 So if you give him a bit of room on the grass, that's okay to stab them in the throat then shoot them in the head. Yes. I can show you the footage if you want to see the gas chambers. I'm kind of doubting all food certification at the moment. Would you agree? That if you eat animals cause their death and violence towards them that you're an animal abusing hypocrite? Okay, you don't want to torture that prisoner, but he's going to suffer exactly the same whether you do or not. That's an insane argument. Are you okay consent to being filmed? Okay. You're not going to like what I say. Okay. So have you read the sign? The sign? Yeah, the qualifying. Yeah, yeah. Firstly, is this an interrogation or a debate? Do I get to ask you questions too? Yeah, we can have a discussion where we can throw questions back and forth to each other. Can I ask you a few at the start then? Can I just let you know what my position is and then you can go from there. Yeah. Well, no, no, not just meat. I use meat because it's a bit of a hook-in. But I'm saying that if you are caring about the well-being of the koalas, while you have five other species of animals on your plate, and eggs which come from exploited and killed hands, and dairy comes from cows which are murdered and exploited, I'm saying that that makes you a moral hypocrite. Oh, a moral hypocrite, okay. Does it say moral? No, it doesn't say moral hypocrite, but I'm hoping people sit down and get me to clarify so we can discuss. Okay. But some people want to save the koalas for different reasons and moral reasons. Yeah. Yeah. And they're two different things. I mean, we want to say... So what would those reasons be? Well, we want to save koalas, the species, not each individual animal. So you don't have to save each individual animal to save the species. Okay. So when I eat a chicken or something, I'm not wiping out all chickens. Yeah, we just had this discussion, yeah. If you wipe out the whole species, then you've taken out a part of the ecosystem. But if you take out one chicken, the ecosystem is probably fine. What about mass breeding billions of animals? What does that do to the ecosystem and the resources in the land? This is an environmental... I'm not going to have an environmental... Not at all, yes. That's a reason, too. Well, that would be your argument pushed back, wouldn't it? Because you're eating chicken and you're supporting the farms that are displacing the ecosystem much more than koalas being removed. That's true. Yeah. So that's just... I'm certainly limiting that of farmland that can be used for cows and animals. Oh. But huge amounts. I think the problem there is too many people on the planet. Too many people and a bad use of resources. But if we stop feeding 70 billion land animals or the plant food, I'm sure we have room for population growth. 70 billion land animals. They number us 10 by 10 times. Yeah. But I think 7 billion people on the planet is too many. I think 1 billion would be nice. And it's not just animal resources. It's other resources, too. Steel and gold and everything. We have to mine 7 times as much as we would if we had 1 billion people on the planet. This is completely a resource and environmental argument. Yeah. Like, obviously there's 70 billion land animals that are eating all of our food and water. Okay? That's hard to avoid that mathematically. But from an ethical perspective, do you think a koala, an individual koala matters more than an individual chicken or an individual cow? Because using endangered species as an argument, you could use that in the human context of my race of human beings. There's less of us. So I'm out of more morality than you. There's plenty more of your race. That's not really an ethical argument. It's more about our own worry about their species surviving. And a lot of it's not to do with the imbalance in the ecosystem. It's more about, oh, I love koalas. We don't want to see them leave. But to that individual koala, that individual chicken, this is where I'm arguing from. I don't really have a position on murals. I mean, murals differ for each person. Of course. And ethics is about minimizing overall harm, which is, as long as you preserve each species and give them a chance to continue that species, I don't see any problem. So you're okay with mass breeding animals and then chucking them in a slaughterhouse and cutting their heads off as long as we preserve their species? No, it should be done as many as possible. But not the way it's done now, with them thrown live into a wood chipper or whatever. You mean like the egg industry how they'd macerate male chicks? This is RSPCA approved, by the way. Macerate male chicks? Probably shouldn't be. I'm sure they could genetically modify them so only female chicks are born, for example. That's one thing. Yeah, that is one thing. But then they get turned into egg-laying slaves and then get slaughtered and turned into chicken flesh, which is another thing as well. So do you think boycotting the industries that exploit animals and being a vegan is the most ethical thing to do? In terms of animal rights? Probably, but... Seem unsure. Well, there's two downsides to that. One is that people want to eat meat. Of course, yeah. And you'd have to suppress that urge and piss off all those people. Yeah. I don't care about that. I don't care about pissing people off. I care about animals being literally enslaved and killed. Pissing people off is not the same as... There's a lot of piss... There's a lot of pissed off people when human slavery was abolished and economic arguments and who's going to... That's within the human species. I'd say the... I'm trying to make a moral analogy where people were pissed off because something very unethical was stopped. No one cared that there was a war. The other issue is that if you don't farm all these animals they're not going to exist anyway. They only exist because of us. We've selectively bred these. There's no possible future for these hundreds of millions of cows and stuff living happily in the forest. They're either going to live and be eaten or not live. They're going to live to be enslaved and murdered or they're not going to live at all. What would you rather? They're never going to have a happy