Help support TMP


"So If EATING MEAT Causes CLIMATE CHANGE, Let’s Tax It?" Topic


55 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Food Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board

Back to the Animals Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Profile Article

New Computer for Editor Dianna

Time to replace the equipment again!


Current Poll


2,375 hits since 29 Sep 2018
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Zardoz

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.

Pages: 1 2 

Cacique Caribe29 Sep 2018 3:07 p.m. PST

My VERY Vegan nephew showed me this and a couple of other articles (I presume, to push my buttons) and said that I need to get used to the idea that a large tax on meat might be just around the corner:

link

Well, it did get under my skin. This is why I cannot put up with fanatics of any kind, specially those who want the rest of the world to change their ways by force of law or by taxing the hell out of you.

Unbelievable.

Dan

JLA10529 Sep 2018 3:25 p.m. PST

Having beef for dinner tonight.

Cacique Caribe29 Sep 2018 4:11 p.m. PST

Actually, my wife and I are having beef also tonight. Nice big and juicy blue cheese filled burgers on the grill.

Dan

Bunkermeister Supporting Member of TMP29 Sep 2018 5:07 p.m. PST

Climate changes. So what?

Beef. It's what's for dinner.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP29 Sep 2018 6:37 p.m. PST

Maybe, if the climate gets warmer it will lead to bigger and juicier cows. Yuummmmmmmm…….meat.

Dave

Cacique Caribe29 Sep 2018 6:44 p.m. PST

LOL. Let's hope so.

Antarctica … where no cow has roamed before! Yet. :)

Dan

goragrad29 Sep 2018 9:04 p.m. PST

Elk and venison.

Tax beef and that won't change.

Of course then beef will still be available to the well to do.

Cacique Caribe29 Sep 2018 10:02 p.m. PST

That brings to mind a scene from Soylent Green with a really sad piece of smuggled beef hanging in a fridge.

picture

And someone like Chuck Connors to enforce the illusion of equality, among all his "two-legged cattle" comrades.

picture

Dan

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP30 Sep 2018 3:49 a.m. PST

Well, the day is coming when you can have your beef without the cow:

impossiblefoods.com

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP30 Sep 2018 10:17 a.m. PST

Ask "What is the purpose of taxation?"

The only answer is: "To raise money for public use."

Then, "But that's not your purpose with this tax, is it? You're doing it as an attempt to limit behavior, correct?"

His only real answer is: "Well, yes."

"So essentially, your purpose is to punish other people for doing something you don't like. And the only reason you are opting for taxation on this is that you don't have the political support to outlaw meat altogether. So you're attempting to pervert the legislative process by misusing the power of taxation to achieve a result which the people otherwise do not and would not support. Tell me, why do you have to pervert taxation from its purpose and make it a whip and chain upon other people? Why can you not simply present your point, and accept the right of the people do decide for themselves whether you are correct?"

"BUT IT'S CLIMATE CHANGE, " he will likely shriek.

"Ah, so you're claiming that the presence of cattle in large numbers is altering the environment through methane release, correct?"

"YES, EXACTLY, LET ME SHOW YOU SOME CHARTS!"

"No need for the charts. Tell me, how you you feel about the American Bison— you know, the buffalo? Or African Wildebeests? Or gazelles and antelope? Moose, deer, elk, caribou? You want them all to return to their original natural numbers, don't you? That's why you're a vegan, right? Are you under the impression that these species of cattle don't fart, too? That they didn't fart in the past? And do you plan to tax these creatures so that they don't also contribute to atmospheric carbon?"

The problem with your now flabbergasted nephew is, and you can say this, that he really doesn't have a proactive solution to what he says is the problem. His "solution" is entirely restrictive and political, and won't do a dang thing to solve any problem, either.

Now, you can suggest REAL solutions (if they are needed) like converting to nuclear power plants, developing carbon fixing solutions, and, the biggie, creating a "sun shield" at the Earth-Sol L1 Lagrange point. Even a limited scattering of small materials will reduce solar input at Earth by 2%, completely eliminating the claimed effects of man-made atmospheric carbon. (It's doable, too. And no, we don't have to lift the material to the location, either. There are plenty of asteroids which only need a slight momentum change to be directed to L1, at which point they can be "spun" causing them to split apart, creating the level of blocking we need. And there's no permanent risk, as L1 isn't completely stable, so the material will eventually leave on its own; if still needed, another asteroid can be added to the mix. Repeat as necessary.)

