So, I’m not 100% getting where you are going with this argument, but I think what you are saying is: If beings have less brain capability they are less worthy of being treated with the same respect as beings with higher brain capabilities. And ultimately, that it would be OK to kill beings that have less brain capabilities.
I don’t think they’re being abused by giving dairy.
Could you spell out for me what is needed for a cow to give milk? Because I think we need to clarify “what actually happens” to cows in that process in order to classify something as abuse or not.
By that logic, you would also have no problem in killing people with lower brain capabilities - like people with dementia or mentally challenged people.
Demonstrably not true and I don’t get where you would pick up such a false bit of information.
Well, that’s an extremly complex questions and there are many cases to consider and personal opinion on these can vary a lot.
For example one of the least limited cases should be animal testing for medical purposes. There should still be limits, but they have to be carefully decided by weighing the potential benefits against the suffering caused.
Another prominented case would be factory farming. I think that’s quite bad and also makes for a poorer end product. But I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with keeping livestock for eating it. But the details of how regulation should work exactly are again quite complex and beyond the scope of a lemmy comment.
But you can make cheese out of it and cheese is life.
Cheese is death
Vegan cheese exists. It is easier to make, is much healthier and animals do not have to suffer.
Yeah, but it’s shit.
I’ve tried vegan cheese… It’s gross dude.
It doesn’t even taste like old cow titties and animal suffering. 0/10
Would you argue in the same way for slavery or child labour?
Cows aren’t human
Dairy cattle can be happy
Hope that helps.
Sooo? They are thinking and feeling individuals. Or do you imply that basically anything can be done to beings, when they are not human?
So could be slaves and/or exploited children. But would that make it right?
It’s appalling to even imply the existence of a happy slave.
Would you be happy with dairy farming if the cows didn’t have brains but we’re just headless bags that worked with an autonomic nervous system only?
If so it’s a question of degree.
Personally: I’ve interacted with cows sufficiently to see they don’t compare to a cat in intelligence, and I have issues with people keeping cats.
Cows are some of the dumbest creatures we’ve domesticated - second only to sheep.
I don’t think they should be abused but I don’t think they’re being abused by giving dairy.
I’d be fine with them being brainless. I’m fine with them being nigh unto brainless as they are now.
So, I’m not 100% getting where you are going with this argument, but I think what you are saying is: If beings have less brain capability they are less worthy of being treated with the same respect as beings with higher brain capabilities. And ultimately, that it would be OK to kill beings that have less brain capabilities.
Could you spell out for me what is needed for a cow to give milk? Because I think we need to clarify “what actually happens” to cows in that process in order to classify something as abuse or not.
Yes. Just like you don’t have any qualms squishing ants.
Very aware of dairy cows and the veal industry. Also aware that herd animals do not give a single fuck about their young.
No because I can tell a cow from a person.
So do you think that we should be allowed to do anything we want to non-human beings, or should there be a limit for that?
There should be some limits, sure. But but comparing it to slavery or forced labour is just silly anthropomorphising.
OK, cool. So where do you think the limit should be?
(Also, was not a comparison but an analogy. But that doesn’t really matter, does it?)
Well, that’s an extremly complex questions and there are many cases to consider and personal opinion on these can vary a lot.
For example one of the least limited cases should be animal testing for medical purposes. There should still be limits, but they have to be carefully decided by weighing the potential benefits against the suffering caused.
Another prominented case would be factory farming. I think that’s quite bad and also makes for a poorer end product. But I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with keeping livestock for eating it. But the details of how regulation should work exactly are again quite complex and beyond the scope of a lemmy comment.