Marjorie Taylor Greene Follies

Quote: Mission146

Your moral issues are your moral issues. If you don't like legislated morality when the Christians try to do it, then it's inconsistent to be in favor of legislated morality any other time. With that said, you could put additional regulations on factory farming specifically and I would have to look at those on an individual basis to see if I'd be in favor.

I don't agree. I have never been against legislated morality. As long as it is secular. All laws (basically) are legislated morality whether it be harming somebody or violating a contract, or engaging in behavior that society deems not right. I mean basically any kid of law at any level is a form of legislated morality because it is a government telling people how to act (or not act) and what will happen if they do not.

Quote: Mission146

I was just giving you crap about getting Wendy's, so no need to ever take me seriously. Chick-Fil-A has the best chicken sandwich, hands down, in my opinion. As far as fast food burgers are concerned, I most like Wendy's when it comes to what's available around me, with Sonic closely in second. As I understand it, there's a lot more variance in the quality from one Sonic to another whereas Wendy's is generally regarded as more consistent across different locations.

Its close. I think Wendy's has a slight edge. But, I can enjoy both.

Quote: Mission146

Well, when you talk about the spread of vegetarianism/veganism and the advances being made in factory grown meat, you're talking about things that the food market is doing freely and of its own accord...so that's obviously perfectly fine with me. If red meat and factory farming come to a natural end by those mechanisms, then that's perfectly fine. I'll be long since dead by the end of the century anyway.

Well this will almost certainly happen its only a question of timeframe and how involved the government gets in prodding it along.

Quote: Mission146

As far as convenience of vegetarian and vegan fare is concerned, that's also something that the market will decide.

I agree, and in the last few years vegan options are greatly expanding. Its a growing market.

Quote: Mission146

Factory farms would hardly be the only locations not to want their practices filmed, but I was aware of that, yes.

Yes, but that is pretty unheard of. You cannot even be arrested for filming secret government facilities from a public right of way. Why is it okay for Factory Farms in some states to be able to bring charges (or in some cases cause arrest) for people filming their facilities from public? You don't find this alarming or at the very least wrong as a libertarian?

Quote: Mission146

When you talk about those other countries, I think those are all due to religious considerations...which is fine for them...but in the U.S.A., I don't think religion should inform anything legislatively. I also don't think that you should legislate morality to any degree other than that which is necessary to protect peoples' rights. I believe it's something like 5-10% of people are either vegetarian/vegan, so to draft a law that would negatively impact those who aren't due to their moral standards is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous. Personally, I think vegans often hurt their own cause by promoting it with extreme language and extreme ideas.

I don't agree with your last point. Veganism is growing way faster than even I would have ever predicted even three years ago. When you factor in vegetarianism and other trends that avoid meat the growth is insane. I don't agree with all of the tactics, but something is working. I do agree some are pretty over the top. But, in their defense if you view animal slaughter as murder, you would feel justified in extreme measures.

Quote: Mission146

We have bans on horse meat in some places in the United States, but so far, any such bans are left up to the individual states. I think it would be an absurd overreach for the Federal Government to rule on this in any way whatsoever as it has nothing to do with the intended purpose of the Federal Government, therefore, Tenth Amendment. It should also be noted that we often export horses to the European Union as well as Japan for the purpose of being used for food, so in most cases, we just consider it to be taboo to eat horse meat. I'd eat it if I thought it tasted good, but as far as I know, I've never had it.

It was only in 2018 that the Dog and Cat Meat Prohibition Act was signed into law by President Trump as a provision of the Farm Bill, which in my opinion, should not have been done. Prior to, eating dogs and cats was taboo, but legal in forty-some states...I forget the exact number. Either way, that's a cultural thing for some people, I suppose, and while I wouldn't do it...what other people want to eat shouldn't be up to me or the Federal Government. It shouldn't even really be up to the states, but I have less of a problem with a state prohibition than I do with a Federal one. I mean, we have a feral cat problem anyway...so if someone thinks it's a good idea to kill one (in a manner otherwise in accordance with relevant local laws) why do I care?

