Gluten free, sugar free, dairy free... who is with me?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion
It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic. 
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
what specific things are made for us in nature?
Are you suggesting that you bottle breast milk and drink that instead of dairy?2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?
Yes of course. I will copy my previous answer in which I explain why milk in particular isn't natural and I will explain myself for the second part of the question.
1: The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
2: Eating any meat is indeed natural. It provides us with nutrition and we've been actually eating that since we started on our species. The same could be said about all fruits and vegetables alike (unless poisonous :P ) One could argue that even cooking isn't natural but we've been doing for so long, it's imprinted on us. Dairy, however, has been part of our diet only recently compared to our history.
Just because it's not bad for our health -and taste buds to be fair- it doesn't mean that it's natural to drink another animal's milk.
It has become a part of our recent evolution and there is not denial about this. We, humans, have progressed a lot and in certain areas I think it's wonderful. For example I would not be able to have this debate with you or any other person on this site.
To close this topic for good, I don't say: hey it's not natural so one is the best to avoid it and salmon is meant for bears only so dont you dare touch it! I say that dairy consumption is not something we did naturally, it's not a natural behaviour. Does it mean it's bad? No, it's actually giving you vitamins, it's a tasty protein source and has calcium as well. The only way it could be WRONG for one is if they have ethical concerns and I don't.
The flesh of other creatures is no more "made" for us to consume than any milk they might produce. To declare one a natural food for humans and the other not makes no sense to me.
The body of a cow or fish or bird doesn't exist to be food. It has independent purposes.
I'm not putting this forward as an argument against eating meat, I'm just questioning the usefulness of distinguishing between "natural" and "unnatural" food and not understanding the argument that the flesh of an animal is a natural food while their secretions are somehow an unnatural food.
I happen to quite like your logic! However, I am just stating that we have only consumed dairy until recently and it is not a requirement for us to thrive. Milk is not unnatural itself. It is not natural for us to drink it though unless it's from a human and we are the baby. Just to be clear, when I say not natural, I don't mean that it's dangerous e.g. sleeping under water (can't find a better example). We have made a habit out of a lot of things that are unnatural to us for the sake of intelligence, learning, convenience, nutrition etc. Some of them are bad for us and some are not. I'm not here to argue that you shouldn't drink milk. I am here to tell you that you can thrive without it and without the need of supplementation due to its absence. I am not against dairy, I consume it daily myself.
I guess recently is pretty subjective...10,000 years ago in the context of our modern diets isn't exactly last week.
As a species, we have evolved to "naturally" consume anything that provides energy and nutrition so long is it doesn't make us ill or kill us...1 -
I'm not here to argue that you shouldn't drink milk. I am here to tell you that you can thrive without it and without the need of supplementation due to its absence.
But no one is arguing otherwise. Lots of people don't drink milk or consume dairy (I don't drink milk myself, although I consume other, less natural ;-) dairy). Absolutely no one has argued that you need to consume dairy, so why argue with something no one said?
But none of this has to do with whether it is natural.
You can also thrive without eating meat or without eating potatoes or without eating broccoli. (I eat all of those things, but would not claim they are unnatural.)0 -
I have watched "sick fat and nearly dead" and "forks over knives" and read a few books on this subject and they say you can eliminate diabetes, arthritis, and nearly all cancers if you follow this kind of diet.
Good for you if you can follow this kind of diet. I wish I could. I don't think you have to be gluten free though.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
what specific things are made for us in nature?
Are you suggesting that you bottle breast milk and drink that instead of dairy?
Yes that's exactly what i do. I go to new mothers in the near neighborhoods, abduct them, take their milk, let them free cuz i ain't a horrible person and run. I also wear a mask so I am not recognized. By doing that I shout "cow milk is for cows so I shall take yours Young Motharrr".
5 -
I have watched "sick fat and nearly dead" and "forks over knives" and read a few books on this subject and they say you can eliminate diabetes, arthritis, and nearly all cancers if you follow this kind of diet.
Good for you if you can follow this kind of diet. I wish I could. I don't think you have to be gluten free though.
