• SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    USDA is inherently biased toward animal farming, and the first source I linked was a scientific study. But I’m not necessarily denying what USDA says. Holding a bias doesn’t automatically make something untrue. You didn’t quote anything they said, you made some hasty calculations based on their statistics, which seemed to overlook the distinction between male calves and female calves. You used this to make a statement that I never disagreed with, because I was making a different one. (One could call that a strawman fallacy).

    Humane League is an animal welfare organisation. Of course they’re going to focus on the most ethically unsound aspects of animal farming, since that’s their purpose, but nothing they said was false. They did acknowledge that some male calves in the dairy industry are raised for beef, but that most are killed for veal.

      • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most what? Calves or male calves? Because it’s factually incorrect to say that most male calves aren’t killed for veal. They evidently are.

        But let’s ignore that for a second. The fact that any calves in the dairy industry are killed for veal, or even for beef (at only a few years older, still a fraction of their natural lifespan), is of course a harm, whether you agree with it or not. Killing an animal is harming them, no matter if they’re a baby animal or a few-year-old animal.

        It’s a harm toward animals that some might justify as a necessary component of dairy production, which it is. But this ignores the fact that dairy production itself isn’t necessary. And that was the crux of the fallacy I’m alluding to.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The fact that any calves in the dairy industry are killed for veal, or even for beef (at only a few years older, still a fraction of their natural lifespan), is of course a harm, whether you agree with it or not. Killing an animal is harming them, no matter if they’re a baby animal or a few-year-old animal.

          ok…

          It’s a harm toward animals that some might justify as a necessary component of dairy production, which it is. But

          no, it’s not.

          dairy production itself isn’t necessary. And that was the crux of the fallacy I’m alluding to.

          my first comment was acknowledging that it’s just an example.

          • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s absolutely necessary to kill cattle for meat in the dairy industry. It would not be financially viable otherwise, and small-scale farms that try to avoid this practice can’t provide enough dairy to feed the human population if they’re consuming dairy; and they still involve other unavoidable cruelties inherent in taking the milk designed for calves, separating them and selectively breeding cows to overproduce milk, docking and debudding them, etc etc.