• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Milk, it really does do a body good

Antonio Coceri said:
You do



Maybe as it shows your cruelty in eating meat from an animal who suffers?
Click to expand...
You do realised you are bringing the criticism and sarcasm unto yourself right?

That's because you are make an error in logic. (or actually repeating the error as presented by PETA).

There is actually an ethical issue surrounding dairy and the methods used. But instead of laying out that very real issue, you have approached it as if all dairy production is the same. It's the fallacy of composition and division. And/or assuming all societies have a similar ethics as a Vegan. Decidedly untrue.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
You do realised you are bringing the criticism and sarcasm unto yourself right?

That's because you are make an error in logic. (or actually repeating the error as presented by PETA).

There is actually an ethical issue surrounding dairy and the methods used. But instead of laying out that very real issue, you have approached it as if all dairy production is the same. It's the fallacy of composition and division. And/or assuming all societies have a similar ethics as a Vegan. Decidedly untrue.
Click to expand...


You mean that a cow killed in Italy suffers while being killed while a cow being killed in Switzerland in the same way suffers less as ethics are different?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Oh. Oh my. I thought you posted that link to highlight its absurdity.

Anyways, if PETA has their way, the cow will go extinct.
Click to expand...

PETA respects you too and does not want you to get killed.

But you and your family will not go extinct (fortunately or not, that is up to debate :D )

;)
 
Antonio Coceri said:
I am not in the guessing business my dear
Click to expand...
Well you did such a good job guessing something out of the blue, I figured you were the creative sort.

This is the science forum, not the ethics forum. So to make it brief and avoid derail....most societies do not consider the death of domestic animals raised for food to be unethical. Although quite a few societies do consider the treatment of domestic animals while still alive to be an ethical concern.

There is a very scientific reason for this. Humans are omnivorous. That is our biological niche. We are apex omnivorous predators. Therefore there is no ethical problem with eating animals for food. But we are also highly social empathic creatures, and torturing any animal is to be abhorred!
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Well you did such a good job guessing something out of the blue, I figured you were the creative sort.

This is the science forum, not the ethics forum. So to make it brief and avoid derail....most societies do not consider the death of domestic animals raised for food to be unethical. Although quite a few societies do consider the treatment of domestic animals while still alive to be an ethical concern.

There is a very scientific reason for this. Humans are omnivorous. That is our biological niche. We are apex omnivorous predators. Therefore there is no ethical problem with eating animals for food. But we are also highly social empathic creatures, and torturing any animal is to be abhorred!
Click to expand...

Quickly..
1) Science and ethics go side by side
2) Societies do not "consider" much, people do and I do not care about people who support killing animals
3) Biological niche is a convenient excuse as many people are vegan and healthy
4) Killing an animal for food is a form of torture for the animal. Think about you
 
A wise man (my brother) once told me that he sees vegetarianism as a religion. They have an unshakeable faith that we should not eat animals. Science doesn't matter.

I'm seeing a parallel to Homeopathy's water memory. Like, the same protein from a vegetable has a memory of it's source, and is harmless compared to that from an animal source. Those amino acids from animals are DEADLY! Some how. I guess slaughter houses must do some kind of successing?

I've got some red-meat-vegetarians in the family. Supposedly for health reasons. They send me literature on things like The China Study. Bad science all, and always done by animal rights activists. Those "scientists" use pseudo science to support their animal rights stance. "Think of the cuddly little critters" is not good enough, they go for "eating cuddly critters is not just bad karma, it's bad health".

I wonder if we can blame them Beatles for bring Hindu vegetarianism to the first world? I think that is the religious tie?
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
A wise man (my brother) once told me that he sees vegetarianism as a religion. They have an unshakeable faith that we should not eat animals. Science doesn't matter.

I'm seeing a parallel to Homeopathy's water memory. Like, the same protein from a vegetable has a memory of it's source, and is harmless compared to that from an animal source. Those amino acids from animals are DEADLY! Some how. I guess slaughter houses must do some kind of successing?

