Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Coito ergo sum]

Yawn. You pointed out the supposed "harm" of eating meat, not Big Macs qua Big Macs. Your rationale applies to burgers made at home on the grill just as much as it applies to Big Macs. And, your logic applies to all agriculture. The only way to eliminate the "harm" you alleged is for humans to stop eating. Since that's the only way to eliminate the harm you want to see eliminated, then yes, you are a fanatic.

Actually it doesn't (I don't support either but..) factory meat farming causes way, by far, more harm than local, small farmed animals. Besides that, I said nothing about harm this or harm that. I asked you about "liberty" and you said something along the lines of "free to do whatever as long as it doesn't cause any harm...which you followed up by saying. "whaaa?? eating a mcshit burger causes no harm"...it does. Very simple. Even for you I would think. You, are the fanatic here.

You see - here's where you just make shit up, and falsely attribute it to someone else.

I referred only to the liberty to eat, drink and smoke what one wants. I made no initial reference to harm. I support your right to smoke weed, despite the "harm" (to use your word) to the environment of growing it.

YOU are the one who claimed that I was making an argument "like" the "librarian" (of course you can't respect another's point of view - you make everything personal) point of view that anything should be permitted regardless of the harm it causes others.

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 80#p812190 Anyone can see that you fucking lied.
Coito ergo sum wrote:

I said, "No, Mr. Obtuse. That's not all that liberty is, but the liberty to eat what you want, drink what you want, and say what you want, is a part of liberty. Maybe not in your world, where liberty means "do as you're told.""

YOU responded - "Oh, like some kind of librarian utopia. A world of small children who don't wanna be told to do anything regardless of the harm it causes others. OK."

You brought up the issue of harm, and I never said anything about it. Moreover, your kind of "harm" is like the harm caused by humans breathing, burping and farting.

So, next time you want to falsely attribute a point of view to someone, please think for a second before you knee-jerk. Also, don't accuse me of being a "librarian" or a "libertarian" (as you have done in the past). I'm not. And, you should be able to glean something of that from my other posts, and this one.

I'm not a libertarian - I am a liberal republican - I do not subscribe to the notion that people should do whatever they want regardless of the "harm" it causes others, nor do I subscribe to the notion that the government can only legislate where there is harm to others. I do, however, think that people ought to be at liberty to eat what they want to eat, smoke what they want to smoke, and drink what they want to drink.

[Coito ergo sum]

Just about everything causes harm to humans and the environment. But there are degrees of harm, and factory farming is without a doubt one of the most harmful production methods that humans engage in.

Are there any statistics comparing a factory farm with an aggregate of small local/family farms of equivalent production?

[Sisifo]

I feel like sharing this:

My personal opinions go more towards a more interventioning society, and I look with disbelief the way that governments look to the other way regarding fast food and the health state of their people caused by the food industry, people that they are responsible for.

I also consider myself generally very alien to the opinions of CES, and if I don't engage myself into debate it's because I find the shredding into pieces of posts, and arguing every comma, an unsupportable way of talking.

But all along the 43 pages of this thread, he has explained his position in very reasonable terms, providing thoughtful arguments and inviting such from others. I think that he has sustained his ideas gentlemanly -with exceptions to confirm the rule-

On the other hand, I find sandinista with a pose more of a child with the hands on his ears and shouting NAH-NAH-NAH.

As a result of both, along this thread, although I still would not get close to a piece of fast food, and I still think that Governments should apply policies to discourage its consumption, I find myself with a respect to those who sustain a line of thought simmilar to CES, that I didn't have in the beginning. And that respect has been gained from the one I have lost to the NAH-NAH-NAH meat is bad NAH NAH NAH, line of argument.

Just that. To applause CES for keeping the composture all this 43 pages and all this time. I would have "whatevah-ed" long ago. A tip to the hat. My respect.

[Coito ergo sum]

I feel like sharing this:

My personal opinions go more towards a more interventioning society, and I look with disbelief the way that governments look to the other way regarding fast food and the health state of their people caused by the food industry, people that they are responsible for.

I also consider myself generally very alien to the opinions of CES, and if I don't engage myself into debate it's because I find the shredding into pieces of posts, and arguing every comma, an unsupportable way of talking.

But all along the 43 pages of this thread, he has explained his position in very reasonable terms, providing thoughtful arguments and inviting such from others. I think that he has sustained his ideas gentlemanly -with exceptions to confirm the rule-

On the other hand, I find sandinista with a pose more of a child with the hands on his ears and shouting NAH-NAH-NAH.

As a result of both, along this thread, although I still would not get close to a piece of fast food, and I still think that Governments should apply policies to discourage its consumption, I find myself with a respect to those who sustain a line of thought simmilar to CES, that I didn't have in the beginning. And that respect has been gained from the one I have lost to the NAH-NAH-NAH meat is bad NAH NAH NAH, line of argument.

Just that. To applause CES for keeping the composture all this 43 pages and all this time. I would have "whatevah-ed" long ago. A tip to the hat. My respect.

Thank you. Much obliged.

[leo-rcc]

Just that. To applause CES for keeping the composture all this 43 pages and all this time. I would have "whatevah-ed" long ago. A tip to the hat. My respect.

+1 to that. I was amazed this thread was still going to be honest.

[maiforpeace]

Just about everything causes harm to humans and the environment. But there are degrees of harm, and factory farming is without a doubt one of the most harmful production methods that humans engage in.

Are there any statistics comparing a factory farm with an aggregate of small local/family farms of equivalent production?

Did you read the link I provided? If you did, you would have read exactly what the harm is that is being done, with the biggest issue being the lack of regulation when it comes to the toxic pollution that factory farms produce. This type of pollution and how it's disposed of isn't at all the same as the waste (and how it's disposed of) that a conventional farm produces. Any statistics would be comparing apples to oranges.

This economic study makes some comparisons between factory farming and conventional farming. http://www.worc.org/userfiles/file/Weid ... fCAFOs.pdf

[sandinista]

Yawn. You pointed out the supposed "harm" of eating meat, not Big Macs qua Big Macs. Your rationale applies to burgers made at home on the grill just as much as it applies to Big Macs. And, your logic applies to all agriculture. The only way to eliminate the "harm" you alleged is for humans to stop eating. Since that's the only way to eliminate the harm you want to see eliminated, then yes, you are a fanatic.

Actually it doesn't (I don't support either but..) factory meat farming causes way, by far, more harm than local, small farmed animals. Besides that, I said nothing about harm this or harm that. I asked you about "liberty" and you said something along the lines of "free to do whatever as long as it doesn't cause any harm...which you followed up by saying. "whaaa?? eating a mcshit burger causes no harm"...it does. Very simple. Even for you I would think. You, are the fanatic here.

You see - here's where you just make shit up, and falsely attribute it to someone else.

I referred only to the liberty to eat, drink and smoke what one wants. I made no initial reference to harm. I support your right to smoke weed, despite the "harm" (to use your word) to the environment of growing it.

YOU are the one who claimed that I was making an argument "like" the "librarian" (of course you can't respect another's point of view - you make everything personal) point of view that anything should be permitted regardless of the harm it causes others.

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 80#p812190 Anyone can see that you fucking lied.
Coito ergo sum wrote:

I said, "No, Mr. Obtuse. That's not all that liberty is, but the liberty to eat what you want, drink what you want, and say what you want, is a part of liberty. Maybe not in your world, where liberty means "do as you're told.""

YOU responded - "Oh, like some kind of librarian utopia. A world of small children who don't wanna be told to do anything regardless of the harm it causes others. OK."

You brought up the issue of harm, and I never said anything about it. Moreover, your kind of "harm" is like the harm caused by humans breathing, burping and farting.

So, next time you want to falsely attribute a point of view to someone, please think for a second before you knee-jerk. Also, don't accuse me of being a "librarian" or a "libertarian" (as you have done in the past). I'm not. And, you should be able to glean something of that from my other posts, and this one.

I'm not a libertarian - I am a liberal republican - I do not subscribe to the notion that people should do whatever they want regardless of the "harm" it causes others, nor do I subscribe to the notion that the government can only legislate where there is harm to others. I do, however, think that people ought to be at liberty to eat what they want to eat, smoke what they want to smoke, and drink what they want to drink.

Nice how you quote up until the actual quote I was referring to. I'm not making shit up, you're backtracking and quote mining.

Not libertarian. Just a liberal republic that protects fundamental liberties in large measure, rather than an authoritarian regime that governs and nitpicks every aspect of our lives. You like the latter, I prefer the former. Got it. I must have missed the part about the "harm" eating Big Macs, speaking one's mind, and having abortions does to "others." But, I'm sure you'll provide a clear explanation of that.

In case you missed it

I must have missed the part about the "harm" eating Big Macs

You're going to go on whining and crying about being "misrepresented" and about me making shit up. THAT quote is what I was and have been referring to. Extremists learn to read, or at least remember what you wrote.

[Coito ergo sum]

In case you missed it

I must have missed the part about the "harm" eating Big Macs

Which is completely different than an assertion that I think "anything goes regardless of the harm it causes..."

You brought up the issue of "harm" - I wanted to know what kind of "harm" you meant by it. You launched into your discussion of the environmental effects of meat production as being the "harm" caused by Big Mac eating. I rightly pointed out that your alleged harm was not harm caused by Big Mac eating qua Big Mac eating. Yours is an indictment of agriculture in general.

You're going to go on whining and crying about being "misrepresented" and about me making shit up. THAT quote is what I was and have been referring to. Extremists learn to read, or at least remember what you wrote.

And, THAT quote can't fairly be interpreted as the allegation that I think that we must have no laws - anything goes except if it "harms" someone in the librarian sense.

The gentleman above said it best - your argument is basically - na na na na - meat is bad - na na na - meat is bad. Got anything else?

You won't even answer the simple question of what YOU mean by "liberty." I'm still waiting for that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Just about everything causes harm to humans and the environment. But there are degrees of harm, and factory farming is without a doubt one of the most harmful production methods that humans engage in.

Are there any statistics comparing a factory farm with an aggregate of small local/family farms of equivalent production?