There are other options, too. But they don't involve restricting the freedoms of others, or granting more power to politicians (who need a hell of a lot less).

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP30 Sep 2018 10:43 a.m. PST

Tax on beef….well, the farm (daughter and son-in-law)
slaughters a steer once/year and we generally buy a
quarter (all we need for a year).

That, the chickens she raises and the pork from an
in-law's slaughter are all tax-free.

Fish from Compton's pond across the road (bass, mostly).

Nick Bowler30 Sep 2018 2:48 p.m. PST
Andrew Walters30 Sep 2018 4:56 p.m. PST

Well let me throw a little gas on the fire.

In the first place, I like meat. Except for the week I spent at my parent's place I don't think I've gone a day without bacon in a couple of years. I am not overweight. I encrouage everyone I know to eat more eggs, since they get your day started with hearty protein and fat instead of stupid sugary things that are nutritionally equivalent to dessert but masquerade as breakfast. Just reading the above mention of blue-cheese filled burgers determined the fate of a little chunk of left over gorgonzola I wasn't sure how to use. Yay meat!

On the other hand, objectively the vegans are right. The mainstream environmentalists do not want to talk about it, people have caught them stating they avoid talking about it, but meat eating is a more significant issue than fossil fuels, vis-a-vis climate change, or at least carbon footprint. The CO2 production of meat calories is about one hundred times that of vegetable calories.

The environmental movement is obsessed with easy victories while apparently avoiding issues that would make a real difference but which involve significant sacrifice. Plastic straws?!

The original purpose of taxation was to pay for public expenditures, but it was a quick and easy move towards using it as a means of social control. And thank goodness! High taxes and cigarettes and alcohol have driven those two destructive habits right out of American life! Statistics show that the cost of driving, whether caused by crude oil prices or gas taxes, has little effect on how much we drive. But it's an easy sell: want to raise money for a new program? Tell everyone you're going to tax some unpopular behavior. We won't take *your* money, we'll take money from those people over there no one likes. Maybe they'll even stop doing that antisocial thing! Conversely, you get a tax break if you create low income housing or install solar panels. I'm pretty sure if you looked at it hard you'd see that these schemes don't produce the results we want an a price we like, but they allow politicians to get their programs moving so they're here to stay.

If climate change is real and a result of human activity (we're not debating those here), then there's no question humans need to eat a lot less meat. Rationing is probably out of the question. And I'm not giving up sausages easily. That leaves trying to tax the behavior down to manageable levels. This is ugly, but sound.

Even if the pre-Columbian ungulates were allowed to return to their original numbers they would never product the methane and other GHGs that meat production causes. First, because there would not be as many of them globally or even in North Amerca as there are future burgers. Second, because feed lot systems produce much more GHGs per head than free grazing.

People want to nibble around the edges of climate change because it makes them feel better, but without epic changes to the energy consumption and diets in every country you'd want to live in nothing important will change. This is one of the things that makes me doubt AGW- the people who believe in it most strongly are not recommending policies that will change anything. In the words of Taylor Swift, "Band-aids don't fix bullet holes."

So the next time an environmentalist wants to talk to you about renewable energy, ask them if they've gone vegan. Ask them if they've got the courage to tell you to go vegan, because hybrid cars and bans on plastic straws will not save us.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP30 Sep 2018 5:19 p.m. PST

I know the environment is of great concern to most of you but for a moment, forget it.

Excessive eating of meat carries a lot of health problems.
Do I need to point out the obesity epidemic that's hitting the Western world? When I was in the US 2 years ago, I couldn't believe the number of grossly overweight people, for example. A lot of this comes from consuming huge quantities of fatty meat.

So, if a government's first duty is to protect its citizens, why not tax meat consumption in order to improve health?

It would be a tightrope to walk: you don't want to price meat so highly it drops out of the diets of, say, Pensioners. Nor do you want to slam the meat industry (jobs etc). You'd need to bring in incremental price increases until meat reached an optimal part of people's diets: say eaten 3-4 times a week. Consider: less unhealthy people, smaller health budgets, less tax for public health. I am certainly in favour of allowing anyone who does want to eat himself to death to do so but put a price on it so he pays through taxation for the medical expenses incumbent on such a course.

