slave shop would be far less exploitative.
@@benwaggler3541 If they could change and have more rights for workers that would obviously be great but If the shops go out of business and people lose their jobs, isn’t it worse? How is taking money away from impoverished people going to lead to improvements? If anything it seems like it would lead to more exploitation.
@@benwaggler3541 If sweat shop owners go out of business, then sweat shop workers lose their jobs & might have to turn to prostitution instead.
Not defending sweat shops here, in no way, but boycott doesn't seem to solve the issue of the workers.
@@SweetPotatoTyler The problem of people's labor being exploited is due to a system of global capitalism. Workers in what are considered "developed" or "1st world" countries were once massively exploited on the same levels as these modern day sweat/slave shops. Until workers recognize this exploitation, unite, and seek to democratize these workplaces, exploitation will continue.
As a person not exploited to the same degree today, what do you suggest individuals like yourself do to try to better the lives of the workers in these sweat/slave shops? I suggest you try as best you can to make sure your money, your demand, goes to ethical businesses that do not take part in that exploitation.
You are an excellent communicator for the animal rights movement. Subscribed.
Thank you and welcome aboard!
I’ve learned a lot of how to have these types of conversations when I do outreach. Thank you so much 🙏!
10/10 glad to see the great minds at top universities.
His entire argument was all logical fallacies....
Dude should drop out and save the money
Lmao
Because I can’t have a zero impact on the world by my presence, then I should not bother with trying to reduce my impact. Also, because not everyone is reducing their impact, then I shouldn’t bother trying to reduce my impact. It’s interesting to me, a boomer, how intransigent some of these young people can be but how quick they are to slight me with the term “boomer” when they don’t like what I say or do. That young fellow has had interactions with vegans before. He was armed with those great irrefutable comebacks.
Great outreach 👊🏼
You're a saint!
Excellent!!! Concerning that so many vegetarians don't seem to get how the egg and dairy industries work. So much education needs to happen generally, starting with schools. We need to stop lying to kids about where their 'food' comes from. Thanks for being a voice for the voiceless from a South Australian Animal Liberationist and Morally superior vegan. Loved that end bit.
I am shocked that Harvard University "kicked us out" after 20 minutes. My maternal grandfather graduated from there in June 1906 as did two other relatives later. So much for fostering learning. Sorry that you were expelled by goons and thugs. Harvard must go fully vegan PDQ.
His argument is not about doing the right thing. It’s about virtue signalling. Natalie could be the most hypocritical evil person, and it wouldn’t justify somebody else supporting animal cruelty. If I met someone who was speaking out about racism and it turned out that they were a hypocritical racist, it wouldn’t make it ok for other people to be racist. Btw I think Natalie is a good person. Just speaking in hypotheticals.
Is the guy in the hoodie a Harvard student 😮🤔🤯? Well done for staying so calm and for brilliant examples and arguments 👏 👏 👏
6:40 The way she avoids eye contact... She knows what the right thing to do is, and she's embarrassed she hasn't made the change yet. 🤞Maybe she will.
Fantastic outreach Natalie! As difficult as he was, the vegetarian was very difficult as well. As it is with so many vegetarians (we both know that). Age argument? Geesh! I have to admit, I haven’t gotten that one yet. Ridiculous! There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. Weak argument on her part. As far as the Harvard student, who was obviously trying to prove you wrong, when we all know that not harming animals is right, you handled it well! I love how you shut down the argument at the end. He was impossible, with his rants about your clothing and phone. Very typical behavior by someone who wants to continue to harm animals. Skirt the issue to inanimate objects when you are talking about sentient beings. Keep up the great work for the animals. They are so lucky to have you for their voice. And vegans are lucky to have you to learn from, when speaking for non-human animals. Much love Natalie
Thank you for this video. ✌✌
We need to delete these bots.
Sheesh, I am 64. I turned vegan in 2023. Never too late to reduce harm and exploitation of animals.
Fantastic! well done Natalie💗💗
Why didn't you rebut the 'yOu hAvE A SWeaTShop PHoNe' with the people do the best jobs available to them, so it might be worse to boycott them because now they don't have any source of income?
Thanks for the content
Great video. I like how you are calm, to the point and don't waste too much energy on people who don't care. Awesome job!
You did a great job here, learning a lot from your activism.
This was a really good video. I particularly liked how you answered the british guys point around phones, who by the way seemed like a spilt brat who's clearly never been told to be quiet.
You did an incredible job. Very impressive
You do such a fantastic job, Natalie! Thank you! 🙏❤️✌️
It's hard to be compassionate sometimes when everyone around you thinks like that kid. It's tiring and draining me hearing things against not wanting to unnecessarily abuse animals.
beautiful activism!!!
Sweatshirt guy shifted the goalposts with the phone.
Waste of time arguing phone, if they find it wrong more than you, then they should never have one at all.
Clearly they use the argument as excuse.
What an obnoxious child
We don't buy a mobile phone three to four times everyday.
Eaten dog, Eaten cat. Really do not like cat. Dog is fine though. No issue at all.
Vegeterian....is not amazing.