Lady's out here acting as an advocate for autistic people and also designing ways to industrially kill animals more efficiently. You can't claim to be empathic to animals and then build ways to slaughter them.
Lady's out here acting as an advocate for autistic people and also designing ways to industrially kill animals more efficiently. You can't claim to be empathic to animals and then build ways to slaughter them.
Why are those the only options? And why am I being asked to end this alone?
Because that's the premise of the critque of Temple Grandin in this post. "Making the conditions animals are killed in 20% less terrible is bad because they should not be killed" is a garbage take unless the person making conditions less terrible also has the power to end the killing.
We live in the world we live in, not in the world that we wish we lived in.
The focus was never on making the conditions less terrible, it is always about increasing profits. Making the conditions less terrible is a nice litte PR pill I think you’re a bit too eager to swallow