Oh & should a government concern itself in such matters? I'd say in any country that has, for example, speed limits on roads to stop idiots killing themselves & others, they're already in the business of legislating for good social behaviour.

The "fanatics" I can't put up with are the ones who see conspiracies everywhere.

Cacique Caribe30 Sep 2018 5:46 p.m. PST

If they start taxing the heck out of beef, I think I might seriously begin pursuing my End of the Road Diner idea:

TMP link

Dan

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP30 Sep 2018 8:34 p.m. PST

taxing the heck out of beef
pork, lamb….no point in doing just one.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP30 Sep 2018 9:05 p.m. PST

So, if a government's first duty is to protect its citizens, why not tax meat consumption in order to improve health?

Because:

A. That is NOT the purpose of taxation (read my post again).

and

B. It won't have the effect you suggest it will. (You're begging the question.)

I told you the actual solution: Reduce the solar input, and switch over to nuclear energy.

That's all we need to do.

Here's the deal with meat-eating: We're eating herbivores. Herbivores consume plants, which get their carbon from where? The AIR. Yes, ALL plants consumed by herbivores pull carbon from the atmosphere in the first place, which means that any carbon released by a herbivore merely goes back into the atmosphere from which it originally came. But also, not all of it goes back. In fact, MOST of it is fixed into the cellular structure of the herbivore. (That's how they grow, get fat, and become tasty.) So a herbivore releases LESS carbon into the atmosphere than the amount of carbon in the plant they have consumed, so the net increase in the atmosphere must, overall, actually be negative. (Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.)
Here's the thing nobody seems to be considering: ALL carbon being released into the atmosphere by ANY process (natural or not) was at one time already in the atmosphere. Oil? Coal? Cow farts? All the product of atmospheric carbon converted at some point into plant life. And since the net amount of carbon on Earth is ultimately static (again, matter can neither be created nor destroyed), then at one time, prior to life beginning on Earth, all of that carbon was in the Earth's atmosphere at the same time. We didn't get runaway greenhouse effects then; we won't get it now, when much, much, much less carbon is being returned to the atmosphere than was ever in it.

But again, if you want a solution for whatever warming might occur, the way to stop the planet from warming is to reduce the source of the warming— sunlight. And the best way to do that is, in fact, the solar parasol concept.

Eat meat. Launch rockets. Continue to eat meat.

Cacique Caribe30 Sep 2018 9:25 p.m. PST

Parzival

This all reminds me of a couple of the old Wendy's commercials.

First their "Where's the beef?" campaign, of course.

But after a quick look at the wardrobe in the zero middle class society in Soylent Green, where most of the people were equally poor, I'm reminded of Wendy's 1985 Soviet Socialist Fashion Show commercials … daywear … eveningwear … swimwear.

Some busy bodies (ironically many of the same people who love to accuse some nations of imposing their will on others) feel that these things have to be forced on people all around the globe, whether they want it or not. Because the truth is that no sane person would ever consider them reasonable or tolerate them of their own free will, unless they've already been conditioned through decades of control vial legislative bullying and tax extortion.

Well, many of our ancestors traveled to the new world and other lands at different points in history mostly because they wanted to get away from those control freaks. :)

Dan
PS. And now … daywear … eveningwear … swimwear:

picture

YouTube link

Winston Smith30 Sep 2018 9:45 p.m. PST

The primary purpose of our tax code is to regulate behavior.
Revenue is only secondary.
It's been that way for years.

By the way, being an animal, you inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Thus your mere existence contributed to climate change.
It gets worse. When you die your decaying body will contribute even more greenhouse gasses.
A true believer in anthropomorphic climate change should kill himself now, and jump right to the decay portion of his existence without contributing a further 20 years of respiration. It's the only responsible thing to do.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP30 Sep 2018 10:21 p.m. PST

@ Parzival, your sci-fi idea is interesting, I guess.I wasn't talking about the climate….(read my post again).

It won't have the effect you suggest it will.

Maybe not. However, a similar campaign against smoking tobacco that used punitive taxation here worked very well. A few odd self-destructive types who want to get lung cancer persevere but largely smoking has stopped & the health benefits are enormous. "Pigging out" on meat (a particularly apt description) is bad for your health.

