Should Trans People be allowed to use opposite sex bathrooms?

Quote: Gandler

I have explained why. The price is kept artificially (dramatically) low through subsidies. The free market should set the price. As a libertarian you should understand this.

All food should be legal, end the subsidies. It's a pretty simple position.

That's not an explanation for many things:

1.) Why are greater direct costs to consumers on an essential (foodstuff, in general) product category a positive?

2.) Why are restaurants and, as you would have it, fast food places going out of business an economic positive?

3.) In terms of priority, and given about 28B in annual subsidies, most of which is purportedly spent on disaster assistance:

https://usafacts.org/topics/agriculture/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20federal%20government,meant%20to%20maintain%20farm%20income.

How would cutting subsidies on something that actually results in a lower direct cost to consumer (which disproportionately---as a percentage of income---benefit the poorest consumers) be better than making cuts elsewhere?

---

Besides, your argument doesn't only apply to meat/dairy farming subsidies. You could make the same argument to end ALL farm subsidies. You could make the same argument to make illegal ALL Government involvement in healthcare, abolishing the health insurance industry and making healthcare private everything---including for Government employees.

You could make the same argument for abolishing power grids and regulated utilities and saying, "The free market will decide who has the best power." All other utilities, as well.

I don't think it's fair to suggest that Libertarians, by definition, are required to be opposed to every possible form of Government spending that does, or ever could, exist. We just like to pick our spots and try to make sure there's a benefit vis-a-vis direct cost to consumer reduction while not overburdening tax payers.

Quote: Mission146

That's not an explanation for many things:

1.) Why are greater direct costs to consumers on an essential (foodstuff, in general) product category a positive?

2.) Why are restaurants and, as you would have it, fast food places going out of business an economic positive?

3.) In terms of priority, and given about 28B in annual subsidies, most of which is purportedly spent on disaster assistance:

https://usafacts.org/topics/agriculture/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20federal%20government,meant%20to%20maintain%20farm%20income.

How would cutting subsidies on something that actually results in a lower direct cost to consumer (which disproportionately---as a percentage of income---benefit the poorest consumers) be better than making cuts elsewhere?

---

Besides, your argument doesn't only apply to meat/dairy farming subsidies. You could make the same argument to end ALL farm subsidies. You could make the same argument to make illegal ALL Government involvement in healthcare, abolishing the health insurance industry and making healthcare private everything---including for Government employees.

You could make the same argument for abolishing power grids and regulated utilities and saying, "The free market will decide who has the best power." All other utilities, as well.

I don't think it's fair to suggest that Libertarians, by definition, are required to be opposed to every possible form of Government spending that does, or ever could, exist. We just like to pick our spots and try to make sure there's a benefit vis-a-vis direct cost to consumer reduction while not overburdening tax payers.

1. I don't accept that there will be a greater cost to consumers on my definition of essential foodstuffs (plant based), I have cited above that not only will this not effect prices, it could lower them over time.

2. It's not inherently positive or negative. If their buisness model relies on cheap bulk meat is probably a positive, unless they can transition to a different menu variety (or raise their prices).

3. These subsidies are small, but have a massive impact on meat prices. We can cut these subsidies and drastically alter the food market.

You can make a valid argument on many industries (many I may shock you to be in agreement with), but this topic concerns food choice. And, our subsidies allow the artifical existence of an industry that is inherently evil.

Again, I am all for anything being legal (even human meat -which it is by the way, as you can immagine expensive and difficult to obtain as all mear should be-), but we should not prop up unsustainable industries for consumer convience.

Quote: Gandler

1. I don't accept that there will be a greater cost to consumers on my definition of essential foodstuffs (plant based), I have cited above that not only will this not effect prices, it could lower them over time.

2. It's not inherently positive or negative. If their buisness model relies on cheap bulk meat is probably a positive, unless they can transition to a different menu variety (or raise their prices).

3. These subsidies are small, but have a massive impact on meat prices. We can cut these subsidies and drastically alter the food market.

You can make a valid argument on many industries (many I may shock you to be in agreement with), but this topic concerns food choice. And, our subsidies allow the artifical existence of an industry that is inherently evil.

Again, I am all for anything being legal (even human meat -which it is by the way, as you can immagine expensive and difficult to obtain as all mear should be-), but we should not prop up unsustainable industries for consumer convience.

1.) If you have argued that the price of meat would increase, and we stipulate that what meat is being eaten (by people who can no longer afford meat/dairy) must be replaced with something else, then you acknowledge, by definition, that the demand for non meat/dairy foodstuffs MUST increase.

Sensing this opportunity, in addition to the naturally increased demand, I think that the prices on non-meat/non-dairy foodstuff would increase.

For comparison, just look at something like Boca Burgers compared to the hamburger equivalent. I'd consider $3.99 for a four-pack of Boca Burgers a decent price and that comes out to 10oz, or $6.38/lb roughly.

In the meantime, you can get a ground chuck roll for less than that, per pound.

Of course, this is comparing apples and oranges. What really matters is that, in your view, we're going to dramatically increase the cost of ground beef. With this increased cost, more people are going to want Boca Burgers (and the like), so Boca Burgers/Morningstar, etc, are going to increase the costs in response to this demand.

More importantly, the farm subsidies don't normally go to meat/dairy specifically. The problem that you're going to run into without farm subsidies, particularly disaster relief subsidies, is that...after a major disaster...there WILL be a decrease to the amount of food available on the market and a serious enough disaster will put some farms out of business.

I'm not even arguing that the price of meat would automatically increase by any great amount; you posited that. I simply said, if that, then the cost of all food will increase because the lower demand for meat means there is greater demand for everything that is not meat.

Another example is that of milk alternatives; none of those come as close to being as cheap as milk when it comes to liquid content per dollar. Again, if the price of milk shoots through the roof, then demand drifts over to these products that were higher priced than milk is right now...so those already higher prices for milk substitutes are going to increase.

2.) As long as we're talking about the free market, the free market seems to think places that serve meat, as well as some vegetarian/vegan options, are preferable to places that have no vegetarian/vegan friendly options. As far as vegetarian/vegan options ONLY---that doesn't seem to be a model that does well as a fast food establishment---what few such restaurants there are tend to be sit down.

More than 0.5% of all people employed in the US work fast food:

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353023.htm#nat

I do not want to rock the boat on that industry. It's an objectively terrible idea to do so. The result could be the loss of jobs that wouldn't be replaced, at least not to any large extent, by an alternative to those jobs.

IOW, meat-dominant fast food could go away, and if it did, that doesn't automatically create a space for vegetarian/vegan fast food. It may in theory, but I think the overall demand for fast food would simply plummet.

3.) If meat becomes more expensive, which you stipulate, then the alteration to the food market would be everything becomes more expensive.

In terms of pragmatic outcomes, I also would be hesitant to rock the boat because relatively inexpensive food, and a distribution network supporting that, is actually one thing we do extremely well. I also think this burden of increased costs, by definition, as a percentage of income standard, would fall upon the poor. Just because I am not in favor of a great deal of welfare spending does not mean I actively wish to make things worse for poor people.

Test

No one will know your score or what you say your score was. So, just for fun.

Lady or ladyboi

https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=lady-ladyboy

Quote: rxwine

Test

No one will know your score or what you say your score was. So, just for fun.

Lady or ladyboi

https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=lady-ladyboy

Ridiculous.

Anyway, I got over half correct. I only picked two to be women and both were.

What makes the test ridiculous is twofold:

1.) It's not population representative or zero/one of them would be transexual.

2.) The VAST, VAST majority of transwomen, like it or not, don't even pass as well as the most male-looking person in this test.

Knowing that they would do this, I just guessed trans for every single one except for the two women for whom I was positively confident.

I'll also be honest---a good few of those transwomen can do WAY better than me, especially since men tend to care about looks more than women, so it wouldn't even be relevant (even if I were single) as they'd have no interest in me anyway. There are plenty of guys out there for them to choose from who don't care that they used to have a penis, or possibly, still do have a penis.

I don't have any trans panic. If I were single and one got me in the bedroom and pulled out a penis, then I'd simply tell them I no longer have any desire to have sexual intercourse with them. If they told me they are actually trans, then I would say the same thing. Consent is important, right? It's also not discrimination as they have no legal right to have sex with me if I don't want them to as nobody does have any such right.

Quote: rxwine

Test

No one will know your score or what you say your score was. So, just for fun.

Lady or ladyboi

https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=lady-ladyboy

I got the first 6 correct and stopped. If the person had a slightly, just slightly, mannish look then it was going to be 'born female'

but I can be fooled, who can't? What does it prove? This Mulvaney person is very effeminate-looking to me, so with make-up, maybe hormone treatments, I might have been fooled by Mulvaney under other circumstances. I don't have any problem at all with M., as a matter of fact, if in fact gender dysphoria was maxed out on M. then I wouldn't have another solution. I wouldn't want to hear somebody put the idea into M.'s head out of whole cloth.

I don't even have a problem with Mulvaney in a light beer promotion. To me it's a total slam on light beer, which is very appropriate.

BY THE WAY isn't ladyboi an offensive word? I'm pretty sure if I was still working I wouldn't dare use it [not today]

also note Mulvaney is 26 years old

Quote: odiousgambit

I got the first 6 correct and stopped. If the person had a slightly, just slightly, mannish look then it was going to be 'born female'

but I can be fooled, who can't? What does it prove?

Proves maybe you want to be careful about “calling out” someone in the wrong bathroom until you’ve seen the “evidence” if it becomes against the law.

Quote:

This Mulvaney person is very effeminate-looking to me, so with make-up, maybe hormone treatments, I might have been fooled by Mulvaney under other circumstances. I don't have any problem at all with M., as a matter of fact, if in fact gender dysphoria was maxed out on M. then I wouldn't have another solution. I wouldn't want to hear somebody put the idea into M.'s head out of whole cloth.

I don't even have a problem with Mulvaney in a light beer promotion. To me it's a total slam on light beer, which is very appropriate.

