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.
You used this to make a statement that I never disagreed with, because I was making a different one.
I am the one who made the claim about the amount of cattle that become veal. I then supported it when you said that I was wrong. nothing you've provided actually contradicts what I have said or the data that I provided.
most are not killed for veal
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.
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.
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.
milk isn't designed except by humans through selective breeding, and that is designed for human use
Milk is actually made by cows for their calves, when they fall pregnant to one. Humans are exploiting the milk intended for the calves, by definition. And as a result, we forcefully impregnate those cows, too.
it's not made by cows for anything. they dont have any volition in the process.
Biologically they produce it for their calves, the intended recipient. Just like a human woman produces milk for their babies. All mammals do the same thing. The only difference is humans take the milk from cows when their calves need it, not just for nutrition but for the nurturing as they naturally gravitate to their mother's udders. Calves are separated from their mothers by humans to stop them doing that and steal the milk from another species. There's nothing normal or acceptable about it
steal the milk from another species. There’s nothing normal or acceptable about it
any predator that preys on mammals will drink the milk of their prey, and there are species of bird and reptile who will consume the milk of mammals. it's absolutely normal and acceptable.
No other species drinks the milk from another species regularly. It's definitely not true to say that any predator that preys on mammals will drink the milk of their prey. It happens in rare circumstances with certain species. The way we artificially inseminate dairy cows, steal their babies and kill them, and steal the milk made for them, in industrialised farming systems, is far removed from nature.
Normal is one thing, which I would dispute. Acceptable is based on your opinion, which I think is highly flawed and unethical. Causing suffering and harm to animals by separating them from their mothers and killing them is cruel. Therefore I wouldn't say it's morally acceptable at all given that the whole industry is unnecessary, and harmful in a number of ways.
what predators avoid mammaries?
A carnivore eating an animal and including their mammary glands in the flesh they're eating is very distinct from deliberately drinking their milk, either suckling on their teats or milking them. It's a very rare practice ("milking" another animal never happens in nature, as we do), but humans have made it a norm for our species. Human adults were lactose intolerant by default before the lactase persisten gene developed as an adaptation to tolerate drinking cow's milk made for calves. My point being it wasn't previously normal for humans either. It's an avoidable practice, so arguing that the processes involved in it are necessary is simply untrue and logically false.
Causing suffering and harm to animals by separating them from their mothers and killing them is cruel.
I disagree this is cruel.
That's pretty messed up. Of course it's cruel. Only a person who lacks empathy for animals would say that causing suffering to an animal unnecessarily isn't cruel.
for some definitions of need. but almost all calves manage to survive until their planned slaughter date, so the application of "need" here seems unwise.
I said they need it for an intended purpose which is for nurturing as well as adequate nutrition. They also don't need to be alive, but they certainly want to be. It's pretty disgusting that you're defending this.
they certainly want to be.
you can't be certain about this: all of the research has failed to produce evidence sufficient to support the understanding of personal mortality in non-human animals. they don't want to be alive any more than they want to die, since they don't understand the choice.
They don't wish to die. This is very clear in their behaviour. They actively seek to avoid being killed, even though there's no escape for them. Many animal psychologists and slaughterhouse workers can verify this. They show fear and cower, try to escape, or even try to knock bolt guns away. They can smell blood of the animals that were killed before them, and they often see their dead bodies too. They moan desperately at the top of their lungs. They are sentient and highly intelligent animals. They know they're about to die and they exhibit a clear desire to live.
Even ignoring this, it's obviously in their best interests for them to be alive and not have their life taken away from them at a young age, just like it is for them to be with their mother and live a happy, healthy life, without harmful interference and exploitation by humans.
the cows don't intend to make milk, and they certainly don't intend a recipient.
And yet, biologically, a cow makes milk for her calf, and the calf is healthiest and happiest when allowed to suckle their own mother's milk naturally. Just like a human doesn't produce milk intentionally, but they do allow their baby to have it, since that's what works best for them and helps to form a maternal bond and nurture the baby. All the same is true for cows.
, a cow makes milk
after becoming pregnant. there is no volition so cows don't make it for anything any more than they may saliva or urine for something.
A pregnancy which we force upon them, sexually violating them, yes. But that doesn't mean they don't care for their children. They want to nurture and protect them, and naturally develop a maternal bond. Biologically the milk is made for their calves to drink, and allowing them to, not stealing them away and killing them, is in the best interests of both parties involved (the cow and the calf).
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
but if you disregard this arbitrary goal, then any particular dairy operation could, in fact, operate apart from the meat industry.
