maypull @ maypull @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

12

Joined

2 yr. ago

a soybean is only like 1/5 oil. after we've extracted the oil, feeding the meal or cake as it's variously called to animals is a conservation of resources.

most soybeans are grown for use as animal feed

in fact, most soy beans are grown for oil, and even what is fed to livestock is mostly the byproduct made by pressing beans for oil. but even beyond that, cattle only eat about 7% of the total global soybean crop.

torture is intentional. the pain and distress caused by farming is only incidental.

torture means that pain/distressed are caused intentionally. like beating someone so they give up information. that's not the case in farming. sometimes, animals are caused pain or distress, but the point of the activity is not to cause it. if a farmer could raise their livestock and never cause them any pain or distress for the same cost, i'm sure they would. the pain is incidental, not intentional. it's not torture. qed.

Stop abusing animals

i don't, and your accusation is not appropriate.

in most circumstances, probably.

if you can point me to an animal behavioral-cognition study that shows any non-human animal understands personal mortality, i'd love to read it. all the studies i have found that get close to talking about it go out of their way to point out they don't have evidence of it.

this isn't what they said

I think the most universal thing is to minimise suffering.

that's just not true. the only ethical system i know of that holds this axiom is utilitarianism, and that is fraught with issues from epistemics to the fact it can be summarized "the ends justify the means"

you can’t kill ethically a fish, cow, pig, dog, etc.

i think it's amoral

being farmed isn't torture.

there is no evidence non-human animals understand personal mortality. we can't say they want to live, since there's no evidence they understand that they themselves are living or could die.