Should Trans People be allowed to use opposite sex bathrooms?

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

Quote: DRich

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

Would you eat a human if it was prepared well?

(Not equating humans to cats and dogs, just curious!)

with a lot of animals, it depends on what they've been eating, if I want to eat it ... although that might mostly be 'mental' . Not always though. What's remarkable is that crab tastes good in spite of what they eat

on another matter, I've decided to use "ladiboi" when I talk about trans women. It seems to be OK. I'm going to nip in the bud the idea that it is another word OK for them to use, but the rest of us can't use ... like the Q in LGBTQ

Quote: Gandler

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.

Before we continue, it bears repeating that most agriculture subsidies aren't specifically earmarked for meat/dairy, but we can pretend that they are or, perhaps, you simply want to end all farm subsidies.

1.) The redirection to the consumer market has greater costs vis-a-vis transportation, packaging, storage, etc...feeding these grains to animals is simply cheaper than it is to feed to humans. Once again, the price of all foods would increase if the price of meat increases.

Another thing that you have failed to account for is a significant amount of grocery store square footage is devoted to meat and dairy. In addition to meat departments, there's also a large meat section that often lines an entire wall of many grocery stores. All of this will need to be repurposed, but it is not necessarily set up to handle produce.

Additionally, most grocery stores have deli departments, but since it is your goal for the cost of meat and dairy to go through the roof, these departments will become (mostly) obsolete and will also have to be repurposed.

As a result, the grocery stores are going to have to spend money to reconfigure the store, buy new equipment and dispose of existing equipment when such equipment becomes obsolete or unneeded.

The costs of doing all of these things will, inevitably, be passed on to the consumer. Grocery prices will increase across the board; there's no way around it.

There is also the question of all of the independent delis and butcher shops that will probably go out of business. Many meat processing plants will go out of business. Places intended for meat storage and transport will go out of business.

Fortunately, I suppose that the trucks can be repurposed, easily enough. I suppose the cooling units don't have to be turned on.

2.) Are the numbers simply not growing enough for your liking? Whether you like it or not, vegetarian/vegan is not generally seen as an attractive lifestyle and some people enjoy availing themselves of the fact that we're at the top of the food chain.

If it makes you feel better, since 1994, the percentage of vegetarians has roughly quintupled from 1% to 5%. I think the percentage of vegans has done similar and is now about 3%.

I still don't know why you think punishing farms is a good idea by removing an extremely justifiable subsidy, especially when that subsidy is used for disaster relief.

If your argument, instead, was that none of the subsidies should be specifically earmarked for meat/dairy; I would still argue that it's a case of the minority trying to dictate the rules for the majority, but sure, you can have it. No money specifically directed to meat/dairy. That's only going to reflect under 5% of total farm subsidies, but have at it.

3.) The U.S. Government does not own 1.5 billion pounds of cheese. If you are going to link to an article, I would suggest reading it. The USDA owns 300 million pounds of cheese and private companies contract the USDA to store the 1.2 billion pound balance.

As you may or may not have seen in the article, the cheese is often used in the event of food shortages or tough economic times. The article would go on to discuss how the USDA distributed food boxes, which contained many dairy products, to poor families during 2020, because of Covid.

The fact of the matter is that storage can keep for a very long time. I'm also familiar with the types of caves being discussed; I would guess they are limestone caves. It's an excellent cooling temperature as the internal temperature never drops too low or climbs too high. We had similar caves at the University I attended; there were a few private companies in the limestone caves on university property and one of those was a wine maker who stored cases of wine down there for just that reason.

Anyway, I'm certainly not opposed to the Government having food storages in the event of a major catastrophe or natural disaster. Naturally, the storages have to be something that packs a ton of vitamins, minerals, calcium, calories, fat and protein all in one places and also keeps for a good deal of time; cheese does those things.

Vegans are going to find themselves being far less picky about what they eat in the event of a major disaster. I assure you of that.

Your second article ALSO discusses how the USDA does not actually own all of the cheese that it's storing and how the vast majority of it is actually owned by private companies.

