 So just, you're a vegan basically but you eat scrap meat. I think the word is fregan. So you're a fregan. I can just create a human farm where they live net positive lives, run through and just shoot them all in the back of the head. Would you be on board with that? Are you really going to try and make me say something like this publicly? I think the reducitarian message is way more radical than my message. Because it's radical to cut heads off for sandwiches. I don't know, I hear cooked human meat tastes a bit like roast pork. Hi, I'm Joe. Your name's Joe? Yeah, my name's Joe. Unreal. So the sign here says why aren't you vegan, but do you oppose the ethical principle of veganism? I'd just maybe like to be a bit clearer on what it is. So I totally buy that the suffering of animals matters in the relevant senses as much as humans do. What I'm not so sure about is like a non-consequentialist framing of veganism. Right? And what I mean by that is like, I don't see why it's a problem to eat meat insofar as it doesn't actually affect reduction of factory farming. So I'm talking about like eating same meat for leftovers in meals. I like being upfront about that. Okay, so yeah, I'd be most concerned with whether or not an animal's rights has been violated in order to produce that food, mainly like their negative rights I'm talking about. And whether or not that animal is sentient, because their sentience is what we share in common. And you're on board with being against animal suffering. You said you're not on board with taking a non-consequentialist view? Yeah. So that would be my view, would be a rights-based view. But then you sort of lumped this non-consequentialist view in with eating leftover scraps. So where I see it, the rights already been violated by the point the animal's been killed, right? After the fact, there's not much to be done, right? I will join you on the picket line and I will not buy animal-based products in supermarkets. Why not? Why wouldn't you buy them? Because that would put money into the animal farming industry and that does contribute to factory farming. Yeah, of course. Yeah, I'm not just opposed to factory farming, by the way. I'm opposed to the animals having their negative rights violated so like you could have a net positive farm and murder those animals, I would consider that opposed to the ethical principle of eaginism. All right, I'm not just opposed to factory farming or to my position isn't just a negative utilitarian sense in so much as to reduce suffering. I think that leads to egregious conclusions if you follow it to its logical conclusion. Okay. Yeah, like if I shot you in the back of the head you didn't suffer but I murdered you. You sure? So you're on board with supply and demand, which is good. Some people might not be like, so you're on board with the fact that if you create a demand for something you're contributing to it. My perfect world is also that factory farming and even animal farming doesn't exist. I guess maybe I'm a strict utilitarian in that it wouldn't bother me so much if there were humane castle farms where they lived as long or longer than they potentially were in the wild. That would bother me less, the actual act of killing. Does it bother you at all though? You said it bothers you less than extreme suffering. Yeah, I mean there's an interesting one, it's like you know, animals die in the wild like I don't think it's necessarily better for the cow that it's, as I say, shot with like one of those polyplas then say torn up by like however many wolves that were in the wild. If it dies naturally that would obviously be better. I'm aware we probably don't disagree that much. Yeah, like if someone dies naturally it's not a rights violation is it? It's like you haven't killed them. Okay, so this might be where yeah consequentialism is a bit unpalatable. It's harder to derive rights. If you're a pure consequentialist I can just create a human farm where they live net positive lives in a hypothetical. Is it okay to run through and just shoot them all in the back of the head provided no one, it caused no one any suffering and no one, there was no extrinsic suffering because of it, no one knew about it. So would you be on board with that? Because that would be, you know, that wouldn't necessarily cut against the suffering argument. So here's the thing, you ideally would factor in the down the line consequences of doing something like that. So I would be pro say right to human dignity in like the Bentham sense of a social right as opposed to a natural right. And all that means is you give a right to humans and I think a right to animals as you're describing just so that you don't get these mass exploitations which absolutely would cause massive suffering. If one thing everyone have huge insecurity then I'll end up in one of these farms. No, but what if we handled any like any extrinsic suffering or any like what if it was on an island or something and no one knew about it? Would you be on board with just killing all those people at once if there was no suffering? It becomes harder to justify it. What I worry is what's grounding this natural rights in yeah, even people or animals because I'm not sure how to ground rights that isn't in a sense that's consequentialist or true to sentience. That's a good question. You're not sure how to ground rights. I would say based on inherent value. That's what human rights are based off of. We share inherent value. So no matter your race, you know, socioeconomic status or things like this, we grant humans rights and children rights even if they're not as developed or things like this. We just grant those rights based on inherent value and