commie @ commie @lemmy.dbzer0.com

About

---

Read more

Posts

12

Comments

2,795

Joined

2 yr. ago

We have the capacity to reduce the suffering.

how?

If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?

you can see this is just an appeal to emotion, right?

cruelty is intentional. think of battlefield amputation: it hurts, but the pain isn't the point. the pain is only incidental.

cruelty would be inflicting pain for its own sake. in so-called factory farming, the pain is still only incidental. that is, if it were possible to create the same outputs with no additional inputs, and that process had no pain, there is no reason why a factory farming operation would prefer the painful process. so it is not cruel, it is only indifferent.

Animal agriculture is necessarily cruel.

i disagree.

If you can supply an argument that causing suffering ... is good/doesn’t matter

sure. battlefield amputations cause suffering. sometimes it saves a life. it's good.

If you can supply an argument that causing suffering of innocent animals is good/doesn’t matter, I’m all ears.

"innocent" here is an appeal to emotion, since we don't regard non-human animals as moral agents.

Would you kick a dog in the street? Shoot a cat with a bb gun?

no. these are cruel. practicing cruelty toward animals may create a habit, and end with practicing cruelty toward people, which would be immoral. it is best not to practice cruelty at all.

This is even ignoring the fact that I provided a source showing that deforestation by soy is far less problematic than it used to be.

ok. i did "ignore" that. am i supposed to accolade every true statement?

the soybean is only 20% oil. we extract 17% of the global crop as oil. we must find something to do with that waste product.

this is just posturing and rhetoric. i have no problem with most forms of exploitation (this is true of most people i think). my problem is unfair, or even non-consensual, exploitation of other people.

it's not clear that animal suffering is a negative.

https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png

i'm willing to consider a fully formed argument. i'm not willing to be pestered by an endless interrogation.

that's not causal.

Can you supply a convincing argument for suffering?

i'm not saying it's a moral good. i'm saying it's amoral. as in it is neither good or bad in itself.

the vast majority of the world's soy (about 85%) is pressed for oil in an oil press for human use. the byproduct of the press is called soy meal or soy cake, and would be a waste product if we didn't find a use for it. currently, almost all of it goes to feed livestock, (about 70% of the entire crop-weight).

soybeans are used by people, and we feed the trash to livestock.

I like to give people questions to ponder and explore.

if you don't wan to construct an argument that's fine, but the socratic method isn't terribly convincing for me and many others.

Suffering of conscious beings is a negative thing.

can you support this claim?

if less meat is produced (ie less animals are raised for slaughter), then less deforestation will come as a result of the meat industry.

but just being vegan doesn't cause this to happen.