> but I’m also sure their perspective is warped by the need to make profit out of them.
to something like this:
> but I'm also sure their perspective is based on their need to subsist on them.
I think your heart is in the right place, but characterizing family dairy farmers as "warped" and profiting is not going to end up connecting or being helpful.
We don't do this to other animals we claim to care for: an old dog that loses his youthful energy is still given a spot in the home and, if the time comes, will be put down in a more-or-less humane way. An old cow that loses her ability to produce milk is sold to whoever can make use of what's left of her body and promptly forgotten. If economic demands are the reason for this practice, then we can confirm that the amount of profit one can derive from a cow is the primary driver of interactions with her.
Words like "warp" and "profit" are a symbol of a fundamentally different way of thinking about what a "reasonable" relationship with an animal should be. However, I don't think you can accurately describe what the relationship between a dairy farmer and a cow is without such language, as owning a dairy farm is a business and making a profit is of course a primary concern. We see companies large and small externalize costs in pursuit of profit. What's so sacred about the dairy farmer that we have to tiptoe around describing the nature of their business?
What's so sacred about cows that we have to tiptoe around describing what they're for?
>Words like "warp" and "profit" are a symbol of a fundamentally different way of thinking about what a "reasonable" relationship with an animal should be.
It's not a "false" implication as there is no true and objective measure of "reasonable". I substituted "fundamentally different" because I think it's more accurate than "false" or "wrong".
Cows aren't "for" meat or dairy any more than Africans were "for" enslavement. It is a purpose bestowed upon them by an outside influence, for sure, but it is not an intrinsic property of the being him or herself.
> It's not a "false" implication as there is no true and objective measure of "reasonable".
That's a reasonable [heh] position (though obviously not one I agree with), but that just changes the original assertion from false (there's a objective measure and it contradicts this) to meaningless and misleading (there's no objective measure by away from which their perspective can be said to be warped).
> Cows aren't "for" meat or dairy any more than Africans were "for" enslavement.
Africans, like most humans, are[0] (physical substrates containing) people; they're for doing whatever it is the person in question wants. Cows aren't[0]; they don't have any inside influence to bestow purpose upon them.
0: In both cases qualified by "assuming there isn't a nigh-Cartesian coincidence or conspirancy to falsify evidence of sapience or lack thereof", which admittedly isn't a possibility I've put much effort into falsifying.
Putting aside the difference between sapience and sentience, are babies people? Are the mentally disabled people? As evidenced by law, we provide personhood even to beings that lack the mental capacity to bestow purpose upon themselves.
Even when we venture outside the "homo sapiens" sphere, we have different sets of laws governing what actions are acceptable when done to animals and what actions are acceptable when done to livestock. These distinctions are based upon our relationships with these animals and are not properties of the animal him or herself. Even within animals of the same species, the way in which we intend to use the animals governs what laws apply to our treatment of them. For example, in Alaska, dogs chosen for sled-pulling are no longer protected by animal cruelty laws and are in some cases legally considered livestock. [1] Are these dogs actually different than the ones living in our homes? Can we reasonably assert that intrinsic properties of these beings are the driving force behind the laws governing their treatment?
[1] https://helpsleddogs.org/iditarod-dog-kennel-horrors-no-anim...
I think shaped is better than the implications of warped, thanks for the thought. Warped is true to how I feel but shaped I agree is more generally correct.
He characterized their perspective as warped:
but I’m also sure their perspective is warped
This is an entirely different thing.
However, both of these are just as subjective as your suggested substitution, and I would like to express that I think Small-scale or Family Dairy Farmers are way better than any size factory farming.