A questioner asks Acharya Prashant for guidance on two matters. Firstly, she is confused by the Brahma Kumaris' belief that a soul enters a person's body to speak. Secondly, she is a vegetarian, but her family eats non-vegetarian food. When she tries to persuade them, they argue that Hitler was a vegetarian yet committed atrocities, while Mother Teresa ate fish and was a great human being. Acharya Prashant addresses the second question, countering the argument about Mother Teresa by asking, "Great human being for the fish?" He emphasizes that one's greatness cannot be claimed while inflicting harm on other beings. He uses the analogy of a person claiming to be great while eating a cat, asking if they would be considered great from the cat's perspective. He states that many people in society claim to be good and great while consuming the blood of animals, and their greatness should be judged from the perspective of the animals they harm. Acharya Prashant then deconstructs the logic of the argument, identifying it as a fallacy. He clarifies that no one claims being a vegetarian is sufficient to make someone a good person. Instead, the argument is that being a non-vegetarian makes it impossible to be a good person. He explains this using the concept of a condition that is "necessary but not sufficient." Being a vegetarian is a necessary prerequisite for being a good person, but it is not the only requirement. One can still be violent even as a vegetarian, but a non-vegetarian is inherently violent. He states unequivocally that no one who drinks the blood of animals, birds, or fish can be a good person, regardless of who they are. He asserts that murder is murder. Finally, he advises the questioner on how to deal with her family. He asks her if she, as a woman, doesn't see the image of her own child in a small calf and questions how she can live with people who would slit the throats of young animals. When she asks how to stop them, he equates the situation to witnessing a rape in the house, stating that one must first try to stop it and then leave if unsuccessful. He dismisses the family's appeal to "freedom of choice" as nonsensical, asking if there can be freedom to rape or murder. He concludes that if her father were a rapist, she would leave him, and she should apply the same standard if he eats meat, as both are acts of violence.