I know I know… “obligate carnivore”

  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it

    no one is paying someone to abuse animals

    • Dashi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 months ago

      But you are when you buy the animal products. You are paying them as indirectly as you are supporting the animal abuse indirectly.

      You pay the store for the milk, the store pays the wholesaler and the wholesaler pays the farmer who is committing “animal abuse/ rape”.

      At least that is the logic flow they are using. I personally agree that there is no problem with this as long as it is done as humanely as possibly.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        They main problem is that its currently as humane as is commercially viable. Which sorta means profits come first, animal welfare second.

        Also people need to talk about the people who work in that industry and the effects it has on their mental health. If you care about people then you wouldnt want anyone exposed to such a workplace.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        paying them as indirectly as you are supporting the animal abuse indirectly.

        no, you’re not. if someone is abusing livestock, they are paid by someone who isn’t me and long before I walk into the grocery store.

        • Dashi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          That isn’t how supply/demand works. If you are creating a demand, which you are when buying the product, you are incentivizing someone to create a supply.

          If enough people didn’t buy the product then there wouldn’t be a demand and the person that pays the “milker” wouldn’t pay them anymore.

          I believe that’s in the laws of macroeconomics (?)

            • Dashi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I try giving people the benefit of the doubt but yea pretty sure they are trolling.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            If enough people didn’t buy the product then there wouldn’t be a demand and the person that pays the “milker” wouldn’t pay them anymore.

            we made milk before we had money. there is no reason to believe it will ever stop

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            That isn’t how supply/demand works. If you are creating a demand, which you are when buying the product, you are incentivizing someone to create a supply.

            supply and demand is a price seeking theory. you are misapplying the term to use it this way

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        You pay the store for the milk, the store pays the wholesaler and the wholesaler pays the farmer who is committing “animal abuse/ rape”.

        but I’m not paying the store to pay the farmer. I’m paying for a product.

        further, artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it is not rape.

        • Dashi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 months ago

          Buying the product increases the demand for the product making the store want to provide the product so they purchase it from the farmer. If nobody bought cow milk from the store then the store wouldn’t buy from the farmer and then the cows wouldn’t be milked.

          And I believe the “rape of animals” vegans refer to is taking their milk without consent. I’m not an expert on either side of the argument so I may be wrong.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            And I believe the “rape of animals” vegans refer to is taking their milk without consent.

            milking isn’t rape, either.

          • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Nah they’re referring to the insemination of the cows. Gotta keep getting the cow pregnant and take away it’s babies to get milk. Gotta inseminate the cows as soon as you can so you’re not feeding them with no return. That’s a basic factor of dairy farming you can’t get away from no matter how you try. If you believe in animal personhood you should find it abhorrent. I don’t.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Buying the product increases the demand for the product making the store want to provide the product so they purchase it from the farmer.

            the. store makes their own decisions. I don’t decide for them