life. What's like asking you, do you want to not be born? Would you rather not be born or live and be in prison forever? I would rather not be born into a farrowing shed where pigs are lying on their dead piglets and then they get put in a gas chamber and never be free. That would be horrible. I wouldn't... Isn't life one of the most wonderful for you? But not being a farm animal in Australia, it's horrible and you always go to a brutal death. I'm yet to see this ethical slaughterhouse footage. It's all disgusting. Well, the... Peter people don't film those ones. Peter have got nothing to do with me as an animal rights activist but we've got plenty of footage from Australia. Not everyone's connected to Peter. Why don't the industry put out their own slaughterhouse footage? Why is it always us exposing them? I think there's a lot of pressure on individual farmers to make profits. Of course, it's smart money. I was just reading about the milk industry in America. They can virtually shut down... Or the chicken industry rather. They can shut down individual farmers if they don't play ball. So if the farmers complain or go public or do anything they can affect the supply of chickens to that farm or the prices they pay and the farmer goes out of business. So you agree that it is a business? This is just a business? Just another business? Yeah. The business entails enslaving sentient beings and killing them. Do you agree with that? I'm not sure that chickens are sentient. You're not sure that birds are sentient? No, I don't know. I can tell you that they are. There's some tests that you can do. There's science to back bird sentience and fish intelligence now. You're not these people who think that all species are equal? Like ants and stuff like that? I think there's definitely levels to... I don't think you're the same as a tadpole or something like that. But I would say how do we justify killing a chicken? Because we're not talking about giving them the right to drive a car and these pro-rights. We're just talking about fundamental rights to not be enslaved and killed. Don't they deserve that as well? Just those basic, real basic I'm talking about. Not equal but basic. I think rights are something that humans have invented for ourselves to make our lives safer. We don't want them to be stabbed or something in the street. So if they can't conceptualize their own rights, they don't deserve them? Well, they don't seem to bother with them in nature. Do you think a lion worries about the rights of a zebra when it's killing the zebra? Lions don't have moral agency like you do. That's why you don't go around stabbing people and eating them like lions eat zebra. Let's just say a marginal case human being who has a mental handicap they can't conceptualize rights but we still would give them to them even if they can't conceptualize them because they suffer from pain in their sentient. So I'd apply that same argument to the chicken even though they're a different species. It's a bit of a problem though when we're applying our standards to animals. We haven't asked the animals whether they even care. And obviously they don't seem to because if you've seen video of lions eating zebras while the zebra is still alive that's pretty disgusting. That's not humane at all. Of course not. It's horrible. And I wouldn't do that. That happens in nature every day. That's an appeal to nature. It's a fallacious reasoning. There's horrible rape happens in nature, murder happens in nature. You can't use that reasoning for a civilized society. I think you can have two standards there. It's either wrong or it's not wrong. If the zebra feels the same pain whether a lion eats it or whether a human eats it you're saying one's okay but the experience of the zebra is completely the same. I'm saying that lions can't be held morally culpable for their actions. They're in a survival situation. They cannot be reasons with and they're doing what they have to do to survive. You're a moral agent as a human being. You know right from wrong. We're enslaving and killing a chicken who has a sentient being and suffers when we don't have to when we have alternatives. These are two different scenarios. Now you obviously operate with some form of morality. You don't go, a lion kills a zebra. Therefore I can do what I want. Nature's the same as here. Obviously it's different. Okay, so you're not arguing for the rights of the zebra at this point because the zebra's experience is the same. I'm saying that the lion has justification and cannot conceptualize morality like you have no justification. It's equally bad for the zebra but it can't be helped. Well, I can reason with you who is not in a survival situation who can easily not choose the chicken to pay for to be killed but I cannot reason with a lion. And they're in a survival situation and what are they going to do? But you have many choices to make. I could say something that you would consider terrible which is I think that humans have more rights than sheep to live. So therefore it's okay in some situations. I would say that that's human supremacy. To the point where maybe there's other animals that you would think don't deserve to be enslaved and killed. Like maybe a dog, do you have a pet at home? Dogs don't taste nice. They might if I put some soy sauce on them but do you think taste should justify what we do to animals? That's pretty much why we eat cows and chickens and not goats. Just taste. Taste justifies this mass. And taste is the only reason hinging on what we do. Okay well what is the other reason then? I would say intelligence. That's intelligent. Or dolphins for example but I don't think sheep and chickens are very smart if you've actually spent some time on farms. They are pretty smart but let's just say they might not be as smart as you. They run these defences and can't get out. I've met smart animals. I've also met very very dumb human beings and I still would give them their rights. To me it's a practical thing. It's what sort of life do we want to live and what sort of level of safety do we want. So we make laws. We make rules to preserve that way of life. And we have to balance different desires and everything. We're not going to necessarily get a perfect world with