Agriculture refers to both animal and non-animal ag. Hence the prefix “animal” for “animal agriculture”.

Are you really arguing definitions of words meaninglessly? “Animal agriculture” is an awkwardly long term for what they call “agriculture” in the industry.

“Huge negatives for animals involved” is the reality of industrial agriculture, which provides the vast majority of meat

Yet again, either address the argument directly or concede the argument and I’ll be happy to change topic.

To your later point, “free range"

Thank you for reminding me I know what “Free range” means. Did you have an argument?

Re: cigarettes - it should be clear I’m referring to net negative “utility”.

Well then, you didn’t provide an argument at all. Just an indefensible analogy. Care to provide an argument instead?

Just look at relative average stress levels of farm animals compared to humans. Don’t know what your methodology is for determining this

Simplest answer is to look at stress-response. Humans and primates have more stress-related illnesses. There are those who think it’s because animals handle the stress better, but it at least prima facie demonstrates that animals don’t suffer from long-term stress like humans do. Further, just look at wildlife vs domestic animal stress. Farm animals show less stress factors than wild animals (who show less stress factors than humans). It’s a selfish thing, but animal meat tastes better if they are stressed less, therefore it is of value to farmers to keep the animal stress down.

None of the above is unquestionable fact (except the part where stressed animals have worse-tasting meat), but all of the above is consistent with experience. It is reasonable to believe it and (imo) less reasonable to reject it.

Ecology is not a distinct topic from ethics. Ecological outcomes have pronounced effects on human and animal experience. I alluded to this already.

Do you know what gishgallop is, and why it’s intellectually dishonest? I’m not going to let you keep widening the net until it’s impossible to have a stance regardless of the real strength to my arguments and lack of strength to yours.

Estimates on greenhouse gas emissions seem to converge at roughly 20-25% for animal agriculture, with roughly a 10x increase over more efficient plant agriculture

This is why I’m trying to avoid the topic swap. This is NOT a magic bullet. Not only that, but it introduces a mountain of logical fallacies that’ll take hours to argue out. Again, I’m happy to address it when we have resolved ALL THE OTHER TOPICS that have already been brought up. If I am wrong in my direct utility arguments, you don’t need to bring up the environment. If you need to bring up the environment, concede those points and we can move on to that topic.

So in summary, do you concede that:

1. Meat-eating is net-positive for consumers?
2. Non-industrial farming is net-positive utility for animals?
3. Farm Animal life is ethically better than wildlife and anti-natalism?

If so, great. I’ll be happy to move on to the environmental impact challenges. If not, then let’s get back to the topic at hand shall we?