3 ms·

You're conflating acknowledging inefficiency with advocating for totalitarian control. I pointed out that meat production is wasteful that's just a fact. Your r

You're conflating acknowledging inefficiency with advocating for totalitarian control. I pointed out that meat production is wasteful that's just a fact. Your response is to claim I must therefore support banning computers and children?! That's not how optimization works. We can improve systems without descending into authoritarian micromanagement. By your logic, we should never fix anything because someone might take it too far.

closewith 1y ago
> I pointed out that meat production is wasteful that's just a fact. There are wasteful (and horrific) forms of husbandry, but it's not a fact that meat production is wasteful. That's an opinion that's contingent on the assertion that meat is not worth the resources used for production. > Your response is to claim I must therefore support banning computers and children?! Yes, I am showing you the absurdity of your statement. Exactly the same logic can be used (and is used by those with extremist opinions like your own) to show that reproduction, computing, travel, medicine, art is wasteful, because it's subjective whether any result is worth the resources required. > That's not how optimization works. We can improve systems without descending into authoritarian micromanagement. By your logic, we should never fix anything because someone might take it too far. To be clear, your statements above are already taking it too far by declaring for others what they should be able to spend their resources on.
- const_cast 1y ago
  The fallacy here is that we're somehow, magically, required to move on to more extreme forms of the same logic. No we're not. We can decide to stop at any time. We don't have to be logically consistent in how we decide rules. And, in fact, we aren't. Consider, for example, free speech restrictions in the US. You can't yell "fire!" in a theater. Why not? Because it incites distress, and can cause harm. By that logic, shouldn't we also ban all mean words? I mean, they might incite distress, and they can cause emotional harm, and even physical harm if someone gets too offended. But wait, wait... isn't "mean", in it of itself, subjective? So then doesn't this mean that this same logic could go for any arbitrary words, technically? Okay, then we should ban all words, right? No. Wrong. We shouldn't do that. Everything is a case-by-case basis. WE decide when to continue and when to give it up. Not you, not logic.
  - closewith 1y ago
    I think you should re-read your comment and then re-read this thread.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      No I read it correctly - my point stands. Extrapolating things out doesn't just magically work.
      - closewith 1y ago
        You are agreeing with me. > The fallacy here is that we're somehow, magically, required to move on to more extreme forms of the same logic. Yes. It's inherently subjective whether animal husbandry is worth the input resources and each person can decide for themselves is it's worth it or wasteful, as with every other example (travel, medicine, etc). > By that logic, shouldn't we also ban all mean words? I mean, they might incite distress, and they can cause emotional harm, and even physical harm if someone gets too offended. Yes, again you're agreeing with me. We collectively choose the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and practices. We have speed limits but don't ban cars, we regulate e-waste disposal but don't prohibit computers, and we can and should forbid cruel and environmentally damaging practises in husbandry, but not ban meat production. The person I'm replying to is making the opposite argument, that husbandry is inherently wasteful and therefore should be subject to regulation. That is the is–ought fallacy, which I pointed out using reducto ad absurdum. So again, re-read the thread.

closewith 1y ago

> I pointed out that meat production is wasteful that's just a fact. There are wasteful (and horrific) forms of husbandry, but it's not a fact that meat production is wasteful. That's an opinion that's contingent on the assertion that meat is not worth the resources used for production. > Your response is to claim I must therefore support banning computers and children?! Yes, I am showing you the absurdity of your statement. Exactly the same logic can be used (and is used by those with extremist opinions like your own) to show that reproduction, computing, travel, medicine, art is wasteful, because it's subjective whether any result is worth the resources required. > That's not how optimization works. We can improve systems without descending into authoritarian micromanagement. By your logic, we should never fix anything because someone might take it too far. To be clear, your statements above are already taking it too far by declaring for others what they should be able to spend their resources on.

const_cast 1y ago
The fallacy here is that we're somehow, magically, required to move on to more extreme forms of the same logic. No we're not. We can decide to stop at any time. We don't have to be logically consistent in how we decide rules. And, in fact, we aren't. Consider, for example, free speech restrictions in the US. You can't yell "fire!" in a theater. Why not? Because it incites distress, and can cause harm. By that logic, shouldn't we also ban all mean words? I mean, they might incite distress, and they can cause emotional harm, and even physical harm if someone gets too offended. But wait, wait... isn't "mean", in it of itself, subjective? So then doesn't this mean that this same logic could go for any arbitrary words, technically? Okay, then we should ban all words, right? No. Wrong. We shouldn't do that. Everything is a case-by-case basis. WE decide when to continue and when to give it up. Not you, not logic.
- closewith 1y ago
  I think you should re-read your comment and then re-read this thread.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    No I read it correctly - my point stands. Extrapolating things out doesn't just magically work.
    - closewith 1y ago
      You are agreeing with me. > The fallacy here is that we're somehow, magically, required to move on to more extreme forms of the same logic. Yes. It's inherently subjective whether animal husbandry is worth the input resources and each person can decide for themselves is it's worth it or wasteful, as with every other example (travel, medicine, etc). > By that logic, shouldn't we also ban all mean words? I mean, they might incite distress, and they can cause emotional harm, and even physical harm if someone gets too offended. Yes, again you're agreeing with me. We collectively choose the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and practices. We have speed limits but don't ban cars, we regulate e-waste disposal but don't prohibit computers, and we can and should forbid cruel and environmentally damaging practises in husbandry, but not ban meat production. The person I'm replying to is making the opposite argument, that husbandry is inherently wasteful and therefore should be subject to regulation. That is the is–ought fallacy, which I pointed out using reducto ad absurdum. So again, re-read the thread.