> The fallacy here is that we're somehow, magically, required to move on to more extreme forms of the same logic.
Yes. It's inherently subjective whether animal husbandry is worth the input resources and each person can decide for themselves is it's worth it or wasteful, as with every other example (travel, medicine, etc).
> By that logic, shouldn't we also ban all mean words? I mean, they might incite distress, and they can cause emotional harm, and even physical harm if someone gets too offended.
Yes, again you're agreeing with me. We collectively choose the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and practices. We have speed limits but don't ban cars, we regulate e-waste disposal but don't prohibit computers, and we can and should forbid cruel and environmentally damaging practises in husbandry, but not ban meat production.
The person I'm replying to is making the opposite argument, that husbandry is inherently wasteful and therefore should be subject to regulation. That is the is–ought fallacy, which I pointed out using reducto ad absurdum.