Aren't they about a 100% plant-based diet? That's not what OP is talking about.0 -
I have watched "sick fat and nearly dead" and "forks over knives" and read a few books on this subject and they say you can eliminate diabetes, arthritis, and nearly all cancers if you follow this kind of diet.
Good for you if you can follow this kind of diet. I wish I could. I don't think you have to be gluten free though.
No. And these kinds of promises are dangerous.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
what specific things are made for us in nature?
Are you suggesting that you bottle breast milk and drink that instead of dairy?
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?
Yes of course. I will copy my previous answer in which I explain why milk in particular isn't natural and I will explain myself for the second part of the question.
1: The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
2: Eating any meat is indeed natural. It provides us with nutrition and we've been actually eating that since we started on our species. The same could be said about all fruits and vegetables alike (unless poisonous :P ) One could argue that even cooking isn't natural but we've been doing for so long, it's imprinted on us. Dairy, however, has been part of our diet only recently compared to our history.
Just because it's not bad for our health -and taste buds to be fair- it doesn't mean that it's natural to drink another animal's milk.
It has become a part of our recent evolution and there is not denial about this. We, humans, have progressed a lot and in certain areas I think it's wonderful. For example I would not be able to have this debate with you or any other person on this site.
To close this topic for good, I don't say: hey it's not natural so one is the best to avoid it and salmon is meant for bears only so dont you dare touch it! I say that dairy consumption is not something we did naturally, it's not a natural behaviour. Does it mean it's bad? No, it's actually giving you vitamins, it's a tasty protein source and has calcium as well. The only way it could be WRONG for one is if they have ethical concerns and I don't.
The flesh of other creatures is no more "made" for us to consume than any milk they might produce. To declare one a natural food for humans and the other not makes no sense to me.
The body of a cow or fish or bird doesn't exist to be food. It has independent purposes.
I'm not putting this forward as an argument against eating meat, I'm just questioning the usefulness of distinguishing between "natural" and "unnatural" food and not understanding the argument that the flesh of an animal is a natural food while their secretions are somehow an unnatural food.
I happen to quite like your logic! However, I am just stating that we have only consumed dairy until recently and it is not a requirement for us to thrive. Milk is not unnatural itself. It is not natural for us to drink it though unless it's from a human and we are the baby. Just to be clear, when I say not natural, I don't mean that it's dangerous e.g. sleeping under water (can't find a better example). We have made a habit out of a lot of things that are unnatural to us for the sake of intelligence, learning, convenience, nutrition etc. Some of them are bad for us and some are not. I'm not here to argue that you shouldn't drink milk. I am here to tell you that you can thrive without it and without the need of supplementation due to its absence. I am not against dairy, I consume it daily myself.
i did not know that 10,000 years was considered "recent"2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
what specific things are made for us in nature?
Are you suggesting that you bottle breast milk and drink that instead of dairy?
Yes that's exactly what i do. I go to new mothers in the near neighborhoods, abduct them, take their milk, let them free cuz i ain't a horrible person and run. I also wear a mask so I am not recognized. By doing that I shout "cow milk is for cows so I shall take yours Young Motharrr".
because we all know that cows and humans are the same when it comes to rights and what not..wow
1 -
Oh Lordy, no. Absolutely NOT.I have watched "sick fat and nearly dead" and "forks over knives" and read a few books on this subject and they say you can eliminate diabetes, arthritis, and nearly all cancers if you follow this kind of diet.
Good for you if you can follow this kind of diet. I wish I could. I don't think you have to be gluten free though.
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?
Yes of course. I will copy my previous answer in which I explain why milk in particular isn't natural and I will explain myself for the second part of the question.
1: The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
2: Eating any meat is indeed natural. It provides us with nutrition and we've been actually eating that since we started on our species. The same could be said about all fruits and vegetables alike (unless poisonous :P ) One could argue that even cooking isn't natural but we've been doing for so long, it's imprinted on us. Dairy, however, has been part of our diet only recently compared to our history.
Just because it's not bad for our health -and taste buds to be fair- it doesn't mean that it's natural to drink another animal's milk.
