US Politics Mega-thread - Page 219

On May 23 2018 00:54 IgnE wrote:
i dont understand why youve taken such an issue with the clause, "causality is properly restricted to phenomena." because you want it to be possibly applicable to something which marks the beyond which we cannot know about? and if i said "redness is properly restricted to the domain of phenomena" would you be equally as miffed?

but its clear youve missed the point at the end when you say "the idea that beings-in-themselves could be (not necessarily are) spontaneous is of no more use to us than answerinng your repeated gotcha question." spontaneity, as the antithesis of causality, is properly restricted to the realm of phenomena, sorry to tell you

On May 24 2018 00:16 Dan HH wrote:

I took issue with it because it's a big claim that not onily can't be backed up, but is self-contradictory. We can't restrict something from non-phenomena. And Kant didn't claim that it is, or claim to know anything about the causality of things in themselves or whether it exists in some form.

If he had claimed to know that x is not a property of N where N is that which is completely inaccessible to us, he would have been contradicting himself . When you replace x with 'nonexistence' we give him a charitable pass for the sole purpose of being able to discuss that concept, replacing x with anything else (eg: causality) makes the concept of N void, as it is not entirely inaccessible to us if we have the tools to make such a claim. It's fine of course to discuss possibilities, such as what would be the implications of x maybe not being a property of N, but you've done the opposite of that.

And it would still be irrelevant to the discussion of human accountability. For which it would only matter if causality is or isn't valid (or better yet, if spontaneity is possible) in the world of appearances. As you yourself said, the I that thinks is an appearance in this scenario, then it can't matter if the thing that thinks has any cause because it is not subject to our judgement, the I is. The only way that wouldn't be the case is if you were to claim that accountability is transcendental, which you cannot without double fouling your own premise. There are so many layers of wrong to this derailment.

While it's been more fun than discussing whatever Trump said, I'm now only repeating myself in more detail. There's nothing left in it for me to continue arguing about that statement that you attributed to Kant, as if his name alone should make it pass by unchallenged. A saner person than me would have stopped after the first reply to it.

Missouri May Be First State To Get Serious About The Definition Of Meat

Missouri is at the vanguard of defining what meat is, thanks to legislation awaiting the governor's signature.

It's an essential, perhaps even existential, question sparked by the growth of plant-based proteins, meat substitutes and lab-grown products. And it's a topic that, while first passed at the state level on May 17, is also being considered at the federal level.

Under the bill, which had overwhelming bipartisan support, only products that come from once-living, breathing animals can be marketed as meat. Specifically, meat would be defined as something "derived from harvested production livestock or poultry."

Spokesman Mike Deering of the Missouri Cattlemen's Association said it's key to protecting livestock producers' livelihood and investments.

"There's a lot of unknowns about these products and safety protocols and nutrition and all of that ... we're not stifling technology, but [we want to] make sure that we market with integrity and we're honest with consumers," he said.

In a year when the USDA expects Americans to eat record amounts of meat, livestock associations aren't necessarily targeting veggie burgers. They're more focused on plant-based meat products (also known as "clean meat") that have been gaining steam in the last year or so — companies like Beyond Meat and Hungry Planet in Missouri, as well as Impossible Burger and Memphis Meats.

Deering referenced a "knowledge gap" between producers and consumers.

"Why try to mimic the traditional meat industry?" he said of alternative meat company packaging that he claims misleads consumers. "Why put pictures of cattle and pictures of chickens on their product?"

But that's an argument that opponents of the bill, including the Good Food Institute, believe is a nonstarter. They say consumers are smart enough to know what they're looking for at the grocery store.

"All of these products that are currently on the market use descriptors that say what the source of the ingredients are ... you're going to find something that says soy-based vegan beef crumbles," GFI's director of policy Jessica Almy said, adding, "These compound names, like plant-based chicken, both communicate to consumers what the source of the food is."

She also said that federal law already keeps companies from misleading consumers about what the product is, and pointed out another possible issue: "a patchwork" of state labeling laws.

"It's going to create a situation where products that go to Missouri have to be labeled differently" than in the other 49 states, and it'll "pose significant and unnecessary hurdles for producers selling new products," Almy said.

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens has until July 15 to sign the bill into law.

On May 24 2018 03:36 Plansix wrote:
If someone can find the language of the rule itself, that would be great. It sounds like it is extra vague and requires “respect for the flag”, which is the hallmark of all good, well written rules.

On May 24 2018 03:46 Plansix wrote:
Ah, so they removed the requirement for players to be on the field. So they can just chill out in the locker room until the game starts. Hmmmm, I wonder how that will pan out for them.

On May 24 2018 04:11 farvacola wrote:
Without having looked at the opinion, it's common practice for an order or judgment separate from the opinion to issue in which the relief sought is granted. Not sure if that's what is happening here, but it's possible, if not likely.

On May 24 2018 04:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:


As a non-american, the use of the words "and show respect for the flag and the Anthem" as policy sounds straight up jingoistic. I think sacredness is something that needs to be handled with extreme caution in culture and politics, it can so easily be turned into a shield against important speech and criticism. I get the whole private entity spiel (even if I think this is a terrible change), but to frame the rule in terms of "respect for the flag and the Anthem" sounds so strange as an outsider.

On May 23 2018 17:09 iamthedave wrote:


But what Danglars is pointing out is not that they're the same but that they end up in the same place.

The flaw of Communism is not that it wants to kill everyone, it's that it doesn't say that, but that is what's required for actual humans to actually live under Communism. We're an awkward, selfish, unmanagable lot, if you get past very small communities. Indeed, Communism has been shown to work... in very small, self-sufficient communities.

One ideology is fundamentally bad and wrong (Nazism), the other will inevitably lead to great wrongs done in the name of the greater good (Communism).

That's how it always goes when a left wing ideology goes wrong. A right winger will take power because ONLY I CAN FIX THIS SOCIETY OF WEAKNESS, a left winger will kill millions because THESE ARE THE BAD ACTORS IN SOCIETY, ONLY BY REMOVING THEM CAN WE ACHIEVE HARMONY.

On May 24 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:


Source

In other new, a much needed state law is being pushed through in Missouri. The requirements on the US food industry have been notoriously lax and the FDA is pretty toothless when it comes to “innovations” in the mass market food industry. It is good a state is starting the push to force labeling that reflects were the hell the food started. Because the lack of labeling is only making people suspicious.

On May 24 2018 03:04 On_Slaught wrote:


Also, yet another example of shady money behind the Trump sphere of influence.

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/999319135233478659

One source in Kiev said Mr Poroshenko had given Trump "a gift" - making sure that Ukraine would find no more evidence to give the US inquiry into whether the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russia.

Mr Poroshenko knew that to do otherwise, another source said, "would be like spitting in Trump's face".