meat production hasn’t fallen. being vegan hasn’t had any impact

we have reached a permanent impasse.

there is no further value in this conversation.

and yet you responded to me 4 more times since you wrote this comment. look. i don’t want any responses from you. i haven’t since my first rebuttal. so like, have a nice life. but expect that when you say something specious or flat out untrue, i might call it out.

it does invalidate consequentialism, so if you have objections to animal agriculture, you’ll need another tact.

It appears to be moral relativism where the rules change whenever you need them to so that your lifestyle remains unassailable.

this is just a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

and your arguments against Deontology have failed,

i’m arguing for deontology, but i’m also saying that the arguments that attempt to shoehorn animal rights into deontology are bullshit.

​By claiming “I’m not a consequentialist” as a defense for paying to have a sentient being killed

that’s not what happened. i’ve never paid to have a sentient being killed (except my dog, but he was real old). but that aside, i said “i’m not a consequentialist, so consequentialist reasoning about what’s good or bad doesn’t apply to my actions.”

since you seem to be admitting that’s not a good analogy, do you want to try another?

you’re the one who raised this particular analogy

You are using the ‘epistemic flaw’ argument, the idea that because we can’t know everything, we are responsible for nothing, to absolve yourself of all responsibility.

on the contrary. i’m making avowed consequentialists responsible for all possible future events. they need to bite the bullet on that to remain consequentialists. since i’m not a consequentialist, it has no bearing on me.

When I point out the Consequentialist reality (that meat production causes more ‘incidental’ crop deaths than plant-based diets), you call it an ‘epistemic flaw.’

consequentialism suffers from the epistemic flaw, whether you recognize it or not.

​When I point out the Deontological error (that intentional slaughter is not the same as an accidental farming death), you deflect.

no, i am still involved in that argument, and haven’t moved my position at all.

​If you drive a car to work, you know with statistical certainty that your presence on the road contributes to the probability of a fatal accident. By your definition, you are ‘intentionally’ killing someone every time you get behind the wheel, regardless of whether you are a safe driver or a reckless one.

this is a terrible analogy. we know that clearing a certain number of acres during harvest kills a certain number of animals. regardless of the ratio or number, it is non-zero. most people drive without ever being involved in a fatal crash.

​If a parent gives birth to a child, they know with 100% certainty that the child will eventually die. By your logic, having a child is a premeditated act of murder.

i think you are the one arguing that second and third order effects impose moral responsibility. i have been arguing against that.

if a doctor gets informed consent, what do you think they’re doing that’s criminal?

You are confusing a legal transfer of currency with the economic reality of market incentives.

i think you are confusing economic theory with ethical theory.

Saying “no, I’m not” isn’t an argument; it is just denial. You are arguing against the basic mechanics of retail inventory.

a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. i wasn’t arguing at all.

i think that there are an ungodly number of burgers and hotdogs stocked in every grocery store in america right now, and that’s not reflective of how many were bought last week. they are all operating on speculation and guesses, interpreting past trends, but, ultimately, they will decide what to buy, and i don’t make that decision for them.

they are responsible for their own decisions, regardless of what I do.

To claim that consumers refusing to buy meat has zero impact on how many animals the industry breeds and slaughters is to deny the foundational premise of how every business on earth operates.

the people running the industry can make any rationalization they want for their actions: they still hold responsibility for them.

​If you ran a bakery and nobody bought your blueberry muffins on Monday, you would bake fewer of them on Tuesday.

i might. but if i knew national blueberry day was tuesday, i might bake more. or i might increase advertising. or i might lobby to mandate blueberry muffins in school, prison, and military foods. or i could choose a thousand other courses of action. and someone’s choice to buy my muffins, or not, cannot be said to decide for me. i get to make my own decisions.