Just starting to watch and already, I have an issue with finding a "middle ground" on veganism. Would anyone ever ask for a middle ground on child abuse? No, because it's clearly wrong and should never happen. Reducing it wouldn't be enough.
Children eat meat. Feeding a child a vegan diet is child abuse and banned in 2 countries to feed your child vegan because the vegan diet is unhealthy. Feeding a kid treats, candy or junk food in moderation is deemed OK ? Feeding you child a horrible diet like the vegan diet or only junk food in not ok and child abuse.
Love your comment. You get it. In Anonymous for the Voiceless we are abolitionists. There is a book by an ex FBI negotiator called "never split the difference" the premise being, how many hostages is acceptable to lose when you're negotiating terms?
its a good point to us because we already think that but carnies would say "you cant compare that" etc. its a grimey point that can work if someones like at least 60% the way to veganism but people under that could be offended by it.
I posted this response under the video within 24 hrs of Jubilee's post and not one person has even read it for all I know: I’m glad they chose this as the topic. Veganism is, at best, misunderstood, and at worst, completely vilified. The truth, that many find uncomfortable to accept, is that switching to a plant-based diet is the number one thing we, as individuals, can do for the environment, the rights of other species to life, and our own health. Our population continues to grow, and so does humanity’s desire for meat consumption. Industrial-scale farming of livestock is, globally, the leading cause of deforestation-including in the Amazon rainforest, which is the world's largest land-based carbon storage system. Natural landscapes are demolished and repurposed to serve grazing animals, such as cattle, pigs, and sheep. We currently grow enough crops on this planet to feed approximately 10 billion people (the current global population is about 8.1 billion). Yet, 36% of grains globally are fed to livestock, which are then eaten by us. Essentially, as Torre mentioned, we’re growing a "middleman" just to eat it. Why, then, does it seem that meat is so cheap compared to fresh fruits and vegetables? The main reason is that governments subsidize livestock farming. Imagine what would happen if we used those subsidies to transition to more sustainable plant-based alternatives and used all the extra land to rewild and restore natural ecosystems. None of this even takes into account the amount of methane cows produce, which is 85 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 in the atmosphere within the first 20 years. Afterward, it dissipates to become 30 times as effective over 100 years. This, combined with the deforestation of carbon-rich forests and the rising acidity of the oceans, harming marine ecosystems and in particular phytoplankton, which are responsible for an estimated 50%-70% of the world’s oxygen-and it is no wonder we are currently in the sixth mass extinction. On top of all this, agricultural waste runoff and antibiotic resistance are also major issues. Not only are we contaminating our air and waterways, but many farmed animals and fish are riddled with open wounds, infections, and diseases, and are often given antibiotics, which makes it more difficult to treat human infections effectively later on. In fact, approximately 70% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are used in agriculture, primarily for growth promotion and disease prevention in healthy animals. Growth hormones are also used, which are unhealthy for the animals and potentially unhealthy for human consumers as well. Therefore, another benefit of a vegan world would be a reduction in things like heart disease, type-2 diabetes, obesity, cancer, hormonal imbalances, and antibiotic resistance, helping alleviate an already over-burdened healthcare system. Even still, NONE of this even begins to consider the morality of the issue in terms of the victims' perspective-the non-human animals.
12:30 i think the best response to 'would you be willing to change your mind' would be: 'i will always be against causing victims when i don't have to, be they humans or animals, and i don't think there is a way to prove animals are not victims here as the evidence that they are individuals that don't want to die is so overwhelming.' while it does come across as somewhat dogmatic, it is also a dogma almonst every non-vegan holds as well
That last response is what I was screaming at the scream during the entire debate, especially because it kept being framed as a diet and not as a philosophy to minimize animal suffering where ever most practical and possible.
It was nice to see meat eaters in Jubilee's comment section disagreeing with the carnivores and criticizing Jubilee for making extreme statements that barely have a middle ground or none at all.
With regards to animals, vegans are more moral. But I have found narcissistic, hostile and horrible vegans that I absolutely don't want anything to do with, and some of my best friends are (unfortunately) omnivores. My friends obviously have a lot of qualities, like kindness, intelligence, loyalty, humour etc, but when it comes to animals I think they act selfishly. Living and acting morally in this world is a complex topic that cover a lot of different areas of life.
@@Natalie.Fulton I don't assume that they're "good" because they're vegan, that they do not have some of the ubiquitous unpleasant human flaws. I DO assume that they're contributing less or nothing to the enslavement, torture and murder of animals, and by not contributing to animal agriculture, they are doing far less harm to climate systems and the biosphere than carnivores. Therefore, I do think that they're the best people on the planet.
I read your substack article. I actually think an "appeal to squeamishness" as you put it, can be a convincing rhetorical device. Rather than focusing on the slaughter of animals, if we shift the focus on how livestock are conceived, then it becomes obvious. Even the most hardcore hunter would have to concede it is gross that humans have made an industry out of touching the genitals of other species. In this way, the very premise of animal husbandry/domestication can be challenged as being perverted and bestial.