It's not an arbitrary goal, because in order to provide dairy to everyone, these practices must happen (when we don't need to provide dairy to everyone). I guess I could clarify that rather than it being a necessary component of dairy production to kill calves and cattle, for example, it's a necessary component of dairy production on a scale to feed our planet, or even any significant human populations. For all intents and purposes as they apply to most people, and when considering the industry as a whole, these practices are necessary for dairy production, while dairy production itself isn't necessary.
it is arbitrary: there is no reason to believe any particular dairy operation couldn't keep it's calves out of the veal industry.
You're focusing on one aspect of dairy farming when there are a number of ethically unsound practices such as stealing the babies from their mothers and killing them for beef, even if not veal. Or artificially inseminating mothers and forcefully impregnating them, selectively breeding them to overproduce milk which wrecks their bodies. And then killing them at the end of a life of extreme suffering, still at a relatively young age. It doesn't make a difference to the fact that they're cruel, and necessary parts of large scale dairy farming, which is unnecessary as a whole.
You’re focusing on one aspect of dairy farming when there are a number of ethically unsound practices such as stealing the babies from their mothers and killing them for beef, even if not veal.
this is not inherently unethical. i can't think of a single ethical system that would say this is immoral.
So causing a mother to cry for her missing baby isn't unethical? I'm not sure what ethical system you're referring to that would determine whether something is ethical. By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it's not needed.
I’m not sure what ethical system you’re referring to that would determine whether something is ethical.
literally, any. pick one.
Pretty much every ethical framework that exists would find that causing needless harm and suffering to animals is unethical. Kicking a dog when you don't need to is unethical. Similarly, stealing a baby from their mother, restricting them in a crate, and killing them, causing the mother extreme emotional anguish, is unethical; causing her pain from overproducing milk is unethical; given that dairy farming is itself unnecessary.
By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it’s not needed
that's not true. but even if it were, you don't have a monopoly on what may be considered necessary. a dairy farmer may say he needs to participate in any of the practices you find abhorrent to feed his family, and i wouldn't tell him he's wrong.
It's not cruel to cause (ultimately) unnecessary suffering to an animal? And that's your opinion, remember. Not a fact.
cruelty would be doing it just to cause suffering. suffering is incidental, not the point. if we produced everything using the exact same processes without suffering, would you find that acceptable? i think everyone would say that's preferrential.
Raping someone not to cause them suffering but to gain something out of it is (pleasure, or a baby) is unethical. Something unnecessary that causes suffering doesn't need to be done for the express purpose of causing a being suffering in order to be unethical.
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.
I did the math. there is no way more than 5% of male calves become veal, no matter how much propaganda has been produced to the contrary.
do you need help with the algebra or arithmetic?
In some instances or regions, a majority of male dairy calves are indeed destined for veal production. The dairy industry faces challenges in finding economically viable uses for male calves since they don't produce milk. As a result, many operations choose veal production as a way to utilize these calves.
If we say for sake of example that in some cases, only a small percentage of male calves of dairy cows are used for veal (when largely it is the majority), that's still billions and eventually trillions of baby animals killed in the long run. Also, many are killed upon birth and not even used for veal but simply discarded or used for other purposes ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/dairy-dirty-secret-its-still-cheaper-to-kill-male-calves-than-to-rear-them ). The ones that are raised and killed for beef at a few years old still wouldn't be if the dairy industry wasn't breeding these animals in the first place. And they wouldn't be separated from their mothers, be mutilated, or face a number of other cruel practices.
The bottom line is that the dairy industry causes harm and suffering to animals, including supplementing connected industries like veal and beef, which many people justify as a way to minimise waste of necessary byproducts of the dairy industry, while ignoring or overlooking the fact that the dairy industry itself is unnecessary.
That is clearly a logical fallacy, whereby someone justifies harmful actions as a necessary component of an in fact unnecessary larger set of actions. If you would focus on the actual question at hand, instead of making a tirade against the example I used.
By the way, I think it might be called a false necessity or false requirement fallacy, but that may not be widely recognised. It's related to the more general false dilemma/false dichotomy fallacy I described earlier, but also could be described as a fallacy of composition:
"The fallacy of composition happens when someone assumes that what's true for parts of something must also be true for the whole thing. Basically, they think that if each piece has a certain quality, then the entire thing automatically has that same quality, which might not be the case."
In other words, assuming that because one aspect of something is required as a component of that larger thing, the whole thing itself must also be required, when that isn't necessarily true.
