Yes, it's an appeal to futility when a vegan is trying to liberate animals, and somebody says, "But why aren't you fighting for gay rights or racism or child slavery?" One shouldn't be seen as less important than the other, and they can all be done simultaneously. Similar to saying, "Why aren't you a doctor?" When I'm a dentist! After all, we can do both because being vegan, we choose not to "do." We actually choose to "refrain" rather than do...
Indeed a good example. In informal logic the fallacy of that person is called a false dichotomy. It means that people act as if there are only two options: you’re ether against animal abuse or you’re against child abuse, while obviously everyone should be against both. That person uses this fallacy of a false dichotomy as a tactic to excuse themselves from taking action. The tactic is the ludicrous non-sequitur of: child abuse is so bad “therefore” I’ll keep abusing animals. This is a bit of a long explanation, so the reply ‘would you ask your dentist why they’re not a doctor?’ is an easier and funnier way to get that point across. The more fallacies you know, the easier you can recognize them. Come up with simple and funny replies and more people are forced to self reflect and hopefully become vegan. Keep up the great work ❤
Well.. a suck-it-&-see (literally), peer review saw WF omni. "blow away" almost entirely WFPB by a country mile. I choose to refrain from the issues caused by ditching almost all "meat" but you do you.
Lots of information given, excellent Vegan outreach and responses to questions, informing people about their unnecessary participation in the horrific abuse of animals. If you are an ethical vegan tell everyone you know and meet everything you know about the animal holocaust, remaining silent,does nothing to help the Animals !!
it appeared that the young woman with the blond hair was listening very closely. i wonder if she was thinking about this a bit before your conversation. you did well, Cip. thank you so much for your dedication to the animals.🌱💚
We can obviously care about more than one thing at once, advocating for non-human animal rights doesn't mean we don't care about humans♥️♥️♥️ Great work Cip💚💚💚🤗🤗🤗🐮🐷🐔🐱🐶🐴🐟🐟🐟🌱🌱🌱♥️♥️♥️
It’s just another excuse: “yea, well.. I care about people, you care about animals” type of thing. The reality is more like “vegans care about animals and humans, nonvegans only care about humans, if that” 🤗💚💚
You're so good at this, and I really like how you add some graphical elements when you talk about the practices, and how you motivate them to do more research along with resources.
It's so frustrating when you explain what happens to male chicks and instead of engaging with the clearly unethical practices she just heard about she immediately brings up child labor. Animals are so low on their moral scale it's saddening..
It is frustrating. It’s an ad hominem with the purpose to absolve themselves from their own responsibility in the matter. But, I hope they got that they are 2 separate issues. 🤗💚
Nicely done with the rebuttal of human slaves tho. Thought you were going to go down a rabbit hole. I suppose the other rebuttal (that you can't explain in a street outreach context) is that people generally choose the best job available to them and what looks like slavery to you is the best option for another (assuming they are being paid) and by them losing my 'support' and their 'bad' job, it could make their life a lot harder.
I want to be clear in my statement that I do not think you are betraying the animals or even that what you are saying is inherently bad/wrong. While I understand that 1) we are in the unfortunate position of not being able to force veganism onto people (via having a vegan world) and 2) since they ultimately will decide whether to be vegan, you want to respect their agency/autonomy, I strongly do believe that telling them to educate themselves and then decide what they want to do (in this outreach I appreciate that you at least said decide if you want to be complicit even though you don’t always) detracts from the moral/ethical urgency that we are trying to convey. As an alternative, you could end on something like “the animals need (or are counting on) you to do the right thing). I always say to people that even if you because vegan as of this moment, I still want you to educate yourself so you can be knowledgeable about why your vegan, see what the animals go through for yourself, and be able to talk to others”. You could also end on an AV approach that I saw from IG: “from this point forward how many animals should have to die for you: zero or a lot”. I saw that you acknowledged in your conversation with Justin that you error on being passive. I think this ending is a manifestation of it and something you could adjust and improve. On a much less important note in my mind, when someone asks what about people/the children, why are you not out here for them? I think mentioning the numbers and the scale (how many animals get killed) of the problem is the most impactful and effective way to respond.
I agree on ending it differently, but I wouldn’t want to go into numbers with them. I’m not trying to convince them that animal rights are more important, but rather that they are at least as important. Thanks for the suggestion! I’ve been thinking about having a better ending 🤗💚
Of course. I hear what you are saying about the numbers (although I wasn’t suggesting that the numbers means it is more important). Hope it is helpful. Thank you for your work!
I know, you were saying it’s more effective. But, it would still be a human to animal comparison and it seems that most people have difficulties making that comparison.
Idk why my previous comment isn't showing up, but anyway. I'm only annoyed by the argument, that what we do to animals is the same in some cases we do to people. It's clearly not! We don't treat animals as equals and that's why even the "best" free range animals are sent to the slaughterhouse.
Hey cip, good job as usual, but i think your reply to the appeal to hypocrisy/appeal to futility argument could be strengthened, you are conceding ground that you do not need to. First off, point out that it is disingenuous to challenge someone else to meet a standard one is not meeting themselves. If she does, this warrants a conversation on why boycotting animal products is at least as much a moral imperative. But presumably she does not source her clothing any more responsibly than you do, and this implies that she agrees with you that purchasing the clothes that may have involved child labor, while warranting ethical consideration, is not an act unethical enough to boycott. The point of disagreement is about the purchasing of animal products. So what are the differences that make boycotting animal products but not clothing products that MIGHT involve child exploitation imperative? First, you can confidently state that you would definitely boycott any product that entailed murdering anyone, humans too, so if she can prove anything you are wearing entails this, you will of course stop. She cannot, while you CAN prove the animal products she buys do entail murder. You can point out that if the same protections and global concern existed for animals that exist for children you would not be standing on the street corner advocating for animal rights because they’d already have them, and that if people were murdering human children to eat them instead of nonhuman children you would be fighting for human children instead. Second is the certainty of exploitation when buying animal products, while this is not entailed in clothing production. In fact, as horrible as sweat shop conditions are from the perspective of our comfortable modern lifestyles, a lot of situations where workers are young or paid poorly or work in dismal conditions, these people would be even worse off if everyone boycotted these companies to shut down the factories and move them into wealthier countries which they would do if forced to pay more for labor. The workers left behind would potentially starve to death then. The disadvantaged people working in these factories now weren’t bred into existence to be exploited until their murder- the factory jobs arent great but they put food on the table. Third is the egregiousness of exploitation by the average victim, who is always stolen from their loved ones aa and murdered as an infant or a child in the animal case, and isolated from their loved ones all their short life. Fourth is the fact that there are national and international laws protecting children from murder, and regulatory agencies that minimize infractions, even if they happen, while in animal product production baby-theft and murder is legal.
Hearing all that she still wants to consume something from them. This proves no matter how many of these creatures you talk to they are all the same. It’s hard to stop the suffering of others. Not really? 🤯 poor hitler it must was so hard for him to stop the suffering. Poor guy😪
Quite cold, these girls & didn't seem overly moved when you spoke about the dairy & eggs. Came across self centred & selfish & seemed very much humans are worth fighting for more than animals.
