this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
550 points (100.0% liked)

196

16442 readers
1700 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

They're usually shredded alive almost immediately because they're seen as "waste" since they don't lay eggs

For some more context:

Why the egg industry 'shreds' baby chicks alive (NSFL)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

thats a lot of words for "no fewer chickens were raised any year than the year before since we started tracking it."

[–] dinkusmann@feddit.rocks 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

That's a really embarrassing way to admit you don't understand basic statistics. Please never buy stocks.

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

you statistics don't save chickens, either.

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if you actually read that page, particularly the part that says people don't even know what gives them the most utility and when it seems to be calculable they still make irrational choices.

your math doesn't dictate behavior.

[–] dinkusmann@feddit.rocks 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

When it's calculable? You mean like when it's a concrete number of deaths? Like what actually happens?

And "people don't always act as the math tells them to" isn't a counter argument. You may as well reply to me by saying "but your arguments are moot because reason doesn't dictate my behavior"

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You may as well reply to me by saying “but your arguments are moot because reason doesn’t dictate my behavior”

that is essentially what i'm saying. farmers are no more rational than i am. neither are abbatoir owers or their workers or meat packers or food suppliers or grocers or restauranteurs. your reasoning would hold up if they were rational actors, but they are not, so you argument crumbles.