Once again, I have a long list of Government spending/programs that should be cut before I even get within sniffing distance of the cheese caves. I'm sure that particular cut would appease vegans, though.

I'll tell you what we should cut, instead. Let's cut ALL food assistance programs for the poor and watch the food prices really plummet. Sure, some people will starve to death, but you don't seem to mind that since you want to 86 our emergency food storages.

Even then, if you don't want the Government to actually buy the cheese; that's probably fine with me. I'm not in favor of killing all farm subsidies; if you want to kill those specifically earmarked for meat/dairy, then have at it.

That said, I do maintain there should be a non-zero amount of food storage, of stuff that keeps and packs massive nutritional value, fat and calories in the event of a serious disaster or some other shortage.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: Gandler

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.

Before we continue, it bears repeating that most agriculture subsidies aren't specifically earmarked for meat/dairy, but we can pretend that they are or, perhaps, you simply want to end all farm subsidies.

1.) The redirection to the consumer market has greater costs vis-a-vis transportation, packaging, storage, etc...feeding these grains to animals is simply cheaper than it is to feed to humans. Once again, the price of all foods would increase if the price of meat increases.

Another thing that you have failed to account for is a significant amount of grocery store square footage is devoted to meat and dairy. In addition to meat departments, there's also a large meat section that often lines an entire wall of many grocery stores. All of this will need to be repurposed, but it is not necessarily set up to handle produce.

Additionally, most grocery stores have deli departments, but since it is your goal for the cost of meat and dairy to go through the roof, these departments will become (mostly) obsolete and will also have to be repurposed.

As a result, the grocery stores are going to have to spend money to reconfigure the store, buy new equipment and dispose of existing equipment when such equipment becomes obsolete or unneeded.

The costs of doing all of these things will, inevitably, be passed on to the consumer. Grocery prices will increase across the board; there's no way around it.

There is also the question of all of the independent delis and butcher shops that will probably go out of business. Many meat processing plants will go out of business. Places intended for meat storage and transport will go out of business.

Fortunately, I suppose that the trucks can be repurposed, easily enough. I suppose the cooling units don't have to be turned on.

2.) Are the numbers simply not growing enough for your liking? Whether you like it or not, vegetarian/vegan is not generally seen as an attractive lifestyle and some people enjoy availing themselves of the fact that we're at the top of the food chain.

If it makes you feel better, since 1994, the percentage of vegetarians has roughly quintupled from 1% to 5%. I think the percentage of vegans has done similar and is now about 3%.

I still don't know why you think punishing farms is a good idea by removing an extremely justifiable subsidy, especially when that subsidy is used for disaster relief.

If your argument, instead, was that none of the subsidies should be specifically earmarked for meat/dairy; I would still argue that it's a case of the minority trying to dictate the rules for the majority, but sure, you can have it. No money specifically directed to meat/dairy. That's only going to reflect under 5% of total farm subsidies, but have at it.

3.) The U.S. Government does not own 1.5 billion pounds of cheese. If you are going to link to an article, I would suggest reading it. The USDA owns 300 million pounds of cheese and private companies contract the USDA to store the 1.2 billion pound balance.

As you may or may not have seen in the article, the cheese is often used in the event of food shortages or tough economic times. The article would go on to discuss how the USDA distributed food boxes, which contained many dairy products, to poor families during 2020, because of Covid.

The fact of the matter is that storage can keep for a very long time. I'm also familiar with the types of caves being discussed; I would guess they are limestone caves. It's an excellent cooling temperature as the internal temperature never drops too low or climbs too high. We had similar caves at the University I attended; there were a few private companies in the limestone caves on university property and one of those was a wine maker who stored cases of wine down there for just that reason.

Anyway, I'm certainly not opposed to the Government having food storages in the event of a major catastrophe or natural disaster. Naturally, the storages have to be something that packs a ton of vitamins, minerals, calcium, calories, fat and protein all in one places and also keeps for a good deal of time; cheese does those things.

Vegans are going to find themselves being far less picky about what they eat in the event of a major disaster. I assure you of that.

