4 ms·
AMR and such, is that our famous pink slime that became all the rage/outrage awhile back? To the point we have quite a few establishments making it well known t
by Shivetya 10y ago
AMR and such, is that our famous pink slime that became all the rage/outrage awhile back? To the point we have quite a few establishments making it well known they never used such products.
industrialization did not do any favors towards animals, especially in regards to processing and such for food
- maxerickson 10y agoWhen indigenous peoples work to make use of all of an animal we call it respect. Do it in a factory and all of the sudden it is gross. There's pet foods that advertise on the TV that they don't contain any chicken byproduct meal. The horror of feeding a dog stuff it would be happy to eat.
- grzm 10y agomake use of all of an animal This does not imply eating the entire animal.
- maxerickson 10y agoWhat's your point? There's not actually any real problem with eating mechanically separated meat, it just makes for good TV to say that it isn't real food. For style points, make a show of how bad it is the week before doing an episode on pâté.
- grzm 10y agoYour inclusion of the statement regarding "mak[ing] use of all of an animal" is to show hypocrisy between respect for efficient use of animals by indigenous people and distaste for some industrial food processing practices. This is sloppy or disingenuous as they're different domains: one is efficient use of the animal for any purpose and the other is efficient use of the animal for food. Similarly here you bring up mechanically separated meat, and in the comment I responded to, chicken byproduct meal in pet food. These are all food production, which is different from making efficient use of all of an animal for any purpose. Editted to correct my confusing pâté and foie gras.
- maxerickson 10y agoThe pâté comment is not loaded; pâté is literally any meat paste (or maybe even not meat). Are you thinking of foie gras or something? Anyway, to try to be clearer: What's the difference between making efficient use of an animal and making efficient use of an animal? Are you just complaining that traditional cultures didn't know how to mechanically separate meat? Are you making a claim about what they would have been likely to do if they possessed such knowledge?
- grzm 10y agoIndeed, I was thinking of foie gras. Thank you for the correction. Given that I've twice expressed quite explicitly the point I was making, I fear we're talking past each other. I wish you a good day.
- maxerickson 10y agoI understand full well that you are expressing that there is some difference between eating and other uses. You've done little to argue why this difference is substantial (hence my just restating the position I started with, where they are conflated).
- WaxProlix 10y ago"A [real or imagined] respect for animals that led to a reduction in waste product." is not the same as "Maximizing profit by turning undesirable or inaccessible meat into nuggets in a potentially dangerous process." I don't think you're wrong to mention them in the same sentence, but it's definitely disingenuous/uncharitable to compare peoples' sentiments on the two apples-to-apples.
- maxerickson 10y agoA big part of the point I'm trying to make is that the differing sentiments aren't all that coherent. I don't see how it is disingenuous to express my opinion on the matter. I guess it might not be especially charitable.
- always_good 10y agoThey're right that industrialization did no favors for animals, but that's because of how animals are treated and farmed. It's kind of like how I respect someone more for hunting a wolf with their bare hands vs someone that snipes them from a helicopter. They both possibly result in a dead wolf, but that's not the point.