Are you ready for cherryless cherry pies?

File: 654 KB, 1080x1535, 1555799055366.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:31:27 2019 No.12208925 [Reply] [Original]

Are you ready for cherryless cherry pies?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:34:36 2019 No.12208939 >>12208925 when will they make a law letting ME be cherryless

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:41:03 2019 No.12208966 >>12208925 what would we ever do without bureaucrats?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:42:19 2019 No.12208970 >>12208925 we need to vote libertarians into office

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:48:25 2019 No.12208985 >>12208966 eat cherryless pies I guess

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:49:27 2019 No.12208992 >>12208939 based

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:50:10 2019 No.12208993 The EU ain't that bad now, huh?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:53:52 2019 No.12209007

Why do lefty bloggers constantly act like something not technically being illegal will mean that is the way everything immediately will become? Is the answer to everything really just we need even more laws?

This law was originally probably just a handout to the cherry industry analogous to most other laws

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:57:18 2019 No.12209017 >>12209007 You can make a frozen pie with as few cherries as you want, you just can't market it as cherry pie.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 19:31:14 2019 No.12209174 >>12209007 Yeah, it was just preferential legislation going toward some agriculture power wielders. Fuck you what if I want cherry pie with lots of goo and not many cherries?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 19:32:16 2019 No.12209180 >>12209174 Why would you want that? People like you should be put into camps.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 19:47:03 2019 No.12209232 >>12208939 If you're not female, you never had a "cherry" to speak of, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:26:15 2019 No.12209405 >>12209180 why would you want politicians and lobbyists to decide precisely how every type of pie should be made?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:29:01 2019 No.12209416 >>12209405 You can sell a goo filled, cherry flavored pie, you just can't call it a cherry pie.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:31:32 2019 No.12209426 >>12209416 But why should a lobbyist or politician be the one to define what precise cherry content qualifies?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:31:41 2019 No.12209427 >>12209007 I think it has more to do with requiring food labels to be accurate. If it has less than 25% cherries is it really a cherry pie? It's like rules saying that to label something as "ice cream" it must contain at least 10% milk fat.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:33:30 2019 No.12209444

>>12209007
It exists so that consumers can buy pies labelled as cherry and know that they're getting pies made with cherries.

>>12209174
>what if I want cherry pie with lots of goo and not many cherries?
That's not a cherry pie and should not be labelled as such.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:34:14 2019 No.12209449 >>12209427 >>12209444 there are already labelling laws that require the ingredients be listed, and in order of quantity for all ingredients over 1%

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:37:01 2019 No.12209460

>>12209426
>But why should a lobbyist or politician be the one to define what precise cherry content qualifies?
Because a crust full of twigs and corn syrup would qualify if industry was left to self-regulate. Do you fucking children not read The Jungle in high school anymore?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:39:06 2019 No.12209465 File: 3.81 MB, 3000x2000, 1553903765188.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12208993

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:39:19 2019 No.12209466 >>12209444 It literally is though. That's like looking an amputee and saying they're not a person.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:41:55 2019 No.12209476 >>12208993 >tfw snacking on my late night sausa-, I mean bean based meat substitute cylinder

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:41:57 2019 No.12209477 >>12209460 They better not be teaching kids death cult literature in death cult education camps.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:42:16 2019 No.12209478

>>12209460
Who do you think tells politicians what to write? The question is just what industry has asked them to write the law, and the more we ask government to regulate more and more minute things, the more power we give to lobbyists and bureaucrats and take away from the people

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:42:48 2019 No.12209480 >>12209466 An amputee would be analogous to a pie with a piece taken out. A cherry-free cherry pie would be analogous to a human body without a soul.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:44:41 2019 No.12209493 >>12209480 Why is a 25.0% cherry pie a cherry pie but a 24.9% one not?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:46:10 2019 No.12209500 >>12209476 Damn right, soyfaggots

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:48:45 2019 No.12209508 >>12209500 I guess I'm still allowed to call my dick a sausage since it contain meat. Eat my sausage dirt bag.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:55:33 2019 No.12209536 >>12209508 how about just let the market decide stuff as trivial as this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:57:23 2019 No.12209541 >>12209493 If you appeal to Loki's wager all the time you can't make any decisions at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:59:09 2019 No.12209548 >>12208925 companies just use "cherry flavored pie" instaed of "cherry pie"

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 20:59:56 2019 No.12209555 >>12209541 pointing out the arbitrariness of your argument is not exactly "Loki's Wager"

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:00:55 2019 No.12209560 >>12209536 Because inaccurate information in markets leads to inefficient markets.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:01:18 2019 No.12209563 >>12209508 I'm not homosexual but I respect your lifestyle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:01:39 2019 No.12209565 >>12209548 What if I like a real thicc crust, and little filling but that filling to be mostly cherry, not just cherry flavored?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:02:40 2019 No.12209569 >>12209560 Thats what the ingredient label is for. No one is arguing that companies should be allowed to lie about the contents of their product, just that arbitrary government intervention only empowers lobbyists and entrenched corporate interests

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:03:45 2019 No.12209574 >>12209536 I wish. The problem is that the EU is getting it's cock involved, telling people what to call their products.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:07:13 2019 No.12209585 >>12208925 Ingredient lists will still be required so this doesn't matter. Worst case scenario you'll buy a pie and won't like it, then buy a different one next time.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:12:18 2019 No.12209605

>>12209569
Just because you can pass the full responsibility of acquiring information to the consumer, doesn't make the market more efficient. Accessibility and utilization of information is important too. If most customers, who would be swayed by the difference between a cherry and a cherry-flavored pie, don't look at the ingredients, then the market is still less efficient.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:15:39 2019 No.12209622 >>12209605 eh but consumers aren't even aware of this law currently. It is doing nothing to increase efficiency, only to line the pockets of cherry sellers

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:18:28 2019 No.12209632 I get butterfat in ice cream but why shouldn't companies be allowed to make a cherry pie product exactly how they want?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:20:34 2019 No.12209637 >premade frozen cherry pie literal nigger tier food

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:23:47 2019 No.12209649 >>12209585 >natural flavors

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:27:27 2019 No.12209662

>>12209622
Since when do you need to know about a law to benefit from its existence?

How does it line the pockets of cherry sellers? This isn't extortion, if you don't want to put so many cherries in a pie, you're free to do so, Don't give the cherry sellers any more money than you need cherries to make the product you want. Just call it a cherry-flavored pie.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 21:31:56 2019 No.12209681 >>12209662 >How does it line the pockets of cherry sellers? um, by saying pies need more cherries? That seems pretty straight forward

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 08:05:42 2019 No.12211568 >>12208925 >Filled Pie with Cherries loophole created

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 08:08:54 2019 No.12211571 >>12208925 Why even use cherries at all? Why not use cherry-flavored corn syrup?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 08:16:23 2019 No.12211583 >>12209232 In Japan male virgins are known as チェリーボーイ (cherry boy). Because this board is weebs, it's often used here as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 17:16:16 2019 No.12213608 >>12209007 sorta like the way republicans wanted to classify catsup as a vegetable for nutrition purposes. If you don't set standards for quality, there won't be any.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 17:19:50 2019 No.12213621 >>12209478 It’s almost as if lobbying should be illegal and capitalism is evil.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 17:22:56 2019 No.12213633 >>12209465 lmao what does this pic have to do with anything

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 17:33:21 2019 No.12213676

>>12209007
The point of a business is to make money for its shareholders and literally nothing else. If destroying the environment/making cherryless cherry pies will make the shareholders more money, then of course the business will do it. Literally nothing but regulation controls how humanity-friendly a business actually is. Being moral doesn't make money.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 17:37:10 2019 No.12213692

>>12209585
Yeah, I sure love having to read the fine print on things I buy. "Oh look, cherry pies are on special. Wait, better put my glasses on and read whether it's really a cherry pie or just claiming to be one LOL this is fun." Cucks like you are hilarious.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 17:37:44 2019 No.12213695

>>12209569
Do you think the ingredients label the US currently had to be in any way complete enough and do you really think the ones we have right now are not the result of a hard and brutal battle between a multi billion dollar industry and a few upstanding legislators and consumer protection groups?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 17:41:15 2019 No.12213713 >>12209637 >deflecting facts about the erosion of consumer rights because it won't affect you personally Classic American cope

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:24:39 2019 No.12213864

>>12209569
>GMO corporations spend millions bribing congress not to require labeling of products as GMO's
>arbitrary government intervention only empowers lobbyists and entrenched corporate interests
You've got it backwards retard. But by all means keep supporting the erosion of consumer rights by your friendly neighborhood megacorporation. The ensuing backlash will be sweeter than the "New and improved" cherryless cherry style product pie slopped into your pig trough.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:26:00 2019 No.12213869 >>12209232 >>12211583 majority of /ck/ is female as well

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:32:22 2019 No.12213893 >>12209007 What's with needing specific laws to stop companies from lying to their customers?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:40:14 2019 No.12213930 Hey I think I can decide what kind of pie I like and if I want to buy it again. I can read reviews. I don't need a bunch of bureaucrat welfare leeches running a govt office to tell me that.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:44:20 2019 No.12213944

>>12209007
>Why do lefty bloggers constantly act like something not technically being illegal will mean that is the way everything immediately will become?

