"they Are Feeding Chicken Shit To The Cattle"

[LadyFeline]

Rrcana, kindly knock it off with the condescension.

 

Woody, after the uncalled for trollish response rrcanna received from her in post #5 it's no wonder he's defensive. I'm not sure why you are calling him out.

Mmhmm. So, pointing out obvious misinformation is "trollish" now, ehn? But it's okay to do it to the Christians?

 

*cognitive dissonance!*

 

And being "defensive" isn't really an excuse for, ah... any of her following behaviour. I've been called out on less and told to knock it off, so why should someone get a break for being worse?

 

Fact of the matter is, all of her "points" are easily attributed to PETA by simply looking at their website, and I treat people who spread PETA disinformation the same you all treat Christians who scream about the Bible being true because the Bible says it's true.

[LadyFeline]

I have never been to a PETA site, and I don't know the first thing about PETA.

 

But this fact is not going to stop you, is it?

 

No, because you're too busy trying to be cool, and shaking your ass at the boys.

Are you actually going to argue something, or are you just going to keep up with the juvenile insults and snide attitude?

 

All you did was parrot PETA talking points, nearly word-for-word. It doesn't matter where you got them from, a PETA talking point is a PETA talking point. It's all misinformation.

 

Oh, yeah, and let's not forget the little red herrings you've thrown out (I can spot at least two) that have nothing to do with the OP or any related topic...

[woodsmoke]

I'd like to know if you can cite any scientific proof/evidence of any kind of detrimental effect that accompanies the consumption of milk from other animals.

 

No, my reasons for that are based on natural healing advocates, personal opinion of how stopping milk has helped me feel so much better, and reading about and hearing about people who benefited, even from asthma symtoms by not consuming it or dairy products anymore. (the people I read and know about were not on any anti campaign, just sharing personal health benefits of their diet) No scientific proof or evidence but when it comes to food, I'm not a big truster of the government nor necessarily all doctors. I'd been drinking milk for over 36 years and never knew that I had a problem with it until I craved it twice during the past month and had a glass, both times resulted in a yeast infection, stuffy nose, and minor pain in the joints. The same thing has happened, minus the yeast infection when I've been out of my dietary staples and had meat.

 

Fair enough. I think we'll have to simply agree to disagree on this particular point. I don't mean to trivialize your experiences, but I'm sure you can understand how I may be skeptical of claims which can't be proven to me through the current medium. While I share your distrust of government, I'm not so cynical as to believe independent (medical) scientists have reached the saturation point of corruption just yet. There are undoubtedly "scientific" panels on the payrolls of large corporations whose job it is to play creationist--i.e. find evidence that supports their views and try to disprove or simply disregard conflicting information--but the scientific community at large still seems reasonable and unbiased.

 

I've seen plenty of PETA pamphlets claiming that animal by-products are unhealthy for humans and the producers of such are all in on the big, insidious government conspiracy, but I've never seen/heard any legitimate/respectable source even hint toward that possibly being the case.

 

I've never seen a PETA pamphlet, from what I see on the news they're a little overboard.

 

They're a little overboard like Hitler was a moderate conservative.

 

<snipped for post length>

The second was the quote you posted by Einstein, though in hindsight I can see how I may have been overzealous in my original understanding of that. I took the combination of his having said he was a vegetarian and the observation that "humans aren't meant to be carnivores" to mean "there is no good reason people should be eating meat." I suppose it could simply mean that consumption of meat alone is unnatural for our species; a point I would have to agree with. Either way, I suppose it's not so much a point of discussion as a personal musing.

 

Here are some scientific studies done on the benefits of eating a HEALTHY vegetarian diet The Vegetarian Site ...only stressed healthy because candy bars and chips and other junky foods are technically (vegetarian). Perhaps Einstein said that because he knew and observed how much healthier vegetarians were, I'm not sure. Sorry for the misunderstanding on that, it was my fault for putting the quote down in the first place.

 

I just have one initial reservation about this. It's historical fact that humanity's brain mass increased in direct correlation to it's transition from herbivore to omnivore--when we started eating meat. Before that, as I understand it, we were much less intelligent and biologically advanced as a species.

 

I'll look into that link and see if it can't stick a crowbar in my mind.