no death and no suffering. I understand that of course. And a lot of people want to eat meat. Our species is eat meat for hundreds of thousands of years. We wouldn't be the way we are if we hadn't. We omnivores, we have sharp teeth. We have a small appendix. We're not designed to eat pure plant. You're going into a biology now and tradition and history. We've also done horrible things to each other since the dawn of time. And I contest that we're herbivores because we have no claws. We have no predatory instincts. We can't run fast. We sweat through our pores. We have moles the same as cows. We have flat blunt teeth. We've got two pathetic little canines that would get destroyed in any fight with a carnivore. I would contest that we're herbivores. We have very large intestinal tract. But let's just say you are right. We are omnivores. If we can live perfectly fine without exploiting and killing animals I've been vegan for six years. There's plenty of health shit out there now about plant based diets. I don't have to tell you that. Why are we still taking these animals mass breeding them and slaughtering them when we can eat them? It's an individual thing, isn't it? It's an individual thing to cause suffering and abuse to animals. But we can also make that individual choice not to. Like I said, each person has their own view of morality. And each individual person has to decide for themselves how far they're willing to go. I would say that that's inconsistent and hypocritical to claim to care about one species or our own species and then deny the rights and give pain and suffering or slaughter. I've read your sign as saying save the species not the individual. I don't think it's got moral on there. I left it open. We save the species, we don't save the individual. Therefore it's not hypocritical because they're different things. The sign is a bit short and I couldn't get all of that in the sign. I'm hoping you sit down. But I clarified my position and you did agree with it. You changed it when I got down. I'm not changing it. This is my position. I promise you. You can watch the other people before you and I have the same position. Morally, you might be right. But that's not the sign that I saw. Would you agree that when you pay for animal products you abuse those animals via the supply and demand chain? Yeah. When I went vegan, I admitted to myself I was an animal-abusing hypocrite and I needed to change. Would you agree that if you eat animals cause their death and this violence towards them that you're an animal-abusing hypocrite? It's a different thing. I don't necessarily want to save every individual koala. I just want to preserve the species and we're not wiping out cows and chickens as a species. So that's not a hypocrite. I mean from the moral position of the individual animals? Morally, if I want to support, if I want to protect one animal and I don't care about another animal I suppose I have to find a way to distinguish between them. And I would say that intelligence is one reason. So I wouldn't kill a chimp but I would kill a fish, for example. Because they are lower in intelligence through your eyes or had different, possessed different intelligence that you might not understand? I don't think a fish has super intelligence compared to a chimp, no. Well there's a study on cod. I think it was cod. I can't remember the actual fish. A fish that people predominantly eat and they beat the chimpanzees in this study. Two coloured plates they had to learn to eat off one coloured plate or the other coloured plate would be removed and if they chose a certain colour of the plate both plates would stay. The fish bet the chimpanzees and they also beat the toddler of the scientist who done this study. I don't think that's genuine intelligence though. They have particular very sharp skills to survive and they might excel in that one area. But generally even chimps probably eat fish. I've seen chimps fishing with sticks for fish. They obviously don't have the same moral compass as you. So they're not intelligent now. I thought they were conscious and... Well I'm saying we can't use intelligence as a justification to rob rights from people or animals. But I do. But not for marginal case humans and species. That's a human supremacist attitude and contradicts morally. I'm sure that lions would stick up for lions which they do. They eat their own cubs. But they protect each other against a tiger. They could do but they also turn on each other and claw each other in the face. But each species stands up for its own species. That's just natural. I don't follow that narrative. I stand up for... That's why we do it. It's a practical thing. I disagree. I think that we can stick up for other species as well. We don't have to have... But it's natural to stick up for your own species more. Might be natural but doesn't mean it's the most moral thing to do. Doesn't mean we should... We might look after us. We don't have to attack other species though, do we? If you're inventing ethics which contradict nature I think you're going to have problems with that. Not really. We contradict nature all the time. The nature is what gave us... made us what we are. You contradict nature all the time. I contradict nature all the time. If we follow nature we're killing each other. We're turning it to vicious tribes people. No, that's actually very natural. To murder each other? But you don't agree with murder? No. So we can't follow nature to be ethical. That's what I'm saying. In certain ways, yeah. The ways that matter for sure. If they improve our lives. Well maybe but that's just following moral compass. Then maybe we should follow that. We don't follow nature because good and bad things both happen in nature. We can't use nature as an excuse to attack chickens and breed them and chop their head off. Okay, this was meant to be quick. I'm okay with killing chickens but not chimps because chimps are smarter than chickens. That's one of the main reasons. So that's your declaration? One of the main reasons, yes. The other is practicality because people just want to eat chickens. I'm talking principally, not practically. Not because people won't. I think stabbing a chicken in the throat is not much different to