The bottom line is that the dairy industry causes harm and suffering to animals, including supplementing connected industries like veal and beef,
ok...
which many people justify as a way to minimise waste of necessary byproducts of the dairy industry
conserving resources is good...
while ignoring or overlooking the fact that the dairy industry itself is unnecessary.
I don't see why that matters. we do have a dairy industry. conserving resources within it is just smart.
Conserving resources within the dairy industry, such as consuming the surpluss calves and cattle that are killed, might make sense from an economic standpoint.
But the dairy industry itself isn't necessary. It matters because instead of supporting it by buying the veal and beef byproducts derived from it, we could simply boycott the whole industry entirely, which would eliminate all of the harms involved in it.
You seem to have made the exact fallacy that I'm describing in my post, as seen in the title.
we could simply boycott the whole industry entirely, which would eliminate all of the harms involved in it
did you try that? because it didn't work.
What do you mean "it didn't work"? Of course I mean that if we as a society eliminated it, that would prevent all of the harms involved in it. That hasn't happened yet.
how much veal do you think is made? how many pounds per calf? how many male calves are born a year? you're just wrong.
"Veal is meat, but it’s actually a cruel co-product of the dairy industry. If you consume dairy products you’re actually supporting the veal industry, too."
The veal industry is an unavoidable component of the dairy industry, as well as the slaughtering of cattle for beef, and a lot of other harmful practices to animals.
All of these practices are often justified (by some people) as a necessary component of dairy, while ignoring the fact that dairy itself isn't necessary, so therefore none of the practices within it are, either.
Hence, justifying one thing as a necessary component of another unnecessary thing.
it's not unavoidable. anyone could milk a cow without making veal.
On a mass scale to provide for everyone, it's necessary. However, for sake of example, just switch veal to beef. Or switch it to any of the other cruel practices inherent in dairy farming. The fallacy still applies if you defend one practice as a necessary component of a larger unnecessary practice
If you would focus on the actual question at hand, instead of making a tyrade against the example I used.
I only wanted to point out some facts. I am not going on a tirade. your comments are longer than mine by orders of magnitude, and unable to stay focused on the only topic I mentioned in my first comment in this thread.
It's a large topic that you opened up when I never intended for that. And you made some pretty long comments with wide-reaching implications as well. It takes a lot to debunk these claims, or explain why they're specious in their reasoning and don't invalidate the overall point.
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.
I am the one who made the claim about the amount of cattle that become veal. I then supported it when you said that I was wrong. nothing you've provided actually contradicts what I have said or the data that I provided.
most are not killed for veal
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.
ok....
no, it's not.
my first comment was acknowledging that it's just an example.
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.
milk isn't designed except by humans through selective breeding, and that is designed for human use
Milk is actually designed! It’s super cool
design implies a designer.
The mother designs it.
design takes volition.
That’s debatable, I feel like spiders design their webs.
do they understand they might try other patterns, and actively choose the one they use?
I don’t know what their cognitive processes are, but it seems unlikely they do. It still sounds perfectly normal to me to say the following:
“Spider webs are designed to be safe for the spider, but still trap as much potential prey as possible.”
Does that really hit your ear (eye) wrong?
Milk is actually made by cows for their calves, when they fall pregnant to one. Humans are exploiting the milk intended for the calves, by definition. And as a result, we forcefully impregnate those cows, too.
it's not made by cows for anything. they dont have any volition in the process.
Biologically they produce it for their calves, the intended recipient. Just like a human woman produces milk for their babies. All mammals do the same thing. The only difference is humans take the milk from cows when their calves need it, not just for nutrition but for the nurturing as they naturally gravitate to their mother's udders. Calves are separated from their mothers by humans to stop them doing that and steal the milk from another species. There's nothing normal or acceptable about it
any predator that preys on mammals will drink the milk of their prey, and there are species of bird and reptile who will consume the milk of mammals. it's absolutely normal and acceptable.
No other species drinks the milk from another species regularly. It's definitely not true to say that any predator that preys on mammals will drink the milk of their prey. It happens in rare circumstances with certain species. The way we artificially inseminate dairy cows, steal their babies and kill them, and steal the milk made for them, in industrialised farming systems, is far removed from nature.
Normal is one thing, which I would dispute. Acceptable is based on your opinion, which I think is highly flawed and unethical. Causing suffering and harm to animals by separating them from their mothers and killing them is cruel. Therefore I wouldn't say it's morally acceptable at all given that the whole industry is unnecessary, and harmful in a number of ways.
what predators avoid mammaries?