I watched this episode and man... Jubilee really just keeps selling out more and more to reactionary content creators. I'm so tired of their constant platforming of the most deplorable people on the Internet
Great vid. It was frustrating listening to jubilee . Butter girls whole premise was based on an inadequate diet. She came up with this story to deflect from vegan arguments because she figures nobody can challenge her. I’ve heard people who used to follow her say she wasn’t eating any more than 1000 calories per day (that will def make you lose your period) no b12 or d supplements (that will mess you up ) but on top of this she thinks soy is unhealthy, and “seitan” has a long list of ingredients. Proving she has no clue. So to come out in front of 9 million watchers and claim “plant based messed me up” to undermine animal rights, is lazy, and irresponsible. Throw in the fact that she is promoting the most unhealthiest way to eat, the least sustainable and most cruel, she is an absolute grifter and all the plans and products she’s selling proves it.
The "Animals are here for humans" thing would be hard to step forward for. It's a religious claim and even meat eaters in the TH-cam comments were agreeing it was 'cringe'. What does it even mean to agree animals are "put on earth to be eaten by humans" if you're not agreeing that they're ours to eat?
Natalie gave anofher interpretation than the religious one. It doesn't say "by God", so "animals are put on earth for humans to eat" it is true, some animals are put on earth, by humans, to be eaten by humans...
I agree with the not being human supremacist response. You could say it highlights the fact that when they talk about what does science says about how you can be vegan and still have a nutritious diet they're not just saying it to make it sound like you should do it for your health. She's separating the fact that she's not a human supremacist. Regardless of what the science says. But the fact is that the science regarding health is also good enough evidence on top of the fact that we should be not human supremacist
Would I waste away before eating an animal? It's just that I don't think it's physically possible that eating animal stuff would uplift me, when no plant or fungi food on Earth could have achieved the same effect. That has to be a theoretical impossibility.
I love your points. On the last one, I don't think they should retract what they said because it was honest. They would not want an animal to die to sustain their lives. What they should have mentioned though is that this is not a necessary view to be vegan. Just like a lion has no choice and is exempt you would too. I would also add that animals die all time for food that is vegan in any case. Minimization is the name of the game. So, like you said, it is important to stick to buying as little as you can and starting with animals like bivalves.
Bella's lies are weird. Veganism cleared up my skin, made me so fertile I had 4 babies, and eating mostly whole plant foods has kept me healthier and looking younger. I'm 7 years without the animal suffering and look forward to the rest of my life advocating for animal liberation.
I'd like your opinion on this. I am a former vegan, but I remain convinced that sentientism is a right moral paradigm. Often when I say that, vegans think I'm an hypocrite and that's where I'm not so sure to understand why exactly. I do not advocate against veganism, because it's obviously much better on average than any other consumption practices, but I think we can only tend towards sentientism as an ideal because in practice it's impossible not to discriminate at all against non human sentient beings. It is pretty clear to me that veganism is a "easy" practicable way of tending toward this ideal, and it has many advantages, as it creates a community and a wholemovement you can identify to and rely on. I get why such labels can be useful, but it is also clear that there is a spectrum. I concluded that every argument in favor of veganism relatively to other consumptions practices can be applied within veganism. My point is, not every vegan causes the same level of harm to non sentient beings, some are more "virtuous" than others in that sens, and yet it wouldn't come to our mind to blame any vegan for not buying the least harmful vegan product and to reduce the quantity they eat to the bare minimum. Yet, not doing this causes more harm, and in practice, there is nothing harder about eating less, or buying the other product in the market, or at least, it's not harder than switching from a meat eating diet to veganism. So it's not like veganism is the limit to what we can practically, reasonably do. I don't think it's therefore a moral obligation to be vegan, nor there is a moral obligation to cause as least harm as possible because it's technically impossible to do so. We only have a moral obligation to tend towards habits that are more and more compatible with sentientism, but sadly it can never be 100% compatible. Therefore, not being in favor of veganism is not necessarly a bad thing.
I don't totally understand your argument, but I don't believe in moral obligations so I agree with you there. Plenty of vegans are always trying to do better, and I think that matters. But whatever vegan products we buy, they're not nearly as harmful as animal products. Have you seen Dominion?
@@Natalie.Fulton Thanks for your reply. My argument is maybe unclear (english is not my first language so, sorry about that). I absolutely agree that vegan options are generally better. I also agree that many vegans do not just stop at veganism like it's the end of their journey. As I said, I do not argue against veganism at all, if anything I am still defending veganism when people try to misrepresent what it is. My argument was just against the idea that veganism is some kind of milestone for moral, that is, the point were your consumption becomes morally acceptable in an anti-specist perspective. I'd like to think that it is some kind of strawman and that the vast majority of vegans do not think that way, but honnestly from what I experienced (for what it's worth) many vegans are very likely to defend the idea that you can't be anti-specist if you consume animal products (or more specifically, sentient animal products). I think it's not true, even a meat eater can say he is anti-specist (I'm no saying it's likely to happen though), because he might simply agree with the concept and strive on doing better to go toward that ideal.
@@davidformosa7626 Given that most vegan food products imply deaths of sentient beings, don't you think the same logic apply to you when you eat more than necessary ? Don't you intentionally support unnecessary animal abuse (which btw is not a sentientist approach, "animals" are not all sentient and I couldn't care less about non-sentient beings) ? You're illustrating my point very well
@karndesintox9612 In a non-vegan world,buying more vegan products leads to vegan products becoming more accessible and cheaper. Plus,there is a lot of reasons to believe that crop farming actually reduces the amount of sufferint where it is done. Because wildly more animals would suffer in wild-land if it wasn't a crop field,more crop production is better for the animals there. Veganic farming would be better,but most of us don't have this option,thus buying more vegan products is good for promoting veganism,reduce wild suffering and economically reinforcing the plant-based market. All of which reduce animal suffering and the number of rights violations that happen to animals.
I have a question about your commentary around switching to the other side.. do you feel the case for animal rights is dependent on if they feel pain? If so, are you okay with eating oysters? I'm not trying to grill you, I'm vegan myself, but I've seen Joey Carbstrong talk as if the question of animal rights doesn't depend on pain and instead depends on sentience which I do see the point in.. but pain is the easier point to argue for than sentience alone.
Do you think it might depend on just which rights you believe other animals should be awarded? I believe we mean three basic rights - the rights to be free, to be able to live their own lives on their own terms (ie bodily autonomy) and the right not to be treated cruelly. If an organism can feel pain but doesn't have a complex inner life (such that being free and autonomous can't matter to them) then only the last seems applicable. On such grounds it would be perfectly fine to farm and eat pain experiencing but less cognitively complex animals.
Watch Mic the Vegan on bivalves. They respond to touch and flee from danger by moving around or closing their shell. They want to live. Why make the mistake and risk of hurting bivalves if some people assume they can't feel pain or have sentience? That's like how Dr. James Marion Sims didn't think Africans could feel pain. So he did vivisection on African slaves without painkillers. Though I think it's weird Sims believed that when he told other slaves to hold down the slave experimented on because that slave would thrash in pain and try to escape. Btw, Sims was given a statue that is still up in America.
10 15..... The lab grown meat thing is under scrutiny, though. It's about the enzymes and nutrient fluids they use to fuel the growth process. Ever since lab grown meat became a thing, I've had my suspicions.
I don't know - the average person isn't much interested in veganism and it's hard to see how to convince them. Study after study shows that vegans and veganism are derided and dismissed by most. I kinda felt that all of the vegans wheeled out well-worn tropes that have been failing for well over 70 years. I suspect it isn't going to be very convincing to most folk to argue that done right, a vegan-friendly diet can be healthy. The average person doesn't bother doing their diet right yet is very unlikely to experience the kinds of health issues doing a plants-only diet badly might cause. A poorly executed vegan-friendly diet very much can be harmful and for pretty obvious reasons (we are not herbivores). Also, saying you are prepared to die rather than eat an animal just is not veganism, that's a personal stance. A vegan-friendly diet can include animals, nowhere does the definition of veganism demand that someone must not eat animals regardless of circumstances.
@@Natalie.Fulton I hear that often, but the numbers even there are relatively small. Maybe we are in a transition stage whereby the numbers will slowly grow in coming decades as young people take up the idea. I think the animal-using industries have been very successful in pushing back over the past several years and given most people don't want to give up eating animals, they are very quick to be reassurered by that messaging.
OMG! You are one of my favorite activists out there! This is so well thought out and presented! Thank you! You have a knack of thinking out of the box. I hope you get invited to some of these open table discussions in the future :) What's with that lighting? 😂
Natalie, I think you very gifted in how you diplomatically speak about being vegan. As far as the young lady with the issues she had when she was vegan, I can't help feeling that she is more like an far outlier with maybe medical and perhaps psychological issues (I don't mean that in a bad way).
@Natalie.Fulton oh look, another vegan being a dick. I think animal cruelty is a global problem which requires political change and don't want to be one of the only ones to make the sacrifice while everyone else is free to eat meat, and the global problem remains
@@KimmyJongUn You can start by being part of the solution and stop being part of the problem. If 10% of the entire world population was vegan,factory farming would not be able to withstand the pressure,because of how finanicially reliant on taxpayer money these industries are and how cheap it is to produce plant products. That's all we need,10%. You can be part of that change. Political change only happens if enough individuals act. Marti Luther King Jr was hated by 2 thirds of the population. But a minority of people fighting for someone's rights is enough,historically.
@@KimmyJongUn Plus we have ample research that just one person going vegan means less animals are killed and mistreated. There are studies on this that i can provide if you so wish.
"Animals were put here for humans to eat" implies there is a god that created animals. It would make no sense to agree with that sentiment. Allowing the carnivores to rant for 4 minutes is better than conceding a ridiculous point like that
I agree the notion of an all powerful god allowing 80 billion individuals to be tormented is absurd and perverse. One comment I saw that changed my perspective is humans breed animals to consume them. If the vegans conceded to that, then they would have been able to interrupt the carnists framing and spotlight at the likely most watched part of the debate. Had I been there, I wouldn't have stepped forward because I assumed that was a supernatural reference too.
no, you can twist it to mean that they were created by humans, which is true. allowing carnivores to rant is bad strategy, the animals need us to be three steps ahead.
@@Natalie.Fulton Except animals were not "created" by humans. It would be a very far stretch to say that domestication of animals for food would be humans "creating" those animals. You are really reaching for that one. The animals need vegans to be persuasive. These carnivores are going to releasing hours and hours of content anyway. I'm struggling to see how them going first in this debate would at all poison the well to the point where the vegans wouldn't have a chance to convince those open to hearing the arguments once it is their turn. I think the main problem here is that all the vegan debaters here were extremely weak debaters. If you had someone like Dr. Avi or even Earthling Ed on there it would have been a bloodbath. It probably did more damage to veganism having these sorts of characters make weak arguments instead of having well-educated vegans represent the position. The activists on here just presented so many weak, generic, emotional arguments that just confirmed the negative stereotypes the average person has about vegans.