stabbing a koala in the throat, just they look different. One last question for you, okay? You said that ants don't matter. When did I say that? I didn't say that. Do you think ants should be protected? So fly spray should be illegal? I don't walk up to an ant nest and start jumping on it if that's what you mean. Do you spray them? I personally don't. But I see that protecting your children when they have ginge, what's that, fever. I see that as justification. If I walk around and accidentally step on an ant I see that as an accident. But if I was mass breeding ants in my little factory and selling their body parts to people and making an exploitation business out of them I'd see that as completely unethical and unjustified. You don't draw the line anywhere. There's no species that doesn't have the right to live. In their own little way, of course not. But obviously we can't live in a way that causes no harm. So why do we cause the maximum amount of suffering and death? You know what I mean? Like I'm not saying I don't cause any harm by existing. That's not what I'm asking you to do either. I'm saying why do we still enslave on top of that and kill on top of that when we don't need to? We could try to at least eliminate the exploitation and murder of animals as far as practically possible. Yes. So choosing a vegan burger over a chicken burger is so easy. Like why don't we do that? Well I sometimes do. I sometimes don't as well and when you don't you're paying for that chicken to be stabbed in the throat and abusing that animal. Well I would prefer if they were killed as soon as possible. I don't believe humane murder exists. I think that that's completely something that people tell themselves to make themselves feel comfortable. Like you can't humane rape, you can't humane murder. Well, you've got euthanasia, that's pretty humane. Well that's consenting. That's not murder. I suppose. There's suffering, you're doing what's in their best interests. Yeah, yeah it's more humane to take them out of their suffering than to keep them in their suffering if there's no way of helping them. And you have to, like if you had a family member which I've had that are very, very ill you have to make that decision as a family but that's different to just robbing you of your life because I want a burger. I'd protect you if someone tried to do that to you even if you weren't mentally capable of understanding because it's the right thing to do not because they understand or they're not intelligent or whatever it's because they feel pain and suffer and are sentient. I suppose so. I guess we're going to have to discreet them. I don't think certain species individually have the right to live. I don't know if they have the right to live but it's not some sort of huge ethical dilemma for you. Or at least not a very big one. Because you're not the victim so it's easy to say that from your perspective because you're just making the decisions that kill them but from their perspective I'm sure it is a big issue because they're suffering in a shed right now. When you look at issues of injustice you've got to look at it from the victim's perspective you don't look at it from the slaver's point of view from the woman-beater's point of view you look at it from the victim's point of view well you could but more from the victim you don't pass laws because the abuser said you pass laws because of the abused. I suppose so. But I still have a problem with your if you've got two dogs and one of them attacks and kills the other one morally that's fine. I would try to stop them. I would try to stop them if I could. From fighting. You said you used the lion and the zebra argument where it's happening in this... Animals fight each other and kill each other even not for food. They might. They might do that but if I saw two dogs fighting here it would pull water and I'm trying to stop them. You used the zebra argument and I said the lion doesn't have a choice. You do. But you just said the animals are conscious. They are conscious and sentient. But not in this one way. No they are. They don't have a moral judgement. They cannot conceptualise morality because they're in a survival situation they don't understand right from them this is their food. This is where one doesn't need to eat the other they just fight each other for mates or for territory. My job as an animal rights person isn't out there to go and control wild animals My job is to convince you who is a moral agent to stop abusing animals Yeah. Like I can't stop lions. There is one view that if everyone was dead there'd be no suffering. Some people actually advocate mass murder to end suffering. I don't believe that because there's also well-being that happens because of our existence too so you have to outweigh... does the suffering outweigh the well-being? We can cause a lot of well-being and you can cause a lot of suffering or you can alleviate a lot of the suffering too. Do you realise that in the wild almost no animal dies nicely? Hiding under a bush and no one can help them or they die being chased down and eaten by a pack of lions or they die drowning or they die falling But not because you caused it because it's not a moral thing if I fall off a cliff and I die suffering that's not your fault. This is the life of the animal anyway whether humans do it or whether nature does it It doesn't matter. There's suffering in humans but if I cause that suffering I'm a torturer. But the suffering is the same anyway you don't want to torture that prisoner but he's going to suffer exactly the same whether you do or not. That's an insane argument. But animals don't live nice lives. If I was going to suffer of cancer later on in life and you go well you're going to suffer and die anyway I might as well torture and kill you and eat your body. Like it just doesn't follow it's not an ethical logical conclusion. Humans live short lives on a farm but they end up the same way. A short life of suffering six weeks for chickens they get raised in these barns and each other and then they get slaughtered in a slaughterhouse. You said the lion is in a survival situation. Yeah and you're not. So you don't have a justification. Animals spend their lives in the wild in survival situations. They're desperately looking for the next meal or they're desperately trying to avoid being eaten or starved or killed in some way that's their entire life. They never relax and play very very rarely. They don't have houses they don't watch TV. How am I causing that? You're not but their lives are miserable anyway. No no that's not true. They have freedom. Most animals by the way are herbivorous. 