[oregano]

It seems like you’re justifying the status quo when I think a much more practical answer would be to simply swap out the chickens for chickpeas or soy or any number of other high protein and cruelty free alternatives which would also almost positively be _way_ cheaper and less wasteful.

[4ad]

If people want to eat chickpeas or soy, they are free to do so. Similarly, if people want to eat cheap chicken, people who don't eat chicken shouldn't have any say into it.

[SQueeeeeL]

I love the mentality of a lot of people. I feel like free market extremists would literally buy and sell anything from anyone in the world and be like 'listen, all I did was SELL nerve gas to the general, I never intended for him to use it on that ethnic minority group.'

[pingou]

By this logic I could say that I am allowed to kill and hurt my dog if I want so, and people who don't like hurting dogs shouldn't have any say into it.

[Viliam1234]

We could generalize this to all laws. Hey, if you don't want to do it, simply don't do it, but it's not your business whether I do.

Anyway, interesting how the discussion quickly moved from "billions of people are starving, it would be unethical not to..." to "...but they like the taste of chicken".

[midoridensha]

>If people want to eat chickpeas or soy, they are free to do so. Similarly, if people want to eat cheap chicken, people who don't eat chicken shouldn't have any say into it.

If people want to eat chickpeas or soy, they are free to do so. Similarly, if people want to eat cheap human flesh, people who don't eat human flesh shouldn't have any say in it.