[Response to an ask to a blog about vegan fundies, where a person studying biology expressed curiosity on how to explain how milk consumption is natural without scientific words that scare vegans]
Nothing confuses me more than people (especially those claiming to be educated) who truly think that it’s natural to drink milk made by another species specifically for their own young.
If you want to drink milk so badly past infancy (which is abnormal to begin with), try sticking to the milk of your own species instead of actively destroying familial bonds of other species and abusing them in order to do so.
#HOW MUCH SELF RIGHTEOUS CAN FIT IN ONE OP JESUS CHRIST
13 comments
try sticking to the milk of your own species instead of actively destroying familial bonds of other species and abusing them in order to do so.
Huh? You DO know that some species, like cows and goats, produce milk on a pretty consistent cycle regardless of "familial bonds", and in fact REQUIRE periodic milking to prevent disease? I guess you're suggesting that we should just toss all that away out of fear of hurting the feelings of cows...
>#HOW MUCH SELF RIGHTEOUS CAN FIT IN ONE OP JESUS CHRIST
Vegeta, what does the Irony meter say about veganerudition?
Apparently asking how to explain things in a way that makes sense to others is self-righteous, as well as expressing disagreement with a vegan who brought up something false.
Also, the ability to produce lactase beyond infancy was the result of natural selection in regions that reared milk-producing animals like cows and goats, as people who could consume milk without experiencing intense agony/sickness were more likely to survive poor harvests and also got a boost in certain nutrients such as calcium. Its quite natural. Not that it matters, as radveegs seem to be okay with tofu. Tofu does not occur in nature, was a purely human invention, and could be argued as forcibly putting soybeans in inoptimal conditions to make them resort to a form of energy production that is very harmful long term.
Also, if your culture encourages milk consumption after infancy (and many cultures do, such as American and Indian cultures), its not abnormal. While people have attempted to market human breast milk, it is not usually pasteurized so there have been concerns about it transmitting diseases that one human from one genetic line can keep at bay but another cannot. You know how vegans complain about pus in cow milk when farmers are actually hyper-vigilant about not letting that stuff in there not to mention that its conflating pus with immune cells? Well imagine how they'd react to the immune cell content in humans, who use breastmilk as a medium for transferring resistances and immunity as well as epigenetic markings. There are also concerns of how you mass-produce it, as humans don't produce milk on the level of cows or goats and stop once they lack a baby to feed off of the milk (not to mention the level of and cost of testing for diseases like HIV/AIDS-- cows don't lie about being sick, humans can and do).
#HOW MUCH SELF RIGHTEOUS CAN FIT IN ONE OP JESUS CHRIST
@DarkPhoenix :
Huh? You DO know that some species, like cows and goats, produce milk on a pretty consistent cycle regardless of "familial bonds", and in fact REQUIRE periodic milking to prevent disease?
I don't know about this person specifically, but most PETA-types know. They're all for the extinction of domesticated animals which can't survive well without humans. Better dead than slaves and all that.
Lactase enhancer mutation, motherfucker. Do you know of it?
Also, gorillas are only muscly because they have special gut microbes to convert cellulose into fatty acids.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
