Wouldn’t it be cheaper to the state to subsidize a plant-based diet instead?regardless of what would be a good decision for the state, the oxford paper doesn't acknowledge the material conditions of most people.
If it’s free then throwing it out costs nothing though, right? but replacing it would cost something. throwing away perfectly good food isn't something most people think is a moral good.
People hunting for their homestead aren’t going to cause a global issue like is currently happening.that's not what the vegan society says about animal exploitation.
How does catching, raising, or hunting meat compare to planting or gathering their own plant-based food?as the deer spends all year gathering nutrients, and they can spend one morning gathering the deer, it seems to me it's highly effective.
your oxford study doesn't account for anyone who gets free or subsidized meat, or who catches, raises, or hunts their own. so it excludes basically all of the working poor, which is basically everyone.
it is nice to have an examined world-view and be able to defend it, even against the most sinister sophists and zealots.
I hope you consider the conflicts in your worldview and work toward improving the world for yourself and the beings that inhabit it.YOU, TOO
This is a semantic argument that ignores realityno, it's not. but this is a thought terminating cliche
By your logic, dog meat farms are fine – amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it is inherent.not quite but very close. the suffering is not cruelty because it is inherent, and suffering alone does not change the morality.
regardless of what would be a good decision for the state, the oxford paper doesn't acknowledge the material conditions of most people.