3 ms·

This is a weird argument. No food is /intended/ to feed humans. Every single thing we eat is just some random bit of plant or animal that happens to be nutritio

This is a weird argument. No food is /intended/ to feed humans. Every single thing we eat is just some random bit of plant or animal that happens to be nutritious.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
That's the thing, it's not an argument. Cow's milk is for baby cows. That's biological fact. Full stop. Nothing to argue. Can human ingest it? Yes. Should they? In quantity? Well, other than Big Dairy who has marketed that idea?
- p1necone 3y ago
  Okay I'll bite. * Spinach leaves are "for" transforming sunlight into plant growth. * Rump steak is "for" moving the back leg of a cow. * Honey is "for" feeding bees. Surely on the "food not for humans <===================> food for humans" scale something that is produced explicitly to feed the young of a fairly closely related mammal is closer to the "for humans" end of the scale than most food? Please note I'm not trying to argue that that you're wrong about your classification of milk not being "for" humans, I'm trying to point out the absurdity of even trying to define food as being for or not for humans in the first place. ================================================= Also talking about "Big Dairy" in this context is a bit silly too. You could definitely argue that milk has been heavily marketed as a "healthy" food in the United States over the past few decades, and maybe considering it to be unusually healthy relative to other foods is a mistake. But trying to argue that humans shouldn't eat it at all while referring to "Big Dairy" is ridiculous - humans have been eating dairy for thousands of years, much longer than modern capitalism has even existed. ================================================= And lastly, saying "it's not an argument, it's fact" is an extremely arrogant way to dodge actually having to justify what you're saying. Don't do that.
cies 3y ago
Fruits and apes have a long relationship, that benefits both. Biologically fruit is ape food. Why would that be different for humans? Oh, we changed the world around us, but how fast is our genes in catching up with that?

This is a weird argument. No food is /intended/ to feed humans. Every single thing we eat is just some random bit of plant or animal that happens to be nutritious.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

That's the thing, it's not an argument. Cow's milk is for baby cows. That's biological fact. Full stop. Nothing to argue. Can human ingest it? Yes. Should they? In quantity? Well, other than Big Dairy who has marketed that idea?

p1necone 3y ago
Okay I'll bite. * Spinach leaves are "for" transforming sunlight into plant growth. * Rump steak is "for" moving the back leg of a cow. * Honey is "for" feeding bees. Surely on the "food not for humans <===================> food for humans" scale something that is produced explicitly to feed the young of a fairly closely related mammal is closer to the "for humans" end of the scale than most food? Please note I'm not trying to argue that that you're wrong about your classification of milk not being "for" humans, I'm trying to point out the absurdity of even trying to define food as being for or not for humans in the first place. ================================================= Also talking about "Big Dairy" in this context is a bit silly too. You could definitely argue that milk has been heavily marketed as a "healthy" food in the United States over the past few decades, and maybe considering it to be unusually healthy relative to other foods is a mistake. But trying to argue that humans shouldn't eat it at all while referring to "Big Dairy" is ridiculous - humans have been eating dairy for thousands of years, much longer than modern capitalism has even existed. ================================================= And lastly, saying "it's not an argument, it's fact" is an extremely arrogant way to dodge actually having to justify what you're saying. Don't do that.

cies 3y ago

Fruits and apes have a long relationship, that benefits both. Biologically fruit is ape food. Why would that be different for humans? Oh, we changed the world around us, but how fast is our genes in catching up with that?