I’m restricting it because we need an agreeable definition. I wouldn’t agree that you can give consent to sex without being informed. so the whole idea of animal consent is absurd. if we can’t agree on the definition of consent, there is no point in continuing

consent is informed. you haven’t shown animals can be informed and, therefore, give consent

this doesn’t debunk every crop deaths argument. it only addresses an argument in the form “since animals die in crop harvesting, vegans shouldn’t eat crops (or they would be hypocrites”.

but the issue of crop deaths actually points to something else: people don’t care if animals die in the production of their food. vegans claim to care but will eat food covered in pesticides and harvested with threshers. the mental gymnastics they go through, like writing a four part essay about how these animal deaths are actually ok, shows that they, too, are ok with animals during in the production of their food.

none of these are animal cognative behavioral studies showing non human animals can understand and consent to reproduction

wrong

it’s a veterinary procedure

no they are not

you have no evidence for such a claim

ad hominem

i don’t think this is proven. can you cite something?

please cite an animal behavior paper that supports your claim

consent must be informed. animals can’t be informed anymore than a door can.

The same is true when people neuter or spay their pets.

at least you are consistent on this point

Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species.

this is a leap of logic.

the issue was consent. are you conceding that consent is absurd from something that we cannot communicate with?

doors dont consent for you to jam your keys in them.

it’s not the exact same comment, it’s another study that poore-nemecek cites.

we use the soybeans for oil. the soy meal byproduct would be industrial waste of we didn’t feed it to livestock

Creating demand for the alternatives funds their R&D and furthers their availability, which in turn leads to better products for lower prices, which makes further adoption much easier.

there is no causal link between any of those events, and increased demand decrease availability.

I don’t really believe what economists claim, v but you don’t even seem to know what they say in the first place

thank you. no matter how many times I point out the inefficacy of consumer choices or how I word it, I end up with bad faith and fact-avoidant responses like you got.