I am not a Terrorist

[Zane]

Instead understand that your vote was the one extra vote needed to NOT have a recount, which if it was done would result in Trump winning instead.

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).

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.

Yeah, that's a really good one. One of the best.

That's not helpful. Farmers do not typically send all of their pigs to slaughter at once.

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.

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.

Versus the far more likely scenario that the costs are absorbed.

It's statistically true in an ideal model. Again I explained it's probabilistic.
Do you need somebody to make a simulation of this for you?

Please.

If the simulation shows what I'm describing, will you finally admit it and concede this point?
Is Javascript OK?[/quote]

Go for it.

So... 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").

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.

But for simplicity's sake we can go with that.

And yes, I know that you can just leave it at:

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").

And by all means, just make that argument if you want. I would normally just say that too.
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:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=2806

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.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is laughable. Most of the time, recounts don't work the way you apparently think they do.

It was an example, it doesn't matter exactly how each works, there are always thresholds involved.

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).

It's your LACK of voting that triggers a recount because without your vote the margin is too small.

We could also go with small margins in which we know there will be a recount anyway, SO where your vote actually tips the election is in the recount itself where Clinton or Trump either tie and the victor is determined randomly (or whatever process they use), or one wins by one (or ONE that reaches whatever margin is required to avoid a random outcome).

Either way it's a threshold, either way is a small and non-zero chance of making a big difference, and either way your vote does matter. If the vote is decided randomly in a tie, the odds of your vote making a difference are cut in half (because it might have gone your way anyway, or against you), but they still exist.

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.

You don't seem to know what a non-sequitur is.

Yes, thresholds.

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.

Versus the far more likely scenario that the costs are absorbed.

"Absorbing" costs is not magical.
Your beliefs about economics remind me of the Seinfeld "they write it off" bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL65gywwHQ

Money comes from somewhere, and losses have an effect.

If the simulation shows what I'm describing, will you finally admit it and concede this point?
Is Javascript OK?

Go for it.

You did not answer my question.

Yes or no, will you concede the point? Otherwise you're just wasting my time.
In all likelihood, your dogma runs every bit as deep as the people James Randi used to test who would always come up with excuses for why their magic powers didn't work in the controlled environment.

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.

Statistically it remains 1:1 because the size of the impact grows inversely to the probability of having that impact.
That does not mean it will be 1:1, as I said before, but that is the moral credit (plus whatever margin for waste saved).

No, if anything my position can be more accurately be described as one of causal nihilism or causal impotence.

It's still a cosmic narcissism, believing the unknown is simply unknowable and has no import. It's like militant agnosticism: the person who *knows* other people don't know.

The egotism resides with those who believe skipping lunch saved a life.

That's the straw-man. We do NOT believe that. I have explained this multiple times, but you persist in misrepresenting the position of people who are sensible enough to care about the effects their actions could have even if the actual effects are inaccessible to us.

[Zane]

Much of this can be exported to the other thread.

It's your LACK of voting that triggers a recount because without your vote the margin is too small.

We could also go with small margins in which we know there will be a recount anyway, SO where your vote actually tips the election is in the recount itself where Clinton or Trump either tie and the victor is determined randomly (or whatever process they use), or one wins by one (or ONE that reaches whatever margin is required to avoid a random outcome).

Either way it's a threshold, either way is a small and non-zero chance of making a big difference, and either way your vote does matter. If the vote is decided randomly in a tie, the odds of your vote making a difference are cut in half (because it might have gone your way anyway, or against you), but they still exist.

Apart from all of this nonsense, if this had any relevance to the real world, it would be a good argument for voter ID harassment since one vote could make all of the difference.

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.

Yes or no, will you concede the point? Otherwise you're just wasting my time.
In all likelihood, your dogma runs every bit as deep as the people James Randi used to test who would always come up with excuses for why their magic powers didn't work in the controlled environment.

Do you see how you're making an excuse not to follow through?

[brimstoneSalad]

Apart from all of this nonsense, if this had any relevance to the real world, it would be a good argument for voter ID harassment since one vote could make all of the difference.

One vote can make all of the difference, but that has to be weighed against the harm of voter ID harassment which is significant. Beyond the psychological harm and cost, ID harassment is more likely to prevent a legitimate vote than prevent an illegitimate one since fraudulent voting is so profoundly rare but voter turnout is very easily affected by small inconveniences.

You can't appeal to one effect to justify a policy while ignoring the cost. This misunderstanding seems to be at your root of rejecting practical consequentialism.

Do you see how you're making an excuse not to follow through?

No, I see how you've been dodging my question to avoid admitting your own dogmatism and intellectual dishonesty:

If the simulation shows what I'm describing, will you finally admit it and concede this point?
Is Javascript OK?

Go for it.

You did not answer my question.

It's a simple question. Would a simulation be able to convince you that you're wrong?
Or are you set in your beliefs and unmovable by any amount of evidence or argument?

The latter seems to be the case.

Keep in mind the forum rules require you to answer questions rather than dodging them. It's an important standard that helps keep arguments on track and avoids them circling forever.

If you're actually intellectually honest here (I doubt it) and a simulation would actually convince you, we could discuss the parameters you'd accept and set it up. It's not that difficult, it would probably be faster than typing more replies to your terrible anti-vegan arguments (and yes, they are anti-vegan arguments, because you're denying the validity of an argument FOR veganism that people find convincing for no credible reason and insisting on exclusive use of an argument many find unconvincing instead).