I'd say that's because we are sentient. What happens to us matters to us and we share that characteristic with animals as well. Sure, but would you be okay calling that a social rights rather than a natural rights? So I think when you're saying when you say social rights are you talking about rights that in law? It would be something of the effect of okay, let's take a view of how society wants to live in, right? And one metric of which to do so would be a high utility society, right? And you would construct laws therein on something like a rule based utilitarian rule that would justify those. Now out of that comes out of things like human rights because you actually want people to have an inherent sense of dignity and not to be, say, anxious about being exploited all the time because that's just sort of society wants to live in. And I would extend that to animals. I would absolutely extend that to animals. But the meta- Would extend social rights to animals? Yeah, I would absolutely. Look, if I could legislate tomorrow that animals couldn't be killed and used for meat consumption I would do it. Even if it caused no suffering? Even if doing so caused no suffering? Well, I would do it because it causes them suffering. So even if it doesn't necessarily, like killing doesn't entail suffering. Violating rights doesn't entail suffering. Violating social rights doesn't entail suffering. That's what I'm saying. You are on board with animal rights by your, we just have different definitions of rights. It's like a semantic sting in a way legal rights protect us as humans. We should extend basic fundamental rights to animals in law based on the fact that we share this property sentience which gives us inherent value. Now, you don't have to call that call it moral rights or natural rights if you have an issue with that. But like I think we're basically saying the same thing. We'll find out if I really do believe that I wouldn't protect animals if I didn't think that doing so would alleviate their suffering. If I actually view say killing in themselves is a harm in ourselves. I struggle to justify why it is because I genuinely tend to think that harm is always related to suffering. Let me just say like you're sitting here right now. What if I just give all these, have you seen Men in Black? Yes. You know how they got that thatch? They had that memory loss thing? Sorry. What if I just get you shot in the back of the head right now? You don't know any different. All right. Men in Black raid this whole school. They forget about you. We erase you from any record. Would you want a right protection you from that? Because you didn't suffer at all. You're actually, yeah. So here's the thing and this is what I get. I'm going to be more radical and against the grain and so public mindset here. But genuinely here's the thing. The reason why I would want a right protect me of that is because I wouldn't want paranoia all day every day that someone could pull up and do that to me. Let's just address that and say that that wouldn't, you wouldn't be paranoid because you wouldn't know about it, preemptive know about it. So we can address that too. Like I'm just taking away these variables. No, for sure, for sure, for sure. See if you really are against rights. Yeah, yeah. No, I think I maybe do have to accept that radical conclusion and I struggle to give the language why I wouldn't. For animals? Oh, what I'd like to be clear about is whatever standard I apply will apply equally to humans and to animals. So what happened here is Joe actually bit the bullet on being shot in the head as long as it didn't cause any suffering or any preemptive paranoia about being shot in the head. So therefore his position does cut against both human and animal rights. Joe is very consistent though. He doesn't have a double standard when it comes to humans or animals. But he just thinks that if you take care of any suffering that might happen extrinsic or of the individual, then it's okay to shoot them in the head which is against both human and animal rights. So we have a different position there. So now, have you ever heard veganism explain from a rights perspective like that? Have you just heard from a suffering perspective or this something like this? I haven't heard it in the context of animal ethics specifically but I am familiar with right space versus consequentialist accounts of ethics. Yeah, so for me, just to be clear, I do have a combination of rights and consequentialism. It's just after a certain threshold of utility or suffering, I will say that we have to let go of the right of that individual. And the threshold can be very high. So I'm not for mass murdering infinite universes to protect the right of one mouse. So there is obviously a threshold and I think it's something called threshold deontology or something like this. I don't know where that line is but I'm sure it's quite high before I would say we can test on one human to save a million or something like this. It would have to be in the billions or something like that. I don't know. It's difficult, right? Because that threshold is going to be arbitrary. So I think my consequentialist position at least doesn't have that problem that you don't have to pick an arbitrary threshold. Well, it has a very serious problem. So if you're pure utilitarian, if five people get pleasure from abusing one person, then the utility outweighs the suffering there. So then from a utilitarian point of view, that would be something that's okay to do. Yeah, and in isolation, that is an annoying entailment. With the rights, you don't have that if that person has rights. What's interesting though is the vegan movement, I take