Because these laws were implemented specifically because that's the way things were before.
Nobody outlaws keeping a donkey in your bathtub just because.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:46:22 2019 No.12213956

>>12213893
almost all regulations are created at the behest of powerful industry interests, they are almost never for the benefit of consumers even if many are spun that way. They almost always are designed to benefit the most powerful players in an industry at the expense of smaller or new competition, or simply one industry vs another less politically connected one

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:48:59 2019 No.12213967

>>12213864
there is literally nothing wrong with GMOS. This is a perfect example
The natural food industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying to get these labels (remember Whole Foods alone is bigger than the entire GMO industry), this requires GMO makers to also lobby to keep a spot at the table. In the end only the politicians win as the government takes more power away from the people and solicits more lobbying and bribes

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:50:56 2019 No.12213973 >>12209681 >um, by saying pies need more cherries? CHERRY pies need to have CHERRIES in them, just like your ASS needs to have BLACK COCK in it, faggot

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:52:24 2019 No.12213981 >>12213967 You are not harming anyone by labeling something as being genetically modified. You’re just looking to toss as much word salad as possible

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:53:51 2019 No.12213990

>>12213676
>Literally nothing but regulation controls how humanity-friendly a business actually is.
This is bullshit, the market does this much more efficiently than any bureaucracy. Businesses are only successful if they give consumers what they want, its not the government's job to define what people want by saying precisely how much fruit a pie should have. A business does not need to have any motive other than to make money in order to make a product people want to buy

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:54:38 2019 No.12213996 >>12213981 You're harming the economy and the environment by making it easier for consumers to recognize and reject more efficient GMO foods.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:54:59 2019 No.12213999

>>12213621
>capitalism is evil.
history pretty clearly says the opposite. How the fuck would you even make lobbying illegal? The only solution to the problem of lobbying is empowering the people over the government and remove influence from the bureaucracy

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:56:00 2019 No.12214005 >>12213973 but if the government increases the amount of cherry a pie must have that is obviously raising the cherry seller at expense of the pie maker

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:56:39 2019 No.12214006 >>12213996 No you’re not. That’s your deluded conspiratorial rambling. Even if it did. The market will ultimately decide

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:57:01 2019 No.12214008 >>12213981 >You are not harming anyone by labeling something as being genetically modified. You are when you also spend millions of marketing dollars tricking people into thinking GMOs are harmful

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:58:16 2019 No.12214011

>>12213990
Why would consumers care about anything but their own bottom line? Even if some company decides to corner the environmentally friendly market, what's to stop them from simply branding their shit "ecofriendly" and change nothing about their actual production. There's loads of industry made "eco/bio/fair trade" pseudo certificates floating around today to try and trick people exactly like that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:58:23 2019 No.12214012 >>12214008 Are we talking about marketing or talking about labeling? Dont strawman

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:58:51 2019 No.12214015
File: 97 KB, 1024x768, No Kings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12213990
Unregulated market is stupid and dangerous as shit.

A cherry pie needs to contain cherries. Not cherry juice. Not something that looks like cherries, made of syrup and/or cherry juice constituted into a cherry like shape, but fucking cherries. This is where regulation needs to happen. It is a cherry pie, which means it contains cherries.

Bureaucracy is stupid, but no one does anything to control what are clearly monopolies. When you have to buy from just a few snake oil salesmen, that is a monopoly caused by lack of control over the market.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 18:59:23 2019 No.12214016

>>12214011
>Why would consumers care about anything but their own bottom line?
People have to balance coast and quality. In pretty much every food related things there are both high end high quality expensive varieties and cheap shitty varieties. We don't need government involvement in order for quality things to exist

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:01:22 2019 No.12214025 >>12214012 How is this possibly a strawman? Labeling is marketing. Forcing other companies to put things on a label that you are also spending money marketing falsely as harmful is precisely the problem

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:01:58 2019 No.12214029

>>12214006
It's not conspiratorial at all. Food that is less efficient to produce is inherently worse for the economy and environment since it costs more and takes up more land area.
Efficient modern farming practices mean more land can be relinquished to nature. ""Organic"" farmers might as well be practicing slash and burn agriculture in comparison.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:02:08 2019 No.12214030 >>12213990 >Still shilling freemarket capitalism solving all woes >2019 Conservatives are stuck in a fucking time bubble.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:02:48 2019 No.12214036

>>12213608
Why is the government, an easily publically influenced body awash with the weight of lobbying and other special interests, even a desirable entity to be regulating nutrition? For that matter, what exactly gives the government any kind of authority regarding nutrition? We have actual politicians who believe in the most retarded ideals who are never vetted solely for intelligence and ethics/moral compass, but by popularity and for usually a small number of specific political leanings... and we want them to be in charge of our food.

I dont get it, and I'm not sure I ever will.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:02:59 2019 No.12214038 >>12214025 Putting a label of something existing is not marketing it as good or bad. Stop being an obtuse retard. The market will figure it out after all!!! >marketing falsely Lol, the irony of this complaint. Thread over

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:03:45 2019 No.12214040

>>12214015
No one is saying there should be absolutely no regulation, just that this topic is absurdly trivial to require regulation and more importantly that we have a broader problem of people not recognizing that almost all new regulations are made to help specific companies or industries, not consumers. People are way to quick to say any perceived tiny problem should require a law and in doing so they only empower lobbyists, marketers and politicians

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:05:03 2019 No.12214044 >>12214029 You are again going into rambling strawmans about shit no one stated. Putting GMO on a label makes no inherent distinction of good or bad. Why do you continue to care and good and bad if it you continue to harp about the market solving it?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:05:49 2019 No.12214046

>>12214015
>but no one does anything to control what are clearly monopolies
What are you talking about? Monopolies are incredibly rare, in almost all instances they are incredibly short lived and only maintain status because of regulation. Do you seriously think we have a problem with big cherry pie monopoly?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:06:58 2019 No.12214055 File: 431 KB, 5343x3663, 1552841744439.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12214030 capitalism may not solve all woes but it clearly does a better job than anything else we have thought up

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:07:20 2019 No.12214056 File: 134 KB, 1940x1558, 0C559941-250F-4AE9-8D06-4BF01BFBF35B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12214046 >Monopolies are incredibly rare Oh look another retarded neolib

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:08:03 2019 No.12214060 >>12214038 >Putting a label of something existing is not marketing it as good or bad Fucking bullshit. Why would natural food lobbyists want to require GMO labeling if not for its marketing power?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:08:28 2019 No.12214063

>>12214044
When did I ever harp about the market solving it?
Placing a labeling requirement on something will legitimize conspiratorial consumer fears about GMOs, forcing companies to abandon them and reducing the efficiency of our food system. The end result will be bad.

>Putting GMO on a label makes no inherent distinction of good or bad. Why
You could make this argument about literally anything. Should we require food that's been handled by black workers to be labeled so racists can avoid it? Labeling requirements should only be instituted in the face of legitimate consumer interest.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:09:41 2019 No.12214064

>>12214038
>Lol, the irony of this complaint
How is this ironic? GMOs are objectively not harmful, on a broader scope they are actually quite beneficial for humanity overall, but in the scope of a single food item they are not inherently different than legacy crops. Meanwhile like 50% of people think GMOs are harmful because of a strong marketing effort by the natural food lobby

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:09:55 2019 No.12214065

>>12214060
Where on the GMO label does it say if its good or bad? Again the market will solve it regardless as you continuously say. If its as good as you say then a neutral label will if anything signify that this particular food is better in every capacity.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:10:08 2019 No.12214067

>>12214016
>People have to balance coast and quality
Yes and if today's hellworld proves anything its that corporations bombarding the proles with ads at every corner and using chemical engineers working day and night to trick your brain into eating more unhealthy food have completely gamed the system.
At this point the American proletariat has been completely domesticated by the megacorps and will suck up anything they present to him.
Literally last month Coca Cola paid the Mexican mafia to brutalize striking workers and shoot their leaders. The bottling plant in Mexico was striking for better working conditions and Coca Cola mercilessly shut them down via illegal means.
Now if we actually lived in the world Libertarians think we do, informed and concerned citizens would spread this information and the media would pick it up, being a story about brutal human rights abuse by one of the planets largest corps.
But shocker! Despite us trying to raise awareness, absolutely no large media picked the story up. Private citizens mostly didn't care and the story never went viral. It's almost as if large corporations work together to keep the plebs docile and their image clean.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:10:32 2019 No.12214070

>>12209007
If it was legal, food conglomerates would feed you as much sawdust and industrial waste as they could get away with. Do you know why beds and furniture have that "under penalty of law do not remove" tag?
Because they used to fill bedding and comforters with sawdust and dirt and pretend it was cotton

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:11:22 2019 No.12214073

>>12214056
You are one of those people who were arguing we should attack AOL's monopoly on instant messaging in the early 00's, right? No way that high perch would ever fall, we need the government to get involved!
Or Myspace's monopoly on social media in the mid 00s, no way will that monopoly fall without government intervention

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:12:25 2019 No.12214078 >>12214055 By responding in this fashion you give the impression that you think skepticism about freemarket capitalism solving all woes amounts to wanting to demolish capitalism in its entirety.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:12:36 2019 No.12214080

>>12214008
>muh roundup and dicambra, an agent orange derivative, are the same as table salt
Let's face it. The current incarnation of gmo's designed to maximize the sale of unsustainable chemical factory farming is a negative and move on. If control of gmos are removed from the control of megacorporate interests we might, just might see benefits. As it stands now, the consumer has a fundamental right to know the kind of toxins their food contains and make informed choices. It's called democracy, but I know that's a bad word for you corporate fascists.