75% of animals are herbivorous. So to use the carnivore as an argument for our actions is just insane. But I can't control the wild but what we're doing the experience of the animal is the same. Not necessarily. I can test that. A wild animal in the forest has a very different experience to an animal being raped repeatedly having their children taken off them being milked in a milking machine and then suffering in a slaughterhouse. But it leaves in constant fear of being eaten or hit by a car or something. What would you rather be enslaved you're death dictated by a murderer or have a chance out there to live and these animals are not wild animals they're selectively bred to be exploited as slaves and killed for our food. It's a very different scenario you're using. I don't know about that. I guarantee you there's not as much suffering in the wild as there is an animal agriculture which is 70 billion. They outnumber us and the wild animals 70 billion land animals suffering in these. How old are chickens when they're killed for 42 days? Do you think a chicken has I mean a 42 day old human wouldn't have any self-awareness? Chickens do. Chickens can recognize their no I never said they didn't you said they weren't sent in I said they are there's studies on these chickens they can recognize their siblings upon hatching they can recognize their siblings upon hatching babies can recognize them at six months old. Okay so I just thought I'd clarify this because I got a little bit confused in this discussion but baby chicks are able to recognize their siblings upon hatching baby chicks are also capable of recognizing a whole object even when it's partly hidden this capacity was thought only humans possessed human babies can only begin to do this at four months of age while chicks can do it when they're just two or three days old also there's something called object permanence where baby chicks are able to remember something that exists even if they aren't able to see it this is something that human infants are unable to do until they're five to eight months old this is what I was referring to in this part of the discussion sorry it wasn't clear baby chicks do it way before human babies do but using intelligence again I don't think you tell it I'm particularly believing that chickens are more mentally advanced than humans there's nature I don't think they are they are at that stage okay but it's not there's science to back this up anyone can look at chickens sentience science and look at chicken intelligence science but I wouldn't use intelligence as an argument anyway it's invalid because there's less intelligence humans and we wouldn't exploit and kill them intelligence is not in our justification we don't kill them but we exploit them all the time we don't enslave humans it's illegal no but we exploit them in other ways that is very subjective we trick them into a home loan we get them to do a certain job and take certain conditions that's different to me enslaving you but it's still exploitative it's subjective whether or not that's exploitative it could be considered exploitative but when you enslave a human being that's 100% slavery and when we take these rights of these animals and control their freedom of movement and put them in these sheds and rip the flesh of their bones they can live almost like nature literally impossible to have 70 billion animals all grass feeding on fields that's what I said there's too many people in the world no it's our use of resources is incorrect but if there were a few people you could do this that's well there's not fewer people so that's just an invalid discussion you can't just invalidate certain solutions because we have people what's your solution control the population down crop the population down to a billion we can't do that what we do is we stop mass breeding animals and feeding all our food and water to them you just ignored a solution though I'm not for I'm not for cropping human population down I don't know but discouraging large families and stuff like that so eventually the population of course I don't breed myself I don't have children myself I think they're one of the worst things you can do and feed them animal products and torture animals and you know 70 billion land animals to feed us let's just halve the population to 3 billion 30 billion land animals to feed us still ridiculous but it's not as bad like I said you're not going to get a perfect solution I think we just respect their rights and all these other problems solve themselves stop mass breeding them stop torturing them stop murdering them stop eating their body parts and choose plants a very simple practical thing to do very practical I think that a lot of species would go extinct or would struggle with chickens or cows there would be small herds of cows in the world like small herds of elephants in the world absolutely not they would struggle to survive wild cows before we started to take them 7 billion people then then what we do our population grew and we wanted to all eat meat and then we had to mass breed and then we had this problem we stopped mass breeding stopped the animal holocaust and start eating plants are there many yaks in the world well they're still wild cows not very many of them maybe they're in proportion but what we're doing disproportionately is breeding all these unnatural animals and destroying the resources and creating this massive animal rights violation yeah maybe it's ethically problematical but we can't excuse this we're trying to excuse this horrible thing that we do and it's easy to brush it under the carpet well like i told you i was fed Joe for 10 years and the only reason i started eating meat again because i got sick and i needed protein yeah i would disagree with that too i mean you never need protein from animals you always can get protein from