|
On August 07 2011 11:48 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 11:44 mahnini wrote:On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote:
Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety. ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?). arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense. How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)
To be clear, your conclusion is that public safety is, in fact, not a reasonable public policy goal because it is not attainable in all situations? Seriously? You might need to step back and think about whether that makes sense.
You are absolutely terrible at this, and the faux intellectualism you display does not make you more persuasive. Obviously no one has stated that the ONLY government goal should be the safety of people. Freedom is also an important goal, but government must weigh the effects of personal freedom against the potential harm to safety of others. There is a balancing act here. It's hard for me to believe that no one else has raised this as the prime issue, and it's why the "brain vessel" idea is so incredibly nonsensical. Everyone knows it is, but no one has explicitly said that the reason is that individual freedom, another government goal, would be totally destroyed.
So, since all normal people can recognize that governments must balance contradictory goals, the idea that "well, if you can't do it all the time, you shouldn't ever do it" is just inconceivable as a point of argumentation.
Look, I think I get the framework of your argument. In order for this raid to be justified, all of the following must be true:
1. The FDA was enforcing a valid law.
2. The law was made based upon science that supports it as beneficial to public health.
3. The government should make laws which benefit the public health
You appear to take issue with #3. Which is bizarre. Notice that it does not say "The government in all cases should enact the laws which ensure the most certain public safety." So far, this second statement is all that you have attacked. It is the only way that your extension to brain vessels makes any sense. However, it is not necessary to use this second formulation in the logical pattern I presented above. So, basically, you set up an unnecessary condition to the logical formulation, knocked it down, and claimed victory. You cannot simply introduce extraneous conditions such as your "in all circumstances without regard to other public good" without a good reason.
|
I'm going to post one more time in this thread
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive
As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry.
As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink.
In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
|
A similar thing happened in Alberta a few years back. A farmer went to court for the right to sell his raw milk, im pretty sure he won. We have a more rural culture in this province though, I doubt that would fly in Ontario or BC.
Obviously I side with the business owner though. Morally whats worse, kidnapping someone and ruining their business, or selling raw milk?
Quit selling out to pragmatism, have some principles.
|
I can't believe people are defending him, it's already been established his milk did not pass regulation and was thus dangerous for anyone that drank it. Would you allow me to sell poison in cans labeled "Milk"? No? Then why defend him when he does the same? There's a very, very good reason there's food regulation
Obviously I side with the business owner though. Morally whats worse, kidnapping someone and ruining their business, or selling raw milk?
By your logic you side with every illegal drugs dealer, except the drugs dealers are even morally better than the guy selling raw milk, because their customers actually know the dangers of consuming the products they're selling.
|
ive been drinking raw milk for decades and ive never had problems with it.
i dont like pasteurized one. it tastes like crap.
just saying...
|
On August 07 2011 20:18 xM(Z wrote:
ive been drinking raw milk for decades and ive never had problems with it.
i dont like pasteurized one. it tastes like crap.
just saying...
Drinking raw milk on a farm is one thing, selling it in large quantities is another.
|
I will agree selling raw milk in quantities is kinda sketchy its no different then when you had a milkman brink you fresh milk every morning just have to make sure that its fresh. it should be your decision what to do with your body imo. anymore it seems that people can't/don't want to take care of themselves so the government will do it for them. Raw milk is the best though anything fresh like that vegetables , eggs, meat(not raw of course), its all good stuff. being somewhat self sufficient is legit though most people don't get that luxury
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 07 2011 22:17 chronomancer wrote:
I will agree selling raw milk in quantities is kinda sketchy its no different then when you had a milkman brink you fresh milk every morning just have to make sure that its fresh. it should be your decision what to do with your body imo. anymore it seems that people can't/don't want to take care of themselves so the government will do it for them. Raw milk is the best though anything fresh like that vegetables , eggs, meat(not raw of course), its all good stuff. being somewhat self sufficient is legit though most people don't get that luxury
I find it ironic you say not raw meat when the dangers of raw meat are very similar to those of unpasteurized milk.
edit: This is to say, both can hold serious food borne illness if not properly handled, but can also be just fine most of the time. If there's a outright ban on consuming raw milk(which I don't think there is) then I would be against that.
|
Drinking raw milk on a farm is one thing, selling it in large quantities is another.