It has become a part of our recent evolution and there is not denial about this. We, humans, have progressed a lot and in certain areas I think it's wonderful. For example I would not be able to have this debate with you or any other person on this site.
To close this topic for good, I don't say: hey it's not natural so one is the best to avoid it and salmon is meant for bears only so dont you dare touch it! I say that dairy consumption is not something we did naturally, it's not a natural behaviour. Does it mean it's bad? No, it's actually giving you vitamins, it's a tasty protein source and has calcium as well. The only way it could be WRONG for one is if they have ethical concerns and I don't.
The flesh of other creatures is no more "made" for us to consume than any milk they might produce. To declare one a natural food for humans and the other not makes no sense to me.
The body of a cow or fish or bird doesn't exist to be food. It has independent purposes.
I'm not putting this forward as an argument against eating meat, I'm just questioning the usefulness of distinguishing between "natural" and "unnatural" food and not understanding the argument that the flesh of an animal is a natural food while their secretions are somehow an unnatural food.
I happen to quite like your logic! However, I am just stating that we have only consumed dairy until recently and it is not a requirement for us to thrive. Milk is not unnatural itself. It is not natural for us to drink it though unless it's from a human and we are the baby. Just to be clear, when I say not natural, I don't mean that it's dangerous e.g. sleeping under water (can't find a better example). We have made a habit out of a lot of things that are unnatural to us for the sake of intelligence, learning, convenience, nutrition etc. Some of them are bad for us and some are not. I'm not here to argue that you shouldn't drink milk. I am here to tell you that you can thrive without it and without the need of supplementation due to its absence. I am not against dairy, I consume it daily myself.
Has someone argued in this thread that dairy is required for good health? I see people saying they prefer eating it to not eating it and that one isn't required to give it up for good health. I don't see anyone arguing that one *must* consume dairy in order to be healthy, but I may have missed it.3 -
I have watched "sick fat and nearly dead" and "forks over knives" and read a few books on this subject and they say you can eliminate diabetes, arthritis, and nearly all cancers if you follow this kind of diet.
Good for you if you can follow this kind of diet. I wish I could. I don't think you have to be gluten free though.
I haven't seen "Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead," but "Forks Over Knives" isn't gluten-free.
And I wouldn't put too much credence in those movies anyway . . .1 -
Dairy is not required for good health! Cows milk is meant to nourish their babies. That's it! But instead us humans decided to go feed cows hormones to keep them producing dairy... so human adults who do not need to grow can consume the milk that is meant for a calf.
Cows milk is not the only way we can get calcium.
Does it taste good? Yep! Do we need it? No!3 -
I am gluten and lactose interolerant, but I take lactaid to eat the dairy and sugar is not off limits for me. I have to have some sort of "normalcy," because it's difficult enough not eating wheat. I can't imagine giving up all of it. But we all do what works for us. I guess my question would be - is this something you can continue forever?0
-
MaryYoungmark wrote: »Dairy is not required for good health! Cows milk is meant to nourish their babies. That's it! But instead us humans decided to go feed cows hormones to keep them producing dairy... so human adults who do not need to grow can consume the milk that is meant for a calf.
Cows milk is not the only way we can get calcium.
Does it taste good? Yep! Do we need it? No!
Let me guess. You read Skinny *kitten*?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?
Yes of course. I will copy my previous answer in which I explain why milk in particular isn't natural and I will explain myself for the second part of the question.
1: The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal.
Again, neither was anything else we eat (except for those things we created for that explicit purpose, like cheese). Claiming that anything has a teleological purpose is something you impose, it is an interpretation, it does not exist in nature.2: Eating any meat is indeed natural.
Why? It was not created for us to eat. Animals do not have babies in order to give us food. (They don't really have any specific purpose beyond a biological one, but same with mammals making milk.)It provides us with nutrition
So does dairy.and we've been actually eating that since we started on our species.
Arguments about when you go back to in what we ate when we started shall now begin. If our primate ancestor was a vegetarian, why is that not more natural? If we didn't cook our food, why is that natural? If we didn't farm (and we didn't), why is that natural? If we didn't raise animals for food (and we didn't), why is that natural?