BY THE WAY isn't ladyboi an offensive word? I'm pretty sure if I was still working I wouldn't dare use it [not today]

I still say anyone who says an invisible being exists and listens to your requests should be the last to throw stones accusing someone of fantastical thinking about themselves. Better keep looking in mirror harder before you accuse anyone of being off kilter.

Quote: Mission146

1.) If you have argued that the price of meat would increase, and we stipulate that what meat is being eaten (by people who can no longer afford meat/dairy) must be replaced with something else, then you acknowledge, by definition, that the demand for non meat/dairy foodstuffs MUST increase.

Sensing this opportunity, in addition to the naturally increased demand, I think that the prices on non-meat/non-dairy foodstuff would increase.

For comparison, just look at something like Boca Burgers compared to the hamburger equivalent. I'd consider $3.99 for a four-pack of Boca Burgers a decent price and that comes out to 10oz, or $6.38/lb roughly.

In the meantime, you can get a ground chuck roll for less than that, per pound.

Of course, this is comparing apples and oranges. What really matters is that, in your view, we're going to dramatically increase the cost of ground beef. With this increased cost, more people are going to want Boca Burgers (and the like), so Boca Burgers/Morningstar, etc, are going to increase the costs in response to this demand.

More importantly, the farm subsidies don't normally go to meat/dairy specifically. The problem that you're going to run into without farm subsidies, particularly disaster relief subsidies, is that...after a major disaster...there WILL be a decrease to the amount of food available on the market and a serious enough disaster will put some farms out of business.

I'm not even arguing that the price of meat would automatically increase by any great amount; you posited that. I simply said, if that, then the cost of all food will increase because the lower demand for meat means there is greater demand for everything that is not meat.

Another example is that of milk alternatives; none of those come as close to being as cheap as milk when it comes to liquid content per dollar. Again, if the price of milk shoots through the roof, then demand drifts over to these products that were higher priced than milk is right now...so those already higher prices for milk substitutes are going to increase.

2.) As long as we're talking about the free market, the free market seems to think places that serve meat, as well as some vegetarian/vegan options, are preferable to places that have no vegetarian/vegan friendly options. As far as vegetarian/vegan options ONLY---that doesn't seem to be a model that does well as a fast food establishment---what few such restaurants there are tend to be sit down.

More than 0.5% of all people employed in the US work fast food:

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353023.htm#nat

I do not want to rock the boat on that industry. It's an objectively terrible idea to do so. The result could be the loss of jobs that wouldn't be replaced, at least not to any large extent, by an alternative to those jobs.

IOW, meat-dominant fast food could go away, and if it did, that doesn't automatically create a space for vegetarian/vegan fast food. It may in theory, but I think the overall demand for fast food would simply plummet.

3.) If meat becomes more expensive, which you stipulate, then the alteration to the food market would be everything becomes more expensive.

In terms of pragmatic outcomes, I also would be hesitant to rock the boat because relatively inexpensive food, and a distribution network supporting that, is actually one thing we do extremely well. I also think this burden of increased costs, by definition, as a percentage of income standard, would fall upon the poor. Just because I am not in favor of a great deal of welfare spending does not mean I actively wish to make things worse for poor people.

1. No this is simply not true, because a large portion of grain and soy (77%) is produced to be fed to animals (I am using animals to refer to nonhuman animals). If meat production dwindles this would be redirected to the consumer market. You are making this point much more obtuse than it needs to be, these numbers are simply accepted by both sides.

2. The free market feels this way because government incentives make it economically viable are artificially keep prices low. If a Impossible Whopper was 5.00 USD and a regular Whopper was 19.00 USD I bet there would be a shift in habits

3. This is simply not true, I do not know where you get this conclusion.



This U.S. gov owns 1.5 billion pounds of cheese stored in underground caves made into cheese vaults (true story, I know it sounds like I am making this up), because they have to buy excess all dairy to keep dairy prices cheap. Almost all of this cheese sits in these caves until it molds away. You are literally advocating the government to buys millions of pounds of cheese just so it can sit in a vault to keep meat and dairy prices cheap.

https://modernfarmer.com/2022/05/cheese-caves-missouri/

https://www.deseret.com/2022/2/14/22933326/1-4-billion-pounds-of-cheese-stored-in-a-cave-underneath-springfield-missouri-jimmy-carter-reagan

And, this is just the cheese subsidies. Sure, occasionally some of it will get sent to families in need, local welfare programs, (fun fact this is where the term "government cheese" came from which you may hear in some classic rap songs), and to the military etc..... But, over 95% of it just sits until rot because it is too much work to be worth distributing. You may be the first libertarian that literally supports the cheese caves. This used to be the laughing stock of government inefficiency and corruption. Even back in the Reagan days he would parade around with cheese blocks to make a point.

The government buying animal products to store them until rot to keep prices low (so there is a guaranteed buyer and allows massive companies to mass produce) is literally the most opposite of a free market as you can get.

Most plant products (meant for eating, obviously not counting tobacco, cotton, etc....) is grown to be fed to animals. If this system did not exist and they went to people, not only would there be ample grain, corn, and other plants, there would actually be an overabundance. Raising an animal and feeding it until slaughter is very inefficient and not economically viable unless heavily subsidized.

I would gladly eat cat and dog if it was prepared well.