Poll of the Day > Now folks are being bamboozled into thinking Biden is gonna make meat a crime

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mead posted...

they certainly dont have the ability to convince American people to pass up burgers in favor of cricket flour or whatever

Right, and I've been saying that the globalists would have to achieve it by taking choice out of the equation. If the globalists can't convince people to cooperate then they'll influence the supply side of the market. Make meat either unavailable or so expensive that the average person can't afford it. People will have to turn to some alternative whether they want to or not. The end result is what I said before. They will force it on people.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Right, and I've been saying that the globalists would have to achieve it by taking choice out of the equation. If the globalists can't convince people to cooperate then they'll influence the supply side of the market. Make meat either unavailable or so expensive that the average person can't afford it. People will have to turn to some alternative whether they want to or not. The end result is what I said before. They will force it on people.

I would again say what evidence is there that anyone is actually doing that though? Theres a huge multi billion dollar meat industry that doesnt play any fucking games, their entire business is built on ending life. You really think they are gonna keep quiet and let some convention brats screw with their established power?

---

Mead posted...

what evidence is there that anyone is actually doing that though?

I'm not sure how relevant that is to proving any of my assertions. I think I've demonstrated that someone has the goal of ending the mass consumption of meat and Joe Biden is not the person behind it.

My other point was that they would use their influence to suppress access to meat if people don't comply willingly. This is the concern. I believe it remains a concern even if they are not currently doing this or how successful you think they would be at it.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm not sure how relevant that is to proving any of my assertions.

You're not sure how relevant evidence of the things you're asserting is to proving any of your assertions? May I ask which definition you're using for the word "prove"?

---

D

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm not sure how relevant that is to proving any of my assertions. I think I've demonstrated that someone has the goal of ending the mass consumption of meat and Joe Biden is not the person behind it.

My other point was that they would use their influence to suppress access to meat if people don't comply willingly. This is the concern. I believe it remains a concern even if they are not currently doing this or how successful you think they would be at it.

ok but my dude

the entire point is that people are being tricked into believing this is part of Bidens view as president. That he wants Americans to have less choice in what they eat and to take something they like away from them.

and it is working. There are now people that in their minds know for a fact that Biden and democrats want to take away the food they like to eat and make their life just fucking suck. The problem of course is that they have simply been lied to

---

Mead posted...

There are now people that in their minds know for a fact that Biden and democrats want to take away the food they like to eat and make their life just f***ing suck.

See: Icoyar having several rounds of diarrhea because he was so stressed out about the mere possibility that Biden might win the election, let alone when he actually won. And then when these things don't actually come to pass, the GOP will take credit for preventing them and use that to galvanize their fanbase, despite the fact that there was nothing to prevent.

---

SKAR still thinks Trump won the election, don't bother entertaining his whimsical fantasies.

---

Zareth posted...

SKAR still thinks Trump won the election, don't bother entertaining his whimsical fantasies.

I think he has just been convinced that some things are true when they are not

---

---

adjl posted...

See: Icoyar having several rounds of diarrhea because he was so stressed out about the mere possibility that Biden might win the election, let alone when he actually won. And then when these things don't actually come to pass, the GOP will take credit for preventing them and use that to galvanize their fanbase, despite the fact that there was nothing to prevent.

Where did ICOYAR go? Did he fall in a hole of hypocrisy that he can't escape?

dude just LEFT when 1/6 happened as far as I can tell. Came back eventually but didnt really post much before leaving again from what I say

I dont know every detail about the guy the way some people seem to, but if I had to guess I bet 1/6 really shocked a family member or guardian or something and they got fed up with him probably blabbering on all the time about the same crap the capitol rioters were spewing while they tried to hang the Vice President.

Maybe they got him some kind of counseling or something and one of the rules is that he needs to spend less time online where so much hate and misinformation festers

---

Well, I hope he's doing better and less... ICOYAR.

Mead posted...

dude just LEFT when 1/6 happened as far as I can tell. Came back eventually but didnt really post much before leaving again from what I say

I dont know every detail about the guy the way some people seem to, but if I had to guess I bet 1/6 really shocked a family member or guardian or something and they got fed up with him probably blabbering on all the time about the same crap the capitol rioters were spewing while they tried to hang the Vice President.

Maybe they got him some kind of counseling or something and one of the rules is that he needs to spend less time online where so much hate and misinformation festers

From what I understand, he had all his hopes and dreams shattered after playing The Last of Us II, that he lost his faith in gaming and humanity, rated it half a star, and gave up on gaming all together.



