I thought that I had heard every argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry but leave it up to the Abbott Administration in Australia to come up with an especially whacked out rationale. Agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce has announced that the country must preserve traditional marriage . . . for the cattle. Do it for the cattle.
Joyce warned that same-sex marriage would mark the nation as immoral and “decadent” in the eyes of its buyers: “Where we live economically is south east Asia, that’s where our cattle go . . . When we go there, there are judgments whether you like it or not that are made about us. They see us as decadent.”
It is not clear if the fear is gay cattle or cattle raised on a gay ranch. I am just thankful that this rationale did not make it into the dissents to Obergefell.
Source: Standard
“You obvious have no grasp on the concept of an economic prediction. Good luck with that.”
If anyone had made a prediction based on a fact, a statistic, an economic model I would love to see it.
If you know of any economic prediction that extends beyond ‘I am afraid, and woe is us’ please present it. I know I would love to see it and I will bet there are other readers who are as puzzled and amused as I am.
Part of the problem is that some people believe that the clenching of hands and the pulling of hair is an economic prediction. It is not.
bam bam
There is this wonderful invention called The Google. Google Minister Barnaby Young. He is opposed to SSM for fear it will end the opportunity for his two daughters to marry men. He is considered something of a far right nut .
There. I know 100% more about Mr. Young than you do. Do you best to overtake me or close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and keep humming la la la la la la la la.
bigfatmike
The facts, or the few that we have, speak for themselves. The Minister of Agriculture has expressed his belief that SSM in his country would impact sales of beef to the country’s Southeast Asia customers. Period. It is a warning. Do you understand that concept? A belief that something may occur, based upon, what I assume are, years of experience by the Minister of Agriculture in dealing with certain customers. The article posted by JT gives no other facts than that. Neither one of us knows exactly why the Minister of Agriculture is claiming this. I assume that his customers have been very open and upfront about with whom they wish to deal. I assume that his customers have made their opinions known to him, in no uncertain terms. Since you have no experience, again, by your own admission, in this line of work, you don’t have a clue as to how contracts and deals, at this level of government, are conducted. You just make blanket statements about how things should be, how things must happen, without any real world experience to back up what you claim. If his customers take offense to his country’s stand on SSM, they may take their business elsewhere, where there is no conflict with the country’s position on SSM. It’s as simple as that. In your case, it’s as complicated as that. You obvious have no grasp on the concept of an economic prediction. Good luck with that.
“The Minister of Agriculture has expressed his belief that SSM in his country would impact sales of beef to the country’s Southeast Asia customers. Period. It is a warning.”
The question is whether that warning is reasonable or is it nut job nonsense.
I may have started out totally ignorant. But I do have some facts – some real world experience. Anyone starting from ignorance, but with a little genuine interest and a little effort can develop some real facts and real world experience.
And I would argue that real facts and real world experience are far more believable than statements of nut job fears, and totally unsupported assumptions that the irrational fears must be – must be I tell ya – true. Chicken little said the sky is falling is not an argument, at least not an argument that reasonable people accept.
Consider the US has suffered not the slightest decline in international sales of beef due concern for SSM despite growing numbers of states that recognize SSM and growing numbers of SSM relations.
We know that not one international trader has expressed any interest at all concerning SSM.
We have no indication of any kind that Australian beef is being treated any different from US beef or will be treated any different than US beef in international markets.
If we are to take seriously the concerns of the Australian minister reasonable people demand some indication, some fact, some expression of concern by traders, some cancellation of a contract, some rejection of a shipment, some action, some fact of any kind, anywhere.
The clear, compelling facts are that there have been no – repeat no – concerns expressed by any traders and no actions of any kind taken.
Any one can express irrational fear. Anyone can assume the irrational fears are reasonable.
But rational people help those with irrational fears overcome them.
Bam Bam, there, there now. It will all be ok. You will see. Everything is ok and everyone is safe. Don’t you worry. That nut job minister does not know what he is talking about. I know it can be scary. But you will be safe if you let the facts be your guide. You just stick with the facts and you will feel much better.
The fear is that the straight cattle will all start favoring the gay cattle and then before one knows it, there will not be any beef or the table and cattle become extinct…just like real marriage and families.
“When we go there, there are judgments whether you like it or not that are made about us. They see us as decadent.”
.I bet they see most westerners as over indulgent, and decadent. But that has not stopped them from buying the beef, or trying to develop as fast as possible, now has it.
@BamBam 🐄 👌🏻
“I would dare argue that this Minister of Agriculture has a better grasp of what will and will not affect his very specific trading partners than, perhaps, someone like you would, don’t you think?”
Once again it has nothing to do with me. I think the facts about trade in quantities or dollars tell us more than the scare talk of some nut job political hack.
Do we have even one statement from even one trading partner that SSM is of the slightest concern? As a matter of fact no we don’t. We know for a fact that international traders don’t care about SSM in regard to US beef and we have not a shred of evidence that they care about SSM in regard to Australian beef.
” The reference was made to provide an example of when one country will, for various reasons, impose a trade embargo with regard to another nation as an expression of its displeasure or distaste for certain behaviors and activities. It’s not a foreign concept. It’s not a new idea. It exists.”
So the sum total of the argument related to ‘trade embargo’ is that some party involved in international trade could – repeat could – decide to limit trade due to personal or group preference. I think I understood that even with out the concept of trade embargo. But thanks for the edifying remarks. Never again will I try to buy a drink at the Trade Embargo.
The question remains: is there any party on earth that cares the slightest about SSM in relation to the import of beef. The resounding answer to that question is no – When it comes to beef what traders care about is good quality at the right price. So far as we can tell based on all the evidence available, when it comes to international trade in beef, nobody except the Austrian nut job cares about SSM at all.
I suspect Young is a little wacko on the subject of same sex marriage and has chosen to inject that craziness into the subject of the cattle market.
Here is a little something he had to say
Joyce has spoken out in opposition to same-sex marriage, attending several rallies on the matter in Canberra.[9][10] In 2011, he lobbied against a bill proposed by senator Sarah Hanson-Young that would allow for same-sex couples to marry. He implied that the legislation would prevent his daughters from marrying men: “We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband, and I want that to happen for them. I don’t want any legislator to take that right away from me.”[9][11] Hanson-Young countered that the bill would not affect his daughters at all: “There is nothing in my Marriage Equality Bill that would prevent Senator Joyce’s daughters from getting married to the partner of their choice.”
bigfatmike
You seem to be missing the point. Perhaps if you read the few facts that we do have in the article, you would have noticed that there is a specific mention made of trade with Southeast Asia. Did you catch that? I would dare argue that this Minister of Agriculture has a better grasp of what will and will not affect his very specific trading partners than, perhaps, someone like you would, don’t you think? Your admitted ignorance of the subject, including any practical or real experience in the area, doesn’t seem to preclude you from spouting off about how this potential boycott would never occur. With practice and experience come knowledge. You have neither in this particular field, by your own admission. By the way, neither do I. The difference is that I take into account someone’s expertise in an area before I summarily dismiss the opinions and suggestions with which I may not be familiar.
Unfortunately, you also missed the meaning and the purpose behind the mention of a trade embargo. Obviously, it was lost on you. The reference was made to provide an example of when one country will, for various reasons, impose a trade embargo with regard to another nation as an expression of its displeasure or distaste for certain behaviors and activities. It’s not a foreign concept. It’s not a new idea. It exists.
“Your admitted ignorance of the subject, including any practical or real experience in the area, doesn’t seem to preclude you from spouting off about how this potential boycott would never occur”
Actually I was spouting off about your lack of an argument. Even a guy like me can see you have not presented any facts to support your opinion.
You keep talking about me. I am irrelevant. No body trades or does not trade because of me.
If you think my ignorance makes your argument stronger then let me help. I will plead that so far as I know the trade embargo is just a couple of blocks from the Zanzibar where I go to knock back a few cool ones. Hope that helps.
