@@FreddieAl Don't be an A- hole. That's really low. Everyone has to go through some kind of therapy be it a Psychologist, Doctor, Sports coach, friend, family member. C'mon don't be low down like that. You wouldn't want to be treated that way would you.
This is such brilliant activism! Love how she creates genuine interest and engagement through the prize element, while keeping the focus on the animals. It's refreshing to see such a friendly, inviting approach that gets people genuinely curious to learn about speciesism. No pressure or judgment - just open conversation and education. This is exactly the kind of positive outreach that opens minds and hearts. 🌱
Like it. Never seen your outreach before but like your manners & the fact you use recommendations. Might use a bit of this approach on Saturday - Thanks, thanks , & FANKS.
"If you can't define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity." - Robert M. Pirsig (Zen and the art…&c.). ❤.
@@FreddieAl I can't define pillock so I must be stupid. I can't define gravity either but if I drop an anvil on my toe, I know it exists. And I'm stupid.😁
You said you were looking for good slogans to write for a sign or good framing to get people to respond to outreach. This one definitely works! I hope you didn't have to wait hours for people to talk to you :)
@@vegangaze then it was just asking a series of questions then leaving them with some information. I guess the idea was let people look into it themselves rather than getting into what it was. I moved to AV cubes shortly afterwards. If I did it differently for sure I would have talked ethics and maybe asked them to provide examples of speciesism (maybe we did I can’t remember)
Amazing Elle , you have a very approachable manner with people ♥️ watching your activism is super inspiring (also I LOVE your graphic design of “Vegan Gaze” I would 💯 rock that on a tshirt if you ever made them!
Breaks my heart that so many folks will be vocally against the other bad -isms, but shrug at the thought of speciesism -- and how many more cant even define it/haven't even heard of it. Keep doing what you do. ✊🏽
For better or worse, humans are the most dominant species on earth. And issues between people have disaterous consequences that should be settled. Some consequences that cause damage to the planet and its inhabitants, human or other. When you have people that find humans of other skin colors, cultures, sexualities or disabilities as a species different than their own, you won't get very far getting them to stop buying leather. This isn't to say issues you find important aren't. Not everyone is mindful or considerate of all issues at once, and I personally, can't put blame on people who don't take it as seriously.
I feel like vegans need to stop arguing about the morality of treating animals better. There are other reasons meat and other animal products are bad, namely that they're a lot more inefficient to produce and cause worse environmental problems. If someone doesn't care about what happens to a pig then you yelling at them wont change their opinion, but people are going to be a lot more receptive to the fact that their children or grandchildren might live in a world with even worse effects of climate change if they continue to use animal products. We should be encouraging real scientific fact rather than meaningless appeal to emotion.
The ethical and moral stance we take is the only way to be vegan. Look up the definition of veganism. Also at what point was she yelling at anyone? She’s very politely discussing the moral and ethical implications of the way we view and treat animals.
@@NathanBlackberry It will mean more to me when I have been vegan for longer than I was not vegan, so another 13 years I will celebrate if I make it to that age (51).
@@OneEarthNationV True, but as with any addiction, it's a shame it took so long to d×mned long to quit. No matter, it's one less "monkey on my back". 😉
The fact that we can make a morality-based decision whether or not to eat meat instead of just following our instinct is, funnily enough, one of the things that puts us above animals hierarchically: but that dominion has a flipside: we ought to take good care of the animals we shepherd.
I know what it is but even I find it hard to say in words. I usually say, value one species over another. Of course, most humans are practising speciesism all the time :(
I wouldn't go too hard on people like that. Remember, they're a bit different to the famous celebrities who make a meal (pardon the pun) out of doing the "I'm no longer Vegan " videos. That's completely inexcusable because they influence others to give up being Vegan. Was he ever Vegan - IMO that's debatable. Should he get his act together - god course he should. Two times failing= 2 times too many. That said, we need to bring failure cases back over into the light rather than Exile them into the darkness. Any thoughts?
@@PercivalBlakeney Ye. Bit different from addiction really but we don't live in a Vegan world & that's probably what makes it difficult. Social pressures to quit being Vegan is at an ALL time high right now as the Animal Agriculture industry shits its pants at the growing number of Vegans. Even here in Taiwan we're stirring up trouble!
@@morejoy5188 Well… Speaking as what I can reasonably describe as a recovering alcoholic and former smoker, I've never heard ANY justification against Veganism that didn't sound almost exactly like the justifications I'd make to myself for carrying on drinking and smoking. I spent eighteen years knowing I had to go Vegan … just like I knew I had to quit cigarettes and alcohol. I just carried on doing the same dumb thing over and over. No matter. Got there in the end. 🌹
“We are made to eat animals bro.” Yes, we have the physical ability to do so, but just because we can do something does that automatically make it moral to do it? “And it's out preference abt what we it. U do what we want, u do what u want, we all can be chill” The question i would ask you though is why do human wants and preferences, meaning there is another choice, for things we do not need outweigh the other animals entire existence, every thing they are or could ever be? In the case of eating, 15 - 20 minutes of taste pleasure vs another thinking, feeling beings life. And if you do consume animal products it is not just the killing of them, though that alone cannot be justified, it is supporting the entire violent, brutal process involved to get them to your plate. It is absolutely guaranteed, in fact it is required, that they will have involved the exploitation, use, abuse, mutilation and or killing of these individuals. And all for things we do not need. How can we legitimately even attempt to justify that when we do have other choices? We can't force anyone to do anything, that's the point we would prefer to not have to restrict anyone’s options, we want people to recognise that their choices have negative consequences for others and change their behaviour, not because they are being told to, but because they understand it is the right thing to do. All we are asking you to do on behalf of these victims is to think about it from their perspective and just choose something else.
@Gamingvirus909 “they dont have perspective, they are non sentient animals.” The vast majority of animals, and most definitely the ones we farm, with the possible exception of shellfish, are conscious, thinking and feeling individuals and are having subjective experiences. This is something that becomes very apparent through simple observation and inductive reasoning, which is something you will have experienced if you have ever been around any animals. And no, it's not about anthropomorphism, quite the opposite, it's about trying to avoid anthropocentrism. The subjective experience, an individual in there, is not exclusive to humans nor by extension of that fact is having emotions, desires and connections with others. However, if you need to know the general scientific consensus The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness is a good place to start. For a brief overview Five years of the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. From: Neuroscience, 2022 Sentience Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, to have affective consciousness, subjective states that have a positive or negative valence. Non-human animal sentience has been widely recognized throughout the scientific community for generations. Animals to be formally recognised as sentient beings in domestic law Introduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill as part of the Government's Action Plan for Animal Welfare "Vertebrate animals will be recognised as sentient beings for the first time in UK law thanks to the introduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, introduced in Parliament today." "Formally recognising in law that animals are sentient and experience feelings in the same way humans do is just the first step in our flagship Action Plan for Animal Welfare which will further transform the lives of animals in this country and strengthen our position as a global leader." And “The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was introduced to Parliament by the Government of the United Kingdom at the 2021 State Opening of Parliament.The act recognises animal sentience in law for the first time.The scope of the legislation includes all vertebrates and some invertebrates such as octopuses and lobsters”. From the Research Briefing of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill “It is not necessary to define sentience in statute for the Bill to work. We all recognise that animals are sentient. Accordingly, their welfare needs should be properly considered in government policy-making. There is no need to make it more complicated than that.” “stop trying to force your beliefs on other people. you need to do better” If you stop and really think about it, whose choices actually involve forcing others? Farmed animals are forced to become pregnant, their babies in many cases are forcibly separated from them, they are forced into constrained and detrimental living situations, forced onto a truck and then finally all having their lives, the only thing they have, violently taken from them, by force. So, to repeat, we can't force anyone to do anything, that's the point we would prefer to not have to restrict anyone’s options, we want people to recognise that their choices have negative consequences for others and change their behaviour, not because they are being told to, but because they understand it is the right thing to do. My way of doing better is having polite conversations about this crucial and disturbing issue. And all we are asking you to do on behalf of these victims is to think about it from their perspective and just choose something else.
@Gamingvirus909mate I'm with you about eating (I'm not vegan and I'll never be), but many animals are sentient and have feelings, all of the smartest one like apes, crows, magpies, cetaceans and many more. Respecting and eating are 2 different things, and we should be able to eat without abusing them
@@dadish90 Yep, you are right on with that, the ones you listed and i would add the majority of others beyond that, and as i said, most definitely the ones we farm, with the possible exception of shellfish, are sentient. I am genuinely interested, you acknowledge that they are sentient, yet are very clear about the fact that you are not vegan and never will be, how do you then assign moral worth? How do you with the knowledge that they are sentient, thinking and feeling, support or partake directly in what is being done to them? It is not so much the eating, though i do personally find that disrespectful, but how do we, without abusing them, “respectfully” exploit, use and take the life, all they are or will ever be, from an individual who does not want or need to die?
@@Burner_269 I watched the first part with the guy in the denim jacket entirely, and then I watched the beginning of the second part with the two girls with their answer, but when the host (sorry didn't catch her name) started going on for a bit... it's clear she's passionate about her view and idealistic about it, but it stopped turning from a fun "what does the man on the street say to this question" to "the host telling all of her own ideas to random strangers on the street" which was hard to watch. It seems everyone had good intentions, the host said her thoughts and the guests politely listened, but any semblance of fun or curiosity had ended by that point. As for the specifics of the host's arguments, I get they come from a certain way of seeing the world in which she sees humans as relatively harmonious and is trying to extend that to animals. Her view is internally consistent but her premise that humans are "all in this together" (1:25), let alone animals, contradicts my own experience. I already see a lot of human conflict along ethnic lines, and so to me it seems to be jumping the gun before extending a shared experience to animals.
