Answer the fucking questions
Bizarre?, that’s you not me
What questions would you like me to answer, my stalker friend?
DNFTT
Moving the adjectiove “bizarre” from the impression to the poster changes it to a direct personal insult.
Accusing posters of trolling is a direct violation of the rules.
Accusing a poster of being a stalker is a direct personal insult.
Take it to the Pit.
Knock it off, here.
[ /Moderating ]
Apologies TnD.
But really…
Sorry, won’t happen again - I’ve taken technological measures to stop the irritation in the future.
Maybe, before we gleefully cut the animal’s throat, we could videotape ourselves raping it.
I don’t know what a Poussin is, and while the likeliest one I can find from googling is a game hen. If it is that, i’m afraid I still don’t get your point. Would it be possible for you to dumb it down for me?
But that’s my point. I’ve agreed that they’re on a similar scale. But I am just one consumer. My actions alone do not dictate store policy. As part of a group, certainly, but I am not part of a group if I shoot an animal (ok, I might be. But I would say the size of the average hunting party is still smaller than the needed size to change store purchases).
You’re a shop owner. If I come in and buy a Crunchie tomorrow, you’re not going to buy an extra box when you restock. Likewise, a supermarket will not order a chicken less because I don’t buy one, and so their providers will not slaughter one less chicken.
Also an argument for not being a vegetarian, by the way.
Normally you eat the entire animal.
This is the same sort of logic as “it doesn’t matter if I steal everything, as no one else does it so my theivery won’t be missed”.
So?
No, it isn’t. That argument is a way of trying to make one sole theft or one sole thief look ok. But it still has an effect. Even if that thief steals one chicken, the store is out the money. They have lost on the deal. Theft only needs one person in order to have an effect. But me not buying a chicken has no such effect; the store is not disadvantaged in any way. In fact, someone else will probably buy it. Me not buying that chicken does not mean i’m “robbing” the store of the chance to sell the thing.
Burning witches is no longer moral?
WTF?!?!?!
Damnit…I’ve gotta go find a fire extingisher
Ultimately, if you never buy the chicken, then they will be making less of them.
Would you murder someone on death row because they were going to be dead anyway?
Zeno’s parable of the heap is also relevant here.
A common mistake that, they’ve had three 999 calls this week 
Linking together witch burning and killing animals, did you know that in fourteenth century Paris the locals used to amuse themselves by dropping a net full of cats on a bonfire?
It would be absurd to write them all off as evil based upon current morality. Yet unquestionably if they were to do the same today it would be fine to do so.
No, they won’t. Demand overall is such that the loss of my personal business will not lead to a loss of profit.
Not a good analogy, since by murdering them however much before they would have been murdered, i’m robbing them of that time. A better analogy would be “Would you murder someone on death row instead of (the killing is certain) and at the same time that they would have been killed?”. To which the answer is, while I would not personally be happy with it, I see no moral wrong with doing so, and I certainly have not robbed them of anything.
Yes, it is, but it makes my point, not yours.The parable as I understand it says that you can pour out half of the contents into a heap each day, eventually he’ll tip out the whole thing. Likewise, by not buying chicken, the time will eventually come when the store will have to stock one less chicken.
The point of the parable, however, is that it will take* infinite time* for the bag to be emptied. I don’t exist for infinite time. It would take a far greater effort than the one I can put in alone to change the store’s policy; if 10,000 people tip out half of the sack each day, of course, it will still take infinity to empty completely. This would be where the analogy breaks down. In real life, if 10,000 people did stop buying chicken, then the store would probably order less. And my own non-purchase would be 1/10,000th towards that decision. When I alone do not purchase a chicken, it’s still 1/10,000th, only now it is alone. That’s just not enough to affect demand such that supply is also altered. It’s a finite amount, certainly, which is why i’ve said it’s on the same scale; but saying that killing a chicken for fun and buying a chicken are morally the same is just not right. It’s like saying stealing 50p and stealing £10,000 are the same. Both bad, but one pretty much considerably worse than the other.
