Milk is bad for you

[Muffins]

Conspiracy my ass.

I provided you with multiple links- including the president of the feed company and the LA Times. You posted one suspect "study" that proves nothing.

And quite frankly, I already said I was done with you, so I don't know why I should even bother.

The skinny about US industry (something you might not know in your grand country of Poland) is this rule of thumb:

If it's not illegal, there's a 99 percent chance it's being done somewhere.

It's not illegal to chop up Muffy and put her in pet food. In fact, it is (in industrial terms) a cheap source of rendered meat. My facts about that were backed up by multiple sources, including the LA Times.

So there you go. Jam your fingers more in your ears if you want, but you aren't convincing anyone.

FYI- Slate and the LA Times aren't conspiracy websites, bub.

 

[DarkCoffe64]

This is still going on?


What happened, did this place become GameFaqs?

 

[Muffins]

This is still going on?


What happened, did this place become GameFaqs?

God, I hope not.

 

[Aurora Wright]

If you prefer one species over another for any reason, you find that species superior to others for that specific reason - it's a preference. The moral argument of veganism and vegetarianism is simply moral elitism - you can always do more to limit suffering, you could plant your own crop. You don't, because it would greatly inconvenience you. It would inconvenience me to not eat meat, so it's a wash. Animal feed is grown on nutrient-sapped soil - these crops do not qualify for human consumption, and even if they did, they're not taken care of to the same extent as high quality crop for human consumption.

This however can only be referred to those vegans and vegetarians who try to tell us that their moral values are "universal", and thus that they're "better" than us.
I agree, you can always do more to reduce suffering, and everyone actually (even not consciously) weighs all their personal values and things they care about. So, maybe, one might feel empathy for cows, but at the same time they care (more) about eating meat, so they weigh the two things (like on a scale) and make a decision. But the same person might have a different outcome when weighing empathy and something else. I think all the "factors" at stake are equally valid when making a decision, and they can't be delegitimized (usually, vegans/vegetarians who are "moral elitists" also try to delegitimize liking specific foods, saying that you can so easily give up food, that it's really an "insignificant" thing to do).

Btw, a person I know who is pretty good at argumenting, once made this reductio ad absurdum when talking about vegan/vegetarian "moral elitism". If you're "better than me" because you reduced suffering more than me, there's always someone who is better. And the "best" individual, at the top of the moral scale, would be a dead individual, as someone who is dead doesn't (directly or indirectly) do any harm to anyone. So the most moral act to do would bet o actually commit suicide, and, as a species, going voluntarily extinct.

 

[CableLeecher]

Who is in mood for a nice BBQ?

I would sponsor some german beer for it!

CHEERS!

 

[Muffins]

Who is in mood for a nice BBQ?

I would sponsor some german beer for it!

CHEERS!

I'll bring the luncheon loaf!

I'm sure it's scrumptious!

 

[sarkwalvein]

I'll bring the luncheon loaf!

I'm sure it's scrumptious!

Warning, some say that may contain traces of mexicans.
/averytrumpcomment
> runs away before receiving the storm of stones.

PS: To any mexican around, it is a joke.

 

[Aurora Wright]

This thread is amusing. It went from pseudo-science claims to conspiracy theories

 

[Muffins]

This thread is amusing. It went from pseudo-science claims to conspiracy theories

Eh, I guess. I gave up trying to convince the guy above anything, since I'm more interested in loaf right now. I'm hungry.

Oh, I guess I have this document from Congress that explicitly states how shelter animals are used in animal feed. Maybe that might be useful? I don't know.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120314045352/http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS21771.pdf

-shrug-

 

[CableLeecher]

I'll bring the luncheon loaf!

I'm sure it's scrumptious!

We have something similar in Germany called Frühstücksfleisch, which means literally Breakfast Meat.

Yes, we need meat for breakfast - THE NEED FOR MEAT!

Greets, CableLeecher

 

[Foxi4]

Conspiracy my ass.

I provided you with multiple links- including the president of the feed company and the LA Times. You posted one suspect "study" that proves nothing.

