• Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I really wish you could expand on that last bit “not responsible for actions of those in the past”.

    To me it sounds like you are saying it goes like this:

    1. Person kills animal and sends meat to store.
    2. Another person goes to store and buys it.

    And so since its in the past and a different person, person 2 shouldnt feel like they caused what person 1 did.

    The reason it doesnt make sense to me is I see it like this:

    1. Producer kills animal and sends meat to store.
    2. Purchaser goes to store and buys it.
    3. Producer reviews how many sold and sets that as their quota, proceeds to kill that many animals for sale, plus some extra in case of growth or supply chain issues, sends out to store.
    4. Purchaser goes to store and buys it Repeat steps 3 and 4.

    Since the purchaser has an effect on the seller due to the unique relationship they have, if the purchaser feels there is a moral imperative to protect animals then they should come to the conclusion that if they stop buying meat then that will remove the incentive to kill animals that they are adding into the relationship.

    It won’t stop all animals being killed, but it will result in less animals being killed had I chosen to continue eating meat.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You have your statistics and I have mine. I prefer percentages as I’m mostly concerned with whether its more or less likely the average person is vegan. Since that number goes up still, I’m fine with it. Progress is progress regardless of speed.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      the producer can choose based on any criteria they want. they choose the criteria as well as the action. all the responsibility for the actions of the producer lie with the producer.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I know what youll say but I’ll ask anyways.

        If you walk onto a farm and point out a pig and say, kill that one I want to eat it, and then the farmer kills it and gives it to you for money, you still have 0 responsibility for what happened? If noone bought that pig it wouldnt have died, no?

        What if you own the farm and have a farmhand kill it for you, and your chef cook it for you, and your maid serve it to you? Is that 0 responsibility?

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          f you walk onto a farm and point out a pig and say, kill that one I want to eat it, and then the farmer kills it and gives it to you for money, you still have 0 responsibility for what happened

          this is a conspiracy and completely disanalogous with how most people buy meat most of the time

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Despite that what makes it different?

              there is no such conspiracy between someone walking into a grocery store and the abattoir worker.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      And so since its in the past and a different person, person 2 shouldnt feel like they caused what person 1 did.

      that’s how linear time works. an event in the present or future cannot cause an event in the past

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes but step 2 can cause step 3 can’t it? If it were a single transaction that would work but its not. Companies dont open up a limited run and then shutdown immediately. They continue on until you break your relationship with them.