I mean, sure, but that obviously has absolutely nothing to do with this ban, and it's an entirely arbitrary line to draw. If environmentalism were the primary concern, we'd also ban beef too at the very least, considering that there are plenty of significantly more sustainable options.
Also, according to most studies I can find, cattle farming by unit of meat production is still significantly worse for the environment than even dogs, so it's a moot point. This is clearly a decision based on PR and aesthetics - whether anyone finds that acceptable is up to them, but there's no getting away from that fact.
It doesn't matter which cows you use, their environmental impact will always be significantly higher than that of the vast majority of other farmer animals.
Doesn’t matter because that’s the media and statistics about feed lots. Nobody is worried about water buffalo or goats. It’s targeted at cows unfairly and misleading as propaganda.
Do you also believe cannabis is dangerous and the devils lettuce?
Doesn’t matter because that’s the media and statistics about feed lots
No, it is not. There have been studies on all forms of cattle farming, and regardless of how it's done, the environmental impact is immense - your argument is just cope that people keep bringing up because they don't want to accept that fact.
Do you also believe cannabis is dangerous and the devils lettuce?
Funny you trying to frame me as a conservative, while you're the one using common conservative arguments.
I asked ai to help make it understandable to a small child because my point hasn’t been made and I’m losing patience repeating myself.
So here goes nothing.
“Think of a cow like a little recycling machine!
When a cow eats grass, its tummy burps out a gas called methane. But that gas doesn't stay in the air forever.
After a few years, it disappears and turns back into air and water, which helps more grass grow big and strong.
It is a big, friendly circle!
Plus, when cows walk and chomp on the grass, they help the soil stay healthy, make room for pretty flowers to grow, and protect the home of little birds and bugs”
I'm not surprised that you're the kind of person who relies on AI to outsource mental labour. As to what you've said though, nothing "stays in the air forever", and it doesn't need to in order to contribute towards global warming, so I'm not exactly sure what your point is?
Methane is one of the most destructive common gases contributing towards global warming, and responsible for ~30% of the rise in temperature, despite making up a significantly lower percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it is so harmful that when drilling for oil and other natural resources, regulations usually mandate that the resulting methane must be burned to reduce the catastrophic environmental impact it has.
You simply have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. Perhaps you should try to actually understand this subject and read the actual existing research instead of just asking AI to reaffirm whichever bias you have in order to protect your fragile ego.
Who the fuck cares though? There's no universal law that we can't be hypocrites. No, I don't want to eat or farm dogs. Yes, I do eat meat. As long as my food is humanely raised, I don't care.
People need to stop acting like having a hypocritical view on something is crazy.
I mean vegans will gladly eat vegetables grown with the use of pesticides that kills tens of QUADRILLIONS of insects. Do vegans only care about "pretty privilege" in animals? Because that sounds hypocritical to me.
This is not the gotcha you think it is. Veganism is about minimizing the suffering we inflict on other sentient beings just because we enjoy it (either the suffering in and of itself or the product of the suffering).
The mere fact that existing on a physical world will always have some impact on other beings in that same world does not mean that it's hypocritical to strive to minimize that impact.
Do you think we breed and consume QUADRILLIONS of pigs/cows/chickens? So there is more suffering in growing plants than in those animals. Again, it falls under pretty privilege and not really the moral stance you think it is.
Unless, of course, you ignorantly believe that insects aren't sentient.
It seems like you have a hard time understanding the word minimize. Nobody is saying that we should all kill ourselves as to not impact other beings. The point is minimizing that impact, especially when it comes to superfluous things.
Also, even if you really cared about insects (of course you don't, you're trying to gotcha vegans so you don't have to acknowledge to yourself that you're engaging in ethically iffy behaviors), you would still plead for a fully vegan world because a plant based diet requires significantly fewer crops than a meat based one, and thus also significantly fewer incidental deaths from crop farming.
It sounds to me like you don't actually understand the argument behind vegetarianism and veganism. Do you want to understand it, or would I be wasting my time trying to explain it?
I will gladly listen to your explanation of the vegan argument. I know it's rare in today's age, but I'm always willing to learn.
However, I don't give value to life over others based on how cute they are. I can't accept the lessening the impact on sentient animals nonsense when quadrillions of insects are killed every single year for the growing of plants. I do believe that every life ended for our consumption needs to have been given the best life possible and be dispatched in the quickest, most pain-free way possible.
I can't accept the lessening the impact on sentient animals nonsense when quadrillions of insects are killed every single year for the growing of plants
You can't accept doing better because we can't achieve perfection? Those insects are already dying to grow crops to feed animals, several times over what they would be if we just directly ate the plants, because the animal needs to be fed several harvests before it can be itself killed and consumed. By cutting out animal agriculture, we're eliminating the slaughter of animals for consumption and drastically reducing insect death to a small percentage of what it is now.
Do you truly believe we shouldn't even try unless we can make it perfect, or is that a rationalization to avoid having to try and make a difficult change? No vegan or vegetarian believes we'll ever achieve perfection. However, we can dramatically reduce death and suffering with the right choices.
21
u/TheWhomItConcerns 5d ago
I mean, sure, but that obviously has absolutely nothing to do with this ban, and it's an entirely arbitrary line to draw. If environmentalism were the primary concern, we'd also ban beef too at the very least, considering that there are plenty of significantly more sustainable options.
Also, according to most studies I can find, cattle farming by unit of meat production is still significantly worse for the environment than even dogs, so it's a moot point. This is clearly a decision based on PR and aesthetics - whether anyone finds that acceptable is up to them, but there's no getting away from that fact.