plants well i didn't want to eat eggs every meal i don't agree with the egg industry because they slaughter those hens and the dairy industry do the same yeah well obviously out of your control but you're either abusing animals or you're a vegan you boycott these industries that exploit and kill them there's no in between here okay well you seem to have sort of every argument i put up you dismiss and say oh that's special that's different well cropping the population down is not going to work so i didn't dismiss them it's just invalid in this context we have to talk about right now and then i say well animals eat animals and you say oh that's different well yeah because you can't you don't use that as an excuse to go and breach human rights it's a horrible thing because it's cruel to the animal yeah but i'm saying that you shouldn't act immorally because a lion does it's ridiculous you're following the actions of a lion that's why it's invalid i don't see any difference in copying a lion right now if a lion eats a zebra and you're fine with it and a person eats a zebra and you're not fine with it i don't see i mean to you the difference is that a person can understand what they're doing and doesn't need to but the effect on the zebra is the same i can't police a lion can police human beings we can we police human beings if you killed all the lions now and all the tigers that would mean that all the zebras in future would be safe there'd be a disproportionate in the i don't agree with us going out there and killing lions that's not the solution but let me give you this and show you how invalid this argument actually is human beings killed their children and murdered them lions eat their cubs all the time now if we were okay doing what a lion does why can't we eat our own children murder them because we don't want to live in a lion like society well there you go answered my question for me you actually made my point for me we don't want to live in a lion like society so why choose one thing a lion does which is eat a zebra to justify what we do to animals we want to live in that society we want to live in a civilized society we're harmed so we pick and choose which laws we want we pick and choose what actions we copy from a lion but we don't copy all the actions of a lion which is a non sequitur because we're not lions but we still get to choose no we don't says who you can't choose one thing a lion doesn't go lions behaviour though absolutely you can why wouldn't you be able to do this it's illogical I'm saying that humans can do that but morally it's illogical, it's hypocritical you can't choose one thing a lion does otherwise choose everything they do or nothing they do or don't use a lion as a compass for our morality we use our conscience and what's right but that differs for each person well then I'd say does that person contradict their own morality do they contradict themselves when they say which is what this sign is trying to do if I think eating animals is okay because they're less smart then there's no contradiction well I said there's humans that aren't smart you wouldn't use as an excuse to deny them their rights that's what I'm saying tastes very good that's not a moral argument that's a taste a pleasure argument you're now telling me what morals I should have because like you don't use pleasure to justify anything else horrific and taste is pleasure it's not just taste it's health and everything you wouldn't eat a dumb human because they don't taste good but I'm saying you can't use intelligent here you can't use intelligence here to justify something horrific to an animal we're going through these things over and over again we got into a moral discussion didn't we yes which I didn't expect because it was not on your side you should put it on your side without moral there I don't think it's hypocrisy because of what I explained in the species not the individual if you get into morals then it's a bit more problematical and I would agree with you it comes down to each individual person and sort of a practical decision about where they draw the line between you know what actions they think are okay and what actions they think are not okay okay I agree with that and you could say that's a contradiction because you would draw the line somewhere else I would say why do we draw the line at some species our own and not these other animals that have what matters in common what matters in common which is they don't want to die we don't live in a society with dogs and cats we live in a society with people dogs and cats are sort of they could all disappear tomorrow in our lives would be much the same we're not having friendships with dogs or relationships with dogs people are so they are what we have in common is we feel pain chicken feels pain they're sentient they exist consciously though they are the science is not on your side here and you heard it chicken they don't want to be hurt okay you slash their throat they lose their sentience it's the same reasons we don't do this to each other that's what we have in common now might not be as intelligent I can you know definitely not creating iPads or iPhones anytime soon but I'm saying for those reasons alone shouldn't that be the reason that we don't just stab them in the throat for a sandwich we can choose elsewhere that comes down to each individual person some people care that they're abusing animals and others don't give a shit but like for those that do care then it's up to them to go well if I don't want to be an animal abuser I'm going to be vegan animal abuse is obviously extremely bad to you almost on a human abuse some humans yeah for some people it's not some people have human abuse up here it doesn't mean we should abuse animals but that's their right to have that to that's their conscience telling them that but they're not abusing humans it's against the law you can't do that and it's legal to abuse animals this is what I'm saying if you're being abused right now I'd be speaking up for you on this table but you're not each individual person gets to decide that that's why yeah just because they have a different value in animal life than you do doesn't make them wrong and you right necessarily just makes them an animal