Milk is bad for you

[Ssssuper]

Milk iz bad 4 u

 

[Muffins]

Boy, that Fox guy is still trying desperately to salvage his argument?

How pathetic.

No, I mean, really pathetic.

He was given a letter from congress, videos of the rendering taking place, comments from the feed president himself, and yet he STILL refuses in his little, overly verbose way to comprehend it.

Yet he didn't even read the document, because he's so desperate to salvage his credibility that he refuses to do anything but skim.

That's why he missed this:

"Independent operations handle the other 30%-35% of rendered material. These plants (estimated by NRA at 165 in the United States and Canada) usually collect material from other sites using specially designed trucks. They pick up and process fat and bone trimmings, inedible meat scraps, blood, feathers, and dead animals from meat and poultry slaughterhouses and processors (usually smaller ones without their own rendering operations), farms, ranches, feedlots, animal shelters, restaurants, butchers, and markets. As a result, the majority of independents are likely to be handling “mixed species.” Almost all of the resulting ingredients are destined for nonhuman consumption (e.g., animal feeds, industrial products). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates animal feed ingredients, but its continuous presence in rendering plants, or in feed mills that buy rendered ingredients, is not a legal requirement."

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why it's pointless to try to convince anyone of a truth who has "made up their mind" in this modern internet. They'll proclaim themselves level headed, proclaim themselves cogent, proclaim themselves as a beacon of light and truth when reality they're nothing but petulant and childish.

You're going on my ignore list, and for the worst possible reasons. Never talk to me ever again.

BOOM.

Done.

 

[VinsCool]

I drank milk today. Yay me.

 

[sarkwalvein]

I would make myself yet another Latte Macchiato but I am out of Nespresso capsules.
Well, maybe some hot milk with honey, it is time to go to sleep here anyway and there is nothing healthier than sleeping with some hot milk with honey.

 

[gamefan5]

Boy, that Fox guy is still trying desperately to salvage his argument?

How pathetic.

No, I mean, really pathetic.

He was given a letter from congress, videos of the rendering taking place, comments from the feed president himself, and yet he STILL refuses in his little, overly verbose way to comprehend it.

Yet he didn't even read the document, because he's so desperate to salvage his credibility that he refuses to do anything but skim.

That's why he missed this:

"Independent operations handle the other 30%-35% of rendered material. These plants (estimated by NRA at 165 in the United States and Canada) usually collect material from other sites using specially designed trucks. They pick up and process fat and bone trimmings, inedible meat scraps, blood, feathers, and dead animals from meat and poultry slaughterhouses and processors (usually smaller ones without their own rendering operations), farms, ranches, feedlots, animal shelters, restaurants, butchers, and markets. As a result, the majority of independents are likely to be handling “mixed species.” Almost all of the resulting ingredients are destined for nonhuman consumption (e.g., animal feeds, industrial products). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates animal feed ingredients, but its continuous presence in rendering plants, or in feed mills that buy rendered ingredients, is not a legal requirement."

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why it's pointless to try to convince anyone of a truth who has "made up their mind" in this modern internet. They'll proclaim themselves level headed, proclaim themselves cogent, proclaim themselves as a beacon of light and truth when reality they're nothing but petulant and childish.

You're going on my ignore list, and for the worst possible reasons. Never talk to me ever again.

BOOM.

Done.

Probably going to regret issuing a reply to you considering how you treat people that disagree with you (and with reason) but eh... YOLO
I think by ignoring him, you are running away from your problems.
So far, Foxi4 has demonstrated some level headed thinking and has constantly challenged the legitimacy of your articles with good reason. Some of the articles, I find them making me raise an eyebrow as well.

What he wants basically is cold, hard evidence that makes it difficult to refute.
The more knowledge you have on the subject, the easier it is to argument.
It's easy for him as he seems to have legit knowledge on nutrition and he constantly links articles proven by research.

If you can't take someone that refutes you because you have said already anything and keeps on challenging what you link, that means something from your side is lacking.

 

[VinsCool]

Why don't you guys just move on, and let the thread and trolly OP die... Sigh.

 

[gamefan5]

Why don't you guys just move on, and let the thread and trolly OP die... Sigh.

It will die on its own time.

 

[GamerzHell9137]

Got milk?

 

[VinsCool]

Goat milk?

Fixed.

 

[Aurora Wright]

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.