Well, many of our ancestors traveled to the new world and other lands at different points in history mostly because they wanted to get away from those control freaks.

I think you'll find the Puritans left England because the laws of the land would not allow them to impose their beliefs on others. Indeed, to persecute their enemies such as the Quakers. *They* were the 'control freaks'.
You may find this article on the Puritans to be of interest:
link
And this one from the Smithsonian magazine refers to "story book history" before giving the facts:
link

Nationalist myths serve a purpose, CC, but the truth behind them is always very revealing.

Cacique Caribe30 Sep 2018 10:34 p.m. PST

Winston: "A true believer in anthropomorphic climate change should kill himself now, and jump right to the decay portion of his existence without contributing a further 20 years of respiration. It's the only responsible thing to do."

I love it!!!

Dan

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 4:13 a.m. PST

"A true believer in anthropomorphic climate change should kill himself now, and jump right to the decay portion of his existence without contributing a further 20 years of respiration. It's the only responsible thing to do."

Leaving the world in the hands of the non-believers who will end up killing everyone 70 years from now? Hmm, decisions, decisions…

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 6:29 a.m. PST

Herbivores and consumption of green growing things…

Didn't know there was an abundance of green growing
things in feedlots !

Silly me !

Cacique Caribe01 Oct 2018 6:33 a.m. PST

Scott: "non-believers who will end up killing everyone 70 years from now"

Lol. So it's 70 years now?

Well, I guess that's a safer chronological prediction than other I've heard in the last couple of decades, which simply came and went. But everyone now denies those predictions were ever uttered of course. :)

Dan

Cacique Caribe01 Oct 2018 8:20 a.m. PST

So it begins. First they take away your beef …

picture

picture

picture

Dan
PS. At least now I know what our first real war against the "UN" will be about. And I have a feeling it will be a very short one. :)
It could be so short that it might not be worth making battle flags for it, but here are some possible slogans:
- From my cold dead fork!
- Come and take away my meat!
- Here's the beef!
- Eat and let eat!
- Meat isn't just for the Politburo!

picture

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 9:34 a.m. PST

Dan,

thumbs up thumbs up thumbs up thumbs up

Dave

picture

Bunkermeister Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 10:23 a.m. PST

Taxation should not be used to control behavior. It should be used to provide funds for the government to do those things that need doing and not one penny more.

We need fewer and lower taxes.

Personal freedom to do what we want as long as we don't directly harm others.

We should have had nuclear power decades ago. Cheap and clean, it solves many problems. Even the nuclear waste problems have been solved. But the media have lied and scared people so one of the biggest costs is lawsuits designed only to raise the cost and stop the project.

Have your dentist pull you canine teeth to show your commitment to being vegan and leave the rest of us alone.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Omnivore.

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 10:49 a.m. PST

I'm all in favor of nuclear power. I helped build the Limerick Nuclear Station years ago.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 12:16 p.m. PST

Good. Then stop deciding what you think the rest of us should be doing or not doing. Feel free to inform us; that's good. But don't jump from that to forcing us. That's evil.

@ochoin: The end does NOT justify the means. Everything you have so far said is simply justification for violating the rights and liberties of others, by cloaking it in what you decide is the preferred outcome.
I'm not in favor of tobacco. I think smoking is fundamentally foolish, if not a sign of outright stupidity (at least at this day and age). I've felt that way since I was seven. But then, I also think the same way about consuming alcohol, at least beyond a certain level. It has zero health benefits (yes, that has now been established), and is detrimental to heart health and mental and emotional health. But I would never propose a tax upon it as either a punishment on drinkers or even a way of forcing them to stop. That is not my right; to do so is, in fact, tantamount to tyranny.

Again: The only rightful purpose of taxation is to raise funds for public use, to the benefit of ALL (not the few). The purpose of legislation is to establish boundaries of human action in order to preserve the life, liberty and property of each individual. If you want to raise money, develop the most effective and easy-to-comply with system of taxation. If you want to prevent bad behavior, go through the legislative process to establish direct limitations upon it. If you cannot do the latter, it is evil (and self-defeating) to bastardize taxation into the law you cannot pass. Instead, you should educate the people; change their minds, and they will change the laws of their own accord (or maybe simply change their behavior, rendering the law moot).

