Libertarians will tell you that even this isn’t cause for government regulation and that the market will weed out the bad businesses by not buying their product.
That’s because the market is babies and they’d all be dead, Jim!
My God. That is absolutely vile, on many different levels.
An thats why I support anti speciesism.
Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to endorse racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.
I‘d love to see humans being treated like they treat those they think of as lesser, just for one day.
Maybe it’s because I used to live near a prison, and I had to go to the same hospital prisoners would in emergencies, but when did humans stop treating other humans like that?
Haven’t you been told that we don’t talk about that kind of oppression here? Everyone knows that mistreatment of humans is bad, but mistreatment of animals is just how things are supposed to be. They are just lesser beings after all, and such kind of thinking hasn’t lead to anything bad in history, so it’s not at all problematic.
Progressivism is about fighting oppression when it suits you, and meat is just soo convenient. The mega corps promised that nothing bad is happening there, so praise the factory farms!
Your sarcasm is so subtle that it took me a while to understand. Thanks for chiming in. I dont get why people downvote me for saying animals should be treated fairly (yes, as fairly as humans).
That’s probably because you criticized their behavior (in a rather provocative way), which is often perceived as hostile and leads to downvotes.
Perceived ad-hominem from your quote which implies that you are racist and sexist if you eat meat.
You make a good point but equating mistreatment of different humans with mistreatment of a different species entirely is a false equivalence.
I wouldn’t say they’re equivalent. Obviously beating a fly isn’t as bad as beating a dog or a pig. But is beating a human much worse than beating a dog? For me it comes down to capacity to suffer I guess.
So phisticated
Pasteurization didn’t even arrive in the US until the 1890s so even if these cows had unadulterated milk, it would still be killing massive amounts of infants by feeding it to them.
In a place like New York City, without adequate pasture and no refrigeration in the first place so nessicating literal factory farming, there was no way to market milk that wouldn’t be lethal at the time.
It’s frankly baffling that anybody was drinking raw milk at all at the time. Usually you’d process it into yogurt or cheese unless you directly lived on a farm or had a breastfeeding problem (which would likely result in the death of an infant). This was known since ancient times. It’s why raw milk consumption was mostly associated with peasant farmers for a very long time.
I guess they saw a market of poor rural immigrants who had lived on a farm and decided to swindle them to death.
One thing to keep in mind with this time period and public health, of course is life was still cheap in cities. This is the age of King Cholera.
Edit: As an interesting aside, distiller’s grains are nowadays more popular with beef cattle farmers. They’re high in protein since they’ve been spent for making ethanol and so are better for producing muscle than milk. They’ve also been suggested as a good human supplement since it’s got all the good stuff of grain without the sugar, so here comes bachelor chow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillers_grains
The reason they were raising cows in the city in the first place is the wet grain will spoil if you try to transport it too far from the distillery. They were trying to make a buck on trash.
