It is rarely labeled that way so the history of the animal doesn't come into play when purchasing.

When people think animal cruelity they think beating your family dog vs the state of factory farming or organic farming.

To continue this thread I suppose...

I've been thinking a lot about trying to purchase pasture raised and sustainable meat products lately and part of that has been buying pasture raised eggs.

My last incredibly priced carton actually included a little slip inside with pictures of the hens in their pasture, and I believe even an offer to visit their farm.

Was really nice to go the other way. Instead of thinking about or ignoring the cruelty, to think about these happy hens.

But damn is it expensive!

Oh, so “animal cruelty” is Newspeak for not being vegan.

As someone who grew up on a farm: there are entirely reasonable ways to define standards of livestock welfare that don't require veganism.

This is true, but the bulk of this hyperbolic criticism comes from vegans, and they're going to use terms like "animal cruelty" no matter what livestock welfare standards you set.

Do you dispute that current lifestock welfare standards in the meat/dairy/egg/etc. industries permit what most would agree is animal cruelty if the same things were done to, say, the family dog?

Yes, I dispute that, if we are talking about Australia. As a farmer (both meat and crop), the better you look after your stock, the more you make from them. There is no incentive for cruelty and it will cost you money. Admittedly, we don't have feedlots on the same scale as the US and the majority of beasts go pasture to plate fairly quickly.

Not all farm animals in Australia are free range cows. For example, cage eggs and sow stalls are still legal.

My point is, it would have been clearer and more honest to use the term “factory farming” if you’re talking about factory farming. I don’t know or care much about factory farming itself.

That's a bit disingenuous, isn't it? This particular thread of comments started when you reacted to criticism of "cheap factory-farmed meat".

Because that's when it became clear that's what was meant by "animal cruelty" in the first place, at least by the person I was responding to.

I'm pretty unconvinced. I don't see any reason to believe your line of reasoning; that the original poster is a hyperbolic vegan. Do you have anything beyond your assertion?

Who else would derail comments on an article about Amazon cancelling their NYC expansion with tangential and disingenuous discussions about factory farms?

Also, the way different accounts seem to seamlessly continue a deep and tangential discussion thread is also kind of suspicious. Almost like it’s one person who keeps switching alt accounts.

This off-topic debate started because of the assertion that it's the vocal minority that have rejected Amazon. The discussion on industrial animal cruelty for cheap produce is an example of how the wants of the majority doesn't always produce the best outcome for the well-being of other people, creatures, and the environment.

Regardless of peoples eating lifestyles it's undeniable that factory farms which produce most of the economically accessible meat are little concerned about animal welfare or the environment. The public on this matter also are least concerned about these matters related to the meat they buy off supermarket shelves, only when it's a video of a 'cute' animal being abused. It is only the minority of people in this instance that take a principled stance, if the silent majority did care we wouldn't be producing so much factory farmed meat after years of publicizing the abuse in the media.

I'm not a vegan but the way you characterize anyone who has a 'minority view' as some radical that only wants to cause problems is the attitude that allows corporations to operate it's abuse of worker standards and public funding to no one else's gain but themselves.

> The discussion on industrial animal cruelty for cheap produce is an example of how the wants of the majority doesn't always produce the best outcome for the well-being of other people, creatures, and the environment.

The discussion would have been clearer if the unambiguous term "factory farming" was used instead. The use of these ambiguous and disingenuous tactics of argumentation is reminiscent of PETA in particular. If you don't want to be characterized as a nutjob, don't act like one. That's my point.

Quote the original poster: "Most people are quite happy to keeping buying cheap factory-farmed meat and dairy" (emphasis added by me).

That was two levels downthread of the otherwise disingenuous and unexplained use of the term “animal cruelty” here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19165463

Either someone shared with you an out-of-context link to this subthread for brigading purposes or you’re being totally disingenuous right now.

This is the second time you've claimed that this thread is some sort of conspiracy.

For myself (and maybe the others), your responses jumped one step beyond reasonable. Because someone used animal cruelty to describe factory farming, that poster is a hyperbolic vegan? I think the fact that you were being hyperbolic incited a few extra replies due to the... irony?

Well, either it's a sockpuppet conspiracy (go ahead, check out my post history), or multiple people agree that your hyperbolic snark was not constructive. I'll freely admit we've come a pretty long from Amazon's HQ though!

I like how using the term “animal cruelty” isn’t hyperbolic, but using the term “vegan” is.

I mean, Veganism is the easiest way of avoiding animal cruelty.

Unless you have a cat and refuse to feed it meat. That’s cruel to the cat, in my opinion.

Edit: Cats are obligate carnivores and can't physically remain healthy without eating meat.

Then there's the flip side with creeps like me. I'm a plant sadist who feeds tofu to my Venus flytrap.