I think that’s a bit pedantic. When talking about the genocide of animals it’s generally in the context of their suffering, not in the context of climate change.
Killing them by itself is not “bad” for the climate, but having too many of them and having them take up loads of resources is.
Plus there may not be extinction because we keep breeding them, but the number of animals slaughtered every year would put the Holocaust to shame if we held animals into higher regard than currently (hence this topic being brought up)
Wrong about what ? It being a genocide?
Is being semantically right the only thing that matters?
Even if we agree the term genocide is not correct, why would this point be irrelevant in a discussion about lawfulness and morality?
Edit: Thinking about, it would be more akin to slavery, but that’s still very much in line with the op
I feel like the other person forgot what the entire original original post is about. It’s all about “just because something is legal doesn’t mean its good” and this other person is like “killing animals isn’t genocide” but the whole idea is “killing animals is legal, but that doesn’t make it right”. What’s that other person on about lol
Yeah I feel all this thread is just a knee jerk reaction because it’s something tangential to veganism or something. The more I see this kind of topic brought up on Lemmy or elsewhere, the more I notice the immediate rejection of debate.
Even more staggering here when imo it’s related to the topic at hand and not just spam in unrelated threads.
I think that’s a bit pedantic. When talking about the genocide of animals it’s generally in the context of their suffering, not in the context of climate change.
Killing them by itself is not “bad” for the climate, but having too many of them and having them take up loads of resources is.
Plus there may not be extinction because we keep breeding them, but the number of animals slaughtered every year would put the Holocaust to shame if we held animals into higher regard than currently (hence this topic being brought up)
Then they are wrong on top of being irrelevant
Wrong about what ? It being a genocide?
Is being semantically right the only thing that matters?
Even if we agree the term genocide is not correct, why would this point be irrelevant in a discussion about lawfulness and morality?
Edit: Thinking about, it would be more akin to slavery, but that’s still very much in line with the op
I feel like the other person forgot what the entire original original post is about. It’s all about “just because something is legal doesn’t mean its good” and this other person is like “killing animals isn’t genocide” but the whole idea is “killing animals is legal, but that doesn’t make it right”. What’s that other person on about lol
Yeah I feel all this thread is just a knee jerk reaction because it’s something tangential to veganism or something. The more I see this kind of topic brought up on Lemmy or elsewhere, the more I notice the immediate rejection of debate.
Even more staggering here when imo it’s related to the topic at hand and not just spam in unrelated threads.
See my original comment
It can be used as an example but not standalone as an argument