5 ms·

I think it's probably fair to change this: > but I’m also sure their perspective is warped by the need to make profit out of them. to something like this: >

by jmull 8y ago

I think it's probably fair to change this: > but I’m also sure their perspective is warped by the need to make profit out of them. to something like this: > but I'm also sure their perspective is based on their need to subsist on them. I think your heart is in the right place, but characterizing family dairy farmers as "warped" and profiting is not going to end up connecting or being helpful.

Djvacto 8y ago
I mean, I'm not super well versed in small-scale agriculture or anything, but a) Is there that big of a difference between subsist and profit in this case? It's not like the family is just consuming the milk/etc themselves, they're selling it (in the case described above) and b)is there even a such thing as subsist in our society today? Especially in America, capitalism makes it impossible to just subsist, as you always need to be earning more. However, both of these are just as subjective as your suggested substitution, and I would like to express that I think Small-scale or Family Dairy Farmers are way better than any size factory farming.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
marricks 8y ago
I removed profit shortly after posting, it is just an awful place to use that word. I think shaped is better than the implications of warped, thanks for the thought. Warped is true to how I feel but shaped I agree is more generally correct.
justin66 8y ago
> but characterizing family dairy farmers as "warped" He characterized their perspective as warped: but I’m also sure their perspective is warped This is an entirely different thing.
fnovd 8y ago
At the end of the day, a cow to a dairy farmer is just a machine. Whatever airs people may put on when describing how they treat their animals, the reality is they would (and do) sell them off to the highest bidder once the the juice stops being worth the squeeze. We don't do this to other animals we claim to care for: an old dog that loses his youthful energy is still given a spot in the home and, if the time comes, will be put down in a more-or-less humane way. An old cow that loses her ability to produce milk is sold to whoever can make use of what's left of her body and promptly forgotten. If economic demands are the reason for this practice, then we can confirm that the amount of profit one can derive from a cow is the primary driver of interactions with her. Words like "warp" and "profit" are a symbol of a fundamentally different way of thinking about what a "reasonable" relationship with an animal should be. However, I don't think you can accurately describe what the relationship between a dairy farmer and a cow is without such language, as owning a dairy farm is a business and making a profit is of course a primary concern. We see companies large and small externalize costs in pursuit of profit. What's so sacred about the dairy farmer that we have to tiptoe around describing the nature of their business?
- a1369209993 8y ago
  "Warped" falsely implies that their relationship with a nonsapient meat-machine that exists for the purpose of turning grass and agricultural waste into good-tasting food is in some way unreasonable. What's so sacred about cows that we have to tiptoe around describing what they're for?
  - fnovd 8y ago
    That's exactly what I said: >Words like "warp" and "profit" are a symbol of a fundamentally different way of thinking about what a "reasonable" relationship with an animal should be. It's not a "false" implication as there is no true and objective measure of "reasonable". I substituted "fundamentally different" because I think it's more accurate than "false" or "wrong". Cows aren't "for" meat or dairy any more than Africans were "for" enslavement. It is a purpose bestowed upon them by an outside influence, for sure, but it is not an intrinsic property of the being him or herself.
    - a1369209993 8y ago
      Edit: to clairify, I wasn't criticizing your post so much as criticizing the original assertion and answering (one possible reason) why people would object to it. > It's not a "false" implication as there is no true and objective measure of "reasonable". That's a reasonable [heh] position (though obviously not one I agree with), but that just changes the original assertion from false (there's a objective measure and it contradicts this) to meaningless and misleading (there's no objective measure by away from which their perspective can be said to be warped). > Cows aren't "for" meat or dairy any more than Africans were "for" enslavement. Africans, like most humans, are[0] (physical substrates containing) people; they're for doing whatever it is the person in question wants. Cows aren't[0]; they don't have any inside influence to bestow purpose upon them. 0: In both cases qualified by "assuming there isn't a nigh-Cartesian coincidence or conspirancy to falsify evidence of sapience or lack thereof", which admittedly isn't a possibility I've put much effort into falsifying.
      - 8y ago

by jmull 8y ago

Djvacto 8y ago

I mean, I'm not super well versed in small-scale agriculture or anything, but a) Is there that big of a difference between subsist and profit in this case? It's not like the family is just consuming the milk/etc themselves, they're selling it (in the case described above) and b)is there even a such thing as subsist in our society today? Especially in America, capitalism makes it impossible to just subsist, as you always need to be earning more. However, both of these are just as subjective as your suggested substitution, and I would like to express that I think Small-scale or Family Dairy Farmers are way better than any size factory farming.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

marricks 8y ago

I removed profit shortly after posting, it is just an awful place to use that word. I think shaped is better than the implications of warped, thanks for the thought. Warped is true to how I feel but shaped I agree is more generally correct.

justin66 8y ago

> but characterizing family dairy farmers as "warped" He characterized their perspective as warped: but I’m also sure their perspective is warped This is an entirely different thing.

fnovd 8y ago

At the end of the day, a cow to a dairy farmer is just a machine. Whatever airs people may put on when describing how they treat their animals, the reality is they would (and do) sell them off to the highest bidder once the the juice stops being worth the squeeze. We don't do this to other animals we claim to care for: an old dog that loses his youthful energy is still given a spot in the home and, if the time comes, will be put down in a more-or-less humane way. An old cow that loses her ability to produce milk is sold to whoever can make use of what's left of her body and promptly forgotten. If economic demands are the reason for this practice, then we can confirm that the amount of profit one can derive from a cow is the primary driver of interactions with her. Words like "warp" and "profit" are a symbol of a fundamentally different way of thinking about what a "reasonable" relationship with an animal should be. However, I don't think you can accurately describe what the relationship between a dairy farmer and a cow is without such language, as owning a dairy farm is a business and making a profit is of course a primary concern. We see companies large and small externalize costs in pursuit of profit. What's so sacred about the dairy farmer that we have to tiptoe around describing the nature of their business?

a1369209993 8y ago
"Warped" falsely implies that their relationship with a nonsapient meat-machine that exists for the purpose of turning grass and agricultural waste into good-tasting food is in some way unreasonable. What's so sacred about cows that we have to tiptoe around describing what they're for?
- fnovd 8y ago
  That's exactly what I said: >Words like "warp" and "profit" are a symbol of a fundamentally different way of thinking about what a "reasonable" relationship with an animal should be. It's not a "false" implication as there is no true and objective measure of "reasonable". I substituted "fundamentally different" because I think it's more accurate than "false" or "wrong". Cows aren't "for" meat or dairy any more than Africans were "for" enslavement. It is a purpose bestowed upon them by an outside influence, for sure, but it is not an intrinsic property of the being him or herself.
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    Edit: to clairify, I wasn't criticizing your post so much as criticizing the original assertion and answering (one possible reason) why people would object to it. > It's not a "false" implication as there is no true and objective measure of "reasonable". That's a reasonable [heh] position (though obviously not one I agree with), but that just changes the original assertion from false (there's a objective measure and it contradicts this) to meaningless and misleading (there's no objective measure by away from which their perspective can be said to be warped). > Cows aren't "for" meat or dairy any more than Africans were "for" enslavement. Africans, like most humans, are[0] (physical substrates containing) people; they're for doing whatever it is the person in question wants. Cows aren't[0]; they don't have any inside influence to bestow purpose upon them. 0: In both cases qualified by "assuming there isn't a nigh-Cartesian coincidence or conspirancy to falsify evidence of sapience or lack thereof", which admittedly isn't a possibility I've put much effort into falsifying.
    - 8y ago