I don't even know that eating cat and dog meat is automatically unsafe as some sort of hard rule. If I had to assume anything, my assumption would be that it just depends on how they are raised and how they are prepared, which is the case with most other animals. I tried to figure this out, but no matter how I phrase it, Google thinks I want to know whether or not it's safe for humans to eat cat food.

I think those bans are more to do with America's view of what animals they like (specifically view as pets or companions) than what is healthy. If it was 100% health based beef should be banned an dog and cat legalized. But, it brings up the moral question of why it is right to eat pigs and not dogs, as pigs are a mammal that are actually more intelligent and trainable than dogs?

Quote: Mission146

No worries.



Your moral issues are your moral issues. If you don't like legislated morality when the Christians try to do it, then it's inconsistent to be in favor of legislated morality any other time. With that said, you could put additional regulations on factory farming specifically and I would have to look at those on an individual basis to see if I'd be in favor.

Granted, there would be increased costs that would come along with those regulations that would inevitably be passed on to the consumer, but I prefer that as compared to something like a direct tax on meat products. It would at least give the factory farms the opportunity to implement the necessary changes in as affordable a way as possible.

I was just giving you crap about getting Wendy's, so no need to ever take me seriously. Chick-Fil-A has the best chicken sandwich, hands down, in my opinion. As far as fast food burgers are concerned, I most like Wendy's when it comes to what's available around me, with Sonic closely in second. As I understand it, there's a lot more variance in the quality from one Sonic to another whereas Wendy's is generally regarded as more consistent across different locations.

Well, when you talk about the spread of vegetarianism/veganism and the advances being made in factory grown meat, you're talking about things that the food market is doing freely and of its own accord...so that's obviously perfectly fine with me. If red meat and factory farming come to a natural end by those mechanisms, then that's perfectly fine. I'll be long since dead by the end of the century anyway.

As far as convenience of vegetarian and vegan fare is concerned, that's also something that the market will decide.

Factory farms would hardly be the only locations not to want their practices filmed, but I was aware of that, yes.

That's what I'm saying about the tax, not so much that it would be your opinion specifically, but that a lot of people on the far left consider anything that disproportionately impacts poor people to be racist legislation. I don't agree with the, 'logic,' either, but that's what the logic is with some of them. That said, I think you could make an argument for tolls if the tolls are deliberately put in places that would disproportionately impact minority communities, but you would have to demonstrate intent.

In general, the only tax that I could get behind that could be argued to disproportionately impact economically disadvantaged people would be a Universal Sales Tax, but I could only get behind that if you eliminated the Federal Income Tax completely as well as a few other things. More than that, the legislation would have to have a pretty broad interpretation of what constitutes a, 'Sale,' which is to say that I think stocks/bonds and things of that nature would all count as sales. That would also stabilize the markets as there would be a greater emphasis on long-term investments over short-term trading.

When you talk about those other countries, I think those are all due to religious considerations...which is fine for them...but in the U.S.A., I don't think religion should inform anything legislatively. I also don't think that you should legislate morality to any degree other than that which is necessary to protect peoples' rights. I believe it's something like 5-10% of people are either vegetarian/vegan, so to draft a law that would negatively impact those who aren't due to their moral standards is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous. Personally, I think vegans often hurt their own cause by promoting it with extreme language and extreme ideas.

We have bans on horse meat in some places in the United States, but so far, any such bans are left up to the individual states. I think it would be an absurd overreach for the Federal Government to rule on this in any way whatsoever as it has nothing to do with the intended purpose of the Federal Government, therefore, Tenth Amendment. It should also be noted that we often export horses to the European Union as well as Japan for the purpose of being used for food, so in most cases, we just consider it to be taboo to eat horse meat. I'd eat it if I thought it tasted good, but as far as I know, I've never had it.

