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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
talk about a straw man.
No, this is precisely the claim you made. Go ahead and go back and read it.