I've got some red-meat-vegetarians in the family. Supposedly for health reasons. They send me literature on things like The China Study. Bad science all, and always done by animal rights activists. Those "scientists" use pseudo science to support their animal rights stance. "Think of the cuddly little critters" is not good enough, they go for "eating cuddly critters is not just bad karma, it's bad health".

I wonder if we can blame them Beatles for bring Hindu vegetarianism to the first world? I think that is the religious tie?
Click to expand...
Nope it was prior to the Beatles by a couple decades. But you and your brother are pretty damn close though.

The ethical argument for Veganism is a version of the religious doctrine ahimsa, as passed from India to the West by Mahatma Gandhi to Donald Watson, founder of Veganism.

You might ask why when even traditional Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are vegetarian and not vegan, this happened? It is because Gandhi was also a Natural Hygienist and follower of Dr. Herbert Shelton, considered by many at the time to be the world’s foremost expert on diet and fasting for health. So it was Shelton who influenced Gandhi who influenced Watson who coined the term Vegan.

The ethical argument against veganism is that while it does harm fewer charismatic animals, it does harm people. Dr. Herbert Shelton has been described by many here in this very forum as a pseudo-scientist/quack.

It is interesting though, both Gandhi and Shelton retracted after seeing the harm their religious doctrine was causing to people.

"The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India.” Gandhi 1946
Click to expand...

A person can find exceptions to both the above views of course. But that would take a book to fully describe every nuance.

I find it most interesting that Gandhi actually is on both sides of the ethical issue, both for and against! It was in fact his influence that started the whole religious doctrine added to western strict vegetarianism. It was Gandhi's suggestion that influenced Watson to do it! But later he was quite negative towards veganism as you can see by the quote above. This is primarily because in 1929, Gandhi and 22 companions went on what would later be called a vegan diet as an experiment to prove Shelton’s hypothesis that humans are naturally herbivores. The diet worked out well for a time and led to marked improvement in some cases, however it failed to prove adequate long term. One by one Gandhi's companions were forced to depart from the diet, and Gandhi himself had to add goat milk in order to regain health. By 1946 he was forced to admit he was wrong and human beings are not natural herbivores, but rather omnivores. But Donald Watson had heard Gandhi speak a few years before and had already formed the first Vegan Society.

Gandhi of course remained a vegetarian though, after Veganism failed, following the traditional style of ahimsa instead. Milk certainly did his body good. He prefered goat milk. Many people believe if supplements would have been available, he wouldn’t have failed. That is where it is even more ironic, because Natural Hygienists try to avoid medicines and supplements, claiming that a good proper diet should be more than adequate for health. If one needs supplements, then their diet is probably bad.

So ultimately Shelton too rescinded! It is what caused the infamous split in the Natural Hygiene movement! Here is a quote from Shelton regarding that:

"Our principles must not be myths, legends, assumptions, theories or dogmas, nor a combination of them. They must constitute more than a staunch conviction or a popular belief. They must be true; if they are not true, they cannot serve as a valid foundation upon which to build a true way of life." Dr. Herbert Shelton
Click to expand...

Plea as he might, Shelton couldn't succeed in preventing the split due to the religious nature of the beliefs! Unfortunately many died because of this.

Currently veganism is possible as supplements are easily available. But back when Shelton and Gandhi tried it for decades this was not commonly available, nor part of Natural Hygiene.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
A wise man (my brother) once told me that he sees vegetarianism as a religion. They have an unshakeable faith that we should not eat animals. Science doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Who cares and why should anyone be interested in your brother
And why should this be relevant to this discussion
 
Antonio Coceri said:
That is stupid
Sorry
Click to expand...

If it is stupid, then why should you be sorry? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not sorry for the stupid things PETA says, like arguing about the "natural" life span of an entirely unnatural creature.

Come on, step up your game.
 
Ziggurat said:
If it is stupid, then why should you be sorry? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not sorry for the stupid things PETA says, like arguing about the "natural" life span of an entirely unnatural creature.
Click to expand...
Yes, they're actually cruel to animals. They want to hound the domestic cattle, pig, etc. to extinction.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom