Janet and John
"...main problem...toxins that bacteria pump out are made out...protein...as the meat itself... So...if the meat isn't "destroyed" by the heat of cooking, there's no reason why the bad stuff left in it by the germs should be. (It takes 300 degrees C to completely destroy protein..."
The first problem with your scornful little tirade is that the main problem in bacterial food poisoning isn't usually the toxin produced by the bacteria in the food, but the bacteria itself reaching the consumer in a large enough dose to reproduce in the gut and make its own fresh batch of poison. Cooked (i.e. grey) meat has been heated enough to kill the majority of breeds of bacteria that can infect mammals.
The second problem is that protein does not need to be "destroyed" to be made inactive. Proteins, as you'd know if you'd read anything about them, require specific ways of folding their polypeptide strings into precise shapes to retain their activity. The process of breaking this folding up is called denaturing and is one of the processes which occurs in, would you believe, cooking meat and killing bacteria. There are some toxic proteins, the botulinum toxin being one, which can survive high temperatures (up to about 120C for botulinum) but that's generated by an anaerobic bacterium which can't have been present in any large quantities in the flesh of a living beast; it's a phenomenon largely restricted to canned food that's not been properly boiled.
"After all, what exactly do you think 'fresh' means in terms of meat..."
Largely, it means that the fatty bits haven't started to oxidise (go 'rancid'), that it hasn't been colonised by other opportunistic organisms like moulds, bacteria and flies.
"If it's full of germs and their byproducts, why would you call that "fresh" just because they got into the flesh before it died rather than afterward?"
You eat chicken, at all? Eggs? Soft cheese? Milk? Better be sure it's properly cooked or pasteurised unless you know the source is properly free of disease.
Overall, you're right. It's probably really dim to eat (and potentially criminal to offer for consumption) meat from an animal that died (or was moribund) from a disease. But your explanation of the mechanisms and reasoning behind that are inaccurate and don't support your scornful attitude.