Acharya Prashant addresses the questioner's ethical dilemma by using an analogy. He explains that a person eating ice cream with you might seem perfectly fine, as it doesn't appear to be a great sin. However, he asks how one would feel if the same person on a date suddenly caught a passing animal, like a goat or a horse, and started stabbing it with a dagger. That act would be considered grizzly, horrific, and violent. He equates the person eating a chocolate softy to the one killing an animal, stating that the only difference is that the violence is hidden from the senses. Acharya Prashant elaborates that the milk in the ice cream is directly linked to violence. A female animal, be it a cow, buffalo, or goat, is slaughtered once she stops giving milk after seven or eight years. Her meat is then processed and often exported. Therefore, he asserts that there is no real difference between eating ice cream and slitting a buffalo's throat. The person who appears 'cute' while eating a chocolate cone is, in fact, a 'brute.' This is not a matter of ethics but a matter of fact, a game of illusion (Maya) where the violence is not immediately visible to the senses. Regarding relationships, Acharya Prashant questions how a person who is so violent can truly love someone. He explains that love is universal, like the sun, and cannot be selective. One cannot claim to love their child while being cruel to a dog; that is not love but something hormonal or emotional. A person steeped in ignorance and violence does not possess love to give. He advises that it is better to be lonely than to be in the company of such demonic people. He concludes that a person whose hobby is to drink blood will eventually drink yours too, and one should not seek love from someone who is incapable of it.