In a bit of poetic justice, their multi-million dollar lobbying effort backfired since products labeled non-gmo btfo of non-labeled in sales Almost proof there is a god meteing out justice, lol!

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:12:53 2019 No.12214083

>>12214063
The entire thread

>Placing a labeling requirement on something will legitimize conspiratorial consumer fears about GMOs
Conspiratoral rambling solved by the market. Again, if GMOs are good then a neutral label which brings attention to it should only be good

Your issues are with public misinformation regarding GMOs, there is literally nothing inherent to labeling that says one thing or the other. If the people will it what are you whining about? That you couldn’t convince them first?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:13:01 2019 No.12214084 >>12214065 >Where on the GMO label does it say if its good or bad? So you are seriously going to say that marketing is only when things explicitly say "this is good" or "this is bad" Seriously?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:14:27 2019 No.12214088 >>12214064 You’re literally complaining about the harm of potential misinformation while simultaneously arguing against labeling for the exact purpose in a thread about cherry pied

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:15:09 2019 No.12214092 >>12214083 >The entire thread I never said anything about the market solving things. You must be confusing me with another poster. The government plays a large and vital role in the agricultural industry.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:15:37 2019 No.12214094

>>12214040
>more importantly that we have a broader problem of people not recognizing
That is the problem. People let more and more shit go. "There are bigger issues," is not an excuse for solving a problem, but is a great way to erode away a system and create more problems.
>>12214046
>What are you talking about? Monopolies are incredibly rare
>Do you seriously think we have a problem with big cherry pie monopoly?
Why yes, in fact. Any time you walk into a grocer that is physically one of the largest in the world, and has one of the highest populations in the world, you should not see just a few uniform brands from coast to coast. Those big brand names take up too much of a share of the market and no one else is ever able to enter. They need to be broken up like Ma Bell.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:16:46 2019 No.12214100
File: 108 KB, 1280x904, 1280px-World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12214067
>Yes and if today's hellworld
Literally everything is better than ever before. Stop being such a pessimistic lefty. People have access to better and more things than ever before, lead higher quality of lives and live longer. There has literally never been a better time to live than our generation's. Most of our problems are insanely trivial next to even the problems of 50 years ago. We went from Jim Crow to whining about what percent of super heroes are what race in like 2 generations, thats amazing progress. In that same time we went from a pretty much unending series of wars stretching back all of human history to literally the most peaceful time ever. Never has a person been less likely to die in war in the era of capitalist hegemony

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:17:56 2019 No.12214104

>>12214067
We have better access to better food than ever before. Even in the last 20 years there has been a massive explosion of quality restaurants. Millennials are killing boomer chains in favor of better local places left and right thanks to capitalism

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:18:09 2019 No.12214105 >>12214083 >>12214092 If you really are stupid enough to think you're arguing with one poster, then look at >>12213981. Two replies. The first one was my first post in this thread. You're talking to different people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:18:57 2019 No.12214109 >>12214070 not if there was a market for better, more expensive food. Margins are typically much higher on high end food. This is an imagined problem

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:18:57 2019 No.12214110
File: 114 KB, 900x750, 6AF540CD-EE39-4CF4-8D22-B71EFCDAC40B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12214073
>youre one of those strawmen right? monopolies dont exist!!!

Bezos monopoly is quite literally billion times worth than any boomer monopoly you speak of, and the thing we actually have common ground here is that the government should fuck off and not submit to “lobbyists” that created these monopolies to begin with

Or are you one of the Cato Institute fellows from the late 2010s which complains about the fall of reason while taking petrol money to talk about climate denial?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:20:14 2019 No.12214117 >>12214078 I am just saying that capitalism is generally good, and history and economics very strongly back this up. People trying to fight capitalism or just complaining about it in general are usually being incredibly petty and shortsighted

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:20:17 2019 No.12214118 >>12214084 You don’t have an argument so you’re just going to act like a teenage girl and restate the argument more profoundly befuddled? You sure got me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:21:18 2019 No.12214122 >>12214080 There is literally no evidence that GMOs are inherently harmful for human consumption. The fact that you call things "Agent Orange derivatives" shows you are just trying to be dishonest and scare people into confusion

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:22:46 2019 No.12214127

>>12214080
>If control of gmos are removed from the control of megacorporate interests we might, just might see benefits.
You realize that the best way to do this is deregulation. The more a product is regulated then higher the cost of entry to the market becomes. This market is so absurdly regulated right now that it is prohibitively expensive to bring any new product to market for all but very large companies. You people are causing the problems, not solving them

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:23:46 2019 No.12214130 >>12214088 When you want to label specifically because you are trying to trick and confuse consumers I will argue against it every time.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:24:48 2019 No.12214133

>>12214094
>Why yes, in fact. Any time you walk into a grocer that is physically one of the largest in the world, and has one of the highest populations in the world, you should not see just a few uniform brands from coast to coast.
like 90% of grocery stores have their own bakeries and make pies

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:25:32 2019 No.12214136 >>12214127 What market are you talking about at this point? There is little to no actual drawback to introducing a food product to the market

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:26:22 2019 No.12214140 >>12214110 So you think we should break up amazon into smaller companies because feelings? It is incredibly hard to maintain a monopoly when the government doesn't give you special privileges (like the phone and cable companies)

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:27:47 2019 No.12214146

>>12214130
More conspiratorial rambling. You again are blaming an inherently neutral issue of labels of your own dissatisfaction with public knowledge. Tell me, if something is labeled as high in protein, do you think people are actually taken back and aghast at the label and will refuse to buy it? Of fucking course not and you know it. But you’re a stupid fuck so you need to blame the result and not the cause

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:27:55 2019 No.12214147 >>12214110 the Cato institute is almost always right. Anytime a institute attacks Trump and Bernie Sanders positions with equal fervor you should at least have some faith with them. Anyone opposed to populism is a friend of me

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:28:53 2019 No.12214151
File: 56 KB, 800x600, Clemens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12214100
>global definition of poverty
>global internation dollars per day
>adjusted for Internationale and time differences
I never refuse to take a drink-- under any circumstances. In this case I suppose I'll have to order one myself.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:29:04 2019 No.12214152

>>12214118
I made my arguement and then you respond saying "nuh uh, I am going to change the definition of words and decide that is not technically marketing"
When your whole argument is a semantic position to say you are technically right for a side reason, I don't know where else to go. You obviously are not speaking in good faith

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:29:33 2019 No.12214156

>>12214140
So are you or are you not against government regulation? Because government regulation has incentivized Amazon, empowered and allowed them to monopolize. Or are you just too butthurt to have read anything I said because you’re a complete inauthentic retard?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:30:25 2019 No.12214158 >>12214136 I was specifically talking about GMOs, it is incredibly expensive to bring a new GMO crop to market, but the fact that regulated markets tend to favor entrenched producers over smaller competitors holds true in the vast majority of cases

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:30:35 2019 No.12214160 >>12214147 >im a dishonest brain damaged corporate bootlicking fraud Ftfy

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:31:26 2019 No.12214163 >>12214146 Its not a conspiracy, its an explicit and forward attack, they are not even denying it!