Did you read the link I provided? If you did, you would have read exactly what the harm is that is being done, with the biggest issue being the lack of regulation when it comes to the toxic pollution that factory farms produce. This type of pollution and how it's disposed of isn't at all the same as the waste (and how it's disposed of) that a conventional farm produces. Any statistics would be comparing apples to oranges.

Are there any statistics comparing the environmental effects of an aggregate of small local/family farms of equivalent production? That would not be apples to oranges - it is comparing apples to oranges to compare a giant agribusiness to a tiny local farm. Of course the impacts are different in scale. However, if you take 1,000 local farms and compare their environmental impact with the environmental impact of a single large farm of equivalent production size, then you'd be comparing oranges to oranges.

[

This economic study makes some comparisons between factory farming and conventional farming. http://www.worc.org/userfiles/file/Weid ... fCAFOs.pdf

Good article, but it doesn't compare environmental effects of an aggregate of family farms vs a single factory farm of equivalent size to the aggregate.

[maiforpeace]

I can tell by your response that you still didn't bother reading the the first link I posted...the waste from factory farms creates compounds and poisons that rarely, if ever occur at conventional farms.

[egbert]

I can tell by your response that you still didn't bother reading the the first link I posted...the waste from factory farms creates compounds and poisons that rarely, if ever occur at conventional farms.

You didn't really expect to sway "Faith" with Facts, did you?

[sandinista]

Which is completely different than an assertion that I think "anything goes regardless of the harm it causes..."

Fine then, doesn't change the fact that you claimed that eating a mcshit burger causes no harm. You are wrong, period.

I rightly pointed out that your alleged harm was not harm caused by Big Mac eating qua Big Mac eating. Yours is an indictment of agriculture in general.

No, again, wrong. Mine is an indictment of industrial animal factory farming specifically.

The gentleman above said it best - your argument is basically - na na na na - meat is bad - na na na - meat is bad. Got anything else?

Oh you got someone to back you up, congrats. The FACT is industrial scale factory farmed meat is bad for the environment, has zero to do with na na na.

You won't even answer the simple question of what YOU mean by "liberty." I'm still waiting for that.

I have never even brought it up. You are the one who goes on and on about it without explaining what it is.

I can tell by your response that you still didn't bother reading the the first link I posted...the waste from factory farms creates compounds and poisons that rarely, if ever occur at conventional farms.

You didn't really expect to sway "Faith" with Facts, did you?

Not when your discussing something with a fanatic.

[maiforpeace]

Factory farmed meat...Yum!!! All those meat lovers out there you better cook that steak until it's well done.

Study: Half of supermarket meat may have staph bug

By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer

ATLANTA – Half the meat and poultry sold in the supermarket may be tainted with the staph germ, a new report suggests.
The new estimate is based on just 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork and turkey purchased from grocery stores in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Flagstaff, Ariz. and Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Proper cooking kills the germs, and federal health officials estimate staph accounts for less than 3 percent of foodborne illnesses, far less than more common bugs like salmonella and E. coli.
The new study found more than half the samples contained Staphylococcus aureus, a bacteria that can make people sick. Worse, half of those contaminated samples had a form of staph that's resistant to at least three kinds of antibiotics.
"This study shows that much of our meat and poultry is contaminated with multidrug-resistant staph," Paul Keim, one of the study's authors, said in a statement. "Now we need to determine what this means in terms of risk to the consumer."
Keim and his co-authors work at the nonprofit Translational Genomics Research Institute in Arizona. Their study is to be published in the journal Clinical infectious Diseases, an institute spokesman said.
Staph germs are commonly found on the skin and in the noses of up to 25 percent of healthy people. The bacteria can be spread in many settings, including in the packing plant or in the kitchen, and it can cause food poisoning.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that staph accounts for roughly 240,000 cases a year. Handwashing and proper cooking are the best ways to avoid problems.
The study's authors note that livestock and poultry are steadily fed low doses of antibiotics at industrial farms. They suggest that may be a contributor to the antibiotic resistance seen in some meat samples.
Among the types of drug-resistant germs the researchers found, one was methicillin-resistant staph, or MRSA, a superbug that can be fatal. They found MRSA in three of the 136 samples.
Food and Drug Administration officials say meat does not seem to be a significant route for MRSA transmission, but health officials continue to study the issue.
The government doesn't routinely check retail meat and poultry for staph bacteria. However, a fairly recent FDA pilot study in the Washington area looked at more than 1,100 meat and poultry samples and found staph in 280 of them.
A Louisiana State University study of 120 meat samples found it in almost half of pork chops and 20 percent of beef steak samples. That study, published in 2009, calculated the superbug MRSA was in about 5 percent of pork samples and 3 percent of beef.
In a statement Friday, the American Meat Institute said the study is misleading.
"Despite the claims of this small study, consumers can feel confident that meat and poultry is safe," said James H. Hodges, the organization's president.

What else would he say?

[sandinista]

I saw that today, sick shit.

[maiforpeace]

Health Experts attack McDonald's, But Can They Bite into the Bottom Line?

Their letter to McDonald's CEO, published in newspapers across the country.