Probably going to regret issuing a reply to you considering how you treat people that disagree with you (and with reason) but eh... YOLOBoy, 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.
It will die on its own time.Why don't you guys just move on, and let the thread and trolly OP die... Sigh.
Fixed.Goat milk?
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.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.
"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.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.
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.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.
Many species of animals produce food that other completely different species eat.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.
You don't have to. Keep on doing it. XDWhy 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.
"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.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.
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.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 majored in English Philology with Computer Science on a Teacher's Programme....
"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.