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:31:41 2019 No.12214164 >>12214152 Notice how you’ve now completely abandoned the argument of the inherent harm of labels to grasp straws in a meta? whispers that means youre losing my guy

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:33:06 2019 No.12214167

>>12214146
>Tell me, if something is labeled as high in protein, do you think people are actually taken back and aghast at the label and will refuse to buy it? Of fucking course not and you know it. But you’re a stupid fuck so you need to blame the result and not the cause
The will if Whole foods, owned by the largest corporation in the world spends hundreds of millions of dollars telling people that protein content is actually bad now. Now luckily people know some things about protein so this would be a much harder, more expensive campaign than convincing people GMOs are bad, but its the exact same concept. Unfortunately for us GMOs are somewhat new and sciency so it is much easier to trick people about them

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:34:07 2019 No.12214170 >>12214151 Why is this bad? People are objectively living better lives than ever before in pretty much every country in the world

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:35:26 2019 No.12214176 >>12214156 So you are arguing that we should create monopoly through regulation and then fight monopoly through even more regulation rather than just do nothing?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:35:28 2019 No.12214178 >>12214167 So again. Your issue is that your too stupid to explain your viewpoints without looking like a 4chan sperg and thus blame an otherwise neutral result and the fact Whole Foods is influential? Yeah? Yeah.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:36:42 2019 No.12214183 >>12214164 I made my argument and then you try and redefine terms by saying GMO labels are "neutral" whatever that means and therefore not marketing rather than actually address the issue at hand

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:37:18 2019 No.12214186 >>12214176 Im in favor of removing the government from giving favors to Amazon. Are you okay or do you just need to angrily misstate things to feel like you’re in control of the argument?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:38:34 2019 No.12214191 >>12214186 Then why are you arguing with me? I definitely never said anything remotely in favor of Amazon being given special privileges? I 100% agree with that

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:39:05 2019 No.12214193

>>12214183
GMO labels are neutral. You never made an explanation as to why they weren’t other than the fact they “could” be misconstrued as something which I repeatedly tell you someone misconstruing something is a result of perception which is nothing inherent to a label. You’ve yet to come to term this for some reason.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:40:28 2019 No.12214199

>>12214178
What are you even talking about. Can you even lay out an argument without just resorting to personal attacks?

GMO labels should not be mandated by the government because they provide no useful information and are in fact only being proposed as a marketing tool by the natural foods lobby. I don't know how you haven't gotten this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:41:20 2019 No.12214202 >>12214170 You misunderstand why I used Clemens there. It was his criticism of statistics. I hate them when put into graph format, just because any idiot can move a graph around freely and lie like fuck.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:41:31 2019 No.12214203

>>12214191
Why are you so shook? You said monopolies were rare and then I gave you examples. You then whiteknighted Amazon then I told you their monopoly was massively government corrupted, you then didn’t register this and appeared to strawman yet another thing I didn’t imply. And now here we are.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:41:41 2019 No.12214205 >>12214193 >GMO labels are neutral. What does this even mean? They are intentionally designed to trick people, that is not neutral

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:42:53 2019 No.12214208

>>12214199
Are you shook, retarded, damage controlling or all three? Serious question. You don’t even want to acknowledge the actual issue. There is no point in furthering a discussion when youre too upset to comprehend a point and only speak in platitudes

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:43:34 2019 No.12214213

>>12214193
>pay lobbyists and politicians to force your competitors to put on labels that you have specifically tricked consumers into thinking are warnings of a negative quality
>somehow this is a """neutral act""" and totally not your fault or what you were trying to do the whole time

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:44:39 2019 No.12214216 >>12214205 A GMO labeo does not indicate abuse good bad, or anything. It says “genetically modified” Why are you playing stupid and evading the question? What is the inherent issue with GMO labels?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:44:51 2019 No.12214218 >>12214202 ok, but the data is pretty accurately displayed and very useful. Why specifically do you think those green texts you mentioned are bad aspects of the data?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:45:40 2019 No.12214222 >>12214213 The label is neutral. Your complaints are rooted in the company tricking through means that are not the label. This is third grade logic

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:45:54 2019 No.12214224 >>12214203 No, I said monopolies rarely form on their own, and when they do the are usually short lived without government intervention. Even in the case of Amazon, yeah they are really big but they are hardly a monopoly

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:46:58 2019 No.12214230 >>12214208 so you just have no argument and are only here to spew memes?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:47:02 2019 No.12214233 >>12214224 They are absolutely a monopoly

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:48:21 2019 No.12214242 >>12214230 What an informative response that totally advances the discussion

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:48:44 2019 No.12214244

>>12214216
>A GMO labeo does not indicate abuse good bad, or anything. It says “genetically modified”
Then why do you want to force companies to use them if they do not tell you anything? Whats the point?

>What is the inherent issue with GMO labels?
How many times do I have to repeat it, just look back to the 5 or so other times I have articulated it, most recently
>>12214199
>GMO labels should not be mandated by the government because they provide no useful information and are in fact only being proposed as a marketing tool by the natural foods lobby. I don't know how you haven't gotten this.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:49:48 2019 No.12214246

>>12214222
>The label is neutral.
What does this mean? You keep saying this, but it means literally nothing
>Your complaints are rooted in the company tricking through means that are not the label
Then why lobby for the label at all, if its not a means of marketing?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:50:06 2019 No.12214247 >>12209007 >just a handout to the cherry industry When will big cherry finally be called to heel?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:50:49 2019 No.12214249 >>12214233 Walmart begs to differ

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:52:36 2019 No.12214255

>>12214244
Why not? I’m not seeing the issue. If we follow your logic about the positivity of GMOs then it only serves to incentivize the public to have a more positive environment

What if someone wants to find GMO foods more accessibly? What if they don’t? Your only actual complaint is a “tool” which agai has to do with public information and has nothing to do with labeling. Ultimately its an inherently inconsequential labeling that the public generally has no issue with

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:55:25 2019 No.12214264

>>12214246
How about you refer to the nine billion other times I answered this?
>>12214216
Your only actual refutation to it not being neutral or being harmful is the “potential” for people to mislead with it which is utterly absurd as reasoning to not have it. Do you not want cars to exist because people could be mislead into believing they hover over the ocean?

>then why lobby
You dont need to lobby i agree, but that’s not mutual to the existence of the label

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:56:30 2019 No.12214267

>>12214218
I was getting passionate about a different argument in this thread. And I'm still argumentative against dumbing such a large thing into single graphs, charts, or sets or statistics. It's not practical for people like you or me to meet all these people anymore, but I'd still like to see more broken down and proven figures. When you summarize everything in a single image you know it's bullshit, it's very hard to teach people simple things in a full blown book 'X for Dummies.'

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:57:03 2019 No.12214269

>>12214255
>What if someone wants to find GMO foods more accessibly?
Go ahead and research it then. This information is not obscure, we definitely don't need the government to make labels about every possible thing a man might be curious about, this is ridiculous logic

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 19:59:23 2019 No.12214275

>>12214255
>Why not? I’m not seeing the issue. If we follow your logic about the positivity of GMOs then it only serves to incentivize the public to have a more positive environmen
Except thats literally not how marketing works.

Remember, when mandating new laws and regulations the burden must be on the lobbyist to explain why the law is useful and necessary. If you have evidence that GMOs are harmful to human health in general, then by all means campaign for these labels, but f the label is indeed neutral and meaningless as you suggest, why go through the effort?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:01:17 2019 No.12214281

>>12214269
So despite being in favor of GMOs and their usefulness you want to encumber people’s ability to purchase and consume them because? What if the information is otherwise obscure? What inherent difference does it make if its labeled? Because a lot of labels trigger you into lolbertarian platitudes or something? Convenience is created by need and want, not regulation

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:02:36 2019 No.12214288
File: 376 KB, 635x457, 1551460379421.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12208925
>not making pies from scratch
Can Americans make ANYTHING? Has everyone forgotten how to cook? Dessert pies are one of the few pieces of national culture we have and people can't even make those?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:03:34 2019 No.12214292

>>12214275
>dude marketing lmao
So where on the label does it say anything gmos other than genetically modified?

>why go through the effort
Why not? What if people simply want the convenience of it? What if people want or want to avoid GMOs? For someone so high and mighty about the consumer you sure seem pretty intent on infringing their general will

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:04:32 2019 No.12214298 >>12214122 >agent orange derivatives being sprayed on crops is fear mongering Here you go, chemical shill. Now take a couple shots of roundup since you think it's harmless. https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/253506/

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:05:04 2019 No.12214299 File: 12 KB, 271x186, Selfie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12214288 M'aiq was not listening he was taking a selfie. Would you like to join?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:05:53 2019 No.12214303 >>12214233 Public schools were a fucking mistake.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:08:06 2019 No.12214311

>>12213676
>be me
>faggot, 4'11", no understanding of basic economics
>Thinks companies can sell shit and people will buy enough to keep company afloat
>doesn't have any understanding of why businesses go out of business
>must be bad management, hehehe

Anon, the way this works is that if you sell a shit product, you pay for it as a company. That's why companies don't try to swindle everyone 24/7.. because they want returning customers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:08:11 2019 No.12214312 >>12214303 Why is 4chan the only place I see people sucking Bezos balls?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:08:13 2019 No.12214313

>>12214281
I am against unfounded and arbitrary regulation regardless of my stance on GMOs
>you want to encumber people’s ability to purchase and consume them because?
Do you seriously think this can pass as an honest augment? I don't know how many more times you want me to explain that GMO labels are not designed to help people find GMOs in a positive way but in fact to trick people into thinking it is a warning
>you into lolbertarian platitudes or something?
I am all for regulations if they are well thought out and designed by scientists and experts, the problem is regulations are written by specific industry insiders, lobbyists and worst of all bureaucrats with no education on the issue. If we have actual scientists saying that there is a true problem that can be helped by a regulation and also analyze the proposed regulation for other unintended consequence, by all means regulate away. But when we have the natural food lobby trying to push misleading labels specifically designed to trick consumers into thinking a beneficial product is bad, we should not sit by and allow this to happen

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:10:05 2019 No.12214318

>>12214298
Trying to connect them to an unpopular war is obviously dishonest arguing. Why does it matter if they were related to a chemical that was used in a war? What possible purpose does that information serve other than to appeal to emotion and distract from the issue?