Leave people to their choices. Now if you want to speak about the abuses of animal husbandry, you are speaking to the wrong people. You can try to change the whole world vegan, but it will take at least 2 centuries. And you certainly won't make any progress speaking to teenagers. What you need to do is address the source of the issue and propose alternatives in a way that is very hard to dispute. I have yet to find a vegan who could make an argument that is more then 'bu-but think of the animals!'. You have to understand how old the animal busbandry industry is and how much it supports local communities. You cannot expect a whole community to change their cultural cuisine and their livelihoods based on emotional speeches. And even if they did, they would face huge finacial strain when the system changes. So the alternative should be a slow shift thag more vegans are against. They want everyone to become vegan ASAP without an acclimatization time. And agriculture as an alternative is far more labor intensive and puts strain on both people and lands where it isn't suitable. Sure vegans can argue that resources are being redirected, but the issue is not resources but time. To get a sustainable yeild through agriculture takes time. And agian, most vegans don't want an acclimatization time, they want immediate results. And all this is not even addressing the issue of essential nutrients that are only available through animal products. If we go the supplement route, we will be sponsoring the already rigged pharma industrial complex that places huge financial burdens on people with medical issues. Do vegans even think of the bigger picture unless it caters to them? To summarize, ehat the world needs is not more vegans, rather major reformations in agricultural and animal husbandry practices
1. Slow shift for a system doesn’t mean slow shift for an individual. 2. Just because it’s been happening for centuries, doesn’t make it okay. 3. What does meat have that you can’t get from plants? 4. Plant agriculture is monumentally more sustainable. There’s a lot of empirical evidence for that. I don’t think that you understand what you’re defending. You’re saying we should keep being violent towards animals, because it’s hard otherwise. Do you really wanna be violent towards animals?
Yes, it's an appeal to futility when a vegan is trying to liberate animals, and somebody says, "But why aren't you fighting for gay rights or racism or child slavery?" One shouldn't be seen as less important than the other, and they can all be done simultaneously.
Similar to saying, "Why aren't you a doctor?" When I'm a dentist! After all, we can do both because being vegan, we choose not to "do." We actually choose to "refrain" rather than do...
Such a good analogy! Would you tell a dentist “Why aren’t you a doctor”?
Thanks, Robin 🙏🤗💚
Indeed a good example. In informal logic the fallacy of that person is called a false dichotomy. It means that people act as if there are only two options: you’re ether against animal abuse or you’re against child abuse, while obviously everyone should be against both.
That person uses this fallacy of a false dichotomy as a tactic to excuse themselves from taking action. The tactic is the ludicrous non-sequitur of: child abuse is so bad “therefore” I’ll keep abusing animals.
This is a bit of a long explanation, so the reply ‘would you ask your dentist why they’re not a doctor?’ is an easier and funnier way to get that point across.
The more fallacies you know, the easier you can recognize them. Come up with simple and funny replies and more people are forced to self reflect and hopefully become vegan.
Keep up the great work ❤
Well.. a suck-it-&-see (literally), peer review saw WF omni. "blow away" almost entirely WFPB by a country mile. I choose to refrain from the issues caused by ditching almost all "meat" but you do you.
@@jk2973 You got it spot on! 💚🐮🌱
Nice work Cip. I think the girl on the right of the screen looked highly receptive to all you said.
She seemed the most open to me too. Thanks for watching 🙏🤗💚
@@veganpowerlab My pleasure. Keep up the great work 😎.
Lots of information given, excellent Vegan outreach and responses to questions, informing people about their unnecessary participation in the horrific abuse of animals.
If you are an ethical vegan tell everyone you know and meet everything you know about the animal holocaust, remaining silent,does nothing to help the Animals !!
Yes we should speak up every opportunity♥️♥️♥️🥺🥺🥺🐄🐖🐓🐟🐐🐇🐑🐎🐈💚💚💚
Yes, we need to speak up and inform people. The animals deserve it🤗💚💚
it appeared that the young woman with the blond hair was listening very closely. i wonder if she was thinking about this a bit before your conversation. you did well, Cip. thank you so much for your dedication to the animals.🌱💚
We can obviously care about more than one thing at once, advocating for non-human animal rights doesn't mean we don't care about humans♥️♥️♥️
Great work Cip💚💚💚🤗🤗🤗🐮🐷🐔🐱🐶🐴🐟🐟🐟🌱🌱🌱♥️♥️♥️
It’s just another excuse: “yea, well.. I care about people, you care about animals” type of thing.
The reality is more like “vegans care about animals and humans, nonvegans only care about humans, if that”
🤗💚💚
100% agree. Being vegan means expanding your compassion.
Very good outreach Cip , short but as always to the point . Hopefully they'll take on board what they've heard and become vegan .