it to be in the 21st century lodged by Peter Singer, who is much more radically utilitarian than I am. Or maybe just one leading figure. No. Okay. Well, he wrote a book called Animal Liberation, which is, you know, a lot of people read and loved. But veganism was coined by Donald Watson in 1944 and the definition was coined by Leslie Cross in the 50s I think and the original definition of veganism was that man should, the doctrine that man should loop without exploiting animals. Okay. Yeah. Very, very well. Peter Singer is a utilitarian. I would probably disagree with him on many topics. I don't really know the breadth of his, if he's pure utilitarian, if he is a pure utilitarian, I'd have a very strong... Well, he's very radical. He's like, he's pro like fourth trimester, which means like post birth abortions for the sake of utility. So it's like, it's radical. Yeah, well, rights would protect that, maybe from that. For sure. Provided they're sentient, you know. Yeah, so this is what I mean. It's like... There are something called competing. You want to pick a... You want to pick a consist of you. Okay. Yeah, because I mean, you can find out what... Because like a lot of people haven't thought this in depth in some time and when you get to my views, like sometimes it gets a bit blurry at some point. So, I mean, it's not... You know, it's... There's some moving parts there, but I definitely believe in rights and I definitely believe that. And that doesn't mean I don't take suffering and utility into account. Of course, those things all matter, but rights has to be in there. Here's a question for you then. When I'm scrapping leftovers of meat that I haven't bought, that I don't think consequentially can do to a family. Where'd you get it from? Well, so I didn't, so I didn't, right? So here's the thing. This is the difficulty of veganism. I worry like... There's a difficulty in dilution of messaging here because like on the one hand, maybe this is a more interesting thing to talk about as well. On the one hand, it would be fantastic if everyone were vegan, right? But I worry that going vegan is so unappealing to so many people. It disencourages them from eating less meat or doing something less than best, which would be better for, as we're on the corner now. That's just a messaging problem, right? I get what you're saying. Yeah. So... Saying that if you advocate for this all-or-nothing kind of view, then people will choose nothing over all. Yeah, and look, it's just a worry. You know, I've just admitted, I've just, you know, basically something like committed to this shot in the back of the head rule at anything, at pain of consistency because I'm that afraid of being inconsistent. This is the difficulty of, I do philosophy. You do? Yeah, as an undergrad. Wow, that's cool. Yeah, so the main thing I'm looking for is to be consistent. Well, I don't do the philosophy. So... There's probably a lot you could teach me about philosophy and I don't claim to be a philosopher and I just try to work out where my... Well, fine. Well, here's the tactical question I'm interested in, is like... So, I buy that... The best thing to do is to not eat meat. And I even buy that healthy, sustainable lifestyle to live. I'm a rugby player and a vegan for however long. So I actually think not to, you know, pat myself in the back too much but I think role models like that are important because I don't think there are that many, like, you know, sportly active vegans say actively doing things. I think that maybe... I think that's good. Contrary to your type. Okay. So just, you're a vegan basically but you eat scrap meat. Yeah, I think the word is fregan. So you're a fregan. You're a fregan. Yeah, I know but if you say that in circles of them, there's people who think you're like even more knobby than if you say vegan. So I tend to say vegan to like take the lesser evil. I'll get what you're saying. I'll get what you're saying. Freganism is interesting. It's an interesting... Are you a strict fregan? Like, do you have a very strong principle that you will only eat meat knowing that it hasn't supported the suffering of riots, violations of animals? So, you know, I'm very honest and, you know, this doesn't do me too dirty in the way your movements goes online but where I do cheat, I accept that it's a wrong and that I shouldn't do it. So you're not a strict fregan? Ideally, I am. In practice, I'm afraid I'm not. In principle, you think it's a good position. I admire people who do it and it's part of a wider thing of like, I think what deters people from veganism in part is the guilt of getting it wrong if they accept it as a moral wrong. So part of what that move is is to alleviate like, no, just eat a little less meat. And, you know, if you still like certain things for you, like, that's better than what you're doing before and you're helping the cause in a sense that you wouldn't have otherwise done. And I sort of, I'm aware that that dilutes the message because it absolutely does. Yeah, it's no longer a justice issue. It's based on some personal feeling about what some metric you want to, I'll support it 10% less of the time. Yeah, no, for sure. But other justice issues would not accept that. But this is totally, but this is where it's consequentialist, right? This is now a taxable question. If your goal in reducing animal suffering is to say reduce a billion dollars of purchasing power in the animal meat industry, say, right? And your strategy is the very honest one, the very consistent one, about it being a rights violation. And it deters lots and lots of the populace because it's too... So basically what you're saying is some type of messaging turns