Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 131 posts

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#31

Post by FerretFred »

someperson wrote: post #24

I can't see how this can be successfully enforced without a massive education campaign and actual enforcement by authorities, including moving the so-called "wet markets" (which are outdoor butchers that are very important to the food supply chain in many areas of China) into modern indoor facilities for improved food safety. Older people in China (the so-called lost generation) are set in their ways: remember that i…

> massive education campaign and actual enforcement

I think if there was ever a place where that could be done, it's China.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#32

Post by bad_user »

vraivroo wrote: post #27
ben_w wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No more so than expecting westerners to be scared out of all the dangerous things we do. Even to the extent that most of us don’t smoke or have lots of unprotected one night stands with strangers, there’s enough who do that they and their illnesses are still a major part of our health systems.

Eating of meat and sugar are responsible for much more. No need to vilify those whose vices you don't share.

Really? What is eating meat and sugar responsible for?

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#34

Post by vraivroo »

bad_user wrote: post #32
vraivroo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating of meat and sugar are responsible for much more. No need to vilify those whose vices you don't share.

Really? What is eating meat and sugar responsible for?

Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. STDs are _nothing_.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#35

Post by JakezRock »

vraivroo wrote: post #27
ben_w wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No more so than expecting westerners to be scared out of all the dangerous things we do. Even to the extent that most of us don’t smoke or have lots of unprotected one night stands with strangers, there’s enough who do that they and their illnesses are still a major part of our health systems.

Eating of meat and sugar are responsible for much more. No need to vilify those whose vices you don't share.

i have got to ask, i understand the sugar part, but the meat? Are you referring to the red meat or the fat in meat? Could you elaborate on the meat part?

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#36

Post by bad_user »

vraivroo wrote: post #34
bad_user wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? What is eating meat and sugar responsible for?

Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. STDs are _nothing_.

In absence of a caloric surplus / chronic overfeeding, also known as energy poisoning, you have absolutely no proof for the claim. There isn't even an association, let alone causation.

And it would be naive to think that eliminating added sugar and meat would prevent people from eating too much.

Which actually beats dying of starvation, which is what people used to do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — comparing food with cigarettes or viruses is completely ridiculous.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#37

Post by Joker_vD »

adrianN wrote: post #14
cltsang wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you mean is those words are lengthy and repeated, that's actually how chinese officials talk and write.

I believe they mean that prohibiting something that is illegal is unnecessary.

On the contrary, you prohibit exactly "unlawful ", e.g. "unlawful consumption of narcotics". That means that what exactly constitutes unlawfulness of such acts is a part of a different law, and usually not even a law, but a by-law or a regulation.

For example, look at the German penal code, title 184f, "Ausübung der verbotenen Prostitution" — it's literally "Practicing illegal prostitution", and it's worded that way because there is also legal one.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#38

Post by Nitramp »

mc32 wrote: post #26
someperson wrote: post #24

I can't see how this can be successfully enforced without a massive education campaign and actual enforcement by authorities, including moving the so-called "wet markets" (which are outdoor butchers that are very important to the food supply chain in many areas of China) into modern indoor facilities for improved food safety. Older people in China (the so-called lost generation) are set in their ways: remember that i…

This very important. Both the PRC and USSR constitutions, on paper, arguably provide better freer basic law than that of the US but in practice it’s just words on paper. However, also in practice the faction in power gets to capriciously enforce what it wants selectively, usually to solidify standing. So mr Xi and mr Stalin (née Jughashvili) get to purge all want-to-be usurpers.

> However, also in practice the faction in power gets to capriciously enforce what it wants selectively, usually to solidify standing.

aka as "the rule of law".

From a continental European perspective, the US stance in rule of law seems a bit dubious as well, with the president pardoning his friends, or the enormous sentences afflicted to people once, but only once, they end up in bad public standing, or elected states attorneys incentivize to look hard on crime to their constituents.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#39

Post by vraivroo »

JakezRock wrote: post #35
vraivroo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating of meat and sugar are responsible for much more. No need to vilify those whose vices you don't share.

i have got to ask, i understand the sugar part, but the meat? Are you referring to the red meat or the fat in meat? Could you elaborate on the meat part?

Cholesterol, saturated fat, weight gain, etc. Meat is not a healthy food.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#40

Post by vraivroo »

bad_user wrote: post #36
vraivroo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. STDs are _nothing_.

In absence of a caloric surplus / chronic overfeeding, also known as energy poisoning , you have absolutely no proof for the claim. There isn't even an association, let alone causation. And it would be naive to think that eliminating added sugar and meat would prevent people from eating too much . Which actually beats dying of starvation, which is what people used to do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — comparing food with cigarettes or v…

It would be historically correct, though.
Post reply on HN