It was only in 2018 that the Dog and Cat Meat Prohibition Act was signed into law by President Trump as a provision of the Farm Bill, which in my opinion, should not have been done. Prior to, eating dogs and cats was taboo, but legal in forty-some states...I forget the exact number. Either way, that's a cultural thing for some people, I suppose, and while I wouldn't do it...what other people want to eat shouldn't be up to me or the Federal Government. It shouldn't even really be up to the states, but I have less of a problem with a state prohibition than I do with a Federal one. I mean, we have a feral cat problem anyway...so if someone thinks it's a good idea to kill one (in a manner otherwise in accordance with relevant local laws) why do I care?

I don't even know that eating cat and dog meat is automatically unsafe as some sort of hard rule. If I had to assume anything, my assumption would be that it just depends on how they are raised and how they are prepared, which is the case with most other animals. I tried to figure this out, but no matter how I phrase it, Google thinks I want to know whether or not it's safe for humans to eat cat food.

Eating horse meat isn't bad, it's a little sweeter than beef I think? My mom fed it to us a few times, my cousins ate it regularly.

I've eaten quite a few different game animals, and the truth of it is, if red meat is cleaned and cooled properly and aged for tenderness, it is really hard to tell the difference. I think the best tasting meat in the samples I've had is elk, or island deer.

I had a friend that was a meat cutter, and they can be pranksters. He ran a test on folks and ground on batch of pork against one batch of beef but he swapped the blood. You can't taste the difference unless you are some kind of connosseur? As we all know, dogs are sold on the open market all over the world. Same thing, meat is meat.

Living on Kodiak during one cannery personnel change out, any dog left outside on a leash disappeared before very long. I know the preference was for young animals, hopefully before vaccinations. The folks I know that eat mountain lion say it's quite good. Cat is probably just cat, depending on what they are eating and how it's processed.

Much of the world eats rat, so what?

I didn't know the pres signed a law against eating pets, glad you mentioned it. If I were hungry enough there would be fewer loose birds in town.

end roll

Quote: Gandler

I don't agree. I have never been against legislated morality. As long as it is secular. All laws (basically) are legislated morality whether it be harming somebody or violating a contract, or engaging in behavior that society deems not right. I mean basically any kid of law at any level is a form of legislated morality because it is a government telling people how to act (or not act) and what will happen if they do not.

I guess that's true, but I find your counterpoint to be deliberately obtuse. You know exactly what I meant, which is creating laws to impact the actions of other people when it comes to a question that only impacts the person conducting the action. Essentially, I look at something like a, "Meat tax," and a law that would make abortion illegal as political-philosophically the same thing (Granted, one involves a more serious question than the other). If you don't want to eat meat, then simply don't eat meat, but that doesn't mean that legal mechanisms should be used to change the behavior of other consumers.

Now, you can get into the question of, "Animal rights," but for the time being, most animals don't have any rights aside from those a human(s) might choose to give them outside of the legal venue. Dogs and cats now have the right not to be eaten, to whatever extent you'd call that a, "Right."

Quote:

Its close. I think Wendy's has a slight edge. But, I can enjoy both.

I've never had a Wendy's chicken sandwich, I don't think. If I go to Wendy's, I'm getting Dave's Double every time.

Quote:

Well this will almost certainly happen its only a question of timeframe and how involved the government gets in prodding it along.

There's no need to prod anything along if you think it's happening organically anyway. The only thing forcing the issue would do is create resentment from some groups towards others. Of course, many vegans already resent meat eaters their choice to eat meat, though some vegans do maintain that it's a personal choice.

Quote:

I agree, and in the last few years vegan options are greatly expanding. Its a growing market.

Right, and that's perfectly fine.

Quote:

Yes, but that is pretty unheard of. You cannot even be arrested for filming secret government facilities from a public right of way. Why is it okay for Factory Farms in some states to be able to bring charges (or in some cases cause arrest) for people filming their facilities from public? You don't find this alarming or at the very least wrong as a libertarian?