 

At what point did this become your business? You say she's responding to points and trying to further the discussion - a monkey could see that that's untrue, but I guess you're taken with her. Yes, sex is a very strong motivator.

 

I wasn't aware I needed an invitation. This is an internet discussion forum, after all. I made it my business when I witnessed what I judged to be trolling.

 

She was responding to points made in your posts, right up until this one, when you stopped making so much of a pretense of contribution. I haven't and won't say either of your behavior here has been exemplary; in reading over the first page of the thread once again I see points I (dis)agree with and others that could use some clarification on both sides. What I still see, however, is that while LF was certainly being (maybe a little too) aggressive in her responses, you were the one who reverted to trolling.

 

Nice pseudo-attack, by the way. The contents of your previous posts in this thread constitute a hell of a lot more flirting with LF than I've ever done.

 

Stop posting, you say? Who are you?

 

I'm someone who's been a resident of Dave's house for several years. I don't need to be a moderator to call a troll when I see one, nor to request the individual cut it out. Nor did I tell you flat out to stop posting. The essence of my statement was "if you can't say something meaningful, don't say anything at all." I stand by that call.

 

I am trying to seem "cute"? You don't know what you're talking about, but that's not a requirement on the internet, now is it?

 

Instead of telling someone to stop posting, why don't you just butt out?

 

I often don't. That's part of why I read and post here: to learn.

 

I'll butt out when a moderator with a good reason requests it, or when I judge my input is no longer needed or useful. I'm not attacking you personally, I simply have an aversion to trollish behavior and little patience for occasions wherein an individual chooses to indulge in it.

 

Woody, after the uncalled for trollish response rrcanna received from her in post #5 it's no wonder he's defensive. I'm not sure why you are calling him out.

 

I don't agree that her response was trollish. Aggressive, certainly--and likely to an excessive degree at that. However, as I said above, it was rrcana who first reverted to the tactic of ignoring the content of LF's posts and simply responding with inflammatory remarks.

 

I'm halfway convinced to pull out the lemon juice now to start flavoring up my foot for when I inevitably jam it into my mouth. As it stands, though, I don't think I've reached that point just yet.

 

I'd like to know if you can cite any scientific proof/evidence of any kind of detrimental effect that accompanies the consumption of milk from other animals.

 

No, my reasons for that are based on natural healing advocates, personal opinion of how stopping milk has helped me feel so much better, and reading about and hearing about people who benefited, even from asthma symtoms by not consuming it or dairy products anymore. (the people I read and know about were not on any anti campaign, just sharing personal health benefits of their diet) No scientific proof or evidence but when it comes to food, I'm not a big truster of the government nor necessarily all doctors. I'd been drinking milk for over 36 years and never knew that I had a problem with it until I craved it twice during the past month and had a glass, both times resulted in a yeast infection, stuffy nose, and minor pain in the joints. The same thing has happened, minus the yeast infection when I've been out of my dietary staples and had meat.

 

Fair enough. I think we'll have to simply agree to disagree on this particular point. I don't mean to trivialize your experiences, but I'm sure you can understand how I may be skeptical of claims which can't be proven to me through the current medium. While I share your distrust of government, I'm not so cynical as to believe independent (medical) scientists have reached the saturation point of corruption just yet. There are undoubtedly "scientific" panels on the payrolls of large corporations whose job it is to play creationist--i.e. find evidence that supports their views and try to disprove or simply disregard conflicting information--but the scientific community at large still seems reasonable and unbiased.

 

I've seen plenty of PETA pamphlets claiming that animal by-products are unhealthy for humans and the producers of such are all in on the big, insidious government conspiracy, but I've never seen/heard any legitimate/respectable source even hint toward that possibly being the case.

 

I've never seen a PETA pamphlet, from what I see on the news they're a little overboard.

 

They're a little overboard like Hitler was a moderate conservative.

 

<snipped for post length>

The second was the quote you posted by Einstein, though in hindsight I can see how I may have been overzealous in my original understanding of that. I took the combination of his having said he was a vegetarian and the observation that "humans aren't meant to be carnivores" to mean "there is no good reason people should be eating meat." I suppose it could simply mean that consumption of meat alone is unnatural for our species; a point I would have to agree with. Either way, I suppose it's not so much a point of discussion as a personal musing.