Your shift of the phrase "animals are put on earth to be eaten by humans" was kind of mind blowing for me!!! Everytime I hear this, I automatically argue about god and compassion and Jesus (I recently watched Christpiracy to increase my arsenal) and all that stuff (I'm an atheist), so I find this a delusional ridiculous assertion. But yes, you are 100% correct, animals are put on earth, BY HUMANS, to be eaten by humans. We bred them into existence for this sole purpose... I know it is stupid, but it was a mindblowing way to think about this phrase...
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't catch the underlying reframing that humans literally breed animals into existence to be exploited and murdered. I was upset at first
Just because people bred animals doesn't mean it's ok to abuse them. A marine bred his kids for p3do and it doesn't make it ok. He was playing god. He premeditated that idea before his kids were conceived.
oh no, these pick-me "ex-vegans". how come other people just dont have those problems... and how does that even correlate to the situations animals have to go through.
That's the thing, other people do have these issues and she mentions it in the video. She says there are online communities of people just like her. The problem is that these communities still don't show what they ate during their vegan experience so it's mostly just people like her that think WFPB is veganism.
nice points Natalie, I like how you framed the questions so you can just weigh back in with the same pivot to veganism, like with the "would you consider the other side" It's cool youre resisting the natural tendency to exert the morality and inserting yourself in the carnies shoes, so we need stuff like that going forth for better communication :)
I find it ridiculous that vegans tell people they are doing the vegan diet wrong if they don't supplement. If the vegan diet requires you to supplement then you're not doing the diet wrong, the diet itself is wrong.
Farm animals are given supplements. They eat the supplements and you eat them... so you are also supplementing anyways. There's nothing wrong with supplementing, putting a baby animal through literal hell because you can't be bothered to take a b12 pill is a very weak ethical stance to have.
Exactly. Well said. "The diet itself is wrong". Common sense, but people lack common sense. Humans are the only species on the planet that takes supplements - because it's the only species that doesn't eat the diet that it is designed for - and hence is the only species that suffers from a long list of diseases. BTW, I'm a 45-year vegan, still doing arduous construction work, and I've never taken a supplement. Never so much as an aspirin, either. Never sick.
Farm animals eat supplements, then you eat the animals. So you are supplementing anyway... I don't think 'i can't be bothered to take b12' is a good enough reason to k*ll animals?
Your argument doesn't really make sense because B12 comes from microbes in soil. The only reason vegans don't get it is because of our modern food system, where everything is sanitized. Even farmed animals are supplemented with B12. Vitamin D comes from the sun, but once again our modern society keeps people indoors more. You're basically blaming veganism when the actual reason for supplements is a change in human lifestlye
Well said. I would add that humans used to get B12 by drinking untreated water from ponds and streams which had B12 in it from the microbes in the soil. Yes they could also get it from eating animals but they did not have to.
Absolutely fantastic video. I could not agree more with the idea of getting some sort of a message out on prompts that I would say are framed in a pro-meat eating way. I think too often we forget that being “right” about something is only one part of the equation but communicating effectively to your audience is what will really make a difference, especially in the case of animal rights/Veganism.
Just starting to watch and already, I have an issue with finding a "middle ground" on veganism. Would anyone ever ask for a middle ground on child abuse? No, because it's clearly wrong and should never happen. Reducing it wouldn't be enough.
Some kids need to be whupped though.
Children eat meat. Feeding a child a vegan diet is child abuse and banned in 2 countries to feed your child vegan because the vegan diet is unhealthy. Feeding a kid treats, candy or junk food in moderation is deemed OK ? Feeding you child a horrible diet like the vegan diet or only junk food in not ok and child abuse.
Love your comment. You get it. In Anonymous for the Voiceless we are abolitionists. There is a book by an ex FBI negotiator called "never split the difference" the premise being, how many hostages is acceptable to lose when you're negotiating terms?
thats what people confuse on purpose.
its a good point to us because we already think that but carnies would say "you cant compare that" etc. its a grimey point that can work if someones like at least 60% the way to veganism but people under that could be offended by it.
I posted this response under the video within 24 hrs of Jubilee's post and not one person has even read it for all I know:
I’m glad they chose this as the topic. Veganism is, at best, misunderstood, and at worst, completely vilified. The truth, that many find uncomfortable to accept, is that switching to a plant-based diet is the number one thing we, as individuals, can do for the environment, the rights of other species to life, and our own health. Our population continues to grow, and so does humanity’s desire for meat consumption. Industrial-scale farming of livestock is, globally, the leading cause of deforestation-including in the Amazon rainforest, which is the world's largest land-based carbon storage system. Natural landscapes are demolished and repurposed to serve grazing animals, such as cattle, pigs, and sheep. We currently grow enough crops on this planet to feed approximately 10 billion people (the current global population is about 8.1 billion). Yet, 36% of grains globally are fed to livestock, which are then eaten by us. Essentially, as Torre mentioned, we’re growing a "middleman" just to eat it.
Why, then, does it seem that meat is so cheap compared to fresh fruits and vegetables? The main reason is that governments subsidize livestock farming. Imagine what would happen if we used those subsidies to transition to more sustainable plant-based alternatives and used all the extra land to rewild and restore natural ecosystems.
None of this even takes into account the amount of methane cows produce, which is 85 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 in the atmosphere within the first 20 years. Afterward, it dissipates to become 30 times as effective over 100 years. This, combined with the deforestation of carbon-rich forests and the rising acidity of the oceans, harming marine ecosystems and in particular phytoplankton, which are responsible for an estimated 50%-70% of the world’s oxygen-and it is no wonder we are currently in the sixth mass extinction.
