EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1783
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11998 Posts
On March 31 2015 11:16 Millitron wrote: http://modernfarmer.com/2013/09/next-food-revolution-youre-eating/ 6 billion pounds of fruits and veggies go unharvested or unsold each year in the US alone. In developing nations, 50% of food waste happens either in the field or during processing. That one is also rather easy to deal with. Pay your workers more. There is no fundamental aversion to farm work, it just pays really shitty for the amount of work you have to put in, and a lot of it is seasonal. My main point with this one and the supermarket example is that there is nothing fundamental that is stopping us from wasting a lot less food. We are just not willing to pay the price. The convenience of having everything available at all times is more important to us than not having food waste in a supermarket, and apparently it is more lucrative for farmers to let crops rot on their fields as opposed to paying their workers more money. The starting point of this whole discussion was the debate regarding whether not using some of the modern industrial farming techniques and chemicals would lead to mass starvation. And as long as there are very simple ways of greatly reducing the amount of food we waste, i simply do not buy that argument. The argument can be made that that sort of behaviour would be quite incovenient for western people, and would probably increase the costs of food. But that was not what people talked about, what people said is that without GMOs and/or herbicides, people would starve. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On March 31 2015 12:14 Simberto wrote: That one is also rather easy to deal with. Pay your workers more. There is no fundamental aversion to farm work, it just pays really shitty for the amount of work you have to put in, and a lot of it is seasonal. My main point with this one and the supermarket example is that there is nothing fundamental that is stopping us from wasting a lot less food. We are just not willing to pay the price. The convenience of having everything available at all times is more important to us than not having food waste in a supermarket, and apparently it is more lucrative for farmers to let crops rot on their fields as opposed to paying their workers more money. The starting point of this whole discussion was the debate regarding whether not using some of the modern industrial farming techniques and chemicals would lead to mass starvation. And as long as there are very simple ways of greatly reducing the amount of food we waste, i simply do not buy that argument. The argument can be made that that sort of behaviour would be quite incovenient for western people, and would probably increase the costs of food. But that was not what people talked about, what people said is that without GMOs and/or herbicides, people would starve. If food costs increase, people starve. Farm work is a terrible job. The constant squatting to pick vegetables or stretching to pick fruit ruins your back. Not to mention all the injuries from falling off ladders while picking from fruit trees. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 31 2015 12:00 DannyJ wrote: I'd like to see the politician that disingenuously throws out distinctly libertarian lines. It's not like Libertarians are some huge demographic that get catered to by spouting out lines (that you don't believe in anyways).Well, that's definitely true, especially as the election comes closer. I mor eso meant a person who likes to genuinely throw out distinctly libertarian ideas and quotes. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 31 2015 12:17 Millitron wrote: If food costs increase, people starve. Yes, if we increase the food cost even by a tiny amount everybody starves, especially in the developed world. That sounds like a very reasonable argument | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11998 Posts
On March 31 2015 12:17 Millitron wrote: If food costs increase, people starve. Farm work is a terrible job. The constant squatting to pick vegetables or stretching to pick fruit ruins your back. Not to mention all the injuries from falling off ladders while picking from fruit trees. People are willing to do all sorts of terrible jobs, as long as the pay is right. The problem with farming is that it is a terrible job AND the pay is miserable AND it is seasonal work in addition to all of that. So the problem appears to be mostly economic. If it is more cost effective to let half of your crops rot than to pay someone the amount of money it would take to convince people to pick those crops, the amount of crops on the fields is obviously not a relevant bottleneck in this system. The problem is not that we couldn't produce enough food for the population, the problem is that people are not willing to pay the amount of money it would take to produce less effective crops, and they are not willing to give up luxuries like having any sort of foodstuff available for purchase at any point in time. Which is an argument that actually has merit, but an entirely different one than "Millions will starve!" | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Not to mention the tradeoffs. Higher prices, shortages and more land and labor wasted producing food inefficiently. Also, adding a lot of land and labor to food production will likely lead to a lot of waste as marginal land is re-purposed