Do you understand why a vegan or an activist for animal rights might find this development in factory farming disturbing and upsetting? How the fuck is "well people gotta eat" a justification for anything? "People gotta eat" does not mean "people gotta eat more pork at the lowest price point possible." That's the heart of my objection. And where the hell did I say that a country is or should be vegan?
Especially because if this is justified with "people need to eat" and the need for food sovereignty then raising animals is the worst way to go about it, since 1) it's inefficient as fuck and 2) the food used to feed the livestock almost certainly will come from Brazil which is a country that China should not rely on too much and it defeats the purpose of having food sovereignty as you still need to feed livestock.
Can you do me a favor and go back to re-read this whole comment chain? Cause your replies are getting increasingly nonsensical.
Yeah, no shit we're making a moral argument against high intensity factory farming. Pointing it out is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is, and is honestly super close to "no politics in muh vidya" levels of liberalism. Food is political, meat is very political, and it's production is political. And politics is all about ethics (unless you're a ghoul)
Btw, the OP who brought up defending China was me. In particular, my point was that "people gotta eat" is a lazy attempt to wave away the political and moral implications of this new factory farming practice. Do you have any cogent points to make on this topic instead of telling me that my points don't matter?
never told you your points dont matter. im telling you that your reasoning is incoherent. discussing the ethics of industrial husbandry has nothing to do with a discussion on whether to defend china or not. stop getting so fucking riled up
Ed. the people here claiming that the existence of chinese industrial husbandry is a non-topic isnt using up a quota for the limits of defending china
discussing the ethics of industrial husbandry has nothing to do with a discussion on whether to defend china or not.
Defend China from what? Cause I'm fairly certain the topic of discussion is new practices in animal husbandry. You'd think the ethics of it would be very much on topic.
Do you understand why a vegan or an activist for animal rights might find this development in factory farming disturbing and upsetting? How the fuck is "well people gotta eat" a justification for anything? "People gotta eat" does not mean "people gotta eat more pork at the lowest price point possible." That's the heart of my objection. And where the hell did I say that a country is or should be vegan?
Especially because if this is justified with "people need to eat" and the need for food sovereignty then raising animals is the worst way to go about it, since 1) it's inefficient as fuck and 2) the food used to feed the livestock almost certainly will come from Brazil which is a country that China should not rely on too much and it defeats the purpose of having food sovereignty as you still need to feed livestock.
but muh bacoon
op talked about defending china. thats not what this is, its just you guys complaining about the state of human ethics. thats my point again
Can you do me a favor and go back to re-read this whole comment chain? Cause your replies are getting increasingly nonsensical.
Yeah, no shit we're making a moral argument against high intensity factory farming. Pointing it out is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is, and is honestly super close to "no politics in muh vidya" levels of liberalism. Food is political, meat is very political, and it's production is political. And politics is all about ethics (unless you're a ghoul)
Btw, the OP who brought up defending China was me. In particular, my point was that "people gotta eat" is a lazy attempt to wave away the political and moral implications of this new factory farming practice. Do you have any cogent points to make on this topic instead of telling me that my points don't matter?
never told you your points dont matter. im telling you that your reasoning is incoherent. discussing the ethics of industrial husbandry has nothing to do with a discussion on whether to defend china or not. stop getting so fucking riled up
Ed. the people here claiming that the existence of chinese industrial husbandry is a non-topic isnt using up a quota for the limits of defending china
Defend China from what? Cause I'm fairly certain the topic of discussion is new practices in animal husbandry. You'd think the ethics of it would be very much on topic.