Now make your best argument and show use one scintilla of evidence that SSM makes any measurable difference to international trade – any at all.
Show us, dazzle us, and convince us that SSM makes the slightest difference in international trade for beef.
Show us some numbers. Show us some traders who have announced their intention not to buy beef from countries with SSM.
But while you are making your very best, most convincing argument, let me spout off that SSM has not hurt US trade in beef at all, not a bit, or perhaps I should say not a single byte of beef.
The fact is that as more and more states in the US have adopted SSM our exports of beef in international markets have increased. The fact is that after the SC decision for SSM there was not a single cancellation of an international order of beef nor was there a single threat to cancel an order.
The evidence from US beef is that international trade doesn’t care about SSM, not a bit, not a byte.
If there is a threat to international trade in beef due to SSM then tell us where, exactly, is it.
This proves that the Republican Party of the USA does not have a monopoly on idiocy; Australia seems to be doing a smashing job at climate denial, and now . . . this. It occurs to me that there may be a place for Donald Trump; it’s just not in the US. Australia, I should think, needs a clear-thinking, race-baiting homophobe like the Donald. Is there some way we can simply send him there/
bigfatmike
Precisely due to your lack of involvement in the specific trade and your unfamiliarity with the factors which influence trade with other countries–especially ones which happen to be religious societies–I would tend to rely even more heavily and take notice as to what this gentleman has to say regarding the impact on his line of work. Again, as I asked you before, have you ever heard of a trade embargo? What are the reasons behind them? Are they ever put into place despite the negative financial consequences? In your opinion, buyers will buy from the devil if the price is right. Fine. That’s your opinion, probably based upon anecdotal evidence. Here, we have an expert in the business–a professional–and I’m sure that it isn’t his first day at the rodeo. The article is too short and lacking in substantive details to explain how his opinion was formed, but I’m willing to guess that he is speaking out to protect his industry, where he has a vested interest in keeping the economy afloat and maintaining his job.
” Again, as I asked you before, have you ever heard of a trade embargo? What are the reasons behind them? ”
Whether I have heard of a trade embargo or not is totally and absolutely irrelevant. Nobody is making decisions on international trade on the basis of what I know.
The reasons for trade embargoes of the past are again totally irrelevant.
Perhaps you might want to check and see if there are any embargoes on beef due to the morality of the ranchers and cowboys who raise the beef. Further, nobody is talking about an embargo – except you and that so called ‘professional from the rodeo’.
But we don’t have to guess or conjecture about whether anyone who is buying beef in international markets cares at all about the morality of the ranchers and cowboys.
We have same sex marriage in this country – don’t we? Is anyone cutting their orders for US beef? I think not. Japan, one of the biggest importers of US beef is not cutting their orders. Neither are Mexico, Korea, the European Union. If nobody cares about US beef and the heathens, philistines, and devils that raise it then why would they care about anywhere else in the world? Doe it make any sense – at all, in any way? Of course not.
Has anyone who actually is buying beef threatened to cut their orders? Anyone at all? Even one? I think not.
Remember these are people who care not at all about feeding us red slime and downer cattle. If we let them they would probably shovel out the floor of the cattle pens and dump it in the hamburger grinder.
Instead of talking about fantastical non-existent trade embargoes, I think you might have a better chance at organizing a purchasing boycott.
Why don’t you try talking it up with your neighbors and see how many are going to give up their 83/17% beef from Walmart?
In the right neighborhoods you might recruit a few people who will make that sacrifice – till Walmart drops the price a few pennies.
What do you think. Do you think a boycott of beef has a snowballs chance of making a difference in beef consumption, or in the international trade levels of beef?
There ain’t no trade embargoes on beef – not a one. And please let us know how that beef boycott works out for you.
