 And if you were being abused I would tell people that they're abusing you if they're paying for your body parts I would protect you. We do what we can to live in a better life and protect our family. So let's just take a koala, give them a bit of space out the back, chuck them in a slaughterhouse, bolt gun them in the skull, cut their head off, is that ethical? Yes. Well I fundamentally disagree with that, I think that that's exploitation and murder. So the sign says saving koalas while eating meat makes you a hypocrite. Yes. And you don't think it does? Um, so I think there are two arguments for why it makes you a hypocrite. And I think that one of them can be reasonably easily debunked and the other is pretty solid and I don't have any arguments against it. Okay. Do you want to know what my argument is so you know what to debunk? Yes. Okay, I'm saying that if you care about one species of animal while simultaneously having five other species chopped up on your plate, slaughtered in a slaughterhouse, I'm saying that makes you a moral hypocrite. Ah, see that's actually the point that I think can be reasonably easily debunked. One, um, there are a few reasons why. I think the first is that even though koalas themselves are not necessarily endangered, the populations that do not currently have chlamydia are and they are quite heavily affected by the fire. They are a massive tourist attraction for Australia. And so they're quite, they're reasonably important for our economy compared to other things cows, they might be many things, but they're not endangered. I would also like to, um, my second point is that dying by fire or suffocation is fundamentally a very painful way to die. And if you're only sourcing meat from ethical sources, um, the animals that you eat and will die will be killed in a much less painful way than koalas would be. Okay. So you've got a humane, you've got a humane slaughter argument and you've got an endangered species argument. Yeah. Yeah. To an extent. Yes. Okay. So, so you're saying that because a species is endangered, they have more moral value than a certain species that isn't. Yeah. Um, well, firstly, to an extent, I think that, but let's forget about the moral value for a second and think about what I said about tourism. Koalas are fundamentally, you know, they're a symbol of Australia. They're on a lot of our stuff. They're a reason why quite a few people come here. I don't care about that, by the way. I think if you're exploiting animals for money, I think that that's not ethical at all in any way. So an economic argument could be used to keep slavery in place. I don't, I don't care for that. That's not a moral argument. Okay. Well, they did use the economic argument to keep human slavery in place. You know that, yeah? Yes. I am aware. Don't justify that. No. Okay. So, well, let's go into endangered species. All right. Let's just say you belong to a human race that has less, uh, uh, people in it that's starting to die out than let's just say, uh, another race of human being. Do you think that that individual from that race has, uh, more moral value than the one from, uh, a race of human beings that has a higher population in the eyes of those two individuals? Um, I'd think that, um, hmm, do you know what I'm saying? Take a cow. Take a koala. No. Yeah. I don't think so. Okay. So this is what my argument is hinging on. The, the value of those sentient animals individually, who matters more, the cow or the koala? Okay. So what about the pain of the deaths then? What have you got for that? Okay. We could talk about that. Okay. Now, uh, the koalas are dying of this fire that, you know, whether it's natural or human caused, we don't. Pretty human caused. Okay. It could be human cause. That's not my debate here. Um, it's a, it's a fire. Hmm. They're victims of the fire. We're subjugating cows. We're, we're breeding pigs, mass breeding chickens, sticking them in farms and slaughtering them by the billion. Okay. I was saying I was speaking only of ethically farmed animals. Okay. So is there ethically farmed animals in Australia? In Australia. What would be your idea of ethical farming so I can, I can sort of oppose that or debate that? What, what's your idea of ethical farming and ethical slaughter? Hmm. Um, so firstly, the animal has to be knocked out before it dies. A shot, a shot in the head? Um, yes, sure. But not while it's still alive. Let's talk about. Well, it's still awake. Let's, let's talk about the breeding process and you cannot. So what does that look like ethically to you? Mass breeding and, you know, um, so they have to be, um, on grass for a certain period of the day and for a certain period of the day they're in a barn, they can't be forced to like, you can't like lift one up with like a string line and stick it on the other one. You have to let them do what they don't want to do. Okay. That's how they breed. They just, I decide to, yeah. So if you give them a bit of room on the grass, that's okay to stab them in the throat then shoot them in the head. Yes. As long as you shoot them