So, I’m not 100% getting where you are going with this argument, but I think what you are saying is: If beings have less brain capability they are less worthy of being treated with the same respect as beings with higher brain capabilities. And ultimately, that it would be OK to kill beings that have less brain capabilities.
I don’t think they’re being abused by giving dairy.
Could you spell out for me what is needed for a cow to give milk? Because I think we need to clarify “what actually happens” to cows in that process in order to classify something as abuse or not.
By that logic, you would also have no problem in killing people with lower brain capabilities - like people with dementia or mentally challenged people.
Demonstrably not true and I don’t get where you would pick up such a false bit of information.
Who said anything about eugenics? Cows are several orders of magnitude dumber than anyone other than a vegetable. And if you’re a vegetable then it’s only the selfishness of your loved ones keeping you alive. I have explicitly told my partner that vegetable = pull the fucking plug.
Herd animals like cows flee and leave their young behind. It is fundamental to their psychology to move on quickly from a young one dying. They fundamentally are different than humans and do not care the way a human does.
Yes but they’re not suffering or feeling pain on any dairy farm worth talking about. We’re not talking about the abhorrent practices of factory farming, we’re talking the ethics of dairy, period.
They weren’t laughing in the gas chambers you sick fuck. What the fuck is wrong with you. How dare you cheapen the horror of children clawing at the doors screaming.
Well, that’s an extremly complex questions and there are many cases to consider and personal opinion on these can vary a lot.
For example one of the least limited cases should be animal testing for medical purposes. There should still be limits, but they have to be carefully decided by weighing the potential benefits against the suffering caused.
Another prominented case would be factory farming. I think that’s quite bad and also makes for a poorer end product. But I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with keeping livestock for eating it. But the details of how regulation should work exactly are again quite complex and beyond the scope of a lemmy comment.
For example one of the least limited cases should be animal testing for medical purposes
Point given. Or at least half a point… The problem I have with animal testing is, that for
alternatives exist, that often are safer and better that animal testing - but they are often not considered of plain out forbidden just because of some ancient laws and regulations. Technology has advanced and could prevent a lot of animal suffering, just regulations have not been keeping up with the innovation.
Animals in testing facilities are treated like shit their whole life, just because it is “cheaper” that way. I mean yeah, there might still be cases where there is no current alternative to animal testing, but treating the animals with absolutely ZERO respect is not acceptable imho.
I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with keeping livestock for eating it
So, if I would keep some cute, fluffy dogs or cats at my place just so that I can kill them tomorrow and eat them - maybe even sell their meat - would that be still be OK for you?
Point given. Or at least half a point… The problem I have with animal testing is, that for (…)
I’ve not been keeping up with it either. I’m all for avoiding animal testing when it’s not needed. I’m just not against it on principle.
Animals in testing facilities are treated like shit their whole life, just because it is “cheaper” that way.
I mean that sounds horrid at first, but it’s a valid point. I’m not quite sure what the alternative methods you mentionred are, but something like a complex computer model is probably much more expensive and slower then just testing on mice. And it could help getting a procedure or drug to people faster and cheaper.
So, if I would keep some cute, fluffy dogs or cats at my place just so that I can kill them tomorrow and eat them - maybe even sell their meat - would that be still be OK for you?
Again, I won’t object on principle. I know someone that tried dog and it’s apprarently not that good. Also I think you can somewhat legally eat dog where I live. Like you can’t trade the meat, but slaughtering and eating are fine, so you kind of have to find a farmer that will invite you to dinner. But not really something I’m interested in.
I’d have much more objections to people eating rare, wild animals, like whales. Cats and dogs are domesticated animals, so we’re not going to run out of them.
And you provided a question that wouldn’t bring anything to the table, except for wasting the readers time. Turnabout is fair play. You brought up an insane hypothetical non sequitur, I’m just following along.
Would you argue in the same way for slavery or child labour?
Cows aren’t human
Dairy cattle can be happy
Hope that helps.
