step 2 : is your meat alive? what is meat not alive? where does meat come from? they usualy kill them before eating the meat but some people eat animal alive specialy mukbang octopus
To be fair, meat eaters and vegans both disgusts me. As a rock eater I cannot stand the idea of eating a sentient being, especially when a big glass of sand is sooo good
Funnily enough, this can be true to some degree. Fats are more energy-rich than sugars, and meat tends to have higher fat content than most plant parts. (Except for some seeds). Lard in particular is just about the best J/kg you can digest.
Try going for the soul FIRST, then the corpse. It's a rookie mistake to go for the soul after the corpse, the soul dissipates after you consume the corpse, silly.
Literally the "When did you stop beating your wife" question. Hard to convince people that think you're evil. Even harder to convince people you think are evil and not worth your time. People that ask questions like that aren't after friends or new followers. They're looking for a dose of smug.
Literally not the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question. That one alleges something not true and asks a question condemning you, possibly unfairly, no matter how you answer it. The "Why do you eat corpses of sentient beings?" does not allege something untrue, it just words something true in the most brutal and negative way. To answer it it forces you to make a lot of relative arguments about harm, maybe go deeper into sentience and levels thereof, etc. So unfairly simplified question requiring an unfairly complex answer, but way different game than the wifebeater trick.
@shangex4795some are more than others, but we literally force children to make iPhones, kill children in emerald mines for money (Elon's dad) and destroy/hide ancient cultures and civilizations taken over by British colonization. Eating a damn deer is the LOWEST form of "evil" we may do or have done.
@shangex4795 Sentient has different levels. Most animals are sentient to some degree, able to feel a wide range of emotion, learn, and perceive the world around them and adjust behavior accordingly. Lab mice can solve mazes to get food, elephants can recognize that pictures of them and their reflection are indeed them, predators can determine when prey is too dangerous to pursue. Some animals are barely sentient like fish, there have been studies that show some types of fish don't even feel pain. So the only question is what level of sentients do you feel comfortable consuming.
When someone doesn't agree with you, call them stupid idiots. That always works and gets them on your side instead of incentivizing them to dig a deeper trench.
Cause it was never again gaining new followers and making a genuine grass roots movement, its about gathering street cred amongst your activist gang members
The problem with this line of thinking, although practically true, is that it can obscure the reality that some causes and positions are intrinsically antagonistic to someone's sense of security and justification for participation in the systems in which they do. People that intuitively recognize that they are fighting from the low ground in this respect often tend to overcompensate with bravado or sternness that is reassuring to the speaker but detrimental for communication, but this doesn't prove anything in regards to the veracity of the position they're taking. The same forces that drive people to be unduly antagonistic also drive the hegemonic position's ability to disregard any challenge as antagonistic- this is just one of the tricks which uphold the power of the privileged viewpoint.
@@Pengochan Well, I think it does in part. It definitely isn't any one activist's full picture, though- I don't mean to say that activists shouldn't make an effort to be effective communicators and decent people outside of the context of their cause, people definitely often fail at that, but as outside observers thinking more broadly than just the ideas of the cause or the character of the person espousing them is useful in more effectively evaluating what causes are worthy of our engagement because it gives us tools to account for and attempt to balance systemic bias out of the equation.
@@XeLRUclipsThey definitely have a nervous system, but apart from that you're somewhat correct. Aim somewhere vital, like the jugular, and boom. Gone in seconds, probably before they actually understand what's happening and panic sets in. So, while you're seemingly a toxic vegan trying to guilt us (judging by the name), you're correct.
I was completely engrossed in Josh's monologue when someone in chat called out the "vest". I had not realized Josh was not actually wearing a vest. It's almost indistinguishable from an actual vest if Josh doesn't move too much. Amazing.
I don't have any idea what you mean, Josh just uses VERY high-quality starch, the kind that let's you stick a mic under a vest without any visible bulging whatsoever! It sounds to me like your vest game just isn't on his level.
@@delos2279their belief may be genuine, but that doesn't really matter when what they're saying is not said in good faith. They're not asking to have a genuine dialogue about challenging moral issues. They're not even asking to change your mind. They're asking so they can score points just by being seen to be asking. That's what makes it trolling - they literally have no interest either way in anything you could say in response.
@@delos2279 If you caught glimpses of the original commenter replying in chat, they were saying shit like "so we should have to respect serial killers' lifestyle choices". They were pretty clearly trolling in this case (i.e. intentionally conflating sapience and sentience and trying to get people riled up over it)
I have to imagine most commenters like this are children or teenagers that are trying out personas they encountered online. No self-respecting adult wastes their time with stuff like this.
JSH teaching his chat how to be more effective cult leaders. Love this guy. This gentleman is one of the most intelligent and well spoken people on these platforms.
@@tenofclubs2agree. Another gripe I would give is that it can be kinda temperaturemental and melt and then you just have normal water and not glorious snow.
"Why do you eat corpses of sentient beings ?" I love that question because you can answer by "You know what you're right, i should eat them alive" and then you get to see their reaction, it never gets boring
I’m not convinced that vegan guy didn’t have the stream muted, like hot dam how would you listen to josh say this and think “yeah let me stick to this course of action “
@@zagqueenofchaos8352 Because some people severly lack the awareness to realize that, yes it is in fact them who is like that, and yes it is exactly what they are doing. Or they perceive it as "different" / "justified" in their case.
@Poisonhearth Murder only applies to humans. Animals have neither innocence not guilt, thus cannot be murdered. Innocence is a required component of murder.
Plants are not sentient beings. More plants die (if you actually care about plants and aren't just trolling) for a diet that includes meat, as the animals eat.. PLANTS! So there are the plants the animals you eat consume + the plants that you also eat (assuming you aren't on an all meat diet)
@@tacocat1921 Considering the definition of sentience is "the ability to experience feelings and sensations" according to wikipedia and "able to see or feel things through the senses" according to the oxford dictionary, as well as other ones going by the search results, one can in fact make a case for plants possessing a hitherto unknown degree of it. Which I feel is a good reason to promote more studies into the way plants function in order to find out how far it goes. Personally speaking I'm not a vegan nor a vegetarian. I'm of the opinion that its each to their own. If they want to eat just plants, let them. It isn't a diet that'd work for me however. Nor do I see a moral or ethical problem with eating meat, plants, insects, fungi and such. That's just my personal thoughts and opinions on it.
@@tacocat1921 you actually need to take more nutrients out of the ground as a plant eater than a meat eater. why? because the plants that YOU can digest, need a lot more nutrients than the ones MY MEAT NEEDS. You dont have 4 stomaches to break down grass, but a cow can. I can use literally 'waste' to eat, while you need to drain the soil to get subpar proteins, and a lower content of it, and since the terrain gets drained, it has to be sprayed with fertilizers, polluting the rivers, and the monocultures you get your veggies from are perfect for pests, since i bet you dont like ogm either, will need pesticides! Being completely vegan is literally leeching and polluting the soil, which means it is unsustainable. (im not saying its all the vegans fault, im saying you cant NOT do that as a vegan). Many animals not only eat what we cant, but also can eat from non-arable areas, like on steep hills, poor soils or even rocky surfaces (thank you goats!) So while a herd of meat animals can use no arable land, you are stuck to increasing more and more the cut arable land you have to steal from forests, where my meat can graze and give me meat, milk and leather ALL while shitting in those forests, spreading biodiversity, keeping the undergrowth in check, and fertilizing the land 🥰
That sounds pretty hardcore. I wonder how far can we go. "I'm a devourer of the souls and bodies of the recently departed". "I assimilate the organic matter originating from the deceased bodies of intelligent beings both for nourishment and personal pleasure".
There's an anecdote about Confucius and one of his students. The student asked why they don't simply go to all the ruling lords/nobles/kings etc and enlighten them in the ways of their philosophy. And Confucius basically replied "Nobody likes being preached to. If you go around espousing your philisophy you aren't doing it for another's benefit, but only to make yourself feel superior. They will not listen to you because you are setting yourself up on a pedestal above them."
Precisely zero evidence for that. Was slavery abolished, because no one ever said anything bad about slavery? Or was it abolished because a larger and larger group of people were very vocal about it's evil?
@@MrCmon113 Two very different things. Society coming to the conclusion that soemthing is bad and actively taking steps against it is not the same as one guy stepping on a pedestal and yelling at you what a horrible, sinful creature you are because you had pork for lunch on a Wednesday in March.
@@MrCmon113 Slavery was abolished because rapidly developing and industrializing societies required well fed and educated workers to perform tasks that could not be performed by human beings emaciated and beaten to the point of "barely compliant". In short, it fell out of favor because it was not practical for maintenance and development of our society. But if you think slavery had been abolished in principle then you need to only look at the environment you inhabit with a critical eye. A medieval serf had more freedom than vast majority of humanity now, when it comes to paying their dues and negotiating rent payments with their lords. We now have education debt slavery, mortgage slavery, medical care slavery (from diseases introduced into our species by big pharma collusion with various industries as well as allostatic load maximized lifestyles). There hadn't been a single successful slave revolt in human history.
I honestly thought this was going to be about cannibalism because 99% of the time people misuse “sentience” to mean “sapience.” It was actually used correctly for once though!
@@pennymac16this usage is common in science fiction for some reason. I think that's where the misunderstanding comes from. Intelligence, sentience, sapience, consciousness, and self-awareness are all distinct concepts so I can see how it would be confusing.
@@isaacbruner65 Yeah, popular media does shape how we view and communicate things. And conflating language does confuse things in societal discurse. Also, I don't know why, but in my language the term for self-consciousness is used to mean self-confidence. So I think a lot of people are also simply too lazy/don't consider to think about the way they use the terms they use.
Josh being reasonable and going into the subject, while chatter "Veganismftw" actively making everyone else in chat to hate veganism. Great clip. Good response to someone in the chat who obviously didn't have more than short sentences, no actual responses and just malicious intent towards Josh from the start.
if you think shutting down and throwing a fit about an unpleasant reality (that eating intelligent animals after they were brutally ended and treated like shit) and handling the way the question was asked instead of the actual issue is wisdom, boy youve got a lot to learn
Agreed. Theres a reason people depressed from life rush a macdonalds or other fast food joint, cuz its comfort food, and guess what 90% of their menus consist of…MEAT
@@casualcausalityy So the chefs claim. But chefs talk a lot of BS to justify their income. To this day, if you cooked me three eggs, I couldn't tell you which was free-range and which wasn't. I could tell you which was the cheapest one, that had been ruined with yellow food coloring.
@fredmercury1314 I raise cattle, we've slaughtered our own beef and the one that died in a traffic accident tasted way worse. Regarding eggs, real free range eggs have darker yolks and a richer taste
well, this one's quite simple, to gain their intrinsic abilities, good examples of corpses to eat and why, are: - All elves confer sleep resistance. - Wraith corpses provide a guaranteed level up. - All giants, titans, the Cyclops, and Lord Surtur provide an increase in strength. - Mind flayers and master mind flayers provide an increase in intelligence or confer telepathy. - Floating eyes always confer telepathy. - Blue, black, orange, red, and white dragons are all guaranteed to confer their associated resistance: shock for blue, disintegration for black, sleep for orange, fire for red (including Ixoth), and cold for white. - All nagas confer poison resistance, and are additionally safe to eat with the exception of acidic black nagas and poisonous guardian nagas. Red nagas also confer fire resistance. - All puddings confer cold, shock, and poison resistance, and are acidic. - Brown and red molds confer poison resistance; the former additionally provides cold resistance, and the latter gives fire resistance. - Blue jellies confer poison and cold resistance. - Gelatinous cubes confer fire, cold, sleep, and shock resistance, and are acidic. - Gray oozes confer fire, cold, and poison resistance. - Quivering blobs confer poison resistance. - Electric eels confer shock resistance. - Lizards cure stoning, lowers stun and confusion to two rounds, and do not rot.
@@connorperrett9559 Ahhhh, that explains mad cow disease. The strongest of the cows were simply trying to increase their stomach count. You know, it WOULD be convenient to be able to consist off of grass alone. Maybe I'm just not eating cows with enough stomachs. I'll have to find some of these mad cows so that I too can become mad with gastric power.
Do not eat the knifears. This can lead to unique and... uncomfortable diseases. Trust me, I have tried. It's best to just kill them and maybe quench the occasional axe in their blood.
I love how Josh is being rational and entirely reasonable, yet the chat is literally misconstruing everything he says and somehow arrives just south of Mars on every single conclusion. Truly pearls before swine.
I mean, it's twitch chat. Expecting any level of meaningful engagement from a twitch chat numbering more than double digits is a mistake. At that point, it's usually a "how can I be noticed" or "hehe stream of consciousness go brr" deal. The price of notoriety comes in many ways, twitch chat is a living example of one.
Yeah, more then likely people(the ones looking at this clip on YT at least) are listening to what Josh is saying, Maybe with an occasional look at chat. And then replaying the video to watch chat.
I know someone who literally cannot talk to people in any other way than to be patronizing, and I'm like "If you wanted to help that person, you'd learn how to speak a different way."
what a lazy childish way of seeing things. some people were just dealt a really shitty hand at life- its like saying fat people can just stop eating and alcoholics can just stop drinking and the fact they dont means they dont care about their health or loved ones. people are more nuanced than that and you need to check yourself. cura te ipsum. have some understanding for those who speak with aggression, instead of defining them by their moments of weakness.
@@aurex8937 Same. I've learned to just shut the fuck up. People are fucking idiots and it does me no good whatsoever to open my mouth on any topic nowadays. I vent myself online in comment threads like this so I don't have to preach to my friends and family.
I don't disagree but i'll add this: I push back when somebody uses guilt or force to make me do something not because I dislike their attitude, but because the mere fact that they are using shame or force makes me skeptical of the very thing they want me to do, because good things and truthful things do not require such tactics. It makes me skeptical that they even care about their cause, or wonder what sort of toxic culture they have immersed themselves into surrounding this cause, perhaps the cause is hiding unpleasant facts about itself, or if the cause itself is a complete mess as time and again poorly thought out ideologies tend to be breeding grounds for unstable behavior, it is the power of cognitive dissonance.
@accelerationquanta5816good and truthful things necessarily require evidence proving them to be so. Any reasonable, open-minded person, when presented with that evidence in a non-confrontational way, would be convinced that it is true
@accelerationquanta5816 Did you literally just ask him to prove that the truth doesn't need to be enforced? The alternative is that the truth sometimes DOES need to be enforced, and that's called fascism.
Sometimes they promote stuff that hurt the cause they defend the most about. There are some who are against shearing sheep. Well, if you don't shear them, the whool gets overgrown and they die. We have bred sheep into requiring regular shearing. Only one type of sheep doesn't need to be sheared.
Just remember that every person has a 14-year-old version of themselves that pops out whenever somebody says, “If you don’t do what I do, you are objectively immoral and stupid,” and that younger self will immediately say, “I will never do what you do, specifically because you told me I have to.” Even if the person knows they’re in the wrong, their first reaction is usually to go on the defensive in that situation.
So? Your first reaction is irrelevant. What's relevant is your long term behavior. There's simply no evidence whatsoever that confronting people about harmful behavior is bad in the long term.
@@MrCmon113 It's all about how you confront. If you confront the person being smug and saying like you have some type of moral highground, the person not only will have the immediate repulsion reaction, but you paint a bad frame for your cause and the person have more of a reason to don't want to engage on future discussion. If you really want to change someone viewpoint, you need to approach it in a non antagonistic way and try to show what your point is. People who are willing to debate will hear you and then you can maybe actually change someone mind. But if the person is not willing to hear you or not conviced by your arguments and your response is "you stupid! >:(", even if this person one day come to change his view point, i can guarantee that the reason is not because you can then stupid.
@pokijuubmnkjnl The best way to convince someone of your way of doing things is to walk them through it in such a way that they think they figured it out themselves, because then it's their own idea and they can sidestep the feeling of being wrong. In general though, yes you can never be antagonistic toward people you actually want to change the minds of, because it inspires backlash and spite.
A Dutch comedian once said it very eloquently: "Maak van jouw verwachting, niet mijn verplichting." ("Do not turn your expectation into my obligation.")
oof. While he was making his point i remembered Stop Oil protestors. They are so infuriating that i started hate them so much, and in turn, recently, to care less about climate change because of that.