---

shadowsword87 posted...

Where did ICOYAR go? Did he fall in a hole of hypocrisy that he can't escape?

Bet hes still here lurking on an alt. Hes not clever so itll be crazy obvious.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Farmers, butchers, chefs, companies that make TV dinners, anyone that works in the supply chain will be impacted by the removal of meat products from the market.

yes

meat is soon going to disappear

meat.

the most consumed thing in the entire world.

just gonna vanish, now we're gonna eat bugs.

and you believe this.

---

I don't see how icoyar's family would intervene, they probably have no idea what he does online, given the many years of crazy stuff he did. I guess it's possible that he said something outrageous IRL and they connected the dots to the internet but I doubt it. He still logs in here, he just doesn't post

My guess is just that he got fed up and went somewhere more echo chambery to his liking

CoorsLight posted...

I don't see how icoyar's family would intervene, they probably have no idea what he does online, given the many years of crazy stuff he did. I guess it's possible that he said something outrageous IRL and they connected the dots to the internet but I doubt it. He still logs in here, he just doesn't post

My guess is just that he got fed up and went somewhere more echo chambery to his liking

Prolly joined QAnon. He was pissed when his mom friended me.

---

adjl posted...

You're not sure how relevant evidence of the things you're asserting is to proving any of your assertions?

Mead asked for evidence of something that wasn't one of my assertions. The rest of my post goes through what my assertions were and how they relate to what he asked me to prove.

Mead posted...

the entire point is that people are being tricked into believing this is part of Bidens view as president.

I don't know how accurate that is. I suppose people could just be hearing about it in relation to Biden and think he is the one orchestrating it. There was a sentiment that Trump would have stood against the Globalist interests and Biden won't. Ether Biden is so out of it that he isn't aware that this a goal the Globalist have or he is aware and will permit it to happen.

When the pandemic started the rhetoric was that every death Trump didn't prevent he personally caused. In this way if Biden is permissive of the Globalist agenda then he is responsible for it happening. I think that might be what people mean.

People could think that Biden is more involved than that. The Democrats have been rather "open boarder", "world citizen" focused for a while. It's not that much a leap to think the Democrats would cooperate with the Globalist agenda and Biden was put in place to further their goals.

I don't think people believe Biden came up with the idea.

Zareth posted...

SKAR still thinks Trump won the election, don't bother entertaining his whimsical fantasies.

I think the issue was not resolved conclusively.

---

---

I'm still failing to see how the "globalist agenda" is bad. You seem to be using the word globalist like it means something bad to everyone but it's just a conservative scare word (which is usually dripping in anti-semitist dog whistling)

CoorsLight posted...

I'm still failing to see how the "globalist agenda" is bad. You seem to be using the word globalist like it means something bad to everyone but it's just a conservative scare word (which is usually dripping in anti-semitist dog whistling)

Noooo, people don't hate jewish people for taking over, instead they hate Globalists who just happen to be jewish.

i love when like 30 message are missing from a thread for me because people are arguing with a right-wing troll I ignored. it's like i can feel my mental health not deteriorating in real time

---

CoorsLight posted...

I'm still failing to see how the "globalist agenda" is bad.

I don't know if this is suppose to be in response to me or not.
I'm more in favor of a civic nationalism approach. For civilization to prosper people need a shared set of values. A nation is a group of people that share a set of values. Therefore the existence of nations is good for civilization. A global society would be one without shared values and would result in a failing civilization.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm more in favor of a civic nationalism approach. For civilization to prosper people need a shared set of values. A nation is a group of people that share a set of values. Therefore the existence of nations is good for civilization. A global society would be one without shared values and would result in a failing civilization.

State objective
Make broad idealistic assertion based on undefined parameters
Provide questionable definition of an unrelated concept
Conclusion assuming undefined assertion was true
Non sequitur

Master debate

---

faramir77 posted...

State objective

Darn, I think I skipped a step. Instead of having an end result in mind I said the equivalent of "I like chocolate milk".

faramir77 posted...

Make broad idealistic assertion based on undefined parameters

I don't think I need to explain what a civilization is and what the values are is unimportant to the notion that people share those values.

faramir77 posted...

Provide questionable definition of an unrelated concept
Conclusion assuming undefined assertion was true

It's not meant to be a dictionary definition. It's my cognitive schema for engaging with these concepts. I'm explaining how I relate to the ideas we're discussing. It's not meant to be a scientific study on the subject.

faramir77 posted...