Your second article ALSO discusses how the USDA does not actually own all of the cheese that it's storing and how the vast majority of it is actually owned by private companies.

Once again, I have a long list of Government spending/programs that should be cut before I even get within sniffing distance of the cheese caves. I'm sure that particular cut would appease vegans, though.

I'll tell you what we should cut, instead. Let's cut ALL food assistance programs for the poor and watch the food prices really plummet. Sure, some people will starve to death, but you don't seem to mind that since you want to 86 our emergency food storages.

Even then, if you don't want the Government to actually buy the cheese; that's probably fine with me. I'm not in favor of killing all farm subsidies; if you want to kill those specifically earmarked for meat/dairy, then have at it.

That said, I do maintain there should be a non-zero amount of food storage, of stuff that keeps and packs massive nutritional value, fat and calories in the event of a serious disaster or some other shortage.

Your last point is a good one, the people who want to cut food stamps, often want to increase subsidies (Republcians). Both are programs managed by USDA. And foodstamps often only get supported as a bipartisan agreement to fund the subsidies. So, if the Republicans had their way there would be zero foodstamps and much higher subsidies.

As for cheese, yes you are correct, I misread (actually misremebered, I did not read the articles last night). 300 Million pounds is still a ton of cheese, most will never get used. It makes sense to store grain. It makes no sense to store dairy (short shelf life and challenging to distribute). This is not for disasters, this is a subsidy for dairy farms.

Veganism as you cite is actually growing rapidly. And, other options vegetarian, etc.... are also growing (even more rapidly in some cases). And, the market for vegan products is growing even more rapidly (total market size, number of products, etc....) I think within 100 years animal farming will be looked at as barbaric.

The subsidies help meat farmers more because they buy the grain for cheap prices for animal feed, so that is a circular argument. That is why I am fine cutting all subsidies and seeing how the market reacts (I would bet that I am right, meat amd dairy will dramtically rise, plants will be relatively unscathed). If I am wrong, then what is the point of giving then money?

Quote: Gandler

Your last point is a good one, the people who want to cut food stamps, often want to increase subsidies (Republcians). Both are programs managed by USDA. And foodstamps often only get supported as a bipartisan agreement to fund the subsidies. So, if the Republicans had their way there would be zero foodstamps and much higher subsidies.

As for cheese, yes you are correct, I misread (actually misremebered, I did not read the articles last night). 300 Million pounds is still a ton of cheese, most will never get used. It makes sense to store grain. It makes no sense to store dairy (short shelf life and challenging to distribute). This is not for disasters, this is a subsidy for dairy farms.

Veganism as you cite is actually growing rapidly. And, other options vegetarian, etc.... are also growing (even more rapidly in some cases). And, the market for vegan products is growing even more rapidly (total market size, number of products, etc....) I think within 100 years animal farming will be looked at as barbaric.

The subsidies help meat farmers more because they buy the grain for cheap prices for animal feed, so that is a circular argument. That is why I am fine cutting all subsidies and seeing how the market reacts (I would bet that I am right, meat amd dairy will dramtically rise, plants will be relatively unscathed). If I am wrong, then what is the point of giving then money?

The food stamps was not meant as a serious argument, though I think it should be up to the individual states to provide for that. My point was that you should cut both or neither rather than either. If the main goal is not to artificially influence food prices, then take away the farm subsidies and ALSO don't give people Government cheese to buy non-Government cheese.

It can be used in the event of disasters and shortages. I suppose grain, corn and the like could be too, but then you're still creating a position in which an argument can be advanced that the Government buying these things artificially props up prices. Grain/Wheat storage also seems particularly tricky:

https://www.palmetto-industries.com/long-term-grain-storage/

There's also the question of nutritional content. Cheese is incredible when it comes to packing a ton of nutrition, fats, calories and protein all in one place. In the event of some massive hunger event or catastrophe, it could come in handy and sustain people for many months.

It's the old maxim, "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

Anyway, you're basically just arguing now that the Government should subsidize farms by buying/storing large amounts of corns and grains rather than cheese. Either way, it could be looked at as a subsidization. Given the choice in an event where food is scarce, I think cheese does a better job at assuaging hunger and providing the essentials to be basically healthy.