A carnivore eating an animal and including their mammary glands in the flesh they're eating is very distinct from deliberately drinking their milk, either suckling on their teats or milking them. It's a very rare practice ("milking" another animal never happens in nature, as we do), but humans have made it a norm for our species. Human adults were lactose intolerant by default before the lactase persisten gene developed as an adaptation to tolerate drinking cow's milk made for calves. My point being it wasn't previously normal for humans either. It's an avoidable practice, so arguing that the processes involved in it are necessary is simply untrue and logically false.
I disagree this is cruel.
That's pretty messed up. Of course it's cruel. Only a person who lacks empathy for animals would say that causing suffering to an animal unnecessarily isn't cruel.
for some definitions of need. but almost all calves manage to survive until their planned slaughter date, so the application of "need" here seems unwise.
I said they need it for an intended purpose which is for nurturing as well as adequate nutrition. They also don't need to be alive, but they certainly want to be. It's pretty disgusting that you're defending this.
you can't be certain about this: all of the research has failed to produce evidence sufficient to support the understanding of personal mortality in non-human animals. they don't want to be alive any more than they want to die, since they don't understand the choice.
They don't wish to die. This is very clear in their behaviour. They actively seek to avoid being killed, even though there's no escape for them. Many animal psychologists and slaughterhouse workers can verify this. They show fear and cower, try to escape, or even try to knock bolt guns away. They can smell blood of the animals that were killed before them, and they often see their dead bodies too. They moan desperately at the top of their lungs. They are sentient and highly intelligent animals. They know they're about to die and they exhibit a clear desire to live.
Even ignoring this, it's obviously in their best interests for them to be alive and not have their life taken away from them at a young age, just like it is for them to be with their mother and live a happy, healthy life, without harmful interference and exploitation by humans.
the cows don't intend to make milk, and they certainly don't intend a recipient.
And yet, biologically, a cow makes milk for her calf, and the calf is healthiest and happiest when allowed to suckle their own mother's milk naturally. Just like a human doesn't produce milk intentionally, but they do allow their baby to have it, since that's what works best for them and helps to form a maternal bond and nurture the baby. All the same is true for cows.
after becoming pregnant. there is no volition so cows don't make it for anything any more than they may saliva or urine for something.
A pregnancy which we force upon them, sexually violating them, yes. But that doesn't mean they don't care for their children. They want to nurture and protect them, and naturally develop a maternal bond. Biologically the milk is made for their calves to drink, and allowing them to, not stealing them away and killing them, is in the best interests of both parties involved (the cow and the calf).
but if you disregard this arbitrary goal, then any particular dairy operation could, in fact, operate apart from the meat industry.
It's not an arbitrary goal, because in order to provide dairy to everyone, these practices must happen (when we don't need to provide dairy to everyone). I guess I could clarify that rather than it being a necessary component of dairy production to kill calves and cattle, for example, it's a necessary component of dairy production on a scale to feed our planet, or even any significant human populations. For all intents and purposes as they apply to most people, and when considering the industry as a whole, these practices are necessary for dairy production, while dairy production itself isn't necessary.
it is arbitrary: there is no reason to believe any particular dairy operation couldn't keep it's calves out of the veal industry.
You're focusing on one aspect of dairy farming when there are a number of ethically unsound practices such as stealing the babies from their mothers and killing them for beef, even if not veal. Or artificially inseminating mothers and forcefully impregnating them, selectively breeding them to overproduce milk which wrecks their bodies. And then killing them at the end of a life of extreme suffering, still at a relatively young age. It doesn't make a difference to the fact that they're cruel, and necessary parts of large scale dairy farming, which is unnecessary as a whole.
this is not inherently unethical. i can't think of a single ethical system that would say this is immoral.
So causing a mother to cry for her missing baby isn't unethical? I'm not sure what ethical system you're referring to that would determine whether something is ethical. By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it's not needed.
literally, any. pick one.
Pretty much every ethical framework that exists would find that causing needless harm and suffering to animals is unethical. Kicking a dog when you don't need to is unethical. Similarly, stealing a baby from their mother, restricting them in a crate, and killing them, causing the mother extreme emotional anguish, is unethical; causing her pain from overproducing milk is unethical; given that dairy farming is itself unnecessary.
that's not true. but even if it were, you don't have a monopoly on what may be considered necessary. a dairy farmer may say he needs to participate in any of the practices you find abhorrent to feed his family, and i wouldn't tell him he's wrong.
it's not.