@@alessandrorossi1294 Interesting, and i hear what you are saying but a part of this kind of out reach is raising awareness by imparting information. Elle ( the activist) asked questions to evaluate the interviewees knowledge and provided some broader context to the question. I do agree with you that our treatment of our own species is significantly less than perfect and we do still have a long way to go to sort that out. The thing is though that we, as individuals, can only really take responsibility for our own actions, and kids/dependents. We cant stop war or any form of bigotry completely by ourselves, but we can avoid contributing directly to those problems. Just as we can make the decision to no longer personally contribute to or support the industries and practices that use and exploit our fellow animals. Particularly, though by no means exclusively, our consumption three times a day. And to be clear, no, veganism is not perfect, but, unfortunately at this point in this non vegan world it is the lesser of the evils available to us, as it is impossible within the existing system to live without causing some harm. The current vegan movement is about minimising the damage we cause where we are able with a focus on ending the exploitation and use of the other animals. A central tenant of veganism is seeing beyond our differences and recognising our commonalities, the fact that what happens to each of us, non human and human alike, matters to us. So when we are talking about the strife within our own species, though not a total solution, would you agree that if as a society we were to truly recognise and respect others basic rights, irrespective of species or appearance, that the world would be a fairer place for all, including humans?
well, there are two definitions: 1. discrimination based on the specie membership 2. attributing traits of the specie to the member of the specie A smart person (even a vegan) will do both, otherwise they will be eat poison mushrooms (and many other things).
I went vegan for a year and fully quit after getting multiple deficiencies, even tho I did so much research and was following it to the best of my ability. Veganism gets very hard. But I still care about animals, and I think it’s better to lead people to seek more ethical local farms to get meat from, so they at least think to skip the meat at Walmart, and take the time to go out and thoughtfully buy it. Probably not your brand of activism, but there is definitely an over lap of farmers and animal welfare. We just have too much killing and suffering and abundance of food
I'm not a vegan and I'll probably never fully be but I'm definitely not opposed to eating vegetarian and vegan alternatives, that are often cheaper than real meat for example. And putting meat into everything is unnecessary anyways. What I'm going to say is, that when I'm buying animal products, I deliberately don't buy the ones from factory farming. Like eggs for example, I always, if I buy them (which is not often since I don't like eggs and I'd only buy them for baking), I buy the organic free-range eggs and not the ones from factory farms. I never liked how the animals are treated there, but I think small farms aren't too bad. Like, I personally know a few farms that produce milk, and there the cows aren't treated badly. Of course the male cows are sold at some point because the farmers are treated like crap by the government and can't afford to keep them too long for nothing, but they always get the milk from their mother until they can eat hay/grass. They also have like between 15 and 25 grown cows at once. And they don't use any enhancing food or something, just grass and hay. The cows also are outside everyday. I think they're having fairly good lives. I think it's definitely the wrong direction to promote large farms and take the funds away from the small ones. But that's capitalism for you...
Its good to hear when someone is not opposed to the vegan alternatives it shows openness and a willingness to think beyond some societal norms. To that point a few thoughts and questions for you as you seem to care about how your choices affect others. We have been brought up in a society where this commodification of animals and all the violence involved is so “normalised”. Have you ever really stop and think if what we are doing is ethical? I didn't, for years, was vegetarian for over twenty years before i looked into the dairy and egg industries. But animal ag and all the other ways we use animals involve taking another thinking, feeling individual, whose life and what happens to them matters to them, as it is with us, commodifying them and using them, their bodies, their lives, as we see fit. Does that honestly seem morally right to you? When people talk about finding a better way to do any of that all i can think is that even “best”case scenario for those beings their lives and deaths were decided before they were born, they had no choices, no freedom, forcibly impregnated, no cow or any other of the animals we use, can give consent, separated from their babies and when they are no further use they have their lives taken from them at a fraction of their natural life span. Are there some farms that are “better” than others? Maybe, but no matter how " humanely" the animals are treated they are still commodities, still property, livestock, living stock, subjected to a life of exploitation and robbed of their freedom and their lives, and all for things we do not need. The point is there is no ethical farming, irrespective of the size of the farm it is still animal use. There is no right way to do the wrong thing. How do we " humanely" or “respectfully” exploit, use and take the life, all they are or will ever be, from an individual who does not want or need to die? I would suggest that the world we should be working towards would be one where we do not exploit, use, breed and kill others, irrespective of their appearance and especially when we do not need to be doing any of it. Maybe some things to think about? And am happy to talk about any of the above or any other vegan related issues.
@@MBlue-sk4tr who asked? Nobody cares. Put that somewhere where it's actually related to the comment you're responding to. I don't care, eat your chicken, hope it's tasty...
@@Burner_269 yes I have thought about it. But there are a few reasons why I'm not going to be a full vegan. 1) I don't like the taste of the vegan milk alternatives. And the same with cheese alternatives. 2) my family is a bit weird when it comes to veganism or even vegetarianism. Meaning, they hate against that and complain about that "[specific dish] isn't [specific dish] if there is no meat". It's quite funny though to cook for them and put "fake meat" in without them knowing. 3) most of the restaurants where we're (my family and I) going don't really have many vegetarian let alone vegan dishes. 4) I'll always eat meat from time to time, because my country literally invented Schnitzel. I'm going to eat that like 2 or 3 times a year. If I have a vegetarian or vegan alternative that I like, I'll take that. But I'm not going to eat something I don't like. Almost all the time I cook for myself, I try to use as little animal products as possible. And as I said, when I buy animal products, I take the ones where they aren't treating them too badly. I get that it's not ideal, and I also get that the animals aren't as free as when they aren't on a farm. I also understand how they die and how the whole process is (at least on the small farms in my country, because I've been on one every summer vacation since my birth lol). I know that cows are cute and then from one year to the next, my favorite cow I could even cuddle with (outside, unrestrained), got sold. And as a child, I've watched a pig get killed once. I know how it goes. And yes, it's sad. And yes, I know it's a little bit weird/cruel that I still eat meat and animal products. But what can I say... I'm trying my best to compensate. And if I get a partner who is vegan or vegetarian, I'll be too, if someone takes me to a vegan restaurant, I'll come, I literally couldn't care less. I honestly respect vegans for their determination. I just can't be bothered right now to always cook for myself and find vegan recipes or go to the other side of the city, to a vegan restaurant. (and I'm trying to get my family to be not stupid, but you probably know how it is with fundamentalist right-wing christian nationalists, with a tendency for conspiracy theories...) Anyway, thank you for your comment. And if you have any questions or things to add, I'll be happy to respond again. (as long as youtube actually notifies me and I don't have to find your comment by getting a notification for this weird person who replied with wanting to eat chicken out of context lol)
@@wasikancb Don't get me wrong, what you are currently doing is very definitely a big step, for the animal, in the more ethical direction, but a few thoughts to consider. We don't really need milk or cheese of any variety to be healthy, and i am not saying you haven't but have you tried all the options available? There seem to be new alternatives coming out all the time, and there are things like precision fermentation taking off around the world and in particular in Europe. Unfortunately your families reaction is not unusual, not to belittle your experience, and it is quite telling that they cant tell the difference, if you look up sausage expert vegan on this platform that illustrates your point quite well. I don't know how long you have been in this sphere, and i don't want to sound patronising, but one thing i have learned is that often friends and family are the most resistant. Though it sounds like you are low key about your ethics and i obviously don't know you or your family. Just a heads up, if you were interested in sharing your thoughts with them. I don't really know your situation, and its none of my business, but Austria, from what i can see, has a pretty extensive range of vegan restaurants. Though maybe not in your area, one thing you could try is the app happy cow. Just because something was invented in our country doesn't mean that it is automatically ethical to do does it? “If I have a vegetarian or vegan alternative that I like, I'll take that. But I'm not going to eat something I don't like.” Fair enough, the thing is though those alternatives are not a necessary part of a plant exclusive diet. They can be good, bad and everything in between but many people, and i am not saying you are one of them, forget about the more simple things like beans and lentils. “Almost all the time I cook for myself, I try to use as little animal products as possible. And as I said, when I buy animal products, I take the ones where they aren't treating them too badly.” You genuinely sound like a compassionate person but the test that i think is always worth running around situations like this is to ask ourselves this simple question, “would i want to be in the position the animal is in?” “I know how it goes. And yes, it's sad. And yes, I know it's a little bit weird/cruel that I still eat meat and animal products. But what can I say... I'm trying my best to compensate.” At the risk of being blunt, but i would say, and maybe this sounds a bit cliche, when we know better we should do better. I am in no way claiming to be perfect, not by a long shot, but in this case which does involve such needless horrors even a lazy person such as myself has no real excuse and i am embarrassed that it took me as long as it did to recognise that. Not calling you lazy, by the way, just reflecting on my own many failures. We can't change our past, much as I wish with all my heart, for my part that we could, but we can make better informed ethical decisions going forward. “(and I'm trying to get my family to be not stupid, but you probably know how it is with fundamentalist right-wing christian nationalists, with a tendency for conspiracy theories...)” As i mentioned above, families are usually a tough sell, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try but something to be aware of. Sounds like you do have your work cut out for you though, and i honestly wish you the very best of luck with that. ‘Anyway, thank you for your comment. And if you have any questions or things to add, I'll be happy to respond again. (as long as youtube actually notifies me and I don't have to find your comment by getting a notification for this weird person who replied with wanting to eat chicken out of context lol)’ Thank you, it is rare to find someone interested in a polite and intelligent conversation in these kinds of comments sections. The odd random troll comments just don't make any sense to me, what are they actually hoping to achieve? All they do is boost the algorithm, just strange. And likewise any thoughts or questions are welcome.
How is a vegan drawing the line for what types of "speciesism" matters at the kingdom Animalia different from a meat eater drawing the line at, say, great apes, or based on traits like tool use or social structure? Preferential treatment based on species is unavoidable.
