Battery chicken farms need to end
RushKing
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
It's both practical and sustainable to an eminent degree.

So you pay an equivalent to $84 for a pint of milk and its just "organic". That's worse than the example I provided.
I think you should look up the Straw Man Fallacy on Wikipedia before you make another silly statement like that.
Yes I have read that Wikipedia article; and according to it, you have made the straw man fallacy.


If the claim is true, you've actually disproved your point; unless Californians drink less than 4.7 times as much proper milk as tasteless, anemic almond milk, you've proven that the former provides for their needs more efficiently than the latter. In fact, the claim that California, a state of forty million people, provides for the dairy needs of over a hundred million people, while only requiring 47% of the state's water supply is enormously reassuring.
See, the kind of mathematical illiteracy the creators of this advertisement are guilty of proves my point about the intellectual poverty of the vegan movement. Only somebody who failed high school mathematics could quote those points in DEFENCE of veganism.
So you pay an equivalent to $84 for a pint of milk and its just "organic". That's way worse than the example I provided.
You do realise that 65p is 65 pence (.65 pounds) not 65 pounds, don't you? In fact if you thought a pint of milk (about a small bottle of water's worth), could retail at £65 anywhere, it raises serious questions - you're not just trying to make fun of my credulousness, are you?

That may well have been the definition of a vegan in 1944, but that's no longer the case; a vegan is someone who abstains from consumption of animal products, although this is problematic, since most vegans consider it perfectly acceptable to - for example - consume honey. I suppose the restriction only extends to cute birds and mammals, other species not being entitled to "animal rights".
By the way, by using an outdated definition like the one quoted, you may well be GENUINELY guilty of the Straw Man Fallacy yourself, though I think you're too honest to have done so consciously.
RushKing
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

If the claim is true, you've actually disproved your point; unless Californians drink less than 4.7 times as much proper milk as tasteless, anemic almond milk, you've proven that the former provides for their needs more efficiently than the latter. In fact, the claim that California, a state of forty million people, provides for the dairy needs of over a hundred million people, while only requiring 47% of the state's water supply is enormously reassuring.
See, the kind of mathematical illiteracy the creators of this advertisement are guilty of proves my point about the intellectual poverty of the vegan movement. Only somebody who failed high school mathematics could quote those points in DEFENCE of veganism.
Read it again
It say's California produces 80% of the WORLD's almonds... You're accusing me of illiteracy?

