5 ms·
The "humane" argument is flawed because in the end - factory or pasture - the animal is killed. Live a happy life and be slaughtered or a miserable life and be
by mssundaram 5y ago
The "humane" argument is flawed because in the end - factory or pasture - the animal is killed. Live a happy life and be slaughtered or a miserable life and be slaughtered.
- happytoexplain 5y agoWhat is the argument you're referring to, and how is it flawed due to the fact that factory-raised and pasture-raised animals are both killed, regardless of the nature of their killing and the nature of their lives?
- mssundaram 5y agoThe argument is that pasture raised cows is better than factory farmed cows. I am saying that in both cases the cows die.
- iratewizard 5y agoCan you stomach eating fruits and vegetables from an industrialized farm knowing that more animals died to make your salad compared to my steak? Or are certain animals lives worth more than others?
- happytoexplain 5y agoWhat you bring up is an interesting topic, and you should try to increase the explicit information and reduce the hostility.
- mssundaram 5y ago"crop deaths tho" is not a stable argument. Eating meat requires death. But there are ways to avoid killing animals when harvesting grains etc. And in any case, it's a very inflated view - you're still killing more animals by eating meat than you are by not.
- iratewizard 5y ago> you're still killing more animals by eating meat than you are by not Pure conjecture. All numbers I've seen show a higher quantity of deaths from crop farming per calorie.
- Falling3 5y agoI've seen this thoroughly debunked several times. What "numbers" are you alluding to? The most commonly cited number I've seen from a 2003 study is 7.3 billion crop deaths per year, which experts seem to agree is likely a large overestimate. Even if that were the case, that puts crop deaths at an order of magnitude smaller than the number of _land_ animals slaughtered every year; that number is further dwarfed if we included aquatic animals. Additionally, the crops where some of the highest number of field deaths are encountered (such as soy and corn) are also primarily as animal feed. So no. Vegans do not kill more animals.
- mssundaram 5y agoFurthermore, most meat eaters additionally eat plants too, and the animals they eat also usually are eating industrially farmed plants, which really makes the crop deaths argument silly.
- iratewizard 5y agoFarm animals are fed primarily crop byproduct that you can't digest and grass.
- mssundaram 5y agoSo what? If your argument is absolute number of deaths because of crop deaths, those crops would still be killing animals and thus it's still more than not eating meat.
- iratewizard 5y agoWave your hand, call it debunked and then pretend that we grow far more surplus crops to feed animals than we would need to of everyone switched to your disease riddled cult diet.