zlacker

>>atestu+(OP)
Tyson foods and other meatpacking companies lobbied and funded RFK...

Here's industry reports

https://www.nationalbeefwire.com/doctors-group-applauds-comm...

https://www.wattagnet.com/business-markets/policy-legislatio...

And straight up lobbying groups

https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/new-dietary-guideline...

https://www.meatinstitute.org/press/recommend-prioritizing-p...

Lobbying groups, putting out press releases, claiming victory...

Here's some things you won't find in any of the documents, including the PDFs at the bottom: community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those.

Just because you might like the results doesn't mean they aren't corrupt as hell

>>kristo+fO1
It's crazy how people are incapable of seeing something positive in the actions of the tribe they don't belong to.

>>stef25+gh2
That trite comment is intellectual dishonesty set to 11.

>>jibal+NI2
Trite, yes, but personally I'd argue that accusing people of intellectual dishonesty (i.e. bad faith) is by definition unfalsifiable and therefore unproductive. Always.

>>blueba+cK2
I don't agree that it is either unfalsifiable or unproductive. And even if it is unfalsifiable, it's not "by definition"--so often that phrase is misused to add an aura of authority, but there's no tautology here. I find your claims to be self-reflectively unproductive and erroneous.

(I would note that, strictly speaking, my statement is provably false (therefore falsifiable) since by definition nothing can be at setting 11 on an implied scale of 1-10.)

I also take issue with "I'd argue" ... so often that phrase is misused to characterize an assertion with no accompanying argumentation.

Further discussion is unlikely to be productive so I won't comment further.