“Preferential treatment based on species is unavoidable.” I absolutely agree, species bias is and will always be present and that is why having a clear and easily defined line for moral consideration is so important. “How is a vegan drawing the line for what types of "speciesism" matters at the kingdom Animalia different from a meat eater drawing the line at, say, great apes, or based on traits like tool use or social structure?” Things can get pretty murky trying draw a line like tool use. “Tool use is when an organism uses an external object to alter another object, surface, or organism. The tool is manipulated to produce a desired effect.” “pigs are known to decorate their homes with flowers and branches” And “Pigs are seen using tools for the first time in Paris, France. When Priscilla the Visayan warty pig started using sticks or pieces of bark to move dirt around her home at the Jardin des Plantes in France, scientist Meredith Root-Bernstein was amazed.” Cows use tools to preen “Kilgour will tell the Australasian Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour conference in Sydney this week that this deliberate choice of different kinds of objects suggests they are being used as tools. He says this is a bold suggestion because the definition of tool use conventionally relies on an ability to hold and manipulate objects. "These are animals that can't pick things up and manipulate them, but nonetheless they are making decisions about what they are going to use to groom their bodies," he says.” Current Biology Animal Tool-Use "Such remarkable behaviour is not the sole preserve of primates or even mammals: some of the most impressive non-human tools are made by New Caledonian crows, a member of the Corvidea, a large-brained family of birds." And what would be the rational for the great apes delineation? Or social structure for that matter? That is why sentience is that clear line Sentience is the sound bases for moral status because what happens to a sentient individual matters to them and by extension, potentially, those they have emotional connections with. This is, fundamentally, the the reason why we treat others with respect and veganism is simply an extension of that current sphere of moral consideration.
@@Burner_269 As far as I'm aware, there's no consensus about what qualifies an entity "sentient". We'd need to know what causes consciousness in order to say that lifeforms of other kindgoms or even inorganic matter doesn't meet that criteria. Otherwise we'd be priviledging sentience that looks like our own over types. Whether we prioritize humans or beings we understand to be sentient, all we're really doing is deciding whether a material construct is enough "like us" to avoid eating. I see cows and pigs as being too in line with personhood values like intelligence and sociability to eat them regularly. They act too much like humans, by having multidimensional personalities that differ between individuals- they can build relationships over time, trust or be affectionate toward one individual but fear or bully another, they nurture their young or in-group and express emotion in ways recognizable to humans. I can't have the same emotional connections with them as I do humans, but they're still a bit too close for comfort. If you see too much personhood/traits you value in fish or birds or even insects, then it makes sense to feel uncomfortable supporting an industry that hurts them. But your line isn't really any more convincing than anyone else's, it's still just drawn wherever you personally feel comfortable. Sentience as the observed trait that we should privilege is even less useful than tool use or sociality, since we don't know whether it even CAN be observed and don't quite know what we mean when we say it.
@@coreopsis6163 “As far as I'm aware, there's no consensus about what qualifies an entity "sentient".” Well, you did ask for this, a bit of reading…. While is is true that their are differing views on it sentience and consciousness are often used interchangeably. However, if you need to know the general scientific consensus on consciousness/sentience? The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness is a good place to start. For a brief overview We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.” There is this as well. Animals to be formally recognised as sentient beings in domestic law Introduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill as part of the Government's Action Plan for Animal Welfare "Vertebrate animals will be recognised as sentient beings for the first time in UK law thanks to the introduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, introduced in Parliament today." "Formally recognising in law that animals are sentient and experience feelings in the same way humans do is just the first step in our flagship Action Plan for Animal Welfare which will further transform the lives of animals in this country and strengthen our position as a global leader." And “The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was introduced to Parliament by the Government of the United Kingdom at the 2021 State Opening of Parliament.The act recognises animal sentience in law for the first time.The scope of the legislation includes all vertebrates and some invertebrates such as octopuses and lobsters”. And in the middle of the Research Briefing, this which is odd……. From the Research Briefing of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill “It is not necessary to define sentience in statute for the Bill to work. We all recognise that animals are sentient. Accordingly, their welfare needs should be properly considered in government policy-making. There is no need to make it more complicated than that.” It is true that this bill does only affect the UK, however, and yes it is from the wiki, but you get the point. "As of November 2019, 32 countries have formally recognized non-human animal sentience. These are: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. It has been proposed that the United Nations (UN) pass the first resolution recognizing animal rights, the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, which acknowledges the importance of the sentience of animals and human responsibilities towards them" So it is not really opinion or conjecture it seems to be pretty widely agreed on, Animals are sentient beings, though as you say as far as a globally agreed on definition is difficult to nail down. However most do cover very similar concepts. There are not a huge amount of things i tend to agree with the UK government on but this part of the sentiment i do, we all recognise that animals are sentient. There is no need to make it more complicated than that.” All of that said, the following definition is the one i tend to use, i think it covers the most basic attributes . From: Neuroscience, 2022 Sentience “Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, to have affective consciousness, subjective states that have a positive or negative valence.” “Affective consciousness” is the ability to perceive, tolerate, reflect on, and express one's emotions. It's also known as affect integration. “Affect integration” is defined as the capacity to comprehend emotional experiences as meaningful and to convert this knowledge into well-adjusted motivation, communication and behavior “Subjective states that have a positive or negative valence” are mental states that are pleasurable or disagreeable, respectively. “We'd need to know what causes consciousness in order to say that lifeforms of other kindgoms or even inorganic matter doesn't meet that criteria. Otherwise we'd be priviledging sentience that looks like our own over types.” I understand what you are saying and yes we do have to be aware of our biases but, i would argue that at this point we still do need to base our decisions in accepted/understood science rather than conjecture. To that point as far as i understand sentience/consciousness does require certain biological structures, as referenced in the CDOC. “Whether we prioritize humans or beings we understand to be sentient, all we're really doing is deciding whether a material construct is enough "like us" to avoid eating.” I would say it is the fact that there is a “who” in there, not the external appearance that has moral relevance. “I see cows and pigs as being too in line with personhood values like intelligence and sociability to eat them regularly. They act too much like humans, by having multidimensional personalities that differ between individuals- they can build relationships over time, trust or be affectionate toward one individual but fear or bully another, they nurture their young or in-group and express emotion in ways recognizable to humans. I can't have the same emotional connections with them as I do humans, but they're still a bit too close for comfort.” Agreed, apart from the eating part, obviously that comes under the very hard no category, and the closer we look the more we have in common with an ever increasing percentage of the other animals. Again what is the unifying factor that ties all of that together? The fact that there is a subject in there experiencing, what happens to them, and by extension to those around them, matters to them, a consciousness, sentience. If that is not there what does it matter what happens to what ever it is? “If you see too much personhood/traits you value in fish or birds or even insects, then it makes sense to feel uncomfortable supporting an industry that hurts them. But your line isn't really any more convincing than anyone else's, it's still just drawn wherever you personally feel comfortable.” Ironically, it is not about me feeling comfortable, its is about them being uncomfortable. Yes, we are the ones making up the rules and enforcing them but because we have that ability and the understanding i would say we have the obligation to think beyond ourselves. And that is the whole point, Sure, i gain some small degree of relief from the fact that i am no longer paying for those particular atrocities, at the same time being very cognizant of the fact that i am still doing harm in the world, but it is not about me. Its about them and what they want. To quote Donald Watson, one of the founding members of the vegan society from a publication in 1946. “Admit that the strong have the right to exploit the weak, and the basis of civilized society is gone.” “Sentience as the observed trait that we should privilege is even less useful than tool use or sociality, since we don't know whether it even CAN be observed and don't quite know what we mean when we say it.” While you may not be able to quantify it all, It is a very clear line when that veil is lifted, when we truly see them for who they are, and it is that fact, that they are a “who” that is important. You seem like an intelligent person and we can go back and forth about what we feel is the relevant skill or attribute but they will always be arbitrary, but just going off the simple definition i have given you we can draw that line and i have explained the reason for it. Can you honestly say that you can look into any of their eyes and tell me that it is not blazingly obvious that they want to live?
Again with the veganism is expensive, one joint of meat or big block of cheese costs as much as a whole bag full of fruit, legumes, grains and veg products.
Quality vegan food, regular food, or even water is more expensive than cheap junk with questionable origins. We can't be moral if we starve in the process.
@@busterbeast999 'Quality' vegan food? You can get a big bag of lentils, beans, pasta, corn, rice, oats, you can get fruit like bananas, apples, tomatoes, you can get potatoes, carrots, cauliflour, cabbage ... all for next to nothing. If everyone ate these things there would be no starving anywhere.
@@busterbeast999 Its called a supermarket, you can get 1kg of lentils or beans or oats or rice or pasta for about £2, probably get it even cheaper if you got to a indian market store.
Vegan chicken breast 🙄 this is the problem with vegan cuisine, people have to force to make up fake food that reminds of animal products. Which is absolutely pointless, mediterranean cuisine has always been full of vegan dishes before it became a lifestyle, rich with veg and legumes dishes which are delicious. People should just learn how to cook and read more, instead of buying "vegan chicken breast"
@vegangaze of course they can, don't get me wrong my post is not against eating vegan dishes. As a chef, I love cooking anything, vegan dishes included. And I love some dishes like zuppa del casale (is a cereals and legumes soup), minestrone, different kind of pesto, hummus and babaganoush and so on. What I don't like is fake things like vegan chicken breast, vegan bacon, why eating something that has to remind of an animal product? This is stuff that as a chef I refuse to cook or to buy, I'm just saying that if people had a bit of interest in reading about different cuisines (here in UK there is a lack of food culture) and willing to learn how to cook, they'd realise that they don't need this cheap fake products and they could easily enjoy a flavourful, healthy great meal
I understand that but it's not fake. 'meat' is so removed from the animal to begin with, it's replicating what is considered a product, even though we know it to not actually be. They're turned into chunks and those chunks are replicated. Don't get me wrong, it weirds me out when something has things like veins and skin added to bring it closer to an animal, but I'm just glad these alternatives exist that can steer people in the other direction who wouldn't be so morally driven
@@vegangazewouldn't be better to eat veges and legumes as they are? Since I live in UK I noticed that people have to be "educated" to eat vegan, while where I'm from I always had vegan dishes through my childhood cause are part of our diet as well as meat and fish. A plate of pasta with lentils still look more appealing to me than a beyond burger, I just don't see why some people need this kind of product to eat vegetables, rather than learning how to cook vegan dishes that are always been part of our diet. So yes, they still look fake to me, because someone had to manipulate vegetables to look and taste like a meat product, just because someone else was too skeptical to understand that veges are delicious as they are
I am truly not against being vegan, but is there not some special condition we are placing on humans compared to all other omni/carnivores? We are still destroying and eating plants, but they are different than cows and birds right? Why are humans so special as to force ourselves to be herbivores only? Do we not have a long storied history of being omnivores? Would vegans be ok with the killing of the types of animals they deem unacceptable (not plants) if we did it more like we did before factory farming? Further, to really lean in, why are plants ok to eat? Have we not learned enough about plants to deem them as 'living' with an experience of their own?
