Rainjack,
I find it ironic that you accuse me of devaluing this thread when I did not make a single personal attack, yet your last two posts were laced with them.
As for “putting words in your mouth,” you have insinuated many times in this thread that cows need a source of protein to survive, the obvious inference being that offal is one such source and, in your opinion, a good one. Here is one example of such statement about the importance of protein from you:
“But even those that remain on grass are supplemented with either cotton seed meal, or soy bean meal because most grass has a very low protein content.”
I already quoted earlier your statements about feeding cows animal products to meet the protein requirement you alluded to numerous times.
As for my statement about abortion, I think you missed the point. The point is not to make this an emotional debate, far from it; the point is that I don’t undertand what the difference is between feeding cows chunks of meat and feeding them a powder of other cows. Earlier you said something like, “It’s not like they are throwing chunks of meat into the field. The animal products are ground into a flower that you wouldn’t recognize if not labeled.”
Again, so what? My point is that some would argue that abortion is not a big deal when the soon-to-be child is a tiny ball of cells; nearly everyone objects when it actually looks somewhat like a baby. You are saying there is no big deal when it is a powder, yet would agree that it would be gross if it were chunks of beef.
My assertion is that to many, both lines of thinking are flawed; very intelligent people could argue that the act is the same no matter what the form. One could say, and I’m not necessarily saying it, that aborting a ball of cells or a baby-like fetus are both wrong because they both stop a potential life from coming into existence. I would say that feeding a cow powdered animal parts or the whole parts in chunks are both unsettling. I take no position in the abortion debate with this analogy; I’m merely trying to illustrate a point. Surely you can understand that. Your knee-jerk reaction to the use of the word “abortion” is misplaced and unwarranted.
So, please explain why I should care whether a cow eats chunks of meat thrown into the field versus a ground up animal in powdered form? What is the difference? Keep in mind that certain religions forbid consumption of animals that eat other animals’ flesh (and I think God cares not for the distinction between powder or chunk form).
Finally, in so far as you’ve said that I have spoiled the good debate that was going on in this thread, you are similarly incorrect. All that was transpiring before I posted was lots of “Wow! Thanks Rainjack for teaching me something new” posts. I appear to be the only person that disagrees with you on this thread. Since then you’ve responded with personal attacks and claims that I’ve ruined the thread. Is that any way to step up to and maturely handle dissent, Rainjack? Is it that I’ve ruined the thread, or is it that I disagree with you? It can’t be that for you the distinction between a healthy debate and a worthless argument is simply because everyone agrees with you in the former.
I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.
