Announcement from Tyson Foods

[RyanChandler]

So does the morality of the situation follow the legality?  It was ok to feed it when it was FDA approved and on the market but at the exact moment they no longer approved it, it suddenly became unethical?  I'm just curious where the 'yes sirs' derive their moral code? 

 

[knabe]

please define morality and legality.


you could include examples throughout history.

 

[knabe]

So does the morality of the situation follow the legality?  It was ok to feed it when it was FDA approved and on the market but at the exact moment they no longer approved it, it suddenly became unethical?  I'm just curious where the 'yes sirs' derive their moral code?

from john kerry.

 

[RyanChandler]

You lookin for the Websters definition or?  It was a simple question.    It's been mentioned by multiple posters in this topic that there are no ethical concerns with feeding these products because they have been deemed 'legal' by the FDA.  My question: being that many products get moved from the approved to the no longer approved list, DO you really allow the FDA to be your moral compass on the matter?

 

[knabe]

You lookin for the Websters definition or? looking for your definition so i know how to frame the answer.


  It was a simple question. but not when you asked it as you well know, these questions and answers are slippery slopes and infinite shades of gray multiplied by the number of people responding and the number of times asked of individuals over time. the answer is a continuum.  


It's been mentioned by multiple posters in this topic that there are no ethical concerns with feeding these products because they have been deemed 'legal' by the FDA. one could argue that ethical answers are addressed by the free market and freedom of association. what clouds the issue is forced association, among others.


My question: being that many products get moved from the approved to the no longer approved list, DO you really allow the FDA to be your moral compass on the matter? no one who is not a progressive does. progressivism is the religion of the left, and just like any religion, they have their clerisy and enforcement mechanism that they impose on their flock and non-believers, like any power base that finds using words like morality and law to enforce social norms deemed useful to maintain a power base of those with a genetic link to founders or a more hypocritical allegiance, rule enforcement on others.

 

[RyanChandler]

You lookin for the Websters definition or? looking for your definition so i know how to frame the answer.


  It was a simple question. but not when you asked it as you well know, these questions and answers are slippery slopes and infinite shades of gray multiplied by the number of people responding and the number of times asked of individuals over time. the answer is a continuum.  


It's been mentioned by multiple posters in this topic that there are no ethical concerns with feeding these products because they have been deemed 'legal' by the FDA. one could argue that ethical answers are addressed by the free market and freedom of association. what clouds the issue is forced association, among others.


My question: being that many products get moved from the approved to the no longer approved list, DO you really allow the FDA to be your moral compass on the matter? no one who is not a progressive does. progressivism is the religion of the left, and just like any religion, they have their clerisy and enforcement mechanism that they impose on their flock and non-believers, like any power base that finds using words like morality and law to enforce social norms deemed useful to maintain a power base of those with a genetic link to founders or a more hypocritical allegiance, rule enforcement on others.

ethical answers are addressed by the free market?  You're sick.  Think I'll start calling you Leopold II going forward. 

No one who is not a progressive does? This is literally the exact opposite of reality.  Progressives, by nature, question supposed authority while conservatives blindly follow.  It's not the conservative's nature to oppose, but rather to be silent while looking at their toes  

 

[knabe]

You silly boy. Plenty of posts on here by you advocating for the free market and pure democracy to impose ethics. Put on your big boy pants and have some consistency.

 

[RyanChandler]

You silly boy. Plenty of posts on here by you advocating for the free market and pure democracy to impose ethics. Put on your big boy pants and have some consistency.

You can't recall even once-  If anything, I've advocated for individuals to sit aside what may perhaps be in their own personal best interest in favor of that which is in the collective's best interest. 

 

[knabe]

Once is a stretch. Multiple is easy. 


You have advocated multiple times that you prefer a majority's power to force people to pay taxes for endless programs they disagree with.  I would think you would want the lowest percentage, even below a simple majority if you could get away with it.  Somehow, you seem to think that only you have the insight on how other peoples money should be spent and that restraints un that are somehow unacceptable. 

 

[knabe]

No one who is not a progressive does? This is literally the exact opposite of reality.  Progressives, by nature, question supposed authority while conservatives blindly follow.


Like with global warming? Social issues? Economics? I think not. They have a higher allegiance rate than catholics on social issues. You keep forgetting that progressivism is a religion


It's not the conservative's nature to oppose, but rather to be silent while looking at their toes   you keep confusing conservatives and republicans. Republicans merely pay someone different than democrats for votes.