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

Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 295 posts

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#281

Post by paulryanrogers »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #277
whimsicalism wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change. REDD+ programs (which is what you are describing) are massive failures at preventing deforestation or carbon decreases. > There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down. No, there are costs and profits and if you…

You stop them using it for meat they’ll use it for palm oil you stop them using it for that they’ll use it for something else. It’s just so naive to expect it just to switch to something they can sell. Like they own it they can do what they want with it, if you want it to be trees pay them for it to be trees. Just because some NGO likely scam failed to do it under a climate banner doesn’t mean it’s impossible, someon…

Accountability seems impossible sending money alone. There have to be officials with guns enforcing the preservation. People who cannot be paid off.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#282

Post by singleshot_ »

giantg2 wrote: post #280
singleshot_ wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now we will see why my previous comment was relevant. A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy. This is not…

I didn't make you say anything. It looks like you replied to the wrong person, and in a unconstructive way. Seems you should have replied to the person about stacking penalties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310758 You could have been constructive and said that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense under section 2d. Or should I just reply to you using a few semirandom words? Relevant search terms i…

Talking to Computer Guy about legal principles yields unsurprising results.

Honestly, if you just Google the search terms it’s easier for both of us because you can tailor your search to your level of understanding.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#283

Post by giantg2 »

singleshot_ wrote: post #282
giantg2 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't make you say anything. It looks like you replied to the wrong person, and in a unconstructive way. Seems you should have replied to the person about stacking penalties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310758 You could have been constructive and said that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense under section 2d. Or should I just reply to you using a few semirandom words? Relevant search terms i…

Talking to Computer Guy about legal principles yields unsurprising results. Honestly, if you just Google the search terms it’s easier for both of us because you can tailor your search to your level of understanding.

The principle is well understood. You could have pointed out how that principle applied - that the lesser included offense of criminal trespass existed under 2d. Researching principles does nothing if there is a missing fact. Or are you referring to yourself as "Computer Guy"?

If it's too much work for you to engage in a thoughful conversation (per the guidelines), just don't engage at all next time. We don't need low effort "search terms..." comments on here.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#284

Post by _3u10 »

brabel wrote: post #250
_3u10 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more the feed. If you’re getting factory farmed stuff yeah it’s all going to taste roughly the same. But the Amazon, Chaco, and Pampas are wildly different ecological regions. Will Argentine Chaco and Paraguayan Chaco taste roughly the same, yes. But the pampas, that is where real beef comes from.

Sure, but the Pampas are partly in Brazil as well... and there's probably a lot of beef from Argentina that is not from the Pampas region. I mean, you could just say "pampas beef" tastes better, that would make more sense.

You’re an idiot. If you get Brazilian, Argentine or Paraguayan beef it’s not from the triple frontier where they border each other. Anywhere other than that area are vastly different ecologies. Especially the beef growing areas.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1073718/number-cattle-li...

Where as in Argentina over half the cows are from the pampas not 10%

Go to a restaurant or grocery store and have a steak in each country, they are distinctly different.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#285

Post by colordrops »

bongodongobob wrote: post #173
Qem wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Beef in itself is not bad for the environment. It's the scale of demand that is bad. Wasting crops feeding cattle is inherently worse than the alternative, feeding directly on the crops and avoiding the wasting of calories when going up one trophic level.

Cows don't eat people crops.

The amount of energy and water used to grow those crops is spent regardless, and could have either not been spent, or spent on people crops.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#286

Post by colordrops »

carom wrote: post #227
emptysongglass wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle. You're not doing a whole lot to explain why there is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle. I can think of a whole host of reasons why it is wrong in matters of ethics and mercy. Who is there to advocate for the cow? We know cows feel a gamut of emotions just as we do. They are not insensate. Most humans, when given a knife or a captive bolt…

Vegetarians also have higher levels of depression. [1] 1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01650...

It's obviously that they became vegetarian due to this personality trait rather than the other way around. Your study doesn't indicate otherwise. Vegetarians and vegans become so precisely because they are depressed about the state of affairs in animal welfare, human health, and the environment.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#287

Post by lukas099 »

mathieuh wrote: post #134
carlosjobim wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hunting is just as necessary for life as breathing. Domestication of animals and agriculture are the unnatural ways that man has invented. So banning it is banning the most natural human behaviour. All other predators do nothing except hunt, breathe, drink, sleep and mate. And they don't keep slaves. There's a lot of people who never drink water, but drinking water is still essential and shouldn't be outlawed.

That doesn't make any sense. What makes hunting any more natural than agriculture? Isn't exerting control over our environment one of the defining characteristics of humanity?

Additionally, “natural” =/= “necessary to life”. Millions if not billions of people have the means to hunt if they wanted to, yet choose not to. And they are just fine.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#288

Post by brabel »

_3u10 wrote: post #284
brabel wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the Pampas are partly in Brazil as well... and there's probably a lot of beef from Argentina that is not from the Pampas region. I mean, you could just say "pampas beef" tastes better, that would make more sense.

You’re an idiot. If you get Brazilian, Argentine or Paraguayan beef it’s not from the triple frontier where they border each other. Anywhere other than that area are vastly different ecologies. Especially the beef growing areas. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1073718/number-cattle-li... Where as in Argentina over half the cows are from the pampas not 10% Go to a restaurant or grocery store and have a steak in ea…

> You’re an idiot.

How classy, I can clearly see I am dealing with a very refined person.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#289

Post by hulitu »

TechDebtDevin wrote: post #221
righthand wrote: post #145

As an American why would you buy Brazilian beef when it’s already available here probably for cheaper, local, and higher quality?

[flagged]

> Why would you murder and bleed out a cute little animal for calories.

Who are you talking to ? We don't eat cute puppies here. /s

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#290

Post by rmbyrro »

merry_flame wrote: post #239
mtnGoat wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what leads to this believe, we have lots of untouched and well managed forests in the US. Sure we logged most of the eastern states but we also learned their importance before we completely destroyed them, hence wilderness and national park areas that can’t be logged.

Same in many countries in Europe. Also see France's South American forests in French Guyana. Much better managed than Brazil's. Incomparable, actually.

Look up what the French did in Haiti and how it's like there nowadays. Hint: the forests gone is the "minor" issue left by the French.
Post reply on HN