Sooo? They are thinking and feeling individuals. Or do you imply that basically anything can be done to beings, when they are not human?
So could be slaves and/or exploited children. But would that make it right?
It’s appalling to even imply the existence of a happy slave.
Would you be happy with dairy farming if the cows didn’t have brains but we’re just headless bags that worked with an autonomic nervous system only?
If so it’s a question of degree.
Personally: I’ve interacted with cows sufficiently to see they don’t compare to a cat in intelligence, and I have issues with people keeping cats.
Cows are some of the dumbest creatures we’ve domesticated - second only to sheep.
I don’t think they should be abused but I don’t think they’re being abused by giving dairy.
I’d be fine with them being brainless. I’m fine with them being nigh unto brainless as they are now.
So, I’m not 100% getting where you are going with this argument, but I think what you are saying is: If beings have less brain capability they are less worthy of being treated with the same respect as beings with higher brain capabilities. And ultimately, that it would be OK to kill beings that have less brain capabilities.
Could you spell out for me what is needed for a cow to give milk? Because I think we need to clarify “what actually happens” to cows in that process in order to classify something as abuse or not.
Yes. Just like you don’t have any qualms squishing ants.
Very aware of dairy cows and the veal industry. Also aware that herd animals do not give a single fuck about their young.
Hope that helps.
Yes but they’re not suffering or feeling pain on any dairy farm worth talking about. We’re not talking about the abhorrent practices of factory farming, we’re talking the ethics of dairy, period.
They weren’t laughing in the gas chambers you sick fuck. What the fuck is wrong with you. How dare you cheapen the horror of children clawing at the doors screaming.
So you’re cool with the 10%? cause so am I.
I would personally torture every cow on earth if it saved a single human child.
No because I can tell a cow from a person.
So do you think that we should be allowed to do anything we want to non-human beings, or should there be a limit for that?
There should be some limits, sure. But but comparing it to slavery or forced labour is just silly anthropomorphising.
OK, cool. So where do you think the limit should be?
(Also, was not a comparison but an analogy. But that doesn’t really matter, does it?)
Well, that’s an extremly complex questions and there are many cases to consider and personal opinion on these can vary a lot.
For example one of the least limited cases should be animal testing for medical purposes. There should still be limits, but they have to be carefully decided by weighing the potential benefits against the suffering caused.
Another prominented case would be factory farming. I think that’s quite bad and also makes for a poorer end product. But I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with keeping livestock for eating it. But the details of how regulation should work exactly are again quite complex and beyond the scope of a lemmy comment.
Point given. Or at least half a point… The problem I have with animal testing is, that for
So, if I would keep some cute, fluffy dogs or cats at my place just so that I can kill them tomorrow and eat them - maybe even sell their meat - would that be still be OK for you?
I’ve not been keeping up with it either. I’m all for avoiding animal testing when it’s not needed. I’m just not against it on principle.
I mean that sounds horrid at first, but it’s a valid point. I’m not quite sure what the alternative methods you mentionred are, but something like a complex computer model is probably much more expensive and slower then just testing on mice. And it could help getting a procedure or drug to people faster and cheaper.
Again, I won’t object on principle. I know someone that tried dog and it’s apprarently not that good. Also I think you can somewhat legally eat dog where I live. Like you can’t trade the meat, but slaughtering and eating are fine, so you kind of have to find a farmer that will invite you to dinner. But not really something I’m interested in.
I’d have much more objections to people eating rare, wild animals, like whales. Cats and dogs are domesticated animals, so we’re not going to run out of them.
I have never tasted cheese made from human slave milk, so I can’t really give an educated opinion.
Troll.
You asked a question dude
Yes, and you provided an answer that wouldn’t bring anything to the table, except for wasting the readers time. By definition, you are trolling.
If you are not: Make a point that can be taken seriously.
And you provided a question that wouldn’t bring anything to the table, except for wasting the readers time. Turnabout is fair play. You brought up an insane hypothetical non sequitur, I’m just following along.