Non sequitur

I think my closing statement is related to the topic at hand and clearly extrapolated from the preceding statements.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think the issue was not resolved conclusively

you think that Biden getting more votes was not conclusive?

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

The defensiveness of people who like meat is legitimately gross and it's still mostly mainstream even in fairly left wing environments like GameFAQs. Idk how many stories I've read of people gloating that they tricked their vegetarian friends into eating meat.

I'm against the banning of meat (though this seems more like an imagined boogeyman)

But that is just being a dick, you don't trick people into eating things they don't want to eat

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Mead asked for evidence of something that wasn't one of my assertions.

If not actually an assertion, it's all pretty core to the assertions you're trying to make. So far, the extent of your position seems to be "I know for sure there are people that want the world to eat less meat, and here are all the hypothetical ways they could do it that I wouldn't like and I'm upset about those but I also have no evidence that anyone's actually doing these hypothetical things." That's... not exactly substantial.

---

adjl posted...

extent of your position seems to be "I know for sure there are people that want the world to eat less meat, and here are all the hypothetical ways they could do it that I wouldn't like and I'm upset about those but I also have no evidence that anyone's actually doing these hypothetical things."

That's a bit like if I show you a picture of a bear to prove that they live in the woods, and you ask me to demonstrate that they exist by showing you a mauling in progress. Just because a bear isn't currently ripping apart your tent doesn't mean you should ignore the possibility when you go camping.


---

Bulbasaur posted...

you think that Biden getting more votes was not conclusive?

---

I buy meat because it's easy and cost effective protein. I only buy chicken, or items marked for quick sale that are dated to expire soon and drastically marked down (which tends to be pork).

In truth I only eat beef a handful of times a year when going to a restaurant where I want a burger. I probably consume less than 4 lb of beef a year.

If consumers paid the true cost of meat, without government subsidies, there would be a lot more vegetarians in the world (perhaps me included).

---

Clench281 posted...

If consumers paid the true cost of meat, without government subsidies, there would be a lot more vegetarians in the world (perhaps me included).

Oh 100%, if we start looking at the subside for corn, and remove that, our breakdown of food is going to change. Suddenly high fructose cornsyrup isn't as cheap and plentiful, animal feed is more expensive, hell, a lot of everything would change.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's a bit like if I show you a picture of a bear to prove that they live in the woods, and you ask me to demonstrate that they exist by showing you a mauling in progress. Just because a bear isn't currently ripping apart your tent doesn't mean you should ignore the possibility when you go camping.

No, but you also aren't demonstrating the mauling risk simply by showing a picture of a bear. You're just showing a picture of a bear. Demonstrating the mauling risk entails providing information about bears' ability to maul humans, behavioural patterns that can lead to maulings, statistics regarding maulings... Merely showing a picture of the bear is pretty much meaningless.

Clench281 posted...

If consumers paid the true cost of meat, without government subsidies, there would be a lot more vegetarians in the world (perhaps me included).

How ironic that the party of small government that hates handouts so much is so desperate for the government to keep buying their steaks for them. And by ironic, I don't actually mean ironic, because that kind of hypocrisy is not remotely unexpected at this point. How ironic of me.

---

adjl posted...

You're just showing a picture of a bear.

Does the absence of a mauling taking place right this moment prove that bears are safe?

---

lmfao we got some Agenda 21 folks here

---

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Does the absence of a mauling taking place right this moment prove that bears are safe?

I think you need to take a step back and reevaluate your logical process, because the one you seem to be applying bears very little resemblance to the one used in the real world.

---

adjl posted...

bears very little resemblance

I c wut u did thar

---

adjl posted...

the one you seem to be applying bears very little resemblance to the one used in the real world.

I've noticed that people seem to have difficulty with analogies. It's rather troubling.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

I c wut u did thar

Unintentionally, but I did notice it and opted to charge boldly ahead.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I've noticed that people seem to have difficulty with analogies. It's rather troubling.

The problem isn't your analogy. It's your fundamental logical process. Showing somebody a picture of a bear does not prove that they are at risk of being mauled if they go camping in a given location. The mere existence of a bear is not the information that can lead somebody to that conclusion. Your analogy commits a blatant non sequitur fallacy, which in turn suggests the same fallacy in your belief that people are going to be forced to stop eating meat.

---

adjl posted...

The problem isn't your analogy. It's your fundamental logical process. Showing somebody a picture of a bear does not prove that they are at risk of being mauled if they go camping in a given location. The mere existence of a bear is not the information that can lead somebody to that conclusion. Your analogy commits a blatant non sequitur fallacy, which in turn suggests the same fallacy in your belief that people are going to be forced to stop eating meat.

