OBJECTION!
- 0 Posts
- 32 Comments
Again, you don’t get to just say, “No it isn’t” over and over again without actually explaining why it’s not analogous. That’s how basic reason works.
Also, you can put multiple things in one comment so you don’t spam the thread.
i’m not making an argument. i’m contradicting yours.
Yes, you’re literally just disagreeing with anything I (or anyone else on my side) says, with zero supporting evidence or reason. It’s not an argument, just contradiction. It’s obvious that’s what you’re doing, but still hilarious that you would come out and admit it.
wrong. i said it is not causal.
Can you please explain what the difference is between an action being causal of another action vs an action… causing another action to happen?
wrong
Wrong.
Since you seem incredibly confused about both how to argue and basic facts about reality, let me walk you through this.
You claimed that purchasing meat has no effect on whether more meat gets produced, because “they make their own decisions.” This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do. If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic “they make their own decisions” regardless of who’s paying them to do what.
If you want to dispute that, you have to actually find a fault in that chain of reasoning, not just say, “Nuh uh” over and over again.
An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Why did you make four separate one line responses to my comment, all at the same time? You realize you can put multiple things in one comment lol.
Also not only is that exactly what happened, but you’re literally doing it again. This is just the Monty Python argument clinic sketch.
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.
No, it’s literally what you said. Is what I described not a counterfactual?
“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.”
“Your honor, it’s true that the deceased died of blood loss after I stabbed them, however, the idea that they would’ve survived had I not stabbed them is a counterfactual and therefore cannot be proven at all.”
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.
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?
Yeah no shit, but the number would be even higher if fewer people were vegan.
I don’t believe I can make a noticeable difference.
Not eating meat won’t change the systemic problems but it will mean fewer animals will be subject to the industry. Over the course of a lifetime, the number of animals you can save adds up.
Also it’s a good habit to transfer thoughts and beliefs into actions.
Right, because you’re doing zero analysis of the economic or political structures involved and playing fast and loose with terminology.
There are other monarchies in the world today that do hold political power. That doesn’t mean that they’re governing over a feudal system. The noble system I described is one of the defining characteristics of feudalism.
That’s both not true and also not what I asked. The UK has a king and noble family, does that make it a feudal system?
Does North Korea have the noble class I described? Do you have any evidence that such a class exists?
Neither of those countries returned to a feudal system. Where are the nobles, with entrenched legal privileges, with titles passed down on a hereditary basis, commanding their own armies? What a ridiculous claim.
Wrong.