...and I ran with a rough crowd.
Posted on 01/22/2014 5:04:36 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I own and operate a small scale vineyard actually. I’m pretty familiar with the science and economics of small scale farming and extremely familiar with bacterial contaminants in agricultural products. I’m presently sterilizing bottles via thermal and chemical means and will shortly bottle up a small batch of wine which I have added potassium metabisulfite and potassium sorbate to in order to inhibit bacterial and yeast growth and secondary fermentation. I also live amongst large and small farmers, (including Amish farmers) and have seen first hand just how clean a small farm isn’t. I would be comfortable discussing brucella, anthracis, botulinum, salmonella, e.coli, listeria, etc with any microbiologist btw.
we’re not really talking about raw milk though, we’re talking about public safety and the government’s role in maintaining it. You seem to think that the government has no role in maintaining public safety. I, on the other hand, think that that is one of its only legitimate roles.
Then why don’t you seem to understand the difference between a large-scale producer selling milk by the thousands of gallons, through a major grocery chain, to consumers who don’t have a clue where it comes from — and small dairymen selling small quantities of whole milk via open-air markets to willing consumers who full well understand the risks of unpasteurized whole milk?
>> we’re talking about public safety and the government’s role in maintaining it. You seem to think that the government has no role in maintaining public safety.
Obviously you DO think the government has a role in “maintaining” public safety. (That is, in itself, an impossible task, but let’s leave that point for later.)
So...
It is in the interest of maintaining public safety that we should all give up our firearms. Or, at least, that’s a position that has been argued by our wiser “betters” in the government.
Do you agree?
If not, you’d better back down now and admit you’re claiming ground you can’t possibly defend.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” –C.S. Lewis“We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people.” ― Hillary Rodham Clinton
Indeed, the people must be protected from themselves from cradle to grave and if they don't like it ... SWAT teams!
The RKBA is specifically protected by the second amendment. The right to drink raw milk isn’t. The evidence shows that the RKBA is in a free people’s best interest. The evidence doesn’t show that drinking unpasteurized milk is in a free people’s best interest. Nice try though. LOL.
>> A.) they clearly do not understand the risks.
Prove that.
>> B.)the taxpayer inevitably gets stuck paying the bill for bad decisions that put people in the hospital
Prove that.
>> C.) I’m also an RN so as far as I’m concerned, bla bla bla
Duly noted, but your concerns and your profession have no real bearing on the facts of the matter; they’re just an attempt to employ an “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. See here: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/
That is only a valid argument if you support the nanny-welfare state.
>> The RKBA is specifically protected by the second amendment. The right to drink raw milk isn’t.
I predicted that’s where you’d go.
So, one of two things must be true.
1) You abhor the second amendment, because, like our “betters” in government are fond of telling us, guns are bad for us. But, hey... the constitution is the constitution, so you grudgingly agree.
~or~
2) You wholeheartedly believe in the wisdom of the founders in crafting the 2nd amendment. Yes, guns in the hands of irresponsible folks are a danger to life and limb, but the BENEFITS of an armed populace greatly outweighs the risk! The 2nd amendment is SOUND in its theory.
Which is it?
>> The right to drink raw milk isn’t [protected by the 2nd amendment]
No, it isn’t protected by the 2nd... but the right for STATES (not feds) to decide how ag products may be produced and sold IS protected by the 10th amendment.
It’s just that the 10th amendment has been so thoroughly raped by the courts over the years that it is essentially destroyed in effect.
I will only care if others who drink raw milk give me TB or want me to pay for their treatments.
Given the huge number of illegal (and hence, untested) aliens in MD, and the fact that many are agricultural workers, I suspect the risk is higher than many would believe.
that is so 28 posts ago.
That’s all you have? OK. Bye.
agistment
I learned a new word!
Well, I hope this reversal is successful, but I can’t see OweMalley and his progressive commiecrat mob relinquishing power over the food supply.
Thanks for presenting your views and insight.
Awwwwwwwwwww, so cute!!
Yes Siree-bob! Off with their heads for daring to drink pure milk.
...and I ran with a rough crowd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.