4mo ago

Honey

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

522 comments

Factory farms won't get better until demand reduces.
Got any great ideas to make factory farms more humane that won't slow down production of meat? Is the demand going up or down over time?
Of course the answer can't be reducing meat consumption in general, right? Dont have to be vegan to eat less meat do you now?
- Factory farms won’t get better until demand reduces
  I don't believe you have any proof of this. there is no mechanism by which reducing demand would improve factory farms.
  
  Why do factory farms use outdated slaughter techniques in the first place? Production quantity comes first. They will not reduce their capacity to produce meat just to make the animals lives better.
  Where's the evidence that your idea is any better than mine anyways?
  
  Where’s the evidence that your idea is any better than mine anyways?
  i didn't present any other idea. i said you don't have any evidence your idea holds water.
  
  I can't predict the future if thats what you mean.
  Theres plenty of evidence that reducing meat production where possible will help everyone. Theres plenty of evidence that at least a mostly plant based diet is better for personal health for most people.
  Less animals suffering is a plus too but you could leave it out and still come to the conclusion that there is something behind plant based and partially plant based diets.
  
  Theres plenty of evidence that reducing meat production where possible will help everyone.
  this is a different claim than you made before
  
  What claim did I make before?
  
  Factory farms won’t get better until demand reduces
  
  Less animals suffering is a plus too but you could leave it out and still come to the conclusion that there is something behind plant based and partially plant based diets.
  this is a nonsequitur. my guess is you have tried plant based diet, and the amount of animal slaughter has only increased: chart
  
  We've had this argument like twice already.
  I never claimed that me being a vegan would end animal suffering.
  If you would admit that the line on your graph would go up quicker if all vegetarians and vegans went back to eating meat, then you have to also admit it would go up slower if more people went vegan, vegetarian, or simply ate 25% less meat than they normally do.
  You must be able to see the math there? Do I need to send you university debate level arguments? I can find them for you if you want.
  
  your graph would go up quicker if all vegetarians and vegans went back to eating meat,
  as i can't prove a counterfactual, i wouldn't make any such claim. i have no reason to believe that production could increase any faster.
  
  I mean I can't convince you that demand affects supply if you simply don't think they are related.
  
  i think supply creates its own demand, but i don't believe there is any causal mechanism by which choosing to buy something causes more of it to be produced, nor that production causes others to purchase it.
  
  How can supply create demand while saying production doesnt cause demand in the same paragraph?
  Do you have some separate definition for supply and production I'm missing?
  
  I never claimed that me being a vegan would end animal suffering.
  you did say it would reduce it, but all the evidence is that is not true.
  
  You think, that I think, me personally being vegan will be the tipping point that causes a down trend in your graph?
  
  i'm saying if what you're claiming is true, then it would follow that the growth of the industry would stop and reverse.
  
  There aren't enough people eating less meat yet? I don't think a problem of scale makes it futile. You are just assuming it would never grow big enough to affect the line.
  
  Do I need to send you university debate level arguments
  i'm not interested in debate. i'm interested in provable claims.
  
  Should I use another commodity that saw reduced demand, which caused the supply to dwindle? Asbesthos? Does that work? Maybe cigarrettes?
  What kind of proof do you want and I'll go find it for you how's that.
  
  https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/tobacco-production?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
  edit: i don't know how you can quantify the demand for tobacco, and i don't know what causal mechanism can explain this chart.
  
  what you're presenting is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. both of those declined in production following the introduction of color television as well. we can't very well say that color caused a reduced production. in fact, you haven't actually presented any evidence that less asbethos or cigarettes are being produced.
  
  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5877076/
  https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/tobacco-production?tab=table&time=earliest..1997
- You can literally enforce better conditions in farms, making factory farming practices illegal, and it's possible we could've had the support required to make it happen.
  If you amend your messaging and behavior even a little bit, it might still be possible.
  
  How would we do that without dramatically reducing the amount of meat being produced?
  As for the support, it sounds like you are blaming vegans for factory farmers actions. If they want to do things more humanely they are free to do it.
  Its a waste of time in my opinion, and its hypocritical to be an animal activist who eats animals.
  We can have a conversation about the ethical slaughterhouse in your mind but I guarantee you we will not agree on what is ethical treatment of an animal if thats the case.
  
  How would we do that without dramatically reducing the amount of meat being produced?
  maybe you can't, but it seems like you think that would be a good outcome.
  
  Whats wrong with reducing meat production?
  
  i didn't say there is anything wrong with it. and if their plan (increased welfare standards) leads to that, i would think you would support it.
  
  Well, one plan involves convincing western politicians and the companies that pay for them, to self regulate. The other involves personal choice.
  So I guess I chose the easy one.
  Also vegans do participate in animal activism of course. They just won't argue for better ways to slaughter animals.
  
  So I guess I chose the easy one.
  but if it's ineffective, then it is no better.
  
  Well, your graph could just as easily support my position as it could go against it.
  I see a line that could be higher if not for the personal choice of a collective of vegans, vegetarians, and generally healthier people.
  You see proof vegans aren't making a difference. Where's your proof that the line is unaffected by vegans? Do you have anything else that proves being vegan is an effort in futility?
  
  Well, your graph could just as easily support my position as it could go against it.
  no, it' can't. this is an unscientific claim.
  
  It's a graph. It doesnt interpret itself. It doesnt really do anything on its own.
  
  I see a line that could be higher if not for the personal choice of a collective of vegans, vegetarians, and generally healthier people.
  you can't prove a counterfactual. but it is a fact that vegans exist, and the chart continues to rise.
  
  How many would have to be vegan before youll admit it would affect the supply of meat? 75%? 90%? Is there just a crossover point for you or you think if noone ate meat that graph would still go up?
  
  Do you have anything else that proves being vegan is an effort in futility?
  i've never said that. i think if you want to avoid animal products, then doing so is its own reward. but if you want to decrease animal slaughter, it's ineffective.
  i suggest that you go where animals are being slaughtered and stop it.
  
  Reducing animal suffering is the goal. And putting myself in prison wouldnt help anything. Also I doubt american prisons would give me a vegan diet anyways.
  The goal is similar to cigarettes. Regulation came about once the general public became aware of the health risks for even non smokers.
  Right now its not as well known by the general public how unhealthy diets that are heavy in meat can be.
  By being vegan, and making it more normal for those I interact with, it shows broadens what people know about it.
  I'm personally banking that americans are so selfish they will reduce meat consumption purely for health/cosmetic reasons alone, like to avoid heart disease or to lose weight.
  
  ...it sounds like you are blaming vegans for factory farmers actions.
  You're refusing to get this point right: I'm blaming vegans for public disinterest, which indirectly allows the factories to completely maximize profits by squeezing the animals they use.
  Its a waste of time in my opinion...
  I know you think that. You're vegan.
  You don't care about the pig in the pen any more than you care about the prey in the field. What bothers you is that there are carnivores on your block. A cow could be tortured and slaughtered at 5, or live comfortably in a large field and die of natural causes, it makes no difference to you. You're bothered by the steak on the plate. That's your fight.
  
  First of all, plenty of vegans are activists, doing the stuff you are talking about. They aren't mutually exclusive.
  The problem is people wanting to be animal rights activists but giving no moral consideration to animals and doing absurdly hypocritical things like contributing to the system they stand in opposition of.
  Apparently you just want to be able to eat guilt free meat? Seems to be what you accomplish with your "framework" of being anti vegan, anti factory farm, but pro eating meat.
  
  Thank you for standing up against this hypocritical carnist defending animal abuse.

522 comments