Should Trans People be allowed to use opposite sex bathrooms?

Quote: odiousgambit

Holy %$#&%$ these folks are out of their minds if they are using this as an excuse to go after "small farms".

The planet today article shouldn't use the expression 'nitrogen emissions' when they mean 'nitrous oxide' emissions

I'll give them credit, though, for slamming Kerry and "the radical 'green agenda' goals laid out by World Economic Forum (WEF)" ... a bit of a surprise that they aren't toeing the line, coerced due to that word we don't have in English

I don't think you can go by a UN reference (nor WEF), other than to consider what they are pushing.

It gets worse.

Much much worse than nitrogen and carbon emissions.


I might create a thread so as to not hijack this one.

But my revelation is the transsexual revolution was manufactured by the same folks as the Covid scam.

Quote: DoubleGold

I don't think you can go by a UN reference (nor WEF), other than to consider what they are pushing.

It gets worse.

Much much worse than nitrogen and carbon emissions.

you mean nitrous oxide emissions. Yes, it bothers me!

but it just occurred to me that I have accepted 'carbon' emissions instead of CO2 emissions. But there is also methane, so ....

Quote: odiousgambit

you mean nitrous oxide emissions. Yes, it bothers me!

but it just occurred to me that I have accepted 'carbon' emissions instead of CO2 emissions. But there is also methane, so ....

Sorry.

I used that context intentionally to include all molecular compounds of carbon and nitrogen, in addition to oxygen.

So not just carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, in the case more become targets to control others.

Quote: odiousgambit

I can picture him being influenced into changing his thinking on the matter, and almost definitely silenced if not. I can't see trans-advocacy from him; you never know. I'm glad we didn't put him through it.

There's a word we don't have in English, it would describe 'group-think intimidation and the threat of ostracization' ... the Lefties are so good at that. And Mr. Rogers would have little choice while he was still doing his program other than to at least be quiet about it

He did move forward over time, from what I can see. And wasn't as cowed as people might think. He knew this character was gay also.

Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pools around the country were still segregated

https://www.biography.com/actors/mister-rogers-officer-clemmons-pool

Quote:

In 1993, when Clemmons made a last appearance on the show, he and Rogers recreated the pool scene, during which Clemmons sang "Many Ways to Say I Love You." But this time Clemmons didn't just use Rogers' towel — Rogers took the towel and dried Clemmons' feet himself. Clemmons, who saw a connection to Jesus washing his disciples' feet, found the act very moving. As he later said, "I am a Black gay man and Fred washed my feet."

Quote: Gandler

Way to quote a plan that is being considered in the Netherlands and shoehorn that in like it is happening here. Also, it is important to note that these are not crop farms, these are livestock farms. Nobody wants to stop plant production.

We don't need to seize farmland in America to end meat production, we can simply end farm subsidies (one of the biggest welfare programs in history), this would almost exclusively effect meat production, with meat prices go so high only the ultra rich could afford it, so most meat farms would shut down. Meat only exists in America as a common good because of farm subsidies.

A pound of ground beef hamburger (which is one of the cheaper meats) would increase to 30.00 USD/lb without government welfare (compared to less than 5.00 USD/lb even with "prices out of control"). Just shut off the subsidies and meat farms will close by way of the free market. The meat industry (and dairy for that matter), only exist because of a massive welfare program.

Yeah, but you're going to raise direct costs to consumer, and not just on meat.

Because the price of meat would substantially increase, consumers will gravitate to lower-cost items, but because of the increased demand on other foodstuffs, the prices on those will go up, as well.

There aren't many decent government programs, but I'll allow that any of them keeping the price of food under control are likely a net positive.

Quote: Gandler

Meat farms would not exist without government welfare. It is really as simple as that. Meat farms are not sustainable. Dairy is close to the same.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/

Almost nobody would buy meat or dairy if farm subsidies ended tomorrow because it would be economic suicide (and virtually all fast food would shut down).

I don't think meat should be outlawed. Or dairy. We just need to end all farm subsidies, this would naturally make plant farming the most profitable (and the only form that makes sense).

Going vegan is the single best thing anyone can do for the environment, it matters more than how much you drive, what you drive, how much you fly, and how you run your house combined. And, if government subsidies ended many people would go vegan (or essentially vegan) through economical necessity.

Now, this is not a regulation or a restriction. This is literally just cutting all welfare from the farming industry (again such welfare only benefits dairy and meat). And, this would allow for a true free market.

Why would I want to do something specifically because it benefits the environment?

Quote: Mission146

Yeah, but you're going to raise direct costs to consumer, and not just on meat.

Because the price of meat would substantially increase, consumers will gravitate to lower-cost items, but because of the increased demand on other foodstuffs, the prices on those will go up, as well.

There aren't many decent government programs, but I'll allow that any of them keeping the price of food under control are likely a net positive.

So you so support subsidies, but only when it encourages products that you enjoy....

The price of plant based foods would go down, because the plants grown to be fed to animals would be redirected to the market. Ending farm subsidies would drastically increase the cost of meat and dairy and have minimal impact on the price of plant based food, this is not even argued by economists.

The meat and dairy industry has been bombarding the public with adverts for decades that their products are necessary for health and such subsidies are necessary. Remeber all of the endless "got milk" ads....

the basic 7, 1943-55

Quote: Gandler

So you so support subsidies, but only when it encourages products that you enjoy....

