One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history • Hacker News Board

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#131

Post by Jedd » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:52 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #130

Jedd wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so let's agree that cattle that end up in feedlots spend the vast majority of their time in feedlots ... they may have some milk and grass for the first few months of their life, but once they're in feedlots they're on primarily (90%+) grain, with some even more obviously dubious additions making up the other 10%. These are animals that have evolved to digest various grasses, and get sick (to various degrees) w…

I agree with everything you said until the last sentence. I think the issue is it's a lot to ask of someone to change their lifestyle, especially within areas that have a lot of contradictory (mis)information. The easy choice is for someone to side with their confirmation bias ("what I'm doing is already ok"). As soon as they sniff out some misinformation in the counterargument, I think the arguing party loses credib…

I'm enchanted by your suggestion that if we can just give everyone enough facts they'll start to act thoughtfully.

I'll continue to blend my understanding of reality with my opinion of same. If it's insufficiently compelling in comparison to someone's desire to believe something demonstrably wrong or bad, as I said earlier, I'm doubtful those last few eggshells will make a difference.

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#132

Post by bumby » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #131

bumby wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said until the last sentence. I think the issue is it's a lot to ask of someone to change their lifestyle, especially within areas that have a lot of contradictory (mis)information. The easy choice is for someone to side with their confirmation bias ("what I'm doing is already ok"). As soon as they sniff out some misinformation in the counterargument, I think the arguing party loses credib…

I'm enchanted by your suggestion that if we can just give everyone enough facts they'll start to act thoughtfully. I'll continue to blend my understanding of reality with my opinion of same. If it's insufficiently compelling in comparison to someone's desire to believe something demonstrably wrong or bad, as I said earlier, I'm doubtful those last few eggshells will make a difference.

>I'm enchanted by your suggestion that if we can just give everyone enough facts they'll start to act thoughtfully

That's not really what I said though. I know there's some people who think this (ahem Peter Attia) but it flies in the face of my own experience and what limited reading I've done in behavioral psychology.

I don't think people act as rational agents objectively assessing each piece of information. Which is all the more reason to believe they will dismiss any of your points if you give them reason to maintain their confirmation bias. When we aren't accurate with our statements of "fact", it opens the door to exactly that.

There's lots of people who do that. While it may fuel their feelings of self-righteousness, I have doubts as to whether it actually changes anyone's mind. To the contrary, I tend to believe it just makes the other side more entrenched in their own ideas.

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#133

Post by strainer » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 12:21 AM UTC

mrosett wrote: post #119

strainer wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do. It is not wise to infer controversial information from ambiguous journalistic language. I typed "us organic certification cost" into google, and it helpfully quoted this at the top of the page [1] : > Certification costs vary depending on the size of your production operation and on the accredited agency you choose to use. In general, organic certification costs run between $200 – $1500. Your costs will incl…

If you're going to be condescending, please actually engage with my point. I wasn't claiming that nobody pays for certification. I was specifically questioning why it's a government agency that they are paying. "Organic" is clearly a marketing term (as discussed in the first link you provided). It's not a safety-related term as (at least in theory) all produce that's sold should be safe to eat. I don't see the reason…

Here you complained that farmers were not paying for certification, because you had not checked the facts. Your gov is involved because it has authority to enforce accuracy of labeling. Organic standards are "safety-related", not in everyone's "theory" but to those who believe much stricter pesticide regulation than government standards is better for health and environment. We are all entitled to accurate labeling.