Is there Life on Maaaaaaarrrrrrrr-a-Lago… ((song)[https://youtu.be/AZKcl4-tcuo?si=0JktuCh_EH-T0T5w])

I misread the question.

By everyone, I mean nonhumans (nonhuman animals).

By playing beatbox music and making everyone stay away from me while I grew corn and ate it slowly in front of them while they watched me cautiously from a distance.

Not necessarily (you may or may not) but you shouldn’t be because Dairy is Scary (It’s a joke calm down)

I like that.

And I’ll paste my other example here:

Another example might involve arguing that the disposal of hazardous waste is necessary because it’s a byproduct of a particular manufacturing process, while ignoring the question of whether that manufacturing process itself is essential or necessary. This fallacy occurs when one justifies an undesirable or harmful element as a necessary component of a larger practice or system without questioning the necessity of the entire system or practice.

Thanks, that’s almost what I mean, but I might modify your examples slightly. They’re good examples to work from lol (I’m pretty bad at coming up with scenarios that fit what I’m talking about). Sorry if this sounds kind of crazy:

Jess wants to draw a picture of a bird. For this, since Jess is completely broke and homeless, she would need to rob an art store to get art supplies. (Let’s say for sake of example that there is genuinely no other way for her to obtain art supplies to draw the picture). Jess justifies this act of robbing the store in order to draw her bird picture because there’s no other way she can make the picture otherwise. She makes the claim that robbing the art store is necessary in absolute terms, while overlooking or ignoring the fact that drawing the picture of the bird isn’t necessary in the first place (even though she might desire to draw it, she doesn’t need to, and therefore doesn’t need to rob the art store, either).

Or…

When Alan plays tennis, his knee hurts. Alan has a strange condition that his knee only hurts after he plays tennis. When his knee hurts, he has to put ice on it, which requires an expensive refrigerator with an ice machine since that’s the only way he can possibly get a good supply of ice in his situation (hypothetically). Alan then decides to buy the expensive refrigerator with stolen money from his grandma, and claims that it’s an absolute requirement for him to, without considering the fact that he doesn’t actually need to play tennis, though he might want to.

In both cases, someone is claiming that something (an action, state, etc) is necessary overall, because it’s part of a larger goal/endeavour; without addressing the reality that it would only be necessary as a component of that larger endeavour that it would be in service of, which itself is unnecessary (and therefore so are any components that would be required to achieve it).

I hope this makes sense :)

An action is cruel if it causes unnecessary suffering, period. The lack of an intention to cause suffering is irrelevant if the action does cause suffering and doesn’t need to happen, and we are aware of the harm it does. Which we are. Continuing to engage in the practice is therefore willingly causing needless suffering, which is unethical.

No, we’re talking about producing a particular kind of food that isn’t necessary. Kicking a dog isn’t necessary and neither is exploiting cows for their milk and causing them and their calves suffering and ultimately killing them at young ages. Both are harmful practices which can be avoided.

Removed by mod

Pretty much every ethical framework that exists would find that causing needless harm and suffering to animals is unethical. Kicking a dog when you don’t need to is unethical. Similarly, stealing a baby from their mother, restricting them in a crate, and killing them, causing the mother extreme emotional anguish, is unethical; causing her pain from overproducing milk is unethical; given that dairy farming is itself unnecessary.

Removed by mod

Are you now trying to claim that animals don’t have cognition despite the fact they’re sentient and intelligent beings?

It’s really not. What we do, exploiting an animal directly for their milk, is not normal in the animal kingdom. You’re trying to argue that it is because mammaries are part of the meat that some animals consume. That’s a false equivalency.

That’s pretty messed up. Of course it’s cruel. Only a person who lacks empathy for animals would say that causing suffering to an animal unnecessarily isn’t cruel.

A pregnancy which we force upon them, sexually violating them, yes. But that doesn’t mean they don’t care for their children. They want to nurture and protect them, and naturally develop a maternal bond. Biologically the milk is made for their calves to drink, and allowing them to, not stealing them away and killing them, is in the best interests of both parties involved (the cow and the calf).

They don’t wish to die. This is very clear in their behaviour. They actively seek to avoid being killed, even though there’s no escape for them. Many animal psychologists and slaughterhouse workers can verify this. They show fear and cower, try to escape, or even try to knock bolt guns away. They can smell blood of the animals that were killed before them, and they often see their dead bodies too. They moan desperately at the top of their lungs. They are sentient and highly intelligent animals. They know they’re about to die and they exhibit a clear desire to live.

Even ignoring this, it’s obviously in their best interests for them to be alive and not have their life taken away from them at a young age, just like it is for them to be with their mother and live a happy, healthy life, without harmful interference and exploitation by humans.

A carnivore eating an animal and including their mammary glands in the flesh they’re eating is very distinct from deliberately drinking their milk, either suckling on their teats or milking them. It’s a very rare practice (“milking” another animal never happens in nature, as we do), but humans have made it a norm for our species. Human adults were lactose intolerant by default before the lactase persisten gene developed as an adaptation to tolerate drinking cow’s milk made for calves. My point being it wasn’t previously normal for humans either. It’s an avoidable practice, so arguing that the processes involved in it are necessary is simply untrue and logically false.

So causing a mother to cry for her missing baby isn’t unethical? I’m not sure what ethical system you’re referring to that would determine whether something is ethical. By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it’s not needed.