and new workers are trained. If you want to go really theoretical maybe you can drastically cut down on chemical fertilizers / herbicides and insecticides without causing starvation. But is that at all realistic? | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 31 2015 11:28 A3th3r wrote: Literally anyone but Ted Cruz would be a viable opponent to Hilary Clinton in the upcoming 2016 presidential elections. Thankfully Rand Paul is scheduled to jump into the fray in the next few weeks, apparently, according to NYT. People who talk about Ted Cruz a lot usually fall into 2 camps: 1. Ted Cruz's aunts; and 2. People who don't understand conservatives or Republicans in general. I mean, I guess you could call him an Obama analogue, but Obama was much quieter about his record, and Democrats are much less conservative ( not ideologically, like less risk taking) with nominees. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11998 Posts
On March 31 2015 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Modern farming really isn't more wasteful than the alternative. Nor is it easy to get millions of people to change their food expectations and habits. A bit of realism, really. We're talking about perishable goods that have to be produced months in advance of demand with imprecise yields and at time periods that are often totally detached from demand (e.g. harvest time). Not to mention the tradeoffs. Higher prices, shortages and more land and labor wasted producing food inefficiently. Also, adding a lot of land and labor to food production will likely lead to a lot of waste as marginal land is re-purposed and new workers are trained. If you want to go really theoretical maybe you can drastically cut down on chemical fertilizers / herbicides and insecticides without causing starvation. But is that at all realistic? The only thing i was arguing against was the silly "Millions of people will starve" argument. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
On March 31 2015 11:48 DannyJ wrote: A genuine Libertarian running for President is basically just a walking, talking, crazy sound bite machine. i still remember Ron Paul advocating for a return to the gold standard fucking rich Cruz is, somewhat unfortunately, a more viable candidate than Rand Paul. My assumption remains that either Bush or Christie will be the clear frontrunners. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On March 31 2015 12:19 Danglars wrote: I'd like to see the politician that disingenuously throws out distinctly libertarian lines. It's not like Libertarians are some huge demographic that get catered to by spouting out lines (that you don't believe in anyways). It's like conservatives didn't start shouting out "free market" when they found out Libertarianism was this cool new thing the young folks were doing after they lost the '08 election. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) said Tuesday that he wanted to see legislation on his desk this week clarifying that the controversial religious freedom bill he signed into law did not allow businesses to deny service to anyone. Pence made the announcement at a widely televised press conference the same day that the Indianapolis Star ran a front-page editorial urging state lawmakers to change the legislation. "After much reflection and in consultation with leadership of the General Assembly, I've come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone," Pence said at the press conference. "Let me say that again. I think it would be helpful and I'd like to see on my desk before the end of this week legislation that is added to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that makes it clear that this law does not deny services against anyone." Earlier in the week top Republicans in the state legislature said they would look to add a clarification to the law. Source | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
With this "clarification," what part of the law is left? The whole point of it seemed to be to allow discrimination, but to make it about the discriminator's religion rather than the person being discriminated against. If they add this clarification that it doesn't allow for a denial of service to anyone, why does it exist? | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 31 2015 21:32 Lord Tolkien wrote: i still remember Ron Paul advocating for a return to the gold standard fucking rich Cruz is, somewhat unfortunately, a more viable candidate than Rand Paul. My assumption remains that either Bush or Christie will be the clear frontrunners. Christie already lost to Bush in the pre-primary for that wing of the Republican Party, and Rand Paul is much more viable than Cruz based on polls, rhetoric, and policy positions (he is like Ron Paul who went through a washing machine). | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On April 01 2015 01:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Except Cruz is already having an affect on the GOP primary race. Look at Rand Paul who now says Religion is needed in government and that gay marriage is a result of lost morality in the country, and Bush supporting Pence in Indiana. If the eventual GOP nominee goes down that path, they are already relinquishing the general election. I'd like to say I'm fine with that, but it would be nice to have real competition for the Democratic candidate, or we will continue to get stuck with so-so presidents. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