If that happens in 100 years, then it happens in 100 years. I have no reason to care. If you want the Government to buy and store grains, as opposed to cheese, then that's probably also fine but for the fact that cheese is the far superior food in a massive hunger event for its nutritional content.

The fact of the matter is that the option to go vegan largely exists and is supported in fairly well-to-do countries. Some might suggest that an education that drives people more towards conscientiousness, both of life and environment, is a contributing factor to this.

Of course, of all these countries are such that people can afford this lifestyle rather than simply eating whatever happens to be available to them.

Again, in the event of some catastrophic situation, you will rediscover an affinity for cheese in a serious hurry.

I'm not fine with cutting all subsidies because doing so would result in the safest method of farming being either for the Government, or a handful of massive corporations, to control everything. I am mostly concerned with ensuring that there always be money available, as needed, for disaster relief. I simply do not think it's a great idea to consolidate, as would happen, the better part of the farming industry to a few major corporations (as other farmers would have to fear being totally wiped out by a natural disaster) and then these limited competitors can, essentially, control the prices on the most important commodity segment on the entire planet---food.

Furthermore, every time there is some such disaster, even if it impacts corporate-owned farmland, the corporations have shareholders to answer to and will simply drive the prices up, across the board, to compensate for their losses. We saw this in many industries as we came out of Covid, and also as wages increase...corporations have a tendency to massively overshoot price hikes in order to maintain profit margins, operating profits and net profits.

All of this, of course, ignores the disarray that many industries (such as fast food, delis, butcher shops and grocery stores) are going to experience, and the associated job loss, which I have already detailed.

Simply put, I say, "Maintain the status quo," when it comes to food. I absolutely grant that there's not perfect efficiency in everything getting used, but on an essential, I would still prefer that there be some waste when compared to a potential lack of.

I also don't want to throw the job market into disarray by presenting a substantial threat to an entire industry (restaurants, and more specifically, fast food) that employs so many people and also has many such locations being franchised to independent business owners.

I think that you are correct and, eventually, veganism/vegetarianism will dominate. When it does, I would suggest that the vegans/vegetarians will have the votes necessary to change food policy from what it is now to something else. If vegan/vegetarian becomes the prevailing mode of living, then I can assure you that these cheese storages/subsidies will be eliminated without a second thought.

In the meantime, vegans/vegetarians are in the extreme minority in this country. That's true for the time being, anyway. Live with it.

Quote: Mission146

The food stamps was not meant as a serious argument, though I think it should be up to the individual states to provide for that. My point was that you should cut both or neither rather than either. If the main goal is not to artificially influence food prices, then take away the farm subsidies and ALSO don't give people Government cheese to buy non-Government cheese.

It can be used in the event of disasters and shortages. I suppose grain, corn and the like could be too, but then you're still creating a position in which an argument can be advanced that the Government buying these things artificially props up prices. Grain/Wheat storage also seems particularly tricky:

https://www.palmetto-industries.com/long-term-grain-storage/

There's also the question of nutritional content. Cheese is incredible when it comes to packing a ton of nutrition, fats, calories and protein all in one place. In the event of some massive hunger event or catastrophe, it could come in handy and sustain people for many months.

It's the old maxim, "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

Anyway, you're basically just arguing now that the Government should subsidize farms by buying/storing large amounts of corns and grains rather than cheese. Either way, it could be looked at as a subsidization. Given the choice in an event where food is scarce, I think cheese does a better job at assuaging hunger and providing the essentials to be basically healthy.

If that happens in 100 years, then it happens in 100 years. I have no reason to care. If you want the Government to buy and store grains, as opposed to cheese, then that's probably also fine but for the fact that cheese is the far superior food in a massive hunger event for its nutritional content.

The fact of the matter is that the option to go vegan largely exists and is supported in fairly well-to-do countries. Some might suggest that an education that drives people more towards conscientiousness, both of life and environment, is a contributing factor to this.

