Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

You Are The [Magical Ponycorn Meat] You Didn't Even Know You Were Eating

2456

Posts

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Also, unless the horses were bred for meat (don't know this part), it is fucking dangerous.

    Horses receive shitloads of medicines, antibiotics and steroids that humans should NOT be digesting, even the trace amounts that reside in the muscle and fatty tissue.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    CindersMr RayshrykeAlistair Hutton
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    No no, you see, there are trace amounts of insects in any given meat therefore standards aren't necessary.

    Yeah, it's the difference between realizing that crime may and will still happen, and realizing that the city actually replaced the cops with mannequins in uniforms long ago. And the only thing deterring criminals from doing what they want to you is that they haven't chosen to yet.

    To a lot of people, this feels like the latter. Like a systemic issue, that suggests that the whole system isn't even functioning. Mainly, I guess, due to the scale.

    Could be an overreaction. But maybe not. Definitely worth making some noise over, because next time it may not just be horse.

    Companies will do what they can, including killing you, if it will make them a dollar. We need to give the impression that there are actual cops on the beat.

    The EnderArthil
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    We can't eat horses because we don't eat horses.

    No, you can't sell horse meat because horses aren't bred as food livestock. Horses don't fit into the category of animals that are bred for consumption.

    I disagree with the practice of livestock breeding, personally, but the person you've quoted is not making the fallacy that you think they are making.

    With Love and Courage
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    No no, you see, there are trace amounts of insects in any given meat therefore standards aren't necessary.

    Yeah, it's the difference between realizing that crime may and will still happen, and realizing that the city actually replaced the cops with mannequins in uniforms long ago. And the only thing deterring criminals from doing what they want to you is that they haven't chosen to yet.

    To a lot of people, this feels like the latter. Like a systemic issue, that suggests that the whole system isn't even functioning. Mainly, I guess, due to the scale.

    Could be an overreaction. But maybe not. Definitely worth making some noise over, because next time it may not just be horse.

    Companies will do what they can, including killing you, if it will make them a dollar. We need to give the impression that there are actual cops on the beat.

    And, you know, something as simple as allergies.

    Which apparently for horse meat is also linked to allergies to hamsters?

    Human bodies are weird.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    We can't eat horses because we don't eat horses.

    No, you can't sell horse meat because horses aren't bred as food livestock. Horses don't fit into the category of animals that are bred for consumption.

    I disagree with the practice of livestock breeding, personally, but the person you've quoted is not making the fallacy that you think they are making.

    Horses are not bred as food livestock in the U.S. However, we aren't talking about U.S. horsemeat production. This article goes into some of the backstory. It seems that the source of the horsemeat may have been Romania, and Romania "has some 25 horsemeat slaughterhouses and exports horsemeat to Cyprus, France, Poland and the Netherlands, often through middlemen, officials said."

    Unless someone has another article they can cite, it doesn't seem that the issue is "this meat was not produced for human consumption".

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Oh good, the mystery meat that consumers were defrauded into buying & eating came from that bastion of food safety regulation, Romania.

    This makes me feel much better.

    With Love and Courage
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    What are the regulations on those slaughterhouses and how do they differ from other meat?

    Also you can't just ignore the moral and ethical implications of selling people different meat than they expect because you want to be a emotionless drone J.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Morality / Ethics is dumb. Go read the history of western ethical / moral debates, and try to come away from it with the notion that this results from correct thinking, and not just a reification of emotive nonsense.

    Ok, so that's the moral / ethical considerations solved.

    lol

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Morality / Ethics is dumb. Go read the history of western ethical / moral debates, and try to come away from it with the notion that this results from correct thinking, and not just a reification of emotive nonsense.

    Ok, so that's the moral / ethical considerations solved.

    lol

    It's like, if you don't want to deal with society go live in a shack in Montana already.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Yeah, it's the difference between realizing that crime may and will still happen, and realizing that the city actually replaced the cops with mannequins in uniforms long ago. And the only thing deterring criminals from doing what they want to you is that they haven't chosen to yet.

    To a lot of people, this feels like the latter. Like a systemic issue, that suggests that the whole system isn't even functioning. Mainly, I guess, due to the scale.

    Could be an overreaction. But maybe not. Definitely worth making some noise over, because next time it may not just be horse.

    Companies will do what they can, including killing you, if it will make them a dollar. We need to give the impression that there are actual cops on the beat.

    This phrases it better than I have.

