hans
@hans@feddit.org
- Comment on Fascism bad. 3 days ago:
the “name the trait” argument is so well known vegans just call it “ntt”. they’re not here in good faith; they think they have a gotcha.
- Comment on Fascism bad. 4 days ago:
it takes MUCH more plants to feed animals to then feed humans.
most of the plants fed to animals are parts of plants we can’t or won’t eat. a great example is soy: we run over 4/5 of the global crop through an oil press and extract what we want, and feed the leftover plant matter to animals. no more plants are harmed in this process, and we conserve resources by getting food back from the animals.
- Comment on Fascism bad. 4 days ago:
And yes, it’s ok to kill plants because they do not feel pain
you can’t prove this
- Comment on 3 months ago:
otherwise it would be waste after we press the soybean for oil
- Comment on 3 months ago:
we already feed people soy. but we make a lot more than people want to eat. feeding it to livestock is a conservation of resources
- Comment on 3 months ago:
if we don’t plant soybeans, we won’t get soybean oil
- Comment on 3 months ago:
these papers are years-old. I’ve read them.
- Comment on 3 months ago:
Their ‘reactions’ to being cut, like the smell of cut grass, are chemical reactions. Not feelings or desires.
all neurological responses are chemical response. you don’t know if a plant might experience this like emotions
- Comment on 3 months ago:
this is not proof crows or elephants understand that they, themselves, might die
- Comment on 3 months ago:
plants don’t want to be eaten. animals don’t want to be eaten. and the reason for both is the same: we don’t have proof they understand the concept
- Comment on 3 months ago:
somehow I read “beef and dairy”. whoops
- Comment on 3 months ago:
my bad. carry on
- Comment on 3 months ago:
Since we both dont really know for sure, we should probably just
suspend judgement on the claim until there is more evidence.
- Comment on 3 months ago:
we can’t prove a negative. but you are making the claim that requires that they do understand personal mortality, so it is on you to support that claim
- Comment on 3 months ago:
I’m explaining that “not wanting” something does not require that you even know of that things existence
- Comment on 3 months ago:
you spoke specifically about cattle. now you are moving the goal posts
- Comment on 3 months ago:
I’m asking for some peer-reviewed paper to support your claim
- Comment on 3 months ago:
in the 15th century, no one wanted an electric car. does that mean they wanted to stop technological progression?
- Comment on 3 months ago:
so when they die, it’s because they want to die?
- Comment on 3 months ago:
there are only about 1.5 billion cattle in the world. why would you lie about something so easy to find the truth
- Comment on 3 months ago:
how do you know what they want?
- Comment on 3 months ago:
Not wanting to die/wanting to stay alive
two different things
- Comment on 3 months ago:
this is not proof that they understand that they, themselves, might die.
- Comment on 3 months ago:
I dont think it makes sense to look globally
this is irrelevant to whether it’s a lie that 70% of global crops are fed to animals
- Comment on 3 months ago:
the claim was about global crops. your cherry picking now.
- Comment on 3 months ago:
I think you misread “mortality” as “morality”
- Comment on 3 months ago:
They understand it the same way we do.
if you could point me to the animal cognitive-behaviorist paper that supports this claim, is be happy to read it
I think you are making that up
- Comment on 3 months ago:
humans consume about 2/3 of global crop calories
- Comment on 3 months ago:
they may have emotions, but this doesn’t entail that they understand personal mortality.
- Comment on 3 months ago:
we? I don’t. stop it.