Could do worse tbh.

But it isn’t wrong. I’d like it to be wrong, and I can appreciate wanting to shift the Overton window, but that’s not where we are and it won’t change before November.

Cool, so which other groups are acceptable sacrifices for the sake of political convenience?

The rights of any minority are always precarious because the majority has the ability to fuck them over. The only way to protect ourselves is by banding together in solidarity with other vulnerable groups and drawing red lines and treating an attack on one as an attack on all. A group I belong to could very easily be the next in the crosshairs. “We will hang together, or we will hang separately.”

You want to convince me to support a third-party candidate, first we need to put Trump in prison, then we need to roll out Star Voting, and then we need some third-party alternatives that aren’t obvious Russian assets.

Oh, is Star Voting part of Kamala’s platform? Is that listed on her campaign website? Has she talked about it in speeches, rallies, or debates? Has she ever even mentioned it once?

Your plan is, “unconditional support of the Democratic party whether or not they provide any sort of voting reform, until they voluntarily choose to give us voting reform, in direct contradiction of their interests, and if they never do then just unconditional support to the democrats forever.” In other words, talking about voting reform is just a red herring to obfuscate that your actual stance is just unconditional support to the democrats forever.

You know who does support voting reform to make third party candidates more viable? Third party candidates. So if you wanna talk about voting reform, in order for that to happen, we would need to get a third party candidate to win first. Or, alternatively, we could say that our support for Democrats should be conditional on them supporting voting reform, so that when they do their calculations they realize that they need to incorporate that into their platform to have a better chance of winning. Because why on earth would they ever support it otherwise?

Right now, the Dems have decided that supporting Israel gains them more votes than it loses, and they can live with that.

I don’t see how you can say this and still not get it. We’re trying to make sure that this calculation is wrong. Because it’s only if that calculation is wrong that they would have any reason to change their stance. Voting for them regardless would mean that their calculation was easily correct and they should keep making the same calculation in the future. If you aknowledge that such a calculation is being made, then surely you can understand the rationale for making the decision more costly.

Wrong.

Wrong.

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.

Germany and Italy.

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?