• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A new standard of absurdity

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I just had to bring this forward to start a new post. Here is the rationale for Mr. Anti-R-CALF.

Quote:
Sandbag: "Is complete SRM removal based on sound science?"

NO!

So why should we base bse testing on sound science he asks?

Here's the deal. Japan makes their own rules as you've stated. We either abide by them and ship beef to them or we don't but in that process, we have to decide what actions we will support and what actions we won't.

Agreeing to remove all SRMs is hardly the same as agreeing to create an "ILLUSION" of safety by bse testing cattle under 24 months of age with tests that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age.

Here's where I can give you lattitude Sandbag, if Creekstone has a usda approved test that will reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age, I say too, let them test and absorb the costs of testing but that's not the case.

Moot point anyway, Japan has already accepted our beef without testing.


Quote:
Sandbag: "Does it make the product any safer?"


NO!

Japan's rules, not ours. Again, we have the ability to pick and choose what rules we will abide by and what rules we won't.

Here, let me help you out with another typical Sandbag spin question.

WELL, WELL, ISN'T TOTAL SRM REMOVAL CREATING AN "ILLUSION OF SAFETY"???

Their rules Sandbag, not ours! That doesn't justify supporting consumer fraud.

NEXT!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK........SH's "givens";
Creekstone's testing would not be based on sound science.
Complete SRM removal is also not based on sound science.
Testing does nothing to make the product any safer.
Complete SRM removal also does nothing to make the product any safer

SH's deductions;
Providing tested beef would be deception as the Japanese obviously think BSE tested means BSE free, or they wouldn't ask for it.

Even though complete SRM removal does not make the product safer, it is not deception because we get to pick and choose what rules we abide by.

Hmmmmm :shock: ,one process that does nothing to make the product safer is deception, but another process that does nothing to make the product safer is a rule that we can pick and choose?

Another head scratcher.... 100% testing was an unreasonable request, but total SRM removal is their rule, not ours. :shock:

SH, what are the rules of your game here? How do you decide what is deception and what we can pick and choose? What is the difference between an unreasonable request and simply, "their rules"?

Why does the USDA say trade must be based on sound science and even ban a procedure because it is not based on sound science, and then sign a contract that has requirements not based on sound science? Is sound science only a requirement on Tuesdays?

I'm just so full of questions.... :???:

Does SH's reasoning make sense to ANYBODY? Please, help me out? ANYBODY?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag,

I realize you are struggling with your inability to justify consumer fraud but it's really quite simple. Here's an apples to apples comparison to help you in your struggle.

In the United States, USDA allows companies to sell growth hormone free beef even though the science says that there is not enough estrogen in growth hormones to create any food safety problems. Nobody is going to be hurt by "growth hormone free beef". The USDA is not going to ban the sale of growth hormone beef simply because the science doesn't support it because nobody is hurt by it.

In contrast, the USDA would not approve an ecoli test that would not reveal ecoli. That would be consumer fraud.

Same as with Japan. Nobody is hurt by total SRM removal. Even though we do not agree with it, if that is the only way to ship beef to Japan and those are their rules, we are not hurt by removing all SRMs.

In contrast, the USDA is not going to support BSE TESTS that create an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY". There is no reason to bse test unless that test will do what people think it will do.

HOW FRICKING STUPID IS IT TO MAKE CONSUMERS BELIEVE "BSE TESTED" MEANS "BSE FREE" IF IT DOESN'T???

Why are you so adamant about defending consumer fraud?

WHO BENEFITS FROM BSE TESTED BEEF IF THOSE TESTS ARE A FARSE???



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, " Nobody is hurt by total SRM removal."

Nobody is hurt by testing, either. Why the double standard?

SH, "In contrast, the USDA is not going to support BSE TESTS that create an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY". There is no reason to bse test unless that test will do what people think it will do."

Why is testing an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY" and total SRM removal not? Why the double standard?

SH, "Why are you so adamant about defending consumer fraud?"

Why is testing fraud but SRM removal not when neither is based on sound science and neither makes the product any safer? Why the double standard?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
SH, " Nobody is hurt by total SRM removal."

Nobody is hurt by testing, either. Why the double standard?

SH, "In contrast, the USDA is not going to support BSE TESTS that create an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY". There is no reason to bse test unless that test will do what people think it will do."

Why is testing an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY" and total SRM removal not? Why the double standard?

SH, "Why are you so adamant about defending consumer fraud?"

Why is testing fraud but SRM removal not when neither is based on sound science and neither makes the product any safer? Why the double standard?