I actually agreed with you, I was specifying the answer that is usually given with those arguments, which (answer) is flawed as there's no objective definition of "necessary", a word which refers to something entirely subjective.
I said that the "I can/can't give up..." are legitimate, but when it comes to yourself.

 

[Foxi4]

I actually agreed with you, I was specifying the answer that is usually given with those arguments, which (answer) is flawed as there's no objective definition of "necessary", a word which refers to something entirely subjective.
I said that the "I can/can't give up..." are legitimate, but when it comes to yourself.

"Necessary" is "indispensible, essential; a requisite" - if there's an alternative to a position someone presents as "necessary", it's definitely not that. I know you agreed, by the way - I was elaborating. I'm not arguing with you at this point, we've reached a mutually satisfying conclusion. Considering the fact that you've represented the position of "I don't care what others eat" from the beginning, we've been on the "same side" for quite some time.

Boy, that Fox guy is still trying desperately to salvage his argument?

How pathetic.

No, I mean, really pathetic.

He was given a letter from congress, videos of the rendering taking place, comments from the feed president himself, and yet he STILL refuses in his little, overly verbose way to comprehend it.

Yet he didn't even read the document, because he's so desperate to salvage his credibility that he refuses to do anything but skim.

That's why he missed this:

"Independent operations handle the other 30%-35% of rendered material. These plants (estimated by NRA at 165 in the United States and Canada) usually collect material from other sites using specially designed trucks. They pick up and process fat and bone trimmings, inedible meat scraps, blood, feathers, and dead animals from meat and poultry slaughterhouses and processors (usually smaller ones without their own rendering operations), farms, ranches, feedlots, animal shelters, restaurants, butchers, and markets. As a result, the majority of independents are likely to be handling “mixed species.” Almost all of the resulting ingredients are destined for nonhuman consumption (e.g., animal feeds, industrial products). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates animal feed ingredients, but its continuous presence in rendering plants, or in feed mills that buy rendered ingredients, is not a legal requirement."

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why it's pointless to try to convince anyone of a truth who has "made up their mind" in this modern internet. They'll proclaim themselves level headed, proclaim themselves cogent, proclaim themselves as a beacon of light and truth when reality they're nothing but petulant and childish.

You're going on my ignore list, and for the worst possible reasons. Never talk to me ever again.

BOOM.

Done.

Animal feed =/= pet food. Animal feed is a broader category of products (including livestock feed), and since those weren't tested, I can't reasonably assume that there aren't any "pets" in there. In fact, it might be likely, since IIRC we've seen that cow bone and meat meal was found in cow feed during the BSE outbreak (though I still question whether contaminated meat would be used for those purposes). Anywho, it's one of those "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" situations. Not all animal feed is pet food. The FDA doesn't have to "be present" at rendering plants when they can just regulate the end product, which they do. There was apparently enough people like you who were concerned that there might be pets in pet food that it validated conducting a study to check those claims. They found none, great.

It's interesting how you're the one bringing up "plugging ears" and "Lalala-ling" and now you're threatening me with your "ignore list", as if it's some scary penalty I should fear. I'm a skeptic - you know when I'll say "there's pets in pet food"? When I see a study that says "we found pet DNA in pet food, these are our methods, these are the brands, this is how much we found". This study doesn't exist, so it's better for us to agree to disagree than to continue a fruitless discussion.

tl;dr There's no reason to be upset.gif

 

[romanaOne]

Why should cow milk be good for you? It is the mammary secretions of another species. Many people not white Europeans can barely tolerate the stuff.

The sad reality of factory farms is another matter. In spite of the operators' efforts to conceal their vile business, I can literally smell the place from a mile away. Nobody can see what's going on inside; they owners are probably too ashamed and disgusted. It's right across the street from a jail. Who'd choose to live next to piggy Auschwitz?

Most animal cruelty arguments fizzle in hypocrisy and circular reasoning: when your cat--whom you've been lovingly feeding processed chicken and lamb to the last 18 years--dies do you then poison yourself slowly, seeking comfort in B&J's hormone- and antibiotic- laden ice cream? Just desserts, I guess.

"Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American Public."
P.T. Barnum

 

[gamefan5]

Why should cow milk be good for you? It is the mammary secretions of another species. Many people not white Europeans can barely tolerate the stuff.