It's not cruel to cause (ultimately) unnecessary suffering to an animal? And that's your opinion, remember. Not a fact.
cruelty would be doing it just to cause suffering. suffering is incidental, not the point. if we produced everything using the exact same processes without suffering, would you find that acceptable? i think everyone would say that's preferrential.
Raping someone not to cause them suffering but to gain something out of it is (pleasure, or a baby) is unethical. Something unnecessary that causes suffering doesn't need to be done for the express purpose of causing a being suffering in order to be unethical.
I did the math. there is no way more than 5% of male calves become veal, no matter how much propaganda has been produced to the contrary.
do you need help with the algebra or arithmetic?
In some instances or regions, a majority of male dairy calves are indeed destined for veal production. The dairy industry faces challenges in finding economically viable uses for male calves since they don't produce milk. As a result, many operations choose veal production as a way to utilize these calves.
If we say for sake of example that in some cases, only a small percentage of male calves of dairy cows are used for veal (when largely it is the majority), that's still billions and eventually trillions of baby animals killed in the long run. Also, many are killed upon birth and not even used for veal but simply discarded or used for other purposes ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/dairy-dirty-secret-its-still-cheaper-to-kill-male-calves-than-to-rear-them ). The ones that are raised and killed for beef at a few years old still wouldn't be if the dairy industry wasn't breeding these animals in the first place. And they wouldn't be separated from their mothers, be mutilated, or face a number of other cruel practices.
The bottom line is that the dairy industry causes harm and suffering to animals, including supplementing connected industries like veal and beef, which many people justify as a way to minimise waste of necessary byproducts of the dairy industry, while ignoring or overlooking the fact that the dairy industry itself is unnecessary.
That is clearly a logical fallacy, whereby someone justifies harmful actions as a necessary component of an in fact unnecessary larger set of actions. If you would focus on the actual question at hand, instead of making a tirade against the example I used.
By the way, I think it might be called a false necessity or false requirement fallacy, but that may not be widely recognised. It's related to the more general false dilemma/false dichotomy fallacy I described earlier, but also could be described as a fallacy of composition:
"The fallacy of composition happens when someone assumes that what's true for parts of something must also be true for the whole thing. Basically, they think that if each piece has a certain quality, then the entire thing automatically has that same quality, which might not be the case."
In other words, assuming that because one aspect of something is required as a component of that larger thing, the whole thing itself must also be required, when that isn't necessarily true.
ok...
conserving resources is good...
I don't see why that matters. we do have a dairy industry. conserving resources within it is just smart.
Conserving resources within the dairy industry, such as consuming the surpluss calves and cattle that are killed, might make sense from an economic standpoint.
But the dairy industry itself isn't necessary. It matters because instead of supporting it by buying the veal and beef byproducts derived from it, we could simply boycott the whole industry entirely, which would eliminate all of the harms involved in it.
You seem to have made the exact fallacy that I'm describing in my post, as seen in the title.
did you try that? because it didn't work.
What do you mean "it didn't work"? Of course I mean that if we as a society eliminated it, that would prevent all of the harms involved in it. That hasn't happened yet.
how much veal do you think is made? how many pounds per calf? how many male calves are born a year? you're just wrong.
"Veal is meat, but it’s actually a cruel co-product of the dairy industry. If you consume dairy products you’re actually supporting the veal industry, too."
https://animalequality.org/blog/2019/08/14/dairy-industry-supports-veal-industry/
So, to my original point.
The veal industry is an unavoidable component of the dairy industry, as well as the slaughtering of cattle for beef, and a lot of other harmful practices to animals.
All of these practices are often justified (by some people) as a necessary component of dairy, while ignoring the fact that dairy itself isn't necessary, so therefore none of the practices within it are, either.
Hence, justifying one thing as a necessary component of another unnecessary thing.
it's not unavoidable. anyone could milk a cow without making veal.
On a mass scale to provide for everyone, it's necessary. However, for sake of example, just switch veal to beef. Or switch it to any of the other cruel practices inherent in dairy farming. The fallacy still applies if you defend one practice as a necessary component of a larger unnecessary practice
I only wanted to point out some facts. I am not going on a tirade. your comments are longer than mine by orders of magnitude, and unable to stay focused on the only topic I mentioned in my first comment in this thread.
It's a large topic that you opened up when I never intended for that. And you made some pretty long comments with wide-reaching implications as well. It takes a lot to debunk these claims, or explain why they're specious in their reasoning and don't invalidate the overall point.
do a word count
those are raw numbers. your scientific study doesn't support the claim that you're making.