I hope so too, Martin! I perhaps should work on the ending there, but otherwise good discussion
Always on point 👍
Thank you so much 🤗💚
You're so good at this, and I really like how you add some graphical elements when you talk about the practices, and how you motivate them to do more research along with resources.
The 2nd woman you talked to was completely heartless. Nothing touched her heart.
Great advocacy. You gave them some things to think about and also handled their questions well.
Excellent outreach. Thank you 💗💗💗
Thank you so much 🙏🤗💚
It's so frustrating when you explain what happens to male chicks and instead of engaging with the clearly unethical practices she just heard about she immediately brings up child labor. Animals are so low on their moral scale it's saddening..
It is frustrating. It’s an ad hominem with the purpose to absolve themselves from their own responsibility in the matter.
But, I hope they got that they are 2 separate issues. 🤗💚
Great outreach
Vegan activist Hero ✊✊✊✊
*Create a Better 🌎 and a Better You by..............Living Vegan* 💜
💚💚💚😊😊😊🐥🐥🐥♥️♥️♥️
@@NathanBlackberry
👋
You completed this task perfectly ❤ 🌱 I love this
As always, awesome work Cip! Also, I think it's a great idea how you throw in the factory farmed animal clips for people who watch your videos. 👍🌱💯💚
Nice conversation ✌😊
Great job Cip!
Great work. Thank you.💚💚💚
Nicely done 💚
Thank you for the video. Subscribed.🌱☮🌱
Nicely done with the rebuttal of human slaves tho. Thought you were going to go down a rabbit hole.
I suppose the other rebuttal (that you can't explain in a street outreach context) is that people generally choose the best job available to them and what looks like slavery to you is the best option for another (assuming they are being paid) and by them losing my 'support' and their 'bad' job, it could make their life a lot harder.
I want to be clear in my statement that I do not think you are betraying the animals or even that what you are saying is inherently bad/wrong. While I understand that 1) we are in the unfortunate position of not being able to force veganism onto people (via having a vegan world) and 2) since they ultimately will decide whether to be vegan, you want to respect their agency/autonomy, I strongly do believe that telling them to educate themselves and then decide what they want to do (in this outreach I appreciate that you at least said decide if you want to be complicit even though you don’t always) detracts from the moral/ethical urgency that we are trying to convey. As an alternative, you could end on something like “the animals need (or are counting on) you to do the right thing). I always say to people that even if you because vegan as of this moment, I still want you to educate yourself so you can be knowledgeable about why your vegan, see what the animals go through for yourself, and be able to talk to others”. You could also end on an AV approach that I saw from IG: “from this point forward how many animals should have to die for you: zero or a lot”. I saw that you acknowledged in your conversation with Justin that you error on being passive. I think this ending is a manifestation of it and something you could adjust and improve.
On a much less important note in my mind, when someone asks what about people/the children, why are you not out here for them? I think mentioning the numbers and the scale (how many animals get killed) of the problem is the most impactful and effective way to respond.
I agree on ending it differently, but I wouldn’t want to go into numbers with them. I’m not trying to convince them that animal rights are more important, but rather that they are at least as important.
Thanks for the suggestion! I’ve been thinking about having a better ending 🤗💚
Of course. I hear what you are saying about the numbers (although I wasn’t suggesting that the numbers means it is more important). Hope it is helpful. Thank you for your work!
I know, you were saying it’s more effective. But, it would still be a human to animal comparison and it seems that most people have difficulties making that comparison.
Another masterpiece! Keep it up
maybe veganism goes along with antinatalism too.
Idk why my previous comment isn't showing up, but anyway. I'm only annoyed by the argument, that what we do to animals is the same in some cases we do to people. It's clearly not! We don't treat animals as equals and that's why even the "best" free range animals are sent to the slaughterhouse.