My statement about an L1 solar parasol isn't science fiction, by the way. It is currently one of the leading contenders as an actual practical and practicable technological solution for climate change. So, too is my concept of shepherding NEO asteroids into the L1 orbit— this has been noted as quite achievable, requiring surprisingly small changes of momentum and vector (as low as in the 50m/s range, and no higher than 500m/s). The latter has been proposed as an way of establishing an "asteroid mining camp," if you will. It is my idea to combine the two approaches, using the asteroids as the materiel for the parasol and thus eliminating the need to launch the required mass from Earth. As for actually moving the asteroid, NASA has already determined that a "gravity carrot" approach is quite feasible, using the mass of an unmanned probe as a gravitational attractor on the asteroid; move the probe, and the asteroid follows. Nor does the probe have to have fuel to pull all the way to L1; it just needs to have enough mass and momentum to deflect the asteroid's own orbit sufficiently for the asteroid to wind up (eventually) locked in at L1.
So the only real thing I've speculated upon is the concept of spinning the asteroid to break it apart into our solar parasol cloud. Again, either a probe strike or even the probe's gravitational attraction could produce this.
Then, if the cloud needs to be reduced or eliminated, beyond the natural instability of L1 to cause this anyway, we simply send another probe to gravitationally attract the cloud parts out of L1 and into a solar plunge.

We could do all this with SpaceX's Falcon Heavy; if it can launch a Tesla beyond Mars' orbit, it can certainly but a few kilos of a "carrot probe" on course to a suitable NEO, with a trajectory to change the latter's momentum into an L1 capture.

In the meantime, on Earth we can find the positive energy solutions that render the carbon emissions a non-critical concern. No need for legislation or punitive taxation. Just attractive alternatives, that will make money because people will WANT to use them.

As for health issues, it's not the fact that people eat meat that causes the problems (indeed, we require it— try getting B12 from a plant). The problems arise from the amount of mass consumed. As noted above, since matter can neither be created nor destroyed, a person's body fat level (and thus his or her "weight") is directly related to the level of mass the person consumes, regardless of what that mass consists of, provided the body is capable of processing it. People aren't fat because they eat steak. They are fat because they eat 12 oz of steak when 4 to 6 oz is quite sufficient, and tastes just the same. But even a 12 oz steak can, at maximum, only add exactly 12 oz to the person's body mass (and since much is expelled as waste, not even that). Similarly, a 2 oz candy bar can add only 2 oz to a person's mass, maximum. Period. All additional mass to a person comes from their consumption of all their sources of mass (food), regardless of what it actually is. If you are overweight, it is simply because you eat too much in general, not because you eat too much of one thing over another. (I am, of course, ignoring the factor of physical activity, but that's just a matter of energy usage; increase the activity, and the energy use of the food goes up, reducing the body's response of instead storing it.) Thus, the culprit isn't meat as a whole; it's abusing the level of consumption of it. (You don't need a double-double. A single will do just fine.)

So, in the end, the individual is perfectly capable of monitoring their own meat consumption to maintain a healthy level. The "tax" they undergo is their own dissatisfaction with their appearance and/or resulting health problems. They don't need a nanny-state making it worse, or taking what they enjoy away from them entirely.

And to the soul who made the crack about green plants in a feedlot, exactly where do you think the "feed" comes from, and what is it? Oh, yeah— it's the product of green plants. So that point is completely moot, and not a logical assertion at all.

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 12:28 p.m. PST

Parzival – my daughter and son-in-law raise a small
number of beef cattle. They grow their own fodder, so
green.

However, they do have a few sacks of cattle feed – the
labels are quite illuminating. ONE of them actually
mentions plants as part of the feed.

The others mention all sorts of things, including other
animal parts, and chemicals. Lots and lots of chemicals.
Probably to 'weight-up' the beeves.

Which is why they have a FEW sacks (no longer used) and
MANY acres in green growing things.

Probably, of course, illogical of me to state, of course,
since it is only my observation, so doubtless in the
eyes of some far too small a sample size…

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 1:23 p.m. PST

@ Parzival.

There's no FORCING about it. It's PERSUASION.Your political beliefs are noted but are an opinion (& a wrong one IMO) at that.
You're allowing your political beliefs to cloud any logic in your long post whose premise is easily shot down.

