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.
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).
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.
It makes sense to be opposed to unnecessary harm to animals.
what is your bar for necessity?
Are you a dairy farmer? If not, I really wonder why you’re so intent on defending it.
i'm not. i'm opposed to your poorly-formed arguments against dairy farming. i don't care to defend it one way or another.
And yet, you bluntly try to argue that causing needless suffering to animals isn't cruel. You must be addicted to dairy or something (it does have casein, which breaks down into casomorphin in the body and has addictive properties). Either way you're clearly a sick person given how little empathy you demonstrate towards animals.
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.
How is that relevant
if you don't have plan to make it happen, then it's pointless to raise it.