A simple test of causality, X => Y: go back in time and change X to ¬X. If ¬Y as a result, it would appear X => Y can be inferred.
You can say your eating meat is your free will, but if the meat were counterfactually not produced, you would not eat it. Similarly, your eating meat causes other people to produce more meat. They may have free will, if you believe in that -- but you can't deny that if you hadn't done X, they wouldn't have done Y.
dismissing the claim is merely an action that occurs in the eye of the beholder. Your dismissing a claim does not actually challenge the claim or affect the one who holds it, so why even?
Oh, you need to employ bayesianism to make utilitarianism even begin to make sense. Regardless of whether I might ultimately find utilitarianism contradictory, Bayesianism is the hill I'd die on.
Well you could have asked this person to explain instead of just saying "no it's not." Also, as far as I'm aware, there's no reason for positive claims ought to have the burden of proof instead of a negative claim. Any positive claim can be turned into a negative claim by phrasing it in the negative anyway, and positing the non-existence of something still carries the burden of proof.
Anyway, veganism generally has a clear rationale behind it that is widely known, but rarely do I see people seriously arguing that omnivorism is as ethical as veganism. So -- burden of proof lies on you I'd say.
That is true, so the pieces of meat which were placed on earth by god 6k years ago can be eaten guilt-free. However, all other pieces of meat require harvesting from an animal first, incurring the aforementioned downsides. Just as purchasing an item encourages its production, eating meat encourages its purchase.
Here are two simple scenarios where eating the meat does indeed cause meat to be produced:
your eating it means that another person doesn't eat it, so another piece of meat must be purchased for that other person;
your eating the meat signals to whoever got the meat for you (perhaps yourself) that you are willing to eat meat and hence they pick up a propensity to get meat for you again in the future.
Isn't this simple common sense though? Were you really not aware this is how the world works?
One time I found a C++ library where everything was of a single type, the "untype" essentially. It removed all type safety, in other words, to allow pure binary access to all data. I mean, there's an occasion now and then when one needs that sort of thing, but I found in every case it was just a headache. Now I know there's two people like that, haha.
Well, I don't agree with you, but I respect a hot take about coding when I see one. My own a-little-less-spicy-than-yours take is that OOP is overated.
Moral baseline is not a necessity. It's a comparison point. Basically, if you're not vegan, you should be doing something else to end up net-positive (from a utilitarian point of view). I'm not vegan, I'm vegetarian, so I'm in the negatives I guess.
It does, because the meat industry is tremendously abusive to animals. Ontop of that it's a poor use of land and it contributes greatly to global warming. But for sure, the animals feel pain and suffering assuming it is possible for them to do so. Trillions of shrimp die horribly painful deaths every year, but nobody cares because they have a funny-sounding name.
Ok but literally all of my Latinx friends say that they use the word Latinx, and it was popularized in South America and it is still used there frequently (though as I understand it, -u is becoming the more fashionable gender-neutral ending these days). I actually think “Latinx” is performative white ally cringe might be what's performative cringe.
Yeah, retrieval-augmented generation and AI web-search will still run into some trouble with this. But if it knows about it in its weights, then it will be fine.
ITT: people listing the hills they'd die on. Hardly anyone is giving support for their claims.