This is laughable. Most of the time, recounts don't work the way you apparently think they do. Supposing I reside in your strange bizarro land, amy single vote means that we do NOT have a recount because if there WERE a recount, Trump would win, since the initial count was so inaccurate. So my one vote helps conceal the fact that Trump actually got more votes. And, again, this is in California, which somehow makes a difference in tipping the national election. Never mind that if my vote is what triggers a recount -- again ignoring how recounts typically work -- this triggering effect is far less likely to affect the outcome (versus recounts where an initial tally had a candidate by the slightest of margins).
Yeah, that's a really good one. One of the best.The best arguments against veganism are things like "it takes more time to find vegan options and I'm working in a high impact charity where my every minute saves human lives"
There are some people who have legitimate excuses in the way of opportunity cost.
This is a non-sequitur. It doesn't matter because the rescued pig will not be going to slaughter. I know, I know, thresholds. They're going to special order piglet, which triggers a whole new litter that would not otherwise exist.That's not helpful. Farmers do not typically send all of their pigs to slaughter at once.
Versus the far more likely scenario that the costs are absorbed.And no, they don't have to be efficient; they can have HUGE margins of error and massive waste, but the point of it being a threshold is that something can break through those margins.
If the simulation shows what I'm describing, will you finally admit it and concede this point?
Go for it.
That's not really what I'm saying, but it's a decent argument. I'm talking more about the personal morality of the action based on following rules of probability regardless of actual outcome.Zane wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:34 pmSo... to clarify. Consumers buy sausages/chicken/etc and the typical purchaser does not disrupt production/supply, but one refusal can result in huge changes. It's impossible to say who had this profound effect -- and, indeed, it doesn't matter because credit is owed to everyone participating in the boycott (by analogy my ballot did not deliver victory to President-elect Clinton; credit goes to everyone who voted for her). When we add up the numbers and divide, each of us will have saved however many animals it would've taken to feed us (plus there's a benefit in "saved waste").
But for simplicity's sake we can go with that.
And yes, I know that you can just leave it at:
And by all means, just make that argument if you want. I would normally just say that too.Zane wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:34 pmcredit is owed to everyone participating in the boycott (by analogy my ballot did not deliver victory to President-elect Clinton; credit goes to everyone who voted for her). When we add up the numbers and divide, each of us will have saved however many animals it would've taken to feed us (plus there's a benefit in "saved waste").
HOWEVER, some people are not convinced that credit is or can be shared like that, or think it sound too ad hoc or idealistic, and they need the probability based explanation to drive the point home.
Case in point:
Read that: wherein YOUR kind of argument was not persuasive, but mine was.[/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa, settle down. Your insecurity is showing. I'm attempting to piece together what it is you're trying to say -- how we connect the unknown thresholds to quantifiable lives saved. I'm not suggesting the shared credit works for me because I'm skeptical of the marginal impact of a single consumer. I'm trying to figure out how you're generating your numbers.
[snipped embarrassing straw man]
Oh, my goodness. No, if anything my position can be more accurately be described as one of causal nihilism or causal impotence. The egotism resides with those who believe skipping lunch saved a life. Just as a security guard can count the months on a calendar, it's possible for an individual to measure how many ounces of chicken she has purchased for the year. But this relatively precise measurement does not move the meter companies make projections on how much product they will purchase.