@@Lilah-Violet Are we animals? As an animal are we herbivores, omnivores or carnivores? Saying we have the choice to do something that goes against our nature does not explain why you think we should do it. But I am also willing to debate/learn whether we are, by nature, omnivores. There are obviously two parts to this. The way we currently treat the animals we eat and take resources from is horrific and abysmal. From this lens we absolutely should reduce and make efforts to stop this, thus eating vegan is an excellent approach. But I am also interested in the more philosophical nature of the question. I understand if you do not want to engage in this level of the subject.
@lilcaps The definition is adult human female. It's very easy to understand. It's a good definition because that's what it means. That's what 99% of the world understood it to mean until recently when a group of anti women's rights extremists stole it so that male rapists could be placed in women's prisons to have access to more women to rape. It's also a good definition because that group of people needs and deserves a word exclusively to describe themselves. Why do you see them as so subhuman they don't deserve that right? Would you redefine "black" to include white people in blackface? No? But it's more inclusive. Why do you hate transracial people??
Wouldn't vegans be "speciesist" against plants and all the other species they eat? I'm pretty sure anything that eats any organic material is speciesist, myself included. Perhaps the only real way to not be speciesist would be cannibalism? Or starvation I guess. I'll stick to speciesism I think.
Speciesism is about finding arbitrairy distinctions between species and using them to justify disreguarding individuals' well being, allowing for their individuality to not be considered. The ability to feel pain, complex emotions, and suffering are not arbitrary.
@rubylove1474 I absolutely agree that pain and suffering are not arbitrary, I completely oppose capitalist cost-cutting measures just so that certain rich people can get richer by compromising on the pain and suffering of animals before their deaths. There's no way they can't keep them in conditions that don't cause pain and suffering, and kill them with negligible or no pain and suffering, without going out of business. As for self-awareness, I think there are degrees of that between species, and even across the lifespan of the same individual, whether human or not. Is that an arbitrary distinction? I don't believe many species can count that well, and don't notice others going missing beyond a certain point, so I don't see issue with less self-aware animals being kept and slaughtered if it's painless and causes no distress to the living. I see this issue as not too far from euthanasia and abortion rights, which I also support.
@@Nyghl0I appreciate your acknowlegment that the animal agriculture system as-is isn't benificial and is causing an immense amount of suffering. I completely understand and acknowlege that different species have different levels of self-awareness, even humans at different stages of life. I don't consider that to be an arbitrary distinction, in general, at all, and I do think it's an important thing to recognize. However, not being fully aware of the situation you're in does not make you less affected by it, and in some cases it can even make the experiences significantly worse. When I think about the times I was the most scared, the most hurt, the most traumatized, I wasn't fully aware of what was happening to me, but these experiences have, and still do, cause me a lot of pain. The complete removal of autonomy from the individual is an intrinsic part of how animal agriculture continues to exist, but even if we were to create some "perfected, humane" version of animal farming while they were somehow allowed to have good, happy, satisfied lives, we would still be killing them far earlier than their natural life spans could allow. Euthanasia is not the same thing, because it is done to prevent further suffering of the individual. If you kill someone who's having a horrible life with nothing going for them, you could argue it a mercy (assuming you couln't just help them have a better life), but if you kill someone with a great life, in a sense, you're taking more away from them. Cows, for example, are extremely maternal and will often cry out for days when their babies are ripped away from them. If they were allowed to grow up in peace with each other, you'd be ripping apart a family. The more you give them, the more is taken away once they die. The fact that they won't understand what's happening doesn't mean they won't feel that loss and that pain. All in all, I think the most imortant thing is to consider these types of issues from the individual's perspective, and I believe the fact that you're searching for ways to make things better at all is huge. As a fellow anti-capitalist, I think that is really really important, for this issue and for others as well. I genuinely wish you the best, and I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
@@MBlue-sk4trDo you... realize what you're actually saying with that comment? Do you just want to piss people off? Do you think vegans are just assholes who want to push people around for the heck of it because we want you to do what we tell you? I bet saying that makes you feel better. It makes you feel like you're "fighting back" against "vegan suppression" of "free will." It's probably funny to you. You probably feel like you're picking on the big meanies who think they can dictate what everyone else can and cannot do. You fail to recognize something in all that, though. You fail to recognize that we don't want to limit freedom or make anyone's lives needlessly harder. We want others to be happy, healthy, and safe. We see a world where billions of individuals, children, who are capable of experiencing a wide range of emotions similar to us humans are living lives without autonomy filled with suffering. We see children ripped away from their mothers. We see children thrown in gas chambers. We see children get their throats slit. We see children locked in cages so small they can't turn around. We see children have their body parts and teeth cut out. We see newborns macerated and gassed. We see children be dragged through baths of electrified water. We see children hit, kicked, and thrown. We see children baught and sold like items. We see children raped. We see children who never get the chance to be adults. We see children chopped up and sold for the enjoyment of loved ones. We see all this, and we are horrified. I am horrified. It's not about whose to blame. It's never been about that. It's about the victims. It's about what we can do to help. We do not ask you to consider the impact you have in supporting these cruel industries because we want you to have to do what we tell you. We ask you because what you do makes a difference. What you buy is your vote. You have the power to defend those less capable with your voice and your votes. Veganism has nothing to do with "superiority" or being "better" than others. It is about standing up and refusing to support cruel and inhumane treatment. All flaunting your chicken flesh does is show us how conditioned you are to ignore the suffering all around you.
It's a word created by a vegan for vegans and is not in the vocabulary of non-vegans, just like carnism, name the trait and necrovore are irrelevant to us.
Interesting: surely what you're describing is Human Supremacy and essentially cruelty. Speciesism would mean a hatred or bias against specific species. For example dogs are better than pigs which clearly is nonsense. Language is fun to unravel. Just to add: I'm not vegan because of the cost. Dah! Maybe check out Gary Yorofskies's Four Excuses and cost isn't one if them.
@@Meathead-10810 So … same attitude and arguments people used against the Abolitionists and the Suffragettes then? Got it. Q. What does James McMurdock say to a woman with two black eyes? A. Nothing he hasn't said twice already. NUr hur HuR!
@@Meathead-10810 Well vegans are morally superior to those who purposely cause animal suffering and death. Keep eating all that fat and the problem will sort itself out.
@FreddieAl Arße-wipe Andrews! If all you're good is name calling, name calling is ALL you'll ever be good at. What quotes actually PROMOTE eating animals Freddo? 🌹
What a good idea for activism, Elle! You are a great activist and you have very good rappour with people. Always enjoy watching you outreach 💚
💜
I saw some of your live chat yesterday, do you ever stop whining? No wonder you're in therapy.
Ye, I also thought that -, +'ve incentive etc
@@FreddieAl Don't be an A- hole.
That's really low.
Everyone has to go through some kind of therapy be it a Psychologist, Doctor, Sports coach, friend, family member.
C'mon don't be low down like that. You wouldn't want to be treated that way would you.
@@FreddieAl haha… please tell us more about your bigoted views
That's such a great idea for activism
This is such brilliant activism! Love how she creates genuine interest and engagement through the prize element, while keeping the focus on the animals. It's refreshing to see such a friendly, inviting approach that gets people genuinely curious to learn about speciesism. No pressure or judgment - just open conversation and education. This is exactly the kind of positive outreach that opens minds and hearts. 🌱
Like it.
Never seen your outreach before but like your manners & the fact you use recommendations.
Might use a bit of this approach on Saturday - Thanks, thanks , & FANKS.
@@morejoy5188
祝你好运！
😋❤️🌹
I’ll be having Popeyes chicken again for lunch today. I hope they don’t forgot the honey sauce.
"If you can't define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity."
- Robert M. Pirsig (Zen and the art…&c.).
❤.
Always appreciate your philosophical quotes and insights 🙏🏼
@OneEarthNationV
Oh thank you.
I was born a show off.
At least these days I get to put it to some sort of use.
Thanks One Earth.
😋😄😁
Another copied quote from Percy the pointless pillock.
@@FreddieAl I can't define pillock so I must be stupid. I can't define gravity either but if I drop an anvil on my toe, I know it exists. And I'm stupid.😁
@rogermccaslin5963
Bye
The year of outreach😎
You said you were looking for good slogans to write for a sign or good framing to get people to respond to outreach. This one definitely works! I hope you didn't have to wait hours for people to talk to you :)
Got about 2-3 an hour! So that's not bad at all
@@vegangazenot bad ye.
My very 1st outreach we went to the local Uni asking people if they could define speciesism.
Love the different approaches of outreach!
Yeah it seems to work very well!
What did you say in response as a quick fire definition?
@@vegangaze then it was just asking a series of questions then leaving them with some information.
I guess the idea was let people look into it themselves rather than getting into what it was. I moved to AV cubes shortly afterwards.
If I did it differently for sure I would have talked ethics and maybe asked them to provide examples of speciesism (maybe we did I can’t remember)
Why would non-vegans define a word made up by a vegan, irrelevant
Great outreach 💯💯💯
An interesting approach! 💚
Amazing Elle , you have a very approachable manner with people ♥️ watching your activism is super inspiring (also I LOVE your graphic design of “Vegan Gaze” I would 💯 rock that on a tshirt if you ever made them!
Thank you so much ☺️ and T-shirts may be a thing 👀 mugs first tho!
Breaks my heart that so many folks will be vocally against the other bad -isms, but shrug at the thought of speciesism -- and how many more cant even define it/haven't even heard of it. Keep doing what you do. ✊🏽
For better or worse, humans are the most dominant species on earth. And issues between people have disaterous consequences that should be settled. Some consequences that cause damage to the planet and its inhabitants, human or other. When you have people that find humans of other skin colors, cultures, sexualities or disabilities as a species different than their own, you won't get very far getting them to stop buying leather. This isn't to say issues you find important aren't. Not everyone is mindful or considerate of all issues at once, and I personally, can't put blame on people who don't take it as seriously.
