What the f*ck are you on weirdo? Do you *actually* think I care either way about children being lactose tolerant when the *entire discussion* re lactose *Intolerance* is in adults!
How desperate are you to keep rolling out that same old strawman when it is now and has always been completely irrelevant!!
Yes, I know, and so did I (by country). And ... ?
Yes and? Want a gold star or something? You want some reward for knowing something that's completely irrelevant to the discussion?
It would be no different to me saying that children have an intolerance to school but don't have the same issue when adults.
The officially stated average for lactose *intolerance* is ~60% worldwide. Fact.
formatting link
"Most adults (around 65?70% of the world's population) are lactose intolerant"
As are your desperate attempts of distraction (because you are trapped in a corner and have no justifiable way out) of the point that you have no issue causing pain, suffering, exploitation and death to sentient animals, just because:
We had to do such things to *survive* years ago. It's no longer 'years ago' it's 2021 with loads of alternatives for the vast majority of the worlds population.
Therefore, you don't care about causing pain, suffering, exploitation and death to innocent sentient creatures, either because you just don't care, you don't care because you don't think you aren't doing anything wrong, and / or you carry on doing what you have always done, even though we no longer need to drink the growth fluid of a different species, even after you have weaned off of your own mothers milk, in
Spot on, or how much of a troll you are and willing to try to argue black is white, just to get someone to talk to you.
I keep hearing about what we *had to do* often thousands of years ago as if it is some justification of what we *need* or *should* do today when it's obvious to anyone with any compassion or understanding about the bigger picture of the world we live in that we simply can't (and shouldn't in any case) carry on like this.
It isn't a vegan stance, it's a science stance.
What might have worked, been sustainable 'years ago' isn't any longer and the ludicrousness of having to feed and deal with the gasses, waste pollution and environmental destruction (directly and indirectly) of *more livestock* than humans on the planet every day seems to escape the attention of those who prefer to hide away from such facts and bury their head in the sand?
I'm just highlighting the news here, millions of others including all the top scientists are doing the same the world over.
Even the likes of all the farming shows and Countryfile are regularly stating that 'we need to move towards more of a plant based diet' and this is even from those with a vested interest in the continuation of the exploitation of animals for profit.
As for the trolls here, you really are wasting your breath mate. They aren't interested in any 'discussion', just being trolls ;-(
I wouldn't go as far as to say 'you were causing harm' as that sounds like you were doing so knowingly and most people don't *realise* what they are doing inadvertently when they buy / support such things.
Quite, Chicken / egg. ;-)
formatting link
No, and no one would suggest that's what we should do with a rescued chicken but there are in between things. Like, nothing stopping you 'rescuing them' from certain death and keeping them more naturally on your property, if you have such property to allocate to them. If you don't (like getting a dog from the rescue), maybe you (one) shouldn't try to help them?
The *best* and easiest way to help all of them is by not paying to continue forcing them to suffer such things. Dairy consumption is down
40% in the UK and USA and that will mean that 40% fewer animals will have to suffer.
Within some sort of constraints I'm guessing? I mean they couldn't move out of the are completely to find somewhere *they* may find more suitable?
;-)
Again, it's not always easy to undo / fix the mistake we have made over history.
The point is you have the understanding and interest to *try* Rob, a massive difference between that and those who don't know (and / or care to find out) and even further from those who do know and simply don't care.
But you're idea of natural is perverse, which is substituting foodstuff that we have evolved to consume with unnatural substitutes, in many instances has been made through industrial processes.
If we have evolved over those years to consume meat and drink milk, it follows it is natural to continue to consume the same.
It has no basis in science, only in your fanatical mind.
Some of your posts have highlighted the additional population the land could support if crops were only grown for direct human consumption. That according to Malthus would lead to an even greater world population.
formatting link
And lead to a faster destruction of the planet.
The top scientists advocate a natural balanced diet, and that can only include meat and meat products.
I'm not aware of such claims. Certainly animal husbandry is labour intensive and I'm sure landowners would prefer high value crops involving minimal labour.
We are interested in discussion, but with a fanatic closed to alternatives it is difficult where they resort to abuse when they repeatedly lose the argument.
"Traditionally, the Maasai diet consisted of raw meat, raw milk, honey and raw blood from cattle?note that the Maasai cattle are of the Zebu variety.
In the summer of 1935 Dr. Weston A. Price visited the Maasai and reported that according to Dr. Anderson from the local government hospital in Kenya most tribes were disease-free. Many had not a single tooth attacked by dental caries nor a single malformed dental arch. In particular the Maasai had a very low 0.4% of bone caries. He attributed that to their diet consisting of (in order of volume) raw milk, raw blood, raw meat and some vegetables and fruits, although in many villages they do not eat any fruit or vegetables at all. He noted that when available every growing child and every pregnant or lactating woman would receive a daily ration of raw blood. "
Also Mongolian nomads are almost exclusively non vegetable eaters...
