- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
They’re usually shredded alive almost immediately because they’re seen as “waste” since they don’t lay eggs
For some more context:
They’re usually shredded alive almost immediately because they’re seen as “waste” since they don’t lay eggs
For some more context:
The cost of killing is tied to that package of minced meat whether you accept it or not.
buying meat today can’t have caused an animal in the past to be killed, since an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past.
Carnist mental gymnastics at its finest.
it’s how linear time works
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?
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.
Did you consider my hypothetical? How does your understanding of causation make sense of that?
edit: sorry, I didn’t see your other reply.
do you have a plan to accomplish your hypothetical scenario? because, if not, it is moot.
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’.
i never said that.
You said it wasn’t causal. I’m not sure how else to interpret that.
that’s a strawman. it is not what i said at all. i’m talking about causation and linear time.
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.
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?
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.
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 not meant to be. I was explaining why two people can be responsible for the same thing without ruining free will.
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.
I made it more complex than your notion that shared responsibility doesn’t exist.
that’s not causal