Does your government impose fines for littering? Jaywalking? It must be EVIL!

I'd be far more frightened of cockamamie schemes to control sunlight hitting earth if I thought them at all possible.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 2:14 p.m. PST

@ Ochoin: Yes, but only after a TRIAL and a CONVICTION. And a fine isn't a tax. It's a punishment assessed for the breaking of a law. (You really need to consult a dictionary, if you don't know the difference between these two words.) Your tax is an attempt to punish someone without creating a law or allowing for a trial. That's an abuse of the power of taxation, and an abuse of the purpose of legislation by deliberately avoiding having to do it.

You also don't seem to know the meaning of the word "persuasion."
Persuasion happens when I write or say something to suggest a different choice for you, or to lead you to an honest change of opinion based on the statements in my argument. You aren't trying to do that at all; you are trying to THREATEN someone into changing their actions (not their opinions) by inflicting harm upon them if they do not agree with you. That's not persuasion, it's extortion. It's a quite common tactic among totalitarians and criminals, but it has no place in a free and democratic society.

So, you haven't "shot down" any premise at all, nor have you proven any of your points, nor refuted any of mine.

And while, yes, I expect my politics are noticeable, since my politics are based on a respect for the rule of law, the rights of the individual, and the principle that the means must be as just as the ends, I am right.
Tell me, does the individual not have the right to own property?
Does the individual not have the right to dispose of that property in a manner they so choose, provided it does not harm another?
Does the individual not have the right not to have his property taken from him, anymore than his life or his liberty, without due process of law?
Is it right for a government to threaten an individual with loss of property, liberty or life for engaging in private activities which do not harm others?
And if the government claims that the individual's actions are a harm to others, is not the burden of proof on the government to show that this is the case, and that the individual has so acted?
Yet what YOU call for is, in effect, the punishment of the individual for an ASSUMED harm which is tangential at best to the action being taken, and for that punishment to be executed without benefit of trial or defense.
Oh, yes, it's been a tactic of the left now for many, many years. Or rather, it's been a tactic of whichever group wishes to exert power over another group without that group being able to mount a defense against it. Look up "Poll Tax" if you need clarification.
Oh, no, it's not a "punishment," it's "persuasion." Rather like "Nice little shop you have here, Pops. Be a shame if something happened to it," is just a request for a donation to the local youth club.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 2:57 p.m. PST

Hey I like a good burger or steak now & then !

"No Taxation without representation !" … no wait … never mind …

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 6:00 p.m. PST

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more or less." I'd be pleased if you stopped the snarky references to dictionaries etc. Trust me, my education was quite adequate.

No, you are wrong. So utterly wrong it's hard to know where to start. Can I suggest you read John Locke's 'Second Treatise on Government'? A free & democratic society, like the one I live in, elects governments to enact its will. The tendency to suspect a government suggests grave & fundamental problems with a society. Of course, I'm not pointing fingers.

The harm is not "assumed". I would suggest the harm is in having a society peopled by the obese who are fed dangerous diets by virtue of large corporations seeking profit without conscience, uninhibited by law. Is it their "rights" you are defending?

I'm not sure that we shouldn't reveal height, weight & cholesterol level to establish our bona fides for further discussion.
1.90 metres. 78 kilos. LDL levels less than 2 mmol/l(without taking drugs). Are you qualified to continue a discussion on the deleterious effects of a poor diet?

Here's something that will no doubt upset you further:
link

I was reading an interesting article that suggested the answer to the US' gun problem might lie in introducing a tax as a first measure. As I can tell from several replies in this thread, hitting someone in the hip pocket gets their attention. Then you can progress to further measures of persuasion.Even in the US, governments have sought to wean their people away from harm with taxation. Tobacco tax, anyone?

link

So pretend all you like,my proposal is sound, fair and democratic.


BTW Seeing you didn't get the hint, I wish YOU'd STOP SHOUTING at me. It doesn't help YOUR case.

Cacique Caribe01 Oct 2018 8:36 p.m. PST

Parzival

LOL. Spot on!

The stuff I've read on some websites is really hilarious. But one thing remains the same everywhere … people who threaten to take away the most basic freedoms of those who live in other countries don't really understand the effect those words have on individuals and cultures who aren't accustomed to bending the knee the way his people probably do back home.