 

Here are some scientific studies done on the benefits of eating a HEALTHY vegetarian diet The Vegetarian Site ...only stressed healthy because candy bars and chips and other junky foods are technically (vegetarian). Perhaps Einstein said that because he knew and observed how much healthier vegetarians were, I'm not sure. Sorry for the misunderstanding on that, it was my fault for putting the quote down in the first place.

 

I just have one initial reservation about this. It's historical fact that humanity's brain mass increased in direct correlation to it's transition from herbivore to omnivore--when we started eating meat. Before that, as I understand it, we were much less intelligent and biologically advanced as a species.

 

I'll look into that link and see if it can't stick a crowbar in my mind.

 

At what point did this become your business? You say she's responding to points and trying to further the discussion - a monkey could see that that's untrue, but I guess you're taken with her. Yes, sex is a very strong motivator.

 

I wasn't aware I needed an invitation. This is an internet discussion forum, after all. I made it my business when I witnessed what I judged to be trolling.

 

She was responding to points made in your posts, right up until this one, when you stopped making so much of a pretense of contribution. I haven't and won't say either of your behavior here has been exemplary; in reading over the first page of the thread once again I see points I (dis)agree with and others that could use some clarification on both sides. What I still see, however, is that while LF was certainly being (maybe a little too) aggressive in her responses, you were the one who reverted to trolling.

 

Nice pseudo-attack, by the way. The contents of your previous posts in this thread constitute a hell of a lot more flirting with LF than I've ever done.

 

Stop posting, you say? Who are you?

 

I'm someone who's been a resident of Dave's house for several years. I don't need to be a moderator to call a troll when I see one, nor to request the individual cut it out. Nor did I tell you flat out to stop posting. The essence of my statement was "if you can't say something meaningful, don't say anything at all." I stand by that call.

 

I am trying to seem "cute"? You don't know what you're talking about, but that's not a requirement on the internet, now is it?

 

Instead of telling someone to stop posting, why don't you just butt out?

 

I often don't. That's part of why I read and post here: to learn.

 

I'll butt out when a moderator with a good reason requests it, or when I judge my input is no longer needed or useful. I'm not attacking you personally, I simply have an aversion to trollish behavior and little patience for occasions wherein an individual chooses to indulge in it.

 

Woody, after the uncalled for trollish response rrcanna received from her in post #5 it's no wonder he's defensive. I'm not sure why you are calling him out.

 

I don't agree that her response was trollish. Aggressive, certainly--and likely to an excessive degree at that. However, as I said above, it was rrcana who first reverted to the tactic of ignoring the content of LF's posts and simply responding with inflammatory remarks.

 

I'm halfway convinced to pull out the lemon juice now to start flavoring up my foot for when I inevitably jam it into my mouth. As it stands, though, I don't think I've reached that point just yet.

[Jubilant]

Here are some scientific studies done on the benefits of eating a HEALTHY vegetarian diet The Vegetarian Site ...only stressed healthy because candy bars and chips and other junky foods are technically (vegetarian). Perhaps Einstein said that because he knew and observed how much healthier vegetarians were, I'm not sure. Sorry for the misunderstanding on that, it was my fault for putting the quote down in the first place.

 

I just have one initial reservation about this. It's historical fact that humanity's brain mass increased in direct correlation to it's transition from herbivore to omnivore--when we started eating meat. Before that, as I understand it, we were much less intelligent and biologically advanced as a species.

 

I'll look into that link and see if it can't stick a crowbar in my mind.

 

Okay Woodsmoke sources please. I'm not a scientist but from what I've learned over the years about first humans is that they did not have the variety of choices in fruits and vegetables, nuts, beans, legumes, seeds and whole grains (all that is needed for a healthy diet, minus B12 and essential oils found in fish but there are supplements) that we have now in order to have had a properly balanced diet. Some of them in fact lived in areas where they had no choice but to eat meat and others lived in areas where the choice was just yams, I would think that man discovering more of a variety of fruits and veggies, nuts, beans, legumes, seeds and whole grains, along with meats (hey, they didn't wast and meats weren't processed and were truly natural at the time) helped their brain more than anything. But that is just my unscientific opinion.