people off and it creates, it does more harm than good. So I phrased it as an if, not that. So if your messaging turns out to be better, then absolutely go for that. Yeah, but when we're talking about ifs, we're saying if this were true, then we ought to act in this way, yeah? That's what you're saying? That's an interesting philosophical question, but in order for... Because I guess what you're trying, what I think you're wanting to do is make an argument for reducitarianism? Just whatever works, basically. Tactically for the vegan movement. So what I'm interested in is less money going into the animal farming industry. Yeah, okay. One worry I have that people don't become vegan is because it's too intimidating. And if they accept, as say, the atrocity, they are going to guilt themselves in those and just throw their hands up and disavow the system altogether, right? I think that's a less good outcome than people who maybe, say, as eating less meat, and then less money is given, potentially the animal industry shrinks, that corresponds to less animals dying. That seems about outcome. Now, what that means, though, is that you have the activists who are sincere, effectively lying to a broader populace. I would never. Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that may be... And maybe if the consequence is outweighed... Yeah, yeah. Well, so maybe you're not... There is a threshold. There is a threshold. Okay, so maybe you're not conscious, so I also think it's about money. So you'd need data. You'd need some data to support your claim, and that's why I say, like, it is an if. If your position is true, then maybe we ought to adopt that position. It would be better for animals in animal rights or something like this. That's fine. I would probably bite the bullet on some form of... But you don't really have empirics to back that up. No. Well, okay. Can I just respond? Because I think I've got a pretty... Because we've got a few things here. You're not a strict freaking, so you're not a vegan. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's true. Okay. Like, you're not a practicing vegan. You might agree with the philosophy and you do frigginism. Yes, yes. All right. And now we've got... Yes. Maybe we should advocate reducitarianism if that meant that less money went to animal agriculture, but we don't have empirical data to show that that's a better method. We've got two things on the table. Less money to... You're calling reductivism as an eating less meat. Yeah, like, reducitarianism is kind of a concept where we advocate eat less meat instead of that animals deserve rights. And it's a justice issue and we should eradicate our support for these industries because they're so horrible. And I've got a position on that, too, because I've been doing this quite a while now, but I thought we skipped over the thing that we sat down to talk about, which was the frigginism versus the non-veganism versus the veganism thing. But, because this is a kind of different... If you don't have empirics to show this, then it will just be my kind of opinion based on my experience against your hypothetical here. Do you know what I mean? For sure, for sure. Because this one here's much more grounded here. I absolutely don't know if which messaging is more effective. The only analogy I go off is the Labour Party. So where the Labour Party's won, it's one with Tony Blair, more centrist leftist policies. And similarly, Keir Starmer is hopefully going to win this next election at slightly more centrist. Keir Starmer, he's the Labour lead candidate. I have no idea about politics, really. I've got a very base-level understanding about politics. Well, all it goes to show is that where lift-wing politics does well in the UK at elections, it does so at a centrist-moderate level, which, as opposed to, say, the more radical, carbonite influence. I wondered if there's an analogy for veganism in its messaging. And if you actually want to reduce money going into factory farming, whether or not that centrist messaging would be the appropriate... It's not a real example. I mean, I guess you're talking about chopping heads off less versus not chopping heads off at all. And I think one is way more... I think the reducer terrarium message is way more radical than my message, personally. Because it's radical to cut heads off for sandwiches. For sure. For sure. And I would agree. I would agree. It's just a tactical question of how do you get people on board. Yeah. And so let me ask you this. Okay, we can stay on this because you seem to have a pretty strong position on this. So if I tell people, right, the truth, right, because lying always has problems with it, doesn't it? Like, basically, I'll be bullshitting to people if I say, you just reduce, just reduce, just reduce. Because say you eat eight steaks a day, which not many people do, then not many people do, say you eat two steaks a day or whatever. However much... If I told you to reduce, every media is, oh, my God, this animal rights activist said reduce. Okay, so I'm going to... So basically, it's arbitrary how much someone reduces because we're not saying reduce by 20% everyone or we're not giving a pretty strict line. And what that does, if I have this messaging reduce, and I've just got... I've got like how many views on social media? 200 million? And plus I've been on nearly every major news outlet, radio outlet in the UK advocating for veganism and animal rights. If I just told everyone to reduce, what have I done? I've just given people... You know, this is what happens. People will reduce if I tell them to go vegan. People will go vegetarian if I tell them to go vegan. People will have a day off eating meat if I tell them to go vegan. If I tell them animal rights matter and we should abolish these industries and it's injustice and all these things, people will fall where they're going to fall. But all those people who are going to go vegan won't go vegan because all I've ever done is advocate reducitarianism. And that will never get us to our goal. So we have to be clear about what our goal is. And in the human case, if it were humans being enslaved and killed to this degree or at all, I would not have a reduce messaging. I mean, it would just be inconsistent with what I'd want for the victims anyway. So having inconsistent messaging cloudies and muddies the waters to the point where you would never get to the goal. The goal would always be reduce. So at what point would you say stop? Stop supporting it. I want to say at this point, you've changed my mind. There's a big change my mind. Here, that's what I'd like to say. You get what I'm saying? Did you see the problem? I totally do. I mean, here's the truth here. Earthling Ed actually, I raise this with as well. It's like the role models of the movements would really struggle with this standard. You have to be the... If I didn't realize you... Sorry, I hadn't heard you before. You could have a large social media following. In which case, there's a standard of consistency that people want to aspire to. Can I get you something to keep you warm, dude? Do you want a jacket here? I'll just put it on your legs for a minute. Thank you. Because from a utilitarian standpoint, I wouldn't want you suffering right now. Emphasetic. Get out of here. This is the vegan movement over here. Yeah, yeah. I wouldn't want you... So basically, you were saying as an advocate, me, I have a... There's a high standard of consistency for me. For sure, for sure, for sure. I basically, and I'll say on the hunch of which tactics go for, I suspect you actually are right that the honest one is better because that also treats other vegans as, you know, thinking people. You're not trying to bullshit anyone, which is... And I'm a true speaker. I speak from my heart, what I believe is the truth. I'm not going to... I mean, if you were in the... Being like, Pixar-Gashtamed here in the UK, if you were in that position, I'd be saying, stop, stop, stop. What I'm kind of venting, I guess, a bit of frustration was, is I'm in rugby teams and certain environments. And when I pitch veganism, it completely falls on deaf ears. And that's quite crushing, right? If I pitch, eat less meat, it gets something of response. And I take sort of, you know, motivation in that. Think about it. Think about it. Think about this, man. Like, if you're a pack-a-day smoker and you drink a bottle of whiskey and you love it, like, people love eating meat. They're addicted to it. Well, are they addicted? Well, yeah, it's very addictive food. It's very high in calories. It's something they've eaten their entire life. There's a... You know, it's like eating a big steak and things like this. If you say to someone, remove that thing they love, that messaging is not going to be as appealing as, you know, just reduce. Reduce a packet. Reduce your cigarette consumption. Reduce your alcohol consumption. Reduce your meat consumption. You know, that's like, okay, reduce. Well, there's no rules here. I just... Maybe some days I eat less and maybe some days I eat more. You know, of course, that messaging is going to be more appealing, but it's not true. It's not what we want for animals. And as the justice movement for animals, we're kind of just betraying them by saying that. And it doesn't even give us a goalpost to work towards. You're right. I thought you changed my mind. You know what? You know what? If I say, go vegan, everyone, he reduces... He goes vegan, vegetarian, reduces... Activist. Activist. You know what I'm saying? And that's what I create. Activist who fight for justice for animals by having this messaging because it creates activists and help. And I just think that... A bunch of reducer terrians, half-ars, flaky, you know, where do we sit? I don't know, on this justice issue, would create no change, would actually be counterproductive. And I think it's counterproductive. And I would debate anyone vehemently who advocates for... Advocating for reducer terrainism for a justice issue like this. Okay. For sure. So I think we've established it's an empirical claim. And I hope I come across that I am someone who's willing to change my mind. And if, you know, I'm... There's something like data of two, say, vegan activists messaging strategies which actually confers like people changing their diets. I will go for whichever one works. Now, I think you might even be saying something stronger, which is just on a principled level you don't want to betray the animal. So here's my question for you. Even if the reduction terrainism metric decreases funding into the animal system actually farming, which would be presumably higher impact in reducing animal suffering, would you still advocate the radical vegan position? Yeah. So what you're doing is you're embedding you're embedding something into your hypothetical here, like if this were true, would you do this? Yes. Of course. If it were true, I just don't... It's just like saying, if it were true that, I mean, doing something horrific led to some ultimate good, would you do it? I mean, yeah. But this isn't reality what we're talking about with... Well, I don't know. So it's like my take... How would advocating reduction, which is not going to liberate animals and give them rights? It's just there are sometimes tactical questions for civil rights movement. So again, I'm not close enough