Really cool outreach, thank you for sharing :) Might try this one out myself!
That’ll be sick!
These would make good ones too:
Vystopia
Veganphobia
Intersectionality
Awesome activism ❤
Ooohh I love the spooky metel/gothic logo desgin at the end of the video, so sick!
Thank you it's the new logo!
Excellent approach! I will certainly give this a try
And in the background…
"I got you Babe."
I knew I recognised it.
☺️
If I come to London could I do some editing / recording for you on the downlow?
I feel like vegans need to stop arguing about the morality of treating animals better. There are other reasons meat and other animal products are bad, namely that they're a lot more inefficient to produce and cause worse environmental problems. If someone doesn't care about what happens to a pig then you yelling at them wont change their opinion, but people are going to be a lot more receptive to the fact that their children or grandchildren might live in a world with even worse effects of climate change if they continue to use animal products. We should be encouraging real scientific fact rather than meaningless appeal to emotion.
The ethical and moral stance we take is the only way to be vegan. Look up the definition of veganism.
Also at what point was she yelling at anyone? She’s very politely discussing the moral and ethical implications of the way we view and treat animals.
Cheese is as addictive as heroin. It was the last animal product I weaned myself off, as a former 'cheese addict', now 13 years vegan.
13 years wow😮😊 thank you 😊🙏💚🫂🐥
@@OneEarthNationV
Oh not just me then?
😌
@@NathanBlackberry It will mean more to me when I have been vegan for longer than I was not vegan, so another 13 years I will celebrate if I make it to that age (51).
@@PercivalBlakeney It's cool we share that in common! 😁🥗
@@OneEarthNationV
True, but as with any addiction, it's a shame it took so long to d×mned long to quit.
No matter, it's one less "monkey on my back".
😉
is it human supremacy?
"Whilst we're doing what we're doing to the animals, we're guaranteed to be doing those same things to each other."
- St. Francis.
❤️
@@PercivalBlakeney if humans are cruel to animals, they are likely to also be cruel to other humans,
@@PigsDream
Steven Barker… case in point.
🥺
I’ll be having Popeyes chicken again for lunch today. I hope they don’t forgot the honey sauce.
The fact that we can make a morality-based decision whether or not to eat meat instead of just following our instinct is, funnily enough, one of the things that puts us above animals hierarchically: but that dominion has a flipside: we ought to take good care of the animals we shepherd.
Very good prompt!
Speciesism, name the trait, carnist, necrovore all words made up by vegturds and totally meaningless to non-vegans.
I know what it is but even I find it hard to say in words. I usually say, value one species over another. Of course, most humans are practising speciesism all the time :(
"I can't even say it, how-imma gunna even define it??"
🤪
You won't know until you try.
😋
👋
You beat me to this comment 😂
@@LouisGedo
…and of course…
Hiya Louis!!!
😁😁😁🌹❤️
@martinkevin4827
😆 🤣 😂
tooshehy 😉
Subbed.
Great outreach Ms Gaze, well done ❤
It's a Ms? I thought it was a bin man.
Great work!😊😊😊
Let's end speciesism🙏💚🫂🐮🐷🐔🐇🐟🐝❤️❤️❤️🙏🐥
I've been vegan a couple times 🙄🙄🙄 what
@@angelafuller8746
"Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it hundreds of times."
- W. C. Fields.
❤️
I wouldn't go too hard on people like that.
Remember, they're a bit different to the famous celebrities who make a meal (pardon the pun) out of doing the "I'm no longer Vegan " videos.
That's completely inexcusable because they influence others to give up being Vegan.
Was he ever Vegan - IMO that's debatable.
Should he get his act together - god course he should.
Two times failing= 2 times too many.
That said, we need to bring failure cases back over into the light rather than Exile them into the darkness.
Any thoughts?
@@PercivalBlakeney Ye.
Bit different from addiction really but we don't live in a Vegan world & that's probably what makes it difficult.
Social pressures to quit being Vegan is at an ALL time high right now as the Animal Agriculture industry shits its pants at the growing number of Vegans.
Even here in Taiwan we're stirring up trouble!
@@morejoy5188
Well…
Speaking as what I can reasonably describe as a recovering alcoholic and former smoker, I've never heard ANY justification against Veganism that didn't sound almost exactly like the justifications I'd make to myself for carrying on drinking and smoking.
I spent eighteen years knowing I had to go Vegan … just like I knew I had to quit cigarettes and alcohol.
I just carried on doing the same dumb thing over and over.
No matter.
Got there in the end.
🌹
@@PercivalBlakeneywell done, i did it the other way - quitting meat helped me figuring out how to quit smoking
Vegan donut. We are made to eat animals bro. And it's out preference abt what we it. U do what we want, u do what u want, we all can be chill
“We are made to eat animals bro.”
Yes, we have the physical ability to do so, but just because we can do something does that automatically make it moral to do it?
“And it's out preference abt what we it. U do what we want, u do what u want, we all can be chill”
The question i would ask you though is why do human wants and preferences, meaning there is another choice, for things we do not need outweigh the other animals entire existence, every thing they are or could ever be?
In the case of eating, 15 - 20 minutes of taste pleasure vs another thinking, feeling beings life.
And if you do consume animal products it is not just the killing of them, though that alone cannot be justified, it is supporting the entire violent, brutal process involved to get them to your plate. It is absolutely guaranteed, in fact it is required, that they will have involved the exploitation, use, abuse, mutilation and or killing of these individuals. And all for things we do not need.
How can we legitimately even attempt to justify that when we do have other choices?
We can't force anyone to do anything, that's the point we would prefer to not have to restrict anyone’s options, we want people to recognise that their choices have negative consequences for others and change their behaviour, not because they are being told to, but because they understand it is the right thing to do.
All we are asking you to do on behalf of these victims is to think about it from their perspective and just choose something else.
@@Burner_269 they dont have perspective, they are non sentient animals. stop trying to force your beliefs on other people. you need to do better
@Gamingvirus909
“they dont have perspective, they are non sentient animals.”
The vast majority of animals, and most definitely the ones we farm, with the possible exception of shellfish, are conscious, thinking and feeling individuals and are having subjective experiences. This is something that becomes very apparent through simple observation and inductive reasoning, which is something you will have experienced if you have ever been around any animals.
And no, it's not about anthropomorphism, quite the opposite, it's about trying to avoid anthropocentrism. The subjective experience, an individual in there, is not exclusive to humans nor by extension of that fact is having emotions, desires and connections with others. However, if you need to know the general scientific consensus The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness is a good place to start.
For a brief overview
Five years of the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.
From: Neuroscience, 2022
Sentience
Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, to have affective consciousness, subjective states that have a positive or negative valence.
Non-human animal sentience has been widely recognized throughout the scientific community for generations.
Animals to be formally recognised as sentient beings in domestic law
Introduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill as part of the Government's Action Plan for Animal Welfare
"Vertebrate animals will be recognised as sentient beings for the first time in UK law thanks to the introduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, introduced in Parliament today."
"Formally recognising in law that animals are sentient and experience feelings in the same way humans do is just the first step in our flagship Action Plan for Animal Welfare which will further transform the lives of animals in this country and strengthen our position as a global leader."
And
“The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was introduced to Parliament by the Government of the United Kingdom at the 2021 State Opening of Parliament.The act recognises animal sentience in law for the first time.The scope of the legislation includes all vertebrates and some invertebrates such as octopuses and lobsters”.
From the Research Briefing of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill
“It is not necessary to define sentience in statute for the Bill to work. We all
recognise that animals are sentient. Accordingly, their welfare needs should
be properly considered in government policy-making. There is no need to make
it more complicated than that.”
“stop trying to force your beliefs on other people. you need to do better”
If you stop and really think about it, whose choices actually involve forcing others?
Farmed animals are forced to become pregnant, their babies in many cases are forcibly separated from them, they are forced into constrained and detrimental living situations, forced onto a truck and then finally all having their lives, the only thing they have, violently taken from them, by force.
So, to repeat, we can't force anyone to do anything, that's the point we would prefer to not have to restrict anyone’s options, we want people to recognise that their choices have negative consequences for others and change their behaviour, not because they are being told to, but because they understand it is the right thing to do.
My way of doing better is having polite conversations about this crucial and disturbing issue.
And all we are asking you to do on behalf of these victims is to think about it from their perspective and just choose something else.
@Gamingvirus909mate I'm with you about eating (I'm not vegan and I'll never be), but many animals are sentient and have feelings, all of the smartest one like apes, crows, magpies, cetaceans and many more. Respecting and eating are 2 different things, and we should be able to eat without abusing them
@@dadish90
Yep, you are right on with that, the ones you listed and i would add the majority of others beyond that, and as i said, most definitely the ones we farm, with the possible exception of shellfish, are sentient.
I am genuinely interested, you acknowledge that they are sentient, yet are very clear about the fact that you are not vegan and never will be, how do you then assign moral worth? How do you with the knowledge that they are sentient, thinking and feeling, support or partake directly in what is being done to them?
It is not so much the eating, though i do personally find that disrespectful, but how do we, without abusing them, “respectfully” exploit, use and take the life, all they are or will ever be, from an individual who does not want or need to die?
TH-cam recommended this to me and I have no idea why, I have never watched vegan nor even animal related content before.
Did you watch it?
If so what did you think?
@@Burner_269 I watched the first part with the guy in the denim jacket entirely, and then I watched the beginning of the second part with the two girls with their answer, but when the host (sorry didn't catch her name) started going on for a bit... it's clear she's passionate about her view and idealistic about it, but it stopped turning from a fun "what does the man on the street say to this question" to "the host telling all of her own ideas to random strangers on the street" which was hard to watch. It seems everyone had good intentions, the host said her thoughts and the guests politely listened, but any semblance of fun or curiosity had ended by that point.
As for the specifics of the host's arguments, I get they come from a certain way of seeing the world in which she sees humans as relatively harmonious and is trying to extend that to animals. Her view is internally consistent but her premise that humans are "all in this together" (1:25), let alone animals, contradicts my own experience. I already see a lot of human conflict along ethnic lines, and so to me it seems to be jumping the gun before extending a shared experience to animals.
