Posts: 4484
Threads: 185
Joined: October 12, 2012
Reputation:
44
RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 4:24 am
(September 1, 2014 at 10:00 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Dogs and cows are an accessory to our human lifestyles, not mine personally because I don't have a pet or eat beef. Many of the dog breeds and cow breeds exist specifically for human needs.
It's more realistic to kill cows and dogs than to tell people they can't drive vehicles anymore. Pretty much, although I should point out that all cattle exist for humans as they're domesticated from the Aurochs which have been extinct since the 17th century.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Posts: 596
Threads: 3
Joined: January 21, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 5:39 am
I might agree about the dog point if the ingredients for dog food were produced specifically for dog food, but they're not. Instead dog food is made from human waste by-products. They're not using prime cuts of meat for dog food, they're using waste meat which is not fit for human consumption. The same can be said for the grains they use, and even all the ash they use to bulk up the food and maximise profits. It was all made from waste products.
The problem here isnt the dogs, without the dogs all the waste products would still exist, but the people the products were made for originally.
Human over-population is the main problem the environment faces imo, not dog over-population, and I honestly cant believe that anyone can be stupid or ignorant enough to think killing all the dogs will solve the problem in any way.
Posts: 4484
Threads: 185
Joined: October 12, 2012
Reputation:
44
RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 6:26 am
(September 2, 2014 at 5:39 am)jesus_wept Wrote: They're not using prime cuts of meat for dog food, they're using waste meat which is not fit for human consumption. And who told you that it is not fit for humans? Traditionally, and I'm talking for 200,000 years, organ meat was considered the prime meat, and the muscle flesh was what was fed to the "dogs"/wasted/given to the underprivileged minorities and the women. After 200,000 years of preferring the organ meats, now we in westernised cultures think that the muscle is the you-bute stuff. And that's partly because we bread cattle and pigs to produce an excess of muscle - you can hardly breed them to produce extra organs! So what happens when people come from eastern cultures is they think our meat is shit because we eat the crap left over instead of the prime stuff.
Now with that said, of course you have to be careful because it does contain higher concentration of nutrients including vitamins. But with that said, a diet consisting of eating liver twice a week as opposed to eating beef 7 times a week will give you, roughly, the same healthy amount of vitamins and is probably a lot healthier. It's only if you want to over-consume meat that's when these so-called "not fit for human consumption" organs can be dangerous.
So get your facts straight before claiming that liver and organ meat is not fit for human consumption - provided you eat it in the correct amount it's fine, and the most nutrient-dense food that exists.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Posts: 2886
Threads: 132
Joined: May 8, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 6:47 am
Except that the main ingredients of dog food, the dry variety, are bones, heads, feet, skin and organs that humans generally don't consume in large quantities like lungs and intestines. The only time you are going to find things like liver, heart and tongue are the surplus can't be sold for human consumption because there isn't enough demand. Plus the 4F stuff that the processors aren't supposed to be selling for human consumption anyway.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
Posts: 4484
Threads: 185
Joined: October 12, 2012
Reputation:
44
RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 7:01 am
Just because there isn't a demand doesn't mean that humans can't eat the organ meats. The organ meats are better nutritionally, however, if over-consumed you'll give yourself toxic levels of vitamins. If you over-consume fatty muscle meat you'll just get obese but without the toxic vitamin levels. We can't consume the level of organ meat that we expect to eat in western diets, without making ourselves sick. If, however, you are a person that wants to exclusively eat organ meat and not muscle meat then you would be consuming at most 1/3rd of the meat that you would consume if eating muscle. That means you have a lower dependence on meat and consequently a lower ecological impact on the environment. You may also improve your health. Getting more people to do this would therefore be a great way to reduce the volume of meat we consume overall.
Also you can get dog meat that has meat that would be "fit for human consumption" if cooked (remember all raw meat is considered unfit for human consumption). In the EU in fact all pet food by law has to be fit for human consumption, if cooked through.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Posts: 596
Threads: 3
Joined: January 21, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 7:02 am
(This post was last modified: September 2, 2014 at 7:10 am by jesus_wept.)
(September 2, 2014 at 6:26 am)Aractus Wrote: (September 2, 2014 at 5:39 am)jesus_wept Wrote: They're not using prime cuts of meat for dog food, they're using waste meat which is not fit for human consumption. And who told you that it is not fit for humans? Traditionally, and I'm talking for 200,000 years, organ meat was considered the prime meat, and the muscle flesh was what was fed to the "dogs"/wasted/given to the underprivileged minorities and the women. After 200,000 years of preferring the organ meats, now we in westernised cultures think that the muscle is the you-bute stuff. And that's partly because we bread cattle and pigs to produce an excess of muscle - you can hardly breed them to produce extra organs! So what happens when people come from eastern cultures is they think our meat is shit because we eat the crap left over instead of the prime stuff.