On top of all this, agricultural waste runoff and antibiotic resistance are also major issues. Not only are we contaminating our air and waterways, but many farmed animals and fish are riddled with open wounds, infections, and diseases, and are often given antibiotics, which makes it more difficult to treat human infections effectively later on. In fact, approximately 70% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are used in agriculture, primarily for growth promotion and disease prevention in healthy animals. Growth hormones are also used, which are unhealthy for the animals and potentially unhealthy for human consumers as well. Therefore, another benefit of a vegan world would be a reduction in things like heart disease, type-2 diabetes, obesity, cancer, hormonal imbalances, and antibiotic resistance, helping alleviate an already over-burdened healthcare system.
Even still, NONE of this even begins to consider the morality of the issue in terms of the victims' perspective-the non-human animals.
"We have created a system that treats animals as resources, and we have lost sight of their sentience and intelligence." - Yuval Noah Harari
Petition to get Natalie on jubilee!!
Where do I sign?
Me too
Natalie would be awesome in jubilee!
I came here for that comment.
Petition to make animal ag illegal please
12:30 i think the best response to 'would you be willing to change your mind' would be: 'i will always be against causing victims when i don't have to, be they humans or animals, and i don't think there is a way to prove animals are not victims here as the evidence that they are individuals that don't want to die is so overwhelming.' while it does come across as somewhat dogmatic, it is also a dogma almonst every non-vegan holds as well
That last response is what I was screaming at the scream during the entire debate, especially because it kept being framed as a diet and not as a philosophy to minimize animal suffering where ever most practical and possible.
It was nice to see meat eaters in Jubilee's comment section disagreeing with the carnivores and criticizing Jubilee for making extreme statements that barely have a middle ground or none at all.
Jubilee is conservative propaganda disguised as honest debate, the most ethical way of watching it is by watching through a react.
I won't say that vegans are better people than carnivores. I will say that vegans are the best people on the planet.
With regards to animals, vegans are more moral. But I have found narcissistic, hostile and horrible vegans that I absolutely don't want anything to do with, and some of my best friends are (unfortunately) omnivores. My friends obviously have a lot of qualities, like kindness, intelligence, loyalty, humour etc, but when it comes to animals I think they act selfishly.
Living and acting morally in this world is a complex topic that cover a lot of different areas of life.
be careful, don't assume someone is good because they're vegan. you'll get burned
@@Natalie.Fulton I don't assume that they're "good" because they're vegan, that they do not have some of the ubiquitous unpleasant human flaws. I DO assume that they're contributing less or nothing to the enslavement, torture and murder of animals, and by not contributing to animal agriculture, they are doing far less harm to climate systems and the biosphere than carnivores. Therefore, I do think that they're the best people on the planet.
ChildFree Organic and Vegan are all great. Humans Doubled in 50 years and killed off 69% of Wildlife.
I read your substack article. I actually think an "appeal to squeamishness" as you put it, can be a convincing rhetorical device. Rather than focusing on the slaughter of animals, if we shift the focus on how livestock are conceived, then it becomes obvious. Even the most hardcore hunter would have to concede it is gross that humans have made an industry out of touching the genitals of other species. In this way, the very premise of animal husbandry/domestication can be challenged as being perverted and bestial.
I would love to see more of a focus toward the forced reproduction aspect. my best conversations typically start with that
Before going vegan, my wife and I struggled to get pregnant.. we both went vegan in2020 and got twins 👭
I couldn't remember who recorded a song the other day, must be my vegan "diet".
Great points, most people don't care about...most think as deep as a puddle. I LIKE, I want, I Love, Chicken, Bacon et al.
I watched this episode and man... Jubilee really just keeps selling out more and more to reactionary content creators. I'm so tired of their constant platforming of the most deplorable people on the Internet
No link to it?
Great vid. It was frustrating listening to jubilee . Butter girls whole premise was based on an inadequate diet. She came up with this story to deflect from vegan arguments because she figures nobody can challenge her. I’ve heard people who used to follow her say she wasn’t eating any more than 1000 calories per day (that will def make you lose your period) no b12 or d supplements (that will mess you up ) but on top of this she thinks soy is unhealthy, and “seitan” has a long list of ingredients.
Proving she has no clue.
So to come out in front of 9 million watchers and claim “plant based messed me up” to undermine animal rights, is lazy, and irresponsible. Throw in the fact that she is promoting the most unhealthiest way to eat, the least sustainable and most cruel, she is an absolute grifter and all the plans and products she’s selling proves it.
The "Animals are here for humans" thing would be hard to step forward for. It's a religious claim and even meat eaters in the TH-cam comments were agreeing it was 'cringe'.
What does it even mean to agree animals are "put on earth to be eaten by humans" if you're not agreeing that they're ours to eat?
Natalie gave anofher interpretation than the religious one. It doesn't say "by God", so "animals are put on earth for humans to eat" it is true, some animals are put on earth, by humans, to be eaten by humans...
Go vegan forever ❤
I agree with the not being human supremacist response. You could say it highlights the fact that when they talk about what does science says about how you can be vegan and still have a nutritious diet they're not just saying it to make it sound like you should do it for your health. She's separating the fact that she's not a human supremacist. Regardless of what the science says. But the fact is that the science regarding health is also good enough evidence on top of the fact that we should be not human supremacist
Would I waste away before eating an animal?
It's just that I don't think it's physically possible that eating animal stuff would uplift me, when no plant or fungi food on Earth could have achieved the same effect. That has to be a theoretical impossibility.
I love your points. On the last one, I don't think they should retract what they said because it was honest. They would not want an animal to die to sustain their lives. What they should have mentioned though is that this is not a necessary view to be vegan. Just like a lion has no choice and is exempt you would too.
I would also add that animals die all time for food that is vegan in any case. Minimization is the name of the game. So, like you said, it is important to stick to buying as little as you can and starting with animals like bivalves.
Bella's lies are weird. Veganism cleared up my skin, made me so fertile I had 4 babies, and eating mostly whole plant foods has kept me healthier and looking younger. I'm 7 years without the animal suffering and look forward to the rest of my life advocating for animal liberation.
She was never vegan. It's just a lie carnivore content creators love vomiting because it gets them views
None of the vegans looked even slightly unhealthy. Kudos.
I'd like your opinion on this.
I am a former vegan, but I remain convinced that sentientism is a right moral paradigm. Often when I say that, vegans think I'm an hypocrite and that's where I'm not so sure to understand why exactly. I do not advocate against veganism, because it's obviously much better on average than any other consumption practices, but I think we can only tend towards sentientism as an ideal because in practice it's impossible not to discriminate at all against non human sentient beings.
It is pretty clear to me that veganism is a "easy" practicable way of tending toward this ideal, and it has many advantages, as it creates a community and a wholemovement you can identify to and rely on. I get why such labels can be useful, but it is also clear that there is a spectrum. I concluded that every argument in favor of veganism relatively to other consumptions practices can be applied within veganism.
My point is, not every vegan causes the same level of harm to non sentient beings, some are more "virtuous" than others in that sens, and yet it wouldn't come to our mind to blame any vegan for not buying the least harmful vegan product and to reduce the quantity they eat to the bare minimum. Yet, not doing this causes more harm, and in practice, there is nothing harder about eating less, or buying the other product in the market, or at least, it's not harder than switching from a meat eating diet to veganism. So it's not like veganism is the limit to what we can practically, reasonably do.
I don't think it's therefore a moral obligation to be vegan, nor there is a moral obligation to cause as least harm as possible because it's technically impossible to do so. We only have a moral obligation to tend towards habits that are more and more compatible with sentientism, but sadly it can never be 100% compatible. Therefore, not being in favor of veganism is not necessarly a bad thing.
I don't totally understand your argument, but I don't believe in moral obligations so I agree with you there. Plenty of vegans are always trying to do better, and I think that matters. But whatever vegan products we buy, they're not nearly as harmful as animal products. Have you seen Dominion?
@@Natalie.Fulton Thanks for your reply. My argument is maybe unclear (english is not my first language so, sorry about that).
I absolutely agree that vegan options are generally better. I also agree that many vegans do not just stop at veganism like it's the end of their journey. As I said, I do not argue against veganism at all, if anything I am still defending veganism when people try to misrepresent what it is.
My argument was just against the idea that veganism is some kind of milestone for moral, that is, the point were your consumption becomes morally acceptable in an anti-specist perspective. I'd like to think that it is some kind of strawman and that the vast majority of vegans do not think that way, but honnestly from what I experienced (for what it's worth) many vegans are very likely to defend the idea that you can't be anti-specist if you consume animal products (or more specifically, sentient animal products). I think it's not true, even a meat eater can say he is anti-specist (I'm no saying it's likely to happen though), because he might simply agree with the concept and strive on doing better to go toward that ideal.
Why so many words just to admit you support needless and intentional animal abuse?
@@davidformosa7626 Given that most vegan food products imply deaths of sentient beings, don't you think the same logic apply to you when you eat more than necessary ? Don't you intentionally support unnecessary animal abuse (which btw is not a sentientist approach, "animals" are not all sentient and I couldn't care less about non-sentient beings) ?
You're illustrating my point very well
@karndesintox9612 In a non-vegan world,buying more vegan products leads to vegan products becoming more accessible and cheaper. Plus,there is a lot of reasons to believe that crop farming actually reduces the amount of sufferint where it is done. Because wildly more animals would suffer in wild-land if it wasn't a crop field,more crop production is better for the animals there. Veganic farming would be better,but most of us don't have this option,thus buying more vegan products is good for promoting veganism,reduce wild suffering and economically reinforcing the plant-based market. All of which reduce animal suffering and the number of rights violations that happen to animals.
You should have been on the debate
I have a question about your commentary around switching to the other side.. do you feel the case for animal rights is dependent on if they feel pain? If so, are you okay with eating oysters? I'm not trying to grill you, I'm vegan myself, but I've seen Joey Carbstrong talk as if the question of animal rights doesn't depend on pain and instead depends on sentience which I do see the point in.. but pain is the easier point to argue for than sentience alone.
Do you think it might depend on just which rights you believe other animals should be awarded? I believe we mean three basic rights - the rights to be free, to be able to live their own lives on their own terms (ie bodily autonomy) and the right not to be treated cruelly. If an organism can feel pain but doesn't have a complex inner life (such that being free and autonomous can't matter to them) then only the last seems applicable. On such grounds it would be perfectly fine to farm and eat pain experiencing but less cognitively complex animals.
If there is any doubt then why eat them. Besides oysters are the trash bins of the ocean, you'd really have to hate the me-animal to eat them.
