They're usually shredded alive almost immediately because they're seen as "waste" since they don't lay eggs
For some more context:
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
550 points (100.0% liked)
196
16484 readers
1782 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i also explained that free agent's actions can only be said to be caused by their own will. that means that "demand" can never cause "supply" (nor, truly, the other way around), since both those terms actually reflect the willful actions of free agents.
Ok, I get you now. That's just obtuse pedantry. If the demand for animal products goes down, so will supply. This gives an individual the power to lower supply, to choose not to has the same overall effect as killing a few animals. The distinction doesn't matter. Your actions have consequences whether you like it or not. Animal ag cannot survive without money and whenever you buy animal products you are giving it to them.
no, it doesn't.
yes, it does.
I can make compelling arguments, too, see.
and you can see that we have each presented and equal amount of proof.
That's kind of the point I was making? Sorry for whooshing you.
you're the one proposing a causal mechanism. it is on you to provide evidence. simply disbelieving (or suspending judgement) is the only rational course until evidence is provided.
this is a thought-terminating cliche.
Obtuse pedantry is definitely thought terminating. When you just word spaghetti your way out of any argument or dismiss it uncritically instead of actually engaging with it.
my comments are concise, and i don't require "word spaghetti" to explain flaws in your arguments.
animal ag predates money.
the modern animal ag industry then, pedant.
how can we test your hypothesis?
I mean it's been tested. When there was no money in VHS they stopped making them. How is this not making sense to you?
you can still buy them new.
pedaaaaannnnttttt
when you state a falsehood, and i call it out, it's not pedantry: it's honesty.
It's a clear example of how supply diminished when demand did. Nitpicking irrelevant stuff is pedantry.
you said they don't make them, but that was a lie, and i called it out.
lie, hyperbole, it doesn't affect my argument regardless. I'm sure they're still being made but I doubt you'll see too many in stores near you.
what was the control?
post hoc, ergo propter hoc
I don't speak latin, sorry
it's a fallacious form of reasoning where claiming that the correlation of events implies causation. "it happened after, therefore it was caused by" as in.... veganism increased with policing and surveillance.
Do you really need this one spelt out? Sales declined and then production followed. The goal of the business was to make money so when their product stopped making money they stopped producing it.
What would you do in the same situation? The logic seems incredibly cut and dry and you keep insisting I need to give you proof, but I'd like to see evidence of the opposite happening to be honest.
but they could have changed their values. they could have decided that the goal was not to make money, but to cover the earth, nay, the solar system with vcrs. but they didnt. they chose other values, and tried to act in a way that would uphold those values. they choose the values. they choose the action. i have no resposibility for others choices in this regard.
Look, I enjoy uncertainty, too. I'm a silly little teacup orbiting Jupiter agnostic joker. But there are times when you can predict with a fair degree of certainty what's going to happen. If you were being completely honest with yourself you would admit that enough people going vegan would probably have a noticeable effect on the animal agriculture industry. And yes, admittedly neither of us know if that's true or not. But either way I'm not going to give that industry my money because I'm pretty sure they're just going to use it to keep killing animals.
I'm not judging what you do, but be honest with yourself, the money you give them is probably going to go toward killing more animals. Maybe they'll change their mind and all decide to stop tomorrow, but until then I will keep trying to disincentivise them the way I'm most certain will work.
And if you do actually care about the treatment of animals please reconsider whether or not you have an impact.
certainly, but perhaps not the effect you are expecting. your assertion that you know what their reaction would be, and that it would be to accept making less money, is just not likely true.
Of course they won't accept making less money, the answer isn't apathy, though.
gladly. despite the high value of faberge eggs, no more are produced. despite the high value of epipens, enough have not been produced to make them affordable to all who might want one. of course, this doesn't actually quantify demand, and i'm still not sure how that can be done.
edit:
despite no demand for iphones in 2004, they were subsequently produced.
The edit one is what I was looking for and fair play. You got me with that one.
that's not causal, and, also not what the theory of supply and demand says. the theory says that the price will decrease, not that production will.
That's why when nobody wanted vhs anymore they just kept making them at the exact same rate for less and less money. They're still producing billions of vhs players every year and selling them at huge losses because wikipedia said something about supply and demand. You've cracked the code, you're morally in the clear now, you found the magic words that absolve you of all personal responsibility. Hoorayyyyyyyy.
your sarcasm doesn't undermine the facts.
the fact that demand absolutely influences supply?
"influences" is a pretty weasley word. show me a formula that actually (as in, verifiably) predicts how "demand" (a pretty weasley word itself) influences supply (probably the only concept for which we will be able to produce quantifiable numbers)
ok, here is my formula:
d = s
It's pretty reliable.
how do you quantify demand and can you show me a case where it has ever been true?
ok, I used to eat animal products, but then I decided it wasn't nice and so I stopped supplying them to myself.
but global supply has increased since then. you also haven't quantified demand.
demand was when I wanted a hamburder. me wanting a hamburder is 1 demand.
1 demand = 1 supply.
I don't see why you would compare that to global supply. I am not equal to the global population. That was a very illogical leap you took.
can you see how your want is not quantifiable? how much did you want a hamburder? could you have wanted it less? would that have decreased the supply? this is pure storytelling.
I just quantified it, why would you say I didn't? Everytime I wanted a hamburder I supplied one to myself. There were no degrees of wanting at all, I either did or didn't.
And this isn't storytelling, this is literally what happened. You're the one trying to muddy the waters.
so your want is binary either you do want it, or you don't, and there are no degrees?
yeah, isn't everyone's?
i think most people have degrees to all of their feelings.
has anyone else ever been able to repeat your results?
a moment of introspection here will show you that, in fact, this is about as close to the truth as you're ever going to get. all economic theory is storytelling. you happen to like some particular stories better than others, and so you choose to believe them (and even repeat them as though tehy are true). but they are not True in an objective sense. there is no scientific experiment that can be constructed to test these claims which would satisfy the skepticism of a critical rationalist inquiry.
that's fine. i believe (or act like i believe) lots of stories that i can't prove the truth of, which are actually unprovable. we all do. just don't try to pretend it's science.