971
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
971 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
57226 readers
5318 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
real pot and kettle situation you've made here
I absolutely get that you don't want to be thinking these things next time you are trying to enjoy your cheap cheeseburger and ice cream, or whatever else your personal guilty pleasure is. I am well aware that I have, at least temporarily, greatly tarnished your ability to selfishly enjoy these things. I hope this conversation will help you, or anyone reading this, be a bit more loving. You have not at all succeeded in convincing me that I should be more selfish, more hateful, or less compassionate. I highly doubt that your best version of yourself would really want what you are so sadly trying to desperately defend.
this is just a series of personal attacks and self-aggrandizing statements.
The reason they feel like personal attacks is because your ego is so twisted around your emotional dependence on a deplorable addiction. If you were able to separate your ideas from yourself, then me questioning your ideas wouldn't be so deeply offensive to you. The trouble is that you can't fathom a life without paying people to destroy the environment and treat animals horribly. This is because you think living without cheap animal products simply isn't an option. I assure you it is, and after your withdrawal, you will actually feel better. It may not take nearly as long or be nearly as unbearable as you are fearing. Really, truly. Most people who have put their morals above their pleasure have gone through this very thing, and I'm confident you can as well.
most of this comment is posturing, rhetoric, and personal attacks.
this isn't about questioning my ideas. it's about developing evidence to support your position. you still haven't don that.
I have. You just are blind to anything that challenges your behavior. Luckily, you have managed to reverse your stance somewhat on factory farms. That's a great win. I hope it sticks with you.
more posturing and rhetoric and personal attacks. no evidence.
they don't feel like personal attacks. tehy are. you're not presenting any evidence to support your position, you are making attacks against me a s a person.
Someone who advocates for taking care of the planet, and treating others compationately disagrees with you. You try to defend massive corporations that are well known for destroying the planet and abusing animals in ways so horrific that simply being shown what they are doing took you to a place not far from suicidal ideas. If that is really what you think you should be defending deep down, there is nothing I can tell you to change your mind. Just consider if you would rather be on the side defending compassion or on the side fighting against it.
i'm not discussing profit at all. i'm talking about emissions.