- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
They’re usually shredded alive almost immediately because they’re seen as “waste” since they don’t lay eggs
For some more context:
They’re usually shredded alive almost immediately because they’re seen as “waste” since they don’t lay eggs
For some more context:
my understanding of linear time, causation, and human behavior has led me to my current position. if you think you know something i don’t, i’d love to hear it.
Did you consider my hypothetical? How does your understanding of causation make sense of that?
edit: sorry, I didn’t see your other reply.
do you have a plan to accomplish your hypothetical scenario? because, if not, it is moot.
That’s not how hypotheticals work. It’s just meant to expose the flaw in your logic. In this case you’re arguing that demand for a product is not related to supply. That when dvds came out and nobody wanted a vhs player anymore everyone kept making vhs players anyway because ‘that’s not causal’.
i never said that.
You said it wasn’t causal. I’m not sure how else to interpret that.
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.
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.
this is a thought-terminating cliche.
animal ag predates money.
no, it doesn’t.