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.
With you helping, x is increasing by 101 every day, without you, it is increasing by 100. This is the crux of what you are misunderstanding. The difference you make does not pull it from the negative to the positive.
how can we test your theory? can you point on this graph to when you stopped eating factory farmed meat?
It still isn't quite clicking for you. An individual person starting or stopping to give money to an entire industry does not change the industry from being profitable or not. I never said it did. It is you who has consistently claimed that it should, despite a lack of evidence. It is a very solipsistic view to think that one person's purchases change an entire industry from being profitable or not. I don't really know how to get you to internalize the logic behind this, you really just need to try hard to work it out for yourself if this is really the point that you are struggling with.
It is a very solipsistic view to think that one person’s purchases change an entire industry from being profitable or not.
do you know how i know that you don't know what solipsism is?
You were repeatedly wrongly making the claim that an individual's decision to quit giving money to the factory farming industry should be what changes them from profitable to not. It does seem like you have realized the absurdity of this and are now backing off, but this doesn't change your prior claims. It is nice to see you changing your mind about this.
You were repeatedly wrongly making the claim that an individual’s decision to quit giving money to the factory farming industry should be what changes them from profitable to not. I
i never said that.
An individual person starting or stopping to give money to an entire industry does not change the industry from being profitable or not.
talk about a straw man.
No, this is precisely the claim you made. Go ahead and go back and read it.
the only claim i've made is that your claim can't be evidenced.
It is very understandable why you would now try to back down off of your claim that a single person should be able to change an entire industry from being profitable or not. It is fine to admit you were wrong though, it does you no favors to try to act like that was never your stance. The comments are all still there.
that isn't the claim i made. in fact, its remarkably similar to the one you are making.
And yet here you are claiming that if people abstaining don't result in their profit going down, then abstaining does nothing.
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.
It is obvious that you really don't want to be responsible for your actions. That is the heart of this issue. No amount of going back and forth with me will do that for you. It is you who needs to look at what you do. If you think funding other people to do terrible things that hurt the environment doesn't actually make you responsible for those horrible things, then no amount of explanation will change this for you. Even if you get me to say "you are right, you can pay anyone to do any terrible thing that brings you pleasure, and you have no moral responsibility for this", it still won't make it true. This isn't hard to see. It just takes you to be willing to analyze it honestly.
And yet here you are claiming that if people abstaining don't result in their profit going down, then abstaining does nothing.
i'm not discussing profit at all. i'm talking about emissions.
you are right, you can pay anyone to do any terrible thing that brings you pleasure, and you have no moral responsibility for this”
another strawman
It's I possible to have a conversation with someone who constantly pretends like they didn't say what they did. I've given you all the information you need to take your next steps, now it's on you.
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.
With you helping, x is increasing by 101 every day, without you, it is increasing by 100. This is the crux of what you are misunderstanding. The difference you make does not pull it from the negative to the positive.
how can we test your theory? can you point on this graph to when you stopped eating factory farmed meat?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-meat-production?facet=none
It still isn't quite clicking for you. An individual person starting or stopping to give money to an entire industry does not change the industry from being profitable or not. I never said it did. It is you who has consistently claimed that it should, despite a lack of evidence. It is a very solipsistic view to think that one person's purchases change an entire industry from being profitable or not. I don't really know how to get you to internalize the logic behind this, you really just need to try hard to work it out for yourself if this is really the point that you are struggling with.
do you know how i know that you don't know what solipsism is?
You were repeatedly wrongly making the claim that an individual's decision to quit giving money to the factory farming industry should be what changes them from profitable to not. It does seem like you have realized the absurdity of this and are now backing off, but this doesn't change your prior claims. It is nice to see you changing your mind about this.
i never said that.
talk about a straw man.
No, this is precisely the claim you made. Go ahead and go back and read it.
the only claim i've made is that your claim can't be evidenced.
It is very understandable why you would now try to back down off of your claim that a single person should be able to change an entire industry from being profitable or not. It is fine to admit you were wrong though, it does you no favors to try to act like that was never your stance. The comments are all still there.
that isn't the claim i made. in fact, its remarkably similar to the one you are making.
And yet here you are claiming that if people abstaining don't result in their profit going down, then abstaining does nothing.
It is obvious that you really don't want to be responsible for your actions. That is the heart of this issue. No amount of going back and forth with me will do that for you. It is you who needs to look at what you do. If you think funding other people to do terrible things that hurt the environment doesn't actually make you responsible for those horrible things, then no amount of explanation will change this for you. Even if you get me to say "you are right, you can pay anyone to do any terrible thing that brings you pleasure, and you have no moral responsibility for this", it still won't make it true. This isn't hard to see. It just takes you to be willing to analyze it honestly.
i'm not discussing profit at all. i'm talking about emissions.
another strawman
It's I possible to have a conversation with someone who constantly pretends like they didn't say what they did. I've given you all the information you need to take your next steps, now it's on you.