in the head first to knock them out. Yes. Okay. So that's your idea of ethical in the animal agriculture? Yes. Okay. For, and then let's just replace the cows with koalas now, is that still ethical? Yes. Okay. Well, hmm, no, hang on. The koalas are still, as I said, for the non-chlamydia populations endangered. But we already talked about that, didn't we? We covered that argument. You agreed with me. Fine, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's off the table. Endangered is off the table when we're talking about the morals of the individual, yeah? Yes. Okay. So let's just take a koala, give them a bit of space out the back, chuck them in a slaughterhouse, bolt gun them in the skull, let's cut their head off. Is that ethical? Yes. Well, I fundamentally disagree with that. I think that that's exploitation and murder. If I go by all of your points of what you think about koalas through that logic, yes, that's ethical. But I don't emotionally think that. What does ethical mean to you? I mean, not the dictionary definition. I just want you to know what you think about. Let's just use human welfare as a standard for ethics, because that's probably something you'd understand. What would ethical mean in the human context? All of the UN's human rights. So the right not to be treated as property, the right to life? Yes. Okay, you deny all those rights when you breed animals and shoot them in the skull and cut their head off. You know that, right? Yes. Isn't that blatant hypocrisy by your own moral standard? Well, I fundamentally think that human and dolphin brains are advanced to an extent where we are kind of worth more. Oh, really? And not all humans are the same in their mental capacity, yeah? We are the... No, but in different ways. Some of us are wise, some of us are charismatic and some of us are intelligent in different ways. Most humans have... I get it. I understand your argument. You're placing... Understanding of... Yes. You're placing value on intelligence and complex cognitive thought. Yes. Okay. And what about the mentally handicapped humans? You take away their rights. No, they can still think. Why? Very well. They can think better than a pig? Yes. Well, I've met mentally handicapped people and they're very capable of... Okay. Especially so... I'm talking... I've met mentally handicapped people that can't even move their hand. We don't deny them of their rights. It has nothing to do with your brain, does it? Well, to an extent it does, but not with your ability to think, no. Do you think that because someone has lesser intelligent capacity or complex thought capacity, they then don't deserve the right to life or to not be subjugated and exploited and killed? For humans that is more difficult to judge because we, as I said, we have different types of intelligence. Exactly. An IQ test isn't a way to... But we still decide to do things by human standards because we are humans. Yeah. So that's a supremacist attitude, yeah? Do you think that we have a supremacist attitude? Humans matter more than animals even though you can have human beings with low cognitive thought. We can have mentally handicapped human beings. We still protect them. We would never do what we do to mentally handicapped human beings like what we do to animals, would we? No, we wouldn't. Yeah. So the only thing separating us is species, basically. Yes. But I think that species boundary is enough. I think we're... Why? How does it justify it? Well, because, okay, let's shift this a bit. We are human. From the beginning of time, we are wired in the way that we have... You know, we've grown up. The way we've survived is we're a pack species. We care about other humans fundamentally. And we've survived to an extent also because we don't care about animals. So it's kind of hardwired into our thought process. I'm not saying it's logical necessarily, but I'd say it would be what the majority of humans would agree on. I don't care about the appealing to popularity. I care about being consistent and ethically right. That is definitely what I emotionally think. You know, we've used that argument to separate us humans and to subjugate other humans. They're not like us. They look different. But that's all. They're cognitively the same. They just have a different skin colour and that's it. Pretty much. No, that's it. But there's marginal cases of human beings that don't have the same cognitive function as you and that a pig could be considered more intelligent than some human beings. That we protect those humans. As I said, there are different types of intelligence that humans have. Cognitive function can be separated into a few types of things. I'm saying you're placing value on intelligence when that varies so vastly in the human species, in the human race, that we cannot possibly use that as a reason to take away someone's rights. It varies among humans. Like one human, the difference between someone with an IQ of, say, 130 or 80 isn't that large. Well, not on a species scale. It's tiny. I'm saying there are cows that are more mentally capable