That may well have been the definition of a vegan in 1944, but that's no longer the case; a vegan is someone who abstains from consumption of animal products, although this is problematic, since most vegans consider it perfectly acceptable to - for example - consume honey. I suppose the restriction only extends to cute birds and mammals, other species not being entitled to "animal rights".
By the way, by using an outdated definition like the one quoted, you may well be GENUINELY guilty of the Straw Man Fallacy yourself, though I think you're too honest to have done so consciously.
The definition I provided is accurate. Veganism begins with this axiom. This is what distinguishes veganism from plant based diets.
If we ask vegans if it is unethical to eat roadkill. Many vegans (including myself) will answer no!
It say's California produces 80% of the WORLD's almonds...
I wasn't referring to that particular claim, but the first part, about water usage. Nevertheless, the part you're taking about is equally fallacious - or at VERY best inconclusive, because the world doesn't consume nearly as much almond milk as real milk.
No, but whoever designed the poster.
If we ask vegans if it is unethical to eat roadkill. Many vegans (including myself) will answer no!
If the definition provided really were the basis of veganism and vegans were generally rational, they'd be perfectly happy to consume organic milk, but they're obviously not, which is why I must conclude that they're irrational. Either way, however, whether abstention from dairy products is itself the definition of veganism (as most dictionaries will tell you) or rather proceeds from some logically prior definition like the one you've given, it's still a necessary condition for one to be considered a vegan, and so my characterisation of vegans as irrational based upon that definition, whether the characterisation is itself valid or not, certainly isn't invalid on the basis of being guilty of the straw man fallacy, as you claimed. Unless you're going to tell me that vegans NEEDN'T abstain from dairy, in which case we're arguing about two different things.
RushKing
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
It say's California produces 80% of the WORLD's almonds...
I wasn't referring to that particular claim, but the first part, about water usage. Nevertheless, the part you're taking about is equally fallacious - or at VERY best inconclusive, because the world doesn't consume nearly as much almond milk as real milk.
Almonds aren't only used for almond milk and dairy isn't only used for milk products.
If we ask vegans if it is unethical to eat roadkill. Many vegans (including myself) will answer no!
If the definition provided really were the basis of veganism and vegans were generally rational, they'd be perfectly happy to consume organic milk
No, because the vast majority organic milk on the market isn't cruelty free and the stuff that is isn't affordable or accessible.
Most battery eggs are used as ingredients and not sold as shell eggs, you have to watch out what food you for instance cakes normally contain battery eggs if they don't state free range. Gelatin is another thing that's in all sorts of food like Yoghurts which comes from pigs that have also been on factory farms.
It say's California produces 80% of the WORLD's almonds...
I wasn't referring to that particular claim, but the first part, about water usage. Nevertheless, the part you're taking about is equally fallacious - or at VERY best inconclusive, because the world doesn't consume nearly as much almond milk as real milk.
Almonds aren't only used for almond milk and dairy isn't only used for milk products.
If we ask vegans if it is unethical to eat roadkill. Many vegans (including myself) will answer no!
If the definition provided really were the basis of veganism and vegans were generally rational, they'd be perfectly happy to consume organic milk
No, because the vast majority organic milk on the market isn't cruelty free and the stuff that is isn't affordable or accessible.
Isn't it? In that case, the farmers are breaking the law - or would be in Europe. We've already seen that organic milk, at 84 cents a pint (extrapolating from the cost in Britain), is perfectly affordable, though if it weren't affordable, that still wouldn't make it "cruel".
RushKing
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
No, because the vast majority organic milk on the market isn't cruelty free and the stuff that is isn't affordable or accessible.
Isn't it? In that case, the farmers are breaking the law - or would be in Europe. We've already seen that organic milk, at 84 cents a pint (extrapolating from the cost in Britain), is perfectly affordable, though if it weren't affordable, that still wouldn't make it "cruel".
Do you think there a compassionate way to rape a cow or molest a bull?
Do you think there a compassionate way to pull a calf away from its mother for slaughter?
No, because the vast majority organic milk on the market isn't cruelty free and the stuff that is isn't affordable or accessible.
Isn't it? In that case, the farmers are breaking the law - or would be in Europe. We've already seen that organic milk, at 84 cents a pint (extrapolating from the cost in Britain), is perfectly affordable, though if it weren't affordable, that still wouldn't make it "cruel".
Do you think there a compassionate way to rape a cow or molest a bull?
Do you think there a compassionate way to pull a calf away from its mother for slaughter?
Per paragraph one, the answer is obviously no, but you know full well (I hope) that neither of those things is involved in obtaining dairy.
Your second paragraph isn't quite fair, because we weren't talking about slaughter or meat, which I admit there are some arguments against, but about dairy.
RushKing
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
Do you know how dairy cows get forcibly impregnated?
Do you know how ranchers obtain bovine semen?
Dairy is a business and the farms don't always have the space or the use for the calf that are born in the process. To save money, most dairy farms sell them to the veal industry.
No, because the vast majority organic milk on the market isn't cruelty free and the stuff that is isn't affordable or accessible.
Isn't it? In that case, the farmers are breaking the law - or would be in Europe. We've already seen that organic milk, at 84 cents a pint (extrapolating from the cost in Britain), is perfectly affordable, though if it weren't affordable, that still wouldn't make it "cruel".
Do you think there a compassionate way to rape a cow or molest a bull?
Do you think there a compassionate way to pull a calf away from its mother for slaughter?
Per paragraph one, the answer is obviously no, but you know full well (I hope) that neither of those things is involved in obtaining dairy.
The term ‘bobby calves’ refers to newborn calves that are less than 30 days old and not with their mothers. Essentially, they are surplus to dairy industry requirements as they are not required for the milking herd. This applies to all bull calves (males) and about one quarter of heifer calves (females) born each year. And, each year, around 450,000 of these bobby calves are destined for slaughter. https://kb.rspca.org.au/what-happens-to ... es_87.html
Check...
And mate...

P.S.
Obligatory O/T comment:
According to THHGTTG, humans are "mostly harmless"...
False!
Humanity is a disgustingly cruel species...
Avoid these creatures if at all possible...

