Why are so many excluding milk from their diet?

Options
1…181920212224»

Replies

  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Merkavar wrote: »
    I DRANK 500ML OF MILK WITH MY BREAKFAST!!!!!

    AM I NOW YOUR GOD?!?!??

    ONLY IF IT WAS PEEPS MILK 11!!!1

    This seems labor intensive :frowning:
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Merkavar wrote: »
    I DRANK 500ML OF MILK WITH MY BREAKFAST!!!!!

    AM I NOW YOUR GOD?!?!??

    ONLY IF IT WAS PEEPS MILK 11!!!1

    This seems labor intensive :frowning:

    And such dexterity.
  • shinycrazy
    shinycrazy Posts: 1,081 Member
    Options
    For me, 100 calories on liquids is too high a price for something that doesn't satiate me much. I have it on occasion. I used to kill a 20oz serving with a row of oreos. So, there's bad associations with it as well.
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Options
    TrickyDisco wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    I couldn't care less what anyone else eats, but living creatures are hurt in the farming of plant foods too.

    I'm sure you couldn't care less about a lot of things, but since the OP is asking why so many exclude milk and I have what I see as justifiable reasons for excluding it from my own diet, there's my opinion.

    Re the plant food farming, vegansidekick says:
    While there will be casualties in crop farming and, while vegans would prefer it not to be so, it is the least harmful thing most people can do. To feed animals to the age of slaughter it requires many times more plants to be harvested than if we just ate plants ourselves. You might argue that we could instead just eat exclusively grass-fed animals who do not require grain, but this is entirely impractical. First, most 'grass-fed' animals are not fed 100% grass anyway, and, secondly, it's not sustainable at all to try to feed 7 billion people exclusively on 'grass-fed' meat. There isn't the space available for such a thing, and good luck living exclusively off meat and nothing else.


    I can think of something that would cause the absolute least harm possible and it would have the added benefit adding to, rather than taking away, from the ecosystem. Heck, it would even reduce the carbon footprint.
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Options
    TrickyDisco wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Ajocal18 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    lol. Now it's "poison". This stuff never ends.

    I do not think dairy is poison in general , I have been told by my primary care physician my body is unable to process dairy and negatively impacts my health so yes to myself and other intolerant people its akin to poison.

    Whatever. It's just so ridiculously dramatic. You have lactose intolerance and PCOS. Okay. Sucks for you and I'm sorry for that. Still doesn't make milk or gluten "poison" unless you are just trying to be overly dramatic. It's silly.

    Now you're nit-picking. You know what she meant, and so would any other reasonable person who read it. Yet even when she explains herself more clearly in her next post, saying it's 'akin to poison' - couldn't be any clearer - apparently that's just not good enough and you continue to attempt to twist her comment into something more sinister. Sad.


    Semantic infiltration is actually very important to the way people process and understand information. It's not nitpicking, it's keeping the tone of the discussion from being set by radical positions. The person that sets the tone is the person that controls perception. And, unfortunately, perception tends to be more people's reality than reality is. Hence why so many are duped by documentaries.

Categories