More significantly, that we've been doing it forever (well, from our perspective), why is that natural? We've been consuming dairy since we've been consuming meat, probably, as we would have sometimes killed lactating mammals and would have used everything, but even apart from that we've been relying on dairy and raising animals for it since our cultures were unrecognizably different than now -- how is that unnatural.
For that matter, we've been doing it so long that many of us (the vast majority in some areas) are genetically adapted to it, have a gene that allows for it. So if I'm genetically suited to it, how is it unnatural in some kind of "factual" (and not just philosophical/theological) way?The same could be said about all fruits and vegetables alike (unless poisonous :P )
Even if they wouldn't exist without our creation? There are plants we've eaten less long than we've been consuming milk, and of course farming is unnatural under that definition.I say that dairy consumption is not something we did naturally, it's not a natural behaviour.
How do you define what is or is not natural behavior for humans? It seems incredibly "natural" (historically) for us to eat whatever is available that we can and to think of ways to make food more available. The traditional Irish diet (among others, this is just one I have a link for readily available) revolved around dairy for many, many centuries before anyone in Europe was consuming potatoes: http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-before-potatoes. So why is dairy unnatural and potatoes (which the French peasants thought were unnatural and were suspicious of in the 18th c) not?
Natural doesn't mean anything outside of some kind of philosophical or theological argument. (Indeed, what the state of nature was, what's natural or not, is long debated in those contexts. I don't think a scientist would use it to describe human behavior or customs.)
Farming is not natural indeed, never said it was and can't be. Now what sparkled in my mind is the context of if it's our logic that makes things like our inventions and creations "unnatural" or it is actually human nature. And all of this came out from an argument on freaking dairy!
I personally perceive Nature as harsh for not being fair or unfair. In that sense I can see the logic with consuming dairy as nothing within the concept of natural or unnatural because it just simply...is. It's a food that we can use to benefit our survival or nutrition.
My opinion is based on that just because it is not poisonous to us and it was created only to feed that baby mammal it doesn't make it natural. But I suppose my view is more philosophical than coming from my human nature. A biologist would say that this cow or this woman is creating milk due to pregnancy hormones. My intuition then tells me that it's not natural to consume an animal's milk but it's not going to be bad for me.
Yet, nothing can be unnatural or natural for us to consume and use. It's a matter of being ethical, philosophical about the topic or I guess religious.
I'm a very stubborn person but with your approach- not being rude, ironic and actually being keen to explain your points with a good attitude, I must tell you, you've definitely given me food for thought.1 -
This thread has gone full quackadoodle.15
-
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.
And Peeps.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »OP, I believe there is a group here for those who eat Paleo. Not telling you to leave or anything, but you might find such a group to be more supportive.
Well, so far I actually attempted to make suggestions for OP, and one hardly needs to be paleo to do that. If you have suggestions, feel free. Like I said before, meals without gluten, dairy, or added sugar are hardly vanishingly rare in most people's diets.
I don't eat Paleo so rather than suggest meals or ideas that I have no clue about, or poke fun or start a debate in the Q&A section, I suggested she direct her questions towards those who might have a clue.
1 -
MaryYoungmark wrote: »Dairy is not required for good health! Cows milk is meant to nourish their babies. That's it! But instead us humans decided to go feed cows hormones to keep them producing dairy... so human adults who do not need to grow can consume the milk that is meant for a calf.
Cows milk is not the only way we can get calcium.
Does it taste good? Yep! Do we need it? No!
Nobody said dairy was required for good health...
It's also not bad for your health...3 -
MaryYoungmark wrote: »Dairy is not required for good health! Cows milk is meant to nourish their babies. That's it! But instead us humans decided to go feed cows hormones to keep them producing dairy... so human adults who do not need to grow can consume the milk that is meant for a calf.
Cows milk is not the only way we can get calcium.
Does it taste good? Yep! Do we need it? No!