[Variable]

Children are hitting puberty at younger ages, again, because of diets that are, by far, more nutritional than their great-grandparents'.

 

This was once widely believed. But today more scientists believe early puberty is due to environment estrogens that are being released into the environment via plastics, aeresols, and other synthetic products. Not to mention the female hormones that are pumped into cows in order to make them produce at least 4x more milk. The age of menarche is continuing to decline 6 months every few years and scientists predict it will continue. The steepest drop is with African American girls. Whose average age of menarche is now 9.

New Scientist Breaking-Early Puberty linked

Your Child/Precocious Puberty]

Bossoming too Early

 

 

Oh, I'm well-aware of the existence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Staph, influenza, strep, and literally hundreds of other diseases are steadily growing more and more resistant to treatments. But it's not because of "drugs in the meat" - it's due to our habit of grossly overprescribing medications in order to "treat" minor illnesses, which gradually leads to more resistant bacteria

.

 

 

The Rise of Drug Resistance-

Another practice that has contributed significanty to growing drug resistance is the addition of antimicrobials to livestock feed, with the idea of decreasing infections and thereby improving animal health and size. This practice has had serious impact in both the United States and Europe. Enteric bacteria such as Salmonella, Escheria coli, and enterococci that live as normal intestinal flora of livestock readily share resistance plasmids and are constantly selected and amplified by exposure to drugs. These pathogens subsequently "jump" to humans and cause drug-resistant infections, oftentimes at epidemic proportions. In a deadly outbreak of Salmonella infection in Denmark, the pathogen was found to be resistent to seven different antimicrobials. In the United States, a strain of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter from chickens caued over 5,000 cases of food infection in the late 1990s. The opportunistic pathogen called VRE (vancomycin-resistan enterococcus) has been traced to the use of a vancomycin-like drug in cattle feed. It is now one of the most tenacious of hospital-acquired infections for which there are few drug choices. To attempt to curb this source of resistance, Europe and the United States have begun to ban the use of human drugs in animal feeds. The move seems to be working. Denmark banned all agricultural antibiotic use for growth-promotion in 1998. Resistance to the drugs declined dramatically among bacteria isolated from the farm animals without significant reductions in animal size or health. Scientists are confident that this will lead to a reduction in human carriage of anti-biotic resistent bacteria. -Kelly Cowan/Kathleen Talaro, Microbiology pg.371/2006

 

LadyFeline- You may now take the foot you just shoved in, out of your mouth, and apologize for being a hypocrite.

[Cerise]

*is confused* I thought that as time went on puberty was coming later for most children.

 

Like girls getting their menstrual cycle at six or seven and having babies by age eight or something. And now most of us are getting ours at 12-15 yrs. range.

[LadyFeline]

LadyFeline- You may now take the foot you just shoved in, out of your mouth, and apologize for being a hypocrite.

Nope. Sorry. Until you provide links to peer-reviewed journals (and not just resort to quoting from an anonymous, ill-informed and obviously biased source) or other reliable sources, you haven't proven anything. Much less that I'm a "hypocrite".

 

And I don't apologize to egotistical entitlement whores who think that they're God's Gift To The World And The Smartest People To Ever Live And Are Entitled To Respect Everywhere They Go Regardless Of How They Act, sorry (and, really, don't try to call me a "hypocirte" over that, either - because, unlike you and whatsername, I'm not stomping my foot and demanding apologies and acting like I should be venerated as a goddess or some shit like that...)

 

Back on Ignore you go, sweetness

[Variable]

Nope. Sorry. Until you provide links to peer-reviewed journals (and not just resort to quoting from an anonymous, ill-informed and obviously biased source) or other reliable sources, you haven't proven anything. Much less that I'm a "hypocrite

".

 

Uh, I just quoted out of a Microbiology Text Book that was just published this year, being used in Colleges and Universities across the country. Microbiology/A Systems Approach . Hardly "biased, anonymous, ill-informed, and unreliable". And those others links, ya, those were doctors. Who published their names. But you didn't read them, did you? I'm honesty surprised I have to provide them in the first place. This is common knowledge.