Sandhusker, lets let the mental ward have him back now. We have done all we can for him.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Does SH's reasoning make sense to ANYBODY? Please, help me out? ANYBODY?

I will have to say that he is the epitomy of ineffective reasoning.

I think he just likes the attention and will say anything to gain some. I really do. And I'm not laughing either.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Nobody is hurt by testing, either. Why the double standard?"

Sandbag: "Why is testing an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY" and total SRM removal not? Why the double standard?"

Sandbag: "Why is testing fraud but SRM removal not when neither is based on sound science and neither makes the product any safer?"


Consumers are hurt by testing when the tests being conducted are not doing what consumers think they are doing. That is consumer fraud and we have laws against consumer fraud in the United States.

You fail to understand that the USDA is held accountable for their actions towards other countries BY US CONSUMERS as well as Japanese consumers. Just because some Japanese consumers think that BSE testing provides safety is no reason to do it.

Do you think US consumers would support bse testing of cattle under 24 months of age for Japan if they knew those tests would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age? Yes or no?

Producers are hurt by testing when they have to pay for tests that are not justified. The benefits of the Japanese market are not offset by duping Japanese consumers into believing "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE".

There is no comparison between endorsing consumer fraud and agreeing to another countries standards, that are excessive. We are not hurt by total SRM removal for another country even if it's not supported by science. In contrast, we would be hurt by supporting consumer fraud.

Apples to watermelons.

No double standard!

Try again!


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
We are not hurt by total SRM removal for another country even if it's not supported by science.

Do you know how much the packers claim that total SRM removal costs them? Give it a guess. When you find out the answer who is gonna pay for it?
 

greg

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
SH, " Nobody is hurt by total SRM removal."

Nobody is hurt by testing, either. Why the double standard?

SH, "In contrast, the USDA is not going to support BSE TESTS that create an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY". There is no reason to bse test unless that test will do what people think it will do."

Why is testing an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY" and total SRM removal not? Why the double standard?

SH, "Why are you so adamant about defending consumer fraud?"

Why is testing fraud but SRM removal not when neither is based on sound science and neither makes the product any safer? Why the double standard?
As much as I hate someone telling me I have to radio tag a calf with my brand on it----it needs to be done-times change
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Nobody is hurt by testing, either. Why the double standard?"

Sandbag: "Why is testing an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY" and total SRM removal not? Why the double standard?"

Sandbag: "Why is testing fraud but SRM removal not when neither is based on sound science and neither makes the product any safer?"


SH, "Consumers are hurt by testing when the tests being conducted are not doing what consumers think they are doing. That is consumer fraud and we have laws against consumer fraud in the United States."

You're forgeting the total SRM removal requirement. You said yourself it does nothing to make the product safer. Again I ask, why is one fraud but not the other?

SH, "You fail to understand that the USDA is held accountable for their actions towards other countries BY US CONSUMERS as well as Japanese consumers. Just because some Japanese consumers think that BSE testing provides safety is no reason to do it."

BUT WHAT IS DIFFERENT THAN TOTAL SRM REMOVAL?

[Do you think US consumers would support bse testing of cattle under 24 months of age for Japan if they knew those tests would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age? Yes or no?

Yes. I think US consumers would take the logical approach and say, If they want it and will pay for it, who are you to question their motives?"

SH, "Producers are hurt by testing when they have to pay for tests that are not justified. The benefits of the Japanese market are not offset by duping Japanese consumers into believing "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE"."

First of all, Japan said they would pay for the tests. You know that. Secondly, what about the cost of SRM removal? You tried that one on Rod many times. Why the sudden loss of memory?

SH, "There is no comparison between endorsing consumer fraud and agreeing to another countries standards, that are excessive. We are not hurt by total SRM removal for another country even if it's not supported by science. In contrast, we would be hurt by supporting consumer fraud.
Apples to watermelons. No double standard! Try again!

What is the difference, SH?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Guys,

Answer this one question! If US consumers were aware that USDA had approved a bse test on cattle under 24 months of age that would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age, do you think they would support that action, YES OR NO???

Would US consumers support USDA allowing Creekstone to bse test for Japan knowing that the test would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age? YES OR NO????

I say NO WAY IN HELL would they approve such an action.

Would US consumers support USDA shipping beef to Japan with all SRM's removed?

YOU BET!

That's the difference!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Guys,

Answer this one question! If US consumers were aware that USDA had approved a bse test on cattle under 24 months of age that would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age, do you think they would support that action, YES OR NO???

Would US consumers support USDA allowing Creekstone to bse test for Japan knowing that the test would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age? YES OR NO????

I say NO WAY IN HELL would they approve such an action.