I guess not all our deeds are good. We are in a point where we exploit animals and not just taking advantage of it. From an ethical perspective we are being overly cruel to the animals. It's good that living without dairy won't give you a deficiency since you can find your protein, vitamin D and calcium in different sources.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.
I consider bourbon to also be made for me.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?
Yes of course. I will copy my previous answer in which I explain why milk in particular isn't natural and I will explain myself for the second part of the question.
1: The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal.
Again, neither was anything else we eat (except for those things we created for that explicit purpose, like cheese). Claiming that anything has a teleological purpose is something you impose, it is an interpretation, it does not exist in nature.2: Eating any meat is indeed natural.
Why? It was not created for us to eat. Animals do not have babies in order to give us food. (They don't really have any specific purpose beyond a biological one, but same with mammals making milk.)It provides us with nutrition
So does dairy.and we've been actually eating that since we started on our species.
Arguments about when you go back to in what we ate when we started shall now begin. If our primate ancestor was a vegetarian, why is that not more natural? If we didn't cook our food, why is that natural? If we didn't farm (and we didn't), why is that natural? If we didn't raise animals for food (and we didn't), why is that natural?
More significantly, that we've been doing it forever (well, from our perspective), why is that natural? We've been consuming dairy since we've been consuming meat, probably, as we would have sometimes killed lactating mammals and would have used everything, but even apart from that we've been relying on dairy and raising animals for it since our cultures were unrecognizably different than now -- how is that unnatural.
For that matter, we've been doing it so long that many of us (the vast majority in some areas) are genetically adapted to it, have a gene that allows for it. So if I'm genetically suited to it, how is it unnatural in some kind of "factual" (and not just philosophical/theological) way?The same could be said about all fruits and vegetables alike (unless poisonous :P )
Even if they wouldn't exist without our creation? There are plants we've eaten less long than we've been consuming milk, and of course farming is unnatural under that definition.I say that dairy consumption is not something we did naturally, it's not a natural behaviour.
How do you define what is or is not natural behavior for humans? It seems incredibly "natural" (historically) for us to eat whatever is available that we can and to think of ways to make food more available. The traditional Irish diet (among others, this is just one I have a link for readily available) revolved around dairy for many, many centuries before anyone in Europe was consuming potatoes: http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-before-potatoes. So why is dairy unnatural and potatoes (which the French peasants thought were unnatural and were suspicious of in the 18th c) not?
Natural doesn't mean anything outside of some kind of philosophical or theological argument. (Indeed, what the state of nature was, what's natural or not, is long debated in those contexts. I don't think a scientist would use it to describe human behavior or customs.)
Farming is not natural indeed, never said it was and can't be. Now what sparkled in my mind is the context of if it's our logic that makes things like our inventions and creations "unnatural" or it is actually human nature. And all of this came out from an argument on freaking dairy!
I personally perceive Nature as harsh for not being fair or unfair. In that sense I can see the logic with consuming dairy as nothing within the concept of natural or unnatural because it just simply...is. It's a food that we can use to benefit our survival or nutrition.
My opinion is based on that just because it is not poisonous to us and it was created only to feed that baby mammal it doesn't make it natural. But I suppose my view is more philosophical than coming from my human nature. A biologist would say that this cow or this woman is creating milk due to pregnancy hormones. My intuition then tells me that it's not natural to consume an animal's milk but it's not going to be bad for me.
Yet, nothing can be unnatural or natural for us to consume and use. It's a matter of being ethical, philosophical about the topic or I guess religious.
I'm a very stubborn person but with your approach- not being rude, ironic and actually being keen to explain your points with a good attitude, I must tell you, you've definitely given me food for thought.
given that opinion you should not eat anything because nothing in nature is specifically created for humans to consume...2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species. As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Still I eat and drink dairy because of the protein, the taste and the fact that I am not a meat and especially fish person (not vegetarian though). What I said, not natural doesn't necessarily mean bad.
A life without cheese?? *Gasp* the thought is overwhelmingly depressing!1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species. As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Still I eat and drink dairy because of the protein, the taste and the fact that I am not a meat and especially fish person (not vegetarian though). What I said, not natural doesn't necessarily mean bad.