    Like, I know, it's exaggerating / overreacting to say that, well, since they put horse meat in there, they'd put anything in there. But the point is that the body intended to stop them from doing just that didn't work. I'm sure somebody at a plant would say, "Woah, fuck this, I'm drawing the line here," if somebody was going to suggest putting Soylent Green on the market.

    But I don't want to have to rely on that somebody, because they're not always there, and they can lose the argument at the end of the day while a regulator (within a working system) can't.

    With Love and Courage
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Oh good, the mystery meat that consumers were defrauded into buying & eating came from that bastion of food safety regulation, Romania.

    This makes me feel much better.

    I can't find much about the actual health concerns. There's this, "Authorities aren't worried about health effects, but it has unsettled consumers across Europe and raised questions about producers misleading the public." but that lack of worry could result from indifference, rather than there actually being no actual health concern.

    I haven't yet found a clear articulation of Romanian food safety standards. I did find a list of Romanian customs regulations, in case anyone is planning a visit.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Kagera wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Morality / Ethics is dumb. Go read the history of western ethical / moral debates, and try to come away from it with the notion that this results from correct thinking, and not just a reification of emotive nonsense.

    Ok, so that's the moral / ethical considerations solved.

    lol

    It's like, if you don't want to deal with society go live in a shack in Montana already.

    There are a few different issues in this situation.

    1) Food Label does not correspond to the content of the package / Consumer information.
    2) EWWWW HORSEY
    3) Nutrition

    Morality and ethics seems to fit into #2, and that's the silly category of silliness.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Morality / Ethics is dumb. Go read the history of western ethical / moral debates, and try to come away from it with the notion that this results from correct thinking, and not just a reification of emotive nonsense.

    Ok, so that's the moral / ethical considerations solved.

    lol

    It's like, if you don't want to deal with society go live in a shack in Montana already.

    There are a few different issues in this situation.

    1) Food Label does not correspond to the content of the package / Consumer information.
    2) EWWWW HORSEY
    3) Nutrition

    Morality and ethics seems to fit into #2, and that's the silly category of silliness.

    I know you believe so but there are many people who would think you are the silly one for disregarding a persons concerns because 'lol emotions'.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Yeah, it's the difference between realizing that crime may and will still happen, and realizing that the city actually replaced the cops with mannequins in uniforms long ago. And the only thing deterring criminals from doing what they want to you is that they haven't chosen to yet.

    To a lot of people, this feels like the latter. Like a systemic issue, that suggests that the whole system isn't even functioning. Mainly, I guess, due to the scale.

    Could be an overreaction. But maybe not. Definitely worth making some noise over, because next time it may not just be horse.

    Companies will do what they can, including killing you, if it will make them a dollar. We need to give the impression that there are actual cops on the beat.

    This phrases it better than I have.

    Like, I know, it's exaggerating / overreacting to say that, well, since they put horse meat in there, they'd put anything in there. But the point is that the body intended to stop them from doing just that didn't work. I'm sure somebody at a plant would say, "Woah, fuck this, I'm drawing the line here," if somebody was going to suggest putting Soylent Green on the market.

    But I don't want to have to rely on that somebody, because they're not always there, and they can lose the argument at the end of the day while a regulator (within a working system) can't.

    I haven't found any articles that say "the body intended to stop them from doing just that didn't work". The horse meat seems to have come from places that slaughter horses. And it was knowingly and willfully bought.

    And I may be wrong. So, please, if someone has an article that says Burger King was, in fact, duped into purchasing horse when they thought it was cow share that article.

    But that doesn't seem to be the case. It's not that Burger King was duped. Rather, Burger King wanted to save some money, and so duped its customers.

    Like with the "pink slime" situation. Food suppliers damn well know what they were buying. They just didn't tell the consumers.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I know you believe so but there are many people who would think you are the silly one for disregarding a persons concerns because 'lol emotions'.

    I have this feeling that J would be the first person to indulge in those 'silly emotions' if he was ripped-off even a little bit at the supermarket.

    With Love and Courage
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    I don't know J may have finally reached that point where he's removed all humanity from himself like a sociopath.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I haven't found any articles that say "the body intended to stop them from doing just that didn't work". The horse meat seems to have come from places that slaughter horses. And it was knowingly and willfully bought.

    And I may be wrong. So, please, if someone has an article that says Burger King was, in fact, duped into purchasing horse when they thought it was cow share that article.

    But that doesn't seem to be the case. It's not that Burger King was duped. Rather, Burger King wanted to save some money, and so duped its customers.

