Saturated Fat Controversy

[FlatAssembler]

Moot point, since they're not, and everyone exports to the us.

The US is one of the biggest experter of electronic products in general. Most of the CPUs these days are produced by ARM in the US.
I don't really understand what you mean by this.
Do you think that it's wrong for Croatians to buy ZTE or Huawei phones, because they are buying it from a country where many people don't have mobile phones?

invoking trickle down garbage doesn't accomplish that.

Why would it be garbage? From what I know, it appears that trickle down economics is great in theory, it's just never been implemented properly.

It hardly seems to be the case that getting rid of them would produce worse results.

And what do you think about what Milton Friedman said that safety regulations don't make sense because, in order for them to make sense, you need to put a price to human life? What expense of regulation is acceptable? Is it ethical for a government to impose a safety regulation that would cost a business 50$? If so, is it ethical for a government to impose a safety regulation that would cost a business 1'000'000$? And if your answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second is no, then what you are implying is that human life is worth something between 50$ and 1'000'000$.

Moot point, again, though, since people with no purchasing power have no economic freedom.

That's not what "economic freedom" means. It means that the government isn't intervening in the economy. "Freedom to travel" doesn't mean somebody should give you a car.

You're stuck in all of these pages defending your irrelevant political commitments.

If you believe that the government has the right to take away our freedoms because it thinks the consequences would be positive, chances are, you also believe that we have the right to exploit the animals without their consent if we think the consequences would be positive.
But you are right, nobody here tried to address the points made in the Opening Post, other than doing nonsense ad-hominem attacks on one of the most respected nutritionists these days. I mean, like, linking Michael Greger to anti-GMO movement when he literally said "The bottom-line is that there is no direct human data suggesting harm from eating GMOs.". What could be more ridiculous than that?

I don't have a problem with the free market or export production. That much should be obvious, what with me being an american operating a business. It's simply a fact that this particular aspect of the free market is a main contributor to global hunger.

Then make up your mind! Is the free market to be blamed for global hunger, or is it a good thing that has brought countless people out of poverty? What you are basically saying is "The suffering of the farmed animals doesn't matter because it's a result of the free market.", but you are also saying that free market is to blame for global hunger, which is, of course, a bad thing which matters. Sorry, but that's just incoherent, and built on dubious or demonstrably false premises.

I promote free market solutions tailored to low income people who are interested in ag.

Then you are not speaking clearly here.

I suppose that would probably depend on whether or not your life was the quantity about to be reduced in favor of someone else's quality. Ironically, livestock find themselves in this position..so it's probably for the best that they don't have the ability to contemplate the issues that face them, lol.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. What I meant is that, for example, abortion isn't wrong if the child is found to have an illness that would prevent him or her from leading a happy life. Similarly, we should not breed more farmed animals into existence, if we have good reasons to think they will lead a miserable life.