Victoria Antoinette @ VictoriaAScharleau @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

320

Joined

1 yr. ago

This gives an individual the power to lower supply,

no, it doesn't.

If the demand for animal products goes down, so will supply

that's not causal, and, also not what the theory of supply and demand says. the theory says that the price will decrease, not that production will.

I was explaining why two people can be responsible for the same thing without ruining free will.

but its so disanalogous to how our food systems work that it's irrelevant.

your notion that shared responsibility doesn’t exist

i also didnt say that.

i also explained that free agent's actions can only be said to be caused by their own will. that means that "demand" can never cause "supply" (nor, truly, the other way around), since both those terms actually reflect the willful actions of free agents.

you’re arguing that demand for a product is not related to supply

i never said that.

this just isn't analogous to how the system works, anyway. the financiers are operating with (calculated) risk, and willing to pay for meat from suppliers without a contract in place to sell it. to make this fit your analogy, the woodsman would need to just chop up trees and hope you come buy some wood.

it's funny that you say that it's more complex, then you give an example far simpler than the complexities of our current agricultural system.

But people wanting to consume animal products is what causes people to kill them.

no, it's not. the only thing that can be said to cause the actions of a free agent is their own will. you are denying the free will of the people in the industry, but insisting that i be responsible for their actions. if they don't have free will, then what makes you think i do?

do you have a plan to accomplish your hypothetical scenario? because, if not, it is moot.

Do you seriously not understand this?

my understanding of linear time, causation, and human behavior has led me to my current position. if you think you know something i don't, i'd love to hear it.

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

that's not causal

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

that's a strawman. it is not what i said at all. i'm talking about causation and linear time.

you tolerate it to the exact same degree. if you want to stop animal abuse, you need to go to where they are being abused and stop it.

no. no one.

it's not rape. it's a veterinary procedure.

you claim it's against their will but how can you prove that?

the animal is dead long before I walk into a store or restaurant, and the people who did the killing have already been paid. I have no responsibility for that.

it's how linear time works

anyone who is willing to think about it for longer than it takes to repeat a slogan.