    Like with the "pink slime" situation. Food suppliers damn well know what they were buying. They just didn't tell the consumers.

    Nope.

    http://www.fsai.ie/news_centre/oireachtas_05.02.2013.html

    The food manufacturers (listed in the OP) had their stock adulterated, then sold the adulterated stock to retailers. The retailers immediately took the products off of the shelf after subsequent testing revealed the nature of the food they'd bought.

    So, there was an absolute failure of regulation at the manufacturing level. It plainly states in the article:
    The finding of even trace amounts of equine DNA in beef products, even if of no public health concern, is relevant and worthy of further consideration in cases when the manufacturing plant does not handle horse meat products.

    For plants that do not handle horse meat it is relevant to explain how contamination has occurred. On 14th January, we discussed the survey findings with management from both plants who confirmed that they did not use or process equine material in their plants.

    "We found horse meat in your food. How did it get there?"

    "We dunno."

    That is a tremendous failure in regulation.

    With Love and Courage
    Geth
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    The Ender wrote: »
    I know you believe so but there are many people who would think you are the silly one for disregarding a persons concerns because 'lol emotions'.

    I have this feeling that J would be the first person to indulge in those 'silly emotions' if he was ripped-off even a little bit at the supermarket.

    Which doesn't actually make them less silly in any way. Just because we regularly carry out a fallacy, that doesn't mean that that fallacy somehow becomes valid. Everything we do is affected by our emotions, but that just means that in order to make rational decisions, we need to understand those emotions and try to eliminate them from our arguments.

    Edit: That being said, _J_, you're kind of arguing against a claim that no one is actually making. As far as I can tell, no one in this thread actually considers the fact that the meat was from horses of all things to be the primary issue, other than acknowledging that some members of the public are going to be stupid about it. The issues being brought up are:

    1: Meat was incorrectly labeled and sold (not THAT big an issue if it's on a small scale, but still worth investigation).
    2: The incorrect product came from outside the normal supply chain (a much bigger issue, since if something like that can slip through it shows a major breakdown in control, which could lead to real issues if not handled).

    The same issues would be in place if a shipper had managed to label tofu as beef. There would just be less whining from the sort of people who don't deserve to make arguments.

    jothki on
    _J_Zombiemambo
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    The thing is, there's nothing irrational about feeling ripped-off when you actually have been ripped-off. Philosophy is not about discounting human emotions as some constantly irrational force, or (say) mathematics above all else (well, unless you're a strict Platonist. And good luck with that if you are, I guess).

    In any case, this ain't a philosophy discussion. This is a discussion about meat being sold to customers as 100% BEEF!, when it was actually mostly horse.

    With Love and Courage
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I haven't found any articles that say "the body intended to stop them from doing just that didn't work". The horse meat seems to have come from places that slaughter horses. And it was knowingly and willfully bought.

    And I may be wrong. So, please, if someone has an article that says Burger King was, in fact, duped into purchasing horse when they thought it was cow share that article.

    But that doesn't seem to be the case. It's not that Burger King was duped. Rather, Burger King wanted to save some money, and so duped its customers.

    Like with the "pink slime" situation. Food suppliers damn well know what they were buying. They just didn't tell the consumers.

    Nope.

    http://www.fsai.ie/news_centre/oireachtas_05.02.2013.html

    The food manufacturers (listed in the OP) had their stock adulterated, then sold the adulterated stock to retailers. The retailers immediately took the products off of the shelf after subsequent testing revealed the nature of the food they'd bought.

    So, there was an absolute failure of regulation at the manufacturing level. It plainly states in the article:
    The finding of even trace amounts of equine DNA in beef products, even if of no public health concern, is relevant and worthy of further consideration in cases when the manufacturing plant does not handle horse meat products.

    For plants that do not handle horse meat it is relevant to explain how contamination has occurred. On 14th January, we discussed the survey findings with management from both plants who confirmed that they did not use or process equine material in their plants.

    "We found horse meat in your food. How did it get there?"

    "We dunno."

    That is a tremendous failure in regulation.

    Maybe. Another relevant part of the article you linked is this:

    "The FSAI considered that there was no risk to consumer health associated with these findings. When assessing risk, the FSAI bases all its decisions on sound science. In this case, we evaluated the potential risks, such as the presence of bacteria or residues of animal drugs. Firstly, if bacteria were present, they would be killed by cooking and as these burgers are cooked before they are eaten, there would be no risk to consumer health. Secondly, we also had the burgers that tested positive for horse DNA, tested for the presence of a range of animal remedies including phenylbutazone by the State Laboratory on 10th December. Phenylbutazone is a commonly used medicine in horses. Once administered to a horse, the animal is not allowed in the food chain. The FSAI received these results on 19th December and all the results were negative for the presence of phenylbutazone and other drugs."

    No animals that would not have been allowed into the food chain were allowed into the food chain. So, to some degree, the regulations functioned. Horses that were full of medicine and drugs were not put into Whoppers.

    As you said, there is a problem of not knowing how horse meat ended up in a Whopper. But before we conclude that this was a "tremendous failure in regulation" we need to rule out "The people who run Burger King are assholes." Because, again, none of the tested horse meat contained chemicals that would have excluded it from being entered into the food chain.

    All the horse that was eaten, as far as we can tell, was eatin' horse. Nobody ate a ridin' horse. So, to some degree, regulation functioned.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Okay: they didn't find Phenylbutazone, which is an extremely dangerous drug for humans to take, inside of the tested meat.

    This is your idea of 'functional' regulation? That after someone already ate it, we were able to confirm that they didn't ingest a potentially lethal dose of narcotics?


    I mean, hey, we sold them something that they would never have bought, it was potentially dangerous and we have both no idea how it got there or why it wasn't discovered before being packaged for consumption, but hey! It wasn't poison.

    Therefore, regulation was successful.

    Carry on, guys.

    With Love and Courage
    Zombiemambo
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Okay: they didn't find Phenylbutazone, which is an extremely dangerous drug for humans to take, inside of the tested meat.

    This is your idea of 'functional' regulation? That after someone already ate it, we were able to confirm that they didn't ingest a potentially lethal dose of narcotics?


    I mean, hey, we sold them something that they would never have bought, it was potentially dangerous and we have both no idea how it got there or why it wasn't discovered before being packaged for consumption, but hey! It wasn't poison.

    Therefore, regulation was successful.

    Carry on, guys.

    No. There seem to be two sets of horses:

    1) Eatin' horses.
    2) Ridin' horses.

    The distinction is that ridin' horses are given medication / chemicals that are not for human consumption. Eatin' horses are not given these chemicals, since they are for eatin'. As far as we seem able to tell, from our Googlin, all of the horse meat that was found and tested came from the set of eatin' horses.

    So, at that level, some regulation functioned: The regulation of distinguishing eatin' horses from ridin' horses.

    Now, did other regulations fail? Maybe. Or maybe the people at Burger King intentionally bought horse meat and are covering it up. Maybe. I don't know.

    But just as it's not the case that 100% of regulation functioned, we did not have a 100% failure of regulation. Because, again, only eatin' horses were eaten.

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    This was A Bad Thing.

    It wasn't The End Of The World.

    I think Ender is over-reacting.

    Dunno what else to say really. Except maybe just assuming Romania has poor food safety because lolforeign is unfair?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Maybe. Or maybe the people at Burger King intentionally bought horse meat and are covering it up. Maybe. I don't know.

    So, maybe regulation failed. Or, maybe Burger King engaged in an international conspiracy to acquire horse meat patties, with no benefit to themselves (since they bought the meat from the manufacturer at full cost, just as if it had been 100% beef) and even though said conspiracy caused them financial losses as they ultimately threw out the patties.

    That's a tough call!

    With Love and Courage
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Dunno what else to say really. Except maybe just assuming Romania has poor food safety because lolforeign is unfair?

    It's not that Romania is 'lolforeign'. Romania's government is demonstrably corrupt & it's policing agencies are barely functional. But, again, not really the thread for that.

    With Love and Courage
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Maybe. Or maybe the people at Burger King intentionally bought horse meat and are covering it up. Maybe. I don't know.

    So, maybe regulation failed. Or, maybe Burger King engaged in an international conspiracy to acquire horse meat patties, with no benefit to themselves (since they bought the meat from the manufacturer at full cost, just as if it had been 100% beef) and even though said conspiracy caused them financial losses as they ultimately threw out the patties.

    That's a tough call!

    "Some" regulation failed. You keep leaving out the "some".

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Okay: they didn't find Phenylbutazone, which is an extremely dangerous drug for humans to take, inside of the tested meat.

    This is your idea of 'functional' regulation? That after someone already ate it, we were able to confirm that they didn't ingest a potentially lethal dose of narcotics?


    I mean, hey, we sold them something that they would never have bought, it was potentially dangerous and we have both no idea how it got there or why it wasn't discovered before being packaged for consumption, but hey! It wasn't poison.

    Therefore, regulation was successful.

    Carry on, guys.

    No. There seem to be two sets of horses:

    1) Eatin' horses.
    2) Ridin' horses.

    The distinction is that ridin' horses are given medication / chemicals that are not for human consumption. Eatin' horses are not given these chemicals, since they are for eatin'. As far as we seem able to tell, from our Googlin, all of the horse meat that was found and tested came from the set of eatin' horses.

    So, at that level, some regulation functioned: The regulation of distinguishing eatin' horses from ridin' horses.

    Now, did other regulations fail? Maybe. Or maybe the people at Burger King intentionally bought horse meat and are covering it up. Maybe. I don't know.

    But just as it's not the case that 100% of regulation functioned, we did not have a 100% failure of regulation. Because, again, only eatin' horses were eaten.

    I don't think anybody is arguing that it was a 100% failure of regulation.

    Just that it was a large enough failure of regulation to suggest that it could be a systemic issue. That is not a 100% failure. But it is worthy of serious concern. Because for all we know, it's only luck that they were "eatin' horses." Or horses at all. Once you've got plants shipping out stuff that isn't the stuff they claim to be shipping out (or middlemen selling stuff that isn't what they claim to be selling, or retailers buying stuff that isn't what they claim to be serving) you've got "big problems." Because the line from "things that make us go eeeew" to "things that make us very dead" isn't that long.


    Before long, you wind up with cases like this. This happened in the U.S., in the 21st century. We were lucky that only nine people died, and no small part of that is likely due to a healthcare system that was able to both treat the cases and identify the source. It certainly wasn't because the owners of the plant gave a shit if they killed anybody.
    The indictment quoted from what prosecutors said were e-mails from the defendants. When an employee said in an e-mail in 2007 that containers of peanut meal were covered in dust and rat feces, Mr. Parnell’s response was, “Clean em’ all up and ship them.”

    In another e-mail in 2008, Mr. Parnell scolded employees for wasting peanuts, saying, “These are not peanuts you are throwing away every day, it is money, it is money,” according to the indictment.

    That is exactly who I expect to be running pretty much every food plant worldwide. And every plant that makes anything, really. It's only regulation, including fear of financial and criminal penalties, that keeps them from killing as many people as they need to in order to buy a new boat. The second they think they can get away with putting whatever into their product instead of what's supposed to be there, that's what will happen.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Dunno what else to say really. Except maybe just assuming Romania has poor food safety because lolforeign is unfair?

    Maybe it was unfair.

    But now it's actually pretty fair, because lolhorsies.

    mcdermott on
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    The Ender wrote: »

    To use my exaggerated example: If someone packaged up dead human being meat, sold it as, "100% BEEF!" and you bought it and thought, "Gee whiz, this is fantastic beef!" would it then be fair to say that well obviously you really enjoy eating other human beings?


    Well...yeah...yeah it would. Which is why one of the most famous steak-restaurants here got, after it was discovered they actually served horse-steak, more customers.

    Julius on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Well...yeah...yeah it would.

    No, it wouldn't, because that ignores all of the context surrounding your enjoyment of the product. The fact that your local restaurant increased it's customer base by offering an exotic meat is pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

    With Love and Courage
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Well...yeah...yeah it would.

    No, it wouldn't, because that ignores all of the context surrounding your enjoyment of the product. The fact that your local restaurant increased it's customer base by offering an exotic meat is pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

    Context of the enjoyment of X is irrelevant to the question of whether or not X was enjoyed.

    Your hypothetical was:

    1) Player A eats X.
    2) Player A enjoys eating X.
    3) X is human flesh.

    Question: Does Player A enjoy eating human flesh?

    The answer to that is "yes".

    If it helps I could draw a picture for you.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    I'm pretty sure foreknowledge of what you're eating plays a part in a person's enjoyment.

    I mean to all non-robot aspiring people at least.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
    Quid
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2013
    It seems like Ender is trying to subject "Player A enjoys horse meat" to the question of Propositional Attitude Reports and Frege's puzzle of truth functional paraphrases.

    Frege's Puzzle:
    1) Lois Lane believes Superman can fly.
    2) "Superman" and "Clark Kent" have the same referent.
    3) Therefore, Lois Lane believes Clark Kent can fly.

