>The people eat meat and other animal products, the more animals will be killed to meet that demand.
not only is this not causal, it doesn’t even hold up. how many 8-Bit nintendos do I need to buy to get 8-bit nintendos back into production? how many Faberge eggs do I need to buy to put fabergé eggs back into production?
A) raise cattle which, as there are not enough grassy pastures, I will have to grow food to feed, causing harm to lots of smaller animals and insects
B) eat the food I was already growing, and I will have to cause about 1/4th the harm
C) grow my own food and use fencing and netting to prevent as much harm as I can
D) starve to death
If you can’t do C because you don’t have the space or time, then I wouldn’t blame someone for picking “reduce harm as much as I can without starving to death.” Paying money to people who are engaging in factory farming is not on that same level.
So the factory farms abuse animals, but since the grocery store is paying them with money I gave the grocery store, it’s okay now. How could I know that paying for the product of the factory farm would make them buy more from that factory farm?
True that is a huge leap to say that if people purchase something consistently the grocery store will restock it. They will probably just leave those shelves empty once their current stock is gone.
>You’re acting like the options are (a) cause as much suffering as you like
no. I’m saying that everyone makes decisions about which animals get treated which ways. eating a burger doesn’t cause any harm, anyway.
deleted by creator
the animal is already dead. all the harm took place long before I decided what to eat.
deleted by creator
that’s not causal.
deleted by creator
unless you have a plan to get everyone to stop buying meat, this is moot.
meat was produced before anyone bought meat. there is no reason to believe it would stop.
deleted by creator
supply and demand is a theory about price discovery
>Don’t try to evade the question, give me a yes or no answer.
this is a classic indicator of a false dilemma.
>The people eat meat and other animal products, the more animals will be killed to meet that demand.
not only is this not causal, it doesn’t even hold up. how many 8-Bit nintendos do I need to buy to get 8-bit nintendos back into production? how many Faberge eggs do I need to buy to put fabergé eggs back into production?
>Letting animals be tortured and slaughtered en masse
eating beans doesn’t stop this. vegans are letting them be slaughtered as well.
My options are
A) raise cattle which, as there are not enough grassy pastures, I will have to grow food to feed, causing harm to lots of smaller animals and insects
B) eat the food I was already growing, and I will have to cause about 1/4th the harm
C) grow my own food and use fencing and netting to prevent as much harm as I can
D) starve to death
If you can’t do C because you don’t have the space or time, then I wouldn’t blame someone for picking “reduce harm as much as I can without starving to death.” Paying money to people who are engaging in factory farming is not on that same level.
I get my food from a grocery store, and I bet you do too.
So the factory farms abuse animals, but since the grocery store is paying them with money I gave the grocery store, it’s okay now. How could I know that paying for the product of the factory farm would make them buy more from that factory farm?
you can’t know that. in fact, you can’t know how they’ll spend your money you give them for beans and rice
True that is a huge leap to say that if people purchase something consistently the grocery store will restock it. They will probably just leave those shelves empty once their current stock is gone.
And there you go:
“Holier-than-thou vegans with pamphlet level arguments they force upon everybody are a problem.”
People don’t share your dietary choices. Deal with it.
deleted by creator
Now you got it, Sherlock.
deleted by creator
No.
deleted by creator
Nice day to you too 😂