 

 

Interestingly, I haven't seen you provide one single link or source for any of the claims you've made.

 

And I don't apologize to egotistical entitlement whores

Well, no one asked you too. But if your going to jump people for making false claims, while turning around and go against medical FACTS. You are a hyprocrite.

 

egotistical entitlement whores who think that they're God's Gift To The World And The Smartest People To Ever Live And Are Entitled To Respect Everywhere They Go Regardless Of How They Act, sorry (and, really, don't try to call me a "hypocirte" over that, either - because, unlike you and whatsername, I'm not stomping my foot and demanding apologies and acting like I should be venerated as a goddess or some shit like that...)

 

You know LadyFeline. There is this thing that Freud called "projection". Basically when a person refuses to face who they are and repeatedly accuses others of doing/saying/thinking what they themselves are actually doing/saying/thinking. You should read up on it some time. It would be good for you.=)

[Thackerie]

Rrcana, kindly knock it off with the condescension.

 

LF is brash and aggressive, and sometimes she may go a little further than necessary in her rebuttals, but at least she's responding to points and trying to further the discussion; even if not in the most diplomatic manner. ...

 

None of my business really, and I certainly don't want to get in the middle of a "cat fight," but I side with Rrcana here. When I read LF's first post in this thread, I thought it seemed condescending and disproportionately hostile. But, that's just an observation from someone who doesn't know either of these people and has no stake in the topic, one way or another.

[Thackerie]

Thanks, Thackerie. By the way, it's "rrcanna," which means "Rock & Roll Church of All Nations, North America®".

 

It can't be a "cat fight," because (regardless of what someone keeps saying), I am not a woman. I am a 64-year old widowed man and grandfather.

 

Your objectivity is appreciated.

 

Oh, I know you're a grandpa -- I read your post in the "Totally Off Topic" thread about phone calls to grandpas. BTW, I also agree with you about chatrooms; I hate 'em, too!

[woodsmoke]

Okay Woodsmoke sources please. I'm not a scientist but from what I've learned over the years about first humans is that they did not have the variety of choices in fruits and vegetables, nuts, beans, legumes, seeds and whole grains (all that is needed for a healthy diet, minus B12 and essential oils found in fish but there are supplements) that we have now in order to have had a properly balanced diet. Some of them in fact lived in areas where they had no choice but to eat meat and others lived in areas where the choice was just yams, I would think that man discovering more of a variety of fruits and veggies, nuts, beans, legumes, seeds and whole grains, along with meats (hey, they didn't wast and meats weren't processed and were truly natural at the time) helped their brain more than anything. But that is just my unscientific opinion.

 

Heh, I'm afraid I don't have any sources on hand, but through your own information it seems I don't need any. I hadn't considered the fact that ancient man wouldn't have had access to such a wide variety in his diet, thus making meat a necessity. You make an excellent point, and in lieu of any further information I don't have access to, I'll happily acquiesce to defeat.

 

That said, I can't promise I'll be come a vegetarian--I just love meat too much. Besides, you may have "won," but I'm willing to bet I learned the most. So there.

 

 

None of my business really, and I certainly don't want to get in the middle of a "cat fight," but I side with Rrcana here. When I read LF's first post in this thread, I thought it seemed condescending and disproportionately hostile. But, that's just an observation from someone who doesn't know either of these people and has no stake in the topic, one way or another.

 

No worries--I'll reiterate my agreement that LF's reply was probably more aggressive than necessary, and that I felt both she and rrcana had some good and bad points initially. I only took issue when he stopped making any effort to discuss, opting instead to just speak down to her like a willfully ignorant child. Regardless of how entitled he may feel to it due to his age, his status as a grandparent or anything else, there's no call for that kind of attitude; if he felt LF's behavior was out of line he should have contacted a moderator and addressed the issue through the proper channels.

 

Honestly, I've gotta' give the most credit to Variable. She's the only one so far who's actually provided any source documentation to back up her claims. Neither LF nor rrcana have done this, though LF has at least continued addressing individual points with relevant replies (albeit with a good bit more vitriol than is likely necessary). All rrcana has done is state that he speaks "The Truth" with no corroboration and shown himself to be incredibly ageist to us disrespectful youths who dare to question his wisdom.

