484
Tyson Foods and Perdue Farms face federal probe over possible child labor violations
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
484 points (99.0% liked)
News
23424 readers
4633 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I honestly don't care if you believe in the particulars of their methodology.
Let me be even MORE straightforward. Feeding animals plant calories (yes, human edible plant calories) to feed yourself animal calories is literally a caloric deficient. You would have to break the laws of thermodynamics to get more calories out of feeding animals plants to eat them rather than feeding yourself those same plants. It is inherently less efficient. Are you about to move the goalpost further and debate the laws of thermodynamics?
I haven't moved goalposts at all, and everything I've said has been true.
ruminants can be raised entirely on grazing, and nothing is more efficient than letting an animal live until it's fat enough and slaughtering it.
Are they raised entirely on grazing though? Are you in hypothetical land where people eat 1% of the total meat they currently do eating only animals that exclusively graze?
No.
you have no idea what is in my local meat markets.
A) Congratulations, you account for almost no one on Earth and haven't accounted for the totality of it in determining how people should/can live in regards to the environment. Your worldview is extremely biased in determining appropriate models if you think people can/do eat animals that exclusively graze.
B) Are you not also still neglecting to consider the methane release of those grazing animals?
C) even if the environmental factor were not real, which it is, you'd still be facilitating intentional animal murder. An already disagreeable matter.
Reminder that you started with 'I dont see how less workers would be exploited.' And we've arrived here. Are you by chance anti-vegan or have any personal financial investment in animal agriculture? The degree to which you are interested in justifying environmental damage and animal murder on the grounds of your local meat market being isolated from reality and that almost no on has or can have access to seems entirely lacking a basis for this level of argumentation and I'm growing tired of arguing with someone who cannot grasp this.
my identity is irrelevant to whether I am right
I have never done that
I am not antivegan
I've never done that
you're attitude is shitty. you can't accept that you made a hyperbolic claim and go off on rants that cross the line into hostility to someone who had the temerity to disbelieve your wild claim. get help.
and you still haven't made a compelling case, but you have shown that it's not even a real concern for you, given that you are actually interested in pushing an ideology and are grasping at straws to support it.
I should have just went to your profile right away and saved the trouble lol
The ideology doesn't detract from the obvious. You're ignoring the laws of thermodynamics for non-grazing animals because in your head there is some fictional world where there is exclusive grazing animals that everyone exclusively eats where reality puts that at maybe 0.0001% of real human diets. Your intentions are dubious at best, and I grow tired of you. If you really wanted to have a productive conversation, you could have explained what about the methodology of the UN's FAO paper on land use you disagreed with, but I guess you can just reference some other paper and go 'well it's allegedly at least in my brain like this other one I read so therefore all goes in the trash.' I am not a data/environmental scientist so if you want to debate bro about the particulars of those papers or their methodology seek out people who may or may not be more educated than you, personally I think they'll have an even harder time taking you seriously.
You can probably even get a direct email out to those who wrote the papers you disagree with. They might laugh a little, but they may actually respond. Who knows. But I'm good dawg, I'll keep doing what is ethically sound for living conscious beings and is recommended by scientific consensus as good for the environment/climate, and you just keep on saying whatever the hell all these comments were to other people who probably also don't want the most nested back and forth dialogue possible that goes nowhere. Maybe you're not 'anti-vegan' but to engage with this content as frequently as you do, you clearly have a motive - and unlike you, Vegans will be upfront and honest about theirs. You should stop hiding your intent/background. But again, I'm good dawg. I'm interested in dialogue that can actually change people's minds to lead a more compassionate and sustainable life and it's clear you'll not change your ways and no one is reading this so it will not influence others either. You will continue paying other people to kill animals irrespective of any evidence I provide and hilariously claim it's not evidence. No interest in interacting in future, giving you the solid block. Have a nice day.
implying your interlocutor is unethical for doubting your unproven claim is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
poore won't write back. i can't see why.
i don't. i just wanted to point out that you made a claim that you can't prove.
more poisoning of the well.
irony
more unfounded claims
ah. the thought-terminating cliche and the announced block. lovely. truthfully, i love the lemmy block system.
i spend my time how i like, and you don't get to dictate how i communicate.
i've never done that. most people haven't
i never made any such claim.
more poisoning the well and innuendo
another appeal to ridicule
poisoning the well
appeal to ridicule
rhetorical posturing
no i'm not
you weren't. you started off making unfounded claims about labor practices, and only revealed later that you have some other motivation.
did you read the sources for any of those links. they are all drawing on poore-nemecek.
people absolutely do that.