• Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    So while you are eating said chicken, you are thinking “I’m not responsible for what happened to this bird?”

    Is it the same as roadkill to you? Like it just so happened to be dead and nearby?

    How about this: if person A murders person B, and then sells the meat to person C to consume, are both persons A and C responsible for murder or just A? What if person C is in the room when person B is murdered and butchered, does that change the answer? What if person C lives in another country and the meat is shipped to them, any change then?

    I’d ask you to honestly consider that instead of discounting it for replacing animals with humans.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Is it the same as roadkill to you? Like it just so happened to be dead and nearby?

      that’s pretty apt, yea.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Would you care much if companies stopped selling meat?

          i doubt it. i have drunk a lot of soylent and huel in my time. i’m open to all kinds of food, i just buy what’s at the corner of Cheap and Convenient

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      your analogy is disanalagous to how people decide whether to buy meat entirely. even in the first case, though, of course their not responsible. the others, it’s not clear to me whether there is any other actual conspiracy. regardless, no such conspiracy exists in the grocery store.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The point of the the thought experiment is to allow you to view the situations without the biases you already have, as most people have been in a butcher shop which is the first situation I described, and most people have had food delivered to them from far away which is the second situation I described. Since those are normal things, your initial thought would likely be that they are normal and not murder.

        If you replace it with humans, I would argue that both situations would be murder for person C because there is no way they could reasonably assume they could get human meat without a person being killed and it taken from them.

        In other words there is no eating a cooked dead chicken carcass without killing a chicken.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          If you replace it with humans, I would argue that both situations would be murder for person C because there is no way they could reasonably assume they could get human meat without a person being killed and it taken from them.

          there was some ambiguity in how you phrased it whether the person buying even knew it was human meat. regardless, they are not responsible for the actions of other people in the past.