you seem to have a different understanding of what makes something part of a group ie meat or not meat.

once it's a piece of meat the distinction has no difference. if it was not meat you'd be able to make a distinction.

if we were able to synthesize human organs they would not be human organs to you because they did not originate from a human. beyond the use there is little difference between that example and synthesized muscles of cattle or whatever.

You might have a point if you argued that it's not authentic because it lacks somethig present in "real" meat. but even then it might be and advantage (eg less veins or less fascia in the tissues to make it tender)

You mixed “of the animal” with “from the animal” you’re the only one using the latter

I am guessing they mean political weather?