I am literally a chemist, so sorry if I don't take your chemophobe fearmongering at face value

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:10:57 2019 No.12214320
File: 624 KB, 722x525, 1529021117531.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12208925
Also, why are you not making your own pie?

Has anyone had store-bought pie that wasn't shit teir compared to home made? If you wanna stuff your fat face with pie, at least make it good.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:11:08 2019 No.12214321 >>12214312 There is literally nothing wrong with Amazon being thing

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:12:01 2019 No.12214326

>>12214281
>encumber
So not plastering a billion labels about irrelevant unnecessary information that could easily be mandated to simply be a matter of company record and researched if its inclusion actually becomes personally significant to a minority of consumers is encumbering? Naturally, lobbying the government to take an insignificant factoid about the product in order to force a label that can wholesale be attacked by antiscience loons and perpetually afraid soccer moms solely for the sake of market capture is therefore, in your mind, unencumbering of the average consumer.

You're a fuckin piece of work.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:13:09 2019 No.12214330 Implying you need whole cherries for it to be cherry pie

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:14:34 2019 No.12214338
File: 1.99 MB, 500x282, GJ Rocket.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12214318
Thank you. So tired of this, technology is scary shit. I'm not a chemist but I have seen shit dumped because of backlash just because its a new thing, like war needs to be a fucking Friends marathon. Awkward, reused, and inexpensive.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:15:43 2019 No.12214345

>>12214313
Unfounded? What is inherently unfounded about labeling something as genetically modified?

>arbitrary
The publics will of a completely inherently harmless label is arbitrary? People wanting convenience of information of the products they buy is arbitrary?

>seriously think this can pass as an honest augment? I don't know how many more times you want me to explain that GMO labels
Again. You’ve yet to actually point out how labeling is the issue and not public perception. Once I question you on this, you shift to “well i just dont like it!!”

>am all for regulations if they are well thought out and designed by scientists and experts
Scientists and experts need to be involved in determining if people should want the labeling of GMO?, which again has no implicit issue attached to it

Again, what is misleading about labeling a GMO food as GMO. You literally are incapable of maturing past seven years old and separating the distinct ideas of labeling and the perception of the label. You are blaming the label for people being misinformed which makes you extremely misinformed

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:16:05 2019 No.12214347 >>12214312 I'm not sucking Bezos's balls by saying Amazon is not a monopoly. I'm stating a fact. Amazon is retail, and if you think Amazon exists as the sole market controlling retailer then your public school is an absolute failure.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:19:44 2019 No.12214357

>>12214326
Again, what if the information is obscure? Are you also now saying GMOs are irrelevant? You were pretty high on them before. How is it now encumbering to have a GMO label? Convenience is excessive to you? You literally cannot argue an implicit issue other than “i just dont like it!!!l”

You’ll just have to inform people they dont like it enough either to press the government on it

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:22:49 2019 No.12214376

>>12214345
>Unfounded? What is inherently unfounded about labeling something as genetically modified?
The idea that it is harmful is unfounded, and if you do not believe it is harmful the idea that it should be labelled is arbitrary
>The publics will of a completely inherently harmless label is arbitrary
What public will? There is no broad popular support for this type of labeling, just a strong lobbying and marketing push from the natural foods lobby
>Again. You’ve yet to actually point out how labeling is the issue and not public perception
Its not one or the other, labeling is part of the issue because it is specifically designed to push public perception in what is objectively an incorrect direction
>Scientists and experts need to be involved in determining if people should want the labeling of GMO?
Expert's opinions should be sought whenever you want the government to do an action if you are uneducated on the subject yourself
>Again, what is misleading about labeling a GMO food as GMO
The label implies it is harmful, its that simple. GMOs are objectively not harmful but the proposed labeling scheme suggests they are, therefore it is a bad idea

Also I like how you have completely moved the goalposts in this most recent post from the merits of GMO labels to just saying people want them and people should have what they want in general trying to frame it absurdly as an argument of public will

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:23:08 2019 No.12214378 >>12209466 amputees are not people, they are abominations. a man should not be able to survive having an arm cut off, it is not natural.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:23:35 2019 No.12214379 >>12214347 Monopoly does not refer to number of competitors but a singular entity dominating. You could absolutely argue Amazon is doing so

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:25:18 2019 No.12214393 >>12214379 Amazon is surely successful, but it is definitely not that dominant to be considered a monopoly You would have a better argument for Facebook being a monopoly, but the regulate facebook crowd is even more insane

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:26:28 2019 No.12214398 >>12214378 um no, men naturally can survive without an arm. I mean it is not easy, and many, many times it would result in death, but it does not naturally necessitate death (as losing a head would for instance)

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:27:30 2019 No.12214402 >>12214398 no, a man would bleed out without the interference of modern medicine, as nature intends.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:27:32 2019 No.12214403 >>12214357 How many times do people need to explain this to you?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:29:16 2019 No.12214416

>>12214318
>Why does it matter if they were related to a chemical that was used in a war?
Hmm, I guess because even the US govt. finally admitted agent orange caused cancer? And now they're using components of that carcinogen on our food? Yeah, why should consumers be concerned?
>stfu, you're interrupting my chemical manufacturing profits. Never fear, we're manufacturing chemotherapy drugs to treat you when you contract cancer in 20 years from our agriculture chemicals. We're your friendly neighborhood megacorporation after all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:29:44 2019 No.12214420 >>12214402 are you telling me no man ever survived loss of limb before modern medicine?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:30:28 2019 No.12214423 >>12213692 if you say "LOL" out loud you're a massive faggot. online you're just a regular faggot for every using it, but you're still a tremendous faggot. food isn't "fun", it's fuel. it's time to grow up, ketchup-boy

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:30:46 2019 No.12214425

>>12214376
>the idea
Not implicit to the label. Please actually try addressing the point.

>arbitrary
You keep saying this, it means nothing. Is it arbitrary to you? Obviously. Doesn’t make it the case for everyone

>There is no broad popular support for this type of labeling,
There’s also virtually no opposition so clearly the issue is irrelevant either way. I’d say there’s more for the former than latter, clearly. Are companies not allowed to market now?

>its not one or the other
It is. You can’t say “label bad” then proceed to list off things that have nothing to do with the label itself but AGAIN, public information

>expert
This means nothing again. What is the expert opinion regarding this nonsensical issue? Who are the experts? What makes them authority here?

>the label implies it is harmful
Show me where then. Show me the implication of harm. Wheres the cigarette esque labeling of cancer pictures and warning? You cant just say it is and justify it with a non-implicit concept

>moved the goalposts
Aww sweetie now you’re just screaming buzzwords. How is public want for an inherent neutral not meritful? How is convenience and freedom of information not meritful? Are you running out of lolbertarian platitudes?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:30:56 2019 No.12214427

>>12214416
>And now they're using components of that carcinogen on our food
thats not how chemicals work

Also, you would need to establish that biologically significant amount of the chemical remain in the food product when consumed even if we do assume that this specific chemical causes cancer

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:31:27 2019 No.12214431 >>12214420 nigger

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:31:59 2019 No.12214433 >>12214403 Its not a number of times, its more about doing it once effectively but you obviously don’t understand that since you can’t even separate two different concepts.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:31:59 2019 No.12214434 >>12214416 I work for an OTC pharmaceutical company, we don't manufacture chemicals, only mix and package them in ways people can use

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:37:44 2019 No.12214465 >>12209007 >t. embalmed beef eater

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:40:45 2019 No.12214476

>>12214425
>Not implicit to the label.
WHat does this mean. Can you not recognize subtext? Only explicit words matter? this is a ridiculous argument. See the early comment about unintended consequences, even if in fact the labels are well intentioned and not a lobbying ploy, the burden should fall on all of us to consider the consequences of it
>You keep saying this, it means nothing.
It means that the quality is not based on science and fact but rather on your whims
>You can’t say “label bad” then proceed to list off things that have nothing to do with the label
People's perception of the label definite has something to do with the label
> What is the expert opinion regarding this nonsensical issue?
That the labels are harmful. They trick people into thinking an objectively beneficial product is harmful
> Who are the experts?
Seek out a variety of experts educated in the field, I do not suggest taking a single man's word on it, but rather a consensus of scientists and experts in the field. Definitely not industry marketers
>Show me where then. Show me the implication of harm
Do you not understand what the term "implicit" means?
>How is public want for an inherent neutral not meritful?
You cannot just out of the blue assert the public wants something and also that it is neutral when this isn't even the argument. We are discussing whether mandatory GMO label laws are good or bad. Not whether people want them, but rather should people want them

