this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
524 points (97.0% liked)
Brand New Sentence
434 readers
1 users here now
Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.
- Be cool to each other and follow the lemmy.today instance rules.
- Post title must be the sentence, or relevant portion of the sentence if it's very long.
- Link for context if possible.
- Tag NSFW where applicable.
- This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. Direct implications of harm (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) will be moderated at our discretion.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Non-vegan playing devil's advocate, here; I've always hated that argument: Yes the chicken is already dead, but by purchasing the product, you're paving the way for more chickens to be killed to replace the one(s) you ate. Supply and demand. We need to come up with a better counter-argument.
Personally I'm not ready to stop eating meat, and probably never will be. I'm counting on lab-grown meat to come down in price enough to be produced en mssse within the next 10-15 years, and then I can enjoy all I want, 100% guilt-free. I will be among the first to buy it when it hits the supermarket.
That makes sense when you are in the store and still buying them.
It doesn't make sense when they are already in the oven being heated and have been paid for some time ago.
Maybe if microwaves failed abruptly more there'd be less people buying chicken nuggets.
Nah it still makes sense, because the meat you just bought will have to be restocked with more, this resulting in more chicken deaths. If no one bought the meat, there'd be no reason to replace it with more.
That's what this person is saying. After someone has already made the purchase, it's better to eat the meat. Because the damage has already been done by the purchase, showing demand for the meat, and causing the meat to be restocked. So once you already have it, (like in the case of this post, where they already had it, and were actively cooking it) it's better to just eat the meat so that it doesn't go to waste
This is a pretty poor argument. Ultimately purchasing it was done in order to cook and eat it. Trying to shift the 'moment of sin' is lying to yourself
I'm not trying to shift the moment of sin. Obviously the purchase was made with the intent to cook and eat the meat. I'm just responding to the scenario that has been given. When somebody has already purchased the meat, as is in this case, what are the benefits of trying to prevent them from consuming it? In the scenario of the post, the person already has made the purchase in the store, already brought it home, and is already in the act of cooking it. At this point what is the purpose of hoping that their power goes out and the food they've already bought goes to waste? Rather than accurately criticizing the act of making the purchase in the first place.
This whole comment chain was about the fact that the argument should be made to prevent someone from purchasing meat. And that there isn't much point to preventing someone from consuming meat after the purchase has already been made. It's the difference between treating a symptom vs treating the underlying issue.
If anything, preventing them from consuming it would mean more meat gets used. Power goes out and nuggets go bad, OP is still hungry and either salvages the current nuggets or throws them away and sets more nuggets on their plate, or maybe goes to the store/fast food place right then to get more.
If it's already cooking and it's not done when the cooking stops due to outside conditions, (power outage) it's going to waste. It's effectively consumed when cooking starts, not when it goes in your mouth.
But then I’m buying more nuggets to replace the nuggets I didn’t get to eat because they’ve been ruined. It effectively doubles my meat consumption for the meal.