Nachorella @ Nachorella @lemmy.sdf.org

Just a silly feller

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

383

Joined

2 yr. ago

You did, though, this entire thing is you trying to absolve yourself of any responsibility in the death of the animals you eat.

It's not irrelevant because it has nothing to do with food systems. You said that if you were responsible for a dead animal then an abattoir worker has no free will. I was exclusively explaining the concept of shared responsibility, wherein two parties can be responsible for something while maintaining free will.

the modern animal ag industry then, pedant.

Obtuse pedantry is definitely thought terminating. When you just word spaghetti your way out of any argument or dismiss it uncritically instead of actually engaging with it.

yes, it does.

I can make compelling arguments, too, see.

That's why when nobody wanted vhs anymore they just kept making them at the exact same rate for less and less money. They're still producing billions of vhs players every year and selling them at huge losses because wikipedia said something about supply and demand. You've cracked the code, you're morally in the clear now, you found the magic words that absolve you of all personal responsibility. Hoorayyyyyyyy.

I've always been chill with wasps and never had a problem

Ok, I get you now. That's just obtuse pedantry. If the demand for animal products goes down, so will supply. This gives an individual the power to lower supply, to choose not to has the same overall effect as killing a few animals. The distinction doesn't matter. Your actions have consequences whether you like it or not. Animal ag cannot survive without money and whenever you buy animal products you are giving it to them.

You said it wasn't causal. I'm not sure how else to interpret that.

It's not meant to be. I was explaining why two people can be responsible for the same thing without ruining free will.

I made it more complex than your notion that shared responsibility doesn't exist.

That's not how hypotheticals work. It's just meant to expose the flaw in your logic. In this case you're arguing that demand for a product is not related to supply. That when dvds came out and nobody wanted a vhs player anymore everyone kept making vhs players anyway because 'that's not causal'.

Things are more complex than that, though. Imagine if I need some wood and I come across someone who has an axe. The man has no incentive to cut a tree down. I say to him I will give him three ponies to cut the tree down for me and he agrees. Who has caused the tree to be cut down? Everyone has free will in this situation and I would argue both parties are responsible and share the blame. If either party were removed from the equation the tree would stay standing.

But people wanting to consume animal products is what causes people to kill them. It doesn't matter if your present want didn't cause the death of whatever animal you're eating, it will cause the death of the next one.

Did you consider my hypothetical? How does your understanding of causation make sense of that?

edit: sorry, I didn't see your other reply.

So hypothetically - if everyone in the world stopped buying and eating meat tomorrow you are of the opinion that the animal ag industry will continue killing animals well into the future without any income or incentive to do so?

An event in the present (purchasing animal products) will financially support and incentivise people to kill animals in the future.

Do you seriously not understand this?

Who are you trying to convince?

Obviously I'd prefer it if you didn't eat animals but I'm actually chill with just being more mindful about what you support. If you're going out of your way to try and minimise the harm you're doing then that's better than most people.

And at least you recognise the environmental harm. The only thing that really annoys me is people lying about these things.

They might not like it but they sure do tolerate it happening to an animal they like the taste of and don't actually have to see it themselves.

I didn't choose to ignore anything. I just have a life outside of being an annoying vegan.

You already knew what I was going to say, though. I'm personally against wool products because they breed sheep specifically to grow unhealthy amounts of wool and once the few good coats they have in them are gone they send them off to be killed for food anyway.

Sheep can also be mistreated during the shearing process, and since shearers are often paid per sheep they're incentivised to rush through them.

I'm not going to use the word rape here since I don't think it applies.

Have I activated any trap cards?