Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?
Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?
124 comments
-
The bottom line is that the dairy industry causes harm and suffering to animals, including supplementing connected industries like veal and beef,
ok...
which many people justify as a way to minimise waste of necessary byproducts of the dairy industry
conserving resources is good...
while ignoring or overlooking the fact that the dairy industry itself is unnecessary.
I don't see why that matters. we do have a dairy industry. conserving resources within it is just smart.
-
Conserving resources within the dairy industry, such as consuming the surpluss calves and cattle that are killed, might make sense from an economic standpoint.
But the dairy industry itself isn't necessary. It matters because instead of supporting it by buying the veal and beef byproducts derived from it, we could simply boycott the whole industry entirely, which would eliminate all of the harms involved in it.
You seem to have made the exact fallacy that I'm describing in my post, as seen in the title.
-
we could simply boycott the whole industry entirely, which would eliminate all of the harms involved in it
did you try that? because it didn't work.
-
What do you mean "it didn't work"? Of course I mean that if we as a society eliminated it, that would prevent all of the harms involved in it. That hasn't happened yet.
-
-
How is that relevant? In the fallacy I'm describing, people assume that the cruel practices involved in dairy farming are necessary while ignoring the fact that dairy farming itself is unnecessary (since it can theoretically be eliminated).
-
-
-
-
-
-
your attempts to defend dairy farming and to argue that causing needless suffering to animals isn’t cruel or unethical.
i'm saying that your bar for necessity is not objective. it's subjective.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
124 comments