"The nomads of Mongolia sustain their lives directly from the products of domesticated animals such as cattle, horses, camels, yaks, sheep, and goats, as well as game.[1] Meat is either cooked, used as an ingredient for soups and dumplings (buuz, khuushuur, bansh [ko], manti), or dried for winter (borts).[1] The Mongolian diet includes a large proportion of animal fat which is necessary for the Mongols to withstand the cold winters and their hard work. Winter temperatures are as low as ?40 °C (?40 °F) and outdoor work requires sufficient energy reserves. Milk and cream are used to make a variety of beverages, as well as cheese and similar products.[2]"
Inuit exist largely on raw seal meat and fish...
Hunted meats: Sea mammals such as walrus, seal, and whale. Whale meat generally comes from the narwhal, beluga whale and the bowhead whale. The latter is able to feed an entire community for nearly a year from its meat, blubber, and skin. Inuit hunters most often hunt juvenile whales which, compared to adults, are safer to hunt and have tastier skin. Ringed seal and bearded seal are the most important aspect of an Inuit diet and is often the largest part of an Inuit hunter's diet.[3]
Land mammals such as caribou, polar bear, and muskox
Birds and their eggs
Saltwater and freshwater fish including sculpin, Arctic cod, Arctic char, capelin and lake trout.
While *t is not possible* to cultivate native plants for food in the Arctic, Inuit have traditionally gathered those that are naturally available including:
Berries including crowberry and cloudberry Herbaceous plants such as grasses and fireweed Tubers and stems including mousefood, roots of various tundra plants which are cached by voles in burrows. Roots such as tuberous spring beauty and sweet vetch Seaweed
Humans have evolved to eat almost anything they can get their teeth into, especially after it's cooked.
'Veganism is more moral/natural' is a Western middle class affectation probably originating in Germany, where they revere Nature, living such artificial lives.
It all goes back to the Romantic movement which was a knee jerk reaction by ArtStudents? against industrialisation with a nostalgic longing for the rural idyll that ensured people lived short lives starved of food.
In reality a diet high is starch is absolutely bad for you. Meat and fat is very very good for you.
Contrary to your belief I don't have an issue with reduced production. My concern is over animal welfare, a subject you don't care about which is disgraceful for a vegan. It makes everyone question your ethos of being a vegan, especially when you keep pets.
Most animals are comfortable within a boundary and in the RW don't venture outside of their territory. Keeping chickens in a field is nothing like keeping a pet in your home.
Hardly a mistake.
I to care, through supporting campaigns to improve animal welfare. Whereas you seem to enjoy the prospect of harm and suffering if it promotes your fanatical cause.
That should start with improvements in animal welfare. Something you don't support.
I think you should read from your own link. Lactose intolerance in infants is caused by a mutation in the LCT gene, which results in a life-long intolerance. This condition is inherited, rare, and most common in Finland.
Only about 5% of Northern and Central Europeans have lactose intolerance. As this is the peolpe on here(mostly) so we won't see the 60% intolerance that other countries might have.
even then you have to know the reasons why you have the pains you experience. Most of my (mental) pains are down to students !
That applies to alcohol too otherwise I wouldn;t fall over afetr 10 pints would I. and teh older I get the less I can drink, so that must mean that we were NEVER suposed to drink alcohol, and yep bloody Jesus turned water in to wine why ?
As you get older eyes go too, does that mean your not meant to read ?
But it's true it's part of evolution. It;s why ther is bactria in the clean rooms at NASA It's why we eveloved to walk on two legs. It;s why some peole have dark skin and others have lighter skin. whether it's right or wrong, good or bad is irrelivant to the evolution.
and we educate others so the inteligence of our offspring will hopefully be better than out ancestors. The longer we can live the more we can learn.
Sounds more like you are.
It must have been more than just survive .
But what if the choice was to drink it or die of thirst. I have a theory that it could be from times of draught drinking liquid that young animals can drink without harm rather than drinking dirty infested water or your own piss. What would you choose. Even in london we know of the damage of drinking contaminated water had in the 16th century that's why people drank gin and beer because it was safer short term than the water.
. and I'm not even
Squeezing out the oils from plants is hardly natural or intuative and even I've only drunk it because it looks like milk and tastes like it otherwose I wouldnt toucvh the stuff any more than I'd drink yaks piss, which is far more natrual although not on London.
So is water, but teh water we humans can now drink has changed. If we started drinking theb water we did in the past we could have all sorts of bugs inside us that would kill us this is also part of why we live longer and are mostly stonger than we were 6000 years ago whenn it seems we started drinking milk.
Some put lemon juice in tea, I don't like it or herbal teas.
Few do that, if any. Even fewer go to china to get their soy and then extract the oil from it. Not sure how many vegans eat honey
Lots of people take extra vitiam supliments without knowing where they come from. Lots of peole are quite happy to let animals die in labs so they can have safe make-up and food.
And if there's anything as tiresome as a fanatical vegan, it's a fanatical anti-vegan. Especially when both sides start off on their tedious, poorly thought out, and shallow, point-scoring "debates".