Hey cip, good job as usual, but i think your reply to the appeal to hypocrisy/appeal to futility argument could be strengthened, you are conceding ground that you do not need to. First off, point out that it is disingenuous to challenge someone else to meet a standard one is not meeting themselves. If she does, this warrants a conversation on why boycotting animal products is at least as much a moral imperative. But presumably she does not source her clothing any more responsibly than you do, and this implies that she agrees with you that purchasing the clothes that may have involved child labor, while warranting ethical consideration, is not an act unethical enough to boycott. The point of disagreement is about the purchasing of animal products.
So what are the differences that make boycotting animal products but not clothing products that MIGHT involve child exploitation imperative? First, you can confidently state that you would definitely boycott any product that entailed murdering anyone, humans too, so if she can prove anything you are wearing entails this, you will of course stop. She cannot, while you CAN prove the animal products she buys do entail murder. You can point out that if the same protections and global concern existed for animals that exist for children you would not be standing on the street corner advocating for animal rights because they’d already have them, and that if people were murdering human children to eat them instead of nonhuman children you would be fighting for human children instead.
Second is the certainty of exploitation when buying animal products, while this is not entailed in clothing production. In fact, as horrible as sweat shop conditions are from the perspective of our comfortable modern lifestyles, a lot of situations where workers are young or paid poorly or work in dismal conditions, these people would be even worse off if everyone boycotted these companies to shut down the factories and move them into wealthier countries which they would do if forced to pay more for labor. The workers left behind would potentially starve to death then. The disadvantaged people working in these factories now weren’t bred into existence to be exploited until their murder- the factory jobs arent great but they put food on the table.
Third is the egregiousness of exploitation by the average victim, who is always stolen from their loved ones aa and murdered as an infant or a child in the animal case, and isolated from their loved ones all their short life.
Fourth is the fact that there are national and international laws protecting children from murder, and regulatory agencies that minimize infractions, even if they happen, while in animal product production baby-theft and murder is legal.
I fd dozens of teenage girls growing up. They're not that bright......
Hearing all that she still wants to consume something from them. This proves no matter how many of these creatures you talk to they are all the same. It’s hard to stop the suffering of others. Not really? 🤯 poor hitler it must was so hard for him to stop the suffering. Poor guy😪
Quite cold, these girls & didn't seem overly moved when you spoke about the dairy & eggs. Came across self centred & selfish & seemed very much humans are worth fighting for more than animals.
Leave people to their choices. Now if you want to speak about the abuses of animal husbandry, you are speaking to the wrong people. You can try to change the whole world vegan, but it will take at least 2 centuries. And you certainly won't make any progress speaking to teenagers. What you need to do is address the source of the issue and propose alternatives in a way that is very hard to dispute. I have yet to find a vegan who could make an argument that is more then 'bu-but think of the animals!'.
You have to understand how old the animal busbandry industry is and how much it supports local communities. You cannot expect a whole community to change their cultural cuisine and their livelihoods based on emotional speeches. And even if they did, they would face huge finacial strain when the system changes. So the alternative should be a slow shift thag more vegans are against. They want everyone to become vegan ASAP without an acclimatization time.
And agriculture as an alternative is far more labor intensive and puts strain on both people and lands where it isn't suitable. Sure vegans can argue that resources are being redirected, but the issue is not resources but time. To get a sustainable yeild through agriculture takes time. And agian, most vegans don't want an acclimatization time, they want immediate results.
And all this is not even addressing the issue of essential nutrients that are only available through animal products. If we go the supplement route, we will be sponsoring the already rigged pharma industrial complex that places huge financial burdens on people with medical issues.
Do vegans even think of the bigger picture unless it caters to them?
To summarize, ehat the world needs is not more vegans, rather major reformations in agricultural and animal husbandry practices
1. Slow shift for a system doesn’t mean slow shift for an individual.
2. Just because it’s been happening for centuries, doesn’t make it okay.
3. What does meat have that you can’t get from plants?
4. Plant agriculture is monumentally more sustainable. There’s a lot of empirical evidence for that.
I don’t think that you understand what you’re defending. You’re saying we should keep being violent towards animals, because it’s hard otherwise.
Do you really wanna be violent towards animals?