Remember: “Devil beef, the temptation goes in before the name goes on.”
bigfatmike
Ever hear of something called a trade embargo? The decision to create said embargo is not necessarily made because there is an economic benefit in doing so. The individual, stating this argument, is purportedly the Minister of Agriculture for his country. Do you really believe that you, in all your great wisdom, have more knowledge regarding the impact of perception, as it pertains to this specific industry, than he does? Have you ever worked in sales? Better yet, have you ever worked in sales at this level? Perhaps this professional knows of what he speaks? Perhaps he has already heard from his buyers that they would look elsewhere to make their purchases if they perceived the seller as unethical or immoral? If an economy relies heavily upon a specific industry, and that industry is decimated, what do you think happens?
“The individual, stating this argument, is purportedly the Minister of Agriculture for his country. Do you really believe that you, in all your great wisdom, have more knowledge regarding the impact of perception, as it pertains to this specific industry, than he does?”
The question is not what I know. I will stipulate I don’t know anything at all – not a bit. But I do try to ask good questions.
The question is whether there is any evidence, at all, of any kind, that any international buyers care in the slightest about the moral status of ranchers and cowboys who raise the beef?
I will make a bet. I will bet that those involved in international trade at the right price would buy beef from the fires of hell and market it as pre-cooked. Anybody want to bet.
Lets face it. It took laws to keep the corporations from feeding us downers and cows with mad cow disease. Do you think they give a rats behind whether beef is raised by heathens, philistines, or ranchers who cut a deal with the devil?
Well maybe they do. But if they do, there will be clear evidence in the form of declining orders.
Wheres the beef? – I mean wheres the evidence?
Anybody see any cancelled orders? Anybody notice any decline in orders?
Did anyone notice any shipping containers piling up on the docks because no shippers need them?
Anybody notice a decline in international shipping rates because ships and crews are sitting idle with no cargo and no work?
If none of that is happening that means the orders are steady.
I half expect to see an add any day now: “Try some devil raised beef today, twice as tender as Kobe and half the price”
“Perception, in this case, with regard to the seller’s ethical or moral standards, cannot be ignored as it pertains to world markets.”
Is there any evidence at all that this is having any effect on markets.
Considering that much or perhaps the vast majority of international trade is through huge corporations I would have to wonder if those corporations have the slightest concern – maybe, but really does that make sense?
My guess is the corporations would probably buy the beef from the devil himself is they could save a penny a pound.
Finds the source, not find the source.
The government official was making a very specific argument: an economic one. It doesn’t take an MBA to grasp what he is saying, although from some of the comments, it appears as though that may be the case. If a buyer, in any particular market, find the source/seller of the product from whom it will purchase to be distasteful or repugnant–morally, ethically, etc.–the source/seller will, undoubtedly, face consequences in the form of lost business. In a country, where the sale of beef is at the heart of its economy, it should not be surprising that this type of argument is espoused by someone responsible for said sales. Those of you who live your lives in the ivory towers of academia need to get a lesson in reality. Perception, in this case, with regard to the seller’s ethical or moral standards, cannot be ignored as it pertains to world markets.
Sexist.
Annie
1 sexixm is a social construct
2 for all I know you’re really a dude
3 you need to download a witty banter app stat
Pinandpuller, only if you consider the word “backsliding” particularly intelligent. Makes you sound like a fundy preacher.
Annie
Backsliding certainly twerked your hips. Don’t kick against the pricks.
I’m not going to backpeddle on any term of art I use.
I’m sure you would appreciate that anyone who grew up on the Bible is a fan of creative writing.
P&P, lol. Far be it from me to curtail your speech. Have at it, I get to make corresponding remarks though, that’s what makes it fun.
Annie
If you didn’t remark you wouldn’t be fullfilling the highest calling of your gender.
Gay connotes happy. So why are the so called “gays” always complaining?
Beldar
The word “gay” got “santorumed”.
The terms they are a changin’.
I believe this is the same statesman who alerted us to the existential peril of Johnny Depp’s yorkies…
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/14/australia-threatens-to-euthanize-johnny-depps-dogs/
Annie
I have left almost everything behind except my vocabulary. Are you suggesting that I should further evolve by dumbing down how I write?