Would US consumers support USDA shipping beef to Japan with all SRM's removed?

YOU BET!

That's the difference!


~SH~

What leads you to believe US consumers would have a double standard?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Answer this one question! If US consumers were aware that USDA had approved a bse test on cattle under 24 months of age that would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age, do you think they would support that action, YES OR NO???

Show us PROOF that the tests won't reveal prions in cattle under 24 months.

The burden of proof is on you because you made the statement.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Yes. I think US consumers would take the logical approach and say, If they want it and will pay for it, who are you to question their motives?"

Hahaha! You think US consumers would support bse testing for Japan knowing that those tests would not reveal bse prions?

YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR FLIPPIN' MIND!


Sandbag: "First of all, Japan said they would pay for the tests. You know that. Secondly, what about the cost of SRM removal? You tried that one on Rod many times. Why the sudden loss of memory?"

Talk is cheap! Japan would have paid less for the cattle to offset the costs of testing.

If Japan was so adamant about testing, why did they accept US beef without testing??? DOES THAT REGISTER????

The costs of SRM removal is subjective. SRM removal for beef exported to Japan does not mean that those items are not utilized in the United States.

SRM removal costs are not SRM removal costs and Rod's costs only considered the cost of ACTUAL REMOVAL, not the cost of lost value. Rod lost that one.

You got nothing here Sandbag but you keep hammering and hammering and hammering on the same empty arguments.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You diverted Sandbag, answer the question. Would US consumers support bse testing beef for Japan from cattle under 24 months of age knowing that the tests would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age.

Mike you also diverted the question and you already answered your own question. Creekstone's Fielding stated, "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE". Why would Fielding make that statement if it wasn't true????

You got nothing here guys except eachother for moral support.


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Mike said:
Answer this one question! If US consumers were aware that USDA had approved a bse test on cattle under 24 months of age that would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age, do you think they would support that action, YES OR NO???

Show us PROOF that the tests won't reveal prions in cattle under 24 months.

The burden of proof is on you because you made the statement.

Prove it SH, Prove it!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike, ahem,

If US consumers were aware that USDA had approved a bse test on cattle under 24 months of age that would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age, do you think they would support that action, YES OR NO???

Yes or no Mike?


The lengths you guys will go to support consumer fraud is nothing short of unbelievable.

Why would Fielding say "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE" if that was not the case considering that statement would be counter-productive to his goal of accessing the Japanese market?

He was put on the spot and unlike you guys, he had the integrity to tell the truth. He didn't try to pretend their bse test would do something it wouldn't.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Quote:
Sandbag: "Yes. I think US consumers would take the logical approach and say, If they want it and will pay for it, who are you to question their motives?"


SH, "Hahaha! You think US consumers would support bse testing for Japan knowing that those tests would not reveal bse prions? YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR FLIPPIN' MIND! "

Whats the difference between that and total SRM removal that doesn't make the product any safer?

Again , for the third time now I ask, why is one fraud but not the other?

You have yet to explain your double standard? What is the difference between the two?
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Answer this one question! If US consumers were aware that USDA had approved a bse test on cattle under 24 months of age that would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age, do you think they would support that action, YES OR NO???

Would US consumers support USDA allowing Creekstone to bse test for Japan knowing that the test would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age? YES OR NO????

Its not US consumers that are buying the Japanese beef, its Japanese consumers, and they want the tests. Your US consumer question is nothing more than a diversion. And if you think that you, or the US consumer for that matter, know more about BSE testing and BSE tests than the Japanese government and the Japanese consumer, you're dreaming. They've lived with the disease for longer than we have, they've had more cases of it, and its hurting their economy more than it hurts ours. You better believe they know AT LEAST as much as we do, if not a whole lot more.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I already explained the difference between the two Sandbag. It's not my fault you can't comprehend it.

For the last and final time, consumers will accept total SRM removal ("something they believe might make the product safer but doesn't make the product less safe") but they will not accept deceptive bse testing (something that creates an "illusion of safety" and something they know, ONCE INFORMED, will absolutely not make the product safer).

That's the difference!


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Mike said:
Mike said:
Answer this one question! If US consumers were aware that USDA had approved a bse test on cattle under 24 months of age that would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age, do you think they would support that action, YES OR NO???

Show us PROOF that the tests won't reveal prions in cattle under 24 months.

The burden of proof is on you because you made the statement.

Prove it SH, Prove it!

Prove it SH, Prove it. Like you always say, It was your statement, the burden of proof is on you. Are you lying, or just don't know the hell you're talking about? Which is it?

Watch this folks!
 
Top