Hacker News Reader

Comment by Osmium | Hacker News Reader

0%-fat is a lot thicker (in my experience). Nicer to eat with fruit :) Not everything low-fat has to be for health reasons!

View on HN

Yeah, usually because it's thickened with gelatin. Enjoy your boiled hoof.

Man, you had me worried for a second.

But I just googled '0% fat greek yogurt ingredients' and the top four brands (Fage, Total, Liberté and Chobani) contain only skimmed milk and bacterial cultures.

Same with the brand I use here in Catalonia.

As a diet thing maybe it's bigger in North America. I'm in Canada.

I'm glad, for your sake, that I was wrong here.

Even if it did have gelatin (which it doesn't), why would that be a problem? If, as a society, we're going to kill animals for food, then I'm all for making sure we at least make full use of the animal and let nothing go to waste. Anything less than that would be doing the animal a disservice, don't you think?

No, that's vacuous and "spiritual". The disservice is in killing it.

I doubt you'd be okay with being mugged just because I also sold your shoes and organs.

Another problem with gelatin in your food is that it's empty filler, used only because having already killed the animal it's nearly free. You pay for yogurt and get worthless hoof squeezings.

It's not vacuous nor "spiritual", just pragmatic -- but I respect your opinion that killing animals is wrong on principle. I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise! I just disagree that gelatin is worthless (it's put in food for a reason), and I don't like unnecessary waste. Given that the animals are being killed anyway (which they are), what would you suggest is done with the hooves?

And for the record, as radio4fan said, greek yoghurt doesn't contain gelatin anyway, at least in the UK (where I am).

No, my opinion is that talking about doing the animal a disservice is incredibly rude and misleading. It's been killed. It's gone. The end. Nothing.

Praying over it, or cleaning your plate, is irrelevant to the animal.

If you were being pragmatic you wouldn't have brought up the animal, just money.

Perhaps we just look at these things in different ways -- as an analogy, when I die, I'll be happy to know my organs will be donated to those who need them so that some good can come from my death. Even if I had no knowledge that my organs were being donated, it doesn't change the benefit they'd make to someone in need; likewise, an animal may have no knowledge of the fact it'll be of benefit to people after it dies, but that doesn't change the fact it will be. The manner of my death (and whether some other person is responsible) doesn't change the fact that something good can come of it. That doesn't justify my death, of course, or forgive anyone who may be responsible! If someone had murdered me, they'd still be guilty of murder. But that doesn't mean my organs weren't useful, and money doesn't even come into it.

But I'm not trying to change your mind here, just offering up an alternative perspective.

If I was hit by a car if be happy to know my organs were helping unrelated people. Sure.

But you're postulating the murderer gets my organs.

That's insult to injury. If I was an animal I'd want you to choke on me, not eat your fill and use my remains for odd jobs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com