There were no "large quantities" being sold here. Rawesome is a very small operation--a private, members-only club that purchases small amounts of raw foods from a few local farmers to sell to its members. They have also been the target of unbelievable persecution (see guns-drawn raid in 2010 and purposeful, needless destruction of tens of thousands of dollars of produce and milk in that same raid). In both the 2010 and 2011 raids, LEOs were warranted to collect samples of Rawesome's food for testing; instead they confiscated or destroyed their inventory, and in last week's raid they first disabled the security cameras. Does any of this strike you as a bit odd? This isn't a case of responsible government moving in to contest unsafe farming practices--it's a case of countless resources being thrown away in the long-term persecution of a small group of hippies who are members of a private club.
The real source of the problem? A disagreement over the legality of the club's herdshare arrangements in which members of the club pay local farmers to board their dairy animals. California calls these arrangements unlicensed dairies; club members disagree. All subsequent persecution, including the armed raids, destruction of property, felony charges, and six-figure bails are the direct result of this disagreement: the federal government feels it is being cut out of the regulatory loop due to a direct relationship between consumer and farmer, and it refuses to accept that such a relationship might not be subject to its power. That's the nature of government, and we invite this kind of bullying when we provide it with sweeping regulatory power over anything, whether a tiny family farm or a private poker game.
And (in case it hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet), the data referenced by the CDC and FDA has not been verified. No peer-reviewed, independent studies indicate that responsibly produced raw milk is a significant danger to public health, which is precisely why the rest of the civilized world continues to enjoy it on a regular basis with no negative effects.
|
Since the owner was not read his rights, does that make all of this illegal? I thought that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court.
|
On August 07 2011 23:30 GreEny K wrote:
Since the owner was not read his rights, does that make all of this illegal? I thought that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court.
You and the OP have both been watching too much CSI and other cop dramas.
The cops are only required to read you your miranda rights before they interrogate you after you have been placed in custody.
Having your rights read to you when they arrest you is utterly irrelevant.
|
On August 07 2011 19:23 Equity213 wrote:
A similar thing happened in Alberta a few years back. A farmer went to court for the right to sell his raw milk, im pretty sure he won. We have a more rural culture in this province though, I doubt that would fly in Ontario or BC.
Obviously I side with the business owner though. Morally whats worse, kidnapping someone and ruining their business, or selling raw milk?
Quit selling out to pragmatism, have some principles.
actually I'm from Alberta and I recently moved to Ontario-- if anything the farmers are more militant here about being able to sell their own produce locally, despite barriers, and theres a much stronger organization of people trying to make it happen-- I think its partly due to population-- theres actually a higher rural population in Ontario than Alberta, go figure.
|
On August 07 2011 19:34 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:I can't believe people are defending him, it's already been established his milk did not pass regulation and was thus dangerous for anyone that drank it. Would you allow me to sell poison in cans labeled "Milk"? No? Then why defend him when he does the same? There's a very, very good reason there's food regulation Show nested quote +Obviously I side with the business owner though. Morally whats worse, kidnapping someone and ruining their business, or selling raw milk? By your logic you side with every illegal drugs dealer, except the drugs dealers are even morally better than the guy selling raw milk, because their customers actually know the dangers of consuming the products they're selling.
were there any reports of anyone being sick? no. how curious for such a dangerous substance.
|
On August 08 2011 00:18 caradoc wrote:
were there any reports of anyone being sick? no. how curious for such a dangerous substance.
Have you even read a single page of this 21 page thread before contributing that utterly asinine statement? Get out.
We have been through how raw milk contains tons of bacteria and is a breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria including tuberculosis. It only takes a small amount of milk with TB to trigger a major epidemic in the region given cross contamination, human to human transmission, etc. Do we have to wait till the epidemic happens before we can take action or can we take action preemptively?
Also, just because it's dangerous doesn't mean that every person who ingests it has to have some sort of fatal infection. That would mean it's TOXIC. It's dangerous because of the inherently high risk. And people in this thread have already highlighted a number of cases where raw milk was responsible for a disease outbreak and how pasteurization helped solve the issues.
Or are you just simply willfully ignorant....
|
On August 08 2011 01:08 Necrophantasia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 00:18 caradoc wrote:
were there any reports of anyone being sick? no. how curious for such a dangerous substance. Have you even read a single page of this 21 page thread before contributing that utterly asinine statement? Get out. We have been through how raw milk contains tons of bacteria and is a breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria including tuberculosis. It only takes a small amount of milk with TB to trigger a major epidemic in the region given cross contamination, human to human transmission, etc. Do we have to wait till the epidemic happens before we can take action or can we take action preemptively? Also, just because it's dangerous doesn't mean that every person who ingests it has to have some sort of fatal infection. That would mean it's TOXIC. It's dangerous because of the inherently high risk. And people in this thread have already highlighted a number of cases where raw milk was responsible for a disease outbreak and how pasteurization helped solve the issues. Or are you just simply willfully ignorant....
everything contains bacteria. I've posted links as well as posted at length on how much of this argumentation doesn't hold water when the full range of evidence is considered.
