. The race of a voice actor doesn’t matter
. It is possible to wear yoga pants because there comfy
. You don’t need to shower everyday
. It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans
. Monty Python is very overrated
. The race of a voice actor doesn’t matter
. It is possible to wear yoga pants because there comfy
. You don’t need to shower everyday
. It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans
. Monty Python is very overrated
A simple test of causality, X => Y: go back in time and change X to ¬X. If ¬Y as a result, it would appear X => Y can be inferred.
You can say your eating meat is your free will, but if the meat were counterfactually not produced, you would not eat it. Similarly, your eating meat causes other people to produce more meat. They may have free will, if you believe in that – but you can’t deny that if you hadn’t done X, they wouldn’t have done Y.
meat producers are responsible for their own actions. no one else causes them.
I understand where you’re coming from, but there’s a problem with your philosophy.
it’s well-understood by economists that the market behaves according to mathematical rules. The exact rules in question may be debated, but regardless it’s clear from observation that markets are very effective in some scenarios at deriving optimal response to their environments (at least in some scenarios). Remove one meat producer from the market, it will inevitably be replaced by another one that’s just as good, or so the theory goes. As a result, it’s rather useless to say that meat producers are responsible for their own actions and that no one else causes them – because in fact, the actions are caused by the market’s environment. You can say it, sure, but that doesn’t change the fact that you, the consumer, exercise control over the market.
If the production of meat is immoral, and the producers don’t meaningfully affect the quantity of meat produced, then it is actually the fault of the consumer (who will not be replaced simply because they stop eating meat) that the meat is produced.
(IMO, most political ideologues who are steeped in theory agree that markets behave like this, but disagree on how or whether to stop them.)
this is storytelling, not evidence. if we can’t agree that meat producers have free will, and i am only responsible for my own actions, we have a fundamental disagreement that won’t be resolved on lemmy. but ask yourself: at what point do meat producers become responsible for tehir own actions?
they become responsible for their own actions when quitting the industry would reduce the harm done to animals.
obviously we disagree. i hold them accountable for their actions regardless.
Regardless of whether the meat industry itself is a problem, you surely must admit that consuming meat from the industry only feeds the meat industry.
whether I do or not, the industry continues to grow.
Yeah, due to increased demand. Let’s be clear here, I’m not talking about “how much difference can just one person make?” – if you eat meat, you eat one person’s worth of meat. That one person’s worth of meat is due to you. If you did not eat meat, there would be one less person eating meat, and the meat industry would be that much smaller; a couple fewer animals might be slaughtered as a result over the course of your lifetime (I have no idea how many animals the typical person eats tbh).
I’m not claiming that one person becoming vegetarian will bring a halt to the meat industry.