Of course, of all these countries are such that people can afford this lifestyle rather than simply eating whatever happens to be available to them.

Again, in the event of some catastrophic situation, you will rediscover an affinity for cheese in a serious hurry.

I'm not fine with cutting all subsidies because doing so would result in the safest method of farming being either for the Government, or a handful of massive corporations, to control everything. I am mostly concerned with ensuring that there always be money available, as needed, for disaster relief. I simply do not think it's a great idea to consolidate, as would happen, the better part of the farming industry to a few major corporations (as other farmers would have to fear being totally wiped out by a natural disaster) and then these limited competitors can, essentially, control the prices on the most important commodity segment on the entire planet---food.

Furthermore, every time there is some such disaster, even if it impacts corporate-owned farmland, the corporations have shareholders to answer to and will simply drive the prices up, across the board, to compensate for their losses. We saw this in many industries as we came out of Covid, and also as wages increase...corporations have a tendency to massively overshoot price hikes in order to maintain profit margins, operating profits and net profits.

All of this, of course, ignores the disarray that many industries (such as fast food, delis, butcher shops and grocery stores) are going to experience, and the associated job loss, which I have already detailed.

Simply put, I say, "Maintain the status quo," when it comes to food. I absolutely grant that there's not perfect efficiency in everything getting used, but on an essential, I would still prefer that there be some waste when compared to a potential lack of.

I also don't want to throw the job market into disarray by presenting a substantial threat to an entire industry (restaurants, and more specifically, fast food) that employs so many people and also has many such locations being franchised to independent business owners.

I think that you are correct and, eventually, veganism/vegetarianism will dominate. When it does, I would suggest that the vegans/vegetarians will have the votes necessary to change food policy from what it is now to something else. If vegan/vegetarian becomes the prevailing mode of living, then I can assure you that these cheese storages/subsidies will be eliminated without a second thought.

In the meantime, vegans/vegetarians are in the extreme minority in this country. That's true for the time being, anyway. Live with it.

That is a common anti-vegan talking point. Eating animal products is the luxury. Most people who struggle to survive don't have a regular source of meat. (Yes some exceptions like arctict inuits who only have accsess to fish/meat, but these are extreme exceptions).

Job markets shift anytime there is a radical change in consumer tastes, this argument does not really matter. Should we ban self driving cars to preserve drivers (the single most common job on the planet)? This will disrupt the job market far more than people shifting their food buying choices. Like it's not even close as to which will disrupt the job market more.

Yes, you are trying to make it out like I am some radical. I want all food legal, people have the right to choose. But, many are choosing to shift to plant based lifestyles. A minority? Sure, but there are smaller minorities with much more robust protections (which I don't want, just pointing out). Heck, I would go even further and say Republican efforts to ban horse and dog meat (state level) should be overturned, no reason this should be banned. All meat should be legal.

I just was an equal playing field by cutting subsidies which artificially prop up an objective evil industry. My best friend is a libertarian (and a vegan as of a couple years ago), and he has an almost identical view (on this issue, we disagree about almost everything else). That is why I am surprised you are such a supporter of farming handouts.

Quote: Gandler

That is a common anti-vegan talking point. Eating animal products is the luxury. Most people who struggle to survive don't have a regular source of meat. (Yes some exceptions like arctict inuits who only have accsess to fish/meat, but these are extreme exceptions).

Job markets shift anytime there is a radical change in consumer tastes, this argument does not really matter. Should we ban self driving cars to preserve drivers (the single most common job on the planet)? This will disrupt the job market far more than people shifting their food buying choices. Like it's not even close as to which will disrupt the job market more.

Yes, you are trying to make it out like I am some radical. I want all food legal, people have the right to choose. But, many are choosing to shift to plant based lifestyles. A minority? Sure, but there are smaller minorities with much more robust protections (which I don't want, just pointing out). Heck, I would go even further and say Republican efforts to ban horse and dog meat (state level) should be overturned, no reason this should be banned. All meat should be legal.

