- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [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:
almost no one does that.
Buying meat is paying for animals to be killed. Just like buying flour is paying for wheat to be grown.
no, it’s not. there are people who kill animals, and there are people who pay them, and most people are neither.
So you pay the guy who pays the guy who kills the animals and that makes it fine? That’s the rule? There needs to be 2 degrees of separation? The animal is being killed because you created the demand. The guy wouldn’t have paid the guy if you weren’t going to pay him.
Edit: oh you’re a troll. And a reasonably funny troll to tbh. Edit Edit: I’m not correcting “to tbh” because it’s really funny
i have no agreement to purchase meat in the future. most people don’t.
But you will. And they know that. And they base their decisions on that.
they can’t know that. knowledge is a justified true belief. since the future has not happened, it has no truth value, and, as such, future knowledge is impossible. they do not know whether i will purchase meat in the future. qed
calling me names doesn’t change the truth of what i said
I don’t mean it as an ad hominem. I just thought that argument was so silly you must be joking. Your argument makes hiring hitmen permissible so long as there’s at least one middle man. Unless I’ve misinterpreted you.
no, it doesn’t. actively contracting a future action is completely disanalogous with buying a product on a shelf.
most people don’t do that, either. meat packers will get it from the abattoirs, who will then sell it to suppliers, and there might be two or three suppliers before anyone sells it to a grocer or restaurant.
the animal isn’t killed because i create demand, except for meanings of “cause” that don’t require a causal relationship.
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 causal
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?