543
Bacon tho (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by James_Fortis@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago

Not eating meat won't change the systemic problems but it will mean fewer animals will be subject to the industry.

more animals are breed and slaughtered every year than the year before. being vegan has never reduced that

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Yeah no shit, but the number would be even higher if fewer people were vegan.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago

this can not be proven. counterfactuals cannot be proven at all.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"Your honor, it's true that the deceased died of blood loss after I stabbed them, however, the idea that they would've survived had I not stabbed them is a counterfactual and therefore cannot be proven at all."

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago
[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

No, it's literally what you said. Is what I described not a counterfactual?

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 4 points 3 months ago

What bizarre logic, what thorough lack of object permanence.

Just because meat eating outpaces veganism doesn't mean vegans haven't reduced the consumption of meat?

I don't even think you know what you're saying now. If the whole world went vegan today, there'd be no meat animal slaughter. YOU are the cause of this problem.

"Oh world hunger is getting worse, I better stop my charity donations!"

"Oh greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, might as well go back to oil and gas!"

Like, you realise how foolish that argument is, right?

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Just because meat eating outpaces veganism doesn’t mean vegans haven’t reduced the consumption of meat?

that's exactly what it means. consumptiion of meat continues to grow. it has not been reduced.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I simply cannot believe that "AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world" would have a brain-meltingly bad take like this. Shocking.

Where do you think the meat on your plate comes from? What do you think causes meat production to increase?

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

if you have something to say, say it. i have no interest in your interrogation.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

Literally a 5 year old could grasp this.

When you buy something, it tells the person who sold it to you to stock more of it, which tells the people making it to make more of it. Since meat production involves killing animals, it means that when you buy meat, it causes more animals to be killed. If you go vegan and stop buying meat, it causes there to be less demand, which reduces the number of animals killed compared to if you didn't.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

everyone has free will. my purchases don't cause their actions. they make their own decisions.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

"Your honor, it's true I purchased a hitman's services, but I didn't cause his actions. He made his own decision, it just happened to be the one I paid him to do."

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

this is not at all analogous to buying meat on a shelf

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Why not? You're saying that market signals don't matter, it's individual choice all the way down. You're paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn't have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn't make you complicit?

You don't seem to understand how analogies work. You don't get to just say "Nuh uh" when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That's just a basic form of logical argumentation.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

You don’t seem to understand how analogies work.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

You’re paying people to produce meat

no, i'm not. most people don't.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

but according to you, that doesn’t have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves.

not a causal one, no.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

You don’t get to just say “Nuh uh” when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions.

that's not what happened

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Why did you make four separate one line responses to my comment, all at the same time? You realize you can put multiple things in one comment lol.

Also not only is that exactly what happened, but you're literally doing it again. This is just the Monty Python argument clinic sketch.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

making a leap of logic and doubling down doesn't make your position any more sound

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Since you seem incredibly confused about both how to argue and basic facts about reality, let me walk you through this.

You claimed that purchasing meat has no effect on whether more meat gets produced, because "they make their own decisions." This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do. If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic "they make their own decisions" regardless of who's paying them to do what.

If you want to dispute that, you have to actually find a fault in that chain of reasoning, not just say, "Nuh uh" over and over again.

An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition.

i'm not making an argument. i'm contradicting yours.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic “they make their own decisions” regardless of who’s paying them to do what.

again, this is completely disanalagous with buying meat on a shelf.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Again, you don't get to just say, "No it isn't" over and over again without actually explaining why it's not analogous. That's how basic reason works.

Also, you can put multiple things in one comment so you don't spam the thread.

i’m not making an argument. i’m contradicting yours.

Yes, you're literally just disagreeing with anything I (or anyone else on my side) says, with zero supporting evidence or reason. It's not an argument, just contradiction. It's obvious that's what you're doing, but still hilarious that you would come out and admit it.

wrong. i said it is not causal.

Can you please explain what the difference is between an action being causal of another action vs an action... causing another action to happen?

wrong

Wrong.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Can you please explain what the difference is between an action being causal of another action vs an action… causing another action to happen?

i don't think you're capable of understanding cause and effect, so i guess this is done.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

with zero supporting evidence or reason

wrong

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago
[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago
[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago
[-] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The dumbest timeline 🙄

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do.

wrong

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

You claimed that purchasing meat has no effect on whether more meat gets produced, because “they make their own decisions.”

wrong. i said it is not causal.

[-] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

if being vegan isn't effective, and your goal is to reduce animal slaughter, then you should try another method.

this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
543 points (79.4% liked)

Memes

45459 readers
1479 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS