[Maskawanian]

No, you are putting words into my mouth. Try to argue in good faith through understanding the other party's viewpoint before responding.

I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place. The only difference is in the efficiency of business operations.

If my values are that each deserves a chance at a life--whatever life it may be, I can advocate for searching for a better solution. I did not prescribe an alternative, don't pretend that I have.

EDIT: Damn, the hostile responses (Ad hominem, bad faith arguments, etc) to such a simple philosophical discussion I've been getting are unbelievable. I don't think there is much value in participating anymore. Thank you everyone for your responses.

[b112]

I have to say this, I'm sorry.

--

Isn't this carrying the pro life movement too far? Chickens do not have souls, in the biblical context.

If this isn't a religious thing, then note the article has two methods. One detecting feather differences, the other a genetic test.

The genetic test should be quite early. If at that stage, I imagine a blade of grass has more intelligence, there isn't a brain yet, and nerves don't even exist.

No pain, no feeling, just a few dozen cells hanging out.

Does this not seem OK to you, if the case?

[stouset]

Nobody is putting words in your mouth. They are reacting directly to the absolutely bonkers statements you are making that there is ethically no difference between killing 350 million live, healthy male chicks every year and preventing those chicks from being born in the first place.

[simonw]

"I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place."

I do. One of those involves a (presumably painful) death of a conscious animal. The other does not.

[Concrete3286]

The other option - a living female chick - also ends in the premature death of a conscious animal, additionally after a (presumably painful) life. Does it not?

[starkrights]

Good faith clarification: you’re saying you believe that preventing chicks from being born causes an equal amount of suffering to an animal as the (what would otherwise be) physical extermination of those chicks?

[zahlman]

> > Wait, so we can all agree that killing the male chicks is inhumane. But you think the solution, _to not birth the male chicks_, is just as inhumane?

> No, you are putting words into my mouth.

As an onlooking third party, I don't understand. You further say:

> I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place.

But as far as I can understand it, that is the same thing.

> I did not prescribe an alternative, don't pretend that I have.

It was not supposed that you were prescribing an alternative. The words "you think the solution" were not introducing a supposed solution of yours; they were introducing a solution (the process discussed in TFA) about which you (appeared to) have a thought.

[Hackbraten]

> The only difference is in the efficiency of business operations.

Are you implying that the chicks being killed are not suffering?

[schnebbau]

> If the proponents of this truly believe that this is more humane, it really is targeting the wrong level

If something isn't more humane, it must be the same or less. I think it is you who needs to better articulate your position broski.

But that aside, one method kills living creatures and the other does not. If you cannot see a difference then I'm afraid you are lost.

[insanetake]

So you're saying there's no difference between (1) not breeding dogs to fight and (2) breeding dogs and have them fight each other?