543

submitted 3 months ago by James_Fortis@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml

585 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] 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

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

with zero supporting evidence or reason

wrong

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Wrong.

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

wrong

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

Wrong.

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

The dumbest timeline 🙄

[-] 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

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