to the history of this. My understanding of civil rights movements is that you get radical trailblazers which people then follow off. And then they retroactively... Abolitionists. If they advocated reduction, do you think they would have got to abolition? I don't know. No, you probably have a... Just give me a guess. I suspect not. So abolitionists, you know what the word abolition means? For sure. For sure. I'm an abolitionist for animal... You know, for animals, I would call it animal slavery. I would consider them slaves and property. Yeah, I think you have sincerely changed my mind because I genuinely... I think the analogy I really had in mind is the Labour Party. Apologise in that movement as well. Look, just more humane slavers and things like this. They probably did exist. I'm sure that the abolitionists had something to say about that. And I'm sure maybe the humans that were in servitude had something to say about that too. For sure. I feel like someone who genuinely disagrees with you should probably take my seat. Okay, you're totally upset. Okay, no worries. Thank you very much. We didn't get a chance to talk about the frigginism. Yeah, I mean, God, I feel like I've said this already. And I'm very publicly admitting something I view to be moral failings. That's good on you, bro. Like, at least you're honest because some people here would just lie straight out to me and I couldn't always pick a liar, basically. At this point, I'm like a lawyer when it comes to this topic, man. I do this all the time, eh? So, I get your position. You've told me your position. Can I just give you an answer to it before so we don't leave it as an undone thing? So, because you're a friggin in some scenarios where you accept meat from people who may have bought it, I don't know where you're getting the scrap meat unless you're dumps diving. Someone has bought it and you've created demand, secondhand demand, through that person because they end up buying more meat to supply to you through this veganism. It can be a... Frigginism can be a bit of a loophole unless you're getting it from dumpsters. Now, what it does do, though, is it reinforces to you, in your mind, that animals are food and they're resources and we can eat them, yada, yada. And then you end up failing over here and over here because you don't have a principle binding your decisions. I think frigginism, even if it didn't doesn't support rights violation, it doesn't get us closer to not viewing animals as food, which is the reason that animals are being factory farmed and tortured and murdered and having their rights violated by the billion is because we viewed them as food to begin with, maybe, in a survival situation. We had to and that stemmed on to some capitalist reason to exploit them and kill them and eggs are food. So now we've got factory farmed eggs to meet this demand and the reason that viewing animals as food is wrong is because it leads to factory farms and all these things and we have evidence for that because we have a current... What is it? Trillions of animals being exploited and killed every year because of this view of animals, this mentality towards animals and animal products. So I think veganism does that and that's probably why you have some failings because you already see these products as food. Me, I ain't eaten no meat out of dumpster, man. I see corpses in the dumpster. It's like a morgue to me in there but like, well damn, I walked through the butcher and it's like decapitated corpses everywhere, you know what I'm saying? So yeah, that'd be my response to that. No, totally. And it reflects what I've experienced, which is, you know, I've tried to veganism for, I guess, however long and I haven't had the reduction in animal product consumption as I guess I wanted. And yeah, I'm sure it's because it was reinforcing that. And so maybe yeah, it's just that naive notion that you're not, you are, you're not reinforcing meat as food. As animals, as resources, let me ask you this, do you see human beings as food? I try to stay committed to the earlier consequentialism. I'm just asking. No, I look, I'll turn off my philosophy of brain then and I'll say no. I'm on pain of inconsistency. Why not? Why not? Because you see humans as having an inherent value and it's something horrible about them being decapitated. Am I really going to try and make me say something like this publicly? Would you eat corpses of humans? I don't know. I hear cooked human meat taste a bit like roast pork. Is it? No, because we're very similar. Oh God, I mean, oh God, I mean, well, look, look, I'm committed to the equivalence of rights between animals and humans. So those humans have had their rights violation. And their rights violated in some horrible like food industry mass murder, like the animals have, and you're just dumping, you're just going around and picking up the remains and eating them and no one's, you haven't necessarily violated human rights. Do you see the problem? Totally. Mentality? Totally, totally, totally. I see the severity of eating meat as a degradation. And look, I hope what this demonstrates to people if this does go public is the weirdness of trying to defend. It's up here, isn't it? It's fundamentally, it's mentality towards animals and animal products, because you don't have, you don't share that mentality to a human being. No, and look, I think, yeah, I think, you know, truthfully, I still do have that just mentality of meat as food and I haven't deconditioned from it yet, but I'd like to. And I think this gives me some motivation to do so. So thank you very much. Bless you, my friend. Joe? Yeah. Good to meet you. Joe meets Joe. Yeah. Thank you, mate.