I’m so sorry, so deeply grieved to tell you, yes, it is. Please educate yourself. It’s life and death for hundreds of millions of vulnerable individuals.
I’m not taking a side in this, but I will point out saying “please educate yourself” while linking to a random YouTube video is pretty reminiscent of COVID deniers, antivaxers, and conspiracy theorists. YouTube isn’t a respectable source and the statement itself has been poisoned when used in that way.
I’m not sure what would work for everyone of course, and some people won’t be convinced either way, but linking to multiple varied sources, preferably trustworthy ones, may help your argument.
This borders on disingenuousness masquerading as helpfulness. You dismiss the argument by grouping it with antivaxers. If you don’t want to watch the documentary just say I don’t have time or I prefer written scientific journals. But to say ahhh youtube must be like the antivaxers, you are lumping together unrelated things which builds bias in other people.
If you want an academic paper there is no shortage. Start with Slaughterhouse Workers, Animals, and the Environment written by assistant professors from NYU and Vermont Law and available on the NIH.
Dominion is a documentary. It is on imdb with a score 8.9/10. It primarily uses drones and hidden cameras in Australia slaughter houses.
If you want to be critical do what the meat industry executives did and say its not systematic but isolated.
Australian Meat Industry Council Chief Executive, Patrick Hutchinson, has said, “What the film shows is not representative of the practices of the wider industry”.
The producer who spent 7 years gathering the footage had this to say,
“As it stands, [consumers] have only seen one side of the story, the side that the industry puts out, not the side that goes behind the imagery of happy animals, to see what it’s really like on farms, and at slaughterhouses”
Nah, as I said I wasn’t taking a side. I criticized the form of the comment, as it was unlikely to get the desired engagement. My complaint was the delivery method of the argument, not the argument itself.
I acknowledge and agree with plenty of arguments against the meat and slaughter industry, but the comment wasn’t just downvoted because of a complaint about industry. I’m sure some did, but the comment itself just feels like many of the issues some scientists have with science communication, as well as some people with other types of debunking. The tone itself runs people off, to the point where the comment is kinda useless.
Just a personal option though; maybe it does work for some people. Also some personal bias; I prefer papers, sources, and the like over videos or documentaries. Partially because of how I am in general (I prefer tech docs over guide videos for work etc), and partially because I’m aware of many terrible documentaries that use production value to try and bamboozle people with lies.
I’m so sorry, so deeply grieved to tell you, yes, it is. Please educate yourself. It’s life and death for hundreds of millions of vulnerable individuals.
I’m not taking a side in this, but I will point out saying “please educate yourself” while linking to a random YouTube video is pretty reminiscent of COVID deniers, antivaxers, and conspiracy theorists. YouTube isn’t a respectable source and the statement itself has been poisoned when used in that way.
I’m not sure what would work for everyone of course, and some people won’t be convinced either way, but linking to multiple varied sources, preferably trustworthy ones, may help your argument.
This borders on disingenuousness masquerading as helpfulness. You dismiss the argument by grouping it with antivaxers. If you don’t want to watch the documentary just say I don’t have time or I prefer written scientific journals. But to say ahhh youtube must be like the antivaxers, you are lumping together unrelated things which builds bias in other people.
If you want an academic paper there is no shortage. Start with Slaughterhouse Workers, Animals, and the Environment written by assistant professors from NYU and Vermont Law and available on the NIH.
Dominion is a documentary. It is on imdb with a score 8.9/10. It primarily uses drones and hidden cameras in Australia slaughter houses.
If you want to be critical do what the meat industry executives did and say its not systematic but isolated.
The producer who spent 7 years gathering the footage had this to say,
Nah, as I said I wasn’t taking a side. I criticized the form of the comment, as it was unlikely to get the desired engagement. My complaint was the delivery method of the argument, not the argument itself.
I acknowledge and agree with plenty of arguments against the meat and slaughter industry, but the comment wasn’t just downvoted because of a complaint about industry. I’m sure some did, but the comment itself just feels like many of the issues some scientists have with science communication, as well as some people with other types of debunking. The tone itself runs people off, to the point where the comment is kinda useless.
Just a personal option though; maybe it does work for some people. Also some personal bias; I prefer papers, sources, and the like over videos or documentaries. Partially because of how I am in general (I prefer tech docs over guide videos for work etc), and partially because I’m aware of many terrible documentaries that use production value to try and bamboozle people with lies.
Yeah no I’m not sitting through a 2 hour biased documentary over the stance of “cheese is ok actually”.