4 ms·

I believe I did. Firstly, even though milesrout wrote `emphatically`, I believe he meant `ethically` since that is what I wrote which he answered to. Secondly

by fredsir 10y ago

I believe I did. Firstly, even though milesrout wrote `emphatically`, I believe he meant `ethically` since that is what I wrote which he answered to. Secondly, and I'm not a native English speaker so I might be wrong, empathically, my comment is still valid. What we do to dairy cows can only be described as a product of a complete lack of empathy for the cows, nothing less.

milesrout 10y ago
Emphatic != Empathetic
- fredsir 10y ago
  Ah, good to know, my bad! In that case, that slew of words simply demonstrates why there is also something, emphatically, wrong with drinking milk ethically and not only personal health wise, which is what we have been discussing. It demonstrates that milk is bad in not only one aspect but two, and if we then account for how it is contributing to climate change as well, it is now bad in three aspects and, well, the dairy industry is looking very much like the devil, and people that consume dairy looks like stupid sheep and not modern, intelligent humans. Take it or leave it.
  - milesrout 10y ago
    What you said is quite incorrect. * The claim that cows have to be 'raped' to give milk is absurd. Milking cows is not rape. If you don't milk them they just about burst - have you seen their udders when they aren't milked? * The claim that 'in nature' cows do something is also wrong: cows do not exist without humans and have never existed without humans. Cows are domesticated animals. They are biologically and physiologically distinct from any 'natural' animal, if such a thing really exists (everything everywhere has been affected by human activity). That's how artificial selection works. Beef and dairy contribute to climate change, yes, but that wouldn't be a problem if they were priced correctly. If dairy and cattle farmers were required to pay off their externalities - i.e. to clean up after themselves and pay carbon taxes for all the methane - then beef and dairy would be priced such that it was consumed less, but still consumed, which is both healthier and better for the environment. But the discussion is about human health, and the fact of the matter is that there's nothing wrong with it, for humans, in moderation.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      > The claim that cows have to be 'raped' to give milk is absurd. Milking cows is not rape. If you don't milk them they just about burst - have you seen their udders when they aren't milked? Cows only create milk to feed their young. Cows only have young if they are inseminated. Thus dairy cows are kept in a perpetual cycle of breeding to produce young (which are taken from them early) so they produce milk. Half the young are male and thus useless; they are killed. Half the young are female and kept to replenish the dairy herds.
      - milesrout 10y ago
        Right but it's still not 'rape'. The concept of rape doesn't apply to cows. Cows cannot and do not ever give informed consent to anything, because they are simply incapable of ever being informed of anything.
        fredsir 10y ago
        It isn't because humans decides so. But it's the same thing. Just like a child can't consent to sex, a cow can't neither. In Denmark, sex with animals is actually against the law, except if it's forced impregnation, because "we need our meat and milk", or some bullshit untrue statement like that.
    - fredsir 10y ago
      > * The claim that cows have to be 'raped' to give milk is absurd. Milking cows is not rape. As DanBC said, it isn't the milking that is rape. It's the forced impregnation. The milking is exploitation. It's like saying if you go ahead and fuck a dog or another animal, that's not rape either. It might not be in your country, but in my country, Denmark, it sure is. By law, the animals are treated - in this case - like children since they can't consent to the action. Except in the livestock industry, where the practice is allowed because "we need our milk and meat". Now, even in Denmark, the word rape isn't used about such thing, but it's the same thing really. It's rather short minded logic on your behalf too. There is nothing wrong, per se, with a cow raping another cow. That's part of nature. Things change though when it's a human that does it to a cow. Since the action is done by the human, who understands the action and the concept of rape, I think it's fair to classify it as rape, again, since the cow can't consent to it. > If you don't milk them they just about burst - have you seen their udders when they aren't milked? Yes, it's gross how we have bred these animals to become milk and meat machines. But actually, if you take a dairy cow out of the industry, it doesn't take long before it starts to only produce milk in natural amounts again, that is, only enough to feed it's calf, maybe a little more, but that's it. The reason they constantly produce so much as they do is because of breeding and continued use of different kinds of drugs and steroids to get that reaction. In other words, we are artificially creating the problems they have when not milked, so talking about the milking as something like "humans helping the cows so their udders don't get infected and shit" is a complete fallacy. We are exploiting them, torturing them and killing them, that's what we're doing to them. > * The claim that 'in nature' cows do something is also wrong: cows do not exist without humans and have never existed without humans. Cows are domesticated animals. They are biologically and physiologically distinct from any 'natural' animal, if such a thing really exists (everything everywhere has been affected by human activity). That's how artificial selection works. Firstly, there do live cattle freely in nature some places to this day, but yes, dairy cows for one is grossly overbred to produce the best meat and milk with no regard for their health. But a dairy cow do in fact have the capability to live until 20-26 years of age, if not kept as livestock where it's body is destroyed after 4-6 years old. > Beef and dairy contribute to climate change, yes, but that wouldn't be a problem if they were priced correctly. If dairy and cattle farmers were required to pay off their externalities - i.e. to clean up after themselves and pay carbon taxes for all the methane - then beef and dairy would be priced such that it was consumed less, but still consumed, which is both healthier and better for the environment. Indeed, if it were priced differently - not subsidised, for one - and the amount of dairy and beef produced were around say 1% of one is produced today, that would mean a lot of the climate, yes, and to peoples health. > But the discussion is about human health, and the fact of the matter is that there's nothing wrong with it, for humans, in moderation. Again, that is like saying that smoking is not unhealthy in moderation. That's a complete fallacy. Will it kill you if you only smoke one cigarette a week? Probably not. Is it healthy? Nope, still not healthy and never will be.

by fredsir 10y ago

milesrout 10y ago

Emphatic != Empathetic

fredsir 10y ago
Ah, good to know, my bad! In that case, that slew of words simply demonstrates why there is also something, emphatically, wrong with drinking milk ethically and not only personal health wise, which is what we have been discussing. It demonstrates that milk is bad in not only one aspect but two, and if we then account for how it is contributing to climate change as well, it is now bad in three aspects and, well, the dairy industry is looking very much like the devil, and people that consume dairy looks like stupid sheep and not modern, intelligent humans. Take it or leave it.
- milesrout 10y ago
  What you said is quite incorrect. * The claim that cows have to be 'raped' to give milk is absurd. Milking cows is not rape. If you don't milk them they just about burst - have you seen their udders when they aren't milked? * The claim that 'in nature' cows do something is also wrong: cows do not exist without humans and have never existed without humans. Cows are domesticated animals. They are biologically and physiologically distinct from any 'natural' animal, if such a thing really exists (everything everywhere has been affected by human activity). That's how artificial selection works. Beef and dairy contribute to climate change, yes, but that wouldn't be a problem if they were priced correctly. If dairy and cattle farmers were required to pay off their externalities - i.e. to clean up after themselves and pay carbon taxes for all the methane - then beef and dairy would be priced such that it was consumed less, but still consumed, which is both healthier and better for the environment. But the discussion is about human health, and the fact of the matter is that there's nothing wrong with it, for humans, in moderation.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > The claim that cows have to be 'raped' to give milk is absurd. Milking cows is not rape. If you don't milk them they just about burst - have you seen their udders when they aren't milked? Cows only create milk to feed their young. Cows only have young if they are inseminated. Thus dairy cows are kept in a perpetual cycle of breeding to produce young (which are taken from them early) so they produce milk. Half the young are male and thus useless; they are killed. Half the young are female and kept to replenish the dairy herds.
    - milesrout 10y ago
      Right but it's still not 'rape'. The concept of rape doesn't apply to cows. Cows cannot and do not ever give informed consent to anything, because they are simply incapable of ever being informed of anything.
      - fredsir 10y ago
        It isn't because humans decides so. But it's the same thing. Just like a child can't consent to sex, a cow can't neither. In Denmark, sex with animals is actually against the law, except if it's forced impregnation, because "we need our meat and milk", or some bullshit untrue statement like that.
  - fredsir 10y ago
    > * The claim that cows have to be 'raped' to give milk is absurd. Milking cows is not rape. As DanBC said, it isn't the milking that is rape. It's the forced impregnation. The milking is exploitation. It's like saying if you go ahead and fuck a dog or another animal, that's not rape either. It might not be in your country, but in my country, Denmark, it sure is. By law, the animals are treated - in this case - like children since they can't consent to the action. Except in the livestock industry, where the practice is allowed because "we need our milk and meat". Now, even in Denmark, the word rape isn't used about such thing, but it's the same thing really. It's rather short minded logic on your behalf too. There is nothing wrong, per se, with a cow raping another cow. That's part of nature. Things change though when it's a human that does it to a cow. Since the action is done by the human, who understands the action and the concept of rape, I think it's fair to classify it as rape, again, since the cow can't consent to it. > If you don't milk them they just about burst - have you seen their udders when they aren't milked? Yes, it's gross how we have bred these animals to become milk and meat machines. But actually, if you take a dairy cow out of the industry, it doesn't take long before it starts to only produce milk in natural amounts again, that is, only enough to feed it's calf, maybe a little more, but that's it. The reason they constantly produce so much as they do is because of breeding and continued use of different kinds of drugs and steroids to get that reaction. In other words, we are artificially creating the problems they have when not milked, so talking about the milking as something like "humans helping the cows so their udders don't get infected and shit" is a complete fallacy. We are exploiting them, torturing them and killing them, that's what we're doing to them. > * The claim that 'in nature' cows do something is also wrong: cows do not exist without humans and have never existed without humans. Cows are domesticated animals. They are biologically and physiologically distinct from any 'natural' animal, if such a thing really exists (everything everywhere has been affected by human activity). That's how artificial selection works. Firstly, there do live cattle freely in nature some places to this day, but yes, dairy cows for one is grossly overbred to produce the best meat and milk with no regard for their health. But a dairy cow do in fact have the capability to live until 20-26 years of age, if not kept as livestock where it's body is destroyed after 4-6 years old. > Beef and dairy contribute to climate change, yes, but that wouldn't be a problem if they were priced correctly. If dairy and cattle farmers were required to pay off their externalities - i.e. to clean up after themselves and pay carbon taxes for all the methane - then beef and dairy would be priced such that it was consumed less, but still consumed, which is both healthier and better for the environment. Indeed, if it were priced differently - not subsidised, for one - and the amount of dairy and beef produced were around say 1% of one is produced today, that would mean a lot of the climate, yes, and to peoples health. > But the discussion is about human health, and the fact of the matter is that there's nothing wrong with it, for humans, in moderation. Again, that is like saying that smoking is not unhealthy in moderation. That's a complete fallacy. Will it kill you if you only smoke one cigarette a week? Probably not. Is it healthy? Nope, still not healthy and never will be.