SeahorseTreble

They don't wish to die. This is very clear in their behaviour. They actively seek to avoid being killed, even though there's no escape for them. Many animal psychologists and slaughterhouse workers can verify this. They show fear and cower, try to escape, or even try to knock bolt guns away. They can smell blood of the animals that were killed before them, and they often see their dead bodies too. They moan desperately at the top of their lungs. They are sentient and highly intelligent animals. They know they're about to die and they exhibit a clear desire to live.

Even ignoring this, it's obviously in their best interests for them to be alive and not have their life taken away from them at a young age, just like it is for them to be with their mother and live a happy, healthy life, without harmful interference and exploitation by humans.

A carnivore eating an animal and including their mammary glands in the flesh they're eating is very distinct from deliberately drinking their milk, either suckling on their teats or milking them. It's a very rare practice ("milking" another animal never happens in nature, as we do), but humans have made it a norm for our species. Human adults were lactose intolerant by default before the lactase persisten gene developed as an adaptation to tolerate drinking cow's milk made for calves. My point being it wasn't previously normal for humans either. It's an avoidable practice, so arguing that the processes involved in it are necessary is simply untrue and logically false.

So causing a mother to cry for her missing baby isn't unethical? I'm not sure what ethical system you're referring to that would determine whether something is ethical. By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it's not needed.

It's not cruel to cause (ultimately) unnecessary suffering to an animal? And that's your opinion, remember. Not a fact.

I think they can certainly apply to any situation where the logic is flawed, so arguing that something is necessary since it's part of another system which itself is unnecessary, is a logical fallacy

If we accept that something is a necessary component of an unnecessary system, but then use that fact to argue that the component is necessary in absolute terms, that's a logical fallacy given that it's not absolutely necessary if the system it's a part of isn't absolutely necessary

After researching I found it can be called a false necessity fallacy or false requirement fallacy

How is that relevant? In the fallacy I'm describing, people assume that the cruel practices involved in dairy farming are necessary while ignoring the fact that dairy farming itself is unnecessary (since it can theoretically be eliminated).

You're focusing on one aspect of dairy farming when there are a number of ethically unsound practices such as stealing the babies from their mothers and killing them for beef, even if not veal. Or artificially inseminating mothers and forcefully impregnating them, selectively breeding them to overproduce milk which wrecks their bodies. And then killing them at the end of a life of extreme suffering, still at a relatively young age. It doesn't make a difference to the fact that they're cruel, and necessary parts of large scale dairy farming, which is unnecessary as a whole.

No other species drinks the milk from another species regularly. It's definitely not true to say that any predator that preys on mammals will drink the milk of their prey. It happens in rare circumstances with certain species. The way we artificially inseminate dairy cows, steal their babies and kill them, and steal the milk made for them, in industrialised farming systems, is far removed from nature.

Normal is one thing, which I would dispute. Acceptable is based on your opinion, which I think is highly flawed and unethical. Causing suffering and harm to animals by separating them from their mothers and killing them is cruel. Therefore I wouldn't say it's morally acceptable at all given that the whole industry is unnecessary, and harmful in a number of ways.

I said they need it for an intended purpose which is for nurturing as well as adequate nutrition. They also don't need to be alive, but they certainly want to be. It's pretty disgusting that you're defending this.

And yet, biologically, a cow makes milk for her calf, and the calf is healthiest and happiest when allowed to suckle their own mother's milk naturally. Just like a human doesn't produce milk intentionally, but they do allow their baby to have it, since that's what works best for them and helps to form a maternal bond and nurture the baby. All the same is true for cows.

What do you mean "it didn't work"? Of course I mean that if we as a society eliminated it, that would prevent all of the harms involved in it. That hasn't happened yet.

On a mass scale to provide for everyone, it's necessary. However, for sake of example, just switch veal to beef. Or switch it to any of the other cruel practices inherent in dairy farming. The fallacy still applies if you defend one practice as a necessary component of a larger unnecessary practice