Then everything for the future is purely hope. You eat a steak? I sure hope it doesn’t turn into lava in your stomach! You enter a car? Better hope it doesn’t turn into a crocodile and swallow you!
Must be a strange life you’re leading, but anything you can tell yourself to ease your conscience. Surely the same number of cows would be killed if nobody ate any meat, they could always hope that tomorrow people start again!
Which is an incredibly stupid point, because it presupposes that reducing needless deaths only has value if absolutely every single death is prevented. This, of course, is completely illogical - even one death that was prevented has value.
But we don’t care about silly things like “logic” here, right?
Not to mention that your original point was that you bear no responsibility for the deaths of animals you consume, but who cares as long as you can keep giving stupid arguments ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, it’s not hope, it’s market research and statistics. You do understand the difference, right?
they don’t know the future. they hope their research is correct.
Then everything for the future is purely hope. You eat a steak? I sure hope it doesn’t turn into lava in your stomach! You enter a car? Better hope it doesn’t turn into a crocodile and swallow you!
Must be a strange life you’re leading, but anything you can tell yourself to ease your conscience. Surely the same number of cows would be killed if nobody ate any meat, they could always hope that tomorrow people start again!
cows were killed before anybody bought meat. there is no reason to believe that will stop even if you stop buying it.
Are you a bad faith troll, or is this supposed to be a serious argument?
I mean what I say.
That’s sad, what an illogical approach to an ethical dilemma.
“Oh well, people died before laws were introduced, may as well go on a killing spree” - right? Nothing else matters?
this is a strawman. my argument is more like “you may object to killing animals for food, but your method is not an effective way to stop it”
Which is an incredibly stupid point, because it presupposes that reducing needless deaths only has value if absolutely every single death is prevented. This, of course, is completely illogical - even one death that was prevented has value.
But we don’t care about silly things like “logic” here, right?
Not to mention that your original point was that you bear no responsibility for the deaths of animals you consume, but who cares as long as you can keep giving stupid arguments ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
to an extent you’re right, but I understand the laws of physics. markets are not dictated by anything like the laws of physics.
Better hope the laws of physics don’t magically change!
if they were subject to the whims of irrational actors, I might worry more.
Better hope they aren’t!