you should give it trigger warning before you link gore
This is what most people are paying to have happen every day.
no, they're not. this YouTube video does not show standard practices even in mid 2010s in Australia where it was filmed
Try and find out the standard practices of the factory farm where the meat from your local area comes from. They don't make it easy to find out, and if you do find out, it is currently much worse than what was happening 15 years ago. There is a good reason for this, too. In most regards, the rule is that they can't be too much worse than the average behavior. This is causing a horrific drift to worse and worse practices.
There is almost no push back on this because the average person is so reluctant to admit that they may be supporting something so vile that they stand behind whatever it is these farms do without having any actual idea of what's going on. Nobody is checking in on these places and coming out saying alls good other than the people making a ton of money off them.
If you don't know for sure that you get animal products from good places, then it is almost guaranteed that you don't. If you don't care to even find out, then you are the normal consumer, and you have accepted that your pleasure matters more than the treatment of the animals in them. You are not the minority. You are the merciless masses with no morality in this regard.
you have accepted that your pleasure matters more than the treatment of the animals in them.
I don't believe this, but it's clear you do. yet you don't seem to want to accept it. I offer a solution: mind your own business.
Never. The future of the planet and the well-being of those less fortunate will always matter more to me than the sensitive feelings of the selfish and willfully ignorant.
You are the merciless masses with no morality in this regard.
you have no idea what my morality is
You are right, but I can make a very educated guess based on the deprivety that you insist on trying to defend. If you have been pretending this whole time and you actually have concern for the planet and for the well-being of others, then great. It's a strange thing to troll about, but that would be much better than if you actually hold the opinions you are pretending to.
I haven't defended any depravity. I'm demanding evidence for the efficacy of you plan to address environmental concerns.
I did, you said it was bad, and then praised yourself. This is exactly what happens when you point out to a crackhead that they are down to 4 teeth, they just say "whatever bro, not related, you so dumb" and then go on thinking they're so clever for always outsmarting everyone with their lightning fast logic skills.
your evidence did not support your claim. your continued personal attacks are inappropriate
You being unable to look at the evidence because it is too disturbing doesn't invalidate the evidence. It has become clear that there are lots of fundamentals of debate and reasoning that you are lacking. If this is really something that interests you, then it would be best for you to familiarize yourself with some basics of formal logic and reasoning completely outside of this subject matter, and after that come back and revist this with a more open mind and more equipped to consider the implications of your actions.
your evidence does not support your claim that buying beans helps the environment no matter how much gore you pack into it.
There is no need to be intellectually dishonest about the point of view of the person you are arguing with. This is what is called a "strawman" argument. If you look back through the thread, you will find that I never even discussed bean purchasing. It is very telling that in order to feel like you have "won" the argument, you must make up things to "be" my point of view. What this means is that the argument that you see yourself as winning is actually against yourself! If you actually had a strong argument, then you wouldn't have to create the thing that it is able to beat. It would actually be able to beat the argument of someone else.
we are so far removed from any actual argument that my characterization can't be considered a strawman so much as "The way most people are able to interact online".
but i'm happy to state this formally enough that i'd pass a student in my logic class:
the claim is that abstaining from factory farmed meat has a benefit for the environment. the supposed mechanism is that by refusing to buy a product, the producers will prorduce less, and therefore have lower emissions.we have evidence people abstain. we have evidence that the production increases. there is no evidence that abstaining from buying meat has ever reduced emissions.
you should give it trigger warning before you link gore
This is what most people are paying to have happen every day.
no, they're not. this YouTube video does not show standard practices even in mid 2010s in Australia where it was filmed
Try and find out the standard practices of the factory farm where the meat from your local area comes from. They don't make it easy to find out, and if you do find out, it is currently much worse than what was happening 15 years ago. There is a good reason for this, too. In most regards, the rule is that they can't be too much worse than the average behavior. This is causing a horrific drift to worse and worse practices.
There is almost no push back on this because the average person is so reluctant to admit that they may be supporting something so vile that they stand behind whatever it is these farms do without having any actual idea of what's going on. Nobody is checking in on these places and coming out saying alls good other than the people making a ton of money off them.
If you don't know for sure that you get animal products from good places, then it is almost guaranteed that you don't. If you don't care to even find out, then you are the normal consumer, and you have accepted that your pleasure matters more than the treatment of the animals in them. You are not the minority. You are the merciless masses with no morality in this regard.
I don't believe this, but it's clear you do. yet you don't seem to want to accept it. I offer a solution: mind your own business.
Never. The future of the planet and the well-being of those less fortunate will always matter more to me than the sensitive feelings of the selfish and willfully ignorant.
you have no idea what my morality is
You are right, but I can make a very educated guess based on the deprivety that you insist on trying to defend. If you have been pretending this whole time and you actually have concern for the planet and for the well-being of others, then great. It's a strange thing to troll about, but that would be much better than if you actually hold the opinions you are pretending to.
I haven't defended any depravity. I'm demanding evidence for the efficacy of you plan to address environmental concerns.
I did, you said it was bad, and then praised yourself. This is exactly what happens when you point out to a crackhead that they are down to 4 teeth, they just say "whatever bro, not related, you so dumb" and then go on thinking they're so clever for always outsmarting everyone with their lightning fast logic skills.
your evidence did not support your claim. your continued personal attacks are inappropriate
You being unable to look at the evidence because it is too disturbing doesn't invalidate the evidence. It has become clear that there are lots of fundamentals of debate and reasoning that you are lacking. If this is really something that interests you, then it would be best for you to familiarize yourself with some basics of formal logic and reasoning completely outside of this subject matter, and after that come back and revist this with a more open mind and more equipped to consider the implications of your actions.
your evidence does not support your claim that buying beans helps the environment no matter how much gore you pack into it.
There is no need to be intellectually dishonest about the point of view of the person you are arguing with. This is what is called a "strawman" argument. If you look back through the thread, you will find that I never even discussed bean purchasing. It is very telling that in order to feel like you have "won" the argument, you must make up things to "be" my point of view. What this means is that the argument that you see yourself as winning is actually against yourself! If you actually had a strong argument, then you wouldn't have to create the thing that it is able to beat. It would actually be able to beat the argument of someone else.
we are so far removed from any actual argument that my characterization can't be considered a strawman so much as "The way most people are able to interact online".
but i'm happy to state this formally enough that i'd pass a student in my logic class:
the claim is that abstaining from factory farmed meat has a benefit for the environment. the supposed mechanism is that by refusing to buy a product, the producers will prorduce less, and therefore have lower emissions.we have evidence people abstain. we have evidence that the production increases. there is no evidence that abstaining from buying meat has ever reduced emissions.