That all makes logical sense. And according to this logic no one would ever be concerned about maulings unless they witness one in progress. The subject we're discussing is one that people are concerned about despite that the World Economic Forum isn't presently doing anything other than putting out videos. It's possible for people to be concerned about things that haven't yet happened and might not happen which your analysis doesn't account for.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And according to this logic no one would ever be concerned about maulings unless they witness one in progress.

How on earth are you getting that from "a picture of a bear is not proof that one needs to worry about being mauled"? I am not in any way suggesting that other evidence cannot be used to prove that risk. In fact, I explicitly said that other evidence can be used to prove that risk. Just not a mere picture of a bear. Similarly, a picture of a tumor in a lung is not proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer. The reams of data on that association, however, do prove it.

You're not being asked to prove that governments are currently forcing people to stop eating meat. You're being asked to prove that that is even a risk, which requires considerably more robust evidence than "some people are saying we should eat less meat." If you can't, then it's nothing more than baseless speculation. Heck, worse than baseless speculation, it's demonstrably false: The government currently heavily subsidizes the meat industry such that they're effectively funding people's carnivory. Taking away those subsidies would cut down meat consumption, but "I'm not paying for you to do this any more" cannot be construed as "I'm forcing you to stop this" because "forcing" is an active process, whereas "not paying" is a passive one. The government cannot simultaneously force and facilitate carnivory. Those are mutually exclusive philosophies.

---

adjl posted...

You're not being asked to prove that governments are currently forcing people to stop eating meat.

With the exception of government involvement, that's exactly what Mead asked for.

In response to "They will force it on people".
Mead posted...

what evidence is there that anyone is actually doing that though?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

With the exception of government involvement, that's exactly what Mead asked for.

In response to "They will force it on people".

And, rather than providing evidence that anyone is considering, planning, or otherwise orchestrating such an outcome in such a manner that would support the conclusion that it's a real possibility (in the absence of being able to prove that it's actually happening), you stuck with being upset by baseless speculation and proving only the vaguest, most obvious point that you could possibly make, which is that some people exist who want people to eat less meat.

Generally speaking, if somebody asks you to prove a conclusion that can't be proven, the next best course of action is to provide the reasons you have for believing it, which should at least consist of evidence of any mandatory prerequisites for said conclusion. If your reasoning is as flimsy and baseless as it seems to be here, then you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously, and in fact should strongly reconsider why you believed in your conclusion in the first place.

---

---

Step 1: Print more pictures of bears
Step 2: Bear mauling increases
Step 3: Less people alive
Step 4: Less meat consumed
Step 5: Profit

---

I wish we had more subsidies for stuff that was healthy and not all the unhealthy crap. I eat a lot of fast food because it's convenient but I don't even like it that much, and there's almost nothing healthy out there. I think there is a perception that a lot of it is greasy/fatty/sure stuff because that's what tastes good, but I'm sure a lot of it is just cost. There would probably be more healthy restaurants out there if healthy stuff had the same subsidies

It's so ingrained in our culture now that people would flip out if stuff started changing though

adjl posted...

rather than providing evidence

I was asked to prove that they are currently forcing it on people. They are not currently forcing it on people, nor did I claim they were. My argument instead was that it remains a possibility people are concerned about.

adjl posted...

anyone is considering, planning, or otherwise orchestrating such an outcome

To my knowledge they are not at present.

adjl posted...

you stuck with being upset by baseless speculation

I, myself, am not upset. I pointed out that this wasn't a recent development and was given an unreasonable demand to prove something I didn't claim.

adjl posted...

the next best course of action is to provide the reasons you have for believing it

I'm not sure if I believe it. My position has been that I'm aware of this being an older debate.
I don't intend to argue on behalf of one side of the debate just because I tried to explain what their position is.

If you really want me to weigh in on what I believe it's that there are principled reasons why people should be allowed to make their own decisions. If the wealthiest, most successful people in world were to decide they were acting in the best interest of people by combining their resources to deny individuals self determination there probably isn't much the average person can do about it. The best thing would be to persuade them that those resources are better put to use to solve problems in a way that doesn't conflict with personal choice.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The "great reset" globalists have been planning it for way longer than Biden was involved.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The concern is over the lengths they will go to in achieving it. It sound like they're going to force people to eat bugs whether they want to or not.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

My other point was that they would use their influence to suppress access to meat if people don't comply willingly. This is the concern. I believe it remains a concern even if they are not currently doing this or how successful you think they would be at it.

---