abuser but to them that's not such an important thing that's all I'm asking is that they admit that they're abusing animals through their life so that they can easily change and when they admit that that they're a hypocrite they care for some animals they don't care for this one they pick it and choose it you care for the species not the individual that's a different thing you do that's what your sign says it's shorter I could have put more stuff in there you can see each individual koala which is something that you grasp but then we clarified that at the beginning didn't we but okay you need to change your sign if you change your sign then you're right but if you don't change your sign then I'm right I'm not trying to be right or wrong here I'm trying to lead you to the conclusion that you're abusing animals through your lifestyle and the best thing to do is be vegan well that's a judgement about how far I'm willing to go and how important it is in my life whether you do or don't but you admit it to not be vegan that's all I'm trying to some people would go no it's not but you're admitting that it is I admitted that and that's why I'm a vegan and I would also draw the line above ants somewhere I don't think it's wrong to kill an ant well it depends in the context like I said if I had an ant factory farm where I'm exploiting all these ants I'd say that's definitely wrong no I don't think ants are conscious their brains are like this well the science might not be on your side there would possess some level of sentience and consciousness but you know we'd have to look up about ourselves wouldn't we they eat each other and but you know you're not you're killing chickens you're killing cows you're exploiting and killing pigs so let's talk about them and whether you step on an ant by accident or not not really my concern okay yes I might be killing some animals I think it should be done as humanly as possible I don't need as much as I used to and it does worry me the dairy industry and the fur industry I mean I wear leather shoes because they're the best shoes I don't have a leather jacket so the amount of animals I kill in my life is quite small compared to some people which is better I mean if you kill 10 animals a year and then you switch to killing 5 animals a year that's better right yeah but I would never suggest that to those 5 animals it's not the best the best thing you can do is be vegan and I would never give you a false message or tell you something that you wanted to hear and go yeah great that's you're reducing the exploitation and killing because I don't tell people to reduce the amount of times they beat their wife we say stop but with alcohol abuse or cigarettes you might reduce it but that's not a human rights violation or a justice issue same principle not really do you think an absolute message of an animal killer is going to catch on or is it just going to switch people off if you say reduce we wouldn't do that with any other issue of injustice I wouldn't do it with animals animals are victims here realistically do you think it will the vegan movement is growing huge in the last 4 years it's everywhere now so yeah it is catching on and I don't want to give a false message that's not going to do the animals the justice they deserve you might eat 10 steaks a week now you eat 5 what's that done 5 animals if I say look you're an animal abuser unless you're vegan this is why and then you go vegan you're going to reduce anyway mate I might as well give you the right message you're still going to reduce I do like meat and cheese and milk if they had lab grown meat I'd eat that instead why don't you try the plant based versions beyond burgers and all that ok I will this plant based version is in the supermarket that you can eat as well I'll try some plant based meat tasting things and see how they go and then you go wait does taste justify cruelty to animals I don't know it's not just taste it's the sort of lifestyle and that you want to lead you can say you're polluting with your car don't ever drive your car don't take the bus you're contributing to the bus pollution just walk everywhere or take your bike but that's going to make your life different and you might not want to live like that I understand what you're saying but like when we're talking about slavery and rights making your life different and a little bit more inconvenient when you're talking about slavery and rights is not that big of a change compared to the victims involved but again like I said it's slavery and rights of animals which you might not value very much you do but other people might not white people didn't use to value black people that are enslaving too and they used all these ridiculous justifications reasons to exploit black people which is wrong and I'm saying that this same mentality this supremacist attitude mentality you choose who lives and who dies and why that's exactly what tears us apart and that's what creating this rift between you and your ethics I don't see the difference between people of different races because they're all human some people did and it was that mentality stupid people because we're all sentient we want to live animals are different to humans they never say they're equal what we share in common is what I'm worried about sentience and feeling pain and wanting to live and desiring a life of freedom and not be subjugated and murdered these things animals possess it's very easy to test I suppose in that case it's better to be vegan but I don't know I guess I can say I don't want to be completely vegan you're either anti-racist or you're a racist or you're vegan but it's a justice issue and when you beat your wife sometimes you're not completely I think it's okay, no, no, no, you don't twice a week I will reduce but we don't do that do we different issues so they can have different yeah but there's an issue of injustice and unfairness and murder and enslavery so it's kind of tied together in a bit in your mentality the injustice to animals doesn't really affect me directly because I don't see it and I'm not friends with these animals whereas I would be friends with my wife and that would affect me directly so if I punched her she wouldn't like me and that would