“Your honor, it’s true I purchased a hitman’s services, but I didn’t cause his actions. He made his own decision, it just happened to be the one I paid him to do.”
Why not? You’re saying that market signals don’t matter, it’s individual choice all the way down. You’re paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn’t have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn’t make you complicit?
You don’t seem to understand how analogies work. You don’t get to just say “Nuh uh” when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That’s just a basic form of logical argumentation.
Since you seem incredibly confused about both how to argue and basic facts about reality, let me walk you through this.
You claimed that purchasing meat has no effect on whether more meat gets produced, because “they make their own decisions.” This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do. If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic “they make their own decisions” regardless of who’s paying them to do what.
If you want to dispute that, you have to actually find a fault in that chain of reasoning, not just say, “Nuh uh” over and over again.
An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic “they make their own decisions” regardless of who’s paying them to do what.
again, this is completely disanalagous with buying meat on a shelf.
This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do.
everyone has free will. my purchases don’t cause their actions. they make their own decisions.
“Your honor, it’s true I purchased a hitman’s services, but I didn’t cause his actions. He made his own decision, it just happened to be the one I paid him to do.”
this is not at all analogous to buying meat on a shelf
Why not? You’re saying that market signals don’t matter, it’s individual choice all the way down. You’re paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn’t have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn’t make you complicit?
You don’t seem to understand how analogies work. You don’t get to just say “Nuh uh” when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That’s just a basic form of logical argumentation.
not a causal one, no.
You don’t seem to understand how analogies work.
no, i’m not. most people don’t.
that’s not what happened
Why did you make four separate one line responses to my comment, all at the same time? You realize you can put multiple things in one comment lol.
Also not only is that exactly what happened, but you’re literally doing it again. This is just the Monty Python argument clinic sketch.
making a leap of logic and doubling down doesn’t make your position any more sound
Since you seem incredibly confused about both how to argue and basic facts about reality, let me walk you through this.
You claimed that purchasing meat has no effect on whether more meat gets produced, because “they make their own decisions.” This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do. If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic “they make their own decisions” regardless of who’s paying them to do what.
If you want to dispute that, you have to actually find a fault in that chain of reasoning, not just say, “Nuh uh” over and over again.
An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
again, this is completely disanalagous with buying meat on a shelf.
i’m not making an argument. i’m contradicting yours.
wrong
wrong. i said it is not causal.