Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?
Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
if we as a society eliminated it
do you have a plan to make that happen?
How is that relevant? In the fallacy I'm describing, people assume that the cruel practices involved in dairy farming are necessary while ignoring the fact that dairy farming itself is unnecessary (since it can theoretically be eliminated).
How is that relevant
if you don't have plan to make it happen, then it's pointless to raise it.
In the fallacy I’m describing, people assume that the cruel practices involved in dairy farming are necessary while ignoring the fact that dairy farming itself is unnecessary (since it can theoretically be eliminated).
you seem to be twisting yourself in a pretzel to defend your opposition to all dairy, while ignoring that, in fact, none of the practices you're objecting to (except the extraction of the milk, itself) are strictly necessary in order for anyone to milk a cow. if there is a fallacy like the one you're describing, you're falling for it now.
You're the one rendering yourself as completely devoid of empathy in your attempts to defend dairy farming and to argue that causing needless suffering to animals isn't cruel or unethical. Are you a dairy farmer? If not, I really wonder why you're so intent on defending it.
I don't need to defend an opposition to dairy farming. It makes sense to be opposed to unnecessary harm to animals. It's a rational position. Yours is not.
I already clarified that by dairy farming I mean on a scale that actually provides for a human populace, not simply in a contained circumstance that wouldn't be replicated anywhere else. Your arguments are ridiculous.
your attempts to defend dairy farming and to argue that causing needless suffering to animals isn’t cruel or unethical.
i'm saying that your bar for necessity is not objective. it's subjective.
It makes sense to be opposed to unnecessary harm to animals.
what is your bar for necessity?
when largely it is the majority),
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
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.
do a word count