Hi there

[brimstoneSalad]

What I meant was that once cows start producing milk again for their calves, it might be quite painful for them
I read that here at https://www.theguardian.com/notesandque ... 94,00.html

That may be, but I'm not sure how that's relevant as a justification for consuming dairy today.

But I think we should look more into the food waste - one study showed that one in six pints of milk thrown away each year
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tudy-shows
Milk production can be reduced as long as humans start to understand their food needs and buy as much as they need

A 1/6th reduction in milk production by eliminating waste is going to do very little for animal suffering and environmental problems.
Less by 1/6th is better than nothing for sure, but doing less bad isn't really a justification is it? That is if you even have a way to reduce that waste: if you're buying commercial milk you're not doing less bad because milk is being wasted on your behalf by a wasteful supply line. You'd have to have your own cow and be milking your own to make sure it's not wasted.

[brimstoneSalad]

On the other hand corporate farming is damaging to the environment.

It's the number of cows, period. It doesn't matter if it's corporate or not.
Did you not read my post?

But is it more damaging than exhaust gases,

Something being less destructive than another thing isn't a justification for it.
I can tell you that different actions have different degrees of difficulty avoiding. Animal agriculture is much easier to avoid than emissions from giving people homes. People benefit much more from shelter than meat and dairy. It doesn't matter if housing has more emissions; it matters that one is easily avoidable and the other is not.

deforestation (and grazing of livestock isn't the only cause of it)

Not the ONLY cause, but it's the leading one next to a few other stand-out industries like palm oil. It makes sense to avoid palm oil too, I think.
You don't have to be perfect to criticize things that are uniquely bad and unhelpful to humanity and the world.

increasing human population etc?

Not having children in't an excuse to do whatever you want to the world.
In fact, having conscientious children who help carry on the ethic of harm reduction probably does a lot more good than harm.

If we are talking about the damage to the environment, are you using public transportation or you've got your own car,

Animal ag. does a lot more harm than driving a car instead of taking public transit.
And yet it's much harder to avoid driving (many people need to for work), while it's much easier to avoid animal products.

It's a question of difficulty vs. good done.

Most people wouldn't expect you to swim out into the ocean during a hurricane to rescue a drowning child. Most people would expect you to lift one finger to pick a life preserver off a hook and drop it in a pool to save a drowning child.

You can't pretend like these are equal, and the person who didn't do the latter is justified by not doing the former.

what kind of a Christmas tree you will have, a real one or an artificial

I believe he has a festivus pole, but as a once in a decade or so purchase it's kind of irrelevant compared to the things people eat *every day*.

[Jebus]

I believe he has a festivus pole, but as a once in a decade or so purchase it's kind of irrelevant compared to the things people eat *every day*.

LOL. You have a good memory. The Festivus pole will make it's annual appearance in the coming days. I've never in my life purchased a Christmas tree.

[brimstoneSalad]

I believe he has a festivus pole, but as a once in a decade or so purchase it's kind of irrelevant compared to the things people eat *every day*.

LOL. You have a good memory. The Festivus pole will make it's annual appearance in the coming days. I've never in my life purchased a Christmas tree.

But was it store bought or rescued?