affect my life whereas if I eat a chicken I didn't know that chicken so there's a bit of a distance there but you know I don't care about every single child on earth either but I don't want them to be abused and enslaved and killed I don't have to care about you to not want the same rights as me or at least the right to life which I'm asking for fundamental rights for animals not all these extra things that human beings get well you're not actually asking for the right to life because they wouldn't live if they weren't on a farm very good point I'd say I'd prefer they didn't be bred into existence by us and enslaved not the life that we give them I'd rather it didn't exist it's horrible what we do we're basically justifying a holocaust they wouldn't have life if it wasn't for me your children wouldn't have life if it wasn't for you should we do what we want to them well that's an argument isn't it do you have the right to beat your own children because you've created them this is my slave some people do think that actually they think if a parent kills their own child there's somehow the parent is a victim they gave them the right to life what would you rather they didn't live they kill the neighbour's child it's wrong these arguments are easily contradictory so vegan's very consistent it's the most consistent I'd say you wouldn't you are a moral hypocrite perhaps but your sign needs changing but it just depends on where each person draws the line and you can argue and it's going to be a long process to bring humanity across to your side like it was with slavery 400 years wasn't it in America but slavery still exists now sex slavery and all that child trafficking it's gay marriage or women's rights it takes a while same thing with gay marriage how ridiculous is that we look at women below us this is the same mentality now animals now it's chickens and I know it's a long stretch it's pigs it's cows but it's the same mentality we're better than them I don't understand them I don't know them who cares maybe it will change one day starts with you starts with me okay I'll eat less I didn't tell you do by the way I told you to go vegan boycott I'm just not going to go vegan straight away today sorry if that upsets you but but imagine if I told you to reduce and eat less that would be where you stay so I'm going to give you the right message it might change over time depending on how not if I never told you to go vegan if I just sat here reduce reduce reduce if you didn't tell me to go vegan I did 20 years ago so I just thought about it a bit and thought yeah I'll try this sounds less cruel the main argument that got me back was that animals do it so it's not wrong if we do it I know you don't agree with that argument animals do a lot of horrific shit to each other we can't use that as our moral code people were saying oh it's it's yeah anyway I need to go to class okay I appreciate that conversation it was very good do you mind if we post this I think we touched on a lot of topics it's going to be good because you possess the same thought patterns as 95% of people so we tackled each argument and you know I think it was a productive conversation to say the least even if you're not going I'm going vegan so the last guy was sort of the same arguments or no but you we go through this many people possess the same lines though they're not like us they're not intelligent like us the other guy said similar things but yeah so you'd be surprised how many people possess the same justifications have anyone here heard like a hunter and said people are dominant and we should be able to kill anyone yeah I had a hunter in Melbourne recently and yeah he said a hunt because they're an invasive species and they're hurting the environment I said well you're an invasive species you're hurting the environment I wouldn't use that as a reason to kill you is it wrong to kill feral pigs yeah well that's the thing like when you talk about humans sort of impact on the environment nothing comes close no one comes close feral pigs they don't come close we create the disharmony in the environment we introduce species and our solution is shoot them and I don't want to cull humans because they're destroying the environment so I don't use that justification to cull invasive species if they're the way species wouldn't it be better to kill all humans and let animals just humans create a lot of well-being as well so you have to measure the well-being we create and the suffering that we alleviate and the sentience of all these people so I don't want to be a hypocrite I'm pro culling wild cats and pigs because they killed hundreds of millions of birds and costumes and stuff would you be more pro say an ethical way of de-sexing them like shooting tranquilizers so this is what I mean an ethical solution to the problem instead of shoot them it's always shoot them but where are they going to go you've got 10 million cats where are you going to put them all I'm talking about a de-sexing program that doesn't involve murdering them all okay so over time we can talk about ethical solutions that don't involve killing because we talk about that for the humans we don't go ah kill them sometimes we do it's called war and it's called horrible it's called a war if they're doing something wrong or if they're a terrorist we shoot them we don't well it depends animals aren't terrorists are they they don't have that type of they're not terrorising us and blowing up our buildings and trying to not very many of them know we are the we are the evil ones human beings as I studied science and I'm the achievements that human have got like creating these things I mean humans as a race we do many great things but we do a lot more evil things than animals can even conceptualise you can't group all humans together you can't group all animals together either no, it's nice talking to you it's nice talking to you too brother you're not a fanatic like I thought you might be it was a good discussion mate appreciate it awesome bro take care so that was an interesting discussion he went really around the world with all the different justifications there but I really enjoyed that chat and I hope he thinks this through a little bit more and makes the right decision