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:44:38 2019 No.12214497

>>12214476
>SHOULD people want them
Isn't the whole point of Libertarianism allowing people to do what they want within bounds of reason? If the people want labels, then that's the reason they should get labels. It's just more info for the consumer, not a 'poison' tag except for the people who think it is; what's so bad about it?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:47:49 2019 No.12214518

>>12214497
ok, but thats not what we are talking about
>Isn't the whole point of Libertarianism allowing people to do what they want within bounds of reason?
Sure, which means not using the government to force other people to do things they don't want to. It is definitely not about tyranny of the majority as you describe
> If the people want labels, then that's the reason they should get labels
If people want labels then the market will provide them, the fact is most people do not care if there are such labels. But again, this is all beside the point. The topic was never "do people want GMO labels", it was always about the merits of labeling themselves. Just because you lost that argument does not mean you can just change the subject to this vaguely related argument instead

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:48:50 2019 No.12214525 >>12214497 >It's just more info for the consumer, not a 'poison' tag except for the people who think it is; what's so bad about it? Well the fact that some people indeed think it is poison for one thing

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 20:56:13 2019 No.12214559

>>12214476
Why do you keep “playing” retarded? Why can’t you straightforwardly answer the issue of what the implicit issue of a label is?

>w-well the public perception
No this has NOTHING to do with the label unto itself? Are you just too proud to admit youre too retarded to inform about GMOs much less think logically outside platitudes? That you now have to regulate regulation?

You are hopeless and deliberately evading a simple question. This shitfest is done on my half

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 21:00:08 2019 No.12214577 File: 81 KB, 1000x667, 1F5586B2-EA05-42B0-82DE-987131ABF5C1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >me no like labels ban them big daddy monsanto!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 21:02:45 2019 No.12214587 >>12214559 The label requirement implies the fact being called out is harmful, what more do you need to know?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 21:03:50 2019 No.12214590 >>12214577 This thread is literally the exact opposite >please oh daddy trump, make the evil corporations put GMO labels on everything I eat so I can more easily live my life as a luddite!

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 21:04:53 2019 No.12214593 >>12214559 > the libertarians are bad so all proposed laws are good arguement

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 21:08:22 2019 No.12214601 >>12214587 Oh cool. You restated your worthless basel assertion? Did you want me to help you argue it better against someone else in the future?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 21:09:52 2019 No.12214606 >>12214590 >no you!!! >>12214593 >the strawman argument

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:19:12 2019 No.12214892

>>12214606
You are literally saying Trump should make a law requiring all things be labeled if they are GMOs, the other stance is companies are free to choose whether they label this fact, pretty clear that it is only you taking the "Trump needs to make more laws" stance, no one is asking for labels to be banned outright, what a weird assertion

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:20:11 2019 No.12214899 >>12209232 What about my bussy?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:21:13 2019 No.12214903 >>12214601 What don't you get? I don't know how I can keep restating the argument all while you become even more confused about what you are actually trying to assert. That fact that people like you exist proves that GMO labeling would be harmful

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:27:37 2019 No.12214919 >>12209465 oi guv, you got a loiscence for them cherries?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:28:38 2019 No.12214926 File: 13 KB, 550x194, lenny face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12214899

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:38:04 2019 No.12214953 >>12209232 this man has never tasted the much prized boy pussy

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:38:19 2019 No.12214954 >>12214525 Then it's THEIR decision not to buy it, the same way you can choose not to buy a product if it's got allergens you're allergic to. Is it 'libertarian' now to be anti-consumer?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:40:28 2019 No.12214958 >>12214518 >force other people By 'people', do you mean corporations and their leaders? So there's a hierarchy of personal rights now; more money, more authority?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:41:11 2019 No.12214960 >>12214954 Thats literally what I am advocating for, people should be free to make these decisions without being tricked by misleading labels

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:42:12 2019 No.12214967 >>12214958 corporations are indeed run by people. You are strawmanning super hard right now

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:44:02 2019 No.12214971

>>12214903
>harmful harmful harmful
Prove that it would be 'harmful' outside of hurting the bottom line of agricultural companies. Your whole argument hinges on the assumption that people are stupid, thus they don't deserve information nor education. How would you like it if we applied that same reasoning to warning signs everywhere, since you'd have to be a real doofus to get caught in a subway door?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:49:10 2019 No.12214978

>>12214971
>Prove that it would be 'harmful' outside of hurting the bottom line of agricultural companies
Harming the economy is bad in its won right. Sometimes it is a sacrifice that must be made, but you better justify it with something
>Your whole argument hinges on the assumption that people are stupid
You really are helping me with this one
>thus they don't deserve information nor education
They very much deserve information, perhaps we should require non-GMO foods to have labels educating the public on the usefulness and safety of GMO foods, thats a good point!
>have to be a real doofus to get caught in a subway door?
Keep in mind that getting caught in a subway door is at least something that should plausibly be avoided unlike GMOs so this isn't a great analogy

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:51:22 2019 No.12214985 Any time you want to make a new regulation first think to yourself "Should Donald Trump be in charge of this?"

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:52:47 2019 No.12214988 >>12214960 >tricked by misleading label Where is the trick? Yes, a genetically modified orange is a GMO product. Do you also complain that warnings on medicine 'trick' people into not taking it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:53:42 2019 No.12214992 >>12214985 He has enough money to pay rent inside that empty plot you call a skull.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:55:45 2019 No.12215002 Lol this fucking circling papyrusphobic retard is STILL going? Astounding.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:56:23 2019 No.12215006 >>12214988 The trick is telling people that this is useful information

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:56:44 2019 No.12215007 >>12214985 He's bigly smart yo. You act like he just inherited vast quantities of real estate and wealth. He's a self made man and expert in all things. Straight shooter. MAGA.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:57:08 2019 No.12215009

>>12214978
Got it, so instead of taking the time to educate consumers about the possible benefits of GMO (which I don't even disagree with) while honestly labelling it as such, you're just going to cover everyone's eyes while cooing at them that whatever they can't see can't hurt them. That would work on children under the age of 5, but I think a consumer with knowledge of GMOs but can't see where they are would be even more suspicious, leading to the very problem you're trying to quash. Talk about counterproductive!

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:57:25 2019 No.12215010 >>12214988 >Do you also complain that warnings on medicine 'trick' people into not taking it? Warnings on medicine are based on science and research and actually mean something

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:58:56 2019 No.12215013 >>12215009 Lol dont even bother. This retard will literally ignore the definition of implicit and inherent to circle around and avoid the fact he’s a braindead lolbertarian larper

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:59:13 2019 No.12215015 >>12215007 Even if you like Trump you should follow that up with if its ok if now this decision should be up to Bernie Sanders in a couple years

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 22:59:35 2019 No.12215018 >>12214080 >It's called democracy Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:01:15 2019 No.12215021

>>12215009
>Got it, so instead of taking the time to educate consumers about the possible benefits of GMO
Yeah, lets do exactly this on GMO fearmongering products, like anything that advertises itself as natural

Remember, you are the one claiming that private farmers should be forced to label their crops if they are made with GM seeds. If they knowledge of whether something is GM is so important to you pressure products that don't use GMOs to label themselves as such

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:01:35 2019 No.12215025 File: 150 KB, 1280x853, 0ECB4D89-7A88-4E8D-A9B6-6D713C3B9B5B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215015 Wrong!

