• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Poor grammar and an incapacity to have basic commenting ettquiette.

      your bourgeois standards of literacy don’t change whether i’m right.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      theres no causal mechanic that would result in less suffering. think of it this way: if i take a cup of water out of a bucket , then the bucket has less water. what is the mechanic by which less suffering exists?

      edit:

      after failing to meaningfully undermine my claim, this user decided to imply i have a mental illness, and lied about the nature of what i said and then tried to poison the well by editing their comment near the top of our subthread and has the gall to say i’m not participating in good faith. this accusation is, itself, bad faith. i encourage you to read what was said here, and decide for yourself whether being vegan reduces suffering.

      double edit:

      i’m no tankie. baby, i’m an anarchist.

      • Thrift3499@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can you provide another example please? I’m not sure I follow the bucket analogy.

        If I choose not to eat meat it lessens the demand for it (however minutely). On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.

        What am I missing?

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not sure why he believes citing that graph is some great counterpoint. Less demand does factually translate to less supply and therefore less suffering. The problem is that populations still continue to grow and the number of vegetarians/vegans is neglible to overall growth.

          Obviously if every vegan and vegetarian suddenly began eating meat again, then that graph would only increase in rate of change.

          Change the minds of more people, and watch that change the rate of supply of course.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Obviously if every vegan and vegetarian suddenly began eating meat again, then that graph would only increase in rate of change.

            how? how can you know whether a farm can even expand to accommodate more production?

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The problem is that populations still continue to grow and the number of vegetarians/vegans is neglible to overall growth.

            any excuse you make doesn’t change whether more animals were killed this year than last, regardless of how many vegans there are.

            • Thrift3499@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think I agree with this, as less people buy meat the demand for it falls. As the demand falls less is produced. Kind of a simple take I guess but I don’t think your comment makes sense.

              Is there an angle to this that I’ve missed?

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                as less people buy meat the demand for it falls.

                as far as i can tell, that’s never happened. so, in practice, being vegan has never caused a reduction in suffering.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Less demand does factually translate to less supply and therefore less suffering.

            this is not causal

            • Thrift3499@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Just double checked the definition of causal here and I’m pretty sure it is. As the demand for a product falls, less is produced.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          i didn’t like the bucket analogy when i wrote it. i don’t blame you.

          i’m just looking for proof of causation between being vegan and suffering being reduced.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.

          that has never happened. if it had, if being vegan had caused production of meat to fall, then i think you could make a case. but it hasn’t so you can’t.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Inefficiency. Entropy. Laws of thermodynamics.

        Think of it this way. In a game of telephone, signal quality degrades. Remove the middle-men, you improve the signal-to-noise. In a similar manner, there is little point in raising livestock on land, only to greatly pollute said land, only to produce a substance in less quantity and quality than what you could’ve done in its absence. Less demand means less livestock raised or tortured.

        In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested… Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?

        Edit: This peculiar user who lacks the capacity to respond with a single coherent comment in the thread (Schizophrenia? I don’t know…) espouses various logical fallacies and deflections. I am utterly unimpressed by their incoherent rebuttals and have no interest in discussing with bad-faith laziness. My points remain largely untouched.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested… Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?

          this is a nonsequitur. it has nothing to do with whether being vegan reduces sufffering, which it doesn’t.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Inefficiency. Entropy. Laws of thermodynamics.

          these are not magic words which take the place of a properly constructed argument.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Please, consolidate your comments into one. If you cannot manage this simple task, then I don’t know what point there is in discussing Thermodynamics with you.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              everything i’ve said has been true. no discussion of thermodynamics would change that.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Then I don’t care for your incoherent ramblings full of deflections and fallacies. See ya, buddy.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  this is poisoning the well, handwaving, and lying. nothing i said was fallacious. nothing i said was incoherent. in fact, you are the one who is gish-galloping in multi-paragraph comments while i keep mine focused.