As a Libertarian, I would have to maintain that individuals, companies (and the property of individuals and companies) should not be filmed if those individuals or companies express that they do not want themselves or their properties to be filmed, public right of way or otherwise. The only exception to this would be if you were on someone else's property, in which case, you have no right to demand that the person who owns or controls the property not to film you, provided they give you the option of leaving or leaving never ceases to be an option.

I understand that there's no, "Right to privacy," but to some extent I think there should be. Actually, I think properties who do film (even if it could be assumed) should post at every entrance that filming is taking place. I think people who do filming (unless they are recording a crime in progress) should get the direct permission of all people being filmed.

Quote:

I don't agree with your last point. Veganism is growing way faster than even I would have ever predicted even three years ago. When you factor in vegetarianism and other trends that avoid meat the growth is insane. I don't agree with all of the tactics, but something is working. I do agree some are pretty over the top. But, in their defense if you view animal slaughter as murder, you would feel justified in extreme measures.

I wasn't suggesting that all vegans are hurting their own cause. One channel on Youtube is Unnatural Vegan, and I've seen a few of her videos and think she is mostly reasonable. She obviously has strong opinions concerning animal rights, which she states strongly, but I gather that she ultimately admits that it should be a personal choice. One example is, in your case, advocating for a meat tax even though you are not even a vegan. I think that's the sort of thing that would turn people off of the vegan/vegetarian cause.

Quote:

I think those bans are more to do with America's view of what animals they like (specifically view as pets or companions) than what is healthy. If it was 100% health based beef should be banned an dog and cat legalized. But, it brings up the moral question of why it is right to eat pigs and not dogs, as pigs are a mammal that are actually more intelligent and trainable than dogs?

That's correct and the bans are therefore stupid. If you don't think a dog should be eaten, then just don't eat a dog. There doesn't need to be a law that tells other people that they may not eat dogs; let them eat dogs if they really want to. Obviously, I don't think you should feed another person a dog without telling them what it is (unless they have agreed to a 'blind' tasting), but people should be permitted to eat dogs and cats if they really want to.

In order to bring up a moral question, one must first think that there is a moral question to be brought up---which I don't. Except in specific situations, (endangered species, for example) I don't think choosing to eat a pig as opposed to a dog is a moral decision. It's just a decision of personal preference and, until 2018, the vast-vast-vast majority of Americans simply preferred not to eat dogs or cats. Now, it is illegal to do so.

Quote: petroglyph

Eating horse meat isn't bad, it's a little sweeter than beef I think? My mom fed it to us a few times, my cousins ate it regularly.

I've eaten quite a few different game animals, and the truth of it is, if red meat is cleaned and cooled properly and aged for tenderness, it is really hard to tell the difference. I think the best tasting meat in the samples I've had is elk, or island deer.

I had a friend that was a meat cutter, and they can be pranksters. He ran a test on folks and ground on batch of pork against one batch of beef but he swapped the blood. You can't taste the difference unless you are some kind of connosseur? As we all know, dogs are sold on the open market all over the world. Same thing, meat is meat.

Living on Kodiak during one cannery personnel change out, any dog left outside on a leash disappeared before very long. I know the preference was for young animals, hopefully before vaccinations. The folks I know that eat mountain lion say it's quite good. Cat is probably just cat, depending on what they are eating and how it's processed.

Much of the world eats rat, so what?

I didn't know the pres signed a law against eating pets, glad you mentioned it. If I were hungry enough there would be fewer loose birds in town.

end roll

I occasionally shop at Aldi just because they have a few items that you can't really find anywhere else, except now that I'm near a Trader Joe's the items I want are substantially similar. The point is, I guess there was some big thing about horse meat being in some of the frozen food products...which I don't think I ever bought as I almost never eat frozen food...but would just shrug off having eaten horse meat if I had. The big problem is obviously that it was not disclosed, but not that there was horse meat in it. My point is that I'm not averse to eating horse meat; it just so happens I haven't knowingly done it.

