• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most what? Calves or male calves? Because it’s factually incorrect to say that most male calves aren’t killed for veal. They evidently are.

    I did the math. there is no way more than 5% of male calves become veal, no matter how much propaganda has been produced to the contrary.

    do you need help with the algebra or arithmetic?

    • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In some instances or regions, a majority of male dairy calves are indeed destined for veal production. The dairy industry faces challenges in finding economically viable uses for male calves since they don’t produce milk. As a result, many operations choose veal production as a way to utilize these calves.

      If we say for sake of example that in some cases, only a small percentage of male calves of dairy cows are used for veal (when largely it is the majority), that’s still billions and eventually trillions of baby animals killed in the long run. Also, many are killed upon birth and not even used for veal but simply discarded or used for other purposes ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/dairy-dirty-secret-its-still-cheaper-to-kill-male-calves-than-to-rear-them ). The ones that are raised and killed for beef at a few years old still wouldn’t be if the dairy industry wasn’t breeding these animals in the first place. And they wouldn’t be separated from their mothers, be mutilated, or face a number of other cruel practices.

      The bottom line is that the dairy industry causes harm and suffering to animals, including supplementing connected industries like veal and beef, which many people justify as a way to minimise waste of necessary byproducts of the dairy industry, while ignoring or overlooking the fact that the dairy industry itself is unnecessary.

      That is clearly a logical fallacy, whereby someone justifies harmful actions as a necessary component of an in fact unnecessary larger set of actions. If you would focus on the actual question at hand, instead of making a tirade against the example I used.

      By the way, I think it might be called a false necessity or false requirement fallacy, but that may not be widely recognised. It’s related to the more general false dilemma/false dichotomy fallacy I described earlier, but also could be described as a fallacy of composition:

      “The fallacy of composition happens when someone assumes that what’s true for parts of something must also be true for the whole thing. Basically, they think that if each piece has a certain quality, then the entire thing automatically has that same quality, which might not be the case.”

      In other words, assuming that because one aspect of something is required as a component of that larger thing, the whole thing itself must also be required, when that isn’t necessarily true.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        when largely it is the majority),

        how much veal do you think is made? how many pounds per calf? how many male calves are born a year? you’re just wrong.

        • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “Veal is meat, but it’s actually a cruel co-product of the dairy industry. If you consume dairy products you’re actually supporting the veal industry, too.”

          https://animalequality.org/blog/2019/08/14/dairy-industry-supports-veal-industry/

          So, to my original point.

          The veal industry is an unavoidable component of the dairy industry, as well as the slaughtering of cattle for beef, and a lot of other harmful practices to animals.

          All of these practices are often justified (by some people) as a necessary component of dairy, while ignoring the fact that dairy itself isn’t necessary, so therefore none of the practices within it are, either.

          Hence, justifying one thing as a necessary component of another unnecessary thing.

            • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              On a mass scale to provide for everyone, it’s necessary. However, for sake of example, just switch veal to beef. Or switch it to any of the other cruel practices inherent in dairy farming. The fallacy still applies if you defend one practice as a necessary component of a larger unnecessary practice

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you would focus on the actual question at hand, instead of making a tyrade against the example I used.

        I only wanted to point out some facts. I am not going on a tirade. your comments are longer than mine by orders of magnitude, and unable to stay focused on the only topic I mentioned in my first comment in this thread.

        • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a large topic that you opened up when I never intended for that. And you made some pretty long comments with wide-reaching implications as well. It takes a lot to debunk these claims, or explain why they’re specious in their reasoning and don’t invalidate the overall point.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.