Do you know how ranchers obtain bovine semen?
This is the central fallacy of the vegans that I've been talking about: the anthropomorphisation of animals. Animals are not human beings; the whole reason semen can be extracted from a bull or a horse using an artificial vagina is that it's incapable of telling the difference between the two. Though in any case I'd hardly consider it abuse to allow a male animal to satisfy such an important urge, rather than festering in frustration.
Cows are generally impregnated using artificial insemination, following on from the above; I'd hardly consider this abusive provided that she isn't subject to too many uncomfortable pregnancies, something more than well provided for under organic regulations.
Ultimately, at this point, if your argument consists of nothing but cows' hurt feelings and bulls' sexual frustration, then I won't dignify this discussion by continuing it.
No, because the vast majority organic milk on the market isn't cruelty free and the stuff that is isn't affordable or accessible.
Isn't it? In that case, the farmers are breaking the law - or would be in Europe. We've already seen that organic milk, at 84 cents a pint (extrapolating from the cost in Britain), is perfectly affordable, though if it weren't affordable, that still wouldn't make it "cruel".
Do you think there a compassionate way to rape a cow or molest a bull?
Do you think there a compassionate way to pull a calf away from its mother for slaughter?
Per paragraph one, the answer is obviously no, but you know full well (I hope) that neither of those things is involved in obtaining dairy.
The term ‘bobby calves’ refers to newborn calves that are less than 30 days old and not with their mothers. Essentially, they are surplus to dairy industry requirements as they are not required for the milking herd. This applies to all bull calves (males) and about one quarter of heifer calves (females) born each year. And, each year, around 450,000 of these bobby calves are destined for slaughter. https://kb.rspca.org.au/what-happens-to ... es_87.html
Check...
And mate...

P.S.
Obligatory O/T comment:
According to THHGTTG, humans are "mostly harmless"...
False!
Humanity is a disgustingly cruel species...
Avoid these creatures if at all possible...

You do realise that what you wrote in the first part of this response, while it's certainly true, has absolutely nothing to do with the post to which it was a response, and is also an exact duplicate of the previous poster's comment, which I will get to presently:
You're both arguing against industrial farming techniques, which I've already stated I don't particularly approve of. I'm arguing that vegans are irrational in their objection to ORGANIC dairy produce. The practice of culling calves is banned under organic farming regulations in the EU and United Kingdom; I don't know whether this is true in the USA, too, but if it isn't then your argument is against a lack of organic standards, not against dairy farming per se.
The two of you will forgive me for assuming that you haven't bothered reading more than one or two of posts between myself and Mr King above.
There used to be a dairy farm up my road till it went out of business.You probably wouldn’t drink milk if you visited it.Calves are separated from their mother and placed on the bottle.Males are castrated.One reason for the separation is that calves tend to butt and pull at the teats and can missshape the udder.
I used to raise Saanen dairy goats, guess what happens to the male kids.Can you say “ chevon”?
Regulations may be different in the UK,no idea.But I do know what I’ve seen first hand,don’t need anyone to tell me about it.
So what happens to the steers in your country?If they get slaughtered,than dairy is not cruelty free as the steers are a by product of the dairy industry and get butchered so you can drink organic milk.
Organic does not mean cruelty free.
_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi
RushKing
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
Human beings are animals. Overwhelming scientific consensus.
Irrelevant... the bull cannot give consent. People often orgasm while getting raped. And people can also ejaculate without orgasm.
Oh really? Cause males always want it, am I right?

Yes, they are raped with steel rods and bear gloves.
Isn't that a part of the main subject? Animal cruelty?
You're both arguing against industrial farming techniques, which I've already stated I don't particularly approve of. I'm arguing that vegans are irrational in their objection to ORGANIC dairy produce. The practice of culling calves is banned under organic farming regulations in the EU and United Kingdom
Can somebody find a source on this?
It isn't
You're both arguing against industrial farming techniques, which I've already stated I don't particularly approve of. I'm arguing that vegans are irrational in their objection to ORGANIC dairy produce. The practice of culling calves is banned under organic farming regulations in the EU and United Kingdom; I don't know whether this is true in the USA, too, but if it isn't then your argument is against a lack of organic standards, not against dairy farming per se.
The two of you will forgive me for assuming that you haven't bothered reading more than one or two of posts between myself and Mr King above.
Apologies...
Yes, I jumped in before I did my homework...
I'll sit back and activate learning mode...