A life without cheese?? *Gasp* the thought is overwhelmingly depressing!
I second this opinion. Don't take my cheese, yogurt, or milk. I can go through 40 oz of Greek yogurt and a gallon of milk per week just by myself. I won't even go in to the cheese..0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.
I consider bourbon to also be made for me.
I'm gonna go there: Pizza. Tell me pizza wasn't made for me.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Which foods do you consider to be "made for us"?
Oreos.
I consider bourbon to also be made for me.
I'm gonna go there: Pizza. Tell me pizza wasn't made for me.
Pretty sure if you call Domino's, Papa Johns, or Pizza Hut - not only will they make a pizza for you, they will deliver it to your door. How is that not "meant to be!"?11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
Can you explain the difference between drinking cows milk being "unnatural" but eating cow meat being "natural"?
Yes of course. I will copy my previous answer in which I explain why milk in particular isn't natural and I will explain myself for the second part of the question.
1: The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal.
Again, neither was anything else we eat (except for those things we created for that explicit purpose, like cheese). Claiming that anything has a teleological purpose is something you impose, it is an interpretation, it does not exist in nature.2: Eating any meat is indeed natural.
Why? It was not created for us to eat. Animals do not have babies in order to give us food. (They don't really have any specific purpose beyond a biological one, but same with mammals making milk.)It provides us with nutrition
So does dairy.and we've been actually eating that since we started on our species.
Arguments about when you go back to in what we ate when we started shall now begin. If our primate ancestor was a vegetarian, why is that not more natural? If we didn't cook our food, why is that natural? If we didn't farm (and we didn't), why is that natural? If we didn't raise animals for food (and we didn't), why is that natural?
More significantly, that we've been doing it forever (well, from our perspective), why is that natural? We've been consuming dairy since we've been consuming meat, probably, as we would have sometimes killed lactating mammals and would have used everything, but even apart from that we've been relying on dairy and raising animals for it since our cultures were unrecognizably different than now -- how is that unnatural.
For that matter, we've been doing it so long that many of us (the vast majority in some areas) are genetically adapted to it, have a gene that allows for it. So if I'm genetically suited to it, how is it unnatural in some kind of "factual" (and not just philosophical/theological) way?The same could be said about all fruits and vegetables alike (unless poisonous :P )
Even if they wouldn't exist without our creation? There are plants we've eaten less long than we've been consuming milk, and of course farming is unnatural under that definition.I say that dairy consumption is not something we did naturally, it's not a natural behaviour.
How do you define what is or is not natural behavior for humans? It seems incredibly "natural" (historically) for us to eat whatever is available that we can and to think of ways to make food more available. The traditional Irish diet (among others, this is just one I have a link for readily available) revolved around dairy for many, many centuries before anyone in Europe was consuming potatoes: http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-before-potatoes. So why is dairy unnatural and potatoes (which the French peasants thought were unnatural and were suspicious of in the 18th c) not?
Natural doesn't mean anything outside of some kind of philosophical or theological argument. (Indeed, what the state of nature was, what's natural or not, is long debated in those contexts. I don't think a scientist would use it to describe human behavior or customs.)
Farming is not natural indeed, never said it was and can't be. Now what sparkled in my mind is the context of if it's our logic that makes things like our inventions and creations "unnatural" or it is actually human nature. And all of this came out from an argument on freaking dairy!
I personally perceive Nature as harsh for not being fair or unfair. In that sense I can see the logic with consuming dairy as nothing within the concept of natural or unnatural because it just simply...is. It's a food that we can use to benefit our survival or nutrition.
My opinion is based on that just because it is not poisonous to us and it was created only to feed that baby mammal it doesn't make it natural. But I suppose my view is more philosophical than coming from my human nature. A biologist would say that this cow or this woman is creating milk due to pregnancy hormones. My intuition then tells me that it's not natural to consume an animal's milk but it's not going to be bad for me.
Yet, nothing can be unnatural or natural for us to consume and use. It's a matter of being ethical, philosophical about the topic or I guess religious.