Definitely. I've had deer, elk, bison, frog, wild pig, rabbit...the list goes on. The best burger I've ever had in my life was a bison burger, and the best stew I've ever had was a super spicy venison stew.

Unless dogs & cats taste like bacon, I wouldn’t favor them over a pig.

Quote: Mission146

I guess that's true, but I find your counterpoint to be deliberately obtuse. You know exactly what I meant, which is creating laws to impact the actions of other people when it comes to a question that only impacts the person conducting the action. Essentially, I look at something like a, "Meat tax," and a law that would make abortion illegal as political-philosophically the same thing (Granted, one involves a more serious question than the other). If you don't want to eat meat, then simply don't eat meat, but that doesn't mean that legal mechanisms should be used to change the behavior of other consumers.

Now, you can get into the question of, "Animal rights," but for the time being, most animals don't have any rights aside from those a human(s) might choose to give them outside of the legal venue. Dogs and cats now have the right not to be eaten, to whatever extent you'd call that a, "Right."

I don't think that is obtuse, my point is virtually the legal system is legislated morality. And, basically all states already have laws regarding animal rights (such as animal abuse restrictions and prohibitions of animal fighting, etc....) So it is not a stretch to say that the legal system already grants (nonhuman) animals rights.

As it should, because even if you do not value animals at all as sentient beings, somebody who abuses animals generally has abusive tendencies towards humans.

Would a beef tax be any more harmful to the economy than other harmful products that are taxed such as alcohol and tobacco? I don't think so. We already accept "sin taxes" on products that we know are bad for us as the cost of consumption.

For example I enjoy nicotine, very much. I accept that it would probably be better for society of tobacco were to disappear (I would argue nicotine on its own has many mental benefits, but that not the point here), however when I purchase a tobacco or nicotine product I accept that (in most cases) there will be taxes to equalize the harm to society. And, tobacco is not even damaging the environment to the extend that beef is (and I would argue that is a much more urgent issue than personal health), its purely about health of the user (and I guess in the case of smokers others because of second hand smoke).

Same thing with alcohol. I love beer. That being said, alcohol is probably the most dangerous drug (by amount of deaths and harm caused). So I accept that I will have to pay a higher price for a product that causes harm to a society.



I

Quote: Mission146

've never had a Wendy's chicken sandwich, I don't think. If I go to Wendy's, I'm getting Dave's Double every time.

You are missing out. Their new one (blanking on the name) is quite good.

Quote: Mission146

no need to prod anything along if you think it's happening organically anyway. The only thing forcing the issue would do is create resentment from some groups towards others. Of course, many vegans already resent meat eaters their choice to eat meat, though some vegans do maintain that it's a personal choice.

Well, yes and no. For examples smoking has been on the decline since the 1970s (with some years as exceptions). However, when the taxes and restrictions started to kick in it accelerated the process. I predict a similar thing would happen with beef. We are already seeing trends with people avoiding beef (even people who eat meat, for health reasons, not even just vegans etc....), if it was made less affordable and more restricted the decline would happen sooner.

Quote: Mission146

As a Libertarian, I would have to maintain that individuals, companies (and the property of individuals and companies) should not be filmed if those individuals or companies express that they do not want themselves or their properties to be filmed, public right of way or otherwise. The only exception to this would be if you were on someone else's property, in which case, you have no right to demand that the person who owns or controls the property not to film you, provided they give you the option of leaving or leaving never ceases to be an option.

I understand that there's no, "Right to privacy," but to some extent I think there should be. Actually, I think properties who do film (even if it could be assumed) should post at every entrance that filming is taking place. I think people who do filming (unless they are recording a crime in progress) should get the direct permission of all people being filmed.

