usernamesAreTricky

This is all circling around and missing the point I am making. The problem I am point out is about the logical reasoning. If logical reasoning is flawed when applied to something else, then it should not be used

This conversation is going in circle, so just going to end this here

Unfortunately this is far from a US only thing. It is worse in the US, but it's still everywhere. Factory farming is rather high globally, including Canada where I'm going to assume you are from based on your instance

It’s estimated that three-quarters – 74% – of land livestock are factory-farmed. That means that at any given time, around 23 billion animals are on these farms.

[...]

Combine land animals and fish, and the final estimate comes to 94% of livestock living on factory farms

https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed

It is a pervasive myth, supported by misleading industry advertising, that Canada does not have factory farms. Canada does, in fact, have factory farms, with the average chicken farm housing as many as 36,000 chickens.

https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/canada-chicken-farming-2024/

Like many Republican lead US-states, various conservative lead Canadian provinces have also tried put Ag-gag laws in place to limit filming of factory farms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag#Canada

That is missing what I am saying entirely. Argue with the logic, please, instead of a false interpenetration. The exact categories are not relevant to what I am saying at all. What matters is that the reasoning could be used to justify difference between categorization of humans that you think shouldn't be morally relvent

Those are examples of the conclusion the flawed logic (difference = inherently justifying different treatment) could be used to justify. So I am saying we should reject the premise because of what the same logic can justify

This is rather circular reasoning. You are saying humans only matter because some humans say only humans matter

If we can just declare ethics excludes any group inherently because I said so, then that can lead to pretty bad conclusions

Not the person you are replying to, but that's not what the point of the name the trait question is about. It is not about distinguishing between species

Why are humans morally considered is not asking why humans are human. Asking why one doesn't morally consider chickens is not asking why chickens are chickens

It is about distinguishing between what matters to ethics. It's not a trait that makes them chickens vs humans. It's about a trait or set of traits that makes someone morally considered

Declaring that humans and chickens are distinct is not sufficient to say to they deserve radically different ethical consideration. Otherwise you are just saying that difference itself = justifying different ethical consideration, which is highly flawed. You could for instance, use that to say any group of humans are distinct in some way and thus deserve different moral consideration. Be it by gender, skin tone, etc.

Since you asked that made me actually reverse image search it to double check it was originally where I thought it was from. It was not, and now I am not sure where exactly it's originally from. The oldest version I found was from a blog from 2008, but on that post the file metadata says the photo was from May 11th, 2004

The factory farming definition they use is more specific than that. It's based on the numbers per location

There's not really much crab farming in the US in general. It's basically all wild caught which has it's own negatives to the environment like overfishing. It's more of a thing in other parts of the world like South East Asia

Still at fairly high densities from what I can tell though not necessarily always as insane as the photos I showed earlier

The definitions of factory farming they use here are based on the number of individuals per location. There are other metrics you may object to for the rest of that 25% too

For instance

Despite the consumer demand, however, approximately 95% of the cattle in the United States continue to be finished, or fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life (~25 to 30% of their life), on average

https://extension.psu.edu/grass-fed-beef-production

I should also note that without demand for US beef and dairy production and consumption decreasing that's not something that can change all that much because there just isn't enough land for it

We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

[…]

If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

Treat that more as a rounded figure since data is less precise on fish. Anything that's not at that density would a rounding error at most. The densities of farmed fish are truly insane - usually far above the already high densities you see for land animals. The high level of concentration is not only terrible for the fish themselves, but also leads to huge pollution. Putting an unnaturally high count of fish in one area heavily concentrates their output

Parasite and disease rates are also super high. High usage of antibiotics in fish farming also lead to stuff like antibiotic resistance

I could keep going, but instead I'll just show some photos of the absurd densities:

Actually not fully true about not being able to get a smokey flavor with some electric grills. From the original article:

some electric grills do offer a way to introduce wood smoke — usually with a tin of wood chips that burn as the food cooks

There's one important detail that you might be missing here: Republicans are coming for the filibuster indirectly despite profusely saying how much they valued preserving senate rules

They are overriding the senate parliamentarian to do this. They are carving out the filibuster without saying they're doing so. Right now it's on some more technical details, but they are setting precedent that they can ignore the parliamentarian. The senate parliamentarian is the one who decides what counts as budget related for reconciliation (which is used as a narrow way around the filibuster strictly for budget). If they can just declare anything budget related and ignore the parliamentarian, they can push all kinds of stuff through that they otherwise couldn't get through now

Through the series of votes Wednesday, Republicans set precedent for the Senate to reject the state EPA waivers with a simple majority vote. They made that move even after the Senate parliamentarian agreed with the Government Accountability Office that California’s policies are not subject to the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows Congress to reject federal regulations under certain circumstances