@timorl wat?
veganism, crime, lifehack, misinformation
@bonifartius
* veganism = (hurting animals = bad)
* giving resources to people doing bad things = bad
* taking resources from people doing bad things = good
* stealing = taking resources
* veganism = (stealing from people hurting animals = good)
Infallible logic.
@timorl you still create demand with it by consuming the product, you steal from only the last part of the chain.
@bonifartius Not really, the cost propagates over the chain about as well as payment if everyone behaves rationally (in the economics sense). The higher the ratio of stolen to bought nonvegan food, the less money the victim of the theft should be willing to pay for that produce. Every unit has a lower expected value if you consider the higher probability of it getting stolen.
Feels weird discussing over essentially a shitpost.
@namark @bonifartius It doesn't have to be a significant portion to have an effect, with the usual vegan approach of not buying things your effect is probably of a similar order of magnitude.
Although funnily enough this points to another serious reason why usual veganism has chances of working while this approach doesn't – usual veganism is relatively easy for people to adopt as a moral framework, creating the potential for a decentralized shift in values in society, while steling-for-animals is unlikely to be widely accepted.
I think your idea has about the same chances of working as mine, but it's a moot point anyway. Unfortunetely I'm not actually a proficient robber. :<