So, for the purposes of this argument, according to your metric - 50% +1 fertilized eggs would then grant unhatched eggs the distinction of being alive and thereby now meat?
What? No, that’s not what I was arguing. I said most people do not eat fertilized eggs. That’s true even if some people do eat fertilized eggs. The proportion of fertilized eggs to unfertilized eggs does not affect the morality of eating either kind of egg.
The whole point of the post is whether eggs are meat or not. The discussion turned hypothetically to a fertilized egg or not being meat, and the answer being an unscientific yes. Your rebuttal was that most people don’t eat fertilized eggs, so therefore = not meat. I asked you how many eggs would have to be fertilized, to which you replied half of peopel would need roosters. Therefore, to conclude this absurd conversation, if 50% rooster ownership nets half of eggs fertilized + 1 eggs, makes them meat.
I think it’s pretty clear that this was silly, but the logic flows correctly.
No I don’t think that’s how the argument was meant to work. I think the point was that since most eggs people eat aren’t fertilised, the initial comparison fails down, but if most eggs were fertilised it wouldn’t. I’m not sure that’s a convincing position myself, but w/e. tbqh I don’t think most people would eat a fertilised egg… Like, you can really tell. I forget where I was going with this. Think I’m gonna go to sleep now. Goodnight.
How many people do you think own roosters compared to the number of people who eat eggs? It’s gotta be less than 1%
Does the quantity of roosters determine the validity of the argument? How many fertilized eggs must be eaten to meet your metric?
Since I said people “generally” don’t eat fertilized eggs, 50% rooster ownership among egg consumers would qualify.
Balut is a popular dish all through the Pacific Rim.
So, for the purposes of this argument, according to your metric - 50% +1 fertilized eggs would then grant unhatched eggs the distinction of being alive and thereby now meat?
What? No, that’s not what I was arguing. I said most people do not eat fertilized eggs. That’s true even if some people do eat fertilized eggs. The proportion of fertilized eggs to unfertilized eggs does not affect the morality of eating either kind of egg.
The whole point of the post is whether eggs are meat or not. The discussion turned hypothetically to a fertilized egg or not being meat, and the answer being an unscientific yes. Your rebuttal was that most people don’t eat fertilized eggs, so therefore = not meat. I asked you how many eggs would have to be fertilized, to which you replied half of peopel would need roosters. Therefore, to conclude this absurd conversation, if 50% rooster ownership nets half of eggs fertilized + 1 eggs, makes them meat.
I think it’s pretty clear that this was silly, but the logic flows correctly.
I don’t think my parents would eat eggs on Friday if they thought it might be fertilized, and I think that’s the whole point here.
Anyway arguments here are going to be pointless since Catholics eat fish on Fridays anyway, so any logic is already flawed
No I don’t think that’s how the argument was meant to work. I think the point was that since most eggs people eat aren’t fertilised, the initial comparison fails down, but if most eggs were fertilised it wouldn’t. I’m not sure that’s a convincing position myself, but w/e. tbqh I don’t think most people would eat a fertilised egg… Like, you can really tell. I forget where I was going with this. Think I’m gonna go to sleep now. Goodnight.
Wait, why does it feel like you guys are just agreeing with each other? I thought you two were gonna fight?
0/10 very disappointed in lemmy
Sorry to disappoint. Next time I’ll be sure to throw in a couple of insults and use the phrase “burden of proof” to really stir the pot