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

    I haven’t defended any depravity. I’m demanding evidence for the efficacy of you plan to address environmental concerns.

    • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I did, you said it was bad, and then praised yourself. This is exactly what happens when you point out to a crackhead that they are down to 4 teeth, they just say “whatever bro, not related, you so dumb” and then go on thinking they’re so clever for always outsmarting everyone with their lightning fast logic skills.

        • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          You being unable to look at the evidence because it is too disturbing doesn’t invalidate the evidence. It has become clear that there are lots of fundamentals of debate and reasoning that you are lacking. If this is really something that interests you, then it would be best for you to familiarize yourself with some basics of formal logic and reasoning completely outside of this subject matter, and after that come back and revist this with a more open mind and more equipped to consider the implications of your actions.

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

            your evidence does not support your claim that buying beans helps the environment no matter how much gore you pack into it.

            • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              There is no need to be intellectually dishonest about the point of view of the person you are arguing with. This is what is called a “strawman” argument. If you look back through the thread, you will find that I never even discussed bean purchasing. It is very telling that in order to feel like you have “won” the argument, you must make up things to “be” my point of view. What this means is that the argument that you see yourself as winning is actually against yourself! If you actually had a strong argument, then you wouldn’t have to create the thing that it is able to beat. It would actually be able to beat the argument of someone else.

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

                we are so far removed from any actual argument that my characterization can’t be considered a strawman so much as “The way most people are able to interact online”.

                but i’m happy to state this formally enough that i’d pass a student in my logic class:

                the claim is that abstaining from factory farmed meat has a benefit for the environment. the supposed mechanism is that by refusing to buy a product, the producers will prorduce less, and therefore have lower emissions.we have evidence people abstain. we have evidence that the production increases. there is no evidence that abstaining from buying meat has ever reduced emissions.