Do I conclude from this strange outburst that you think that human milk
*doesn't* contain lactose?
And this is direct evidence that you have trouble with facts: on the one hand you "probably" agree that you don't think human milk contains lactose, and when I quote an article stating that it does, in fact, contain lactose (as all mammalian milk does), all you can say is "Yes, and?".
I wouldn't have believed it possible if I hadn't seen it in black and white. Is it because you have the attention span of a gnat?
I cut out milk at the start of lockdown to save frequent shop visits - and it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Added bonus - saved a few hundred kg of C02 and 60,000 litres of water, which is nice :-)
Well, I wasn't exactly cheering them up if they were expecting to eat the eggs after a few weeks. Especially if they weren't too fond of whatever else was on offer. 'Tis an interesting thought though.
Well, you don't get quite the reciprocity from a chicken (as a dog, say). And if I wasn't after 'something back' to save the non-humans potentially living with me from misery it wouldn't end well ;-)
They could wander out of the garden - and I think they did, but they always came back.
I wonder who that is? I would support a vegan, even an ethical one and certainly never abuse one.
I do draw the line at fanatics who abuse those who argue and provide simple facts to dispel some of he myths they pronounce as true.
By the way I often eat vegan products.
If you don't like listening to the arguments here, then use filters to remove the threads from your reader. If you remove subthreads starting with "T i m" you'll never see me mention the words 'vegan' 'pets' or 'B12' either.
Pull yourself together before you burst a blood vessel.
Because you were 1) stating something I already knew and 2) therefore it was already understood but discarded BECAUSE IT WAS IRELLEVENT.
You have lost the plot mate. Are you really so desperate to prove some strawman point (because you realise it's the only (non point) you have) that you have keep repeating the same BS? (I know the answer of course, you are a left brainer, sense you are on a sticky wicket and so are desperate to prove *anything*. It must be so frustrating for you that you can't.
You won't believe any fact, even if it is in black and white, if it doesn't fit your prior understanding (even if they are bogus assumptions and misunderstandings on your part). It's call cognitive bias and a classic symptom of a sad left brainer troll. ;-(
Is you problem because you can't deal with anything other than your own presumptions?
Ok, I'll repeat for the hard of thinking, the 'importance' of infants having lactose tolerance and that tolerance being more likely to be maintained in adulthood by them continuing to consume milk after they have weaned ... has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER with *adults* drinking milk (cow or human) after they are weaned.
It's not that those people can.
It's not that those people are.
It's that those people are weird. There is no NEED for an adult human to drink adult human breast milk, after they have weaned', full stop. To make matters worse, they do it at the ultimate cost to the animal it was actually produced for and to us re the resources (800 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of milk, compared with 200g for the plant based alternatives), the GH gases, the pollution and the habitat destruction.
It's even weirder therefore that they choose to drink cows breast milk after they have weaned.
That is the point. Anything else is just strawman bollox.
Did you know they marketed milk hard because it was either make us drink it (give it free to children to get them hooked on the fats like some creepy drug dealer) or tip it down the drain?
On 11 May 2021 17:24:52 GMT, Tim Streater snipped-for-privacy@greenbee.net wrote: <snip>
Do ants do what we do yo cows then? Take their newborns and shoot them in the head then cut their throats? They genetically select them over the years to make them produce 10x more milk than they would
*naturally*, then shoot them in the head and cut their throats a third of the way though their natural lives? They give them antibiotics because the exploitation of their teats gives them mastitis?
Are we *just* like ants?
And whilst it appears you only have the rationality of an ant and certainly have a lower EQ than one, you seem to think we should all be like you in your desire to justify your exploitation of cows for the growth fluid that was never meant for us, but their own calves (and
*only* their calves)?
But I get it. We have done this sort of things for many thousand years and you have obviously been doing it all your life and being as old and 'set in your ways' as you are, 'of course' the chances are you are going to have difficulty changing what you have been indoctrinated and conditioned to consider 'perfectly normal', even when there is no
*need* and so it then becomes far from normal.
What we eat and drink is very much part of our identity and we have bastardised the *need* to survive with the *choice* to indulge ourselves and that often includes doing to at the cost (emotional and physical) of innocent sentient creatures. It has become normalised to you when in 2021, it's *far* from a normal action for a supposedly intellectually superior and compassionate (what is supposed to set us
*above* most of the other animals) being.
But it doesn't matter if you like, agree or unwilling to accept any of this, it *is* the way it's going and will continue to do so at an ever increasing pace.
So, if you had to continue to drink cows milk, which of the following would you be happy to do for it ...?
1) Jack off a bull to collect the s**en?
2) Shove your arm up a cows arse to manipulate her cervix before injecting the bull stolen s**en?
3) Shoot her newborn calf in the head before cutting his throat?
4) Force her to produce 10x the level of milk she would to support her own calf / calves for her whole life.
5) Shoot her in the head when she is no longer able to produce the sufficiently high level of exploitation, then cut her throat ... then shoot the unborn calf in the head and cut it's throat that falls out of her as she's cut open.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.