Dan
PS. Or it might be something else entirely, perhaps like what my wife has come to call "cyber-balls".

ZULUPAUL Supporting Member of TMP02 Oct 2018 7:56 a.m. PST

We have no "gun problem" in USA, we have a criminal element problem. Owning firearms is a Constitutional right. You can tax everyone to death in your country, stop suggesting what the USA should do, we are capable of dealing with any problems without foreign interference. Said my piece, I'll leave now.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP02 Oct 2018 10:12 a.m. PST

Ah, we have descended into personal snubs and snobbery. Well done, Ochoin, well done.

By the way, I am quite healthy. No cholesterol issues, perhaps a bit more weight than I should have (though I am not and never have been obese), but falling, thanks to an averaged daily exercise walk regimen of around 13,000 steps. Doctor says I have a low Vitamin D level, but recent studies suggest that may not be the issue we currently think it is. But I take supplements for that, so it's moot. You don't need to know my numbers, and I'm certainly not giving out detailed health information on a public forum. But, barring accident or cancer (which my family is not particularly disposed to), I expect to live another 50 years, give or take, and be quite healthy throughout. And, yeah, I still eat red meat. So did my paternal great uncle, who lived to 100. (My grandfather, alas, died due to a botched hernia surgery, or I expect he'd have lived to an equal age).

Now, as for the rest. I apologize for typing in all caps. I do so for emphasis, not to shout, as the whole <> thing is cumbersome and my spellcheck keeps turning the italics lowercase ‘i" into a capital letter, which is annoying.
My point is merely to emphasize the word, not to yell it at you or anyone. I beg your indulgence on that.

It's rich for you to quote John Locke. But then, John Locke isn't any more authoritative than anyone else on government theory; he's putting forth an opinion and a philosophy; he's not a Divine prophet of all things Democracy. He might be a source of inspiration for my nation and its ideals, but he is not the source of them. Our source is the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. A people whose independence was largely kickstarted as a response to a tax on tea is hardly a nation supportive of the idea of taxation as a form of punishment or persuasion, however much it has slipped in and out over the centuries since.

I am from the American South. We have had "sin taxes" of all sorts. In my opinion they were (and are still) a bad idea, a back door prohibition. (I'm also opposed to lotteries, as essentially being a "stupidity tax," but that would be moralizing on my part. The people of my state have decided to have one, so they can throw their money away if they wish.) I prefer direct legislation combined with active education. And frankly, your meat argument would probably gain more traction if you argued instead for a voluntary lowering of consumption on a personal level (as I actually did, above), rather than elimination enforced by government action and financial extortion. Hearts and minds, hearts and minds— change these, and a government threat becomes unnecessary.

As for gun control, well that's a departure from our discussion. I never said anything about that, pro or con, so you're just trying to deflect the discussion to something you consider favorable to your point. Please stick with the topic at hand: Climate change, meat consumption, taxing meat, and whether or not that would have any actual impact on the environment in any measurable sense, and of course, whether taxation is an effective or defensible method of altering private behavior. (I confess to diverting into my space solution, but at least it was directly related to solving the problem which the meat tax doesn't achieve.)

Bowman02 Oct 2018 10:13 a.m. PST

We have no "gun problem" in USA, we have a criminal element problem

Every country has a "criminal element". The USA has the second highest gun death per capita rate, at least according to:

link

A comparison to other countries here on Wiki:

link

Apparently the US, Brazil and only 4 other countries constitute over 50% of worldwide gun deaths.

link

Cacique Caribe02 Oct 2018 10:37 a.m. PST

Just found out last night that Netflix has that "Meat Eater" series. I guess I'll finally get to see it.

Hmm. Maybe, instead of eating beef all the time, we should eat the heck out of wildlife. Or at least finally give the poachers a decent income. Would that work for the international beef police? :)

Or should we expand our taste to include imported vegetarian long pig? :)

Dan
PS. Eat and let eat!

Bowman02 Oct 2018 10:42 a.m. PST

I just read the article that Dan linked to. There is no mention of taxation whatsoever. The link showed research that we are eating too much red meat and that is adversely affecting our own health and that of the environment.

Only Dan mentioned taxation. Therefore all the arguing on this thread is over a straw man.