I think sentience, but pain is easier for people to understand and a good barometer for sentience.
Watch Mic the Vegan on bivalves. They respond to touch and flee from danger by moving around or closing their shell. They want to live.
Why make the mistake and risk of hurting bivalves if some people assume they can't feel pain or have sentience?
That's like how Dr. James Marion Sims didn't think Africans could feel pain. So he did vivisection on African slaves without painkillers.
Though I think it's weird Sims believed that when he told other slaves to hold down the slave experimented on because that slave would thrash in pain and try to escape.
Btw, Sims was given a statue that is still up in America.
Jubilee?!? Happy holidays though!
I wonder if Jubilee would invite NAMBLA to discuss with CPS.
Jubilee only pretends to be unbiased. It’s so dishonest and frustrating
0 11...... Oh, wow! Torre Washington did another one. I'm gonna have to check that main video out, too.
I’m just glad it’s still a relevant topic.
Great video interesting points 😊😊😊
The vegans did a great job 😊💚🙏🫂
Everyone should be vegan for the animals 😊🙏❤️🫂🐮🐷🐔🐟🐇🐝❤️❤️❤️
Wow, exposing just the first "carnivore" on her lying blatantly is wild and needs to be mainstream news.
I think vegan gains said he was going to try to go on jubilee
👋💚🌱
Lifting vegan logic and Dr nagra tried to get on the show but they weren't allowed to. They would have been great. Natalie would have been great too!
hooooooo boy...
Not sure that would be a great idea. He's way too controversial.
10 15..... The lab grown meat thing is under scrutiny, though. It's about the enzymes and nutrient fluids they use to fuel the growth process. Ever since lab grown meat became a thing, I've had my suspicions.
That maybe why precision fermentation is already much more likely to be the winner. It's also been around for decades already.
@Human_Herbivore Precision Fermentation? I'm not familiar.
@JubeiKibagamiFez Google is your friend on that. George Monbiot talks a lot about it too.
journey
So why are you mad that Bella prepared for a debate with her husband?
I love you Natalie and appreciate your activism
Natalie is the perfect participant for such shows! (I think I would screw it up)
One of the carnivore influencer slyly suggested farmed animals don't get diseases. I made a rebuttal video to that false insinuation.
i love your style of videos
A tag team of Natalie, LVL, joey and Ed will be a formidable force 😂
Oof, that bunch together could convert Ronald MacDonald 🤡🥦
Could you even imagine??
'I wish he hadn't been wearing a shirt at all' 😂😂❤ I have to agree!
Love 💚
I don't know - the average person isn't much interested in veganism and it's hard to see how to convince them. Study after study shows that vegans and veganism are derided and dismissed by most. I kinda felt that all of the vegans wheeled out well-worn tropes that have been failing for well over 70 years. I suspect it isn't going to be very convincing to most folk to argue that done right, a vegan-friendly diet can be healthy. The average person doesn't bother doing their diet right yet is very unlikely to experience the kinds of health issues doing a plants-only diet badly might cause. A poorly executed vegan-friendly diet very much can be harmful and for pretty obvious reasons (we are not herbivores). Also, saying you are prepared to die rather than eat an animal just is not veganism, that's a personal stance. A vegan-friendly diet can include animals, nowhere does the definition of veganism demand that someone must not eat animals regardless of circumstances.
I think it depends where you are. the UK and Germany seem to be making great strides
@@Natalie.Fulton I hear that often, but the numbers even there are relatively small. Maybe we are in a transition stage whereby the numbers will slowly grow in coming decades as young people take up the idea.
I think the animal-using industries have been very successful in pushing back over the past several years and given most people don't want to give up eating animals, they are very quick to be reassurered by that messaging.
9:05 brilliant point, and strategy
OMG! You are one of my favorite activists out there! This is so well thought out and presented! Thank you! You have a knack of thinking out of the box. I hope you get invited to some of these open table discussions in the future :)
What's with that lighting? 😂
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! I'm still working on my lighting, I'm no film student 😂
I gave it a like. Please don’t cry yourself to sleep.
wow that group was really good.
Great video Natalie!
Shared this video twice. Well said 🎉
Natalie, I think you very gifted in how you diplomatically speak about being vegan.
As far as the young lady with the issues she had when she was vegan, I can't help feeling that she is more like an far outlier with maybe medical and perhaps psychological issues (I don't mean that in a bad way).
Excellent critique
Good tips!
Let’s get you on episode two with Danny, nagra and Joey.
I would only go vegan if everyone else had to
glad to see you think for yourself /s
@Natalie.Fulton oh look, another vegan being a dick. I think animal cruelty is a global problem which requires political change and don't want to be one of the only ones to make the sacrifice while everyone else is free to eat meat, and the global problem remains
@Natalie.Fulton animal cruelty is a global problem that I can't fix "myself"
@@KimmyJongUn You can start by being part of the solution and stop being part of the problem. If 10% of the entire world population was vegan,factory farming would not be able to withstand the pressure,because of how finanicially reliant on taxpayer money these industries are and how cheap it is to produce plant products. That's all we need,10%. You can be part of that change. Political change only happens if enough individuals act. Marti Luther King Jr was hated by 2 thirds of the population. But a minority of people fighting for someone's rights is enough,historically.
@@KimmyJongUn Plus we have ample research that just one person going vegan means less animals are killed and mistreated. There are studies on this that i can provide if you so wish.
"journey" 😅
You are such a great advocate for the animals! Nice work!
"Animals were put here for humans to eat" implies there is a god that created animals. It would make no sense to agree with that sentiment. Allowing the carnivores to rant for 4 minutes is better than conceding a ridiculous point like that
I agree the notion of an all powerful god allowing 80 billion individuals to be tormented is absurd and perverse.
One comment I saw that changed my perspective is humans breed animals to consume them.
If the vegans conceded to that, then they would have been able to interrupt the carnists framing and spotlight at the likely most watched part of the debate.
Had I been there, I wouldn't have stepped forward because I assumed that was a supernatural reference too.
no, you can twist it to mean that they were created by humans, which is true. allowing carnivores to rant is bad strategy, the animals need us to be three steps ahead.
@@Natalie.Fulton Except animals were not "created" by humans. It would be a very far stretch to say that domestication of animals for food would be humans "creating" those animals. You are really reaching for that one.
The animals need vegans to be persuasive. These carnivores are going to releasing hours and hours of content anyway. I'm struggling to see how them going first in this debate would at all poison the well to the point where the vegans wouldn't have a chance to convince those open to hearing the arguments once it is their turn. I think the main problem here is that all the vegan debaters here were extremely weak debaters.
If you had someone like Dr. Avi or even Earthling Ed on there it would have been a bloodbath. It probably did more damage to veganism having these sorts of characters make weak arguments instead of having well-educated vegans represent the position. The activists on here just presented so many weak, generic, emotional arguments that just confirmed the negative stereotypes the average person has about vegans.
Your shift of the phrase "animals are put on earth to be eaten by humans" was kind of mind blowing for me!!!
Everytime I hear this, I automatically argue about god and compassion and Jesus (I recently watched Christpiracy to increase my arsenal) and all that stuff (I'm an atheist), so I find this a delusional ridiculous assertion.
But yes, you are 100% correct, animals are put on earth, BY HUMANS, to be eaten by humans. We bred them into existence for this sole purpose...
I know it is stupid, but it was a mindblowing way to think about this phrase...
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't catch the underlying reframing that humans literally breed animals into existence to be exploited and murdered. I was upset at first
thanks!
Just because people bred animals doesn't mean it's ok to abuse them.
A marine bred his kids for p3do and it doesn't make it ok. He was playing god. He premeditated that idea before his kids were conceived.
👋 hi
Great video!
oh no, these pick-me "ex-vegans". how come other people just dont have those problems... and how does that even correlate to the situations animals have to go through.
That's the thing, other people do have these issues and she mentions it in the video. She says there are online communities of people just like her. The problem is that these communities still don't show what they ate during their vegan experience so it's mostly just people like her that think WFPB is veganism.
nice points Natalie, I like how you framed the questions so you can just weigh back in with the same pivot to veganism, like with the "would you consider the other side"
It's cool youre resisting the natural tendency to exert the morality and inserting yourself in the carnies shoes, so we need stuff like that going forth for better communication :)
0:44 hey at least you got good taste in degenerate beer id say
Can you make a video of you just responding to steak and butter bish? Everything she says, just make a response to it.
not sure if my brain can stand it but I'll consider!
🙀 🙀 🙀 🙀 🙀
❤🌱
Great point about finding ways to agree with as many prompts as possible to be able to give pushback to the obvious supporters.
Solid takes here.
I lol'd at the "journey" meme; thanks for including it. xD
Damn Natalie! That was an excellent critique. Keep it up 💪
thank you!
Monty Python be like: Veganism turned me into a newt…I got better
your points are really really good.
Excellent points Natalie. Thank you for helping us be better advocates for the animals. 💚🌱
I find it ridiculous that vegans tell people they are doing the vegan diet wrong if they don't supplement. If the vegan diet requires you to supplement then you're not doing the diet wrong, the diet itself is wrong.
Farm animals are given supplements. They eat the supplements and you eat them... so you are also supplementing anyways.
There's nothing wrong with supplementing, putting a baby animal through literal hell because you can't be bothered to take a b12 pill is a very weak ethical stance to have.
Exactly. Well said. "The diet itself is wrong". Common sense, but people lack common sense. Humans are the only species on the planet that takes supplements - because it's the only species that doesn't eat the diet that it is designed for - and hence is the only species that suffers from a long list of diseases. BTW, I'm a 45-year vegan, still doing arduous construction work, and I've never taken a supplement. Never so much as an aspirin, either. Never sick.
Farm animals eat supplements, then you eat the animals. So you are supplementing anyway...
I don't think 'i can't be bothered to take b12' is a good enough reason to k*ll animals?
Your argument doesn't really make sense because B12 comes from microbes in soil. The only reason vegans don't get it is because of our modern food system, where everything is sanitized. Even farmed animals are supplemented with B12.
Vitamin D comes from the sun, but once again our modern society keeps people indoors more. You're basically blaming veganism when the actual reason for supplements is a change in human lifestlye
Well said. I would add that humans used to get B12 by drinking untreated water from ponds and streams which had B12 in it from the microbes in the soil. Yes they could also get it from eating animals but they did not have to.
Absolutely fantastic video. I could not agree more with the idea of getting some sort of a message out on prompts that I would say are framed in a pro-meat eating way.
I think too often we forget that being “right” about something is only one part of the equation but communicating effectively to your audience is what will really make a difference, especially in the case of animal rights/Veganism.