Now with that said, of course you have to be careful because it does contain higher concentration of nutrients including vitamins. But with that said, a diet consisting of eating liver twice a week as opposed to eating beef 7 times a week will give you, roughly, the same healthy amount of vitamins and is probably a lot healthier. It's only if you want to over-consume meat that's when these so-called "not fit for human consumption" organs can be dangerous.
So get your facts straight before claiming that liver and organ meat is not fit for human consumption - provided you eat it in the correct amount it's fine, and the most nutrient-dense food that exists.
You might now be talking about the food they've traditionally been eating for 200,000 years (even though you didn't make that clear), meat which still wasn't killed specifically for dog food and would've been the scraps, but the link you provided as proof wasn't. That was talking about dried dog food.
(September 2, 2014 at 7:01 am)Aractus Wrote: Just because there isn't a demand doesn't mean that humans can't eat the organ meats. The organ meats are better nutritionally, however, if over-consumed you'll give yourself toxic levels of vitamins. If you over-consume fatty muscle meat you'll just get obese but without the toxic vitamin levels. We can't consume the level of organ meat that we expect to eat in western diets, without making ourselves sick. If, however, you are a person that wants to exclusively eat organ meat and not muscle meat then you would be consuming at most 1/3rd of the meat that you would consume if eating muscle. That means you have a lower dependence on meat and consequently a lower ecological impact on the environment. You may also improve your health. Getting more people to do this would therefore be a great way to reduce the volume of meat we consume overall.
Also you can get dog meat that has meat that would be "fit for human consumption" if cooked (remember all raw meat is considered unfit for human consumption). In the EU in fact all pet food by law has to be fit for human consumption, if cooked through.
Perhaps not fit for human consumption was the wrong term to use because people can eat chickens feet and pigs skulls but they dont choose to, but the meat used is still a by-product and none of it was produced for the dog. A fact you seem to be conveniently ignoring.
If I was on a Christian forum I might be accusing you of cherry-picking my argument to create a strawman because the main thrust was that the food is a by-product and humans are the real problem.
Posts: 4484
Threads: 185
Joined: October 12, 2012
Reputation:
44
RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 7:13 am
Well your answer is misleading. Some of the ingredients may be unfit for human consumption - like bone which is essential for cats and dogs (although it's better to feed raw bones directly to them as it will clean their teeth for you). And being that dogs and cats are obligate carnivores they are able to deal with the higher concentration of vitamins in their overall diet - but that doesn't mean that humans can't eat the meat. I can name a number of Chinese restaurants in Canberra and other states in Australia where I can order and eat chicken feet. I don't know where you got the idea that people don't eat it.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Posts: 596
Threads: 3
Joined: January 21, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 7:22 am
(This post was last modified: September 2, 2014 at 7:23 am by jesus_wept.)
I've said it was a mistake to say the food is not fit for human consumption, but the meat is still a by-product which consists of food humans wont eat (waste), humans are the real problem and killing all the dogs won't solve anything.
Posts: 4484
Threads: 185
Joined: October 12, 2012
Reputation:
44
RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 8:03 am
(This post was last modified: September 2, 2014 at 8:03 am by Aractus.)
The western diet is the problem, not humans. So what if there's some waste at the end of everything? That's a perfectly normal state of affairs. If I go into the supermarket I can get all different cuts of meat, I can have any animal I want - pig, cattle, chicken, turkey, kangaroo, sheep (well lamb anyway, not mutton), and they're all muscle. I have to go to a butcher if I want liver, heart, kidney etc, or other animals like game-meats besides kangaroo (like deer, crocodile, wild boar, rabbit, emu, quail, goose, duck, buffalo, horse etc). And of course being game-meats they're generally more expensive than beef or chicken. Which is why I don't understand why the UK has had this problem with horse-meat being passed off as beef - horse-meat is more expensive, where's the incentive to do that? Serves them right anyway for not being able to produce their own meat, and for being so goddamn unadventurous and fussy eaters. I was with a Brit recently (fried of a friend), he hated every Asian meal he tried (couldn't understand why they didn't have chips, mashed potato or salad), he even turned back perfectly good meals from other restaurants because they weren't deep-fried fish & chips (and that's not an exaggeration - I was there). Wouldn't even try any meat that wasn't beef/veal or chicken or lamb - wouldn't try duck, wouldn't try quail, wouldn't try anything else.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Posts: 596
Threads: 3
Joined: January 21, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 8:43 am
(This post was last modified: September 2, 2014 at 8:46 am by jesus_wept.)
I'm British myself. I've eaten duck, quail, Asian food etc. and we can even buy muscle meat and heart in the same shop - I often buy lamb's hearts for my dog to eat from the supermarket.
Are you American by any chance? You're certainly enough of a condescending moron to be one.
|