 We love exterminating plants, we love exterminating insects, we know that billions of insects get killed and murdered brutally every year in the preparation of vegan food and in preparation of bread. And for someone like to compare hacking these animals up to eating bread, you know, absolutely insane. Hopefully, you know, the majority of the population aren't as crazy as that, but like look. The biggest mass murder in food production history is insects murdered to make bread. You know that? And comparing accidental crop deaths with this slavery, these, all these animals, you know where they go? All these sound mothers? These are mothers here. They all go to a gas chamber. Do you ever see these people marching down the bread aisle? Do you? No. They don't. You know why? Because they eat bread. So they're hypocrites. They eat some root vegetables. This is where vegans get their food from, crops. And Pierce Morgan likes to think there's no different between eating from here and eating from in there. Wow. Nice logic, Pierce. So they're hypocrites. Right? So they're hypocrites. Right, here we go. So the notorious bread argument. Now I'm making this video one to respond to Pierce Morgan. He may not watch it, but two, to help vegans with their argument and their debating against this justification, which is quite a ridiculous justification when you look at it logically. So Pierce Morgan likes to get vegans on his show. And this is his newest one. We're all hypocrites because vegans eat bread. And bread causes crop deaths. To me, there's absolutely no ideological difference between my decision making when they eat my steak and yours when you eat your bread. I want you to tell me the difference. Pierce Morgan is under the false assumption that we don't already realize that our diet, our lifestyle causes some amount of harm. I don't know why he has the idea that vegans think they cause no harm whatsoever. But this is completely false. So he's operating on a false assumption to begin with of what veganism actually is. Now we want to talk about justified harm versus unjustified enslavement, murder and torture. So as a result of existing, we have to come to terms with the fact that we are going to cause some amount of harm. It's just whether or not this is justified harm. Now to eat plants, plant foods, we are going to have to cause some amount of harm to insects and to surrounding wildlife, native animals, rodents, foxes, rabbits, insects are killed directly. Now there are accidental crop deaths and there are direct intentional crop deaths as well with pesticides being sprayed on plants. Now let's talk about accidental deaths due to crop deaths. We understand that accidental deaths have to happen in order for civilization to sort of function and to thrive and to grow. We accept accidental deaths in the human context when it comes to car accidents, road accidents. Now I'm not against transport but we understand there are accidental deaths in transports in the human context. There are also accidental deaths in construction, human beings building buildings, I'm not against building buildings, vegans are not against civilization. So if we accept accidental deaths in civilization in the human context, why would we have some out there moral standard for animals? So we understand animals die in accidents, we understand animals die in road accidents, animals will die on farms in accidental crop deaths, combine harvesters rolling over the crops. Now animals in that situation, they have enough opportunity to escape but the context surrounding those accidental deaths in those crops are much different to premeditated enslavement, torture and murder of animals in animal agriculture. Even the court system knows and understands that there is a difference between premeditated murder and torture and you hidden someone accidentally in a car. So it's ridiculous to use crop deaths as a justification for enslaving and killing dairy cows for their milk and killing their children. So they're accidental. Now the intentional deaths of insects which Pierce Morgan likes to so passionately defend the lives of these insects as he's got a steak on his plate. Because there are billions of little insects, those lovely little cuddly things that buzz around you all day and they are getting slaughtered so that you can eat bread. But no, no protest there because if they did, you'd starve to death. I do not intentionally walk up and harm insects. I don't think anyone should. I don't think you should see a spider there and just harm and spray them and kill them. But in terms of plant agriculture, insects cannot be reasoned with. We cannot go up to some insects and say, hey, look, man, like we're trying to grow some crops here for the good of civilization because we need plant foods to survive and be healthy. We don't need steak. Funny that we don't need steak causes environmental destruction and it harms human health, but we need plants to survive. Okay, there's a big difference for you there. But we can't walk up to insects and go, hey guys, walk away from these crops because these farmers who aren't vegan are going to spray the living hell out of you and kill you. We cannot reason with insects. Now if we let insects destroy our crops, what happens to us? Okay, we have justification there. There's a difference between justified harm to preserve crops which we need for our survival and unjustifiably breeding, forcibly impregnating, raping cows into existence, stealing their milk, killing their children, chopping them up into pieces for products we do not need, which actually harm our