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.

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.

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

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

i'm intimately aware of the price discovery theory you've mentioned, but it does not have any real predictive power, and it makes no claims about how production levels are impacted by markets.

to claim that it is ineffective is like claiming that eating healthy makes no difference from eating like shit after doing it for a single day and not seeing amazing results.

markets don't follow natural law like biology does.

if 10% of the population went vegan, demand for those products would fall by 10% and there would be that many less animals killed for it

i don't know how you can prove this.

of course the meat industry hasn’t been just erased like magic.

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

that's not what happened

You don’t seem to understand how analogies work.

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.

You’re paying people to produce meat

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

being vegan is literally about not supporting the meat industry,

and you can do that, but don't claim it's an

easy and effective way for a single person to make a difference

because you can see that it has not stopped the growth of the industry and it has not led to a shrinking of the industry.

I've presented exactly as much evidence as you have.

what i wrote is that being vegan has not had the effect you are proposing it would. you are making up a scenario where it might work and asking why i don't think it would work in that scenario.

no, that's a strawman.

not afraid of anything. I have no interest in providing any semblance of validity to your specious argument

Both "ethics" and "morals" fundamentally deal with questions of right and wrong, good and bad, and how we ought to behave. In many philosophical and everyday contexts, the terms are used interchangeably without causing confusion. Ultimately, trying to differentiate veganism as purely "ethical" rather than "moral" is likely a semantic game rather than a meaningful philosophical distinction.

You can confidently assert that there's no significant difference between ethics and morals in this context.

make any excuse you want, it is a fact that being vegan doesn't stop the growth of the industry.

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