than some human beings. Is that true or false? I don't think that's true. I don't think there is any cow that is more cognitively capable than a human. You haven't seen human beings that are a brain-dead handicapped or not brain-dead, that wouldn't imply that they're sentient. But still sentient, but really cannot do much. Well, if they can't do anything but they can probably still think and, given the information, they could think. So you're saying cows can't think? Not in the same way humans can, though. I didn't say that. You're saying they can't think? Because when you say humans, you're not on the same extent. When you say humans, you're saying a broad brush. You're including marginal cases of mentally handicapped humans, too. You're including toddlers and little babies, as well. You're including all human beings when you say humans. I'm saying there are some cows that are intelligent. They think they can do tricks. They can understand. They see into the future. They suffer. They're sentient. They see into the future. They can see into the future. Because if you abuse a dog or a cow, I bet you they definitely remember it from the past. Okay. If that's what you want to call it. Okay. Your argument is much more logically sound than mine. I'll admit defeat. I'll probably still keep eating stuff, though. Eating animals who are sentient and want to live? Yes. Would you admit that you're an animal abuser if you continued to cause the suffering and death of animals knowingly or even the murder of animals? Would you agree that by your hand paying for those animals to be tortured and killed, you were then an animal abuser? As I said, ethical. I don't consider if it's ethically farmed to be tortured. Do you get in all your meat places you've seen them be slaughtered and you're absolutely happy with that? I haven't seen them be slaughtered, no. So where you buying your meat from? I generally, it's more to the words the brands than it is the, so I make sure it has the labels on it that I look for. I have a bunch of footage here from a movie called Dominion which exposes Australian farming across the board. It's horrible. It's horrible what they're doing to these animals in these slaughterhouses. I'm yet to find an ethical slaughterhouse of maybe, you know, a lack of information, but I'm an animal rights activist. I've seen. So you looked at every well, a lot of farms in Australia and found that essentially everything is below board. Some are better than others, but all of them are mass breeding and exploiting these animals chucking thousands of chickens in a shed and then let's just go to the place where it all goes down, the slaughterhouse. I've never seen an ethical slaughterhouse. Right. Just out of interest, do the animals see each other get slaughtered? Well, let's just stillman your position and say they don't. Would that be okay? I know that would be better, but... There's better ways for me to kill you. Me killing you is still murder. It's wrong. If I was to torture you first, I would prefer not to be tortured before I was killed. I'd also prefer not to be exploited and killed. That would be the most ethical scenario. But those animals are living longer than they would in the wild. Some of them. They're not even from the wild. These are stillman selectively bred animals. Over thousands of years. Thousands of years of exploitation and changing genetics so we can cut their heads off basically and eat them. And if they all got released into the wild, a lot of them wouldn't survive. I'm not arguing that for that. That's insane. They wouldn't survive in the wild to be eating animals and milking animals. So what do you suggest? I suggest we all go vegan, stop paying for animal abuse, and then this will happen across the board slowly, slowly. So we've seen in droughts to an extent in farms. Animals often they they kind of just when they run out of resources the animals kind of starve. Are you talking about me releasing animals into the wild after we all go vegan? Is that what you're thinking, I mean? Yeah, we all go vegan what happens? Because we wouldn't all go vegan at once. We'd progressively go vegan over the course of decades. Right. Starting with someone like you who gives a shit about logic and ethics. And then slowly, slowly these industries would stop mass breeding. They'd stop producing a product because it's all supply and demand. They only produce what we want. So we slowly, slowly attack the demand. Supply chain stops. Gradually then we have animals left. We can keep them in sanctuaries problem-solvered. Right. How do we justify cutting animals heads off even if they don't see it? Like I can't do that to another animal. I can't do that to a human being. I personally don't want it done to myself. I'm just contradicting myself if I used to be an animal abusing hypocrite. Which is why I changed. You know, honestly I've kind of thought this for a while and kind of just been in denial. I want to keep my lifestyle to an extent and I'm very good at lying to myself, but I'm going, you know, I'll attempt to go vegetarian at this point. I don't think, I think if I try vegan, I'll fail. I'll try it even to my way into it. Veganism is a moral, it's a philosophy that's against the exploitation and harm of animals. And dairy and egg industries are both abusive and cruel to animals in the same way that meat is. I'm aware, but the fact is that if I go vegan I believe I won't be able to take it and I'll stop after two weeks and then I'll be eating it. I'll be exploiting more animals. Well, maybe. Maybe, but I think when you have the motive, I'm not going to give you the wrong message and say go vegetarian. You're still an animal abuser if you're a vegetarian. Like, there's more suffering in the dairy industry. There's prolonged suffering. They live longer, they had their children stolen, they're all murdered. They have their skin torn off their backs, turned into leather and burgers. I'd be giving you the wrong message if I told you to go vegetarian. Veganism is a philosophy against the exploitation and cruelty that you're in control of. So... I actually know that's a position that has nothing to do with the argument that would be a tangent. Okay. Yeah, no, makes sense. If you just admit that you're acting hypocritically and you're abusing animals... Fair enough, yeah. I'd say, yeah, you're right. I appreciate the chat, mate. That was a really good chat and you're a smart dude. And how old are you? 18. Wow. So you're very smart, mate, and you've got a long life ahead of you. And I hope that you act consistently with your moral framework. Yeah. I mean, I'm reconsidering some of the things I... Those were positions I'd held and I'd thought about them before thinking I'd held them, but seeing it described the way you described them when I said, yes, that is my ethical framework made me to an extent reconsider it. Because you're contradicting it in... Yes, I wouldn't say it would be lying more like having a change of heart to an extent. Okay, yeah. I recommend a movie called Dominion. It's on YouTube and it's recent exposés of all across the board, farms and abattoirs all in Australia. And you tell me if you see the gas chamber footage is horrific. I've got it all here. I don't know if you want to watch it right now. But RSPCA were claiming it was humane. They fell asleep nicely. We left cameras in there, okay? It's horrible. I'm yet to see this ethical treatment of animals. It just doesn't exist when you're mass breeding and killing. I mean, I was unaware of that. I thought there were that farms, especially with the RSPCA certification... They backpedaled when they saw the footage. But we have to get the footage. Industry won't show us. They're selling you a product so it's all advertisement. Well then, how do they get the certification if they don't actually look at the facilities? That seems ridiculous. They get money for certifying places. RSPCA are ridiculous. They're a joke. They don't protect animals. They abuse them. They facilitate their abuse and make you feel comfortable about paying for the abuse. Good people. Right. I can show you the footage if you want to see the gas chambers in Victoria. There's gas chambers all around Australia, in the UK. I'm kind of doubting all food certification at the moment. Do Fairtrade do the same thing? Fairtrade meat. No, everything. Fairtrade is a bit of a different topic. I know, but if the RSPCA label is bonus, then are all the ethical food labels also bonus? I can't answer that. I can only answer from the animal rights position. I don't know about potatoes and stuff. If someone's being enslaved for those vegetables and you find out, obviously, we don't want to support slavery, but vegetable farming is a different topic to enslaving an animal, chopping them up into pieces and eating them. It's very direct and very easy to analyse the morals of that. So you can make choices that are very easy to make to avoid this a lot of the cruelty. When you start looking into the vegetable fields, you're like, well, there's potatoes in there. There might be some pesticides sprayed on there, but it's a lot different to looking into a factory farmer or slaughterhouse. Animal products always involve exploitation and killing of animals always. Okay, you've given me a lot to think about, about views I've held for a few years, I'd say. But you know, you look into it yourself, watch Dominion, have a look and then go try finding footage from ethical farms. I don't know. Put yourself in the animal's position, it's easier to navigate through that. Have a good day. Really good. He was smart, so he, and honest. He was smart and he was honest. And he was also honest about not actually thinking that he might fail, he might not change, but at least he admitted that it was wrong. That's all I'm asking for. Admit that it's animal you're an animal abuser, that you're a hypocrite, that this is wrong. And he did, and it takes a lot of honesty. It was honesty. He said he lied to humility. He's a very humble guy. Because that's what I did. Whoever's not vegan that didn't look at himself and go home, a hypocrite. They wouldn't be a vegan yet.