I'm a very stubborn person but with your approach- not being rude, ironic and actually being keen to explain your points with a good attitude, I must tell you, you've definitely given me food for thought.
given that opinion you should not eat anything because nothing in nature is specifically created for humans to consume...lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Jesus Christ why are you so nasty to each other? We can't compare fruit with a mars bar anyway. The fruit has fiber, vitamins and minerals which help keeping the appetite stabilized and give proper nutrition! And dairy? You're a freaking human, not a cow so it's okay not to have it in your diet even when you're NOT intolerant or allergic to it. Now for gluten, if you're not sick I don't see any reason why to avoid it but if it works for one then it's good, you don't have to play the "i know better than you because I am SO much better" card.
I eat all of the things she says she avoids but still... who am I to criticize and belittle one? Jeez there's no need to be mean. Maybe you need to up your calories a bit.
PS: Some responses have been nice and/or honest, so my text doesn't go to all who responded.
The irony of this post.
I got to admit that the comment about upping the calories was a little mean itself. I apologize, I was acting out of emotion It just hit me that some people are playing the experts in order to "reduce" the person who began the topic.
Yet, you are reducing people by comparing them to baby cows if they consume dairy...Go figure.
It's a fact that it is food not meant for us but for the cow though, no matter how you take it.
Unless "fact" has an alternate meaning to you, no, it's not a fact at all.
I guess you don't understand what "meant" means. I hope you know that a cow to produce milk must first give birth. Pretty much like any other land mammal. The fact that we consume e.g a liter of it means that a baby cow isn't. So, yeah no matter what you say it's a food originally meant for a baby cow and not a human or a dog or a sheep etc.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing it's meant for, and it's not "meant" to be human food. Under the same exact rationale you could say that no animals or plants are "meant" to be human food. Like I said, clams about "meant" aren't fact claims, they are philosophical ones that we impose.
Hmm... it's just that milk is produced for the sole purpose of feeding the baby, no matter the mammal species.
It's not produced with a purpose. It's a process that happens without intent unless you add it on (which is theological or philosophical). Similarly, the baby cow is not born with the intent to give him to us to eat, so under the same logic any meat eating would be unnatural. The natural purpose of plants growing isn't to be food, but to reproduce, under the same logic.
(I made basically this same point in my other reply, so feel free to consolidate if you want to continue the discussion.)As humans we take advantage of it for good or for bad. So, an animal or a plant can be a food source, but the dairy is still not necessary for us, technically it's for the baby.
Not necessary doesn't mean "not meant for," as absolutely no one food is necessary.
The thing is that dairy in particular isn't natural for humans apart from the theological or philosophical aspect which I am not concerned with on this topic. Cow milk is created as a hormonal response to feed the calf and no more. It wasn't made for any of us or another animal. A cow or any other mammal won't provide milk if not first impregnated. Yet, not looking from an ethical or philosophical view, dairy is not bad for us unless we consume it excessively (as with guess what? everything!). Is it natural for humans to consume something made specifically for cows or kittens or goats? Absolutely not. Is it ethical? You be the judge. Is it bad? Nope. Science approves that last opinion.
what specific things are made for us in nature?
Are you suggesting that you bottle breast milk and drink that instead of dairy?
Yes that's exactly what i do. I go to new mothers in the near neighborhoods, abduct them, take their milk, let them free cuz i ain't a horrible person and run. I also wear a mask so I am not recognized. By doing that I shout "cow milk is for cows so I shall take yours Young Motharrr".
because we all know that cows and humans are the same when it comes to rights and what not..wow
You asked me if I bottled human breast milk and I responded to you in the most sincere way.
You are only trying to prove your superficial smartness. My sarcastic response to your ironic question becomes a statement in which I value cows equally or more than humans. You throw irony, you get the same back darling. Grow up and don't make a statement about me or anyone else based on a freaking ironic response.
I get that we disagree, I got to understand where you all come from and compromise my opinion,see with your eyes but human stupidity and desire to be on top on a debate ONLINE is just amazing!
Yes I love milking the moms in my area and drink their milk because YES I value cows more than humans. You want this? Take it...wow1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions