KⒶMⒶLⒶ WⒶLZ 2Ⓐ24

black pilled as fuck

those examples I could accept but I think a lot of people use imparted wisdom as “common knowledge” and we should drill down on any claim that is disputed.

you see that you just did, right? it’s tautological.

no. support your claims

a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

This is a huge problem with the FPTP system, but that’s the law for this election. It would be great to change it, but that’s talk for the next one. Voting for a third party ensures that the party you like the least will win in a FPTP system. CGP explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

that is not the correct analysis. the correct analysis is that strategic voting leads to party consolidation, so the solution is values voting, even if you think another party that has somewhat close values has a better chance of winning.

veganism is a specific philosophy, and while variations of vegetarianism predate it, veganism itself dates to the 1940s.

saying something doesn’t make it true. alluding to the existence of evidence is not the same as presenting evidence.

veganism was invented in the 1940s in Britain

I said good day

this is far afield from the discussion and I have no interest in entertaining it. have a nice day

intrinsic value implies objectivity, and i cannot be objective about my own wellbeing.

the first video says flat out that there is no conclusive science about a single diet that is best (it’s around the 15 minute mark), and the second seems to support what i’ve been saying in this thread: individuals choosing to buy one thing or another is irrelevant. what matters is the systemic impacts and systemic change.

wrong

Can you please explain what the difference is between an action being causal of another action vs an action… causing another action to happen?

i don’t think you’re capable of understanding cause and effect, so i guess this is done.

with zero supporting evidence or reason

wrong

An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition.

i’m not making an argument. i’m contradicting yours.

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.

You claimed that purchasing meat has no effect on whether more meat gets produced, because “they make their own decisions.”

wrong. i said it is not causal.

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.

wrong