Every time we eat meat we caused absolutely unnecessary suffering for a quick moment of pleasure.
you might mean “all of humanity” or “all meat eaters” caused suffering, but, in fact only the individuals who cause suffering have done so, and eating meat does not, in and of itself, cause any suffering at all. if there is any suffering involved, it happens before the meat-eating, and thus cannot be caused by the meat-eating, since an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past.
Come on, you’re better than that. I don’t buy that you actually think this is a valid argument.
This logic would apply if you ate the leftovers of game that was culled for specific reasons like keeping the population of deer or whatever at bay. The meat is already there.
But as long as the meat is produced and the animal killed for the purpose of consumption your argument goes down the drain. While supply and demand economics might not be exactly as we were taught in school, you can’t deny that a demand for meat influences the scale of meat production. Everyone in the production and consumption chain has blood on their hands.
All I am asking for is for people to be aware of that. You can eat meat. But be aware that there is no good reason to.
you can’t deny that a demand for meat influences the scale of meat production. Everyone in the production and consumption chain has blood on their hands.
“influences” is so weak that i am going to say that you meant “causes”. is this a strawman? maybe. but if you’re argument relies on the ambiguity of “influence” as opposed to the much stronger “cause” then you’re not really saying anything of substance anyway.
so does the decision to eat meat cause meat production in the future? no. a thousand times no. first, and this should be all that needs to be said, farmers and abottoir workers are agents with free will, so their decisions cannot in any meaningful sense be said to be caused by anything except their own will. that should be the beginning and end of it, but consider this additional hypothetical:
if there are three blue pigs in the world, and i kill all three and send them to the butcher shop, when someone buys that pork or bacon or ham, how do we kill more blue pigs? it’s impossible. so we can see that even if people lack free will and there is some economic theory that actually showed some causal link where consumption causes production (which is impossible), then we can see that consumption still can’t actually cause later production in even this one case, but probably many others.
At this point I really am unsure whether you are just trolling since this is not rocket science.
“Directly impacts” or “contributes to” would be more fitting but weren’t you the one talking about semantics?
if there are three blue pigs in the world, and i kill all three and send them to the butcher shop, when someone buys that pork or bacon or ham, how do we kill more blue pigs? it’s impossible. so we can see that even if people lack free will and there is some economic theory that actually showed some causal link where consumption causes production (which is impossible), then we can see that consumption still can’t actually cause later production in even this one case, but probably many others.
This is an absolutely unfitting hypothetical because you just rotted out that animal. Have you seen Futurama? The episode about popplers would be more fitting. But ok, I’ll roll with the pigs.
You discovered an island with 10 grown blue pigs. You killed two and brought the meat home. You are trying to sell it. Three things can happen.
People are disgusted and don’t buy it from you.
People buy it from you and give you feedback that they hated it and would not buy it again.
People buy it and give you feedback that it’s amazing and they want more of it.
So far, two animals have died. In which of the three scenarios do you think more animals will be killed in the future?
it’s not an analogy. it’s a hypothetical. and in my hypothetical you can see that your proposed causation falls apart. even in your amended version, when do i lose free will?
you might mean “all of humanity” or “all meat eaters” caused suffering, but, in fact only the individuals who cause suffering have done so, and eating meat does not, in and of itself, cause any suffering at all. if there is any suffering involved, it happens before the meat-eating, and thus cannot be caused by the meat-eating, since an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past.
This is about the logic of “bullets kill people, not guns”
no, it’s not. bullets fired from guns kill people, but there is no similar causal system at play that can traverse time and kill animals in the past
Come on, you’re better than that. I don’t buy that you actually think this is a valid argument.
This logic would apply if you ate the leftovers of game that was culled for specific reasons like keeping the population of deer or whatever at bay. The meat is already there.
But as long as the meat is produced and the animal killed for the purpose of consumption your argument goes down the drain. While supply and demand economics might not be exactly as we were taught in school, you can’t deny that a demand for meat influences the scale of meat production. Everyone in the production and consumption chain has blood on their hands.
All I am asking for is for people to be aware of that. You can eat meat. But be aware that there is no good reason to.
“influences” is so weak that i am going to say that you meant “causes”. is this a strawman? maybe. but if you’re argument relies on the ambiguity of “influence” as opposed to the much stronger “cause” then you’re not really saying anything of substance anyway.
so does the decision to eat meat cause meat production in the future? no. a thousand times no. first, and this should be all that needs to be said, farmers and abottoir workers are agents with free will, so their decisions cannot in any meaningful sense be said to be caused by anything except their own will. that should be the beginning and end of it, but consider this additional hypothetical:
if there are three blue pigs in the world, and i kill all three and send them to the butcher shop, when someone buys that pork or bacon or ham, how do we kill more blue pigs? it’s impossible. so we can see that even if people lack free will and there is some economic theory that actually showed some causal link where consumption causes production (which is impossible), then we can see that consumption still can’t actually cause later production in even this one case, but probably many others.
If everyone stopped eating meat, would there still be slaughter houses in 5 years?
this sounds like a good experiment. please let me know the results!
At this point I really am unsure whether you are just trolling since this is not rocket science.
“Directly impacts” or “contributes to” would be more fitting but weren’t you the one talking about semantics?
This is an absolutely unfitting hypothetical because you just rotted out that animal. Have you seen Futurama? The episode about popplers would be more fitting. But ok, I’ll roll with the pigs.
You discovered an island with 10 grown blue pigs. You killed two and brought the meat home. You are trying to sell it. Three things can happen.
So far, two animals have died. In which of the three scenarios do you think more animals will be killed in the future?
it’s not an analogy. it’s a hypothetical. and in my hypothetical you can see that your proposed causation falls apart. even in your amended version, when do i lose free will?
How does any of this have to do with free will?
so long as i can still choose my own actions, i can’t say that other people’s reactions caused me to act in any way.
this is an appeal to ridicule. youre right that it’s not rocket science though: that is provable.