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

Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#61

Post by downut »

selimthegrim wrote: post #60
downut wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a gringo and have driven all over NW Mexico: BCS/BCN and Sonora. So cities: Guaymas, Nogales, Puerto Peñasco, Mexicali, Tijuana, Ensenada, La Paz, Cabo, etc. With my wife and occasional daughter, we've city-hiked extensively CDMX, Querétaro, Guadalajara, Oaxaca, and by design not the wealthiest areas. Also by design we are happiest when we're the only gringos around, for instance in a restaurant. We all stick out…

Mordida, not mordita.

Muchas gracias, I am but a beginner still in Mexican Spanish, however my only slightly engaged over the years gringo brain remembers "mordita" instead of "mordida".

google translate says for both: "bite".

I have slightly worried for a long time that nuance will be lost via translate devices, and here we are.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#62

Post by singleshot_ »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #58
singleshot_ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments.

""fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments."" I probably need it spelled out, since to me your sentence is directly showing how they are they same argument. If the 'state' as in states rights, wants to limit my 'health and welfare' say by limiti…

Of course, regulation by the state and individual liberty are in tension. No one forgot that; it’s the basis of our system.

The argument that states can regulate marijuana relies on a right reserved to the states: the states’ police powers.

The argument that states can allow slavery directly contradicts the thirteenth amendment, where an individual’s natural right is stated.

Arguing that an individual is free because god gave him that right is very different than arguing that a state can do something because of federalism. The justification on one side is that the individual’s right to bodily integrity, autonomy, and security is sacrosanct. The argument on the other side is that the polis takes priority over the individual. They are opposite arguments that must be balanced, not “the same argument.” What they are is two sides of the same dispute, which is what I think you might mean.

am I close?

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#63

Post by selimthegrim »

downut wrote: post #61
selimthegrim wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mordida, not mordita.

Muchas gracias, I am but a beginner still in Mexican Spanish, however my only slightly engaged over the years gringo brain remembers "mordita" instead of "mordida". google translate says for both: "bite". I have slightly worried for a long time that nuance will be lost via translate devices, and here we are.

I think Google translate is just wrong here

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#64

Post by downut »

selimthegrim wrote: post #63
downut wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Muchas gracias, I am but a beginner still in Mexican Spanish, however my only slightly engaged over the years gringo brain remembers "mordita" instead of "mordida". google translate says for both: "bite". I have slightly worried for a long time that nuance will be lost via translate devices, and here we are.

I think Google translate is just wrong here

I would be much obliged if you could say why. I really love to learn these vernacular differences.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#65

Post by selimthegrim »

downut wrote: post #64
selimthegrim wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google translate is just wrong here

I would be much obliged if you could say why. I really love to learn these vernacular differences.

Not sure but searching mordita in a dictionary just gives Esperanto

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#66

Post by selimthegrim »

selimthegrim wrote: post #59
nathan_compton wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't really that exploitable, though. You couldn't march up to any of these people and take it and have it keep its value. It's not like Musk has a 4 billion dollar diamond in his stomach.

Now I’m envisioning Musk like the Christmas goose in The Blue Carbuncle

*Adventure of the…

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#67

Post by makeitdouble »

h0l0cube wrote: post #56
makeitdouble wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a similar conundrum for coffee, and the "this coffee is ethically good" handling is just complicated. It works at super small scale, for extra invested people. The bigger the scale becomes, the murkier it is, and at some point a vendor is just selling a label with not much reality behind it.

Are you talking ‘ethical fair trade’? Because there’s definitely reputable and properly audited designations in this space (edit: namely the green and blue Fairtrade International and Rainforest Alliance, all the imitation marks are junk)

The fact that we need to check this point is one of the issue.

There's a bunch of other organisations, in particular some are built by brands, and of course in a way that advantages them.

Then there's coffee that has absolutely no audit and no designation, mostly because it's produced at low scale (the farm manages its own international sales in a way or another) and is extremely good on an ethical POV but can't be bothered with a registrtion authority.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#68

Post by FrustratedMonky »

singleshot_ wrote: post #62
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

""fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments."" I probably need it spelled out, since to me your sentence is directly showing how they are they same argument. If the 'state' as in states rights, wants to limit my 'health and welfare' say by limiti…

Of course, regulation by the state and individual liberty are in tension. No one forgot that; it’s the basis of our system. The argument that states can regulate marijuana relies on a right reserved to the states: the states’ police powers. The argument that states can allow slavery directly contradicts the thirteenth amendment, where an individual’s natural right is stated. Arguing that an individual is free because…

As most internet arguments, the original examples were a bit flippant, pot and slavery at opposite extremes. Yes, the shifting balance between some natural order and polis/federalism. I am saying 'same argument' you are saying 'opposite arguments'. I am meaning the same thing. It is the balance line, I was saying 'same argument' as in arguing over the point where to draw the line, not two different argument pushing from both sides.

Yes, today, there is a 13 amendment. So technically slavery is settled?

But I have heard many people use the argument that the Civil War was about 'states rights' (not slavery) in the context of today. As in re-contextualizing, saying that generally the causes of the Civil War, being 'States Rights', was actually correct, and Lincoln went too far trying to keep the Union Together. That the states should be allowed to do what they want, which generally would re-instate slavery. If a state were to secede, then the constitution would not apply. And generally that is the argument, that the central government has over-reached, and we should split.

Of course, nobody is saying bring back slavery. What is being said is that we need to join the Church and State into one, form a theocracy, and women will really just be for babies. That is an actual position people are taking today, and they use the 'states-rights' as an argument.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#69

Post by moralestapia »

moralestapia wrote: post #53
alephnerd wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, and then those kinds of organizations become corrupted themselves because money and power are extremely alluring. Look at the Autodefensas in Colombia and Michoacán, or the origins of the Taliban in Kandahar's opium belt (Maiwand) in the early 1990s. Militas are not hallmarks of direct democracy - they are hallmarks of societal and political collapse.

I'd an already corrupt environment for any other "maybe corrupt in 10 years" any day.

I'd change* ...

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#70

Post by thunfischtoast »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #28
pantalaimon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meat production is still significantly more resource intense, we are cutting down the rainforest to make more room for feed crops.

You don't need feed crops for meat. Historically people used marginal land where crops don't grow to graze animals. (And there is a lot of marginal land, even with modern fertilizers.) Anything else makes no economic sense.

It apparently does make short-term economic sense because we use 6 million km^2 of cropland to feed our animals instead of us directly.

https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

It does not make sense long-term, but the long-term bill will be paid by someone else, so people today don't care.

Post reply on HN