aneeshm
Deity
I thought dairy was obtained by getting cows pregnant to get them in milk, and then killing the calves?
You have a sick, sick dairy farming system if you do that. Over here, we DO NOT kill calves.
I thought dairy was obtained by getting cows pregnant to get them in milk, and then killing the calves?
HumansWhat is higher?
Who cares what they are fed, so long as they are fed with the proper foodstuff, I dont care.Well, don't read up on what they feed factory farmed cattle and animals then.
Newsflash Narz, we live in the UNITED STATES, not in England. I highly doubt that the cattle in the United States are fed with "mad cow" tanted meat.cough, each other, cough, mad cow
Who cares?! I most certainly don't. Animals don't care about the living conditions.Fact is, the living conditions of factory farm animals are horrendous whether you want to admit it or not.
I'm a passionate meat-eater myself, but this attitude makes me sadWho cares?! I most certainly don't. Animals don't care about the living conditions.
Newsflash Narz, we live in the UNITED STATES, not in England. I highly doubt that the cattle in the United States are fed with "mad cow" tanted meat.
Husbandry practices in the United States relating to BSE
Soybean meal is cheap and plentiful in the United States. As a result, the use of animal byproduct feeds was never common, as it was in Europe. However, U.S. regulations only partially prohibit the use of animal byproducts in feed. In 1997, regulations prohibited the feeding of mammalian byproducts to ruminants such as cows and goats. However, the byproducts of ruminants can still be legally fed to pets or other livestock such as pigs and poultry such as chickens. In addition, it is legal for ruminants to be fed byproducts from some of these animals. [4] A proposal to end the use of cow blood, restaurant scraps, and poultry litter (fecal matter, feathers)[2] in January 2004 has yet to be implemented [5], despite the efforts of some advocates of such a policy, who cite the fact that cows are herbivores, and that blood and fecal matter could potentially carry BSE.
In February 2001, the USGAO reported that the FDA, which is responsible for regulating feed, had not adequately policed the various bans. [6] Compliance with the regulations was shown to be extremely poor before the discovery of the Washington cow, but industry representatives report that compliance is now 100%. Even so, critics call the partial prohibitions insufficient. Indeed, US meat producer Creekstone Farms alleges that the USDA is preventing BSE testing from being conducted [7].
Japan was the top importer of U.S. beef, buying 240,000 tons valued at $1.4 billion in 2003. After the discovery of the first case of BSE in the U.S. on December 23, 2003, Japan stopped U.S. beef imports in December 2003. In December 2005, Japan once again allowed imports of U.S. beef, but reinstated its ban in mid-January 2006 after a technical violation of the U.S.-Japan beef import agreement: a vertebral column, which should have been removed prior to shipment, was included in a shipment of veal.
Tokyo yielded to U.S. pressure to resume imports, ignoring consumer worries about the safety of U.S. beef, said Japanese consumer groups. Michiko Kamiyama from Food Safety Citizen Watch said about this: "The government has put priority on the political schedule between the two countries, not on food safety or human health."
Possibly due to pressure from large agribusiness, the United States has drastically cut back on the number of cows inspected for BSE (USA Today, August 4, 2006, archived at [8]). Also, the U.S. is prohibiting the sale of test kits that detect BSE.
Sixty-five nations have full or partial restrictions on importing U.S. beef products because of concerns that U.S. testing lacks sufficient rigor. As a result, exports of U.S. beef declined from $3.8 billion in 2003, before the first mad cow was detected in the US, to $1.4 billion in 2005. (USA Today, August 4, 2006, archived at [9]).
On December 31rst, 2006, Hematech, a biotechnology company based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, announced that it had used genetic engineering and cloning technology to produce cattle that lacked a necessary gene for prion production - thus theoretically making them immune to BSE.[3]......
Yes, but I don't raise them as foodstuff.CivGeneral, do you have pets?
But do you think your pets care about their living conditions?Yes, but I don't raise them as foodstuff.
Ok then. Have you ever killed a chicken yourself?
Lets take this to an extreme degree
How do you, as a vedgetable eater, justify the violence inherent in your food?
How would you like it if you were a plant and then you were cut down and used for food?
I don't justify meat eating. However I will say that killing animals is indeed a barbaric practice and that humans have no moral right to kill animals. However I like to eat meat, so I will continue to do so anyway
Plants do not "like" and "dislike".
Another two sentences contradicted each other. Cows and chickens are NOT fed the proper foodstuff. Cows are meant to eat grass not grain, soybeans and sewage sludge.Who cares what they are fed, so long as they are fed with the proper foodstuff, I dont care.
People in the US get illnesses from meat also.Newsflash Narz, we live in the UNITED STATES, not in England. I highly doubt that the cattle in the United States are fed with "mad cow" tanted meat.
Another inane and unsupported statement by CivGeneral. You don't think mother cows are sad when their babies are stripped from them at birth to be chained in a tiny box and later turned into veal? Animals cry out when in pain, they show obvious signs of happiness when pleased or feeling comfort. You tell yourself this because maybe you want to believe it but you know it's not true.Who cares?! I most certainly don't. Animals don't care about the living conditions.
Just was curious.No, but I've seen it done.
Just because some vegetarians are kooky doesn't mean all are.Words do not mean much more than focilised emotion. 'Barbaric' is nothing if not related to something else. Killing an animal is probably something most people would not enjoy doing, but tasty meat is not exactly anything which carries with it the memory of violence.
I once had talked over the internet with a person who maintained that leather carried inside it the memory of the animal's violent death. That person claimed that she would not sit on leather couches, because the couch would effectively be transmiting 'hateful' energy. Well, the same person later on claimed that she frequently was meeting Helena Olga Blavatchky and talking with her![]()
All my cat does is eat, sleep, does his buissness in the litter box.But do you think your pets care about their living conditions?
Just pure muckraker materialsAlso check out the edit in my previous post![]()
I dont see how I would be interested in vegetarianism. Especialy if they came from Christian and Judaic traditions (Judaism, IMO has a stricter dietary law). I myself like to dine on a stake once in a while and a hamburger from time to time. As well as poultry such as chicken and turkey. Not to mention as well as pork. Meat products are a majority of my dietary staple.@ CivGeneral
You may be interested in this and this. It provides a Christian perspective on vegetarianism. Also in a vegetarian view of the Torah (most of it is common to the Bible, too).
Words do not mean much more than focilised emotion. 'Barbaric' is nothing if not related to something else. Killing an animal is probably something most people would not enjoy doing, but tasty meat is not exactly anything which carries with it the memory of violence.
I once had talked over the internet with a person who maintained that leather carried inside it the memory of the animal's violent death. That person claimed that she would not sit on leather couches, because the couch would effectively be transmiting 'hateful' energy. Well, the same person later on claimed that she frequently was meeting Helena Olga Blavatchky and talking with her![]()