@@sjorspolling8275 yo me too, i learned english trough games. i remeber my first word being "flame" because i played "kartia" on ps1 haha games are awesome! ( i also know german, and balkanic languages)
@@MrCmon113the more someone will actively attempt to pontificate to me about my lifestyle choices, the less inclined I am to agree with them. Any reason YOU might have to not eat meat is perfectly valid and is the correct decision for YOU. To push that agenda on others and morally grandstand about it does nothing but make you and your cause look worse in the eyes of those that already disagree with you.
Completely irrelevant. For every spiteful moron, who doesn't care about animals at all, there's at least a thousand people, who buy meat specifically because they don't make the connection to animals. Even if you abuse animals out of "spite" for having been confronted, that's utterly outweighted by others thinking twice about buying chicken rather than tofu.
@@everlastiny I don't mind that the anonymity makes people more honest. What I hate is people saying shit they don't necessarily believe just to get a rise so that they can feel like they have an effect on someone else.
Goes to show that the majority of people with time to chat in these streams have next to no higher brain functions. Or they’re all children. Take your pick.
Top class, not stepping down to their level and falling for bait but rather giving useful life advice. Reminds me of the approach I had to use with my GF for her to start playing videogames since she had some terrible preconceived notions about them. Rather than telling her she was missing out or being silly and judgmental, I just let things flow over a number of years and she eventually got hooked after watching me play a JRPG and wanting to know what happened next in the story, to the point she forced me to play it daily (it was the during the pandemic, so all her friend playing Among Us and Fall Guys did help too ^^) Never change Josh!
You have exactly zero evidence that his "adivce" is useful. At least looking at the past it has never been the case that being outspoken about abuse and injustice was detrimental to combating said abuse. Also there is no "bait". The purpose of confronting you is merely to force you to think about the animals at all. I already know that you don't have a justification to buy meat. The problem is merely that you're so rarely forced to justify yourself to yourself.
The simple fact the chatter said "Can't you just admit I'm morally superior kissing emoji" tells everything you need to know about their intentions and their actual involvment in veganism as a lifestyle. They're fishing for brownie points on the internet and that's pretty much it. Pathetic really
@@wrongthinker843 Every *actual* practicing vegan I know, while they can get very preachy about how it's healthier for you (x to doubt) and all that, have never once acted like the guy in chat did, even during those preachy moments. Most even have the good sense to realize when the person they're talking to has completely shut down and will back off with "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree" statement. Meanwhile everyone I've met who claims to be vegetarian until pressed and admitting they eat 'selective meat sometimes' or vegan but they still eat honey and cheese act like the guy in chat, every single time. They aren't in it for the diet or the morals, they're in it for the external praise, and they do it very, very badly because they rarely get that praise.
I've got "V" on each hand (roman numerals) for military related tattoos. Everytime I meet a vegan they ask if the V's mean vegan all excitedly. As if it's some branding label for self identification.
Funny thing is, when someone in the chat said "that's incredibly manipulative" it only reminded me of teaching. Coaxing questions, asking why, leading them to the point you want them to get to is just.. its just teaching a child.
That person in the chat said near the end of the video that they were referring to what he was describing, aka the vegans in the context. Not sure if josh acknowledged that after the video ends but at the very least that part wasn't a person making that statement
I kinda appreciate that someone in chat pointed out it's manipulative, cause it absolutely is. People tend to ignore that part of psychology and communication thinking "Oh, I'm leading people to an actual good answer, so it's not manipulation," but it still 100% is. Manipulation is like pretty much everything else in this world, it can be used to help or hinder people; it just depends on what the person doing it wants to accomplish. And, it's always good to know these tricks in case someone tries to use them on you. It's simply effective communication.
You can't interact with someone without manipulating them in some way. Even just your presence could influence what they do or think. Any influence you have on another person manipulates them, and they in turn manipulate you. Manipulation runs a broad spectrum from innocuous to insidious. It's not necessarily about hiding your intentions from the other person, either. A clever teacher is able to "trick" a student into stumbling onto the answer for themselves rather than simply being told what the answer is. Whether manipulation is good or evil simply comes down to whether you intend to benefit yourself at their expense or whether you're trying to benefit them. Some people are really good at lying to themselves and tricking themselves into thinking the selfish things they do is for the benefit of others (and ironically, it is the kindest people who are most susceptible to this), but that shouldn't be confused with those who legitimately want to help others.
@@Greywander87 technically? sure. realistically? realistically nobody calls _helpful_ manipulation, "being manipulative". and there are other factors to consider too. in this case the end result is a lifelong lifestyle choice. in the teaching case, the end result is they solve the problem. the effects end the moment the student solves the problem.
@@5omebody Sure, in common parlance "manipulation" generally carries a negative, even sinister connotation. But it's worth a reminder that manipulation is actually a much broader concept, and can be either good or bad. Basically, we only call it "manipulation" when it's something we don't like, but that's an arbitrary and subjective distinction. A lot of the underlying tools are the same, it's just a matter of whether you're using those tools for good or evil. Hence certain tricks and tactics can "sound manipulative" because they are, but just being manipulative isn't itself good or evil, it's how you manipulate others. I can convince someone to stop doing drugs and get a job, or I can use the same tools get someone addicted to crack. Spreading awareness of what these tools are and how they work is pretty much the exact opposite of "sinister manipulation", as it's empowering people to recognize when someone is trying to influence them and allowing them to see through the trickery and decide if what the other person is saying has any real merit or not.
@@Greywander87 No, normally people only call it manipulation when it is using all kinds of psychological tricks to _almost guarantee_ a particular outcome. It is extremely possible to just convince others using good points and evidence without resorting to emotional manipulation.
I love when Josh actually communicates with the bad actors and trolls. For one it's just really refreshing but I also like to see them flounder when they don't get the knee jerk reaction they want. I don't remember which clip it was but someone else tried something and when Josh started talking to him one on one about the thing he responded "you didn't respond how I wanted you to"
@@zibix4562 No, this is much more recent, in the last month or two. I'm trying to find the clip channel but I can't for the the life of me remember the context around the coni.
How the heck was that a troll? They asked a legitimate question. Well, i don't know about any other comments from the person or their expectations, but that question alone is 100% legit.
@@MrCmon113 Sure, but going out and kill all the meat eaters will make me a murderer and land me in jail. So I go out and talk to meat eaters without insulting their intelligence. I respect their point of view and more often than not they respect mine. Sometimes they even turn lessetarian (eat less of the stuff) or even better. It might not be the fastest way to turn the world vegetarian but getting them to move slowly is a d*mn bit faster than not getting them to move at all. Do I have evidence for that? None whatsoever! But just that method turned me from a fulltime meat-eater into a once a month one.
From the OC's continued comments in the chat, they were likely "trolling" not just for shits and giggles, though. A troll will impersonate a group they hate in the toxic way they view them. If they receive positive attention, it reinforces their perspective of the hated group as toxic, making their hate feel justified. If they receive negative attention, it validates them for hating the group directly. From either approach, they are largely immune to reason because they already know they are being unreasonable, hence why they must work towards validation. None-the-less, the explanation here is good and it's good for people to hear.
This is why I only eat things that can understand what I'm going to do but can't fight back. I may have lost my job at the daycare center but I have maintained the moral high ground.
It's really annoying when people say this kind of stuff to me because with my health issues a vegan lifestyle would be fucking ridiculous to try and stick to, especially whilst keeping a balanced diet. When I was on dialysis I had a friend (for a while) who would constantly try and argue with me about it and they'd just continuously list stuff that I couldn't eat and I had to have that same exchange with just about every vegan I ever met lol "you can get plenty of protein bro just eat tons of x y and z" well done you suggested two things that will kill me and one that will make me puke my guts up 5 minutes after eating it cheers I don't even mind people talking about it or making a point but if someone says "no I don't want to" just leave it and move on, don't try and guilt them into it. It's such a bad way to try and convince someone to do something too, nevermind to convince them to make a whole lifestyle change to food they don't even like
My sister is the same way. She was very serious about it and put a lot of time and effort into planning and cooking, only for her doctor to eventually say that it wasn't sustainable for her. Definitely doesn't help that our family is absolutely chock full of life threatening allergies, and that it can be unbelievably difficult to source certain foods that are allergy friendly.
Your evidence for that is what? I don't see the slightest bit of reason to believe that confronting people about selfish behavior doesn't work. Especially public persons.
@@diedatplainsight8947You can’t win with vegans like that, even if you’re a vegan yourself, they’ll still find drag you if you don’t think about and or approach veganism in the same lenses they do. It HAS to be ethical veganism. Which is kinda weird considering they always expect everyone to understand them, yet they take the most bad faith and hostile view point of non-vegans, and vegans who question (or outright disagree) with them.
@@MrCmon113 The thing is, if you confront someone about their - perceived - selfish behavior, you elevate yourself in this. Doesn't even have to be intentionally, there is hardly a way to communicate such a thing without leaving that impression. This does then trigger to do it just in spite. Simple psychology.
@@1MDA I can't tell if this is your attempt at testing Basheequa's statement out or if you want Basheequa specifically dead, or if Basheequa has done something that suggests they want to do that and you specifically know about it.
Yeah there was someone on a metal forum that thought "you are basically making your body a graveyard!" would convince them. People like that are cute and very, very naive.
I remember a great post on the internet that goes: "If someone says 'I may not do that; it's against my religion' my response is 'Fine, I respect your conviction.' But if someone says "YOU may not do that; it's against my religion' my response is "F*** you and the horse you rode in on.'"
@@ethanbo-bethan4893 If you truly believe that something is morally wrong you should try to stop it. Religion is more of a personnal matter, I can be friends with muslims or christians but not with murderers or rapists. If someone has a different religion than you, you believe that they are wrong and if someone has different morals you believe that they are evil.
@@zi9958 Do you think the same way about your parents? Would you accuse them of murder and rape? If your worldview makes you unable to coexist with 99% of people, there's probably something wrong with your worldview. Have you ever considered that you may be mistaken about something? Have you ever considered that from other's perscpective, you are the one in the wrong? Have you ever tried having a logical discussion?
Apparently, my understanding of the word 'sentient' is wrong all this time,... I read the title and thought: Josh ate someone! Well, glad to be wrong, and I learned something today
People often treat "sentient" and "sapient" as if they mean the same thing; but they don't. "Sentient" just means "self-aware" while "sapient" means at least as smart as the dumbest human. Anything sapient is also sentient, but it's possible for a creature to be sentient without being sapient.
@@troodon1096 Most animals aren't sentient by that definition though. Evidenced by the mirror test, where most animals cannot identify themselves in a mirror, and think it's another animal.
@@troodon1096 Animals, with some notable exceptions like primates, long lived parrots and corvids as well as whales an orcas are neither sapient nor sentient.
@@troodon1096 the dumbest humans are certainly dumber than many other animals. I don't think that definition should be adhered to if you wish to remain superior to other genuses
@@troodon1096 in fact, most animals (not sponges, nor, arguably, jellyfish) have a level of sentience going by the general definition of "sapient = being that senses or feels". EDIT: Depending on your parameters, many plants could be argued to be sentient, and then you go the complete opposite direction and eating is always consuming the corpse of a sentient being, so vegans are doing the same "harm", and only selectively deciding it's fine to do that to plants but not animals.
I like how this dude, without skipping a beat, just launches into a thoughtful dissertation on human nature and our inherent rejection of being ordered around on a moral level. Also, it took me a solid five minutes to register that his gray sweater vest was just an overlay.
I like how the troll is just coping and seething in the chat at being destroyed in the most polite and educated way. Like, Strife is just disassembling their fragile ego and there's literally nothing they can do about it because they weren't prepared to have an actual discussion.
He's not really being destroyed, though? All Josh does is deflect from the original question and makes it about the way to approach others in activism or, more generally, in trying to change others' minds. And what does "disassembling their fragile ego" have to do with engaging with the topic anyway?
@@pennymac16 Because as Josh said himself. This person wasn't approaching anyone to change anyones mind. Just wanted to start an argument and feel morally superior. The ego comes when instead of getting into a heated debate like the person wanted, he instead took it as an opportunity to teach people how to properly change someone's mind, and how to better start a conversation. Stripping the troll of their fabricated high ground, and not engaging with them like they wanted. The 'deflection' is just tackling the actual issue instead of wasting time engaging someone whom didn't want to actually talk.
@@Omen_Cheetah Thanks for taking the time to answer :) I'd like reply to a few things you said by responding directly to quotes from you. I hope you forgive the length, I just wanted to give your points the time and that takes a bit more text 🙈 (there is a tl;dr below) "Because as Josh said himself. This person wasn't approaching anyone to change anyones mind. Just wanted to start an argument and feel morally superior." -- I don't know what question you're answering here. I didn't ask about the point Josh makes about 'making oneself feel superior'. And I could go into this claim but I'll make it short because I want to address your actual answer. So: Sure, this _could_ be the case. And I acknowledge the person was being a d**k. However, we don't really know the full extent of their motives. "The ego comes when instead of getting into a heated debate like the person wanted," -- This is still an assertion. I don't think anyone reasonable should simply state this as fact. (You called the person a troll. These days, I feel like anyone who simply starts an argument with people when they don't like it is quickly labled a troll. The meaning of words changes so fast...) "he instead took it as an opportunity to teach people how to properly change someone's mind, and how to better start a conversation." -- Yes, he talked about more effective persuasion instead of meat consumption. So, instead of engaging with the issue raised he talked about something different. How, then, could he have "destroyed" the person if Josh talked about something different than the issue? Isn’t that a requirement for „destroying“ someone - addressing their views/opinions/arguments? "Stripping the troll of their fabricated high ground," -- So the question "Can you justify why you eat corpses of sentient beings?" is supposed to establish a high ground? How so? Why isn't it a question about personal ethics asked in a blunt manner? (Because: many people don't know or chose to ignore the fact that meat is the muscle flesh of mammals. Similar with fish.) It could could be a question of interest. Although, I don’t think that holds water either. But starting a discussion this way is totally valid, is it not? Perhaps you are fabricating something here. That would be ironic, wouldn't it haha :P "and not engaging with them like they wanted." -- Again, that is an assertion. "The 'deflection' is just tackling the actual issue" -- What? How? The issue raised was Josh's justification of eating meat and such. Josh then _made_ it into the way to address issues with people (and I can only assume that's because he felt like he wanted to be engaged with differently, which would be petty.) Sure, I learned something from it, but he didn't engage with the actual issue. "instead of wasting time engaging someone" -- And who would force Josh to address the person in the chat directly? He could have chosen to discuss the issue presented from his point of view and ignore the way it was raised *and* the person who raised it. You say Josh deflected beacuse he didn't want to engage someone who is 'obviously' a troll/wants to feel superior. And I don't understand why you or Josh jump to the conclusion that this is the case. It came off to me as disingenuous. "whom [sic] didn't want to actually talk." -- Again an assertion where we don't know whether it's true. To summarize: Perhaps the person stated their question in that way because it draws attention and could start a discussion. We ultimately don’t know what their motivations were. Josh didn’t address the issue raised but talked about something different. I thought to „destroy“ someone means debunking their arguments/making their opinions look bad. So, in the end, I still don't understand a) how Josh "destroyed" that person when he didn't really address the issue, or b) what "disassembling their fragile ego" has anything to do with that (but that’s beside the point, really).
@@pennymac16 I appreciate the thought out response. To put it simply, starting a debate with a hostile question such as the chatter in question posted. Demanding someone justify 'Eating the corpses of sentient beings' while not strictly incorrect, it implies a level of wrongness or ill intention. While simultaneously proping themself as more superior, as it can be reasonably assumed that they are vegan. Which sets the tone for the rest of the discussion/argument. Another part of it is like that the topic of Veganism is talked to death. With many Vegans trying to use it to demonize others. Josh, like many many others, has likely been interrogated like this a million times on and off camera and is just tired of saying the same things over and over again. Deciding to tackle the subject of healthy debate, instead of specifically Vegan vs Non Vegan. I'll agree that we don't really know their motivation, but that works both ways. I nyself assume they're just a troll because of their agressive opening and continued hostile behavior in the chat. I can't claim to understand exactly why you think otherwise, but I assume your reasons are just as valid if not just simple devil's advocate. To clarify, Josh "Destroyed" them because while he didn't attack their argument, he did disassemble the percieved method in which the subject was presented. Instead opting to teach about how to properly discuss, rather than talk about a subject thats been talked about a million times across the internet. In the end it is what it is. I honestly don't care if ppl are vegan or not, but all over the internet you find Vegans everywhere who are only out to demonize people who eat meat. It makes sense most people would assume that someone demanding justification for a natural behavior is a troll and just ignore them. Still, good points. Thanks for taking the time to type that out.
