this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
231 points (100.0% liked)
196
16423 readers
1 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
hardly any calves become veal at all. it's a slim percentage.
The dairy industry can have a little cruelty to calves, as a treat.
no on is ok with cruelty
If you buy the products, you're complicit. Sounds like people are pretty okay with it to me.
i buy petroleum products. i disagree with most of the aspects of their procurement, distribution, and use. if i stop buying them, none of that changes.
Petroleum production decreases as we implement alternatives. Are you really going to tell me this isn't the case? 🤣
ETA: You know, for someone named commie, you're spouting a lot of neoliberal nonsense. "Ah, no sense trying to change anything even if we don't agree with it."
i'm telling you there is no causal mechanism by which consumption dictates production.
You're really gonna tell me that meat production will be unchanged as more people have been adopting a plant-based diet. Good thing you don't run Tyson, they've been having to close meat processing plants due to decreased demand.
meat production continues to GROW even as MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ADOPTING A PLANT-BASED DIET.
Correlation != causation. Left unchecked, production will inevitably see some increase due to WHAT?! Increased population. However, anticipated growth hasn't met expectations. Gee, almost like there's a reason...
After that, I wonder how much production would decrease if we stopped giving animal agriculture their multi-billion dollar shot in the arm every year from the USDA versus the few million that plant alternatives gets. Wonder what would happen if we reversed that...
i felt like this was the lesson i was trying to teach you.
No, the "lesson" you're trying to teach is that just because the movement isn't popular, it isn't worth doing. You're making logical fallacies to equate our morality-based struggle to something like needing gasoline to get to work because you refuse to agitate for better public transit or buying a fucking bicycle. Not only that, but your methodology is flawed, and I merely stated as such in your irrelevant context just to make a point. Your apathy to change doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. Slavery was considered a normal part of everyday life until people agitated against it. People had no qualms destroying the environment until people agitated against it. Animal abuse was rampant in the past, and now we've enacted laws against it. Your argument is trash because you are so apathetic to non-human suffering, you couldn't possibly fathom the notion that we could do things better and treat others better. Instead of being the ones exploiting, we can be caretakers. All social movements start out small and slow. Once they hit a threshold point, they explode into the collective conscience. So yeah, I'm going to keep agitating to remind people that they're the ones propping up this veritable holocaust where we murder billions of land animals every year for sensory pleasure, when a better way of living has been available to us for well over a hundred years now. Just that people use your hollow arguments to bemoan that it sounds like it's not worth doing because it's "too hard." It's not too hard, you're just selfish. OR, you could opt to actually dabble in empathy and get in on the ground floor. You'd get to say you were vegan before it was cool.
I'm pretty sure most animals are killed for convenience or profit.
I don't do that. no one does.
implying I don't have empathy is a personal attack, not evidence that buying beans would shrink agricultural emissions.
you don't know what I do
none of this was solved by buying beans
no, I'm not
I told you what I meant. don't put words in my mouth
this has nothing to do with the efficacy of buying beans
I didn't say that. you are arguing with a strawman
this is a personal attack, not evidence that buying beans will save the environment
i don't think it's inevitable that population increase leads to increased production. this is another example of an assertion of a causal link where no such link exists.
i wasn't aware "fuck it, nothing can improve, everything will always suck" was a communist principle
that's not what i said.
that's the beauty of paraphrase, it captures the essence of expression without having to be a literal equivalent transcript of it
that's not a paraphrase. that's a straw man.
Bro
There's more PEOPLE period
Math is not that hard
so?
that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying being vegan isn't an effective way to change anything.
journey of a thousand miles, etc.
this platitude doesn't make buying beans an effective way to reduce the ecological burden of agriculture
neither is fatalism an effective way to encourage change
i'm not being fatalistic. i just don't believe buying beans is an effective way to fix the ecological problems of agriculture.
From what I've learned, this is called the "fuck it" principle. It doesn't make enough of a difference, so don't bother doing it.
It's a fallacy though.
I'm not saying it doesn't make enough of a difference. I'm saying it doesn't make any difference. the fallacy you're referring to would be the Utopia fallacy and that's not what's going on here. fallacies trick people because they mirror good reasoning. I'm using good reasoning.