@@alessandrorossi1294
Interesting, and i hear what you are saying but a part of this kind of out reach is raising awareness by imparting information. Elle ( the activist) asked questions to evaluate the interviewees knowledge and provided some broader context to the question.
I do agree with you that our treatment of our own species is significantly less than perfect and we do still have a long way to go to sort that out. The thing is though that we, as individuals, can only really take responsibility for our own actions, and kids/dependents. We cant stop war or any form of bigotry completely by ourselves, but we can avoid contributing directly to those problems. Just as we can make the decision to no longer personally contribute to or support the industries and practices that use and exploit our fellow animals. Particularly, though by no means exclusively, our consumption three times a day.
And to be clear, no, veganism is not perfect, but, unfortunately at this point in this non vegan world it is the lesser of the evils available to us, as it is impossible within the existing system to live without causing some harm. The current vegan movement is about minimising the damage we cause where we are able with a focus on ending the exploitation and use of the other animals.
A central tenant of veganism is seeing beyond our differences and recognising our commonalities, the fact that what happens to each of us, non human and human alike, matters to us.
So when we are talking about the strife within our own species, though not a total solution, would you agree that if as a society we were to truly recognise and respect others basic rights, irrespective of species or appearance, that the world would be a fairer place for all, including humans?
well, there are two definitions:
1. discrimination based on the specie membership
2. attributing traits of the specie to the member of the specie
A smart person (even a vegan) will do both, otherwise they will be eat poison mushrooms (and many other things).
well done as always 👍
Thanks again!
Love it
I knew it was gonna be speciesism as soon as I clicked on the video lol
Nicely done.
I went vegan for a year and fully quit after getting multiple deficiencies, even tho I did so much research and was following it to the best of my ability. Veganism gets very hard. But I still care about animals, and I think it’s better to lead people to seek more ethical local farms to get meat from, so they at least think to skip the meat at Walmart, and take the time to go out and thoughtfully buy it. Probably not your brand of activism, but there is definitely an over lap of farmers and animal welfare. We just have too much killing and suffering and abundance of food
I'm not a vegan myself, but I did learn of the word because of the vegan teacher song.... unfortunately.....
I'm not a vegan and I'll probably never fully be but I'm definitely not opposed to eating vegetarian and vegan alternatives, that are often cheaper than real meat for example. And putting meat into everything is unnecessary anyways.
What I'm going to say is, that when I'm buying animal products, I deliberately don't buy the ones from factory farming. Like eggs for example, I always, if I buy them (which is not often since I don't like eggs and I'd only buy them for baking), I buy the organic free-range eggs and not the ones from factory farms. I never liked how the animals are treated there, but I think small farms aren't too bad. Like, I personally know a few farms that produce milk, and there the cows aren't treated badly. Of course the male cows are sold at some point because the farmers are treated like crap by the government and can't afford to keep them too long for nothing, but they always get the milk from their mother until they can eat hay/grass. They also have like between 15 and 25 grown cows at once. And they don't use any enhancing food or something, just grass and hay. The cows also are outside everyday. I think they're having fairly good lives.
I think it's definitely the wrong direction to promote large farms and take the funds away from the small ones. But that's capitalism for you...
Its good to hear when someone is not opposed to the vegan alternatives it shows openness and a willingness to think beyond some societal norms.
To that point a few thoughts and questions for you as you seem to care about how your choices affect others.
We have been brought up in a society where this commodification of animals and all the violence involved is so “normalised”. Have you ever really stop and think if what we are doing is ethical? I didn't, for years, was vegetarian for over twenty years before i looked into the dairy and egg industries.
But animal ag and all the other ways we use animals involve taking another thinking, feeling individual, whose life and what happens to them matters to them, as it is with us, commodifying them and using them, their bodies, their lives, as we see fit.
Does that honestly seem morally right to you?
When people talk about finding a better way to do any of that all i can think is that even “best”case scenario for those beings their lives and deaths were decided before they were born, they had no choices, no freedom, forcibly impregnated, no cow or any other of the animals we use, can give consent, separated from their babies and when they are no further use they have their lives taken from them at a fraction of their natural life span.
Are there some farms that are “better” than others? Maybe, but no matter how " humanely" the animals are treated they are still commodities, still property, livestock, living stock, subjected to a life of exploitation and robbed of their freedom and their lives, and all for things we do not need.
The point is there is no ethical farming, irrespective of the size of the farm it is still animal use. There is no right way to do the wrong thing.
How do we " humanely" or “respectfully” exploit, use and take the life, all they are or will ever be, from an individual who does not want or need to die?
I would suggest that the world we should be working towards would be one where we do not exploit, use, breed and kill others, irrespective of their appearance and especially when we do not need to be doing any of it.
Maybe some things to think about? And am happy to talk about any of the above or any other vegan related issues.
I’ll be having Popeyes chicken again for lunch today. I hope they don’t forgot the honey sauce.
@@MBlue-sk4tr who asked? Nobody cares. Put that somewhere where it's actually related to the comment you're responding to.
I don't care, eat your chicken, hope it's tasty...
@@Burner_269 yes I have thought about it. But there are a few reasons why I'm not going to be a full vegan.
1) I don't like the taste of the vegan milk alternatives. And the same with cheese alternatives.
2) my family is a bit weird when it comes to veganism or even vegetarianism. Meaning, they hate against that and complain about that "[specific dish] isn't [specific dish] if there is no meat". It's quite funny though to cook for them and put "fake meat" in without them knowing.
3) most of the restaurants where we're (my family and I) going don't really have many vegetarian let alone vegan dishes.
4) I'll always eat meat from time to time, because my country literally invented Schnitzel. I'm going to eat that like 2 or 3 times a year.
If I have a vegetarian or vegan alternative that I like, I'll take that. But I'm not going to eat something I don't like.
Almost all the time I cook for myself, I try to use as little animal products as possible.
And as I said, when I buy animal products, I take the ones where they aren't treating them too badly.
I get that it's not ideal, and I also get that the animals aren't as free as when they aren't on a farm. I also understand how they die and how the whole process is (at least on the small farms in my country, because I've been on one every summer vacation since my birth lol). I know that cows are cute and then from one year to the next, my favorite cow I could even cuddle with (outside, unrestrained), got sold.
And as a child, I've watched a pig get killed once.
I know how it goes. And yes, it's sad. And yes, I know it's a little bit weird/cruel that I still eat meat and animal products. But what can I say... I'm trying my best to compensate. And if I get a partner who is vegan or vegetarian, I'll be too, if someone takes me to a vegan restaurant, I'll come, I literally couldn't care less. I honestly respect vegans for their determination. I just can't be bothered right now to always cook for myself and find vegan recipes or go to the other side of the city, to a vegan restaurant.
(and I'm trying to get my family to be not stupid, but you probably know how it is with fundamentalist right-wing christian nationalists, with a tendency for conspiracy theories...)
Anyway, thank you for your comment. And if you have any questions or things to add, I'll be happy to respond again. (as long as youtube actually notifies me and I don't have to find your comment by getting a notification for this weird person who replied with wanting to eat chicken out of context lol)
@@wasikancb
Don't get me wrong, what you are currently doing is very definitely a big step, for the animal, in the more ethical direction, but a few thoughts to consider.
We don't really need milk or cheese of any variety to be healthy, and i am not saying you haven't but have you tried all the options available? There seem to be new alternatives coming out all the time, and there are things like precision fermentation taking off around the world and in particular in Europe.
Unfortunately your families reaction is not unusual, not to belittle your experience, and it is quite telling that they cant tell the difference, if you look up sausage expert vegan on this platform that illustrates your point quite well.
I don't know how long you have been in this sphere, and i don't want to sound patronising, but one thing i have learned is that often friends and family are the most resistant. Though it sounds like you are low key about your ethics and i obviously don't know you or your family. Just a heads up, if you were interested in sharing your thoughts with them.
I don't really know your situation, and its none of my business, but Austria, from what i can see, has a pretty extensive range of vegan restaurants. Though maybe not in your area, one thing you could try is the app happy cow.
Just because something was invented in our country doesn't mean that it is automatically ethical to do does it?
“If I have a vegetarian or vegan alternative that I like, I'll take that. But I'm not going to eat something I don't like.”
Fair enough, the thing is though those alternatives are not a necessary part of a plant exclusive diet. They can be good, bad and everything in between but many people, and i am not saying you are one of them, forget about the more simple things like beans and lentils.
“Almost all the time I cook for myself, I try to use as little animal products as possible.
And as I said, when I buy animal products, I take the ones where they aren't treating them too badly.”
You genuinely sound like a compassionate person but the test that i think is always worth running around situations like this is to ask ourselves this simple question, “would i want to be in the position the animal is in?”
“I know how it goes. And yes, it's sad. And yes, I know it's a little bit weird/cruel that I still eat meat and animal products. But what can I say... I'm trying my best to compensate.”
At the risk of being blunt, but i would say, and maybe this sounds a bit cliche, when we know better we should do better. I am in no way claiming to be perfect, not by a long shot, but in this case which does involve such needless horrors even a lazy person such as myself has no real excuse and i am embarrassed that it took me as long as it did to recognise that. Not calling you lazy, by the way, just reflecting on my own many failures. We can't change our past, much as I wish with all my heart, for my part that we could, but we can make better informed ethical decisions going forward.
“(and I'm trying to get my family to be not stupid, but you probably know how it is with fundamentalist right-wing christian nationalists, with a tendency for conspiracy theories...)”
As i mentioned above, families are usually a tough sell, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try but something to be aware of. Sounds like you do have your work cut out for you though, and i honestly wish you the very best of luck with that.
‘Anyway, thank you for your comment. And if you have any questions or things to add, I'll be happy to respond again. (as long as youtube actually notifies me and I don't have to find your comment by getting a notification for this weird person who replied with wanting to eat chicken out of context lol)’
Thank you, it is rare to find someone interested in a polite and intelligent conversation in these kinds of comments sections. The odd random troll comments just don't make any sense to me, what are they actually hoping to achieve? All they do is boost the algorithm, just strange.
And likewise any thoughts or questions are welcome.
Your cup looks desth metal asf... You into death metal? If so, what bands?
My book of the moment is "An Unnatural Order". It's practically a guide to why everyone should be vegan.
But what was the Priizzze?😂
How is a vegan drawing the line for what types of "speciesism" matters at the kingdom Animalia different from a meat eater drawing the line at, say, great apes, or based on traits like tool use or social structure?
Preferential treatment based on species is unavoidable.
“Preferential treatment based on species is unavoidable.”
I absolutely agree, species bias is and will always be present and that is why having a clear and easily defined line for moral consideration is so important.
“How is a vegan drawing the line for what types of "speciesism" matters at the kingdom Animalia different from a meat eater drawing the line at, say, great apes, or based on traits like tool use or social structure?”
Things can get pretty murky trying draw a line like tool use.
“Tool use is when an organism uses an external object to alter another object, surface, or organism. The tool is manipulated to produce a desired effect.”
“pigs are known to decorate their homes with flowers and branches”
And
“Pigs are seen using tools for the first time in Paris, France. When Priscilla the Visayan warty pig started using sticks or pieces of bark to move dirt around her home at the Jardin des Plantes in France, scientist Meredith Root-Bernstein was amazed.”
Cows use tools to preen
“Kilgour will tell the Australasian Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour conference in Sydney this week that this deliberate choice of different kinds of objects suggests they are being used as tools.
He says this is a bold suggestion because the definition of tool use conventionally relies on an ability to hold and manipulate objects.
"These are animals that can't pick things up and manipulate them, but nonetheless they are making decisions about what they are going to use to groom their bodies," he says.”
Current Biology
Animal Tool-Use
"Such remarkable behaviour is not the sole preserve of primates or even mammals: some of the most impressive non-human tools are made by New Caledonian crows, a member of the Corvidea, a large-brained family of birds."
And what would be the rational for the great apes delineation? Or social structure for that matter?
That is why sentience is that clear line
Sentience is the sound bases for moral status because what happens to a sentient individual matters to them and by extension, potentially, those they have emotional connections with.
This is, fundamentally, the the reason why we treat others with respect and veganism is simply an extension of that current sphere of moral consideration.
I’ll be having Popeyes chicken again for lunch today. I hope they don’t forgot the honey sauce.
@@Burner_269 As far as I'm aware, there's no consensus about what qualifies an entity "sentient".
We'd need to know what causes consciousness in order to say that lifeforms of other kindgoms or even inorganic matter doesn't meet that criteria. Otherwise we'd be priviledging sentience that looks like our own over types.
Whether we prioritize humans or beings we understand to be sentient, all we're really doing is deciding whether a material construct is enough "like us" to avoid eating.
I see cows and pigs as being too in line with personhood values like intelligence and sociability to eat them regularly.
They act too much like humans, by having multidimensional personalities that differ between individuals- they can build relationships over time, trust or be affectionate toward one individual but fear or bully another, they nurture their young or in-group and express emotion in ways recognizable to humans. I can't have the same emotional connections with them as I do humans, but they're still a bit too close for comfort.
If you see too much personhood/traits you value in fish or birds or even insects, then it makes sense to feel uncomfortable supporting an industry that hurts them. But your line isn't really any more convincing than anyone else's, it's still just drawn wherever you personally feel comfortable. Sentience as the observed trait that we should privilege is even less useful than tool use or sociality, since we don't know whether it even CAN be observed and don't quite know what we mean when we say it.
@@coreopsis6163
“As far as I'm aware, there's no consensus about what qualifies an entity "sentient".”
Well, you did ask for this, a bit of reading….
While is is true that their are differing views on it sentience and consciousness are often used interchangeably. However, if you need to know the general scientific consensus on consciousness/sentience? The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness is a good place to start.
For a brief overview
We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”
There is this as well.
Animals to be formally recognised as sentient beings in domestic law
Introduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill as part of the Government's Action Plan for Animal Welfare
"Vertebrate animals will be recognised as sentient beings for the first time in UK law thanks to the introduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, introduced in Parliament today."
"Formally recognising in law that animals are sentient and experience feelings in the same way humans do is just the first step in our flagship Action Plan for Animal Welfare which will further transform the lives of animals in this country and strengthen our position as a global leader."
And
“The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was introduced to Parliament by the Government of the United Kingdom at the 2021 State Opening of Parliament.The act recognises animal sentience in law for the first time.The scope of the legislation includes all vertebrates and some invertebrates such as octopuses and lobsters”.
And in the middle of the Research Briefing, this which is odd…….
From the Research Briefing of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill
“It is not necessary to define sentience in statute for the Bill to work. We all
recognise that animals are sentient. Accordingly, their welfare needs should
be properly considered in government policy-making. There is no need to make
it more complicated than that.”
It is true that this bill does only affect the UK, however, and yes it is from the wiki, but you get the point.
"As of November 2019, 32 countries have formally recognized non-human animal sentience. These are: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. It has been proposed that the United Nations (UN) pass the first resolution recognizing animal rights, the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, which acknowledges the importance of the sentience of animals and human responsibilities towards them"
So it is not really opinion or conjecture it seems to be pretty widely agreed on, Animals are sentient beings, though as you say as far as a globally agreed on definition is difficult to nail down. However most do cover very similar concepts.
There are not a huge amount of things i tend to agree with the UK government on but this part of the sentiment i do, we all recognise that animals are sentient. There is no need to make it more complicated than that.”
All of that said, the following definition is the one i tend to use, i think it covers the most basic attributes .
From: Neuroscience, 2022
Sentience
“Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, to have affective consciousness, subjective states that have a positive or negative valence.”
“Affective consciousness” is the ability to perceive, tolerate, reflect on, and express one's emotions. It's also known as affect integration.
“Affect integration” is defined as the capacity to comprehend emotional experiences as meaningful and to convert this knowledge into well-adjusted motivation, communication and behavior
“Subjective states that have a positive or negative valence” are mental states that are pleasurable or disagreeable, respectively.
“We'd need to know what causes consciousness in order to say that lifeforms of other kindgoms or even inorganic matter doesn't meet that criteria. Otherwise we'd be priviledging sentience that looks like our own over types.”
I understand what you are saying and yes we do have to be aware of our biases but, i would argue that at this point we still do need to base our decisions in accepted/understood science rather than conjecture. To that point as far as i understand sentience/consciousness does require certain biological structures, as referenced in the CDOC.
“Whether we prioritize humans or beings we understand to be sentient, all we're really doing is deciding whether a material construct is enough "like us" to avoid eating.”
I would say it is the fact that there is a “who” in there, not the external appearance that has moral relevance.
“I see cows and pigs as being too in line with personhood values like intelligence and sociability to eat them regularly.
They act too much like humans, by having multidimensional personalities that differ between individuals- they can build relationships over time, trust or be affectionate toward one individual but fear or bully another, they nurture their young or in-group and express emotion in ways recognizable to humans. I can't have the same emotional connections with them as I do humans, but they're still a bit too close for comfort.”
Agreed, apart from the eating part, obviously that comes under the very hard no category, and the closer we look the more we have in common with an ever increasing percentage of the other animals.
Again what is the unifying factor that ties all of that together? The fact that there is a subject in there experiencing, what happens to them, and by extension to those around them, matters to them, a consciousness, sentience. If that is not there what does it matter what happens to what ever it is?
“If you see too much personhood/traits you value in fish or birds or even insects, then it makes sense to feel uncomfortable supporting an industry that hurts them. But your line isn't really any more convincing than anyone else's, it's still just drawn wherever you personally feel comfortable.”
Ironically, it is not about me feeling comfortable, its is about them being uncomfortable. Yes, we are the ones making up the rules and enforcing them but because we have that ability and the understanding i would say we have the obligation to think beyond ourselves. And that is the whole point, Sure, i gain some small degree of relief from the fact that i am no longer paying for those particular atrocities, at the same time being very cognizant of the fact that i am still doing harm in the world, but it is not about me. Its about them and what they want.
To quote Donald Watson, one of the founding members of the vegan society from a publication in 1946.
“Admit that the strong have the right to exploit the weak, and the basis of civilized society is gone.”
“Sentience as the observed trait that we should privilege is even less useful than tool use or sociality, since we don't know whether it even CAN be observed and don't quite know what we mean when we say it.”
While you may not be able to quantify it all, It is a very clear line when that veil is lifted, when we truly see them for who they are, and it is that fact, that they are a “who” that is important.
You seem like an intelligent person and we can go back and forth about what we feel is the relevant skill or attribute but they will always be arbitrary, but just going off the simple definition i have given you we can draw that line and i have explained the reason for it.
Can you honestly say that you can look into any of their eyes and tell me that it is not blazingly obvious that they want to live?
Cloaca: Latin for "sewer".
🌹
I am very speciesist.
I will eat any animal, but not my own species.
Makes sense to me!
you will probably only have intercourse with your own specie too, you crazy speciesist!
👏👏🙌🙌
Totally love violife cheese specially the mature version Deeeelicious🤗🤤😋😋😋
Do you think she can define what a woman is?
great question. She probably can, she isnt that off the rails
Again with the veganism is expensive, one joint of meat or big block of cheese costs as much as a whole bag full of fruit, legumes, grains and veg products.
So what 😂😂
Quality vegan food, regular food, or even water is more expensive than cheap junk with questionable origins. We can't be moral if we starve in the process.
@@busterbeast999 'Quality' vegan food? You can get a big bag of lentils, beans, pasta, corn, rice, oats, you can get fruit like bananas, apples, tomatoes, you can get potatoes, carrots, cauliflour, cabbage ... all for next to nothing. If everyone ate these things there would be no starving anywhere.
@@Stevelives13 I need to find this big bag of lentils store you have.
@@busterbeast999 Its called a supermarket, you can get 1kg of lentils or beans or oats or rice or pasta for about £2, probably get it even cheaper if you got to a indian market store.
Vegan chicken breast 🙄 this is the problem with vegan cuisine, people have to force to make up fake food that reminds of animal products. Which is absolutely pointless, mediterranean cuisine has always been full of vegan dishes before it became a lifestyle, rich with veg and legumes dishes which are delicious. People should just learn how to cook and read more, instead of buying "vegan chicken breast"
Or people can buy what they want as long as it’s not exploiting and killing the animals?
