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
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?
yes. i would talk about the evolutionary pressures that have shaped the behavior of the organism. i wouldn't impart volition to them.
How would you phrase it? (Honest question)
"spiders have evolved to produce webs. evolutionary pressures have favored species which produce webs that are safe for the organism and effective at trapping enough prey to maintain the life and reproductive cycles of the organism."
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.
you're splitting hairs.
It's really not. What we do, exploiting an animal directly for their milk, is not normal in the animal kingdom. You're trying to argue that it is because mammaries are part of the meat that some animals consume. That's a false equivalency.
What we do, exploiting an animal directly for their milk, is not normal in the animal kingdom.
this is a bandwagon fallacy.
You’re trying to argue that it is because mammaries are part of the meat that some animals consume. That’s a false equivalency.
i think it's absolutely no different ethically, but what differences exist make our practices more humane: we don't murder a cow every time we drink milk.
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.
there is some question about whether it's justified, sure, but it's not inherently cruel. the suffering isn't the point of the practice, it's incidental.
calves need it
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.
They don’t wish to die. This is very clear in their behaviour.
then it should be a simple matter to find an animal cognitive behaviorist to support this position. it's not, though, because behavior does not entail cognition.
Are you now trying to claim that animals don't have cognition despite the fact they're sentient and intelligent beings?
i'm saying they are not cognizant of their personal mortality. if you can get me a cognitive-behavior paper that undercuts this, i'd love to read it.
They know they’re about to die and they exhibit a clear desire to live.
where is your peer reviewed article?
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).
Biologically the milk is made
because they become pregnant. not for any purpose.
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.
Kicking a dog when you don’t need to is unethical.
but we're not talking about kicking dogs. we're talking about producing food.
No, we're talking about producing a particular kind of food that isn't necessary. Kicking a dog isn't necessary and neither is exploiting cows for their milk and causing them and their calves suffering and ultimately killing them at young ages. Both are harmful practices which can be avoided.
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.
artificial insemination isn't rape. it's a veterinary procedure.
That's funny, notice I never said artificial insemination was rape. I guess that's something you assumed given that it is very comparable to rape, and is undoubtedly a sexual violation, regardless of its intention (which is ultimately unnecessary). And it's not a veterinary procedure, it's a farming practice with the end goal of producing a product to sell that the animal is exploited for.
I was using rape as an example of a practice that causes suffering and which is unethical despite the fact that causing suffering isn't the motivation for doing it (necessarily), in response to you trying to argue that something that causes suffering isn't unethical if suffering isn't the intention. If something causes unnecessary suffering, it's unethical, regardless of the intention.
That’s funny, notice I never said artificial insemination was rape. I guess that’s something you assumed given that it is very comparable to rape
this is the height of intellectual dishonesty. i will accept an apology, but i will not continue without one.
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?
yes. i would talk about the evolutionary pressures that have shaped the behavior of the organism. i wouldn't impart volition to them.
How would you phrase it? (Honest question)
"spiders have evolved to produce webs. evolutionary pressures have favored species which produce webs that are safe for the organism and effective at trapping enough prey to maintain the life and reproductive cycles of the organism."
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.
you're splitting hairs.
It's really not. What we do, exploiting an animal directly for their milk, is not normal in the animal kingdom. You're trying to argue that it is because mammaries are part of the meat that some animals consume. That's a false equivalency.
this is a bandwagon fallacy.
i think it's absolutely no different ethically, but what differences exist make our practices more humane: we don't murder a cow every time we drink milk.
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.
there is some question about whether it's justified, sure, but it's not inherently cruel. the suffering isn't the point of the practice, it's incidental.
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.
then it should be a simple matter to find an animal cognitive behaviorist to support this position. it's not, though, because behavior does not entail cognition.
Are you now trying to claim that animals don't have cognition despite the fact they're sentient and intelligent beings?
i'm saying they are not cognizant of their personal mortality. if you can get me a cognitive-behavior paper that undercuts this, i'd love to read it.
where is your peer reviewed article?
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).
because they become pregnant. not for any purpose.
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.
but we're not talking about kicking dogs. we're talking about producing food.
No, we're talking about producing a particular kind of food that isn't necessary. Kicking a dog isn't necessary and neither is exploiting cows for their milk and causing them and their calves suffering and ultimately killing them at young ages. Both are harmful practices which can be avoided.
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.
artificial insemination isn't rape. it's a veterinary procedure.
That's funny, notice I never said artificial insemination was rape. I guess that's something you assumed given that it is very comparable to rape, and is undoubtedly a sexual violation, regardless of its intention (which is ultimately unnecessary). And it's not a veterinary procedure, it's a farming practice with the end goal of producing a product to sell that the animal is exploited for.
I was using rape as an example of a practice that causes suffering and which is unethical despite the fact that causing suffering isn't the motivation for doing it (necessarily), in response to you trying to argue that something that causes suffering isn't unethical if suffering isn't the intention. If something causes unnecessary suffering, it's unethical, regardless of the intention.
this is the height of intellectual dishonesty. i will accept an apology, but i will not continue without one.