I could use the same thing you've just said to respond to your post, but that isn't getting anywhere.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read the whole thread. I'm sure you've read posts that agree with your perspective, which is a good start, but hardly enough. So you'd best get started. =)
|
Maybe They are afraid you may spread a disease u caught from the milk and constiuent a public safety hazard??/
|
On August 07 2011 19:11 BrTarolg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to post one more time in this thread
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive
As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry.
As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink.
In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
|
On August 08 2011 02:40 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 19:11 BrTarolg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to post one more time in this thread
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive
As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry.
As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink.
In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take? BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
He was likely referencing the fact that cattle raised in industrial settings are significantly more prone to infections due to both their compromised immune systems, and the fact that the conditions they are raised in are extremely prone to bacterial contamination, requiring the mass administering of antibiotics (and also causing the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in these settings).
He didn't do a great job though.
|
On August 07 2011 15:19 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 11:48 xarthaz wrote:On August 07 2011 11:44 mahnini wrote:On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote:
Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety. ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?). arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense. How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people) To be clear, your conclusion is that public safety is, in fact, not a reasonable public policy goal because it is not attainable in all situations? Seriously? You might need to step back and think about whether that makes sense. You are absolutely terrible at this, and the faux intellectualism you display does not make you more persuasive. Obviously no one has stated that the ONLY government goal should be the safety of people. Freedom is also an important goal, but government must weigh the effects of personal freedom against the potential harm to safety of others. There is a balancing act here. It's hard for me to believe that no one else has raised this as the prime issue, and it's why the "brain vessel" idea is so incredibly nonsensical. Everyone knows it is, but no one has explicitly said that the reason is that individual freedom, another government goal, would be totally destroyed. So, since all normal people can recognize that governments must balance contradictory goals, the idea that "well, if you can't do it all the time, you shouldn't ever do it" is just inconceivable as a point of argumentation. Look, I think I get the framework of your argument. In order for this raid to be justified, all of the following must be true: 1. The FDA was enforcing a valid law. 2. The law was made based upon science that supports it as beneficial to public health. 3. The government should make laws which benefit the public health You appear to take issue with #3. Which is bizarre. Notice that it does not say "The government in all cases should enact the laws which ensure the most certain public safety." So far, this second statement is all that you have attacked. It is the only way that your extension to brain vessels makes any sense. However, it is not necessary to use this second formulation in the logical pattern I presented above. So, basically, you set up an unnecessary condition to the logical formulation, knocked it down, and claimed victory. You cannot simply introduce extraneous conditions such as your "in all circumstances without regard to other public good" without a good reason.
Exactly.
I swear the OP in this thread was the most useless thing I have ever seen. It has resulted in over 20 pages of worthless argumentation when it comes down to some pretty basic facts (which the poster I am quoting outlines).
It is irrelevant whether or not you think drinking raw milk is safe or not... What is relevant is that this guy was selling milk which did not meet the criteria for sale as raw milk. There are a lot of ways and reasons it could *not* meet the criteria; I support having criteria instead of epidemics.
I don't care if any of you want to go drink raw milk. I do care if you want to drink unsafe raw milk and run the risk of fucking a bunch of people over.
Edit: the OP has been updated. Some of you should read it.
|
On August 08 2011 02:50 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 02:40 mahnini wrote:On August 07 2011 19:11 BrTarolg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to post one more time in this thread
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive
As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry.
As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink.
In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take? BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11. He was likely referencing the fact that cattle raised in industrial settings are significantly more prone to infections due to both their compromised immune systems, and the fact that the conditions they are raised in are extremely prone to bacterial contamination, requiring the mass administering of antibiotics (and also causing the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in these settings). He didn't do a great job though.
Pasteurization nearly eliminates any risk of bacterial growth whatsoever in a non-chemical way. Antibiotic-resistant strains do not belong in the discussion concerning pasteurization given that they confer no additional resistance to the procedure. Pasteurization is not an antibiotic. You're just confusing people now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