Cacique Caribe02 Oct 2018 10:45 a.m. PST

Bowman: "Only Dan mentioned taxation. Therefore all the arguing on this thread is over a straw man."

Really, Bowman? I guess you didn't read my post carefully then. That was just one of several that he used to support HIS argument.

Pick any of these then:

link

So no, Bowman. I'm not making it up. I'm not the only one being told to get used to the idea of a tax designed to kill off the beef industry and forcibly change our diet and culture.

I'm really surprised that you haven't heard any such talk either, specially among the most fanatical ones in all your Climate Change cliques, whatever they may be. I seriously do NOT believe -not for one second- that this is the first time you hear of anyone preaching that warning to beef/meat eaters.

Dan

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP02 Oct 2018 11:01 a.m. PST

Uh, Bowman— Dan's the creator of the OP. So of course the discussion is about something Dan brought up, based on a conversation he had, and an article he linked to. Others joined the discussion directly related to the OP (I know I did). You leapt in with gun control following Ochoin's diversion into that, after he essentially lost the argument over the OP. Talk about straw men!!! Tell me, what the heck does gun control have to do with eating red meat and cattle's supposed contribution to climate change?

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP02 Oct 2018 11:57 a.m. PST

I love watching them open mouth and insert foot. And they know who they are.

picture

Winston Smith02 Oct 2018 2:24 p.m. PST

I just read an article by some "scientists who did a Study" that maybe bad cholesterol isn't really all that bad for you.
Ditto salt.
And on and on it goes. Was it a credible "Study"? How would I know?
But it was on the Internet so it has to be true. grin
It was on my liberal news feed, Google News. Haven't seen it on Drudge yet.

Not to mention all that "evidence" from people who live past 100.
They smoke, they drink neat whiskey, they're tea total, they don't smoke, they're celibate, they have sex once a week and so on.
No one gets out of here alive. May as well enjoy yourselves.
Ecclesiastes 8:15
Isaiah 23:13
Can I have a plate of Komensky's kielbasa, Yancey's Fancy extremely sharp cheddar, Ritz crackers and a mug of Yuengling please?
And when I'm done some Dungeness crabs and butter.

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP02 Oct 2018 3:28 p.m. PST

Followed by a Krusty burger. grin

picture

Bunkermeister Supporting Member of TMP02 Oct 2018 5:30 p.m. PST

Tax meat. Tax motorcycles. Tax bungee jumping. Tax breathing polluted air. Tax soda pop. Tax lard. Tax anything that might be unhealthy.

The purpose of life is to live, not to survive as long as you can. If you enjoy toy soldiers and Bob enjoys a steak, and Dan enjoys a beer don't feel you need to tax the two you don't do in order to force them to be better people.

A fine is not a tax, and we shouldn't fine people for doing that which does no harm to others.

We don't live in a democracy where the simple majority take away the rights of the minority. We live in a democratic republic were the inherent rights of the people are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP02 Oct 2018 5:47 p.m. PST

Amen, Brother. Amen.

Dave

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP02 Oct 2018 7:02 p.m. PST

Every country has a "criminal element". The USA has the second highest gun death per capita rate, at least according to:
Only second ?!?!? huh?

We'll just have to try harder !!!! evil grin

Bowman03 Oct 2018 8:40 a.m. PST

Uh, Bowman— Dan's the creator of the OP. So of course the discussion is about something Dan brought up, based on a conversation he had, and an article he linked to.

Granted, but may I point out that this is the Science board and there is actual Science discussed in the original link. I suppose it would too much to have the Science talked about, instead of excursions into John Locke, the purpose of taxation, and the relevance of the US Constitution, etc.

Really, Bowman? I guess you didn't read my post carefully then. That was just one of several that he used to support HIS argument.

I read the link carefully and there is no mention of taxation in HIS argument, as the heading of this thread would suggest.

You leapt in with gun control following Ochoin's diversion into that, after he essentially lost the argument over the OP.

No, I didn't respond to what you and Ochoin were writing about at all. I was simply responding to ZuluPaul's comment. That's not "leaping in", it's being part of a discussion on a discussion board. I thought by using the applicable quote, it would have been obvious.

dapeters03 Oct 2018 9:27 a.m. PST

I thought discussions of Climate change and current events were band?

Pages: 1 2