Saturated Fat Controversy

[FlatAssembler]

I was commenting on how good financial decisions made by producers are not equivalent to decisions that feed starving people, and, in fact, those good financial decisions made by producers actively starve people.

Then how come massive starvation only happens when economic freedom is greatly compromised, by a religion or by a government, usually both?

No, I don't think that owning animals is comparable to slavery, not even remotely.

And what is the difference? Only who is the victim has changed.

No one...anywhere..thinks that grabbing an animal out of the yard and chopping it's head off is ethical. I don't know why you think that. It's fucking gruesome.

Because CO2 poisoning causes the nerves to fire pain signals, and the blood flow to brain in the case of CO2 poisoning continues for a few minutes. In the case of beheading, it does look gruesome, but beheading prevents the nerves from firing pain signals to the brain, and the blood flow to brain stops immediately. What is the less of the two evils? It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Season your food with e-coli, or any number of other things that would be in your food if you ate fodder.

I am not sure what you mean. E-coli in food or water also causes cows to become ill.

The simplest way to put this, is that livestock can process things that we can't, and that can be produced more economically and on more meager land than anything for human consumption can be - other than livestock.

Yes, they can process grass and parts of the corn plant that we can't. However, there is a reason why we've lost the ability to eat grass and other parts of the corn plant: the ability to do that doesn't significantly increase our chances survival, because they contain little to no nutrients and energy. They are mostly cellulose, and cellulose takes a lot of energy to digest, and it doesn't give much more energy in return. That's why it takes much more land to have grass-fed cows than to have grain-fed cows, and why the food for animals consists mostly of grains, rather than parts of the plant we can't eat.
Look, the prices make it clear that it takes much more resources to have grass-fed cows than to have grain-fed cows, and that it is, in the vast majority of cases, more efficient to eat plants we can eat than to eat meat. All the assumptions you make to contradict that are obviously wrong.

I'd suggest some of Michael Pollans books and essays to you, as a primer, for a consumer interested in figuring out why (and how) we do what we do.

OK, let's apply some critical thinking skills to determine whether Michael Pollans work is worth reading.
1. He is anti-GMO, and anybody who is anti-GMO immediately loses all his credibility when he talks about ecology, nutrition and agriculture.
2. He denies that saturated fat cause heart disease, and that immediately discredits him when he talks about nutritional science.
3. He claims that it's more efficient to have grass-fed cows than to have grain-fed cows, and that's, at best, a very dubious assertion.
All in all, I don't think he is worth reading, and requiring me to be familiar with his ideas is Gish-Gallop. If you think my reasoning is wrong, feel free to explain why.