Collective abstaining does. the trick is convincing you that organizing can’t happen and even if it did, it would be pointless. Meanwhile the people who run the factory farms are highly organized and have daily meetings on how to get you to eat more.
Did you look at the graphs though or just assume that discussions end if you post graphs? You can easily see where and deduce why meat production has grown over the past half a century. It has nothing do with my argument that enough people choosing not to eat meat at the same time = less money for meat producers. So you have to be saying there is a disconnect between input (people eating meat) and output (production of meat). Not a strawman just a logical conclusion of your point.
You also misunderstand what a contradiction is and how it differs from a logical contradiction. Don’t mind me if I go out on a limb about the implications of your words if you don’t even know basic commie jargon while calling yourself commie on a commie site.
You also misunderstand what a contradiction is and how it differs from a logical contradiction. Don’t mind me if I go out on a limb about the implications of your words if you don’t even know basic commie jargon while calling yourself commie on a commie site.
We don’t even need to reach into theory to define this as a contradiction. Here is their comment further up the thread.
one can eat meat and not want animals to be abused.
This is true (many people do both of these things, as many people do many contradictory things), but it’s obviously contradictory to not want animals to be abused while buying products of animal abuse. That’s it, that’s the entire argument here. The position that they’re defending is that there is no contradiction of any kind there, which is ridiculous. I think this person is just trying to cause arguments so they can pick them apart to try to cause more, as @onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com said.
That’s an “interesting” ethical argument which doesn’t undo the contradiction of criticizing animal abuse while contributing directly and personally in an avoidable way to its continuation. I’m sure if we apply this same logic to everything else it won’t be problematic at all.
“You can be opposed to the occupation of the West Bank while intentionally buying products made in illegal settlements. Abstaining from doing so doesn’t change whether settlement occurs.”
“You can be opposed to slavery but still vacation at an Alabama plantation. Abstaining from doing so doesn’t change whether slavery occurs.”
Before you go for the obvious argument, I’m drawing no equivalency of any kind here other than using the same logic. It’s obvious that these arguments are morally bankrupt and only serve to allow the speaker to absolve himself of contributing to harmful systems when he could trivially avoid doing so.
This seems like a ridiculous point for me to have to make to an Anarchist, to be honest.
no, they’re practical. if you want to stop slavery, you’re going to need to do something about slavery. abstaining from visiting a defunct plantation is completely ineffective at abolishing slavery
It’s obvious that I was making an argument situated during the period of chattel slavery on plantations. I said “whether slavery occurs” lmao.
you seem to think a great deal of things are obvious, which are not.
You’re absolutely correct. For instance, I thought it was obvious that someone capable of posting online would have to be literate enough to understand that the idea of slavery occurring in relation to a southern plantation implies a context prior to abolition.
you’re barking up the wrong tree with hexbear. if you buy meat from them you’re materially supporting everything that got it to your grocery store, misgivings or not.
I wouldn’t even be that harsh. For example, it’s going to be close to impossible to eat without causing some harm somewhere in the supply chain. The issue here is that the harm is avoidable, or at least can be reduced, without too much trouble and this user is doing gymnastics when they could just acknowledge that there is a contradiction there.
Removed by mod
Collective abstaining does. the trick is convincing you that organizing can’t happen and even if it did, it would be pointless. Meanwhile the people who run the factory farms are highly organized and have daily meetings on how to get you to eat more.
Removed by mod
So the meat industry is a force of nature, some fundamental part of the universe that exists and grows without input from consumers?
American realism strikes again.
Removed by mod
Did you look at the graphs though or just assume that discussions end if you post graphs? You can easily see where and deduce why meat production has grown over the past half a century. It has nothing do with my argument that enough people choosing not to eat meat at the same time = less money for meat producers. So you have to be saying there is a disconnect between input (people eating meat) and output (production of meat). Not a strawman just a logical conclusion of your point.
You also misunderstand what a contradiction is and how it differs from a logical contradiction. Don’t mind me if I go out on a limb about the implications of your words if you don’t even know basic commie jargon while calling yourself commie on a commie site.
We don’t even need to reach into theory to define this as a contradiction. Here is their comment further up the thread.
This is true (many people do both of these things, as many people do many contradictory things), but it’s obviously contradictory to not want animals to be abused while buying products of animal abuse. That’s it, that’s the entire argument here. The position that they’re defending is that there is no contradiction of any kind there, which is ridiculous. I think this person is just trying to cause arguments so they can pick them apart to try to cause more, as @onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com said.
What’s a strawman?
That’s an “interesting” ethical argument which doesn’t undo the contradiction of criticizing animal abuse while contributing directly and personally in an avoidable way to its continuation. I’m sure if we apply this same logic to everything else it won’t be problematic at all.
“You can be opposed to the occupation of the West Bank while intentionally buying products made in illegal settlements. Abstaining from doing so doesn’t change whether settlement occurs.”
“You can be opposed to slavery but still vacation at an Alabama plantation. Abstaining from doing so doesn’t change whether slavery occurs.”
Before you go for the obvious argument, I’m drawing no equivalency of any kind here other than using the same logic. It’s obvious that these arguments are morally bankrupt and only serve to allow the speaker to absolve himself of contributing to harmful systems when he could trivially avoid doing so.
This seems like a ridiculous point for me to have to make to an Anarchist, to be honest.
Removed by mod
It’s obvious that I was making an argument situated during the period of chattel slavery on plantations. I said “whether slavery occurs” lmao.
Removed by mod
You’re absolutely correct. For instance, I thought it was obvious that someone capable of posting online would have to be literate enough to understand that the idea of slavery occurring in relation to a southern plantation implies a context prior to abolition.
you’re barking up the wrong tree with hexbear. if you buy meat from them you’re materially supporting everything that got it to your grocery store, misgivings or not.
I wouldn’t even be that harsh. For example, it’s going to be close to impossible to eat without causing some harm somewhere in the supply chain. The issue here is that the harm is avoidable, or at least can be reduced, without too much trouble and this user is doing gymnastics when they could just acknowledge that there is a contradiction there.
Removed by mod