Erm, isn’t that quite common amongst leftists? If I saw somebody with that opinion, I would assume they are a leftist.

Ah, I didn’t know about this rule when pronouncing dates. Thanks!

It sure would, which is why nobody does that. Just because the month is written first doesn’t mean you sort by month first.

I don’t think that’s true; before computers people would get used to one way or another and it would have 0 impact on their ability to compare.

Not ignoring their point – I agree with the explanation for 6/1, but that’s not relevant here. Genuinely am not sure if they were from an area where they say “1” instead of “1st.”

Who is “we”? Americans? I usually hear Americans say “June 1st,” not “June 1.”

That’s not a good explanation for the question, because the convention was established before computers.

Lemmy: every single on of those

I think I learned a little from this interaction. But it was more cathartic than I would have thought to be honest. That was two accounts btw.

As for me, I would rather pay lower taxes and have everyone else pay higher taxes. I vote for higher taxes every time.

Are you just trolling at this point? Do you even understand what you’re saying about causality? Are we debating semantics?

Edit: this is like saying you have zero ethical qualms with somebody hiring an assassin to kill somebody. Yeah, the assassin ultimately does the deed, but you’re still paying for it. If you had not hired the assassin, the person would not have died – looks like cause and effect to me.

Similarly, you should understand that if you choose to eat meat, that benefits the meat industry and more animals will die as a result. Put aside your definition of “cause” for a moment – you must agree with me that this is true right?

Obviously not. Eating meat increases the size of the meat industry. If twice as many people ate meat, that’d be twice as good for the meat industry – I think. At least some constant factor times better. I would have to double-check my old textbook to see what classical economics predicts, there might be diminishing returns.

Yeah, due to increased demand. Let’s be clear here, I’m not talking about “how much difference can just one person make?” – if you eat meat, you eat one person’s worth of meat. That one person’s worth of meat is due to you. If you did not eat meat, there would be one less person eating meat, and the meat industry would be that much smaller; a couple fewer animals might be slaughtered as a result over the course of your lifetime (I have no idea how many animals the typical person eats tbh).

I’m not claiming that one person becoming vegetarian will bring a halt to the meat industry.

Regardless of whether the meat industry itself is a problem, you surely must admit that consuming meat from the industry only feeds the meat industry.

they become responsible for their own actions when quitting the industry would reduce the harm done to animals.

I understand where you’re coming from, but there’s a problem with your philosophy.

it’s well-understood by economists that the market behaves according to mathematical rules. The exact rules in question may be debated, but regardless it’s clear from observation that markets are very effective in some scenarios at deriving optimal response to their environments (at least in some scenarios). Remove one meat producer from the market, it will inevitably be replaced by another one that’s just as good, or so the theory goes. As a result, it’s rather useless to say that meat producers are responsible for their own actions and that no one else causes them – because in fact, the actions are caused by the market’s environment. You can say it, sure, but that doesn’t change the fact that you, the consumer, exercise control over the market.

If the production of meat is immoral, and the producers don’t meaningfully affect the quantity of meat produced, then it is actually the fault of the consumer (who will not be replaced simply because they stop eating meat) that the meat is produced.

(IMO, most political ideologues who are steeped in theory agree that markets behave like this, but disagree on how or whether to stop them.)

ITT: people listing the hills they’d die on. Hardly anyone is giving support for their claims.

A simple test of causality, X => Y: go back in time and change X to ¬X. If ¬Y as a result, it would appear X => Y can be inferred.

You can say your eating meat is your free will, but if the meat were counterfactually not produced, you would not eat it. Similarly, your eating meat causes other people to produce more meat. They may have free will, if you believe in that – but you can’t deny that if you hadn’t done X, they wouldn’t have done Y.

dismissing the claim is merely an action that occurs in the eye of the beholder. Your dismissing a claim does not actually challenge the claim or affect the one who holds it, so why even?

I used “so” and “hence” in both of those examples, indicating what I perceive as causality. How am I wrong?