They're Usually Shredded Alive Rule :(
They're Usually Shredded Alive Rule :(
They're usually shredded alive almost immediately because they're seen as "waste" since they don't lay eggs
For some more context:
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
If the demand for animal products goes down, so will supply
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.
That's why when nobody wanted vhs anymore they just kept making them at the exact same rate for less and less money. They're still producing billions of vhs players every year and selling them at huge losses because wikipedia said something about supply and demand. You've cracked the code, you're morally in the clear now, you found the magic words that absolve you of all personal responsibility. Hoorayyyyyyyy.
your sarcasm doesn't undermine the facts.
the fact that demand absolutely influences supply?
"influences" is a pretty weasley word. show me a formula that actually (as in, verifiably) predicts how "demand" (a pretty weasley word itself) influences supply (probably the only concept for which we will be able to produce quantifiable numbers)
ok, here is my formula:
d = s
It's pretty reliable.
how do you quantify demand and can you show me a case where it has ever been true?
ok, I used to eat animal products, but then I decided it wasn't nice and so I stopped supplying them to myself.
a moment of introspection here will show you that, in fact, this is about as close to the truth as you're ever going to get. all economic theory is storytelling. you happen to like some particular stories better than others, and so you choose to believe them (and even repeat them as though tehy are true). but they are not True in an objective sense. there is no scientific experiment that can be constructed to test these claims which would satisfy the skepticism of a critical rationalist inquiry.
that's fine. i believe (or act like i believe) lots of stories that i can't prove the truth of, which are actually unprovable. we all do. just don't try to pretend it's science.
Animal ag cannot survive without money
animal ag predates money.
the modern animal ag industry then, pedant.
how can we test your hypothesis?
I mean it's been tested. When there was no money in VHS they stopped making them. How is this not making sense to you?
they stopped making them
you can still buy them new.
I mean it’s been tested.
what was the control?
When there was no money in VHS they stopped making them.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc
I don't speak latin, sorry
it's a fallacious form of reasoning where claiming that the correlation of events implies causation. "it happened after, therefore it was caused by" as in.... veganism increased with policing and surveillance.
Do you really need this one spelt out? Sales declined and then production followed. The goal of the business was to make money so when their product stopped making money they stopped producing it.
What would you do in the same situation? The logic seems incredibly cut and dry and you keep insisting I need to give you proof, but I'd like to see evidence of the opposite happening to be honest.
I’d like to see evidence of the opposite happening to be honest.
gladly. despite the high value of faberge eggs, no more are produced. despite the high value of epipens, enough have not been produced to make them affordable to all who might want one. of course, this doesn't actually quantify demand, and i'm still not sure how that can be done.
edit:
despite no demand for iphones in 2004, they were subsequently produced.
The goal of the business was to make money so when their product stopped making money they stopped producing it.
but they could have changed their values. they could have decided that the goal was not to make money, but to cover the earth, nay, the solar system with vcrs. but they didnt. they chose other values, and tried to act in a way that would uphold those values. they choose the values. they choose the action. i have no resposibility for others choices in this regard.
This gives an individual the power to lower supply,
no, it doesn't.
yes, it does.
I can make compelling arguments, too, see.
and you can see that we have each presented and equal amount of proof.
That's kind of the point I was making? Sorry for whooshing you.
you're the one proposing a causal mechanism. it is on you to provide evidence. simply disbelieving (or suspending judgement) is the only rational course until evidence is provided.
That’s just obtuse pedantry.
this is a thought-terminating cliche.
Obtuse pedantry is definitely thought terminating. When you just word spaghetti your way out of any argument or dismiss it uncritically instead of actually engaging with it.
my comments are concise, and i don't require "word spaghetti" to explain flaws in your arguments.