3 ms·

I am speaking about the US. I'd love to see your sources. Here's a reference: https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ https://faunalytics.org/fund

by yboris 6y ago

I am speaking about the US. I'd love to see your sources. Here's a reference: https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ Intensive productions makes up the majority percentage of production: 97% Chicken 96% Pig 66% Cow Here's another source just in case: https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima... 70.4% of cows 98.3% of pigs 99.8% of turkeys 98.2% of egg-laying hens, and over 99.9% of chickens raised for meat

pvaldes 6y ago
You are saying "animals are tortured"-> then{people should stop eating animals} But what you really mean to say is "animals are tortured in US" -> then{people should stop eating animals} See the bubble here? We could say something like this also for example: "animals are tortured in US" -> then{We should start importing all our meat from Argentina} And that would be a real solution for your angst. Much more simple plan that trying to feed humanity with pills, or drawing veins in a chunk of soy. Some people has in mind a fixed, immutable THEN part and -after that- they look for an IF random part that would support the narrative. A part that would typically involve cute things crying in danger and emotional distress. Who cares if it tags people with real names as "torturers"? (is my opinion, so it must be reality because opinion = true facts, right?). Who cares if the facts were faked, distorted of shown in a questionable way to fit into the replaceable part of the slot? This is not an honest way to do things. Is the digital modern equivalent to "lets come to the castle with torches and pitchforks because... who needs a reason, this people is evil", and this is garbage.
- yboris 6y ago
  You are assuming that meat from Argentina does not come from animals that are tortured. Please do your research: many countries are adopting the American CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) model - thereby importing the practices of animal abuse. The argument I am making is towards the largest audience on this website: people living in the US. The argument is to encourage them to eat less meat. Just because you have come up with some plan to fix the problem does not fix the problem. Until your plan is implemented, buying meat in the US causes a tremendous amount of animal suffering. Your choice to purchase the meat results in funding further animal suffering.

by yboris 6y ago

pvaldes 6y ago

You are saying "animals are tortured"-> then{people should stop eating animals} But what you really mean to say is "animals are tortured in US" -> then{people should stop eating animals} See the bubble here? We could say something like this also for example: "animals are tortured in US" -> then{We should start importing all our meat from Argentina} And that would be a real solution for your angst. Much more simple plan that trying to feed humanity with pills, or drawing veins in a chunk of soy. Some people has in mind a fixed, immutable THEN part and -after that- they look for an IF random part that would support the narrative. A part that would typically involve cute things crying in danger and emotional distress. Who cares if it tags people with real names as "torturers"? (is my opinion, so it must be reality because opinion = true facts, right?). Who cares if the facts were faked, distorted of shown in a questionable way to fit into the replaceable part of the slot? This is not an honest way to do things. Is the digital modern equivalent to "lets come to the castle with torches and pitchforks because... who needs a reason, this people is evil", and this is garbage.

yboris 6y ago
You are assuming that meat from Argentina does not come from animals that are tortured. Please do your research: many countries are adopting the American CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) model - thereby importing the practices of animal abuse. The argument I am making is towards the largest audience on this website: people living in the US. The argument is to encourage them to eat less meat. Just because you have come up with some plan to fix the problem does not fix the problem. Until your plan is implemented, buying meat in the US causes a tremendous amount of animal suffering. Your choice to purchase the meat results in funding further animal suffering.