the poore nemecek paper used to support this is bad science. the claim might be true, but the evidence is lacking.

speciesism isn’t arbitrary. it’s necessary for right action.

pretty close, and a far cry from your last comment.

I used those analogies as reductio ad absurdum to show that your stated logic leads to absurd conclusions.

but they’re bad analogies

they may want to stay in business, but sometimes, they don’t. my purchase doesn’t guarantee that they stay in business, nor that they maintain their current business practices. in short, i’m not responsible for what they may do in the future.

your personal desire to keep eating meat.

you’re jumping to conclusions

​Whether or not animal rights will be ‘excised’ from deontology in 100 years is irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally right to slaughter sentient beings for sensory pleasure right now.

sure. do you want to argue that it’s not?

Predicting what will happen in the next century is not a rebuttal to the arguments being made today.

you’re right.

all to defend the idea that intentional slaughter is morally identical to accidental death.

this is an oversimplification. a strawman.

denying the basic math of supply chains

that didn’t happen

dodging every direct analogy (the vaccines, the construction accidents, the hitman),

debunking isn’t dodging.

Whether an argument is logically consistent is objective, and your position hasn’t been.

i haven’t actually made an argument. i’m objecting to your argument.

You are now arguing that because a business owner has agency, that consumer demand magically ceases to be the primary engine of production.

not magically, and not ceases. because a business owner has agency, no other agent can be said to cause them to act.

the industry has the agency to choose to kill, you are absolved of the responsibility for paying them to do it,

i’ve never paid for them to do it, so i can’t possibly be responsible for that

Again, you’ve moved the goalposts from ‘I have no influence’ to ‘It’s their fault, not mine.’

i didn’t say i have no influence, so this is a strawman.

This debate has reached its end

i never wanted a debate at all, but i did get 7 more replies after you sent this one.

You have just spent this entire conversation trying to discredit the philosophers, the economists, and the logic rather than actually defending your own choices.

i have nothing to defend. i’ve spent the whole time pointing out the speciousness of your arguments.

The slaughterhouse is responsible for their actions, but

but nothing. i’m not responsible for their decisions.

science doesn’t work by requiring 100% certainty before we apply ethical standards; it works by weight of evidence.

science doesn’t dictate ethics at all.

They guess what you want, but they don’t guess based on magic; they guess based on your past behavior and the behavior of millions of others like you.

and they could guess based on any other factor they chose (the level of the tide, the temperature of their coffee at the drive through, etc.). i’m no more responsible for their decisions than their barista.