    The problem is that #3 is not actually the case.

    I would suggest that "enjoys" and "believes" are different attitudinal relations. Where "superman" and "clark kent" refer to different aspects of a particular referent, and their identity is, in some way, subject to Lois Lane's attitude and epistemic position, the question of whether Player A enjoys the consumption of a particular foodstuff is not reliant upon the label of that foodstuff, as understood by Player A.

    Player A eats X.
    Player A enjoys X.

    If Player A expects X to be "cow meat", but X is, in fact "horse meat", that expectation does not matter to the question of whether or not Player A enjoyed X. Regardless of what X, in fact, is we can focus upon the phenomena of Player A's enjoyment in order to discern whether or not Player A enjoyed the foodstuff in question.

    If X happens to be horse or human or dog or cow, that's additional information to the base question of whether or not X is enjoyable, to Player A.

    So, yeah, some people who thought they didn't enjoy horse turned out to like horse.

    _J_ on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    BBC this evening reports,that goat and donkey meat also found in supposed 100% beef...

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    BBC this evening reports,that goat and donkey meat also found in supposed 100% beef...

    Two more animals to add to our List of Delicious Things.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    BBC this evening reports,that goat and donkey meat also found in supposed 100% beef...

    Two more animals to add to our List of Delicious Things.

    Goat was already tasty, if a little tough.

    The main point for me has always been the truth in advertising issue. I may not be able to tell shit from shinola, but I still prefer the two are labelled accordingly.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    There was a settlement reached over mislabeled meat in Michigan recently. Or rather, how the meat was prepared. The chicken was still chicken but it wasn't halal.

    http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=12793

  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    I don't give a shit about people accidentally eating horse as far as their disgust goes, nor does apparently anyone else in this thread, but J just seems to be in one of his contrarian moods today and is therefore ignoring the very obvious issues at stake.

    The biggest issue here is that the regulation on meat packaging was so lax that companies got away with selling horse meat as beef. Having clear and accurate documentation of where meat is coming from is vital to prevent and contain public safety emergencies. If some of that horse had been contaminated with salmonella - or even something worse - how would they have found the source? This case is important because it demonstrates that the much vaunted oversight of the meat industry is not sufficient to protect the public. Finding out that it could have been much worse is not reassuring!

    This is much different than "pink slime", which is more a case of the public getting outraged when they find out that sausages are not in fact made with steak meat.

    In more general "the modern meat industry is disturbing" news:

    http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/02/meat-industry-still-gorging-antibiotics

    abx_sales_infographic_2.jpg
    • Of the Salmonella on ground turkey, about 78% were resistant to at least one antibiotic and half of the bacteria were resistant to three or more. These figures are up compared to 2010.

    • Nearly three-quarters of the Salmonella found on retail chicken breast were resistant to at least one antibiotic. About 12% of retail chicken breast and ground turkey samples were contaminated with Salmonella.

    • Resistance to tetracycline [an antibiotic] is up among Campylobacter on retail chicken. About 95% of chicken products were contaminated with Campylobacter, and nearly half of those bacteria were resistant to tetracyclines. This reflects an increase over last year and 2002.

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Dunno what else to say really. Except maybe just assuming Romania has poor food safety because lolforeign is unfair?

    It's not that Romania is 'lolforeign'. Romania's government is demonstrably corrupt & it's policing agencies are barely functional. But, again, not really the thread for that.

    To be fair to Romania, at least a couple of the scandals (Spanghero was one) are the result of legitimately slaughtered and fit for human consumption Romanian horsemeat being deliberately relabelled as beef by some the manufacturer of the processed product.

    There are really several issues that are being conflated. There is the accidental pork adulteration issue which comes down to lack of proper separation of factory lines, there is manufacturers buying cheap (but safe to eat) horsemeat and fraudulently selling finished products as consisting of beef, and then there is horsemeat of completely unknown origin being sold as beef at the point it enters the supply chain.

    Incidentally, my take on this is generally that processed food is the thing to avoid, especially cheap processed food, not meat per se.

    spool32V1mJobless Anarchist
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    @Ender

    You're best off dropping that line of argument with J. He's not going to accept that emotional reasons are valid because he believes himself to be unaffected by emotion and that everyone else should be. Literally. I'm not exaggerating here he made a whole thread about it.

    Just go with the other argument that this is, you know, dangerous because as you've noticed he has done fuck all to address arguments along those lines.

    shryke
Sign In or Register to comment.