What bizarre logic, what thorough lack of object permanence.
Just because meat eating outpaces veganism doesn’t mean vegans haven’t reduced the consumption of meat?
I don’t even think you know what you’re saying now. If the whole world went vegan today, there’d be no meat animal slaughter. YOU are the cause of this problem.
“Oh world hunger is getting worse, I better stop my charity donations!”
“Oh greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, might as well go back to oil and gas!”
Like, you realise how foolish that argument is, right?
When you buy something, it tells the person who sold it to you to stock more of it, which tells the people making it to make more of it. Since meat production involves killing animals, it means that when you buy meat, it causes more animals to be killed. If you go vegan and stop buying meat, it causes there to be less demand, which reduces the number of animals killed compared to if you didn’t.
“Your honor, it’s true I purchased a hitman’s services, but I didn’t cause his actions. He made his own decision, it just happened to be the one I paid him to do.”
Why not? You’re saying that market signals don’t matter, it’s individual choice all the way down. You’re paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn’t have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn’t make you complicit?
You don’t seem to understand how analogies work. You don’t get to just say “Nuh uh” when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That’s just a basic form of logical argumentation.
What bizarre logic, what thorough lack of object permanence.
Just because meat eating outpaces veganism doesn’t mean vegans haven’t reduced the consumption of meat?
I don’t even think you know what you’re saying now. If the whole world went vegan today, there’d be no meat animal slaughter. YOU are the cause of this problem.
“Oh world hunger is getting worse, I better stop my charity donations!”
“Oh greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, might as well go back to oil and gas!”
Like, you realise how foolish that argument is, right?
if being vegan isn’t effective, and your goal is to reduce animal slaughter, then you should try another method.
that’s exactly what it means. consumptiion of meat continues to grow. it has not been reduced.
I simply cannot believe that “AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world” would have a brain-meltingly bad take like this. Shocking.
Where do you think the meat on your plate comes from? What do you think causes meat production to increase?
if you have something to say, say it. i have no interest in your interrogation.
Literally a 5 year old could grasp this.
When you buy something, it tells the person who sold it to you to stock more of it, which tells the people making it to make more of it. Since meat production involves killing animals, it means that when you buy meat, it causes more animals to be killed. If you go vegan and stop buying meat, it causes there to be less demand, which reduces the number of animals killed compared to if you didn’t.
everyone has free will. my purchases don’t cause their actions. they make their own decisions.
“Your honor, it’s true I purchased a hitman’s services, but I didn’t cause his actions. He made his own decision, it just happened to be the one I paid him to do.”
this is not at all analogous to buying meat on a shelf
Why not? You’re saying that market signals don’t matter, it’s individual choice all the way down. You’re paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn’t have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn’t make you complicit?
You don’t seem to understand how analogies work. You don’t get to just say “Nuh uh” when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That’s just a basic form of logical argumentation.