Well I must say your view on this is very noncongruent with most libertarians. I am sure you have seen the first amendment audit community among libertarians. They mostly "target" government buildings, but some also do private companies, and in some cases even private residences. They think that they should be able to film anything that they see from the right of way (ROW).

I have mixed feelings. I think most are obnoxious and some are looking for attention or easy lawsuits, but generally I agree with the principles that you do not have a right to privacy in places visible from a ROW. This may be the one issue that I am more "libertarian" on than you lol......

That being said, surely you must acknowledge that it is unfair to have different standards for farms than any other business? Either all properties should be protected from filming or none, how is it fair that just farms get this protection?

Quote: Mission146

I wasn't suggesting that all vegans are hurting their own cause. One channel on Youtube is Unnatural Vegan, and I've seen a few of her videos and think she is mostly reasonable. She obviously has strong opinions concerning animal rights, which she states strongly, but I gather that she ultimately admits that it should be a personal choice. One example is, in your case, advocating for a meat tax even though you are not even a vegan. I think that's the sort of thing that would turn people off of the vegan/vegetarian cause.

Cosmic Skeptic is one who despite being very young, is one of the more reasonable people I have heard that started to change my view on not just the health and environment aspect, but the moral aspect. I still content that the environment is a more pressing issue for government stability, but I empathize with those who prioritize animal rights.

Quote: Mission146

That's correct and the bans are therefore stupid. If you don't think a dog should be eaten, then just don't eat a dog. There doesn't need to be a law that tells other people that they may not eat dogs; let them eat dogs if they really want to. Obviously, I don't think you should feed another person a dog without telling them what it is (unless they have agreed to a 'blind' tasting), but people should be permitted to eat dogs and cats if they really want to.

In order to bring up a moral question, one must first think that there is a moral question to be brought up---which I don't. Except in specific situations, (endangered species, for example) I don't think choosing to eat a pig as opposed to a dog is a moral decision. It's just a decision of personal preference and, until 2018, the vast-vast-vast majority of Americans simply preferred not to eat dogs or cats. Now, it is illegal to do so.

I can understand that point. I do also understand people who are alarmed by the thought of eating dogs being legal.

For example I love dogs. If I saw somebody killing a dog (even in a culture where acceptable) to eat I would probably get upset. Now is this logical? Because I see people slaughtering pigs all of the time? No, and I know its not, I know pigs are more intelligent and emotional than dogs. But, in my mind I associate dogs with companions that need to be protected, not with food and likewise I grew up with the association of pig slaughter being normal. So its all about culture and personal experience.

Quote: Gandler

I don't think that is obtuse, my point is virtually the legal system is legislated morality. And, basically all states already have laws regarding animal rights (such as animal abuse restrictions and prohibitions of animal fighting, etc....) So it is not a stretch to say that the legal system already grants (nonhuman) animals rights.

As it should, because even if you do not value animals at all as sentient beings, somebody who abuses animals generally has abusive tendencies towards humans.

Would a beef tax be any more harmful to the economy than other harmful products that are taxed such as alcohol and tobacco? I don't think so. We already accept "sin taxes" on products that we know are bad for us as the cost of consumption.

For example I enjoy nicotine, very much. I accept that it would probably be better for society of tobacco were to disappear (I would argue nicotine on its own has many mental benefits, but that not the point here), however when I purchase a tobacco or nicotine product I accept that (in most cases) there will be taxes to equalize the harm to society. And, tobacco is not even damaging the environment to the extend that beef is (and I would argue that is a much more urgent issue than personal health), its purely about health of the user (and I guess in the case of smokers others because of second hand smoke).

Same thing with alcohol. I love beer. That being said, alcohol is probably the most dangerous drug (by amount of deaths and harm caused). So I accept that I will have to pay a higher price for a product that causes harm to a society.

I understand your point, but related back to our legal system, the point of Legislation (in the legal sense) should generally be protecting one right or another. You say, "Animal rights," which is fine, but I don't think that we have demonstrated that beef cattle (for one example) has any rights. They only have the rights that people give them, which really aren't any, 'Natural rights,' at all, since they have to be artificially conferred.

The question then becomes whether or not these rights should be legally codified. That's where you and I are having a divide. I obviously don't disagree that some rights, as relates animals, have been codified. Certain animals you can't outright torture and, for whatever reason, dogs and cats have the right not to be eaten.

However, I don't think that implementing a, "Beef tax," does anything to create any new rights for beef cattle. It might serve the goal of phasing out beef-eating faster as it artificially more expensive, (so fewer people can afford it or would want to pay the increased price) but you're not actually conferring any rights this way. In fact, creating a new tax is a de facto restriction (or at least, influence) on an otherwise more free market for the commodity. Thus, 'Rights,' are actually being taken away, not added to anything. Humans = More Restricted....Animal Rights = Unchanged

You make an argument for Environmental costs, which while I care absolutely nil about the Environment, I respect as being a more logical argument as far as a tax goes.

I dismiss your example of an alcohol and tobacco tax on the grounds that I would argue that there should be no special tax on those, either. At least, not on the Federal level. If the Federal Government didn't have its hand in healthcare in any way, which it shouldn't, then the increased healthcare costs associated with such behaviors would be none of the Federal Government's concern.

Another argument that can be made with alcohol and tobacco is that their consumption might have a negative impact on those around the consumer (second-hand smoke, drunk driving, abuse coming as an indirect result of intoxication) whereas the actual consumption of red meat, if it is in such a quantity that it hurts anyone at all, is only harmful to the consumer.

You make an interesting point about alcohol, but I think it's important to remember that alcohol is legal. Because alcohol is legal, we can well expect that a greater number of raw people use it compared to other drugs, so saying that the most deaths are linked to alcohol is not an apples-for-apples comparison. I don't think it can even be argued that alcohol (in and of itself) is more destructive than something like heroin...which should also be legal. In fact, almost all drugs, in my opinion, should be legal.

Quote:

You are missing out. Their new one (blanking on the name) is quite good.

Maybe I'll try it one day, but I don't consider myself a fast food connoisseur that I must try every item from everywhere. Chick-Fil-A is an easy go to if I want a good chicken sandwich.

Quote:

Well, yes and no. For examples smoking has been on the decline since the 1970s (with some years as exceptions). However, when the taxes and restrictions started to kick in it accelerated the process. I predict a similar thing would happen with beef. We are already seeing trends with people avoiding beef (even people who eat meat, for health reasons, not even just vegans etc....), if it was made less affordable and more restricted the decline would happen sooner.

If you prioritize the decline happening sooner over the resentment that would come about by way of a new and specifically targeted punitive tax, then sure. If you're satisfied to let the consumer food market just do what it's going to do, then you would not want to see a punitive tax.

I guess that I should point out that such a tax may well result in more people identifying as Republicans, which you shouldn't want, and will likely further cement those who are already Republicans in that party association.

The point is, I'm not married to beef. I sometimes eat it because I like burgers and steaks. If beef immediately disappeared from the market, then I would just eat something else. If someone made a bet with me that involved me not knowingly eating beef for some set amount of time, I would undoubtedly win that bet. The point is, I'm not arguing to save beef...I'm arguing not to have yet another punitive tax.

Quote:

Well I must say your view on this is very noncongruent with most libertarians. I am sure you have seen the first amendment audit community among libertarians. They mostly "target" government buildings, but some also do private companies, and in some cases even private residences. They think that they should be able to film anything that they see from the right of way (ROW).

I have mixed feelings. I think most are obnoxious and some are looking for attention or easy lawsuits, but generally I agree with the principles that you do not have a right to privacy in places visible from a ROW. This may be the one issue that I am more "libertarian" on than you lol......

That being said, surely you must acknowledge that it is unfair to have different standards for farms than any other business? Either all properties should be protected from filming or none, how is it fair that just farms get this protection?

