So it would reduce the risk of antibiotic resistant diseases, the risk of the next zoonosis that turns into pandemic, the certainty that climate change will destroy agriculture, the risk of heart diseases and cancer but it will not eliminate the chance of a stomach flue so it is not worth perusing?
For smaller animals heat suffocation has worked well, takes a few days but no extra work.
And unless everyone is willing to go 100% vegan tomorrow
And no, I don’t belive 100% tommorow is the only way to avoid that, that was your wording. But it has to and will change.
Don’t mess with animals. This is not a Texas problem, outbreaks have been all over the world and the animal agriculture is the perfect breeding ground. The only question is where will it develop the human to human infection feature. When it happens you can only blame others if your state or country has no animal agriculture as it could happen anywhere.
Now we know better:
https://feddit.de/post/10666309
But hey, still not human to human. Lets give it another week?
All of the animal industries the report examines are far less regulated than they should be and far less than the public believes they currently are. Today, wide regulatory gaps exist through which pathogens can spillover and spread, leaving the public constantly vulnerable to zoonotic disease.
https://animal.law.harvard.edu/news-article/animal-markets-and-zoonotic-disease/
Is just one study. Many say the animal industry is the breeding ground for the next pandemic. Not only in the US but everywhere. The question is not “if” but “when”
The animal industries have their own lobbying and disinformation campaigns.
Among others this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Research_and_Education from all time hits like “most doctors smoke camel”
But most now know the results of cigarettes, fossile fuels and the animal industry. Many people who drive are forced by the current infrastructure which was build with the car in the mind. It could be way less and way smaller cars though. For the animal industry we have alternatives and the personal choice to not consent to the system. It is in our interest: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
For most of the 140 years Exxon exists it was not the willful ignorance of the consumers but the deception, propaganda, lies and lobbying they made. While we are to blame for not overthrowing capitalism, companies are to blame for their malicious actions. If they just sold their product without mentioning the known problems I would agree.
The animal industry is responsible for 20% of the GHG and even though we are in the chains of capitalism we have the choice to not support them, do they exist with your consent?
Has the defintion of unione civile changed?
This is an example for greenwashing which this law wants to prevent:
So it was always the way that same sex marriage was accepted and nobody had to fight against people who claim “but the bible …” “It is between a man a women and nothing else” “next you want to marriage you dog”, right? There where never people who fought to change the system because the system and the laws have always been perfect?
Or maybe we just think that words has a meaning.
I guess you have a strong opinion on calling a bond between two man or two woman marriage?
I have made none of those points you ask me to defend? I answered one your hopeless stupid questions and now you come up with with points nobody made.
You are done and not entertaining, just worrying.
How is it for those people
In the same way people who don’t want to get drunk drink alcohol free beer if they like the taste. And there is no moral assessment in drinking one or the other. I gave you a possible reason. Just like the person which drinks alcohol free beer might have to drive. It is a reason, you get all emotional and I think you should work on that or else you end up like the antivegan meatflakes. Good luck
You asked for reasons
Why, pray tell, are you insistent on diluting the clarity of that label? Is it so aesthetically pleasing to you that you just cannot help yourself but enjoy it even though you don’t want to have to do anything with meat?
And I gave reasons
it is for those who want to stop supporting the destruction of the planet and the murdering of billions of sentient beings for their pleasure.
Your cognitive dissonance fries your brain.
I tried very hard to have this discussion without getting into ethics,
It is for people who want to proclaim superior morality
You go into it. Not me.
Tell me what part of which animal “Steak” is and show me there are no variants and you win.
It is not only steak, it is milk where the industry lobbied hard to prevent the use even though plant milk is older than the milk of other species.
Are you cognitively capable of looking at those latter two terms without moralising? If yes, why not the the previous two?
You are the one who brought up moral, maybe that is a you problem you should take care of without projecting.
Who do you think acts more superior, those who kill others for pleasure and destroy the ground, water and air by doing so, or those who don’t need that? Lion on top of the food chain, thats what you are, right?
Well, I guess it shows that some people learn only shapes instead of reading.
Still unclear who was killed, maybe there are some more shapes around? They indicate what Animal it was, you know there is more than one?
Now imagine if you will, we could use that space where it says “pig” and replace it with “saitan” for example? Mind blown, if you put 2 or more of these cryptic runes together we can transport more information.
I don’t care much for it, it is for those who want to stop supporting the destruction of the planet and the murdering of billions of sentient beings for their pleasure. It makes it easier for them if they don’t have to change too much.
Yes, I think I advocated here alone two to three times for that and I will stay by your side if you do demand that.
We could make it easier for all with a “animal product” label but at the moment it is only the animal industry which is lobbying for restrictive product names.
If you don’t want to then legislate for a label like the (V)egan label and put it on all products made from animals, I would still support you.
I am all in for clear description of food and a big label if it contains animal suffering and the destruction of the eco system or if it is plant based.
It was already, but not from another mamal. Birds infecting individuals is not the problem, we kill a few millions (58 since 2022 in the states alone) birds to prevent the spread, a few hundred humans get sick, all is well. From mamal to another mamal is the problem, once it goes from human to human its over.