@sarker's banner p

sarker

Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:50:08 UTC

				

User ID: 636

sarker

Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:50:08 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 636

Thankfully, Florida is not the only polity on the planet, and lab grown meat can still be marketed elsewhere when and if it becomes commercially viable. So this ban doesn't prevent the development of an alternative.

the sheer idea that their performative ascetism is moot must gnaw at their bones (veganly).

It's a little confusing to read this when it's not the vegans that are passing bans on lab grown meat.

Don't know much about German city canteens (??) but Germany has the fourth highest meat consumption per capita in Europe, so I am not convinced that meat consumption is endangered there. Per capita consumption in 2020 was actually higher than in 2017.

Ban their stuff before they ban ours.

I don't see why the do gooders couldn't undo this ban and ban real meat anyway if they have the kind of influence to enact a ban on real meat in the first place. "Get them before they get us" doesn't apply if you are not, in fact, getting them.

I don't really believe in first mover advantage for laws, laws get overturned all the time. What appears as first mover advantage is likely just durable public sentiment.

This doesn't constrain their future actions. It's just as easy to repeal this law and ban real meat as it was before the ban. Maybe if it were a constitutional amendment or something you'd have a point.

If we are assuming do-gooders puppeteering the state then a state ban is just a distraction anyway.

Feel free to elaborate. It's not the EAs that are able to ban meat, lab grown or otherwise. It's the state, which has just now banned lab grown meat apparently in order to "steal a march" and prevent itself from banning real meat.

"Those", being the same government that just banned it?

In this thread we're talking about a government action. It doesn't really make sense to say that the government banned something so that the government wouldn't mandate it.

This is only true in the sense that groups pushing gun rights are already talking about establishing a white ethnostate.

Chicano is hardly a postmodern term (it originated at least as early as the 1940s) and as far as I know it only covers Mexican Americans, so it wouldn't apply to a lot of Hispanics anyway.

It's premature to talk about differences in quality before it's even on the market.

For that matter, if it's so much worse, there's no need to ban it.