No, You're NOT Vegan: Unnatural Vegan, Fully Raw Kristina, & Peter Singer

suppose I were to tell you that there
was a major leader a vocal advocate in the vegan movement who wears leather shoes and not accidentally not once in a while not in transition not due to poverty so many consciously intentionally makes the decision to buy and wear leather shoes you might say she's not vegan suppose I were to tell you that there is another vegan who is a vocal advocate for veganism and a leader in the movement who believes that you do no harm to an animal when killing it who believes that it is acceptable to kill animals so long as you treat them with compassion prior to being killed who supports the idea of use and exploitation of animals varying from castration of animals all the way over to taking eggs from hens that are kept in your house and eating the eggs whole range of things you might respond to that by saying well she's not vegan it is not surprising that of these two people I'm alluding to one being fully well Christina the other being a natural vegan that the latter unnatural vegan has lately made some mealy-mouthed excuses for the former for the fact that fully raw Christina has been wearing shoes and a natural vegan says that really doesn't matter from her perspective well yes a natural vegan given that you have consistently and dogmatically defended the insane and immoral philosophy of Peter Singer a so-called utilitarian in a so-called consequentialist it is not surprising to me that you would laugh at a serious matter of wearing leather shoes I think that wearing leather shoes is a very serious ethical decision and I think it is a decision some people have no choice about if you're on military service just due to extreme poverty or what have you but those are not the circumstances we're discussing here not at all are they and I think this does open a window onto a fairly serious profound question of the legacy of Peter Singer and utilitarianism in veganism today because if we are being honest with ourselves even if you emotionally feel some sense of gratitude towards Peter Singer even if you feel the decades ago he inspired you to get interested in vegetarianism or veganism even if you see him as being a major voice in animal rights the reality is by our understanding of veganism today in 2017 Peter Singer is not vegan the idea that you can kill an animal without harming it is not vegan I have a quotation here from Peter Singer I would like to read verbatim and is indeed not a very flattering quotation you can find other places where he says this more elegantly uses more um academic language um quote there might be some people who say you can't be compassionate if you end up killing the animals I think that's wrong I think as long as the standards really are compassionate ones that do as much as they can to give the animals decent lies before they're killed I don't have a problem with it close quote that's Peter Singer that's Peter singers position Peter singers position which a natural vegan does her best to now the words of is that it's okay to kill an animal it's okay to castrate an animal it's okay to domesticate an animal he believes it's okay well let's keep it clear a natural vegan even believes that it's okay under some circumstances to use an animal to produce milk and then to consume that milk or chickens to produce eggs because she subscribes to this fundamentally absurd view that animals lack a continuity of consciousness they lack a level of intelligence that would make them aware of the few sure be able to imagine think about the future and the past in a way that would entitle them to the right not to die not to be killed for human convenience not to be castrated domesticated have their will broken turned into a toy in a plaything for human entertainment not to live their whole life on a concrete floor in a shed never seeing a member of the opposite sex of their species never having anything like a natural life just to produce milk for human consumption milk that is not necessary it's not good for your health but there is a very real sense in which unnatural vegan is not vegan and she's aware of this tension I have an interview here where the I'll give the link below this video the interviewer asked her directly about the connection between her philosophy her view of the world and Peter Singer the utilitarian tradition the utility tradition with Ian veganism all those who say that is not it's not vegan would you describe yourself as utilitarian the interviewer asks or as I often find in the case of philosophy is it more complicated than that she replies yes I would I guess I'm just a dirty utilitarian welfarist in all seriousness I believe consequences and context matter not rules or concepts that mean nothing to creatures that do not have the intellectual capacity to understand them so pause remember what we're talking about here this is crucial to Peter singers whole philosophy of veganism she's actually claiming that an animal doesn't have the capacity to understand the difference between life and death she's actually claiming that these animals like a pig doesn't have the capacity to understand the difference between being castrated and not castrate that a dog a dog that literally licks its own balls a dog that has a nose so well tuned to detect the hormones of ism's bees a dog can't tell the difference to whether it's been castrated or not and that a pig has no interest in has no capacity appreciate the difference between a life as a wild boar in the forest foraging finding its own food and its life as a pet as a plaything being fed from a human hand a life in a pack whether talking but a pack of wolves or a pack of wild boars socializing within its own species as opposed to a life just existing for human entertainment for human needs you really think no I don't know I do not think that pigs or dogs have the language to reflect on these things but if you think they can't appreciate that if you think there's any animal endowed with eyes and ears and a brain that is not aware of that cannot appreciate the difference between whether it is alive or dead you've gone very far down this consequentialist road you've really bought into a delusion that that in is a delusion that was created for what reason this this this illusion that an animal doesn't care if you kill it it only cares that you kill it humanely that's a myth only made up for human convenience that's not a myth that's derived from research into animal intelligence animal behavior or even animal welfare as she's brought the term welfare that's that's a myth that only serves our convenience as humans and it's not vegan so she continues for instance Gary Fred Sione and other vegans would say that animal exploitation is wrong regardless of the consequences I would argue that exploitation only matters when it causes harm in which case it is really the harm that matters so pause so again she's extended that she herself extent of this to include eating chicken eggs if the chickens are raised in a family's backyard or milk from cows under some sufficiently happy circumstances is anyone stupid enough to imagine that a cow is not harmed by living its whole life in a shed to produce milk for human beings now there may be since that cow maybe you don't brand it with a number maybe you don't cut its ear to put a tag in it maybe you add cushions in the shed maybe you have a silk lined shed the most beautiful cowshed imaginable for this cow to live its life and produce milk for consumption and a few religious groups do that there are some small Hindu groups that have luxury accommodations for the cows that are produced in their milk it's still sick and twisted and bad and wrong you're still talking about human beings getting down on their hands and knees and sucking the milk out of another species tit it's still wrong and bad on so many levels and although you can from a human perspective claim that you're providing that cow with a good life that's only human definition of what a good life for a cow would be it has nothing to do with how that cow would live in the wild right it has nothing to the Oryx the wild ancestor of the cow right and it's the same with how you treat a dog or a pig one of these pigs that's being raised then as if it were a dog as a plaything this is a deeply problematic and incredibly easy to refute worldview that she has inherited from Peter Singer ok but I continue her reply to this is not over she says quote an elephant cannot comprehend being used for entertainment but it may not appreciate the inability to roam okay so she actually took it a step further you're claiming again this is completely consistent with Peter singers original vision that because an elephant doesn't have the continuity of consciousness necessary doesn't have the imaginative reflective capacity necessary to understand the difference between being exploited for human entertainment and being in the wilderness that therefore the elephant is not harmed by the circus by the petting zoo by being domesticated by being exploited for human attainment this is not being it and very simply put this is nothing I find this incredibly easy to refute but again I would just ask where did this evaluation of elephant intelligence come from because I wouldn't I wouldn't even accept this explanation for guinea pigs I mean you know for some animals where maybe their intelligence isn't that impressive to us but have you even just read literature we have centuries and centuries of human beings living together with elephants and for me like an ancient Buddhist literature already you know 2,500 years ago in ancient India human beings were deeply impressed by and somewhat terrified by the intelligence that elephants had you know um and to my knowledge the advancement of science and research on animal behavior intelligence has only deepened our appreciation for the elephant as our fellow earthling as a creature that has tremendous capacity to remember and make decisions and plan and use its time creatively and what have you but means to me this this is a justification as stupid as anything a meat-eater says and it serves the same fundamental purpose and it actually even though it is a welfarist position as she as she says though it shows no interest in the welfare of these animals if you want to see so that'll give you nightmares look at images of what really happens when a human being cuts the tusks off of an elephant that tusks there's you the blood and gore and pain involved yes the outer part of the Tusk is hard white material but the inside is red and bloody and full of nerve endings and to watch a human being d.tusk an elephant or cut the tests halfway which is absolutely par for the course absolutely as part of the domestication of animals domestication of elephants at some stage of their life and the whole process of training an elephant of breaking its will of making it of domesticating an elephant the brutality is unbelievable and yes it's very psychologically complex brutality because elephants are are so intelligent I started I could say more I've spent time around elephants in in Southeast Asia but this is the example she chose she didn't choose to use the example of chickens or fish it's mind-blowing to me that someone who pretends to be vegan someone who claims to be vegan would say this about about elephants showing apparent absolutely no interest in elephants in what the domestication exploitation of elephants really means in terms the harm done to them and also no interest to know if intelligence she's just dogmatically proceeding for the fact that Peter Singer claimed animals have no continuity of consciousness and that therefore you can kill them without harming them so obviously it's it's not much of a leap of inference for her to imagine that you can castrate them with it harming them or indeed you know elephants they go through a cycle when they are in must when their hormones are acting up and they're trying to mate human beings strapped down elephants in Chains to restrain them during their must and that also that would leave a powerful impression on you whether you're vegan or not just to see the physical struggle that humans have to live with and domesticate elephants and the elephant nose you you don't have to believe that elephants are close to ourselves and intelligence to realize that an elephant that is literally being chained down to prevent it from following its natural instincts of trying to mate with the opposite sex that human beings are restraining it in the most brutal and obvious fashion imaginable try to deprive it of its natural instincts and behaviors what do you think the elephant fails to understand about that situation and why would a vegan say this sentence quote an elephant cannot comprehend being used for entertainment so there's somewhat misleading quote here that the questioner says utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer is entirely motivated by a desire to reduce suffering this leads him to see no moral problem with ending the life of an animal if it could be achieved without that animal suffering so I've already I think raised enough concerns here to point out how absurd this is on many different levels today in 2017 I mean maybe in the 1960s this was really debated sincerely today in 2017 do you think that there is any debate within the vegan movement about whether or not killing an animal constitutes harm to that animal we have so many debates within veganism but that is not one of them there is no debate about whether or not killing an animal is harming it within veganism right but a natural vegan takes her stand outside of veganism and she takes her stand with Peter Singer and this so-called utilitarian tradition I agree with singer she says quote while I personally would not consume animals even if no suffering could be guaranteed I have no qualms with others choosing to do so so that was a natural vegan stating she has no qualms with other people eating animal meat yes as I quoted the beginning from singer the animals are treated with enough compassion if the animals are not suffering ok now maybe that's a fascinating philosophical position to take but it's not vegan it doesn't think of genius to point out this is a non vegan philosophy this is a non vegan political position I continue to quote as you said this cannot be guaranteed at least not at this time I either the killing an animal those suffering cannot be guaranteed at this time but what in the future we're gonna have such technologically advanced ways to kill animals that people can can eat meat and still be called vegan that's ridiculous I continue my quote this is why I promote eliminating or at least reducing animal consumption as difficult as it may seem it really is the best option in terms of reducing animal suffering buying chicken brace with humanely raised on the label just does not cut it close quote ok thank you unnatural vegan I hope you will change the name of your channel to a natural reduce it Aryan utilitarian ok because you're not vegan and you never have been you've been a consistent clone of Peter Singer for your entire YouTube career and I'd like you to come out of the closet and admit that you're not vegan all right now it's not surprising to me at all given that I know this about you that you've come out and made mealy mouth excuses for another vegan who is really a fake vegan fully raw Christina who wears leather shoes and you say from various ways in various perspective that doesn't matter you think that wearing leather shoes is less important than whether or not somebody supports the use of vaccines ok my opinion on vaccines is immaterial I'm basically Pro science so you know you can fill in the blanks believe it or not vaccines are not part of veganism people can be Pro vaccine or anti vaccine and still be and people can be pro-abortion or anti-abortion and still be vegan but these issues we've been talking about Swayze unnatural vegan these are actually central to the definition of veganism whether or not killing animals is acceptable whether or not wearing leather shoes are is acceptable this is not extraneous to or outside of veganism alright so you're dead wrong to make excuses for a vegan someone who claims to be vegan in the vegan mover a leader in the vegan movement wearing leather shoes on the basis that wearing leather shoes is from your cute little perspective less important than whether or not they endorse the use of vaccines on the grave of Karl Marx there is a saying there's a quote from Marx himself Marx said famously that the purpose of philosophy is not just to describe the world not just analyze the world not just to understand the world the purpose of philosophy is to change it okay a lot of the time my fellow vegans they put a great deal of emphasis on that aspect of the Western tradition of philosophy but another important aspect going back to ancient Greece and Rome another important aspect of the Western tradition of philosophy is to look at the meaning of our lives and what is to lead a meaningful life and to test our philosophies not just in terms of whether they are true or false but whether or not we can live with them whether or not they lead us to living a meaningful life I think the most fundamental philosophical struggle we have in veganism is actually just of showing people that veganism is possible that it is possible and practicable to be vegan and it always riles me I mean I think it's the most fundamental challenge is when people respond to the idea or concept of challenge of veganism by saying well you have to be reasonable well let's just be realistic recently I saw a vegan cheetah vegan Cheetos again not really vegan saying that for people to eat meat once a once a month would be more realistic for the vast majority of human beings the idea that it is ethically incumbent upon you to be vegan will only arise after they consider it possible and practical right it's only when it's an attainable goal when it can be a normal part of our daily lives or weekly lives that we can really think about whether or not morally it's obligatory for us to do so right and I just do not understand why I mean there are people who live with the fundamental delusion that if they don't eat meat they will die I've met and spoken to those people in Canada but in Cambodia also there's some people who are really due to lack of education they actually believe they will die if they don't eat meat you can meet people of maybe more commonly West world who really sincerely believe that if they don't eat dairy products their health will deteriorate and they will die ok nobody believes that you need to wear leather shoes and if you don't wear leather shoes you will die nobody within this movement is is laboring under that delusion right and I have to ask if you look at any other social movement or any other philosophy that has sought to change the world who has suffered less than we have somebody like Faliro Christina who's very proud of her appearance I think most of her fame is because there are a lot of other women who want to look like her they maybe want to look like her in terms their physique but they also want to look like her in terms of their lifestyle the illusion of opulence and affluence she has long around her I can I can appreciate that someone like Faliro Christina would suffer would really suffer and having to give up her leather shoes okay but if this is a philosophy about changing the world I ask you who has suffered less it's not it's not a lot of suffering it's not a lot to ask for someone who identifies as vegan and as a leader in this movement and in the other hand when I look at this tradition of excuses this highly hallowed highly respected tradition of utilitarian and consequentialist excuses for castrating an animal because the animal is allegedly incapable of intellectually appreciating that it's had its own balls cut off even if it can smell the difference even it sees there even in the case of a dog it literally the dog licks its own balls and yet it doesn't notice doesn't notice the total change in its hormonal composition and its behavior from being gastrin that it's okay even to kill an animal that it's okay even to kill an animal and eat its flesh as stated by a natural being in here we just had a quote from Peter Singer saying that he has no problem with killing animals as long as it's compassionate we have a quote from unnatural vegan saying she has no problem with people killing animals and eating them as long as there is no suffering involved I think these are all excuses that really come from an era when people were profoundly uncertain about whether or not being truly vegan was possible I think they come from an era when people were trying to make excuses for eating meat I don't think anyone was trying to make excuses for domesticating elephants for entertainment I have no idea I have no idea why she took it there she chose that example not me but I mean in the same way that vegans now have to look at the whole edifice of modern Western factory farming and just say this is an error this is a mistake and it's wrong I think we have to look back on an earlier generation of vegan philosophers like Peter Singer vegan vegan political leaders like Peter Singer we have to look back at them and say this is a mistake this is wrong