I just was an equal playing field by cutting subsidies which artificially prop up an objective evil industry. My best friend is a libertarian (and a vegan as of a couple years ago), and he has an almost identical view (on this issue, we disagree about almost everything else). That is why I am surprised you are such a supporter of farming handouts.

Is it? How do you explain veganism being most popular, as a percentage, in countries that are economically well-to-do?

Perhaps you would simply argue that the matter has not been polled as exhaustively in underdeveloped nations. That argument would likely not be strictly provable, but seems valid enough.

Unlike you, I don't really have a dog in the fight outside of general economic stability. It would take some trust, but if you wish for me to be a vegetarian, pay me $1,000 and I promise never to eat meat again as long as I live. I do not believe I would agree to being a vegan for any amount.

Like I said before, I only eat meat once a week; sometimes, not even that.

The argument does matter because we're talking about such a high percentage of employed individuals and business owners. Furthermore, you are also proposing an action contrary to the status quo in order to cause a shift in consumer tastes deliberately. Quite simply, your proposal throws a great number of businesses into disarray, risks any number of jobs (not all of which to be necessarily replaced) and is made for no reason other than to effectuate a change in consumer tastes that you happen to find desirable.

After all of that, you have the audacity to throw Libertarian values in my face when you know fully well that you propose this but would NOT agree with most of the more important, costly, pointless, inefficient and wasteful forms of Federal Government spending that I would see cut.

If it's a BS argument one way, then it's a BS argument both ways. It can't both be a BS argument and a good one.

I've also stipulated that I would be willing to revisit the question of farm subsidies, but it is very low on President Mission's to do list. Mission thinks that anything even closely related to the words, 'Arts,' or, 'Humanities,' needs to be cut off and immediately sold, as well as any federally-owned assets associated therewith, unless sustained profitability, if independent of Government funds, can be demonstrated.

Is that preference? Maybe. Even if it is, it doesn't screw around with the food/distribution status quo or pose an imminent risk to any major industries.

I think that markets should deviate from the status quo as consumers dictate that they deviate. Driverless vehicles might replace those with drivers, and if they do, it will have to be dealt with. I don't think the Government should ordain that all transportation businesses opt for driverless vehicles as opposed to ones with drivers at risk of some sort of penalty.

The farming subsidies might be just that-subsidies-but we are at the point that the businesses and markets essentially take them for granted. Taking those things away is a de facto penalty for being in the farming business, food business, fast food business or any other businesses associated. That's especially true when taking them away is to the benefit of NOBODY...other than the vegans/vegetarians who would prefer to see a faster consumer shift to the diet that they prefer and have no real objective other than that.

Hey, do you know what Government program could be cut that would increase demand for dairy? We could just 86 WIC! Would you like that?

That's right---no more free baby formula. People will be flocking to cow's milk in droves. The best part is that more money is spent on the WIC program than the USDA spends on the entire dairy market, buying up a whole bunch of cheese included.

I agree that all meat should be legal. I think that you're going to get what you want, but you won't be alive to enjoy it, or whatever. I have no idea why you care about what other people eat. Go ahead and think that your lifestyle contributes, in any measurable way, to the betterment of the environment or reduction to animal cruelty---it doesn't.

In fact, I might just eat meat every day this week in your honor. Perhaps I will make sure to eat meat at least once, every day, to deliberately offset the fact that you are not doing so. Would you like that? Your change in consumer behaviors, and promotion thereof, compelling me to change my behaviors so that I might offset you and cause a net increase in the demand for meat.

It's bad enough that the Government directly targets tobacco and alcohol for separate taxation. The Government would have no reason to care if the Government did not fund healthcare in any way whatsoever. There's no benefit to people living longer and there is a greater cost, in the long run, for people to do so. People greatly exceed their years of net productivity and we want to improve healthcare and spend tax dollars to do it? It would make more sense to actively try to make healthcare worse.

If you call the industry, "Objectively evil," then that's just your bias. I also don't know what your basis for that is. Because it's animals? Animals don't matter.

The industry is no more or less evil than the evil, but necessary, grocery stores seeking profit by way of delivering a human necessity as opposed to trying to break even. It's no more evil than the food providers who slap a bunch of buzzwords on the stuff that you probably buy to justify their higher-than-standard retail markups.

The world is evil. You'll succeed only in seeing one evil replaced with a different one. As long as profit motive exists, it is inevitable; live with it.

Quote: Mission146

Is it? How do you explain veganism being most popular, as a percentage, in countries that are economically well-to-do?

Perhaps you would simply argue that the matter has not been polled as exhaustively in underdeveloped nations. That argument would likely not be strictly provable, but seems valid enough.

Unlike you, I don't really have a dog in the fight outside of general economic stability. It would take some trust, but if you wish for me to be a vegetarian, pay me $1,000 and I promise never to eat meat again as long as I live. I do not believe I would agree to being a vegan for any amount.

Like I said before, I only eat meat once a week; sometimes, not even that.

The argument does matter because we're talking about such a high percentage of employed individuals and business owners. Furthermore, you are also proposing an action contrary to the status quo in order to cause a shift in consumer tastes deliberately. Quite simply, your proposal throws a great number of businesses into disarray, risks any number of jobs (not all of which to be necessarily replaced) and is made for no reason other than to effectuate a change in consumer tastes that you happen to find desirable.

After all of that, you have the audacity to throw Libertarian values in my face when you know fully well that you propose this but would NOT agree with most of the more important, costly, pointless, inefficient and wasteful forms of Federal Government spending that I would see cut.

If it's a BS argument one way, then it's a BS argument both ways. It can't both be a BS argument and a good one.

I've also stipulated that I would be willing to revisit the question of farm subsidies, but it is very low on President Mission's to do list. Mission thinks that anything even closely related to the words, 'Arts,' or, 'Humanities,' needs to be cut off and immediately sold, as well as any federally-owned assets associated therewith, unless sustained profitability, if independent of Government funds, can be demonstrated.

Is that preference? Maybe. Even if it is, it doesn't screw around with the food/distribution status quo or pose an imminent risk to any major industries.

I think that markets should deviate from the status quo as consumers dictate that they deviate. Driverless vehicles might replace those with drivers, and if they do, it will have to be dealt with. I don't think the Government should ordain that all transportation businesses opt for driverless vehicles as opposed to ones with drivers at risk of some sort of penalty.

The farming subsidies might be just that-subsidies-but we are at the point that the businesses and markets essentially take them for granted. Taking those things away is a de facto penalty for being in the farming business, food business, fast food business or any other businesses associated. That's especially true when taking them away is to the benefit of NOBODY...other than the vegans/vegetarians who would prefer to see a faster consumer shift to the diet that they prefer and have no real objective other than that.

Hey, do you know what Government program could be cut that would increase demand for dairy? We could just 86 WIC! Would you like that?

That's right---no more free baby formula. People will be flocking to cow's milk in droves. The best part is that more money is spent on the WIC program than the USDA spends on the entire dairy market, buying up a whole bunch of cheese included.

I agree that all meat should be legal. I think that you're going to get what you want, but you won't be alive to enjoy it, or whatever. I have no idea why you care about what other people eat. Go ahead and think that your lifestyle contributes, in any measurable way, to the betterment of the environment or reduction to animal cruelty---it doesn't.

In fact, I might just eat meat every day this week in your honor. Perhaps I will make sure to eat meat at least once, every day, to deliberately offset the fact that you are not doing so. Would you like that? Your change in consumer behaviors, and promotion thereof, compelling me to change my behaviors so that I might offset you and cause a net increase in the demand for meat.

It's bad enough that the Government directly targets tobacco and alcohol for separate taxation. The Government would have no reason to care if the Government did not fund healthcare in any way whatsoever. There's no benefit to people living longer and there is a greater cost, in the long run, for people to do so. People greatly exceed their years of net productivity and we want to improve healthcare and spend tax dollars to do it? It would make more sense to actively try to make healthcare worse.

If you call the industry, "Objectively evil," then that's just your bias. I also don't know what your basis for that is. Because it's animals? Animals don't matter.

