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.
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.