I'll tell you: One of the nice things about being a Libertarian, or at least identifying as one, is that we're not huge on ideological purity. That is to say that we're allowed to disagree with one another as to individual matters, in fact, it's encouraged.

Anyway, I'm obviously fine with the filming of Government buildings because they belong to the public anyway (because of taxes), as such, you're simply filming the property that you (as a taxpaying American citizen) are a partial owner of.

Beyond that, the Constitution guarantees the right of all people (which extends to companies) to be secure in their person and in their property. While I understand that the Constitution is such that any protection of that nature only legally applies to the Government, I maintain that, on a social level, that protection should extend to everything. That said, if someone is filming you or your property when they have specifically been asked not to (and it's not, 'Government property' and you are not on their property) that should be an offense. All filming of private persons should only be conducted with the consent of those being filmed. Being on someone else's property might be viewed as implied consent, but I'd still prefer for people/places to have some posting that those on the property are being recorded.

Anyway, yes, I agree that all private businesses should be treated the same way. They should all be able to demand that their persons and property not be filmed if they notice that someone is filming them and don't want that.

Quote:

Cosmic Skeptic is one who despite being very young, is one of the more reasonable people I have heard that started to change my view on not just the health and environment aspect, but the moral aspect. I still content that the environment is a more pressing issue for government stability, but I empathize with those who prioritize animal rights.

You'll forgive me if I don't indulge. I didn't exactly watch Unnatural Vegan so much as I happened to be present whilst Unnatural Vegan was being watched. I tend to think I'm well aware of the vegan stance anyway, as it is not a terribly complicated stance to grasp.

Quote:

I can understand that point. I do also understand people who are alarmed by the thought of eating dogs being legal.

For example I love dogs. If I saw somebody killing a dog (even in a culture where acceptable) to eat I would probably get upset. Now is this logical? Because I see people slaughtering pigs all of the time? No, and I know its not, I know pigs are more intelligent and emotional than dogs. But, in my mind I associate dogs with companions that need to be protected, not with food and likewise I grew up with the association of pig slaughter being normal. So its all about culture and personal experience.

Who cares what they are or are not alarmed by? Just because they can do it doesn't mean that they have to. Eating dogs had been legal for well over 90% of my life and I certainly never did it, at least not knowingly. Hell, just because people can do it doesn't mean that anyone was actually doing it. I wonder if the average number of dogs consumed in this country even hit the triple-digits prior to that law?

It is about culture and personal experience, which is why it should be a personal choice and not a matter of law. Guinea Pigs are a delicacy in Peru, but would I eat a guinea pig...well, probably, if I was in Peru. Would I eat OUR (mine and my fiancee's) guinea pigs? Hell no! I probably wouldn't even eat one in Peru if I had to see it running around alive first, but that also explains why I've only hunted a few times in my life (and shot to miss). I like meat products, but I'm not such a big fan of directly killing animals or seeing them alive before they are killed.

Anyway, I had been a vegetarian for these reasons, but my fiancee is not a vegetarian and she and I first started dating nearly seven years ago. Obviously, she never asked me not to be a vegetarian, but the prospect of eating foods I really like (because we'd go to restaurants) was such that I couldn't resist. Also, I was sick of being asked if I had anything to do with those nutjobs at PETA. Finally, it wasn't all that strong of a moral stance anyway.

I was never a vegan because cheese. I might have, 'Tried,' veganism for something like three days.

MTG is a lunatic.

Quote: ams288

MTG is a lunatic.

(Picture removed from quote---redundancy)

Both are lunatics. Maybe the two parties can come to an agreement whereby MTG retires from politics in exchange for AOC also retiring from politics. Everyone wins.

Quote: Mission146

(Picture removed from quote---redundancy)

Both are lunatics. Maybe the two parties can come to an agreement whereby MTG retires from politics in exchange for AOC also retiring from politics. Everyone wins.

No. This is a false equivalency.