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:02:32 2019 No.12215027

>>12215010
You don't fucking get it, do you? Side-effect warnings are necessary because they do happen, but people aren't discouraged because they want to cure their symptoms. Why would literally 3 letters on a label with no further info spook a customer who's either sure it won't hurt them or doesn't give a shit if it's cheaper than 'organic'? Where is this weird anti-consumer bias coming from when even you admit GMO education isn't pointless?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:02:40 2019 No.12215028

>>12215009
>but can't see where they are would be even more suspicious, leading to the very problem you're trying to quash. Talk about counterproductive!
You may believe this, but the fact is lobbyists for the natural food lobby are pushing really hard for these labels, so people much smarter than you with much more skin in the game believe the exact opposite of this to be true

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:03:40 2019 No.12215032 >>12215013 >>12215009 you are just responding to your own posts now?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:03:46 2019 No.12215034

>>12215015
No personally I think we should leave it up to the know-it-alls, autists, and libaturdians on 4chan to decide on regulatory issues. Specifically those which are outside their realm of expertise (all of them.) That's what's best for the country.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:04:03 2019 No.12215035 File: 143 KB, 625x773, 27F7B16F-4A03-474A-8E2F-BDE1AAA886DB.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215028 >muh whole foods boogeyman even though whole foods and amazon sell gmos

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:04:27 2019 No.12215036

>>12215021
Good, now you're changing the issue to false advertising from unscrupulous 'organic' and 'natural' marketing. In that case, why not go after them instead and destroy this source of misinformation, rather than play into their hands by doing nothing to cease its perpetuation?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:05:21 2019 No.12215040 File: 493 KB, 1125x1110, 6600F69A-B256-4944-85FF-075594B00950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215032 Oh look now its so unaware and braindead it cant comprehend more than one person finds their shit profoundly retarded

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:06:08 2019 No.12215045

>>12215027
>Side-effect warnings are necessary because they do happen, but people aren't discouraged because they want to cure their symptoms
Well people and doctors should weigh the risks with the benefits for an individual's situation.There are many cases where the side effects may not be worth it depending on your personal health.
>Why would literally 3 letters on a label with no further info spook a customer
Because the natural food lobby has spent a lot of money tricking people into thinking GMOs are bad. I don't understand why you keep needing this repeated

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:07:16 2019 No.12215048 >>12215045 It must suck being such a stupid fucking loser like you doesn’t it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:07:29 2019 No.12215052 >>12215035 The natural food lobby is huge, bigger than your ole boogeyman Monsanto

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:08:45 2019 No.12215057

>>12215036
>Good, now you're changing the issue to false advertising from unscrupulous 'organic' and 'natural' marketing
I brought this up in literally my original post
>In that case, why not go after them instead and destroy this source of misinformation
How exactly would I go about that? I think these people are bad and should stop but I don't see how the government can really do this effectively

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:08:47 2019 No.12215058 >>12215052 >whole foods and amazon are lobbying against their cash cow based retard

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:08:54 2019 No.12215059

>>12215028
See >>12215036. Why suppress information when you can combat MISinformation? Every doctor supports vaccination, yet none of them would support covering up their side-effects, which can unfortunately happen in freak circumstances. They trust their patients to make informed decisions based on all the evidence; why can't you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:09:51 2019 No.12215061 >>12215040 oh wow, you can use microsoft paint!

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:10:53 2019 No.12215064 >>12215058 please elaborate. Monsanto is now Whole Food's cash cow? What are you even referring to?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:11:43 2019 No.12215065 >>12215064 Not that guy, but would it surprise you to know Whole Foods sells a shit-ton of GMO produce too?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:11:44 2019 No.12215067

>>12215036
Please don’t waste your time with this fear and conspiracy mongering retard. He literally will not accept THE dichotomy between labels and perception of labels because it destroys his entire argument other than “i no like label!!” “gary johnson good!!”

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:12:42 2019 No.12215069 >>12215059 Not literally forcing companies to put irrelevant info on their limited label space is not "suppressing information"

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:12:53 2019 No.12215070 >>12215064 >>12215061 Is your stupidity actually authentic? I’m genuinely concerned. You’ve been at this for hours.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:13:42 2019 No.12215073 >>12215059 >Every doctor supports vaccination, yet none of them would support covering up their side-effects, Do you think doctors would support putting labels on meat saying whether the livestock was vaccinated?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:14:45 2019 No.12215079 >>12215070 I left for a while during Game of Thrones

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:14:56 2019 No.12215080 >>12215073 Do physicians understand bovine biology?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:16:07 2019 No.12215083 >>12215079 Oh so it is authentic then? Yikes....

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:17:55 2019 No.12215092

>>12215067
>Please don’t waste your time with this fear and conspiracy mongering retard.
Literally what you have been doing the entire time
>He literally will not accept THE dichotomy between labels and perception of labels
Why are you constantly focused on weird secondary shit? The perception is the problem, you cannot just separate this because it is inconvenient for you

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:18:56 2019 No.12215095 >>12215080 enough to know that labeling the meat as vaccinated would at best silly and wasteful, and more likely harmful

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:19:57 2019 No.12215099 >>12215070 So you are ignoring the question? How exactly is Monsanto Whole Food's cash cow? When did Whole Foods stop being on the natural food bandwagon?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:20:11 2019 No.12215100

>>12215073
Why wouldn't they? I'd see it simply as evidence my beef came from a healthy cow and isn't tainted with particular diseases. If some hippie thinks that's means it's filled with cyanide, that's their goddamn problem, and they're probably vegan anyway.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:21:01 2019 No.12215103
File: 106 KB, 1200x750, 1F94511E-43F9-4F18-890C-90B279FE8792.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215092
>no you!!!

>why are you focused on this thing that destroys my brainforce inspired autism!!! stop it!!!

BASED retard

You’re alright in my book, buddy. I don’t care what I secretly think of you

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:21:48 2019 No.12215107 >>12215100 I imagine consumers would associate it with antibiotic free labels which people consider a good sing on meat

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:22:04 2019 No.12215109 >>12215095 So physicians know bovine biology and the functioning of labeling surrounding it? Interesting. Do you beanstalk beans to sell?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:22:40 2019 No.12215115 >>12215092 >perception is the problem Your existence, and MY existence is itself evidence that public perception isn't monolithic. Imagine the nerd arrogance and solipsism required to believe that everyone apart from you is equally ignorant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:22:53 2019 No.12215116 >>12215100 So more labels for everything?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:23:05 2019 No.12215117 >>12215099 LOL real talk are you actually this fucking retarded dude? Try reading

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:23:54 2019 No.12215121 >>12215103 Please explain why perception just doesn't count

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:24:57 2019 No.12215125 >>12215109 I mean this isn't very complicated, I think most people with anything more than a high school degree could figure this one out

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:25:40 2019 No.12215128 >>12215121 Answer this; why does YOUR perception of GMO count, and why does apparently no one else share it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:25:53 2019 No.12215130 >>12215121 I don’t have to, it explains itself. Do you think anal penetration is implicit to a zucchini? Don’t answer that, champ.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:25:58 2019 No.12215131 >>12215117 As far as I can tell, Whole Foods is still very much in the anti-GMO marketing game

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:27:19 2019 No.12215136 File: 60 KB, 487x700, B8EC2EF2-41B9-4551-9931-5BDB1A8CE8D9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215131 >as far as I can tell And therein lies the issue of your entire existence you self-absorbed pretentious retard

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:29:47 2019 No.12215150

>>12215128
>and why does apparently no one else share it?
What? My perception is in line with lobbyists on both sides of the issue and scientists in the field. Everyone agrees a labeling law would be harmful for GMOs and a boon for natural food marketers precisely because of this perception problem you think doesn't count or something

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:29:50 2019 No.12215151

>>12215059
Another argument is that the propagation of piece meal information with no context is harmful to the ability to inform the average consumer. The average consumer will understand that government mandated labels exist to warn the consumer in some way about a potential risk, health concern, or due to deliberately misleading marketing on some items. Anything more than this absolutely risks an agenda taking the narrative and arguing on its merits solely because the regulation label exists, even if its unspecified why it exists. If the government wants to take it upon itself to regulate such things then it risks alienating consumers because they cant trust that its regulations arent being carried out solely because of inside industry battles.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:30:15 2019 No.12215154 >>12215131 >The organic food industry are liars! >Organic wholesalers don't sell GMOs because they categorically deny it! I don't even know what to say anymore, bro.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:30:51 2019 No.12215155 >>12215130 What? Do you still not understand the meaning of the word implicit? Try google I guess

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:31:26 2019 No.12215157 >>12215155 based retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:32:55 2019 No.12215160 >>12215150 I wish I was as blissfully stupid and vapid as you, bro.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:33:56 2019 No.12215164 >>12209466 retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:34:16 2019 No.12215165 >>12215154 What are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:34:57 2019 No.12215170 >>12215125 Yeah so why do you keep going on with your lolbertarian platitude ranting?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:35:20 2019 No.12215171 >>12215160 says the guy who thinks GMO should be strictly labled

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:35:58 2019 No.12215176 >>12215165 Is this just your default response when you don’t have an actual response to yet again being proven as a retard? Bit cringey bro but do you.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:36:39 2019 No.12215178

>>12215170
I consider myself vaguely libertarian but even beyond that, GMO labels are straight up bad policy as they trick consumers. Even if you think the government should be in the business of writing everyone's labels this is a harmful way to design the label and the government should avoid it

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:36:58 2019 No.12215180 >>12215171 I dont recall saying that. You sure love strawmen. But sure label baaaaad

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:38:06 2019 No.12215183 >>12215178 >if i keep restating my baseless assertion someone will believe me!! Goodnight based retard.

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:39:34 2019 No.12215188

>>12215176
How can I respond to you just throwing out non-sequiturs?

Organic food marketing is inherently dishonest though not explicit lies (this hardly makes it unique in the marketing world), why are you green texting this?
and you keep referencing Whole Food's secret plot to now actually be on GMO's side with no context as to what you are talking about

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:40:53 2019 No.12215192 >>12215180 so what is your stance again?

Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:50:39 2019 No.12215221
File: 79 KB, 1229x1160, F0C4435A-8E20-4662-8839-A39E1CA1EDC6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12213990
Modern marketing and mass cultivation of new generations of buyers have greatly distorted what used to be long held rules of economics. We have stopped evolving by manipulating the environment around us

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 21 23:54:01 2019 No.12215233 >>12213990 I, too, remember when cigarette manufacturers were honest enough to put pictures of cancer patients on their products themselves. Certainly no need for those government busybodies to do it!

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 00:00:07 2019 No.12215245 >>12215233 Right? I mean there's always those pictures of dying people on tidepod boxes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 01:40:37 2019 No.12215510 >>12213869 >majority of any board on 4chan being female LMAO

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 01:49:34 2019 No.12215535 >>12209478 Oh no the evil lobbyists are making the government protect consumers from unfettered race-to-the-bottom cost cutting and false advertising truly this is what Orwell warned about.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 01:54:31 2019 No.12215546 >>12208925 I didn’t know the ratio was already that low, 1/4 cherries 3/4s shgar and cornsyrup?

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 02:00:41 2019 No.12215557

>>12208925
I bought a cherry pie that was wrapped in white paper that said it was made by the Amish, expecting that it would be very natural and organic, being made by 17th century farmer folk, and then it was all goo, no whole cherries at all, obviously sweetened with high fructose corn syrup and unnatural as the devil. The Amish are cheating us now? What has the world come to? Since when are the Amish capitalists?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 02:01:35 2019 No.12215559 >>12214311 >sell a shit product, you pay for it as a company I guess Apple didn't get the memo. Why sell a good product when you can survive on brand loyalty and marketing.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 02:17:51 2019 No.12215593

>>12214036
Because there's another option - letting the "free market" dictate what's good for you.
Sugar used to be good for you and fat was bad. Sprite should have been given to toddlers. Radioactive toothpaste was a thing.
Just don't let corporations dictate anything, otherwise we'll all die off within a few years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 02:22:00 2019 No.12215604 >>12214055 Dude, this data includes communist countries as well. Soviet Russia did great in Child Mortality, Basic Education, Vaccination and Literacy rates.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 02:23:17 2019 No.12215606 File: 64 KB, 540x641, 1pdyjbC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12214156 >Because government regulation has incentivized Amazon, empowered and allowed them to monopolize. Ahahahahahaha

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 02:23:19 2019 No.12215607 >>12209007 >oy vey, why should i have to accurately inform the consumer what they're eating?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 02:28:28 2019 No.12215618 >>12208925 Why the fuck would I buy a fucking frozen, pre-made pie? This only effects fat dumbasses that couldn't be asked to cook anything more than a kid cuisine brownie. Go....fuuuuuuuck yourseeeeeelf.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 02:33:32 2019 No.12215630 >>12208925 I make make my own pies, premade ones are disgusting, if less cherries turn people off of these, that's a good for the world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 02:59:41 2019 No.12215696 >>12215630 Gimme some skin based piebro.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 03:12:54 2019 No.12215744

>>12209007
>Spend millions on lobbying to change a regulation that will inevitably lead to companies making more profit at the expense of consumers, or the environment, or their workers.
>We promise we'll never use the new laws in that manner though.
>But we need the laws to change.
>Even though our PR machine says we'll never do what our opponents say we will do.
>Even though we're spending millions on lobbying.
>The law has to be changed.
>We're not planning to take advantage of it though.
>We're not going to stop lobbying for it either.
>Trust us. We're not the bad guys.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 03:53:35 2019 No.12215858 >>12213869 Female(male)? Sure

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 04:01:55 2019 No.12215874 >>12213869 Hah, no.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 04:32:53 2019 No.12215945 americans are so fucking stupid they literally want to be lied to >Now Melts >Now has Cheries®

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 04:35:14 2019 No.12215955 >>12214393 >Amazon is surely successful, but it is definitely not that dominant to be considered a monopoly americans lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 04:41:31 2019 No.12215965 >>12208925 I thought it was to prevent scams or putting less cherries during production to save money and consumers getting angry

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 05:04:54 2019 No.12216019 As others have mentioned, you need these rules in place. It's a never-ending race to the bottom for manufacturers to cut corners so they can give you the absolute minimum in return for your cash. There is no valid argument against these laws.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 05:43:25 2019 No.12216087 >>12216019 Here's your argument: FREEDOM

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 05:45:12 2019 No.12216091 >>12216087 Yes, the same reason we should be allowed to drive as fast as we want and play our music as loud as we want at any time of night that we want.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 09:54:36 2019 No.12216570

>>12213996
People will have no problem with GMO, all it needs is some time and good prices. Labeling it as GMO isn't inherently bad. It's the same with fake cheese, it's still being sold and bought as a cheap low quality replacement even if it isn't labeled as cheese.

Just call the pie with artificial flavouring a cherry flavoured pie and everyone will know what it is at a glance, and the people who want to have no problem buying it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 10:02:48 2019 No.12216599 >>12214288 Frozen pies are bigger in the UK than America

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 10:16:27 2019 No.12216643

>>12214080
You aren't arguing against GMO, you're arguing against pesticide. What you should ask for is a label with how much and which kinds of pesticides have been used in the production of what you are holding in your hand. Just have them divide what they spray divided with the amount of produce. The frozen foods just need to average out what the values are for their ingredients.

It'll give you a far more precise and meaningful label than simply "GMO or not" and may actually lead to substantial changes in consumer habits due to it being possible to make an actual informed decision. There would likely be GMO labeled products that you want to choose over non-GMO if this information was readily available.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 11:36:46 2019 No.12216950

>>12213990
>Businesses are only successful if they give consumers what they want
Or if they don't have any competition due to succesful lobbying. See ISPs.

There's a disturbing amount of states where competing with already established companies is either illegal or newcomers have to accept that old companies can legally force them to get bought out for a fraction of their worth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 11:42:23 2019 No.12216972 >>12209232 >what is boy pussy

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 12:37:58 2019 No.12217248

>>12214064
>GMOs are objectively not harmful
There's no way you can possibly know this for certain. Genetic manipulation as we know it today is still so new that noone can know the possible longterm effects. At best you can make educated guesses (on behalf of the people that funded your research...).

inb4
>b-but it's completely natural, we're just speeding up the natural process!
There's no way a mouse and a deepsea fish would ever be able to produce offsping that glows in the dark naturally, yet GMO mice like that exists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 13:03:17 2019 No.12217375 >>12217248 This is true, and if history is any guide, whenever humans begin mucking around with nature, uintended and unforseen negative consequences, sometimes disastrous, occur.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 13:12:26 2019 No.12217422

>>12214199
>GMO labels should not be mandated by the government
Imagine two identically tasting pies. Neither of them will kill you if eaten, but one of them has been pissed in. I sure as shit would like a mandatory label so I could decide which pie I get. Those that are into piss would probably also be happy about it, since they wouldn't have to gamble anymore.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 13:32:30 2019 No.12217506

>>12214326
>label
Quick and convenient
>indexnumber/keyword/QR code you have to search
Not quick, not convenient.

Now lets say you buy 20 different food items and have to search every single one of them.
As an added bonus for producers, it's cheaper to put a sticker on your product than it is to pay someone to establish and maintain your database.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 13:49:06 2019 No.12217580 >>12209493 Because the lawmakers decided it. It’s arbitrary, but a line has to be drawn somewhere or else pie makers will be able to make cherryless cherry pies.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 16:59:55 2019 No.12218296

>>12215559
But Apple does not sell a crappy product? Like they created a whole self contained set of products and they work really well together.

I don't but into Apple but you can surely see they sell functioning products at a premium but also single handedly removed most of the compatibility issues from cross tech interactions.

Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:09:37 2019 No.12218325

>>12218296
Apple's products generally do not perform as well as their competitors when it comes to tech specs. Their cameras aren't as good. Their CPUs don't score as high on benchmark tests. Their speaker/headphone sound quality isn't as good, and so on.

What they are selling, as you mentioned, is the convenience of products which work well together. They're selling laziness (ease of use) and style/branding more than anything else.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 17:11:20 2019 No.12218330 big ag gets the bullet first then the jews responsible

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 19:35:58 2019 No.12219001 >>12217580 god forbid. Thank lord baby Jesus that we have these brave politicians protecting us from the real issues

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 19:37:45 2019 No.12219005 >>12218296 yeah, Apple is more of the "sell decent products at premium prices thanks to excellent marketing and cult following" They are not bad products by any means, just priced considerably higher than similar quality products by other companies

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 22 22:16:45 2019 No.12219647 >>12208925 Thanks Obama! >Trump Seriously, have you no shame, Mr. President. Brown People. The hell with them but don't you touch my cherry pie and DON'T you touch my fucking corn. This is America god dammit. This aggression will not stand, man.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/ck/ - Food & Cooking