[jMyles]

I don't mean to discount your worldview, because I think that you are correct in your basic assessment (massive change is required, not just you), but this comment reads like a giant excuse.

It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill. It's not some strange economic abstraction, but an easy-to-see, real world example.

[robotkilla]

> It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill

I'm very confused by your plan of action... shame the general public until they stop eating meat saturated by antibiotics?

In your plan, how many people will you need to deter in order to make a difference? Will the agricultural industry suddenly stop using antibiotics because a hundered thousand people stop eating at McDonnalds? Two million people?

Will your plan be able to get enough people to stop eating meat so that the agricultural industry notices and stops deforestation or other unethical practices? If they do, will it happen before global warming (caused mostly by the agricultural industry) becomes irreversible?

My comment might read like an excuse to you, but to me your comments read like someone who is very naive to the ways of the world.

[noondip]

Perhaps it is you who is naive to the so-called nirvana logical fallacy?

> Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard. Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.

Indeed, absolving oneself of personal responsibility, especially when direct harm is so apparent, is sad to see. I think it is a form of apathy and not conducive to an actually better world. How can you honestly, "blame the industry" yet the very same day, support it with your money? It's simply hypocrisy.

[robotkilla]

> Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one

Now government regulations placed on the agricultural industry are idealistic?

> dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution

I am strongly encouraging the more realistic solution, not dismissing or discounting it. How is expecting an impactful number of people to discontinue antibiotic meat usage more realistic than expecting government to step in?

> absolving oneself of personal responsibility

As I stated above, I personally avoid antibiotic raised meat, but I simply don't think shaming or blaming low income families is the right move here.

[noondip]

Holding the government to such optimistic standards is blatantly a straw man. We both know how little gets done unless money is involved, and unfortunately for us all, the animal agriculture business has incredible political power.

I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics. If you are serious, consider how purchasing meat, etc. directly leads to "deforestation ... lack of fresh water" without bias. Shaming isn't necessary, just educate yourself and others.

[robotkilla]

> Holding the government to such optimistic standards is blatantly a straw man

No, it isn't. From wikipedia:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

> I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics

I'm arguing for government regulation -- I agree that regulating yourself is an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of anitbiotics, as is discontinuing the consumption of meat for the same purpose.

> Shaming isn't necessary

Again, the same thing I'm saying -- glad we could agree with each other.

[isolate]

When people try this kind of thing on me (frequently it happens if I mention that I shop at Walmart on occasion), I just ask if they own any mutual funds (including pension funds). If they don't, I ask if they pay taxes. If they don't, I ask if they ever give money to someone who might own mutual funds or pay taxes. If they don't, I ask if they ever give money to homeless people.

I understand the general argument about taking a bit of personal responsibility, even if it's basically just symbolic. Rather, it's the absolutism that irritates me. In my opinion, eating less at McDonald's and shopping less at Walmart is about as good as never going to those places.

Besides, if you're really a loving, compassionate, open-minded citizen of the planet, wouldn't it be good to spend some time in these places next to the most downtrodden members of our society?