@vegangaze of course they can, don't get me wrong my post is not against eating vegan dishes. As a chef, I love cooking anything, vegan dishes included. And I love some dishes like zuppa del casale (is a cereals and legumes soup), minestrone, different kind of pesto, hummus and babaganoush and so on. What I don't like is fake things like vegan chicken breast, vegan bacon, why eating something that has to remind of an animal product? This is stuff that as a chef I refuse to cook or to buy, I'm just saying that if people had a bit of interest in reading about different cuisines (here in UK there is a lack of food culture) and willing to learn how to cook, they'd realise that they don't need this cheap fake products and they could easily enjoy a flavourful, healthy great meal
I understand that but it's not fake. 'meat' is so removed from the animal to begin with, it's replicating what is considered a product, even though we know it to not actually be. They're turned into chunks and those chunks are replicated. Don't get me wrong, it weirds me out when something has things like veins and skin added to bring it closer to an animal, but I'm just glad these alternatives exist that can steer people in the other direction who wouldn't be so morally driven
@@vegangazewouldn't be better to eat veges and legumes as they are? Since I live in UK I noticed that people have to be "educated" to eat vegan, while where I'm from I always had vegan dishes through my childhood cause are part of our diet as well as meat and fish. A plate of pasta with lentils still look more appealing to me than a beyond burger, I just don't see why some people need this kind of product to eat vegetables, rather than learning how to cook vegan dishes that are always been part of our diet. So yes, they still look fake to me, because someone had to manipulate vegetables to look and taste like a meat product, just because someone else was too skeptical to understand that veges are delicious as they are
I am truly not against being vegan, but is there not some special condition we are placing on humans compared to all other omni/carnivores? We are still destroying and eating plants, but they are different than cows and birds right? Why are humans so special as to force ourselves to be herbivores only? Do we not have a long storied history of being omnivores? Would vegans be ok with the killing of the types of animals they deem unacceptable (not plants) if we did it more like we did before factory farming? Further, to really lean in, why are plants ok to eat? Have we not learned enough about plants to deem them as 'living' with an experience of their own?
Because we have the choice. Animals do not. Hope that helps!
@@Lilah-Violet Are we animals? As an animal are we herbivores, omnivores or carnivores? Saying we have the choice to do something that goes against our nature does not explain why you think we should do it. But I am also willing to debate/learn whether we are, by nature, omnivores.
There are obviously two parts to this. The way we currently treat the animals we eat and take resources from is horrific and abysmal. From this lens we absolutely should reduce and make efforts to stop this, thus eating vegan is an excellent approach.
But I am also interested in the more philosophical nature of the question. I understand if you do not want to engage in this level of the subject.
@@lunaumbra5179
Bruv', whatever you've been smoking, can you let me know how to not get any?
"Luna umbra"(?)
Not a fan of Cat Stevens by any chance?
😁
@@PercivalBlakeney what a cute what of saying "I am so trapped in my frame of mind I cannot fathom anything beyond it" 😘
@lunaumbra5179
Are we not, to quote The Eagles, "Prisoners of our own device."?
😆
Can you define the word woman?
@lilcaps The definition is adult human female. It's very easy to understand.
It's a good definition because that's what it means. That's what 99% of the world understood it to mean until recently when a group of anti women's rights extremists stole it so that male rapists could be placed in women's prisons to have access to more women to rape.
It's also a good definition because that group of people needs and deserves a word exclusively to describe themselves. Why do you see them as so subhuman they don't deserve that right?
Would you redefine "black" to include white people in blackface? No? But it's more inclusive. Why do you hate transracial people??
@lilcaps You also can't use the word in its own definition, so your definition is not only factually incorrect, but invalid.
Wouldn't vegans be "speciesist" against plants and all the other species they eat?
I'm pretty sure anything that eats any organic material is speciesist, myself included.
Perhaps the only real way to not be speciesist would be cannibalism? Or starvation I guess. I'll stick to speciesism I think.
Speciesism is about finding arbitrairy distinctions between species and using them to justify disreguarding individuals' well being, allowing for their individuality to not be considered. The ability to feel pain, complex emotions, and suffering are not arbitrary.
@rubylove1474 I absolutely agree that pain and suffering are not arbitrary, I completely oppose capitalist cost-cutting measures just so that certain rich people can get richer by compromising on the pain and suffering of animals before their deaths. There's no way they can't keep them in conditions that don't cause pain and suffering, and kill them with negligible or no pain and suffering, without going out of business.
As for self-awareness, I think there are degrees of that between species, and even across the lifespan of the same individual, whether human or not. Is that an arbitrary distinction? I don't believe many species can count that well, and don't notice others going missing beyond a certain point, so I don't see issue with less self-aware animals being kept and slaughtered if it's painless and causes no distress to the living. I see this issue as not too far from euthanasia and abortion rights, which I also support.
I’ll be having Popeyes chicken again for lunch today. I hope they don’t forgot the honey sauce.
@@Nyghl0I appreciate your acknowlegment that the animal agriculture system as-is isn't benificial and is causing an immense amount of suffering. I completely understand and acknowlege that different species have different levels of self-awareness, even humans at different stages of life. I don't consider that to be an arbitrary distinction, in general, at all, and I do think it's an important thing to recognize.
However, not being fully aware of the situation you're in does not make you less affected by it, and in some cases it can even make the experiences significantly worse. When I think about the times I was the most scared, the most hurt, the most traumatized, I wasn't fully aware of what was happening to me, but these experiences have, and still do, cause me a lot of pain.
The complete removal of autonomy from the individual is an intrinsic part of how animal agriculture continues to exist, but even if we were to create some "perfected, humane" version of animal farming while they were somehow allowed to have good, happy, satisfied lives, we would still be killing them far earlier than their natural life spans could allow. Euthanasia is not the same thing, because it is done to prevent further suffering of the individual.
If you kill someone who's having a horrible life with nothing going for them, you could argue it a mercy (assuming you couln't just help them have a better life), but if you kill someone with a great life, in a sense, you're taking more away from them.
Cows, for example, are extremely maternal and will often cry out for days when their babies are ripped away from them. If they were allowed to grow up in peace with each other, you'd be ripping apart a family. The more you give them, the more is taken away once they die. The fact that they won't understand what's happening doesn't mean they won't feel that loss and that pain.
All in all, I think the most imortant thing is to consider these types of issues from the individual's perspective, and I believe the fact that you're searching for ways to make things better at all is huge. As a fellow anti-capitalist, I think that is really really important, for this issue and for others as well. I genuinely wish you the best, and I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
@@MBlue-sk4trDo you... realize what you're actually saying with that comment? Do you just want to piss people off? Do you think vegans are just assholes who want to push people around for the heck of it because we want you to do what we tell you? I bet saying that makes you feel better. It makes you feel like you're "fighting back" against "vegan suppression" of "free will." It's probably funny to you. You probably feel like you're picking on the big meanies who think they can dictate what everyone else can and cannot do.
You fail to recognize something in all that, though. You fail to recognize that we don't want to limit freedom or make anyone's lives needlessly harder. We want others to be happy, healthy, and safe.
We see a world where billions of individuals, children, who are capable of experiencing a wide range of emotions similar to us humans are living lives without autonomy filled with suffering. We see children ripped away from their mothers. We see children thrown in gas chambers. We see children get their throats slit. We see children locked in cages so small they can't turn around. We see children have their body parts and teeth cut out. We see newborns macerated and gassed. We see children be dragged through baths of electrified water. We see children hit, kicked, and thrown. We see children baught and sold like items. We see children raped. We see children who never get the chance to be adults. We see children chopped up and sold for the enjoyment of loved ones. We see all this, and we are horrified. I am horrified. It's not about whose to blame. It's never been about that. It's about the victims. It's about what we can do to help.
We do not ask you to consider the impact you have in supporting these cruel industries because we want you to have to do what we tell you. We ask you because what you do makes a difference. What you buy is your vote. You have the power to defend those less capable with your voice and your votes. Veganism has nothing to do with "superiority" or being "better" than others. It is about standing up and refusing to support cruel and inhumane treatment. All flaunting your chicken flesh does is show us how conditioned you are to ignore the suffering all around you.
It's a word created by a vegan for vegans and is not in the vocabulary of non-vegans, just like carnism, name the trait and necrovore are irrelevant to us.
The list of animals according to taste ?.
Interesting: surely what you're describing is Human Supremacy and essentially cruelty. Speciesism would mean a hatred or bias against specific species. For example dogs are better than pigs which clearly is nonsense.
Language is fun to unravel.
Just to add: I'm not vegan because of the cost. Dah! Maybe check out Gary Yorofskies's Four Excuses and cost isn't one if them.
If you were to define it quickly, what would you say? I want it short and snappy and happy to use different ways of defining it!
@vegangaze Then I would go with Human Supremacy.
go vegan. what was the price?
We're not all in it together, however humans are (or should be) advanced enough to have morally elevated ourselves above other species.
So you're saying that we're entitled to treat animals in the way that we do, because humans are "the m4ster R4ce".
Got it.
🌹
That's the same reason that all others laugh and dismiss vegans - because they think thy are morally superior
Eat Meat, Not Too Little, Mostly Fat
@@Meathead-10810
So … same attitude and arguments people used against the Abolitionists and the Suffragettes then?
Got it.
Q. What does James McMurdock say to a woman with two black eyes?
A. Nothing he hasn't said twice already.
NUr hur HuR!
@@PercivalBlakeney Thats the exact opposite of what I said. Try reading it again.
@@Meathead-10810 Well vegans are morally superior to those who purposely cause animal suffering and death. Keep eating all that fat and the problem will sort itself out.
Vegans - Making up new words and definitions because they are lacing in nutrition 🤣
Eat Meat, Not Too Little, Mostly Fat
@@Meathead-10810
Brah', if meat makes you smart, are you sure you're eating ENOUGH?
😘!
@@PercivalBlakeney 🤣
@@PercivalBlakeney
Pointless Percy 😂😂😂
@FreddieAl
Arße-wipe Andrews!
If all you're good is name calling, name calling is ALL you'll ever be good at.
What quotes actually PROMOTE eating animals Freddo?
🌹
@PercivalBlakeney
Pointless Percy