[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.