this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
59 points (95.4% liked)
Wikipedia
1854 readers
265 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
- Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
- On Casual Tuesdays, we allow submissions from wikis other than Wikipedia.
Recommended:
- If possible, when submitting please delete the "m." from "en.m.wikipedia.org". This will ensure people clicking from desktop will get the full Wikipedia website.
- Use the search box to see if someone has previously submitted an article. Some apps will also notify you if you are resubmitting an article previously shared on Lemmy.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My intuition is that this is mostly projected insecurity. For somebody who's doing something ethically questionable, it's pretty handy to have some group on hand to blame for being self-righteous and insufferable and so on. Very convenient indeed.
PS: ethically questionable does not necessarily mean "bad" or "wrong", but it is undeniable that vegans and vegetarians cause less animal suffering and environmental damage than the rest of us. Anyone who can take a deep breath and look at things rationally should be able to admit that.
this just isn't true. I don't cause any animal suffering. most people don't. (except pests, or by accident)
If you buy basically anything from the meat, or dairy, or egg, aisle of your supermarket then you are creating demand for something whose production involves quite a lot of suffering.
So, yes, it is true. You may not want it to be true, but it is.
demand does not causally lead to production.
Of course it does.
I bought a PlayStation. Sony isn't going to put it back into production, despite proven demand.
producers are free agents, so the only phenomenon that can be said to cause their actions is their own will.
Producers would not produce meat if nobody bought it. There's a direct causal link between the two. Just because this specific cow didn't die for you to specifically eat it doesn't remove the link between your choice and the death.
At least that's my non-vegan perspective.
iphones were produced before anyone bought one. producers can't know whether a product will sell in the future.
iPhones also weren't produced with the hopes that people would buy them, Apple did extensive market research. Had they found that people wouldn't buy them, they wouldn't have produced them. Have you ever looked into how product development happens?
it was still hope. they couldn't possibly know the future.
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)_/¯
right. and this speaks directly to that.
but that has never worked, has it?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=%7EOWID_WRL
What the fuck are you talking about? Your response has nothing to do with my point. Complete non-sequitur.
isn't your point that you think by abstaining from consuming meat, meat production will be impacted? the production grows incessantly. it's obvious that meat producers do not care whether you buy meat.
I really, really hope you're a bad faith troll, because otherwise I'm scared for you. A person with your level of intelligence can't survive on their own. Do you have anyone taking care of you?
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!
This is a silly sophistry and you know it is. Demand is what incentivizes supply.
the theory of supply and demand is a price discovery theory. it's not an immutable law about when factories turn on production.
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.
Fair enough. Others will judge for themselves.