 

In fact, said ageism almost certainly played a major motivational role in my involvement in all this in the first place. I realize the slippery nature of that particular form of discrimination, as well as my own obvious bias; but the language used in rrcana's posts (implying LF doesn't know what she's talking about because she's "just a child," stating to his own satisfaction that I'm nothing more than a hormone-driven young man, etc.) seem to me to be quite clearly crossing the line between an older individual speaking from the position of experience and one deliberately speaking down to those he sees as inherently inferior to himself.

 

With enough prodding, I'm usually willing to admit my mistakes. In this case, I'm convinced now that I've planted my foot pretty firmly in a steaming cow-pie here. I'm just not convinced rrcana's foot isn't right there beside it.

[Fweethawt]

How 'bout if I do everybody, then we all can just shut the hell up?

[HuaiDan]

Uh, I just quoted out of a Microbiology Text Book that was just published this year, being used in Colleges and Universities across the country. Microbiology/A Systems Approach . Hardly "biased, anonymous, ill-informed, and unreliable". And those others links, ya, those were doctors. Who published their names.

 

This is Variable's post. Thought it was significant, for those who put him/her on ignore.

 

 

LF, I don't want to get on your bad side, but I was a bit shocked upon reading your first post in this thread. Discrediting is discrediting, attacking is attacking. Not that I haven't jumped down people's throats before when it was uncalled for, but if it was uncalled for I usaully regretted it later and found some way to make amends.

 

Lot of egos at work here. I don't want to come across as one of them. Just calling it as I see it.

[NotBlinded]

I just see a bunch of chicken shits......oh, I mean, chicken shit!

 

 

Sometimes I just crack myself up.

 

I'm on a roll now! (get it...egg roll)

 

Don't go and get your feathers in a ruffle.

 

Yes, I'm a moron...but it's fun to cross the road once in awhile!

[Fweethawt]

I just see a bunch of chicken shits......oh, I mean, chicken shit!

 

 

Sometimes I just crack myself up.

 

I'm on a roll now! (get it...egg roll)

 

Don't go and get your feathers in a ruffle.

 

Yes, I'm a moron...but it's fun to cross the road once in awhile!

Nice try, NBBTB. But if Ro-bear was here, he'd eat you alive.

[NotBlinded]

Nice try, NBBTB. But if Ro-bear was here, he'd eat you alive.

And this coming from a guy that says this:

How 'bout if I do everybody, then we all can just shut the hell up?

So, my

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fweethawt]

Nice try, NBBTB. But if Ro-bear was here, he'd eat you alive.

And this coming from a guy that says this:

How 'bout if I do everybody, then we all can just shut the hell up?

So, my

 

 

Okay then... I'll eat you alive, and we just wait for Ro-bear to pack his puns in here.

 

 

[chefranden]

Don't you hate it when that chef troll comes by and starts such a fuss, and then doesn't say anything?

 

 

 

Some critters evoloved to eat shit, but cows aren't among them.

 

I thought maybe the issue raised was something beyond can I get sick from shit fed cows.

 

What about the morality of this behavior? What about the implications for economic justice? What does this say about our place in this world, when other creatures are treated so crulely because we think we are top animal? What does it say about greed when a farmer can't wait to let chicken shit turn into grass in the normal fashion and then feed the cows. Or is it greed? Maybe we are running out of real cow food? How long before we have to start eating the shit directly and not waste it on cows?

 

I marvel that blinded by glitter of our technology we can't see the bars of our prison. Instead, we bash each other over the quality of the shiney stuff. Oh Boy!

[NotBlinded]

Chef, it is a serious issue and one that if I think about too much, will keep me awake at night crying.

 

I had to throw my stupid little, not-so-witty comments in because of all the fighting in this thread. Of course, Mister Meece was here to add to his ever-so-witty comments also.

 

The treatment of food animals, hell, animals in general is horendous. But, I think it is getting better. HSUS has been in there fighting to free chickens from their cages and much more. The senate just passed the PETS act that will allow for evacuation of people with pets during hurricanes. Changes are happening, just not as fast as I wish, but with every little victory, I rejoice. Man...that sounded churchy didn't it?