health and the environment. Also, another interesting fact is about 50% of the world's crops are actually fed to the animals in animal agriculture. So that's a lot more crop deaths just for a piece of steak. All right, so this is a really good resource here, animal visuals. Thanks for showing me this one, Isaac. We've got the number of animals killed to produce one million calories in eight food categories. So look at chicken up here. This is the slaughter count, the red mark. This is what the animals that are estimated to be killed in harvest. Chickens weigh up there. Then eggs. Not only for eggs, because that's all the egg laying hens are slaughtered as well. Beef, look how many animals are killed in the harvest, just in the harvesting process for cows here. Pigs are mostly factory farms, so they suffer horrific lives in factory farms as well. So that's one thing to note. Dairy is a lot in the harvest here, but that's a little bit strange. I don't have the slaughter numbers for dairy because all dairy cows will be slaughtered too. So it's still higher than vegetables. So here we go, the plant foods. They cause the fewest animals to be killed. As you can see, the animal products here are causing the most amount of deaths. One thing that's not on this list though, fish. People say, I only eat wild caught fish. Here we go. Between 790 billion to 2.3 trillion wild fish were caught from the wild globally each year. So between each and every one of the years, between 2007 and 2016, between 790 billion to 2.3 trillion. So anyone says, oh, I only eat wild fish, yeah, yeah, okay, okay. If the fish were on here, they'd be back, they'd be all the way up here, probably multiple times in front of all of these because that's, we're talking, we're getting into the trillions here. So if you're against crop deaths, you should be way against eating animal products because that's where most of the crops go. So by eating the plant foods directly, you're greatly minimizing crop deaths anyway. Now if we had vegans running plant agriculture, do you think we're going to be entertaining alternatives? Who runs plant agriculture mostly? Non-vegans who don't give a damn about shooting pests, about running over animals in combined harvesters and about spraying these little critters. I'm sure vegans with veganic farming, that's one option, would be looking for alternatives to plant agriculture which caused the least amount of harm, humanly possible, and we would be minimizing these deaths. For those who are eating steak, chicken breasts, dragging fish out of the ocean, fisting cows in the anus and injecting them with bullsemmons so we can steal their children off them and kill them, aren't interested in minimizing crop deaths. Pierce Morgan isn't interested in making the world better, he's just interested in making himself feel better by calling vegans hypocrites. It's actually an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. Imagine this scenario, you're in court for murder, you murdered a bunch of people at some restaurant, shot them all down and the judge is handing down your sentence and going I can't believe you did this, this is an unjustified premeditated murder of innocent individuals and the murderer looks at the judge and goes, that t-shirt was that made in China in a sweatshop? Looking, analyzing some way to call the accuser a hypocrite but that doesn't in no way justify the actions of the murderer. So this is what Pierce Morgan is trying to do, classic appeal to hypocrisy. So these are some questions I'd run by Pierce Morgan. They just enjoy handing over a cheque, slaughtering great animals and bringing them back as a trophy opposing for their gut-wrenching pictures. He is vehemently against trophy hunting, he thinks it's morally reprehensible, he doesn't want nothing to do with trophy hunters, he's actually called for the murder of trophy hunters in certain articles as well. But does Pierce Morgan think trophy hunting is morally justified because vegans eat bread? What about other forms of enslavement and premeditated abuse, child abuse and murder, kidnap? Does he think those actions are morally justified because vegans are hypocrites who eat bread, who eat plants, which they need for their survival, human beings we need plant agriculture for our survival? I wonder if he would apply that same justification for those immoral acts or is it just because of these other animals no one cares about, he doesn't give a damn about. Okay I want to talk about another thing, bee slavery. 31 billion bees are transported to Californian almond farms yearly to pollinate the crops. Do you care about the lives of these bees? He brings up the fact that bees are used to pollinate certain crops, are almonds and certain fruits. Now he just uses almonds and he isolates one plant food and goes you know bees are used for the pollination of almonds but bees are actually used for multitude of different crops. Okay so this is a very interesting site here, why should we care? One out of every three bites of food we eat is made possible by bees and other pollinators. Here we go, look at this 70 out of the top 100 food crops which supply 90% of the world's nutrition are pollinated by bees. So look here, look at all the plant foods that are pollinated by bees. Now I don't know if this is like human intervened pollination where we transport the bees and harm the bees or whether this is just a natural occurrence of bee pollination but they are responsible for pollinating many different crops. It would be an insane position to say that these crops are not vegan because of bee pollination. I don't take that position, I think that it's not a very logical position to take and I don't know why we're accused of taking that position. So basically if we weren't causing this massive environmental damage by our own actions, by animal agriculture, we wouldn't have the decline in bee numbers. We wouldn't have to step in and transport bees which cause bee deaths to pollinate crops. There would be natural biodiversity to pollinate the crops in a natural way. So first of all after discussing this with Isaac we're not even actually clear that there's a rights violation or a well-being issue with these bees. So there's no intention of actually harming or killing these bees for pollination. I mean the deaths that happen are accidental and it's no different to like a car accident or a road accident or a road toll. We already accept those deaths for civilization. So even if we do assume that there is some suffering in this pollination process, I doubt highly that it's more than what is in a bread crop where they're spraying insects directly and intentionally killing them. So if we already accept crop deaths in the context of bread, which I do, I think they're justified for civilization and for a general amount of well-being, then of course we're going to accept them in the context of bee pollination. Now we shouldn't set a standard where like the baseline is survival. Like yeah, we need these plant foods for survival. You know, a lot of the products that I use like phone, camera, laptop, you know, furniture, clothes also have deaths down the line as well. But they are also justified because these products increase our well-being to a reasonable amount. And if we set the standard where we can't accept industry deaths for these products, you know, for plant foods, for certain foods, for certain products, for pencils, for furniture, we're basically setting a standard that we should abolish civilization. And vegans aren't for abolishing civilization. So we have to weigh it up like would removing this process of bee pollination increase well-being. And I'm not sure it would. I think it would decrease well-being and actually go the other way. I mean, think of all the plant foods that insects pollinate, not just bees. Insects pollinate so many plant foods, they create massive amounts of well-being. And that outweighs any of the small amount of suffering. And we're not even certain that there's a rights violation of these bees. They're just being transported and there's some accidental deaths. So yeah, bee pollination falls under the same banner of justified deaths for industry because we don't have a double standard for humans. Now, is it the same as honey, though? For bee pollination, we have no alternative. For honey, we have dozens of alternatives to honey. Now, with honey, they get the queen bee, they snip off her wings, which is like breaching her bodily integrity, which is a clear rights violation. She cannot leave the hive. You know, these bees are working day in, day out. They take the bees food and kill the bees in the process, completely unjustified for a product that we have dozens of alternatives for. I see it as completely morally different. So the honey is the bees food, not ours. You might say, Joey, are you setting the standard where we're increasing well-being? What if it increases my well-being to, you know, stab a fish in the throat and eat the fish? Now, we're not just talking about increasing your well-being. We're talking about increasing general well-being. So also the well-being of animals as well. My argument is you're hypocrites. So basically, what Pierce Morgan here is trying to do is an appeal to hypocrisy who is trying to find inconsistencies. You know, we are not hypocrites. We know there's harm because of existence. Okay. We're trying to minimize that as much as possible. And we understand the difference between justified and unjustified harm because we don't have a double standard for human beings. Okay. We understand human beings are harmed because of civilization and so are animals. All right. Vegans are trying to make the world better. What are you trying to do, Pierce? And what are you using this justification to defend some of the most horrific animal abuse on earth so you can have milk in your coffee? What are you defending? I mean, is plant farming perfect? It's not perfect. It could be improved. But it's a trillion times better than animal agriculture and the slaughterhouses. That's for sure. That's for sure. And one last thing, Pierce Morgan. You're not a baby cow, bro. It's time to get off the tip. You've got to respond really, really strongly to it. And a good way to do that is just to point to the actual logical conclusion of their view. You say, look, Pierce, you're talking about setting a standard by which we can't cause industry deaths. Okay. If we implement that standard, we're talking about destroying most of the food sector. That's that's, you know, countless jobs, people out of work on the streets. You're talking about obviously like, I mean, destroying any production of like computers or furniture or anything like this. You're talking about obliterating modern civilization. That's the logical consequence of the standard that you're putting forth right here. I don't think that an animal's life has so much value that we should obliterate modern civilization. I don't think that a human's life has so much value that we should obliterate modern civilization. But I do think that both an animal and a human's life have enough value that we shouldn't stab them in the throat. So what do you defend?