• KⒶMⒶLⒶ WⒶLZ 2Ⓐ24@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Just because meat eating outpaces veganism doesn’t mean vegans haven’t reduced the consumption of meat?

    that’s exactly what it means. consumptiion of meat continues to grow. it has not been reduced.

    • OBJECTION!
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I simply cannot believe that “AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world” would have a brain-meltingly bad take like this. Shocking.

      Where do you think the meat on your plate comes from? What do you think causes meat production to increase?

        • OBJECTION!
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Literally a 5 year old could grasp this.

          When you buy something, it tells the person who sold it to you to stock more of it, which tells the people making it to make more of it. Since meat production involves killing animals, it means that when you buy meat, it causes more animals to be killed. If you go vegan and stop buying meat, it causes there to be less demand, which reduces the number of animals killed compared to if you didn’t.

            • OBJECTION!
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              “Your honor, it’s true I purchased a hitman’s services, but I didn’t cause his actions. He made his own decision, it just happened to be the one I paid him to do.”

                • OBJECTION!
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Why not? You’re saying that market signals don’t matter, it’s individual choice all the way down. You’re paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn’t have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn’t make you complicit?

                  You don’t seem to understand how analogies work. You don’t get to just say “Nuh uh” when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That’s just a basic form of logical argumentation.