Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

SeahorseTreble

@ SeahorseTreble @lemmy.world

Posts
22
Comments
77
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • You're focusing on one aspect of dairy farming when there are a number of ethically unsound practices such as stealing the babies from their mothers and killing them for beef, even if not veal. Or artificially inseminating mothers and forcefully impregnating them, selectively breeding them to overproduce milk which wrecks their bodies. And then killing them at the end of a life of extreme suffering, still at a relatively young age. It doesn't make a difference to the fact that they're cruel, and necessary parts of large scale dairy farming, which is unnecessary as a whole.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • No other species drinks the milk from another species regularly. It's definitely not true to say that any predator that preys on mammals will drink the milk of their prey. It happens in rare circumstances with certain species. The way we artificially inseminate dairy cows, steal their babies and kill them, and steal the milk made for them, in industrialised farming systems, is far removed from nature.

    Normal is one thing, which I would dispute. Acceptable is based on your opinion, which I think is highly flawed and unethical. Causing suffering and harm to animals by separating them from their mothers and killing them is cruel. Therefore I wouldn't say it's morally acceptable at all given that the whole industry is unnecessary, and harmful in a number of ways.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • I said they need it for an intended purpose which is for nurturing as well as adequate nutrition. They also don't need to be alive, but they certainly want to be. It's pretty disgusting that you're defending this.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • And yet, biologically, a cow makes milk for her calf, and the calf is healthiest and happiest when allowed to suckle their own mother's milk naturally. Just like a human doesn't produce milk intentionally, but they do allow their baby to have it, since that's what works best for them and helps to form a maternal bond and nurture the baby. All the same is true for cows.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • 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.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • 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

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • It's an example which demonstrates the concept since in both cases, the overall process/system is unnecessary. Neither dairy farming nor killing animals for meat is necessary. It's not shifting the argument to say that the killing isn't necessary in the first place, that simply is the main point that the fallacy ignores.

    With regard to dairy farming, it's not more profitable to raise, house a male calf who won't produce milk in their life, and feed them until adulthood (still only a few years old when they can live until 20-25) and kill them for beef. In most cases male calves get killed for veal, though they can simply be killed immediately and discarded, while some are raised until 1.5-2 years and killed for beef. Most female calves usually become dairy cows and then ultimately beef cows as well at 4-6 years old.

    On a mass scale of dairy production, the killing of cattle for veal and beef is absolutely necessary. And yet, these components are part of an overall unnecessary system that is dairy production. Of course it's cruel in a variety of other ways too, but the primary use of the fallacy is assuming that we need to eat/utilise veal and beef due to them being necessary for dairy production, when dairy itself is unnecessary.

    I love how everyone jumped on the example I used to defend these cruel practices instead of understanding how they were an example of the fallacy I was describing. And are trying to claim they're not an example of the fallacy when they clearly are. Shows the world we live in...

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • Biologically they produce it for their calves, the intended recipient. Just like a human woman produces milk for their babies. All mammals do the same thing. The only difference is humans take the milk from cows when their calves need it, not just for nutrition but for the nurturing as they naturally gravitate to their mother's udders. Calves are separated from their mothers by humans to stop them doing that and steal the milk from another species. There's nothing normal or acceptable about it

  • Will people respond better if you say you're teetotal, or straight edge?

    Jump

  • Right, like smoking in front of a baby (and exposing them to second-hand smoke). I guess that's a good example. But that's more to do with the way you're going about doing the drugs, rather than the drug use itself as an inherent component, I suppose.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • I appreciate your thoughts! And "nerd sniped" is a great term 😂 I agree, I think there may not be a specific name for this fallacy (though it could be described as somewhat of a false requirement or false necessity fallacy), nor is it widely recognised in logic literature (as is often the case; some might call it a "made-up fallacy" but indeed a verifiable one), but it probably falls under the more general fallacies of "false dilemma/false dichotomy", as well as "fallacy of composition":

    "Fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what's true for part of something must also be true for the whole or that if one thing is a necessary component of another thing, both must be necessary, even if it's not the case. In essence, it assumes that the properties of the parts apply to the whole."

  • Will people respond better if you say you're teetotal, or straight edge?

    Jump

  • Oh, absolutely. I have no problem with other people doing recreational drugs. I see it as entirely their choice as it only really affects them personally. I don't think it's immoral or "sinful" (whatever that really means) or whatever.

    And I think most people do respect that. I do appreciate these responses that make it clear that we should respect if someone either does or doesn't want to consume recreational drugs.

    But I really was just looking for a term to explain abstinence of recreational drugs to people who I know won't judge or care, but without the baggage or misunderstandings that may come with saying "sober" (possible assumption: former/recovering alcoholic/addict), "teetotal" (possible misunderstanding: doesn't use alcohol, might still be fine with other recreational drugs), or "straight edge" (possible misunderstanding: not only doesn't consume drugs, but also is into the punk music scene).

    After gathering data, the best term I could come up with is quite a simple one: "drug-free". To be clear, we could say "recreational drug-free", though that's rather wordy and the meaning of "recreational drugs" is often understood by just saying "drugs" anyway.

    I know you didn't ask but I just thought I'd say this anyway lol.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • It's not an arbitrary goal, because in order to provide dairy to everyone, these practices must happen (when we don't need to provide dairy to everyone). I guess I could clarify that rather than it being a necessary component of dairy production to kill calves and cattle, for example, it's a necessary component of dairy production on a scale to feed our planet, or even any significant human populations. For all intents and purposes as they apply to most people, and when considering the industry as a whole, these practices are necessary for dairy production, while dairy production itself isn't necessary.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • Milk is actually made by cows for their calves, when they fall pregnant to one. Humans are exploiting the milk intended for the calves, by definition. And as a result, we forcefully impregnate those cows, too.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • To be technical about it, you can have tacos without sour cream, too. So I think both are unnecessary (either independently, or for each other) in this case 😂

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • "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.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • 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.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • 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.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • It's absolutely necessary to kill cattle for meat in the dairy industry. It would not be financially viable otherwise, and small-scale farms that try to avoid this practice can't provide enough dairy to feed the human population if they're consuming dairy; and they still involve other unavoidable cruelties inherent in taking the milk designed for calves, separating them and selectively breeding cows to overproduce milk, docking and debudding them, etc etc.

  • Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?

    Jump

  • 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.