Many species of animals produce food that other completely different species eat.
Yeah I could say predation but there are other cases.
Bees producing honey and other animals such as bears eating it, for example.

In fact, if bees were to disappear, you would be surprised at the scale of devestation it would bring.
That said, we can eat it because we have the proteins and enzymes to do it. Evolution, eh?
We adapted to do so in the course of million years basically speaking.

@Foxi4 just thought I would link you in case you could explain it better.

Oh and I am curious Foxi4, but do you mind if I ask in what did you study or major in?

 

[VinsCool]

Just woke up (again). Nothing better than cereal and milk for breakfast

 

[WolfSaviorZX]

Deleted

 

[gamefan5]

Why should I gve up milk and meat if other animals don't lol. Humans have been drinking milk for centuries and the average life expectancy just increases. But even if it turns out to be slightly unhealthy I think it's still better to drink milk than soda. Anyways gotta drink me some Mountain Dew and eat some Doritos.

You don't have to. Keep on doing it. XD

 

[Aurora Wright]

Why should cow milk be good for you? It is the mammary secretions of another species. Many people not white Europeans can barely tolerate the stuff.

"where it comes from" doesn't matter, what matters is "what it is". The right question is "do all the nutrients that make up milk, taken as a whole, harm or benefit the human body?". And it seems that, as of our current scientific knowledge, the benefits outweigh the potential harms.

 

[LittleFlame]

This will go down in temp history

 

[Foxi4]

Many species of animals produce food that other completely different species eat.
Yeah I could say predation but there are other cases.
Bees producing honey and other animals such as bears eating it, for example.

In fact, if bees were to disappear, you would be surprised at the scale of devestation it would bring.
That said, we can eat it because we have the proteins and enzymes to do it. Evolution, eh?
We adapted to do so in the course of million years basically speaking.

@Foxi4 just thought I would link you in case you could explain it better.

Oh and I am curious Foxi4, but do you mind if I ask in what did you study or major in?

I have a degree in English Philology with Computer Science on a Teacher's Programme, but I've always considered myself a Jack of All Trades - if I don't know something, but approach it in life for whatever reason, I tend to do research on it, even if only not to sound like a dullard in conversations, not just on the off chance that I'll encounter the problem in the future. In High School my majors were English and Biology, and briefly Chemistry, but the system works differently than in the U.S., so I'm not sure how that translates into in that system.

As for further explanations, there's not much to add. It doesn't matter if the secretion is from a different species or not, it's still metabolized just like any other food product. Some have adjusted to lactose, others didn't - it's in your genes. Even "mother's milk" would cause an upset stomach for a lactose intolerant adult - the species is irrelevant, the chemical composition is what matters.

 

[romanaOne]

I majored in English Philology with Computer Science on a Teacher's Programme....

Well, I majored in dead languages and my education lies like a forgotten toy on a corrugate roof I once read about in some Haiku.

I've never liked milk much; it has always smelled a little off to me even when fresh from the container, whatever the hell "fresh" means in the context of the processed shite most of us settle for from WalMart (the only store in town!).

Sadly, almost all the alternatives (soy- or nut- based) to milk are processed, sugary garbage food. There is usually only one choice that is not spiked with sugar.

I have nothing against sugar or junk food. When I eat a nice, honest Snickers bar, I know I am eating garbage that tastes good. When my milk is full of I-don't-know-what and my chips are fried in hydrogenated oil I get pissed. I also get pissed when products claim to have "zero" trans fat simply because lawyers have made it possible to round down 0.49 grams to zero. I also get pissed when I drink too much.

"where it comes from" doesn't matter, what matters is "what it is". The right question is "do all the nutrients that make up milk, taken as a whole, harm or benefit the human body?". And it seems that, as of our current scientific knowledge, the benefits outweigh the potential harms.

It matters where your food comes from. And what it is. As for potential harms, after decades of the trans fat misinformation debacle, I think it is wise to avoid all processed foods. Unfortunately, unless you happen to live near that almost extinct species "family farm," it is probably impossible.

Science's ability to self-correct is often shouted down, delayed, or bought off by corporados and medicine show con artists. Science is industry's bitch. The company, FDA, EMA, WMT whatever doesn't love you. It loves its bottom line and nothing else. Read Sonia Shah or Paul Farmer.... But hell, with 10,000+ nuclear weapons still in the world and less than 100 required to destroy global civilization, Pschitt-food is the least of our problems.