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.