The industry is no more or less evil than the evil, but necessary, grocery stores seeking profit by way of delivering a human necessity as opposed to trying to break even. It's no more evil than the food providers who slap a bunch of buzzwords on the stuff that you probably buy to justify their higher-than-standard retail markups.

The world is evil. You'll succeed only in seeing one evil replaced with a different one. As long as profit motive exists, it is inevitable; live with it.

Because people in remote tribal lands don't generally get surveys to identify as vegan or vegetarian or "rarely eat meat". Never mind I just realize you addres this in the next paragraph.

Being vegan absolutely benefits both the environment and lowers animal cruelty. The less people that buy products, the lower the demand for such products (and hence will lessen places that manufacture them).

Animals absolutely matter. It's not bias, the killing methods are barbaric. The industry is evil because it exists to kill. And, there is enough undercover video from animal investigators to show how people behave on such farms.

Again I don't care if you eat meat everyday (I do, though rarely redmeat). You are not going to offend me with your eating habits.

Quote: Gandler

Because people in remote tribal lands don't generally get surveys to identify as vegan or vegetarian or "rarely eat meat". Never mind I just realize you addres this in the next paragraph.

Being vegan absolutely benefits both the environment and lowers animal cruelty. The less people that buy products, the lower the demand for such products (and hence will lessen places that manufacture them).

Animals absolutely matter. It's not bias, the killing methods are barbaric. The industry is evil because it exists to kill. And, there is enough undercover video from animal investigators to show how people behave on such farms.

Again I don't care if you eat meat everyday (I do, though rarely redmeat). You are not going to offend me with your eating habits.

Being vegan, in theory, might do that...but it would do it much faster if vegans weren't so self-righteous and insufferable. I'll grant that you're one of the better ones, but some of these posts are mildly annoying. You're willing to disregard the fundamental concept of market stability, for one thing. I know you would normally know better than that.

Besides that, I really might offset you. I'm actually thinking about it. Unfortunately, my current meal plan has been kicking @$$ when it comes to weight loss. I guess I could eat more chicken, eggs and fish. There's really no great reason that I should be avoiding eggs. I mainly just cut out eggs when the prices went up, though I didn't replace them with anything, and now the prices are back down.

Do you know that they keep the chickens stacked in small cages that they barely fit in stacked one on top of the other where they're always defecating upon the ones below and living in misery and filth? That's the major farms, anyway. Some advertise themselves as, "Cage-Free," or, "Free Range," but the living standards aren't always better.

It's probably just as well to buy from a farm that you have seen with your own eyes. A farm that will have Government support in the event that it is struck by a natural disaster.

I'll think about these things when I go to the store and buy the cheapest available eggs.

I'm just messing around about that.

Honestly, if instead of cutting subsidies, you wanted to put laws into place that would mandate better treatment of animals...which would also have the side effect of driving the prices up (as better treatment would be more expensive), then I would be on board with that. I'm legitimately opposed to getting rid of Government food storages or Government buying excess foodstuffs to ensure that the producers will always make sure there is enough.

I still don't think animals matter. I really shouldn't care about the mistreatment, even the more egregious mistreatment, but I am weak in this way. I honestly only eat meat if I know where it comes from and, typically, eggs if I have actually seen the farm and think the chickens are being treated humanely enough.

Unfortunately, the animals do feel something. I can't get behind chickens having their beaks needlessly trimmed or being kept in horrible conditions. I can eat a chicken, and think nothing of it, if I think it lived a decent life and was killed humanely.

I also can't get behind the male chickens being put into garbage bags and being beaten with baseball bats. These are the people who oppose abortion? Okay. I guess consistency isn't important to them.

But, they don't matter. Just because I don't have the stomach to enable it doesn't mean that I think it matters. They're barely sentient.

Anyway, if vegans/vegetarians wanted to lobby for a change in the way animals are treated, I'm totally on board. If they want to kill farming subsidies to effectuate a change in market preferences, then I'm not. If you want to kill money specifically earmarked for meat/dairy subsidies, OTHER THAN, money devoted to stockpiling food storages, then I'm fine with that.