And quite frankly, I already said I was done with you, so I don't know why I should even bother.

The skinny about US industry (something you might not know in your grand country of Poland) is this rule of thumb:

If it's not illegal, there's a 99 percent chance it's being done somewhere.

It's not illegal to chop up Muffy and put her in pet food. In fact, it is (in industrial terms) a cheap source of rendered meat. My facts about that were backed up by multiple sources, including the LA Times.

So there you go. Jam your fingers more in your ears if you want, but you aren't convincing anyone.

FYI- Slate and the LA Times aren't conspiracy websites, bub.

First of all, the "suspect study" was conducted by the CVM - Center for Veterinary Medicine. Secondly, under the current U.S. law, the FDA is legally required to enforce the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act regulations on food both for animal and human consumption, which means that it cannot contain harmful substances and must be truthfully labled. Thirdly, an article with no sources is not reliable and a "joke" is not admissable evidence. I'm familiar with all the evidence you posted and it's croak - I actually read about this controversy recently. I'm not "plugging my ears", I want to see conclusive evidence for what you're claiming because I'm a critical thinker. Nobody has ever found pet remains in pet food, and not for the lack of trying, thus it's completely reasonable for me to conclude that there aren't any.

This however can only be referred to those vegans and vegetarians who try to tell us that their moral values are "universal", and thus that they're "better" than us.
I agree, you can always do more to reduce suffering, and everyone actually (even not consciously) weighs all their personal values and things they care about. So, maybe, one might feel empathy for cows, but at the same time they care (more) about eating meat, so they weigh the two things (like on a scale) and make a decision. But the same person might have a different outcome when weighing empathy and something else. I think all the "factors" at stake are equally valid when making a decision, and they can't be delegitimized (usually, vegans/vegetarians who are "moral elitists" also try to delegitimize liking specific foods, saying that you can so easily give up food, that it's really an "insignificant" thing to do).

Btw, a person I know who is pretty good at argumenting, once made this reductio ad absurdum when talking about vegan/vegetarian "moral elitism". If you're "better than me" because you reduced suffering more than me, there's always someone who is better. And the "best" individual, at the top of the moral scale, would be a dead individual, as someone who is dead doesn't (directly or indirectly) do any harm to anyone. So the most moral act to do would bet o actually commit suicide, and, as a species, going voluntarily extinct.

You are correct - suicide is the ultimate method of conserving resources and limiting suffering, but as you've noticed, it's an ad absurdum. If a vegetarian or a vegan does want to commit suicide though, make sure they do it in an environmentally friendly fashion - naked in the woods, where animals can eat their carcass. Alternatively they can go to a pet food factory, I guess - anything goes with those cans. ;O;

 

[Bubsy Bobcat]

So wait, milk gives you tiddies? *Buys 20 cartons of milk*

 

[Aurora Wright]

First of all, the "suspect study" was conducted by the CVM - Center for Veterinary Medicine. Secondly, under the current U.S. law, the FDA is legally required to enforce the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act regulations on food both for animal and human consumption, which means that it cannot contain harmful substances and must be truthfully labled. Thirdly, an article with no sources is not reliable and a "joke" is not admissable evidence. I'm familiar with all the evidence you posted and it's croak - I actually read about this controversy recently. I'm not "plugging my ears", I want to see conclusive evidence for what you're claiming because I'm a critical thinker. Nobody has ever found pet remains in pet food, and not for the lack of trying, thus it's completely reasonable for me to conclude that there aren't any.
You are correct - suicide is the ultimate method of conserving resources and limiting suffering, but as you've noticed, it's an ad absurdum. If a vegetarian or a vegan does want to commit suicide though, make sure they do it in an environmentally friendly fashion - naked in the woods, where animals can eat their carcass. Alternatively they can go to a pet food factory, I guess - anything goes with those cans. ;O;

As far as I could see, a reply is usually that "eating meat or animal products is not necessary" ("necessary" is never given a definition... necessary for what?). But then, nothing is necessary per-se. And that includes living. What is really meant by "necessary"/"not necessary" is "something that I can't/can give up", which is legitimate, but can't be made objective.

