The only reason to care is if there are innocent victims involved
kaj
joined 1 year ago
Exactly! In a world with more vegans, fewer animals are killed. Hence, vegans help.
Which part remains unclear? Is it the use of a hypothetical? Specifically, this hypothetical asks you to imagine a world with no vegans. Do you think that, in such a world, there would be more animals killed for consumption or fewer animals killed for consumption, compared with reality?
I see! Maybe you've never before encountered the concept of opportunity cost before. It's something like this: if I don't murder someone on a given day, I'm not actually decreasing the total number of real murders on that day. But contrasted against the hypothetical day where I made the inverse decision, it does. Does that help?
I already refuted it, but you never addressed that aside from the non-sequitur "What's your excuse?"
Nothing about you. Just the argument! It's quite plainly stupid, you see.
What a stretch! The last time I saw this line of reasoning was from actual holocaust deniers. Did you know that the population of humans has rapidly increased over time?
It's tough changing minds in general, especially when the topic entails labeling your past and likely present self a serial animal abuser. Something most vegans went through already and had to overcome.
I do! But I also value animals, and consuming their dead corpses is completely unnecessary and on top of that is wasteful, hurting humans in the process.
Edgy!