Jacy said he couldn’t find any less gruesome footage
I spent about 10 seconds and found some less gruesome footage
Suggesting he didn’t search very hard.
Yes, there are other arguments one could make. Certainly googling “happy chickens” is not a reasonable way to get an unbiased estimate of chicken happiness. But when someone makes patently false claims about lower bounds, it is an appropriate response.
That’s a good point. But I’m not sure what would have been a more diplomatic way. My point was not merely that Jacy was mistaken—it was additionally that he was being intentionally dishonest. I had assumed that being somewhat oblique about this would be considered more diplomatic than simply saying “you are being dishonest”, but perhaps I was wrong.
I think it’s important in general to challenge people who degrade the quality of debate in this way. If you have a suggestion for how to do this better in future I would genuinely appreciate it.
The point Jacy was contesting was about the happiness of free-range chickens whose eggs could feasibly be subsidized. He didn’t pull that quote out of thin air; he was responding to a specific proposal about commercially-raised chickens. Pet chickens are not in any way relevant to the question of whether commercially-raised “free-range” chickens live neutral, positive, or negative lives.
I hope this was an oversight rather than a purposeful red herring.
A reasonable supposition, but it’s easy to find less gruesome videos of large-scale chicken farming. For example, this video of reasonably happy looking commercially farmed chickens was trivial to find on google. So even if we interpret his argument in that way he still can’t have looked very hard.
I think you misunderstand my point.
Jacy said he couldn’t find any less gruesome footage
I spent about 10 seconds and found some less gruesome footage
Suggesting he didn’t search very hard.
Yes, there are other arguments one could make. Certainly googling “happy chickens” is not a reasonable way to get an unbiased estimate of chicken happiness. But when someone makes patently false claims about lower bounds, it is an appropriate response.
It wasn’t the most diplomatic way to get across the point though.
That’s a good point. But I’m not sure what would have been a more diplomatic way. My point was not merely that Jacy was mistaken—it was additionally that he was being intentionally dishonest. I had assumed that being somewhat oblique about this would be considered more diplomatic than simply saying “you are being dishonest”, but perhaps I was wrong.
I think it’s important in general to challenge people who degrade the quality of debate in this way. If you have a suggestion for how to do this better in future I would genuinely appreciate it.
The point Jacy was contesting was about the happiness of free-range chickens whose eggs could feasibly be subsidized. He didn’t pull that quote out of thin air; he was responding to a specific proposal about commercially-raised chickens. Pet chickens are not in any way relevant to the question of whether commercially-raised “free-range” chickens live neutral, positive, or negative lives.
I hope this was an oversight rather than a purposeful red herring.
A reasonable supposition, but it’s easy to find less gruesome videos of large-scale chicken farming. For example, this video of reasonably happy looking commercially farmed chickens was trivial to find on google. So even if we interpret his argument in that way he still can’t have looked very hard.