This was the first time I could catch a live Josh Strife Hayes stream and when he singled out that question I thought "uh oh, here we go..." but Josh was so calm and wholesome in his explaining even though the person who asked the question in the first place seemd like he/she kept trying to bait for an angry or emotional reaction. I truly wish that more people on social media had the sense to react in such a collected manner like Josh did.
@@Nanashi-sz6wc I didn't perceive Josh's reasoning as fallacious or hypocritical. But the person who posed the question did not seemed interested to engage in a meaningful discussion. As soon as it became clear that Josh was not going to react angry or emotional himself, the other person proceeded to post such comments as "Can't you just admit I'm morally superior?" or "Eating suffering is why you all miserable". I don't see how this can contribute to a sensible discussion about the topic and I agree with Josh that an attitude like this only serves to push people further away from the message you're trying to convey
Plenty of people do respond in such a manner, but because of how social networks work, their responses are far less visible than the emotional and impulsive ones.
Social media moves too quickly though. In the end the goal is to get the most likes, and nothing farms easy likes quite like a "You're wrong and dumb, lol"
"Can you prove anyone or anything other than yourself is sentient?" Is a perfectly reasonable response. Like qualia in philosophy sentience is one of those unprovables that we more or less allow for and accept in others. Just like we can't prove our friends are sentient, we can't prove plants lack it. We don't have testing parameters for it.
It's not a reasonable response.. It's one of those things that's so academic as to be functionally departed from reality, or "gone down the rabbit hole" of philosophy so to speak. It may involve accepting something not technically proven, be we can all understand how absurd it is to not make those acceptances. Fellow humans are sentient to the point of sapience (if not lucidity), the cognitive potential of plants only encompasses a benign and passive existence, and we can understand the general position of other creatures too with enough accuracy as to not be surprised.
@@Fe7Ace Academic? Lol thats like high school level philosophy at best. Its foundational to the idea that existence as you understand it is more complicated than you understand. You want to get academic on it cognition, sentience, and a host of other qualities are of dubious validity all together as we are by definition inescapably humanocentric in our perceptions. Cracking down on some for eating meat as wrong for "consuming sentient beings" is as well supported as proclaiming mowing the lawn as "destroying sentient beings". All we have are observations - we know animals suffer like we do. But we also know plants suffer in ways we can't imagine (the smell of fresh cut grass is your lawn screaming). We can't quantify any of it, but we can detect its existence and react accordingly based on how we choose to empathize. The only way you eat with out potentially destroying sentience on levels that are potentially just as valid as our own is you don't. There's no escaping it at our position on the food chain. You can destroy sentient beings as we may or may not understand it (the choice on how you feel on that is entirely individual) to survive or you can starve. Or I guess you could go full fruit diet as many plant species intend their fruit be consumed as a method of seed distribution as the seed is plant and the fruit is an intentionally disposable organ - that would be about the only indisputable ground to stand on if you claim to not consume sentient beings. Anything else invites philosophical debate if you're going to be so foolish as to use your arbitrarily "correct" diet as a moral cudgel against others - if folks don't want that philosophical debate then just shut up and eat instead of throwing stones from glass houses.
@@craigstege6376 As you say we're intrinsically stuck with the human point of view. The second you're trying to zoom out away from the human point of view you run straight into a heap of self-defeating nonsense, overwhelming paralysis in defining things, and as I originally said a total disconnect from our lived and relatable experiences. Asking us to imagine the unimaginable is futile. The human perspective can quantify, validate, and ratify everything you just said the magic void perspective can't, and I think we might as well just own that, or else you end up being like a silly old kook waving his hands in a dark room asking "is anything really real after all?", y'know? Nobody cares about potentially equally valid sentient lawn. That's why it's not a reasonable response to me.
I don't really think that "sentience" is ever really an effective way to argue against the moralities of meat consumption. Most people don't even engage with the industry itself, just the end product. I think the meat industry is just inherently bad for everyone (the animals, the workers, the consumer). But giving people shit for eating meat is pretty much pointless in addressing the inherent issues with the industry.
@@1MDA Are we not? We have incisors the same as any other meat eater. Just because we have opposable thumbs doesn't mean we are gods walking among the garden. Granted. We have the ability to choose since we learned how to farm, but that doesn't mean we are outside the system. There is a reason steak is delicious.
@@OmegaUberDeathbot I was just criticising the argument, Im not vegan nor do I care for animals, we are human animals the rest can face our opression without moral concerns, in my view. I just find the plant based diet to be more cost efective in calorie consuption, why feed animals plants if we can eat them istead? Plus we could dodge some of the side efects of eating animal products such as zoonotic deseases, saturated fats and LDL cholestrol (wich increase the probability of developing heart desease) if we swayed to an more plant based diet as a species. Yes food is tasty but even harmful food can be. I believe its natural to eat meat but that it isnt optimal for human health or sustainability in large scale. If an all out plant based diet isnt for you Id say to try an , mediteranian diet.
@@1MDA I agree to all those points. Though you can still get E. coli, norovirus, Salmonella, Listeria, and Cyclospora from lettuce. All the same. I don't think anyone is eating nothing but steak these days. Unless you are the liver king. My original argument was simply to say "If you don't like me eating sheep, why aren't you criticizing the wolf?" Like he said. They only want to morally superior.
If that is right because tigers do it, is it right to kill and eat your partner during sex because mantises do it? If you marry a woman that already has children, is it right to kill them like lions do? Your logic would justify horrible stuff.
Josh just explained how systemic interventions work. This can be applied to any change to any system, not just people. If you want a change to be persistent, you need to induce that change such that the affected system will maintain the change you caused by itself even when you aren't there.
It's interesting listening to a level headed and abstract response while watching the chatter who asked Josh the question slowly reveal their ego in chat. The chatter exhibits every problem with this approach to conversation while Josh talks about it (shaming others, taking a moral high ground, talking about Nazis?). Based on their responses hard to tell if trolling or descending into madness with their moral stance.
You're spot on with your argument, and it can be applied to a lot of movements and groups at this point. A lot of people operate in the way you described; an "us vs. them" mentality, calling yourself and those that think/act like you do morally superior while demonizing those who don't believe and behave like you do, telling people to not trust anyone who questions a certain line of thinking, and isolating people who are in the echo chamber and making people that don't conform an example of what happens when you deviate so no one else will question you and your opinions out of fear of losing all their "friends" and being shunned/shamed and/or having their lives ruined.
but the things is: that also can cause us vs them situation by knowing that a movement is using us vs them tactics and blindly applying it to everyone on the movement you basically repeat the same thing you just explain so this kinda paradoxical?
in other words: when a movement is bad and you think every movement is pretty much the same you effective in us vs them situation without knowing you are doing it and i am not saying you're wrong but this also can be repeated even if you know this tactics because well you unconsciously doing it
@unknowngod8221 What you said honestly doesn't make complete sense within the context here. An "Us vs Them" mentality is one where a person or group of people become *hostile* when it comes to others that do not share the same ideologies, opinions, beliefs, etc. Of that person/group of people, and it has been used and abused as a *manipulation tactic* to keep people in line with fearmongering, demonizing the "enemy", and the risk of losing their community/friends should they deviate. Certain things such as being hostile towards people who think its ok to abuse others because of their beliefs, harm kids (Such as the MAP/Pedo movement), and commit unspeakable and horrific acts (example: extreme acts of violence for their religion) are indeed *normal behavior* and is needed in society. The version *I'm* talking about is used in the same way cults keep their followers brainwashed and in line. The version I'm talking about is not *normal* and is extremely manipulative. There are different ways that "Us vs. Them" has been used, but as the internet has flourished, so too have the people who use it to target vulnerable people through misinformation, shaming/bullying, dogpiling, etc. to bring them into their group or cause. Equating what I'm talking about to normal human behavior basically minimizes it's abuse and normalizes it.
One reason I see certain groups give as to why they antagonise people they disagree with is "You can't solve x problem by being nice to people". The most common topic I see this used is hate groups. The really funny thing is... Yes! Being nice does actually work. There are multiple examples of people using the same techniques Josh outlined to deradacalize hate group members.
"kill them with kindness" something i was told to do when i worked in retail. as much as we want to hang people by their toes when they wanna give us attitude, it does no one any good. still though, a part of me would rather show them what their own blood tastes like then to try and make nice with em. as foolish as it is. after all; hate breeds more hate.
You can use those techniques to deradicalize some people and I think that's a great effort to keep supporting. Keep drawing people away from hate groups, keep rewarding kindness. But if you're already a member of a hate group? Or a pro-fascist group? Or a pro-fundamentalist group? Arrest them all, but treat them fairly, let them beg to be deprogrammed for the sake of their freedom, and let the rest rot in prison. The people who aren't fully invested in the ideology will do what they must to get out.
I am not a big Jeremy Clarkson fan, but he is amusing at times. I think Clarkson's farm is a very smart way of making people aware of what farmers have to go through without being preachy. You get to laugh at him and call him an idiot, while he rather smartly shows you how underfunded and how thankless the job is, and you never feel like you are bad.
Animal agriculture gets lots of subsidies just to break even, it's definitely not underfunded, it's just too inefficient without even going into ethics.
It's even less than one minute - which I find unfortunate. There was an enriching discussion to be had about the topic, but Josh decided to talk about something else instead. I guess I still learned something, though.
lording over others about how you are moraly superior negates any "superiority" you might of had. And again it wasnt about animals or life, it was about ego
@@inevitableAnpuYes, we see where they come from. Many of them are purely ego-fueled. There are people who actually believe in what they preach tho. Doesn't mean we have to share their beliefs, that we have to change our lifestyle... Especially if they are annoying preachers. But we will still support improvements in the situation of animals cruelty. We still support improvements in meat industry and its impacts on environment. But we against hypocrites like PETA, like obnoxious people who trying to ruin farms, restaurants, market stalls, etc., who trying to impose their moral superiority on others, thinking they are the Messiah of the Earth.
@@inevitableAnpu That's the neat thing: They aren't. People who are truly "morally superior" than me on this subject, they wont be annoying. Because, their standpoint is "kindness". Treating animals like they are God but treating human like sh*t, it will completely going against their own message of universal love. If they dont treat human and animals as fair as each other, how come they can be "morally superior" ?
Mega props to Josh for running with the original comment in a direction the vegan guy obviously didn't want and then utterly and completely ignoring everything else that guy said. That is how you engage with bad actors!
People who stand up against animal cruelty are bad actors? How about you attack the argument instead of the person? Ad-hominem attacks paint you as a bad actor.
@@Nanashi-sz6wc That is not what that person was doing and you know it. How about *they* do something constructive to counter actual animal cruelty instead of preaching in some livestream?
I still remember a long time ago there being a vegan blog that was constantly spreading misinformation about human biology saying humans have never been meat eaters because our teeth are small and we don't have mouths like wolves or other dumb stuff like that. And then they'd look at the skulls of our ancestor's ancestors and claim that that's the skull of a herbivore. Some people legit just wanna do whatever it takes to convert you to veganism because it makes them feel like a hero or superior or such. There's even a subset of people online that insists we need to train/eliminate/genetically modify all predators to stop eating meat. They definitely don't make up the majority of vegans- but they're a small subset nonetheless that just overthink and are kind of just ridiculous.
Normal people understand that going without fruits and vegetables in their diet is bad for their health, but vegans and vegetarians will swear up and down that meat is not needed. Vegans and vegetarians are like a child throwing a fit and refusing to eat their vegetables, just replace vegetables with meat and the excuse of it tastes bad with it makes me feel bad. Suck it up, eat the damn food and be grateful to have food to eat at all, don't be so damn picky, some one else is starving with nothing to eat at all and yet here people are being picky eaters. Truly the epitome of first world problems and privilege.
Most mammalian herbivores are also omnivorous. This doesn't mean that a deer will be unhealthy if it never eats a dead bird in its lifetime. Lineages of organisms are tempered through time to be able to survive and reproduce their likeness, however they aren't "made" to _do_ anything in particular, strictly speaking. A more accurate way of looking at it, in my view, is that organisms are given a toolbox their decedents used to survive. This doesn't imply that the tools available are either the best for the job logistically speaking or the most morally correct, however. Epigenetic progression (in which genes are selectively activated and deactivated) and changes in microbiome composition throughout a single individual's lifetime are strong pieces of evidence in favor towards this outlook I think, since it demonstrates that even when considering the scale of a single lifespan evolution has also given us tools to change according to our unique environments rather than relegating us to sit on our thumbs until our kids might be a bit different.
@@voidstrider801 I'm not actually a vegan, however one of the strongest arguments in favor of becoming vegan I've observed is the sort of moral outrage and deflection people like you tend to exhibit in response to the challenge of such a viewpoint existing or implicating them and their life choices.
Sentience is where all of the flavor comes from. All of the animals hopes, joys, tears, etc. are all stored inside its sentience deposits, and the flavor comes out when you cook it.
@@MrCmon113 , you learned nothing from the video. Being a condescending prick won’t pull people over to your side. It’s astonishing how well you proved his entire video, all summed up in a little edgy sentence. Congratulations, you played yourself 👏👏👏
@@jamesn3122 yeah maybe there's like 1 or 2, because they're already outside of the norm freaks, what works for them won't work for anyone else anyway. Shit comparison.
Yeah, some person in front of me on a trail must have dropped his wallet once. If I hadn't picked it up, they money in it would probably have gone to waste.
Halfway through the video I suddenly realised the vest is a PNG and when the video ended I suddenly realised I hadn't processed a single word Josh said
2:10 This is so true, I studied in a Jesuit school once and they never did stuff like this, they just talk about their faith and practices whenever I asked them in a genuine and friendly manner. That coupled with the fact that I admire some of the priests/teachers because they are quite smart and wise, and have this sense of open mindedness and awareness of the world around them that is really quite different to my Protestant peers, actually made me interested in learning more about Catholicism.
I have not once tried to convince a vegan they should eat meat. All I expect from them is they reciprocate that. They want to not eat meat, fine. They want to tell me I'm wrong for doing so, I'm just going to enjoy meat even more by knowing eating it angers them. There's no scientific proof for this, but I swear meat tastes so much better when you eat it in front of a vegan.
@@pirig-gal "They want to tell me I'm wrong for doing so, I'm just going to enjoy meat even more by knowing eating it angers them.". So this is mature? Aha...
@@Gailon1000 "I have not once tried to convince a vegan they should eat meat. All I expect from them is they reciprocate that." Read the whole comment. Actions != feelings
@@pirig-gal "Im just goint to enjoy meat even more by knowing it angers them." This is an action right there lol. I agree that some vegans can be opressive some times. But that should not justify those childish and irrational actions. Here in germany we had a discussion a while back about saving water by showering for a shorter amount of time. And a politician answered with: "Well tomorrow i will shower 5 minutes longer. I dont want anyone to tell me what to do.". its the excact same thing and i am convinced that nobody in their right mind should justify this behaviour.
We eat the corpses of sentient beings, because what is best in life is to crush tasty animals, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their herd!
@@longlostwraith5106 Why should a murder justify of killing people? I bet they also have their own reasoning that makes sense to them. I mean, there are parts of the world where that's ok, but I sure don't want to live there.
I mean its not like cannibalism is new to humanity or anything anyway. There are indeed ethical means of performing cannibalism. For example you could grow human tissues in a lab or some weird person could request his body be cannibalized when he dies.
-It increases my energy and health bar -I have carnivorous tendencies -If eating meat means that imma bad human bean then so be it. - I've already made peace with that, I am indeed evil :)
More seriously: -Agriculture takes up more space and water -Animals tend to have more calories for the same amount of weight -Livestock can survive extreme conditions and be easily moved as opposed to moving an entire farm -Developing land for crops can severely damage a habitat especially if the crops aren't native. Which also is going to suck if people don't like eating the less damaging crop... We started hunting and raising animals for a reason outside of our hatred for living things, there's kind of a practical reason why we still do it. Also, wouldn't it be specist or something if we ate only plants because they are least like us?
Also remember this one -Eating meat is vital to your brain's growth, and studies show that children who grow up vegan invariably have smaller brains than their meat-eating counterparts. This is supported by the fact that when we were cavemen, our brains grew and we became smarter because we ate cooked meat.