It will lead to loss of “profit” somewhere else, because demand has fallen, even if by a small amount.
That’s Zeno’s other parable (I think it was phrased originally with achillies and the tortoise, diffence halving all the time). The one I refer to is thus:
If you start with one grain of sand, it is clearly not a heap. Add another, and the same applies. At no point does an extra grain of sand turn a non-heap into a heap, yet clearly at some point a heap will be reached.
So an impercetible, irrelevant effect, is still an effect all the same, even if it makes no qualitative difference.
That’s certainly true; sometimes, noone else will buy the chicken I didn’t, and so there will be an actual loss in profit due to my actions. However, this loss of profit is small enough that it won’t change the demand. And that loss of profit itself is certainly not comparable to killing an animal.
I agree wholeheartedly. That’s been my point all along; of course it will make a difference. It’s on the same scale of “bad things”. But it is not a comparable effect. I haven’t said buying chicken is totally immoral. All i’ve said is that it is not of comparable moral effect as killing the thing yourself. From my very first post in this thread i’ve admitted and agreed that they’re similar; but they aren’t the same thing. As you seem now to agree.
Revenant, I am a meat eater, but I’m not going to lie to myself about it.
I had lamb pasanda on my birthday. That lamb was slaughtered so that it could be sold for consumption. Who consumed it?
I, for one. Actually, my husband brought home two orders of it just for me. I ate it for four days. Let’s say there were eight other people who benefited from this particuplar lamb. I am not 2/10 guilty. All ten people are responsible for the death of that lamb. So are the people involved in the slaughter of it.
If we all quit eating meat, the animals would quit being slaughtered. If half of us quit eating meat, half of the animals would not be slaughtered.
BTW, my father raised cattle and sold meat and chicken in his store. It matters if you don’t buy the chicken. The merchant will get tired of taking the leftover chicken home to his whiney family every few days. He will start to order fewer chickens to sell. Your karma will improve and God will grant you 17 virgins.
Only 17 virgins?
Bugger that, pass me another lamb chop and a few chicken drumsticks
I hope that wasn’t a jab. If you don’t agree with me, fair enough, but i’m not “lying to myself” about it. I am also a meat eater. I am responsible for the death of chickens, cows, and so on. But my argument has been that it’s not a responsibility equivalent to killing each of those animals myself.
Happy birthday! 
But I do disagree. Yes, you ate it, but that doesn’t mean you’re responsible for it’s death. Had you not eaten it, had your husband not bought it, it would still be dead. The problem is, by buying meat we’re supporting slaughterhouses and supermarkets, and so this might mean more lambs will be killed in the future. Which i’d agree we’re partially responsible for. But as i’ve been arguing it is not a moral responsiblity equivalent to going out and killing a chicken yourself.
Quite true. And I haven’t denied that, when looked at on an much larger scale, supply will change according to demand. But one person alone is not enough to change it. You’d need quite a few people to change their eating habits to make a difference, and they’d all need to not buy from the same place (if that makes sense) in order to focus that drop of demand.
In the store itself? Impressive!
The problem is that just because I don’t buy the chicken, doesn’t mean noone will. Certainly, there will be times when the chicken goes totally to waste. But similarly there will be times when someone else is able to buy it because I didn’t. A further point is that I buy my chickens from a supermarket (I think they’re called that there, too?), not a store, which i’m assuming is smaller. Supermarkets aren’t going to miss the profit of one chicken. Certainly, over time, it is possible again that me not buying it means noone will, but it’s not a zero-sum game. And it would need to be (and some other points on top of that) in order to be equivalent to me killing it myself. Hey, the supermarket might even give the stuff they can’t sell to charity - really, i’m helping the needy! I just get more saintly by the day.
Are hunters still allowed to have game driven to them by beaters? The Kaiser Wilhelm went in for this-he had hundreds of animals driven toward him by beaters. the terrified animals were then slaughtered by bullets from his gun-fun, yes?