The price of plant based foods would go down, because the plants grown to be fed to animals would be redirected to the market. Ending farm subsidies would drastically increase the cost of meat and dairy and have minimal impact on the price of plant based food, this is not even argued by economists.

The meat and dairy industry has been bombarding the public with adverts for decades that their products are necessary for health and such subsidies are necessary. Remeber all of the endless "got milk" ads....

I tend to think everyone enjoys being able to eat; this is a subsidy that could be argued as benefitting everyone. I could take meat or leave it, myself. I only eat meat one day a week as it is. Often zero days a week.

We're the world's leading exporter of food, so it's not even just us I'm worried about this time.

I see keeping food costs low as a good thing for those who are currently living. I really don't give a sweet %^&* about some hypothetical people a century from now who may, or may not, exist anyway. I honestly don't care about the continued propagation of the human race in the first place because it serves no purpose and has no ultimate meaning. The spoiler alert on this one is we eventually go extinct regardless.

The plants grown to be fed to animals could be redirected to the market all they want to be, but that's not going to change the fact that you're switching most peoples' entree from meat to something plant-based. The prices would absolutely go up.

More than that, you're disproportionately punishing poor people by making a product they enjoy unaffordable for them for no good reason. Don't even give me any crap about health or the environment; if the Government would get its stupid nose out of healthcare, then the Government would have no reason to care who lives, who dies, of what or whether or not it was preventable.

Another factor to consider is that of restaurants, such as steakhouses. When the cost of the meats goes up for them, then that's going to need to be reflected in menu prices which will render them unaffordable for a greater number of people than is currently the case. As a result, many of those restaurants will close and jobs will be lost.

The point is that the whole thing will be a disaster and the only people who will be satisfied are dogmatic vegans and pointless environmentalists. It also hurts those states who rely heavily on cattle farming.

I'm not saying that the money couldn't necessarily be better directed, but get rid of Medicare, Federal involvement in Public Education, Housing and Urban Development, Social Security and anything with the word, "Arts," in it, then we can discuss farming subsidies.

As far as the ads, who cares? Doctors used to say smoking was kosher, as long as you only did it occasionally. They're trying to sell a product, just like the organic, plant-based, gluten-free, non-GMO vegans are. At least you get a gallon of milk when you buy a gallon of milk (which I hate, by the way), when it comes to vegans, you pay for stupid buzzwords.

Of course they should try to get people drinking milk. Wouldn't you try to get people to drink milk if you sold milk?

Quote: Mission146

I tend to think everyone enjoys being able to eat; this is a subsidy that could be argued as benefitting everyone. I could take meat or leave it, myself. I only eat meat one day a week as it is. Often zero days a week.

We're the world's leading exporter of food, so it's not even just us I'm worried about this time.

I see keeping food costs low as a good thing for those who are currently living. I really don't give a sweet %^&* about some hypothetical people a century from now who may, or may not, exist anyway. I honestly don't care about the continued propagation of the human race in the first place because it serves no purpose and has no ultimate meaning. The spoiler alert on this one is we eventually go extinct regardless.

The plants grown to be fed to animals could be redirected to the market all they want to be, but that's not going to change the fact that you're switching most peoples' entree from meat to something plant-based. The prices would absolutely go up.

More than that, you're disproportionately punishing poor people by making a product they enjoy unaffordable for them for no good reason. Don't even give me any crap about health or the environment; if the Government would get its stupid nose out of healthcare, then the Government would have no reason to care who lives, who dies, of what or whether or not it was preventable.

Another factor to consider is that of restaurants, such as steakhouses. When the cost of the meats goes up for them, then that's going to need to be reflected in menu prices which will render them unaffordable for a greater number of people than is currently the case. As a result, many of those restaurants will close and jobs will be lost.

The point is that the whole thing will be a disaster and the only people who will be satisfied are dogmatic vegans and pointless environmentalists. It also hurts those states who rely heavily on cattle farming.

I'm not saying that the money couldn't necessarily be better directed, but get rid of Medicare, Federal involvement in Public Education, Housing and Urban Development, Social Security and anything with the word, "Arts," in it, then we can discuss farming subsidies.

As far as the ads, who cares? Doctors used to say smoking was kosher, as long as you only did it occasionally. They're trying to sell a product, just like the organic, plant-based, gluten-free, non-GMO vegans are. At least you get a gallon of milk when you buy a gallon of milk (which I hate, by the way), when it comes to vegans, you pay for stupid buzzwords.

Of course they should try to get people drinking milk. Wouldn't you try to get people to drink milk if you sold milk?

Forget steakhouses, if this came to be, a Bigmac would be unaffordable to anyone but the upper class. It would be more than a small increase in meat prices, it would be exponential.

I did not make arguments to you about health or the environment, I simply said that the government should not subsidize agricultural production.

This would not lead to increased prices.

We are artificially keeping meat affordable, when many meat products should be close to 6X what they cost and dairy not far off.

If a certain type of shampoo required subsidies to be affordable, and people just liked the way that style of shampoo smelled, but it would cost 6X without the subsidy for the ingredients, you would say it's absurd and the government should not spend the money and people can buy a different variant with different base ingredients. And, you would be right. Ag is no different.