 

[Foxi4]

As far as I could see, a reply is usually that "eating meat or animal products is not necessary" ("necessary" is never given a definition... necessary for what?). But then, nothing is necessary per-se. And that includes living. What is really meant by "necessary"/"not necessary" is "something that I can't/can give up", which is legitimate, but can't be made objective.

That makes the whole argument subjective and irrelevant because there are no standards of "acceptable loss of life" or "acceptable level of inconvenience". The moral argument should never enter the picture, there's no universal measuring stick of empathy. If you feel kinship with cows, pigs and other assorted livestock, that's just you - not everyone feels like that, and organizations like PETA or Green Peace flaunt it about as if it makes them more morally righteous. That's what really annoys me about those diets, not the food itself - I like the occasional veggie sausage or Quorn piece, some are actually tasty, they just don't make you a more morally righteous person.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Well, I am and will always be a fan of good cow meat. But that asides... Shark meat? Is that good? Wanna try!
Is that popular in Portugal? If I go there on holidays later this year I will make sure to try that.

Have you ever ate jamón/presunto? It's that good! Continente doesn't sell it for whatever reasons but Mini Preço / Dia has them and they cost about 2€ per tin. I have to say they're kind of addictive but one needs to control himself to not eat too much at once, well, it also doesn't help on the wallet to buy too much.

Pigs, cows, sheeps, chickens and the type of animals wouldn't survive alone in the wild so they really are to be processed as food for humans. Heck, I once had a guinea pig and he (or she, it's hard to tell) was really adorable as a domestic animal but this darn pig sure would leave a lot of turds everywhere and honestly, guinea pigs are just something I couldn't imagine to eat. Unless it was already skinned and cooked then that's a different scenario.

Btw, donkey meat isn't great or at least I didn't like it very much.

 

[HaloEffect17]

Is this thread really still going on?

 

[Nikki_swap]

How did we go from cancer milk, to hemo milk to luncheon meat?

 

[FAST6191]

How did we go from cancer milk, to hemo milk to luncheon meat?

If you start on the basis of... interesting logic then you end up in odd places.

 

[VinsCool]

If you start on the basis of... interesting logic then you end up in odd places.

And this thread belongs to eof, just saying :tired:

 

[Foxi4]

Oh, I guess I have this document from Congress that explicitly states how shelter animals are used in animal feed. Maybe that might be useful? I don't know.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120314045352/http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS21771.pdf

-shrug-

If you actually read the document you linked, you would notice that the meal from rendering plants is used to produce a variety of non-edible products such as soaps, lubricants, bone meal etc. - y'know, like I mentioned earlier. I quote:

"Renderers convert dead animals and animal parts that otherwise would require disposal into a variety of materials, including edible and inedible tallow and lard and proteins such as meat and bone meal (MBM). These materials in turn are exported or sold to domestic manufacturers of a wide range of industrial and consumer goods such as livestock feed and pet food, soaps, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, plastics, personal care products, and even crayons."

The document does not state that animals from shelters are used in animal feed at any point - it says that rendering plants render animal carcasses into a variety of meals - we know that. Some are used for edible products, both for human and for animal consumption, but it doesn't specify anything beyond that. By your logic, we should assume that dead pets are also found in SPAM, which you must agree is ridiculous. Contaminated carcasses are not used for edible meal because they're not edible.

If you're looking for "pets in pet food" then look at "pet food". If you can't find them there, it means that they're not there. A rendering plant is not a single massive vat you throw everything into - different carcasses go into different grinders and are made into different categories of products that go to different suppliers. Fluffy isn't going to find its way into Blakey's dish, or your dish, for that matter, unless someone at the plant makes a massive f*ck up (which can happen from time to time - I'm sure mistakes are made). Fluffy will be turned into glue, plastics, grease and crayons, because why not.

Naturally you are still free to not believe me, or the FDA, or the CVM, or anyone who actually deals with veterinary nutrition - you're free to believe whatever you want, just like Ssssuper is free to believe that milk is bad for you, it's a free country.