@@hyperion3145 I'm not vegan but look, those things you listed are just such poor arguments so I have to say something. "Agriculture takes up more space and water" - You can't have animals without having agriculture to feed those animals. "Animals tend to have more calories for the same amount of weight" - So? That's irrelevant on its own. If you had some follow up point that this was supposed to support, just say that instead. "Livestock can survive extreme conditions and be easily moved as opposed to moving an entire farm" - But you still have to have agriculture to be able to feed those animals and that agriculture can not move any easier than just growing the crops to feed yourself directly. Either way you still rely on something somewhere not being able to move. "Developing land for crops can severely damage a habitat especially if the crops aren't native. Which also is going to suck if people don't like eating the less damaging crop..." - Animal farms can damage a habitat just as well. And again, for the third time, you have to grow crops to feed the animals anyway. "We started hunting and raising animals for a reason outside of our hatred for living things" - What monkey people in the past did is completely irrelevant. Even people in the 1800s were doing things like putting mercury on their teeth. "there's kind of a practical reason why we still do it" - Well go ahead. State what it is. I'm not saying there's not one, but just making a claim without anything backing it up is a poor way to argue. "Also, wouldn't it be specist or something if we ate only plants because they are least like us?" - Isn't it specist to say only humans are important enough to not be eaten? If you are going to be called specist either way, then who cares.
Reminds me of my friends' inside joke of claiming that adding 'with all due respect' in front of anything makes it a compliment. "With all due respect, you're a go**amn piece of rotten s**t." "Awwww, thanks!"
My sister is a vegan, but she accepts that the rest of us in the family aren't. For my dad's birthday, we had the party at her house, and SHE grilled steaks for us because she knows how much we and especially my dad likes steak. It was really good too. She researched good rubs and seasonings and actually put effort into making a good meal for us despite her personal beliefs.
@@allandm Anything we enjoy is bad. Stop using the internet, you're killing the planet, go out and farm your own food instead of buying it, make your own clothes.
@@frantisekvrana3902 so if i enjoy burning dogs alive that's okay because they aren't human? If somehow an alien species crash lands here, can we do whatever we want with them because they are not human?
As a vegan, let me say this - i get pretty annoyed at anyone pushing their views about anything. I do what i do because i like it. I could not care less about what other people do as long as it isn't harmful to others. It's a life choice like many things. Being pushy and annoying about only makes people misunderstand it more. I also say this as a sober alcoholic of 17 years. I've experienced gross misunderstanding in that area as well. When you try to force your beliefs on people, they will most likely resist.
This is a bad take, it only serves to make meat eaters comfortable about paying for animal cruelty. You claim "I get annoyed about pushing views" Do you get annoyed when people tell other people not to murder? Not to kidnap? Not to kick a dog? Killing animals for food is morally wrong, and rejecting veganism exposes a contradiction in most people's moral systems.
Not being vegan is harmful to others. Those who are bred, commodified, abused, neglected, tortured, and murdered are all harmed in the extreme, and without necessity in the overwhelming majority of cases. No one can force beliefs on others. You can only force actions on others, and only those threatening personal consequences can do that. No singular person in the history of the internet has ever attempted to force actions on others, with the exception of those who threaten. They are usually just trying alternative methods to get people to think. Do I disagree that kindness and understanding are usually the optimal route to get people to become better critical thinkers? Not at all. For this reason, I always tell others, "I don't debate. I cooperate towards truth." That said, having seen plenty of first-hand accounts, I can say with certainty that some people react better to being directly or even aggressively challenged than to being cautiously and kindly approached, due to there being all forms of personalities out there. While some forms of outreach are more effective than others overall, all forms of outreach are necessary to affect all forms of people.
That´s exactly what they want. Because the resistance gives them the feeling of righteousness. They´re living off of that, like any narcissist. It´s not even about veganism really, they´re just weaponizing it because it works very well. Other very emotional topics have a similar problem.
"I could not care less about what other people do as long as it isn't harmful to others" Does buying meat harm others? If yes, why do you refer to it as a mere "life choice"?
@@Nanashi-sz6wc Did you know that morals are subjective? Veganism is less cringe and more accepted these days because vegans on a whole have stopped with their self-righteous yelling. Not forcing your opinion on others actually works. Now the cringe is meat-eaters that cry on the internet about vegan sausage rolls, because they're doing the same as what vegans did: telling people what you can and can't do. I won't argue to much but i ask you spare a thought for those that have no choice but to eat meat for medical reasons, third world countries would lose out on a massive part of their diet if they had to become vegan, people in poverty look forward to the nice meaty meal they have because it's all they have.
I eat sentient beings because I am made to do so. Then when I die, other sentient beings shall eat me because they were made to do so. I am perfectly fine with this.
There's this episode of The Powerpuff Girls where this kid, who is very obviously an athlete is having a family dinner, and he says something along the lines of "We consume the flesh of lesser animals to become stronger" It's the episode with the mutant broccoli and the girls have to eat them to save the town
Being a vegan of many years myself I absolutely agree that forcing anything on anyone is one way to make people resist. You hit the nail on the head, they're doing it to make them feel better about themselves and their choices. I choose to lead by example, if someone is interested in my lifestyle choice I am more than happy to talk about it and provide any information that I may have about it and how to make it easier if they should choose to make changes to their diet/lifestyle but I would never tell anyone to straight up follow the way I choose to live. I do believe that people should know where their food comes from and how it's created but it's up to the individual to make the choice if that's something they feel happy with supporting.
You're the sanest vegan I have ever seen on the internet. If more vegans were like you, then people probably wouldn't bristle so much at the thought of veganism.
I'm vegetarian and this is how other vegetarians and vegans I have actually met IRL act. I'm certain that lolcows like thatveganteacher have had a net negative impact on how people view the lifestyle by trying to aggressively convert people. I find it fucking annoying when keto/paleo/carnivore/whatever mfs randomly try to force their diet idealogies on me so I'm not about to turn around and do the same thing. The way I see it, is if it really the is morally righteous/virtuous thing to do then that should speak for itself.
@@Seoul_Soldier To be honest, i think most vegans in real life are generally intelligent and thoughtful people. The internet is a place full of weird , cruel people at times and can often give way to polarising 'twitter-brain'. Unfortunately, part of the criticism on vegans comes from the fact that veganism is seen hyper-critically by society. The term David Graebr used to describe this criticism is 'moral envy'. When someone acts in a way that means they must uphold a certain standard, they are seen to be attacking those who don't, and are also held to that standard by society. As if the act of alnowledging a standard makes you uniquely beholden to it.
@@Seoul_Soldier I think the majority of vegans are sane and well meaning people. There is (as with many things) a very vocal and extreme minority who are less concerned about the feelings and opinions of others if they differ from their own. Sometimes I am ashamed to be a part of the vegan community because of the behavior of some of the more extreme and confrontational people who follow a similar lifestyle to myself.
I eat meat: ❌
I devour the corpses of the fallen for sustenance: ✔
step 2 : is your meat alive? what is meat not alive? where does meat come from? they usualy kill them before eating the meat
but some people eat animal alive specialy mukbang octopus
"I feed on the lifeforce of the guilty and the innocent alike."
I crave the flesh of the innocent
How do you want your steak? Medium? Rare? Still struggling? :)
Fallen? Oh no! Grandma fell down again!
When that guy in the chat said "I like pescatarians because they keep fish accountable for what they've done" I felt that
No longer will their crimes go unanswered.
FOUND THE FISH
“the land animals are innocent but the fish- the fish have SINNED”
yeah, once upon a time a fish climbed onto land and now we have to pay taxes. pescatarians are trying to prevent that tragedy from happening again.
@@filin_-vn4fj the fish must answer for their heinous fish crimes
To be fair, meat eaters and vegans both disgusts me. As a rock eater I cannot stand the idea of eating a sentient being, especially when a big glass of sand is sooo good
You WHAT?? You monster, there's minerals in there. I filter feed.
@@AIopekis as a black hole, I hate all things equally
@@sporeham1674 I'm so sorry, I'll do an apology video for my awful behaviour in a few hourw
as a rock man i'm horrified that you would prey on our children.
Yuck. Sand. It's coarse, rough, and gets everywhere.
"Why are you devouring the flesh of the corpses of dead sentient beings?"
"So that I gain more power"
Funnily enough, this can be true to some degree. Fats are more energy-rich than sugars, and meat tends to have higher fat content than most plant parts. (Except for some seeds). Lard in particular is just about the best J/kg you can digest.
@@frantisekvrana3902 also meat is more than just protein and fat. meat is actually FAR MORE NUTRITIOUS than any fruit or vegetable
Because its much easier than devouring the flesh of living sentient beings?
I DEVOUR THE POWER OF THE FALLEN
By the way, stand still: you are my dinner there
I have tried to eat their souls, but all I can digest are the corpses.
Brilliant!
Animal abuse. Standard practice. ruclips.net/video/LQRAfJyEsko/видео.html
are you sure you've used the correct method for soul-eating?
Try going for the soul FIRST, then the corpse. It's a rookie mistake to go for the soul after the corpse, the soul dissipates after you consume the corpse, silly.
you should see a doctor. i think they have some shadow crystal supplements for this.
Literally the "When did you stop beating your wife" question. Hard to convince people that think you're evil. Even harder to convince people you think are evil and not worth your time. People that ask questions like that aren't after friends or new followers. They're looking for a dose of smug.
Best-worst part is you don't even need to necessarily do what they claim you're doing.
"I beat my wife cuz. . . it's fun. I absolutely fully support other people's lifestyle choices. Dont look down on mine." 😂
Literally not the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question. That one alleges something not true and asks a question condemning you, possibly unfairly, no matter how you answer it.
The "Why do you eat corpses of sentient beings?" does not allege something untrue, it just words something true in the most brutal and negative way. To answer it it forces you to make a lot of relative arguments about harm, maybe go deeper into sentience and levels thereof, etc. So unfairly simplified question requiring an unfairly complex answer, but way different game than the wifebeater trick.
@shangex4795some are more than others, but we literally force children to make iPhones, kill children in emerald mines for money (Elon's dad) and destroy/hide ancient cultures and civilizations taken over by British colonization. Eating a damn deer is the LOWEST form of "evil" we may do or have done.
@shangex4795 Sentient has different levels. Most animals are sentient to some degree, able to feel a wide range of emotion, learn, and perceive the world around them and adjust behavior accordingly. Lab mice can solve mazes to get food, elephants can recognize that pictures of them and their reflection are indeed them, predators can determine when prey is too dangerous to pursue. Some animals are barely sentient like fish, there have been studies that show some types of fish don't even feel pain. So the only question is what level of sentients do you feel comfortable consuming.
"Why do you eat meat? It's so unnatural"
Meanwhile wild animals in nature: *eats meat*
I mean, no matter what ur position on this is, this must be the most stupid argument you could use
we are nothing compare to what animals do bro like at least most of us don't ate animals alive.
Ah yes argumentum ad naturam
F the evil nature
Wild animals also rape and kill each other, I guess that means we can also kill and repe each other then?
@@allandm As if that doesn't happen.
That explains a lot of todays activism where often the question arises:
"Who are they trying to convince for their cause by antagonizing people?"
When someone doesn't agree with you, call them stupid idiots. That always works and gets them on your side instead of incentivizing them to dig a deeper trench.
Cause it was never again gaining new followers and making a genuine grass roots movement, its about gathering street cred amongst your activist gang members
The problem with this line of thinking, although practically true, is that it can obscure the reality that some causes and positions are intrinsically antagonistic to someone's sense of security and justification for participation in the systems in which they do. People that intuitively recognize that they are fighting from the low ground in this respect often tend to overcompensate with bravado or sternness that is reassuring to the speaker but detrimental for communication, but this doesn't prove anything in regards to the veracity of the position they're taking.
The same forces that drive people to be unduly antagonistic also drive the hegemonic position's ability to disregard any challenge as antagonistic- this is just one of the tricks which uphold the power of the privileged viewpoint.
@@beansworth5694 That doesn't explain activists which antagonize even people that are in principle sympathetic to their cause.
@@Pengochan Well, I think it does in part. It definitely isn't any one activist's full picture, though- I don't mean to say that activists shouldn't make an effort to be effective communicators and decent people outside of the context of their cause, people definitely often fail at that, but as outside observers thinking more broadly than just the ideas of the cause or the character of the person espousing them is useful in more effectively evaluating what causes are worthy of our engagement because it gives us tools to account for and attempt to balance systemic bias out of the equation.
Only real answer is that it's hard to eat sentient beings alive.
its easy, bite very hard while they sleep. they wont feel pain since they dont have nervous system
i usualy aim the jugular
@@XeLRUclipsthey have nervous system but well, jugular means they're going to bleed out really really quickly... 😅
Better not to eat oysters then....
Balut has entered the chat.
@@XeLRUclipsThey definitely have a nervous system, but apart from that you're somewhat correct. Aim somewhere vital, like the jugular, and boom. Gone in seconds, probably before they actually understand what's happening and panic sets in. So, while you're seemingly a toxic vegan trying to guilt us (judging by the name), you're correct.
I was completely engrossed in Josh's monologue when someone in chat called out the "vest". I had not realized Josh was not actually wearing a vest. It's almost indistinguishable from an actual vest if Josh doesn't move too much. Amazing.
Oh my god. Has there ever been a real vest? Have I been gaslit this whole time??
@@Moebz818 Same. I was looking at his eyes while he was speaking so my brain just assumed that was a real vest haha
If you were engrossed in his monologue how were you reading chat 👀
I don't have any idea what you mean, Josh just uses VERY high-quality starch, the kind that let's you stick a mic under a vest without any visible bulging whatsoever! It sounds to me like your vest game just isn't on his level.
@@iamjustkiwi I think he does sometimes wear an actual vest, just to make everyone second guess.
I love that Josh didn't engage at all in the argument the troll wanted, but instead jumped right to dissecting their tactics.
@@delos2279their belief may be genuine, but that doesn't really matter when what they're saying is not said in good faith. They're not asking to have a genuine dialogue about challenging moral issues. They're not even asking to change your mind. They're asking so they can score points just by being seen to be asking. That's what makes it trolling - they literally have no interest either way in anything you could say in response.
@@delos2279 If you caught glimpses of the original commenter replying in chat, they were saying shit like "so we should have to respect serial killers' lifestyle choices". They were pretty clearly trolling in this case (i.e. intentionally conflating sapience and sentience and trying to get people riled up over it)
@@kylekleiter3854 oof okay I missed that haha. Yea that's a troll.
i agree thats what tell antiracist and antisexist
dont oblige me to follow your personal moral standard of respecting others
I have to imagine most commenters like this are children or teenagers that are trying out personas they encountered online. No self-respecting adult wastes their time with stuff like this.
JSH teaching his chat how to be more effective cult leaders. Love this guy. This gentleman is one of the most intelligent and well spoken people on these platforms.
Yeah I agree, btw, I really love snow, do you love snow? What aspect of snow that you hate about it?
What I hate about snow is there's not enough of it
@@vardiganxpl1698Canadian here, shovelling it off your driveway can be a b**ch.
@@tenofclubs2agree. Another gripe I would give is that it can be kinda temperaturemental and melt and then you just have normal water and not glorious snow.
"Why do you eat corpses of sentient beings ?" I love that question because you can answer by "You know what you're right, i should eat them alive" and then you get to see their reaction, it never gets boring
some people eat fish/ insect alive
and play a octopus alive eating mukbang that youtube find ok
"Would you prefer.. I didn't?!" *Looks at them horrified and somewhat amused*
Your meat is only fresh enough when it looks right into your eyes and begs for mercy.
But why do you eat animal meat when humans taste better?
I love how the vegan guy is literally proving Josh right in real time.
It was so fucking funny of him to ramble on and on as the guy is kicking and screaming in his chat and failing. God, I've done that accidentally too.
Vegans are all pure evil.
I’m not convinced that vegan guy didn’t have the stream muted, like hot dam how would you listen to josh say this and think “yeah let me stick to this course of action “
@@zagqueenofchaos8352 Because some people severly lack the awareness to realize that, yes it is in fact them who is like that, and yes it is exactly what they are doing. Or they perceive it as "different" / "justified" in their case.
@@zagqueenofchaos8352alot of people nowadays lack something called "common sense"
A corpse only refers to human bodies. An animal body is called a carcass.
Not only humans but it heavily implies the body to be human but it can technically be used for other animal.
A corpse is universal. You're thinking of a cadaver.
A carcass also refers to the body of a cabinet which you put the face and doors and drawers and such on to.
@@bigcoffinhunter5500 Cadaver also refers to human. Cadavar dogs.
@Poisonhearth Murder only applies to humans. Animals have neither innocence not guilt, thus cannot be murdered. Innocence is a required component of murder.
Wait until they find out that plants communicate with each other and share nutrients with those less fortunate. Sounds like a sentient being to me.
They can also scream when hurt and stressed according to research covered by a youtuber named Anton Petrov.
@@Aerinndis Fascinating yet horrifying at the same time.
Plants are not sentient beings.
More plants die (if you actually care about plants and aren't just trolling) for a diet that includes meat, as the animals eat.. PLANTS! So there are the plants the animals you eat consume + the plants that you also eat (assuming you aren't on an all meat diet)
@@tacocat1921 Considering the definition of sentience is "the ability to experience feelings and sensations" according to wikipedia and "able to see or feel things through the senses" according to the oxford dictionary, as well as other ones going by the search results, one can in fact make a case for plants possessing a hitherto unknown degree of it. Which I feel is a good reason to promote more studies into the way plants function in order to find out how far it goes.
Personally speaking I'm not a vegan nor a vegetarian. I'm of the opinion that its each to their own. If they want to eat just plants, let them. It isn't a diet that'd work for me however. Nor do I see a moral or ethical problem with eating meat, plants, insects, fungi and such. That's just my personal thoughts and opinions on it.
@@tacocat1921 you actually need to take more nutrients out of the ground as a plant eater than a meat eater.
why? because the plants that YOU can digest, need a lot more nutrients than the ones MY MEAT NEEDS.
You dont have 4 stomaches to break down grass, but a cow can. I can use literally 'waste' to eat, while you need to drain the soil to get subpar proteins, and a lower content of it, and since the terrain gets drained, it has to be sprayed with fertilizers, polluting the rivers, and the monocultures you get your veggies from are perfect for pests, since i bet you dont like ogm either, will need pesticides!
Being completely vegan is literally leeching and polluting the soil, which means it is unsustainable. (im not saying its all the vegans fault, im saying you cant NOT do that as a vegan).
Many animals not only eat what we cant, but also can eat from non-arable areas, like on steep hills, poor soils or even rocky surfaces (thank you goats!)
So while a herd of meat animals can use no arable land, you are stuck to increasing more and more the cut arable land you have to steal from forests, where my meat can graze and give me meat, milk and leather ALL while shitting in those forests, spreading biodiversity, keeping the undergrowth in check, and fertilizing the land 🥰
That sounds pretty hardcore. I wonder how far can we go. "I'm a devourer of the souls and bodies of the recently departed". "I assimilate the organic matter originating from the deceased bodies of intelligent beings both for nourishment and personal pleasure".
The second one got me.
"I break down the substance of life and graft it onto myself to prove i am superior"
"I am an engine of entropy fueled by death"
@@enumaelish9193 that's poetry lmao
@@TheLumberjack1987 Thanks. Was initially going to go with "I kill, therefore I am"
There's an anecdote about Confucius and one of his students. The student asked why they don't simply go to all the ruling lords/nobles/kings etc and enlighten them in the ways of their philosophy. And Confucius basically replied "Nobody likes being preached to. If you go around espousing your philisophy you aren't doing it for another's benefit, but only to make yourself feel superior. They will not listen to you because you are setting yourself up on a pedestal above them."
Precisely zero evidence for that.
Was slavery abolished, because no one ever said anything bad about slavery? Or was it abolished because a larger and larger group of people were very vocal about it's evil?
@@MrCmon113 Two very different things. Society coming to the conclusion that soemthing is bad and actively taking steps against it is not the same as one guy stepping on a pedestal and yelling at you what a horrible, sinful creature you are because you had pork for lunch on a Wednesday in March.
@@MrCmon113what has to do with what he said
@@MrCmon113 Slavery was abolished because rapidly developing and industrializing societies required well fed and educated workers to perform tasks that could not be performed by human beings emaciated and beaten to the point of "barely compliant". In short, it fell out of favor because it was not practical for maintenance and development of our society. But if you think slavery had been abolished in principle then you need to only look at the environment you inhabit with a critical eye. A medieval serf had more freedom than vast majority of humanity now, when it comes to paying their dues and negotiating rent payments with their lords. We now have education debt slavery, mortgage slavery, medical care slavery (from diseases introduced into our species by big pharma collusion with various industries as well as allostatic load maximized lifestyles). There hadn't been a single successful slave revolt in human history.
@@MrCmon113 Vegans bashing people who live different life styles is not like the "I HAVE A DREAM" speech. If you cant figure that out, seek help.
I really like how that guy stayed in chat the whole time continuing to do the exact thing Josh was calling them out on.
Vegans shutting the fuck up for once in their lives challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
They aren't often accused of being capable of self-reflection, after all.
to put even more salt on the wound he even said "they often are destroyed by themselves given enough time
They're just rage baiting. And failed to rage out Josh
I honestly thought this was going to be about cannibalism because 99% of the time people misuse “sentience” to mean “sapience.” It was actually used correctly for once though!
On the other hand, sentience is often confused with 'being conscious' or 'being intelligent', as evidenced by the many people calling plants sentient.
@@pennymac16this usage is common in science fiction for some reason. I think that's where the misunderstanding comes from. Intelligence, sentience, sapience, consciousness, and self-awareness are all distinct concepts so I can see how it would be confusing.
@@isaacbruner65 Yeah, popular media does shape how we view and communicate things. And conflating language does confuse things in societal discurse. Also, I don't know why, but in my language the term for self-consciousness is used to mean self-confidence. So I think a lot of people are also simply too lazy/don't consider to think about the way they use the terms they use.
Lol guy who just wanted to show people he knows "sapience" and "sentience" coz in no way was there any cannibalism implied😂😂😂😂😂😂
I have never heard anyone confuse sentience with sapience. Most of the time people don't even know what sapience is and only know sentience.
Josh being reasonable and going into the subject, while chatter "Veganismftw" actively making everyone else in chat to hate veganism.
Great clip. Good response to someone in the chat who obviously didn't have more than short sentences, no actual responses and just malicious intent towards Josh from the start.
The "just admit I'm morally superior" and comparing meat eaters to nazis was certainly something.
i like how the guy hes talking to immediately checked out and just started arguing with chat instead of listening to the advice josh was giving him
muted the video probably
Cause he was just looking to make people mad and argue
Low testosterone behaviour. He should try a nice, healthy steak
I watch josh for moments like these, such wise words coming from someone wearing a very convincing vest
GOD DAMMIT I forgot about his new vest, didnt even notice
if you think shutting down and throwing a fit about an unpleasant reality (that eating intelligent animals after they were brutally ended and treated like shit) and handling the way the question was asked instead of the actual issue is wisdom, boy youve got a lot to learn
cringe weeb
@@117lyrics awawawawawawawawawawawawa bee bor wawawa babae bo bee boip vee varp bebebo
Animal abuse: ruclips.net/video/LQRAfJyEsko/видео.html
"Eating the suffering is why you're all miserable"
I'm never as happy as I am with steak in my mouth.
Agreed. Theres a reason people depressed from life rush a macdonalds or other fast food joint, cuz its comfort food, and guess what 90% of their menus consist of…MEAT
@@loafylovebit9964 Used to be that even the milkshakes contained chicken fat. lol
Not to mention having a stressed out animal ruins the meat, they release cortisol which alters the flavor. Tasty steaks come from calm cows
@@casualcausalityy So the chefs claim.
But chefs talk a lot of BS to justify their income.
To this day, if you cooked me three eggs, I couldn't tell you which was free-range and which wasn't.
I could tell you which was the cheapest one, that had been ruined with yellow food coloring.
@fredmercury1314 I raise cattle, we've slaughtered our own beef and the one that died in a traffic accident tasted way worse. Regarding eggs, real free range eggs have darker yolks and a richer taste
well, this one's quite simple, to gain their intrinsic abilities, good examples of corpses to eat and why, are:
- All elves confer sleep resistance.
- Wraith corpses provide a guaranteed level up.
- All giants, titans, the Cyclops, and Lord Surtur provide an increase in strength.
- Mind flayers and master mind flayers provide an increase in intelligence or confer telepathy.
- Floating eyes always confer telepathy.
- Blue, black, orange, red, and white dragons are all guaranteed to confer their associated resistance: shock for blue, disintegration for black, sleep for orange, fire for red (including Ixoth), and cold for white.
- All nagas confer poison resistance, and are additionally safe to eat with the exception of acidic black nagas and poisonous guardian nagas. Red nagas also confer fire resistance.
- All puddings confer cold, shock, and poison resistance, and are acidic.
- Brown and red molds confer poison resistance; the former additionally provides cold resistance, and the latter gives fire resistance.
- Blue jellies confer poison and cold resistance.
- Gelatinous cubes confer fire, cold, sleep, and shock resistance, and are acidic.
- Gray oozes confer fire, cold, and poison resistance.
- Quivering blobs confer poison resistance.
- Electric eels confer shock resistance.
- Lizards cure stoning, lowers stun and confusion to two rounds, and do not rot.
ah, a NetHack enjoyer
Is that a Nethack reference?
Cows cause you to grow multiple stomachs.
@@connorperrett9559 Ahhhh, that explains mad cow disease. The strongest of the cows were simply trying to increase their stomach count. You know, it WOULD be convenient to be able to consist off of grass alone. Maybe I'm just not eating cows with enough stomachs. I'll have to find some of these mad cows so that I too can become mad with gastric power.
Do not eat the knifears. This can lead to unique and... uncomfortable diseases. Trust me, I have tried. It's best to just kill them and maybe quench the occasional axe in their blood.
I love how Josh is being rational and entirely reasonable, yet the chat is literally misconstruing everything he says and somehow arrives just south of Mars on every single conclusion.
Truly pearls before swine.
I mean, it's twitch chat. Expecting any level of meaningful engagement from a twitch chat numbering more than double digits is a mistake. At that point, it's usually a "how can I be noticed" or "hehe stream of consciousness go brr" deal.
The price of notoriety comes in many ways, twitch chat is a living example of one.
I honestly dunno how so many people can listen to the person talking and read chat at the same time, probably because they're not
Yeah, more then likely people(the ones looking at this clip on YT at least) are listening to what Josh is saying, Maybe with an occasional look at chat. And then replaying the video to watch chat.
@@onuadhain7399 Many people can easily do that. The rest are probably only skimming the chat, or watching the video twice.
@@LibraritheWizardOfficial Sounds like what a Twitch Chat enjoyer would day
I know someone who literally cannot talk to people in any other way than to be patronizing, and I'm like "If you wanted to help that person, you'd learn how to speak a different way."
what a lazy childish way of seeing things. some people were just dealt a really shitty hand at life- its like saying fat people can just stop eating and alcoholics can just stop drinking and the fact they dont means they dont care about their health or loved ones. people are more nuanced than that and you need to check yourself. cura te ipsum. have some understanding for those who speak with aggression, instead of defining them by their moments of weakness.
Sounds like the kind of person you should avoid with the utmost prejudice.
They don't want to help, they want to feel good about themselves at minimal effort.
I'm kind of a like that person you know and I would also suggest people to avoid me. (While being patronizing!)
@@aurex8937 Same. I've learned to just shut the fuck up. People are fucking idiots and it does me no good whatsoever to open my mouth on any topic nowadays. I vent myself online in comment threads like this so I don't have to preach to my friends and family.
I don't disagree but i'll add this: I push back when somebody uses guilt or force to make me do something not because I dislike their attitude, but because the mere fact that they are using shame or force makes me skeptical of the very thing they want me to do, because good things and truthful things do not require such tactics. It makes me skeptical that they even care about their cause, or wonder what sort of toxic culture they have immersed themselves into surrounding this cause, perhaps the cause is hiding unpleasant facts about itself, or if the cause itself is a complete mess as time and again poorly thought out ideologies tend to be breeding grounds for unstable behavior, it is the power of cognitive dissonance.
@accelerationquanta5816good and truthful things necessarily require evidence proving them to be so. Any reasonable, open-minded person, when presented with that evidence in a non-confrontational way, would be convinced that it is true
@accelerationquanta5816 Did you literally just ask him to prove that the truth doesn't need to be enforced? The alternative is that the truth sometimes DOES need to be enforced, and that's called fascism.
Sometimes they promote stuff that hurt the cause they defend the most about. There are some who are against shearing sheep. Well, if you don't shear them, the whool gets overgrown and they die. We have bred sheep into requiring regular shearing. Only one type of sheep doesn't need to be sheared.
@accelerationquanta5816 Which part?
@@mikkitoro8933 The part where they've been genetically modified to the point they can't even survive without human intervention.
Just remember that every person has a 14-year-old version of themselves that pops out whenever somebody says, “If you don’t do what I do, you are objectively immoral and stupid,” and that younger self will immediately say, “I will never do what you do, specifically because you told me I have to.” Even if the person knows they’re in the wrong, their first reaction is usually to go on the defensive in that situation.
So?
Your first reaction is irrelevant. What's relevant is your long term behavior.
There's simply no evidence whatsoever that confronting people about harmful behavior is bad in the long term.
@@MrCmon113 It's all about how you confront. If you confront the person being smug and saying like you have some type of moral highground, the person not only will have the immediate repulsion reaction, but you paint a bad frame for your cause and the person have more of a reason to don't want to engage on future discussion. If you really want to change someone viewpoint, you need to approach it in a non antagonistic way and try to show what your point is. People who are willing to debate will hear you and then you can maybe actually change someone mind. But if the person is not willing to hear you or not conviced by your arguments and your response is "you stupid! >:(", even if this person one day come to change his view point, i can guarantee that the reason is not because you can then stupid.
@@MrCmon113 You're really looking for a fight, yet you don't respond to any of the replies. Weird.
Refusing to do things because a self-important prick ordered you to do them is a natural defence againat tyranny.
@pokijuubmnkjnl The best way to convince someone of your way of doing things is to walk them through it in such a way that they think they figured it out themselves, because then it's their own idea and they can sidestep the feeling of being wrong. In general though, yes you can never be antagonistic toward people you actually want to change the minds of, because it inspires backlash and spite.
A Dutch comedian once said it very eloquently: "Maak van jouw verwachting, niet mijn verplichting." ("Do not turn your expectation into my obligation.")
google translate confirms your translation
@@qaywsxedcrfvful It also helps when you're bilingual and learned your English whilst playing videogames in your very Dutch bedroom as a kid. 😜
oof. While he was making his point i remembered Stop Oil protestors. They are so infuriating that i started hate them so much, and in turn, recently, to care less about climate change because of that.
@@sjorspolling8275 yo me too, i learned english trough games. i remeber my first word being "flame" because i played "kartia" on ps1 haha games are awesome! ( i also know german, and balkanic languages)
@@sjorspolling8275 also dutch people remind me of this 😂 ruclips.net/video/lRmhkXllFtU/видео.html
It's fantastic that someone tried to be antagonistic and Josh just went "let me show you how your method is shit"
Except it isn't.
Not being confronted about it is precisely why people buy meat.
@@MrCmon113 Nah
@@MrCmon113the more someone will actively attempt to pontificate to me about my lifestyle choices, the less inclined I am to agree with them. Any reason YOU might have to not eat meat is perfectly valid and is the correct decision for YOU. To push that agenda on others and morally grandstand about it does nothing but make you and your cause look worse in the eyes of those that already disagree with you.
@@MrCmon113 So why do you support slave labour? After all, most vegan products are harvested by it.
@@MrCmon113 * looks at literally hundreds of thousands of years of meat-eating by humanity and its precursor species *
...'kay.
I don't drive a car. I operate a mechanism that feeds of corpses of ancient beasts.
I LOVE the power of Spite, you get SO MUCH energy to do the opposite of what someone says to do
There's no scientific proof this is true, but I swear meat tastes so much better when a vegan knows you're eating it.
Completely irrelevant. For every spiteful moron, who doesn't care about animals at all, there's at least a thousand people, who buy meat specifically because they don't make the connection to animals.
Even if you abuse animals out of "spite" for having been confronted, that's utterly outweighted by others thinking twice about buying chicken rather than tofu.
@@troodon1096What if it is a free range vegan meat?
@@troodon1096 god you guys really are showing how fucking lost humanity is
@@delivererofdarknessshoguno1133 You're not supposed to eat the vegans, even if they're free range.
I like how josh is nothing but understanding and empathetic. Then you just read chat for five seconds and it's just Twitter
People are too comfortable behind their screens
@@everlastiny I don't mind that the anonymity makes people more honest. What I hate is people saying shit they don't necessarily believe just to get a rise so that they can feel like they have an effect on someone else.
@@darwinxavier3516 Slammed the nail so hard on the head that it left the universe
What is Twitter? Do you mean X?
Goes to show that the majority of people with time to chat in these streams have next to no higher brain functions.
Or they’re all children. Take your pick.
"Who the fuck starts a conversation like that, I just sat down"
Top class, not stepping down to their level and falling for bait but rather giving useful life advice.
Reminds me of the approach I had to use with my GF for her to start playing videogames since she had some terrible preconceived notions about them. Rather than telling her she was missing out or being silly and judgmental, I just let things flow over a number of years and she eventually got hooked after watching me play a JRPG and wanting to know what happened next in the story, to the point she forced me to play it daily (it was the during the pandemic, so all her friend playing Among Us and Fall Guys did help too ^^)
Never change Josh!
You have exactly zero evidence that his "adivce" is useful.
At least looking at the past it has never been the case that being outspoken about abuse and injustice was detrimental to combating said abuse.
Also there is no "bait". The purpose of confronting you is merely to force you to think about the animals at all. I already know that you don't have a justification to buy meat. The problem is merely that you're so rarely forced to justify yourself to yourself.
@@MrCmon113 nice bait troll
@@MrCmon113I like meat, there is my justification
@@MrCmon113 - The hamburgers I had for dinner were so good. Cannot wait to have more. 😋
@@MrCmon113 No justification is needed. Factory farmed animals lives don't matter.
The simple fact the chatter said "Can't you just admit I'm morally superior kissing emoji" tells everything you need to know about their intentions and their actual involvment in veganism as a lifestyle. They're fishing for brownie points on the internet and that's pretty much it. Pathetic really
it sounds more like something a troll would say, imo.
He was probably trolling lol
@@sanserof7 As if vegans don't act like that xD
@@wrongthinker843 i wouldnt say all do, but there is probably more then a handful that like to think they are morally superior.
@@wrongthinker843 Every *actual* practicing vegan I know, while they can get very preachy about how it's healthier for you (x to doubt) and all that, have never once acted like the guy in chat did, even during those preachy moments. Most even have the good sense to realize when the person they're talking to has completely shut down and will back off with "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree" statement. Meanwhile everyone I've met who claims to be vegetarian until pressed and admitting they eat 'selective meat sometimes' or vegan but they still eat honey and cheese act like the guy in chat, every single time. They aren't in it for the diet or the morals, they're in it for the external praise, and they do it very, very badly because they rarely get that praise.
That his username has "veganism" in it is also absolute *peak* vegan
I've got "V" on each hand (roman numerals) for military related tattoos. Everytime I meet a vegan they ask if the V's mean vegan all excitedly.
As if it's some branding label for self identification.
@@HauntingSpectre And what do you tell them?
@@thelaststraightguy990 That its so I remember how many fingers I should have when I'm drunk.
@@HauntingSpectre that's a pretty good idea.
@@HauntingSpectre Vegans are always excited to meet other members of their cult.
Funny thing is, when someone in the chat said "that's incredibly manipulative" it only reminded me of teaching. Coaxing questions, asking why, leading them to the point you want them to get to is just.. its just teaching a child.
That person in the chat said near the end of the video that they were referring to what he was describing, aka the vegans in the context. Not sure if josh acknowledged that after the video ends but at the very least that part wasn't a person making that statement
you almost got it
I kinda appreciate that someone in chat pointed out it's manipulative, cause it absolutely is. People tend to ignore that part of psychology and communication thinking "Oh, I'm leading people to an actual good answer, so it's not manipulation," but it still 100% is. Manipulation is like pretty much everything else in this world, it can be used to help or hinder people; it just depends on what the person doing it wants to accomplish. And, it's always good to know these tricks in case someone tries to use them on you. It's simply effective communication.
I agree. Shaming people into being vegan is no different from scaring people into being christian.
You can't interact with someone without manipulating them in some way. Even just your presence could influence what they do or think. Any influence you have on another person manipulates them, and they in turn manipulate you. Manipulation runs a broad spectrum from innocuous to insidious. It's not necessarily about hiding your intentions from the other person, either. A clever teacher is able to "trick" a student into stumbling onto the answer for themselves rather than simply being told what the answer is. Whether manipulation is good or evil simply comes down to whether you intend to benefit yourself at their expense or whether you're trying to benefit them. Some people are really good at lying to themselves and tricking themselves into thinking the selfish things they do is for the benefit of others (and ironically, it is the kindest people who are most susceptible to this), but that shouldn't be confused with those who legitimately want to help others.
@@Greywander87 technically? sure. realistically? realistically nobody calls _helpful_ manipulation, "being manipulative".
and there are other factors to consider too. in this case the end result is a lifelong lifestyle choice. in the teaching case, the end result is they solve the problem. the effects end the moment the student solves the problem.
@@5omebody Sure, in common parlance "manipulation" generally carries a negative, even sinister connotation. But it's worth a reminder that manipulation is actually a much broader concept, and can be either good or bad. Basically, we only call it "manipulation" when it's something we don't like, but that's an arbitrary and subjective distinction. A lot of the underlying tools are the same, it's just a matter of whether you're using those tools for good or evil. Hence certain tricks and tactics can "sound manipulative" because they are, but just being manipulative isn't itself good or evil, it's how you manipulate others. I can convince someone to stop doing drugs and get a job, or I can use the same tools get someone addicted to crack. Spreading awareness of what these tools are and how they work is pretty much the exact opposite of "sinister manipulation", as it's empowering people to recognize when someone is trying to influence them and allowing them to see through the trickery and decide if what the other person is saying has any real merit or not.
@@Greywander87 No, normally people only call it manipulation when it is using all kinds of psychological tricks to _almost guarantee_ a particular outcome. It is extremely possible to just convince others using good points and evidence without resorting to emotional manipulation.
I don't just eat animals, I consume their soul
remind me feminist about men wallet, devour their money and abandon their soul xD
Found the ginger.
I love when Josh actually communicates with the bad actors and trolls. For one it's just really refreshing but I also like to see them flounder when they don't get the knee jerk reaction they want. I don't remember which clip it was but someone else tried something and when Josh started talking to him one on one about the thing he responded "you didn't respond how I wanted you to"
Was it the tera thing?
@@zibix4562 No, this is much more recent, in the last month or two. I'm trying to find the clip channel but I can't for the the life of me remember the context around the coni.
It’s because most trolls aren’t used to dealing with someone as well read and well spoken as Josh
How the heck was that a troll? They asked a legitimate question. Well, i don't know about any other comments from the person or their expectations, but that question alone is 100% legit.
@@Anonymous247n isn't the chatter's choice of words pretty obvious already? who says "eating the corpse of sentient beings" in everyday conversation?
I've been different versions of vegetarian and vegan for the last 16 years and you were WAY more patient with that person than I ever could be haha
Same here, honey catches more flies than vinegar.
@@astranger448
Zero evidence for that.
People didn't abolish slavery by never saying anything bad about slavery.
@@MrCmon113 Sure, but going out and kill all the meat eaters will make me a murderer and land me in jail. So I go out and talk to meat eaters without insulting their intelligence. I respect their point of view and more often than not they respect mine. Sometimes they even turn lessetarian (eat less of the stuff) or even better. It might not be the fastest way to turn the world vegetarian but getting them to move slowly is a d*mn bit faster than not getting them to move at all.
Do I have evidence for that? None whatsoever! But just that method turned me from a fulltime meat-eater into a once a month one.
@@MrCmon113 what
@@onionsieglinde8718he posted that in annother coment i think he is a copy paster
From the OC's continued comments in the chat, they were likely "trolling" not just for shits and giggles, though. A troll will impersonate a group they hate in the toxic way they view them. If they receive positive attention, it reinforces their perspective of the hated group as toxic, making their hate feel justified. If they receive negative attention, it validates them for hating the group directly. From either approach, they are largely immune to reason because they already know they are being unreasonable, hence why they must work towards validation. None-the-less, the explanation here is good and it's good for people to hear.
This is why I only eat things that can understand what I'm going to do but can't fight back. I may have lost my job at the daycare center but I have maintained the moral high ground.
Oh man
Huh 🤨
Don't agree with you but I fully respect your personal choices
😂
And here is the cursed comment
It's really annoying when people say this kind of stuff to me because with my health issues a vegan lifestyle would be fucking ridiculous to try and stick to, especially whilst keeping a balanced diet. When I was on dialysis I had a friend (for a while) who would constantly try and argue with me about it and they'd just continuously list stuff that I couldn't eat and I had to have that same exchange with just about every vegan I ever met lol "you can get plenty of protein bro just eat tons of x y and z" well done you suggested two things that will kill me and one that will make me puke my guts up 5 minutes after eating it cheers
I don't even mind people talking about it or making a point but if someone says "no I don't want to" just leave it and move on, don't try and guilt them into it. It's such a bad way to try and convince someone to do something too, nevermind to convince them to make a whole lifestyle change to food they don't even like
My sister is the same way. She was very serious about it and put a lot of time and effort into planning and cooking, only for her doctor to eventually say that it wasn't sustainable for her. Definitely doesn't help that our family is absolutely chock full of life threatening allergies, and that it can be unbelievably difficult to source certain foods that are allergy friendly.
Your evidence for that is what?
I don't see the slightest bit of reason to believe that confronting people about selfish behavior doesn't work. Especially public persons.
@@MrCmon113you are arguing everywhere in the comment section. Get a life.
@@diedatplainsight8947You can’t win with vegans like that, even if you’re a vegan yourself, they’ll still find drag you if you don’t think about and or approach veganism in the same lenses they do. It HAS to be ethical veganism.
Which is kinda weird considering they always expect everyone to understand them, yet they take the most bad faith and hostile view point of non-vegans, and vegans who question (or outright disagree) with them.
@@MrCmon113 The thing is, if you confront someone about their - perceived - selfish behavior, you elevate yourself in this. Doesn't even have to be intentionally, there is hardly a way to communicate such a thing without leaving that impression.
This does then trigger to do it just in spite. Simple psychology.
I love his first response was, "because they are tasty?"
The easiest way to make someone want something is to tell them they can't have it.
Please dont kill yourself.
@@1MDA I can't tell if this is your attempt at testing Basheequa's statement out or if you want Basheequa specifically dead, or if Basheequa has done something that suggests they want to do that and you specifically know about it.
@@HOLDENPOPE i was testing the statement, and I found the idea of such response so funny I had to do it
@@1MDA should have phrased it as
You can't have killyourself. It's not allowed.
@@1MDAdo you know something we don'?🧐🧐
Yeah there was someone on a metal forum that thought "you are basically making your body a graveyard!" would convince them. People like that are cute and very, very naive.
more of a crematory, really
That's pretty metal ngl
This demands a lot of generic Beavis and Butthead quotes. But this is censortube.
Animal abuse: ruclips.net/video/LQRAfJyEsko/видео.html
Animal abuse. Standard practice. ruclips.net/video/LQRAfJyEsko/видео.html
"Expecting yourself to follow your own rules is fine. Expecting me to follow your rules is not fine". That was just great.
I remember a great post on the internet that goes: "If someone says 'I may not do that; it's against my religion' my response is 'Fine, I respect your conviction.' But if someone says "YOU may not do that; it's against my religion' my response is "F*** you and the horse you rode in on.'"
@@troodon1096 Veganism isn't a religion, its a moral position
@@zi9958 and morals are subjective just like religious beliefs are subjective do we really wanna result to pedantry
@@ethanbo-bethan4893 If you truly believe that something is morally wrong you should try to stop it.
Religion is more of a personnal matter, I can be friends with muslims or christians but not with murderers or rapists. If someone has a different religion than you, you believe that they are wrong and if someone has different morals you believe that they are evil.
@@zi9958 Do you think the same way about your parents? Would you accuse them of murder and rape? If your worldview makes you unable to coexist with 99% of people, there's probably something wrong with your worldview. Have you ever considered that you may be mistaken about something? Have you ever considered that from other's perscpective, you are the one in the wrong? Have you ever tried having a logical discussion?
Apparently, my understanding of the word 'sentient' is wrong all this time,...
I read the title and thought: Josh ate someone!
Well, glad to be wrong, and I learned something today
People often treat "sentient" and "sapient" as if they mean the same thing; but they don't. "Sentient" just means "self-aware" while "sapient" means at least as smart as the dumbest human. Anything sapient is also sentient, but it's possible for a creature to be sentient without being sapient.
@@troodon1096 Most animals aren't sentient by that definition though.
Evidenced by the mirror test, where most animals cannot identify themselves in a mirror, and think it's another animal.
@@troodon1096 Animals, with some notable exceptions like primates, long lived parrots and corvids as well as whales an orcas are neither sapient nor sentient.
@@troodon1096 the dumbest humans are certainly dumber than many other animals. I don't think that definition should be adhered to if you wish to remain superior to other genuses
@@troodon1096 in fact, most animals (not sponges, nor, arguably, jellyfish) have a level of sentience going by the general definition of "sapient = being that senses or feels".
EDIT: Depending on your parameters, many plants could be argued to be sentient, and then you go the complete opposite direction and eating is always consuming the corpse of a sentient being, so vegans are doing the same "harm", and only selectively deciding it's fine to do that to plants but not animals.
I like how this dude, without skipping a beat, just launches into a thoughtful dissertation on human nature and our inherent rejection of being ordered around on a moral level. Also, it took me a solid five minutes to register that his gray sweater vest was just an overlay.
I like how the troll is just coping and seething in the chat at being destroyed in the most polite and educated way. Like, Strife is just disassembling their fragile ego and there's literally nothing they can do about it because they weren't prepared to have an actual discussion.
Surely they will take this intelligent discussion and change? Nah...
He's not really being destroyed, though? All Josh does is deflect from the original question and makes it about the way to approach others in activism or, more generally, in trying to change others' minds. And what does "disassembling their fragile ego" have to do with engaging with the topic anyway?
@@pennymac16 Because as Josh said himself. This person wasn't approaching anyone to change anyones mind. Just wanted to start an argument and feel morally superior. The ego comes when instead of getting into a heated debate like the person wanted, he instead took it as an opportunity to teach people how to properly change someone's mind, and how to better start a conversation. Stripping the troll of their fabricated high ground, and not engaging with them like they wanted. The 'deflection' is just tackling the actual issue instead of wasting time engaging someone whom didn't want to actually talk.
@@Omen_Cheetah
Thanks for taking the time to answer :) I'd like reply to a few things you said by responding directly to quotes from you. I hope you forgive the length, I just wanted to give your points the time and that takes a bit more text 🙈 (there is a tl;dr below)
"Because as Josh said himself. This person wasn't approaching anyone to change anyones mind. Just wanted to start an argument and feel morally superior." -- I don't know what question you're answering here. I didn't ask about the point Josh makes about 'making oneself feel superior'. And I could go into this claim but I'll make it short because I want to address your actual answer. So: Sure, this _could_ be the case. And I acknowledge the person was being a d**k. However, we don't really know the full extent of their motives.
"The ego comes when instead of getting into a heated debate like the person wanted," -- This is still an assertion. I don't think anyone reasonable should simply state this as fact. (You called the person a troll. These days, I feel like anyone who simply starts an argument with people when they don't like it is quickly labled a troll. The meaning of words changes so fast...)
"he instead took it as an opportunity to teach people how to properly change someone's mind, and how to better start a conversation." -- Yes, he talked about more effective persuasion instead of meat consumption. So, instead of engaging with the issue raised he talked about something different. How, then, could he have "destroyed" the person if Josh talked about something different than the issue? Isn’t that a requirement for „destroying“ someone - addressing their views/opinions/arguments?
"Stripping the troll of their fabricated high ground," -- So the question "Can you justify why you eat corpses of sentient beings?" is supposed to establish a high ground? How so? Why isn't it a question about personal ethics asked in a blunt manner? (Because: many people don't know or chose to ignore the fact that meat is the muscle flesh of mammals. Similar with fish.) It could could be a question of interest. Although, I don’t think that holds water either. But starting a discussion this way is totally valid, is it not? Perhaps you are fabricating something here. That would be ironic, wouldn't it haha :P
"and not engaging with them like they wanted." -- Again, that is an assertion.
"The 'deflection' is just tackling the actual issue" -- What? How? The issue raised was Josh's justification of eating meat and such. Josh then _made_ it into the way to address issues with people (and I can only assume that's because he felt like he wanted to be engaged with differently, which would be petty.) Sure, I learned something from it, but he didn't engage with the actual issue.
"instead of wasting time engaging someone" -- And who would force Josh to address the person in the chat directly? He could have chosen to discuss the issue presented from his point of view and ignore the way it was raised *and* the person who raised it. You say Josh deflected beacuse he didn't want to engage someone who is 'obviously' a troll/wants to feel superior. And I don't understand why you or Josh jump to the conclusion that this is the case. It came off to me as disingenuous.
"whom [sic] didn't want to actually talk." -- Again an assertion where we don't know whether it's true.
To summarize: Perhaps the person stated their question in that way because it draws attention and could start a discussion. We ultimately don’t know what their motivations were. Josh didn’t address the issue raised but talked about something different. I thought to „destroy“ someone means debunking their arguments/making their opinions look bad. So, in the end, I still don't understand a) how Josh "destroyed" that person when he didn't really address the issue, or b) what "disassembling their fragile ego" has anything to do with that (but that’s beside the point, really).
@@pennymac16 I appreciate the thought out response.
To put it simply, starting a debate with a hostile question such as the chatter in question posted. Demanding someone justify 'Eating the corpses of sentient beings' while not strictly incorrect, it implies a level of wrongness or ill intention. While simultaneously proping themself as more superior, as it can be reasonably assumed that they are vegan. Which sets the tone for the rest of the discussion/argument.
Another part of it is like that the topic of Veganism is talked to death. With many Vegans trying to use it to demonize others. Josh, like many many others, has likely been interrogated like this a million times on and off camera and is just tired of saying the same things over and over again. Deciding to tackle the subject of healthy debate, instead of specifically Vegan vs Non Vegan.
I'll agree that we don't really know their motivation, but that works both ways. I nyself assume they're just a troll because of their agressive opening and continued hostile behavior in the chat. I can't claim to understand exactly why you think otherwise, but I assume your reasons are just as valid if not just simple devil's advocate.
To clarify, Josh "Destroyed" them because while he didn't attack their argument, he did disassemble the percieved method in which the subject was presented. Instead opting to teach about how to properly discuss, rather than talk about a subject thats been talked about a million times across the internet.
In the end it is what it is. I honestly don't care if ppl are vegan or not, but all over the internet you find Vegans everywhere who are only out to demonize people who eat meat. It makes sense most people would assume that someone demanding justification for a natural behavior is a troll and just ignore them.
Still, good points. Thanks for taking the time to type that out.
This was the first time I could catch a live Josh Strife Hayes stream and when he singled out that question I thought "uh oh, here we go..." but Josh was so calm and wholesome in his explaining even though the person who asked the question in the first place seemd like he/she kept trying to bait for an angry or emotional reaction. I truly wish that more people on social media had the sense to react in such a collected manner like Josh did.
@@Nanashi-sz6wc I didn't perceive Josh's reasoning as fallacious or hypocritical. But the person who posed the question did not seemed interested to engage in a meaningful discussion. As soon as it became clear that Josh was not going to react angry or emotional himself, the other person proceeded to post such comments as "Can't you just admit I'm morally superior?" or "Eating suffering is why you all miserable". I don't see how this can contribute to a sensible discussion about the topic and I agree with Josh that an attitude like this only serves to push people further away from the message you're trying to convey
@@Nanashi-sz6wc Are you going to eat that 6 month old sentient corpse? Can I have it?
@Nanashi-sz6wc I don't believe he ever justified his stance. He said its delicious and then proceeded to talk about how the argument is wrong.
Plenty of people do respond in such a manner, but because of how social networks work, their responses are far less visible than the emotional and impulsive ones.
Social media moves too quickly though. In the end the goal is to get the most likes, and nothing farms easy likes quite like a "You're wrong and dumb, lol"
"Can you prove anyone or anything other than yourself is sentient?"
Is a perfectly reasonable response. Like qualia in philosophy sentience is one of those unprovables that we more or less allow for and accept in others. Just like we can't prove our friends are sentient, we can't prove plants lack it. We don't have testing parameters for it.
It's not a reasonable response.. It's one of those things that's so academic as to be functionally departed from reality, or "gone down the rabbit hole" of philosophy so to speak. It may involve accepting something not technically proven, be we can all understand how absurd it is to not make those acceptances. Fellow humans are sentient to the point of sapience (if not lucidity), the cognitive potential of plants only encompasses a benign and passive existence, and we can understand the general position of other creatures too with enough accuracy as to not be surprised.
@@Fe7Ace Academic? Lol thats like high school level philosophy at best. Its foundational to the idea that existence as you understand it is more complicated than you understand.
You want to get academic on it cognition, sentience, and a host of other qualities are of dubious validity all together as we are by definition inescapably humanocentric in our perceptions. Cracking down on some for eating meat as wrong for "consuming sentient beings" is as well supported as proclaiming mowing the lawn as "destroying sentient beings". All we have are observations - we know animals suffer like we do. But we also know plants suffer in ways we can't imagine (the smell of fresh cut grass is your lawn screaming). We can't quantify any of it, but we can detect its existence and react accordingly based on how we choose to empathize.
The only way you eat with out potentially destroying sentience on levels that are potentially just as valid as our own is you don't. There's no escaping it at our position on the food chain. You can destroy sentient beings as we may or may not understand it (the choice on how you feel on that is entirely individual) to survive or you can starve. Or I guess you could go full fruit diet as many plant species intend their fruit be consumed as a method of seed distribution as the seed is plant and the fruit is an intentionally disposable organ - that would be about the only indisputable ground to stand on if you claim to not consume sentient beings. Anything else invites philosophical debate if you're going to be so foolish as to use your arbitrarily "correct" diet as a moral cudgel against others - if folks don't want that philosophical debate then just shut up and eat instead of throwing stones from glass houses.
@@craigstege6376 As you say we're intrinsically stuck with the human point of view. The second you're trying to zoom out away from the human point of view you run straight into a heap of self-defeating nonsense, overwhelming paralysis in defining things, and as I originally said a total disconnect from our lived and relatable experiences. Asking us to imagine the unimaginable is futile. The human perspective can quantify, validate, and ratify everything you just said the magic void perspective can't, and I think we might as well just own that, or else you end up being like a silly old kook waving his hands in a dark room asking "is anything really real after all?", y'know? Nobody cares about potentially equally valid sentient lawn. That's why it's not a reasonable response to me.
@@Fe7Acewhat does a "benign and passive existence" entail?
I don't really think that "sentience" is ever really an effective way to argue against the moralities of meat consumption. Most people don't even engage with the industry itself, just the end product.
I think the meat industry is just inherently bad for everyone (the animals, the workers, the consumer). But giving people shit for eating meat is pretty much pointless in addressing the inherent issues with the industry.
“Can you justify why you eat the corpses of sentient beings?”
Sure. But first. Go ask a tiger.
We arent animals, use an better argument.
Im far from a vegan but when people use nature as some sort of standard its makes me cringe.
@@1MDA Are we not? We have incisors the same as any other meat eater. Just because we have opposable thumbs doesn't mean we are gods walking among the garden. Granted. We have the ability to choose since we learned how to farm, but that doesn't mean we are outside the system. There is a reason steak is delicious.
@@OmegaUberDeathbot I was just criticising the argument, Im not vegan nor do I care for animals, we are human animals the rest can face our opression without moral concerns, in my view. I just find the plant based diet to be more cost efective in calorie consuption, why feed animals plants if we can eat them istead? Plus we could dodge some of the side efects of eating animal products such as zoonotic deseases, saturated fats and LDL cholestrol (wich increase the probability of developing heart desease) if we swayed to an more plant based diet as a species.
Yes food is tasty but even harmful food can be.
I believe its natural to eat meat but that it isnt optimal for human health or sustainability in large scale.
If an all out plant based diet isnt for you Id say to try an , mediteranian diet.
@@1MDA I agree to all those points. Though you can still get E. coli, norovirus, Salmonella, Listeria, and Cyclospora from lettuce. All the same. I don't think anyone is eating nothing but steak these days. Unless you are the liver king. My original argument was simply to say "If you don't like me eating sheep, why aren't you criticizing the wolf?" Like he said. They only want to morally superior.
If that is right because tigers do it, is it right to kill and eat your partner during sex because mantises do it? If you marry a woman that already has children, is it right to kill them like lions do?
Your logic would justify horrible stuff.
Josh just explained how systemic interventions work. This can be applied to any change to any system, not just people. If you want a change to be persistent, you need to induce that change such that the affected system will maintain the change you caused by itself even when you aren't there.
It's interesting listening to a level headed and abstract response while watching the chatter who asked Josh the question slowly reveal their ego in chat. The chatter exhibits every problem with this approach to conversation while Josh talks about it (shaming others, taking a moral high ground, talking about Nazis?). Based on their responses hard to tell if trolling or descending into madness with their moral stance.
there is a cuteness to deliciousness ratio. the more cute a creature is the better it tastes
I do consider newborn kittens incredibly cute
False, capybara taste horrible
alpaca meat is mid
@@faowin9112 he pulls up though
Then cow must taste absolutely disgusting.
You're spot on with your argument, and it can be applied to a lot of movements and groups at this point. A lot of people operate in the way you described; an "us vs. them" mentality, calling yourself and those that think/act like you do morally superior while demonizing those who don't believe and behave like you do, telling people to not trust anyone who questions a certain line of thinking, and isolating people who are in the echo chamber and making people that don't conform an example of what happens when you deviate so no one else will question you and your opinions out of fear of losing all their "friends" and being shunned/shamed and/or having their lives ruined.
ofc that's basically apply to everything human do and wars
but the things is: that also can cause us vs them situation by knowing that a movement is using us vs them tactics and blindly applying it to everyone on the movement you basically repeat the same thing you just explain so this kinda paradoxical?
in other words: when a movement is bad and you think every movement is pretty much the same you effective in us vs them situation without knowing you are doing it and i am not saying you're wrong but this also can be repeated even if you know this tactics because well you unconsciously doing it
@unknowngod8221 What you said honestly doesn't make complete sense within the context here. An "Us vs Them" mentality is one where a person or group of people become *hostile* when it comes to others that do not share the same ideologies, opinions, beliefs, etc. Of that person/group of people, and it has been used and abused as a *manipulation tactic* to keep people in line with fearmongering, demonizing the "enemy", and the risk of losing their community/friends should they deviate. Certain things such as being hostile towards people who think its ok to abuse others because of their beliefs, harm kids (Such as the MAP/Pedo movement), and commit unspeakable and horrific acts (example: extreme acts of violence for their religion) are indeed *normal behavior* and is needed in society. The version *I'm* talking about is used in the same way cults keep their followers brainwashed and in line. The version I'm talking about is not *normal* and is extremely manipulative.
There are different ways that "Us vs. Them" has been used, but as the internet has flourished, so too have the people who use it to target vulnerable people through misinformation, shaming/bullying, dogpiling, etc. to bring them into their group or cause. Equating what I'm talking about to normal human behavior basically minimizes it's abuse and normalizes it.
One reason I see certain groups give as to why they antagonise people they disagree with is "You can't solve x problem by being nice to people". The most common topic I see this used is hate groups.
The really funny thing is... Yes! Being nice does actually work. There are multiple examples of people using the same techniques Josh outlined to deradacalize hate group members.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar as the old saying goes...
Animal abuse. Standard practice. ruclips.net/video/LQRAfJyEsko/видео.html
"kill them with kindness"
something i was told to do when i worked in retail. as much as we want to hang people by their toes when they wanna give us attitude, it does no one any good.
still though, a part of me would rather show them what their own blood tastes like then to try and make nice with em. as foolish as it is. after all; hate breeds more hate.
That would work if hate groups weren't actively encouraging people to kill us lmao
You can use those techniques to deradicalize some people and I think that's a great effort to keep supporting. Keep drawing people away from hate groups, keep rewarding kindness.
But if you're already a member of a hate group? Or a pro-fascist group? Or a pro-fundamentalist group? Arrest them all, but treat them fairly, let them beg to be deprogrammed for the sake of their freedom, and let the rest rot in prison. The people who aren't fully invested in the ideology will do what they must to get out.
Hello fellow corpse eaters! How is your sentient being consumption going today?
Quite well! I'm going to be eating a very large chunk of a sentient corpse later this afternoon.
Fantastic, I'm about to take a large bite of a sentient corpse my fellow sentient corpse eating Mister.
well enough. or should i say; Medium rare!
Animal abuse. Standard practice. ruclips.net/video/LQRAfJyEsko/видео.html
Not great. Missed breakfast. Only plants so far today.
I am not a big Jeremy Clarkson fan, but he is amusing at times. I think Clarkson's farm is a very smart way of making people aware of what farmers have to go through without being preachy. You get to laugh at him and call him an idiot, while he rather smartly shows you how underfunded and how thankless the job is, and you never feel like you are bad.
Animal agriculture gets lots of subsidies just to break even, it's definitely not underfunded, it's just too inefficient without even going into ethics.
this went from "why eat corpses" to "how to actually convince people" in less than 10 minutes
It's even less than one minute - which I find unfortunate. There was an enriching discussion to be had about the topic, but Josh decided to talk about something else instead. I guess I still learned something, though.
lording over others about how you are moraly superior negates any "superiority" you might of had. And again it wasnt about animals or life, it was about ego
@@inevitableAnpu No. They are inflicting an unnatural, easy to screw up diet upon themselves. Humans are built to eat meat.
@@inevitableAnpuYes, we see where they come from. Many of them are purely ego-fueled. There are people who actually believe in what they preach tho. Doesn't mean we have to share their beliefs, that we have to change our lifestyle... Especially if they are annoying preachers. But we will still support improvements in the situation of animals cruelty. We still support improvements in meat industry and its impacts on environment. But we against hypocrites like PETA, like obnoxious people who trying to ruin farms, restaurants, market stalls, etc., who trying to impose their moral superiority on others, thinking they are the Messiah of the Earth.
@@nameless_moon
What if on this subject they are morally superior?
@@inevitableAnpu That's the neat thing: They aren't.
People who are truly "morally superior" than me on this subject, they wont be annoying. Because, their standpoint is "kindness". Treating animals like they are God but treating human like sh*t, it will completely going against their own message of universal love. If they dont treat human and animals as fair as each other, how come they can be "morally superior" ?
Mega props to Josh for running with the original comment in a direction the vegan guy obviously didn't want and then utterly and completely ignoring everything else that guy said. That is how you engage with bad actors!
Animal abuse. Standard practice. ruclips.net/video/LQRAfJyEsko/видео.html
People who stand up against animal cruelty are bad actors? How about you attack the argument instead of the person? Ad-hominem attacks paint you as a bad actor.
@@Nanashi-sz6wcYour bait is too obvious
@@Nanashi-sz6wc That is not what that person was doing and you know it. How about *they* do something constructive to counter actual animal cruelty instead of preaching in some livestream?
I still remember a long time ago there being a vegan blog that was constantly spreading misinformation about human biology saying humans have never been meat eaters because our teeth are small and we don't have mouths like wolves or other dumb stuff like that. And then they'd look at the skulls of our ancestor's ancestors and claim that that's the skull of a herbivore. Some people legit just wanna do whatever it takes to convert you to veganism because it makes them feel like a hero or superior or such.
There's even a subset of people online that insists we need to train/eliminate/genetically modify all predators to stop eating meat. They definitely don't make up the majority of vegans- but they're a small subset nonetheless that just overthink and are kind of just ridiculous.
"Convince somebody with your reasoning, not your demands."
"Because omnivores' bodies are made to consume both plants and animals, and going without one or the other is unhealthy." Is my normal response.
Normal people understand that going without fruits and vegetables in their diet is bad for their health, but vegans and vegetarians will swear up and down that meat is not needed. Vegans and vegetarians are like a child throwing a fit and refusing to eat their vegetables, just replace vegetables with meat and the excuse of it tastes bad with it makes me feel bad. Suck it up, eat the damn food and be grateful to have food to eat at all, don't be so damn picky, some one else is starving with nothing to eat at all and yet here people are being picky eaters. Truly the epitome of first world problems and privilege.
@@voidstrider801 to be fair there are many studies about vegan lifestyles being more healthy and I have never seen nor heard of the opposite.
Most mammalian herbivores are also omnivorous. This doesn't mean that a deer will be unhealthy if it never eats a dead bird in its lifetime.
Lineages of organisms are tempered through time to be able to survive and reproduce their likeness, however they aren't "made" to _do_ anything in particular, strictly speaking. A more accurate way of looking at it, in my view, is that organisms are given a toolbox their decedents used to survive. This doesn't imply that the tools available are either the best for the job logistically speaking or the most morally correct, however. Epigenetic progression (in which genes are selectively activated and deactivated) and changes in microbiome composition throughout a single individual's lifetime are strong pieces of evidence in favor towards this outlook I think, since it demonstrates that even when considering the scale of a single lifespan evolution has also given us tools to change according to our unique environments rather than relegating us to sit on our thumbs until our kids might be a bit different.
@@voidstrider801 I'm not actually a vegan, however one of the strongest arguments in favor of becoming vegan I've observed is the sort of moral outrage and deflection people like you tend to exhibit in response to the challenge of such a viewpoint existing or implicating them and their life choices.
Haha! Now, if that isn't ironic. @@beansworth5694
Sentience is where all of the flavor comes from. All of the animals hopes, joys, tears, etc. are all stored inside its sentience deposits, and the flavor comes out when you cook it.
The flesh only increases the hp bar.
The sentience gives xp, points for to add to the ability tree AND energy bar refills.
Which are the tastiest? Happiness? anger? loneliness?
I've become so accustomed to Josh wearing a waistcoat that I didn't realise he wasn't until about 3 minutes in when he started talking with his hands.
As a vegan those people really embarass me...
Understandable.
Animal abuse. Standard practice. ruclips.net/video/LQRAfJyEsko/видео.html
same
As a vegan *you* embarrass me.
I kid, good on you for living your truth fam. 💪🏾
ill try be less embarassing :D
The obvious answer is 'to prevent the necromancers from raising said corpses as undead zombies'
I love how you handled this situation. You perfectly described the power dynamics that are subtly used and why they are used. Great job Josh 👍
The power dynamics is your selfish actions vs your conscience telling you not to abuse and murder animals.
@@MrCmon113 , you learned nothing from the video. Being a condescending prick won’t pull people over to your side. It’s astonishing how well you proved his entire video, all summed up in a little edgy sentence. Congratulations, you played yourself 👏👏👏
@@MrCmon113 "Tell us you didn't watch the video without telling us you didn't watch the video", as redditors and some other site-goers like to say
@@MrCmon113 Unlucky bro, I wish I gave a shit but you're too socially inept that your arguments fell off too easily
Oh yes, the laughably weak vegetarian vs. the mighty "corpses of sentient beings" enjoyer
Arnold Schwarzenegger and many other top athletes eat plant-based diets but ok.
How about the strong, why should I subscribe to your perverse morality ?
@@jamesn3122Cope.
@@jamesn3122 yes and a lot of Steroids and most of them die before they grow old. Your point?
@@jamesn3122 yeah maybe there's like 1 or 2, because they're already outside of the norm freaks, what works for them won't work for anyone else anyway. Shit comparison.
I'm going to change the "meat eater" part of my bio for "corpse of sentient beings eater", it sounds so much cooler
Corpse consumer? It's alliterative.
@@rokva5771alliterative is a word. That's sick
If I don't eat this fresh corpse then some scavenger will come and eat a rotten corpse then I miss out on it's nutrients.
Yeah, some person in front of me on a trail must have dropped his wallet once. If I hadn't picked it up, they money in it would probably have gone to waste.
@@pennymac16you could return it lol
@@pennymac16Are you gonna put the meat back in the animal then?
Halfway through the video I suddenly realised the vest is a PNG and when the video ended I suddenly realised I hadn't processed a single word Josh said
I just realized when I read your comment 😂 where's the real vest??
oh my god it is
Having grown up in a cult Josh is spot on! Very well said!
What does this have to do with cults
@@matthewjones39I mean have you seen the way a lot of vegans behave?
@@stuarteaston1629 Yeah, but I don’t know if he’s referring to vegans or not.
@@matthewjones39he was talking about how cults behave in the video
@@hibilbo4755 Well I kind of stopped paying attention after 2 minutes.
2:10 This is so true, I studied in a Jesuit school once and they never did stuff like this, they just talk about their faith and practices whenever I asked them in a genuine and friendly manner. That coupled with the fact that I admire some of the priests/teachers because they are quite smart and wise, and have this sense of open mindedness and awareness of the world around them that is really quite different to my Protestant peers, actually made me interested in learning more about Catholicism.
How to tell if someone is vegan:
They will tell you unprompted
And they’ll call you a nazi.
I have not once tried to convince a vegan they should eat meat. All I expect from them is they reciprocate that. They want to not eat meat, fine. They want to tell me I'm wrong for doing so, I'm just going to enjoy meat even more by knowing eating it angers them. There's no scientific proof for this, but I swear meat tastes so much better when you eat it in front of a vegan.
Okay, dann but isnt this behaviour objectively childish?
@@Gailon1000 I'd say tolerating people's life choices is a pretty mature behavior. Expecting everyone to bend to one's religious tennants, however...
@@pirig-gal "They want to tell me I'm wrong for doing so, I'm just going to enjoy meat even more by knowing eating it angers them.".
So this is mature? Aha...
@@Gailon1000 "I have not once tried to convince a vegan they should eat meat. All I expect from them is they reciprocate that."
Read the whole comment. Actions != feelings
@@pirig-gal "Im just goint to enjoy meat even more by knowing it angers them." This is an action right there lol. I agree that some vegans can be opressive some times. But that should not justify those childish and irrational actions. Here in germany we had a discussion a while back about saving water by showering for a shorter amount of time. And a politician answered with: "Well tomorrow i will shower 5 minutes longer. I dont want anyone to tell me what to do.".
its the excact same thing and i am convinced that nobody in their right mind should justify this behaviour.
We eat the corpses of sentient beings, because what is best in life is to crush tasty animals, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their herd!
How Barbaric of you~
Its the other Conan! - Konan!
You miss the more fundamental issue: Why should you justify eating the corpses of sentient beings?
@@longlostwraith5106 Why should a murder justify of killing people? I bet they also have their own reasoning that makes sense to them. I mean, there are parts of the world where that's ok, but I sure don't want to live there.
Animal abuse: ruclips.net/video/LQRAfJyEsko/видео.html
They taste good
Nuff said
If they say
"What if you find human meat delicious too?"
Looks like I won't starve in an apocalypse.
I mean its not like cannibalism is new to humanity or anything anyway. There are indeed ethical means of performing cannibalism. For example you could grow human tissues in a lab or some weird person could request his body be cannibalized when he dies.
- It's damn tasty
- It's good for you
- Animals ain't people
- Animals do it too
-It increases my energy and health bar
-I have carnivorous tendencies
-If eating meat means that imma bad human bean then so be it.
- I've already made peace with that, I am indeed evil :)
More seriously:
-Agriculture takes up more space and water
-Animals tend to have more calories for the same amount of weight
-Livestock can survive extreme conditions and be easily moved as opposed to moving an entire farm
-Developing land for crops can severely damage a habitat especially if the crops aren't native. Which also is going to suck if people don't like eating the less damaging crop...
We started hunting and raising animals for a reason outside of our hatred for living things, there's kind of a practical reason why we still do it. Also, wouldn't it be specist or something if we ate only plants because they are least like us?
Also remember this one
-Eating meat is vital to your brain's growth, and studies show that children who grow up vegan invariably have smaller brains than their meat-eating counterparts. This is supported by the fact that when we were cavemen, our brains grew and we became smarter because we ate cooked meat.
@@Eye_Of_Odin978 You forgot to cite some sources.
@@hyperion3145 I'm not vegan but look, those things you listed are just such poor arguments so I have to say something.
"Agriculture takes up more space and water"
-
You can't have animals without having agriculture to feed those animals.
"Animals tend to have more calories for the same amount of weight"
-
So? That's irrelevant on its own. If you had some follow up point that this was supposed to support, just say that instead.
"Livestock can survive extreme conditions and be easily moved as opposed to moving an entire farm"
-
But you still have to have agriculture to be able to feed those animals and that agriculture can not move any easier than just growing the crops to feed yourself directly. Either way you still rely on something somewhere not being able to move.
"Developing land for crops can severely damage a habitat especially if the crops aren't native. Which also is going to suck if people don't like eating the less damaging crop..."
-
Animal farms can damage a habitat just as well. And again, for the third time, you have to grow crops to feed the animals anyway.
"We started hunting and raising animals for a reason outside of our hatred for living things"
-
What monkey people in the past did is completely irrelevant. Even people in the 1800s were doing things like putting mercury on their teeth.
"there's kind of a practical reason why we still do it"
-
Well go ahead. State what it is. I'm not saying there's not one, but just making a claim without anything backing it up is a poor way to argue.
"Also, wouldn't it be specist or something if we ate only plants because they are least like us?"
-
Isn't it specist to say only humans are important enough to not be eaten? If you are going to be called specist either way, then who cares.
People will believe almost anything without a shred of skepticism if you add the subtext "you are better than those other people"
Reminds me of my friends' inside joke of claiming that adding 'with all due respect' in front of anything makes it a compliment.
"With all due respect, you're a go**amn piece of rotten s**t."
"Awwww, thanks!"
The reason you are abusing and murdering animals is "skepticism"?
Lol.
“Ma’am this is a Wendys” energy.
“Sir this is a Runescape video”
My sister is a vegan, but she accepts that the rest of us in the family aren't. For my dad's birthday, we had the party at her house, and SHE grilled steaks for us because she knows how much we and especially my dad likes steak. It was really good too. She researched good rubs and seasonings and actually put effort into making a good meal for us despite her personal beliefs.
Holy based
That's the best kind of thing anyone can do for someone. Your sister is a fucking giga chad.
Your sister is nice. My brother doesn't talk to me anymore, and we were in pretty good terms before this. I don't understand it.
"I like vegans as long as they do everything in their power so that I can feel better about myself"
Your sister sounds like a good egg and has a good head on her shoulders.
Because they taste good.
"Because they are delicious" is the only correct answer Josh.
It's one of two honest and correct answers in the developed world so props to the guy for honesty
So because you enjoy it, that makes it okay? Can I just do whatever I want, and if I enjoy it, that makes it okay? What kind of logic is that?
@@allandm Anything we enjoy is bad. Stop using the internet, you're killing the planet, go out and farm your own food instead of buying it, make your own clothes.
@@allandm So long as you don't infringe on the same right for other humans, yes!
@@frantisekvrana3902 so if i enjoy burning dogs alive that's okay because they aren't human? If somehow an alien species crash lands here, can we do whatever we want with them because they are not human?
He turned a troll into an advice monologue, good show
As a vegan, let me say this - i get pretty annoyed at anyone pushing their views about anything. I do what i do because i like it. I could not care less about what other people do as long as it isn't harmful to others. It's a life choice like many things. Being pushy and annoying about only makes people misunderstand it more. I also say this as a sober alcoholic of 17 years. I've experienced gross misunderstanding in that area as well. When you try to force your beliefs on people, they will most likely resist.
This is a bad take, it only serves to make meat eaters comfortable about paying for animal cruelty. You claim "I get annoyed about pushing views" Do you get annoyed when people tell other people not to murder? Not to kidnap? Not to kick a dog? Killing animals for food is morally wrong, and rejecting veganism exposes a contradiction in most people's moral systems.
Not being vegan is harmful to others. Those who are bred, commodified, abused, neglected, tortured, and murdered are all harmed in the extreme, and without necessity in the overwhelming majority of cases.
No one can force beliefs on others. You can only force actions on others, and only those threatening personal consequences can do that. No singular person in the history of the internet has ever attempted to force actions on others, with the exception of those who threaten. They are usually just trying alternative methods to get people to think.
Do I disagree that kindness and understanding are usually the optimal route to get people to become better critical thinkers? Not at all. For this reason, I always tell others, "I don't debate. I cooperate towards truth." That said, having seen plenty of first-hand accounts, I can say with certainty that some people react better to being directly or even aggressively challenged than to being cautiously and kindly approached, due to there being all forms of personalities out there. While some forms of outreach are more effective than others overall, all forms of outreach are necessary to affect all forms of people.
That´s exactly what they want. Because the resistance gives them the feeling of righteousness. They´re living off of that, like any narcissist.
It´s not even about veganism really, they´re just weaponizing it because it works very well. Other very emotional topics have a similar problem.
"I could not care less about what other people do as long as it isn't harmful to others"
Does buying meat harm others? If yes, why do you refer to it as a mere "life choice"?
@@Nanashi-sz6wc Did you know that morals are subjective? Veganism is less cringe and more accepted these days because vegans on a whole have stopped with their self-righteous yelling. Not forcing your opinion on others actually works. Now the cringe is meat-eaters that cry on the internet about vegan sausage rolls, because they're doing the same as what vegans did: telling people what you can and can't do. I won't argue to much but i ask you spare a thought for those that have no choice but to eat meat for medical reasons, third world countries would lose out on a massive part of their diet if they had to become vegan, people in poverty look forward to the nice meaty meal they have because it's all they have.
POV: A cannibal has trapped you in his cave and explains his views to you.
I eat sentient beings because I am made to do so. Then when I die, other sentient beings shall eat me because they were made to do so. I am perfectly fine with this.
Mufasa:When we die our bodies become the grass and the antelope eat the grass Simba: But dad don't we eat the antelope??
Maybe you're fine with it, but the animals aren't.
@@rbxless Well most people wouldn't be fine with the worms having there way with them after they die but it'll happen to us anyway.
@@ultgamercw6759 Do I have to point out the obvious? By then we'll already be dead and not be able to feel pain.
@@rbxless So is the animal when it's on the plate, served next to a tasty sauce.
There's this episode of The Powerpuff Girls where this kid, who is very obviously an athlete is having a family dinner, and he says something along the lines of "We consume the flesh of lesser animals to become stronger"
It's the episode with the mutant broccoli and the girls have to eat them to save the town
It's funny when someone asks a question so loaded that the most satisfying response is a completely guileless and honest one.
1) They're delicious.
2) They'd do the same to me without a second thought.
Why I eat corpses of sentient beings? Because they're delicious but eating them alive is horific and difficult.
Its almost as if we're omnivores.
Being a vegan of many years myself I absolutely agree that forcing anything on anyone is one way to make people resist. You hit the nail on the head, they're doing it to make them feel better about themselves and their choices.
I choose to lead by example, if someone is interested in my lifestyle choice I am more than happy to talk about it and provide any information that I may have about it and how to make it easier if they should choose to make changes to their diet/lifestyle but I would never tell anyone to straight up follow the way I choose to live. I do believe that people should know where their food comes from and how it's created but it's up to the individual to make the choice if that's something they feel happy with supporting.
You're the sanest vegan I have ever seen on the internet. If more vegans were like you, then people probably wouldn't bristle so much at the thought of veganism.
I'm vegetarian and this is how other vegetarians and vegans I have actually met IRL act. I'm certain that lolcows like thatveganteacher have had a net negative impact on how people view the lifestyle by trying to aggressively convert people. I find it fucking annoying when keto/paleo/carnivore/whatever mfs randomly try to force their diet idealogies on me so I'm not about to turn around and do the same thing. The way I see it, is if it really the is morally righteous/virtuous thing to do then that should speak for itself.
@@Seoul_Soldier To be honest, i think most vegans in real life are generally intelligent and thoughtful people. The internet is a place full of weird , cruel people at times and can often give way to polarising 'twitter-brain'.
Unfortunately, part of the criticism on vegans comes from the fact that veganism is seen hyper-critically by society.
The term David Graebr used to describe this criticism is 'moral envy'. When someone acts in a way that means they must uphold a certain standard, they are seen to be attacking those who don't, and are also held to that standard by society. As if the act of alnowledging a standard makes you uniquely beholden to it.
@@Dparkes26 Yep, this.
@@Seoul_Soldier I think the majority of vegans are sane and well meaning people. There is (as with many things) a very vocal and extreme minority who are less concerned about the feelings and opinions of others if they differ from their own. Sometimes I am ashamed to be a part of the vegan community because of the behavior of some of the more extreme and confrontational people who follow a similar lifestyle to myself.
man the way you dissect this and communicate it is amazing