It's painfull for a lactating woman (I have been told?) not to be milked too.
I guess one answer is simply this; If it is not right to connect a woman to a milking machine for life than why it is right to do that to a cow?
The other thing is that the 'drying up' is a gradual process as a child/calf slowly takes less and less milk from it's mother as it moves on to solid food.
The luxury of being allowed that natural less painfull process is one that the dairy industry denies to cows.
I guess one answer is simply this; If it is not right to connect a woman to a milking machine for life than why it is right to do that to a cow?
Don't forget to include the fact that in order for a cow to produce milk humans can use, she must first become pregnant and then the calf will be taken away from them (probably killed and eaten).
A wild mammal produces enough milk for her own babies, and when they gradually cease to need that milk, the milk production slowly decreases. The pain 'argument' only refers to a bad side effect of the domestication and exploitation of cows.
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
The dairy industry creates an unnatural cause of suffering to the cow (interrupted nursing of its calf) in order that they can milk it. They then argue that they have to milk the cow or else the cow will suffer.
The thing I struggle with most about that is how easily such a blindingly obvious nonsense can be slipped, unnoticed, beneath otherwise quite intelligent people's 'radars'.
The thing I struggle with most about that is how easily such a blindingly obvious nonsense can be slipped, unnoticed, beneath otherwise quite intelligent people's 'radars'.
It is surprising, but some non-vegans don't even seem to realise that cows need to have calves in order to produce milk - their mental model of milk production may be more like a fuel pump (say) than to a human mother
The thing I struggle with most about that is how easily such a blindingly obvious nonsense can be slipped, unnoticed, beneath otherwise quite intelligent people's 'radars'.
Have you always been vegan, Cupid?
I can honestly say that until I became vegan, around age 30, 8 years ago, that I never really thought about how milk is produced, or the fact cows have to be pregnant in order to give milk.
I don't think it's a case of level of intelligence, or lack of; some things are simply so ingrained in our society as being "normal" that we don't even question them.
I can honestly say that until I became vegan, around age 30, 8 years ago, that I never really thought about how milk is produced, or the fact cows have to be pregnant in order to give milk.
I don't think it's a case of level of intelligence, or lack of; some things are simply so ingrained in our society as being "normal" that we don't even question them.
Well put fiamma. It's too easy as vegans to have a 'pop' at the ignorance, daftness or lack of empathy (towards the plight of animals) of omnis, conveniently forgetting that nearly all of us were omnis at one time. Omnis now, are the people we used to be.
Yes, I find it quite hard to remember what I knew/thought before becoming vegan (though there's probably an online conference or forum archive somewhere that would tell me ).
It seems hard to believe that we wouldn't have known cows needed to calve in order to lactate, but as fiamma says we probably just hadn't thought about it.
A quick re-read of my post should make it clear that I acknowledged people to otherwise be "quite intelligent".
It's not just a matter of "not questioning" either. There is a constant institutionalised bombardment, ranging from blatant to sublimal, designed to re-inforce the anti-truths and reversals of reality that the meat industry depends upon.
Omnis now, are the people we used to be.
Words of great wisdom there LV
I still have the screaming hump with all the veg-heads I ever met who timidly tried tickling the concrete reinforced bunker of my ignorance with feather dusters. If they had had 'compassion' for me, or for the stream of 'victims' I was creating at the time, they would have taken sledgehammers to it.
The dairy industry creates an unnatural cause of suffering to the cow (interrupted nursing of its calf) in order that they can milk it. They then argue that they have to milk the cow or else the cow will suffer.
The thing I struggle with most about that is how easily such a blindingly obvious nonsense can be slipped, unnoticed, beneath otherwise quite intelligent people's 'radars'.
fiamma
Have you always been vegan, Cupid?
I can honestly say that until I became vegan, around age 30, 8 years ago, that I never really thought about how milk is produced, or the fact cows have to be pregnant in order to give milk.
I don't think it's a case of level of intelligence, or lack of; some things are simply so ingrained in our society as being "normal" that we don't even question them.
For me-intelligence encompasses questioning everything and not accepting things as okay just because the majority does them. Thinking for onself, in other words.
The greatest mistake is to do nothing because you can only do a little.
I still have the screaming hump with all the veg-heads I ever met who timidly tried tickling the concrete reinforced bunker of my ignorance with feather dusters. If they had had 'compassion' for me, or for the stream of 'victims' I was creating at the time, they would have taken sledgehammers to it.
Cupid. You are strong and forceful with your opinions and no doubt before you became a vegan, you were equally strong and forceful with your opinions. I think it's a bit rich though if/when we present ourselves as the victims and blame others because they didn't try hard enough to persuade us to go veggie/vegan. We expect omnis to take full responsibility for their actions but this has to apply to us too when we were omnis.
It is surprising, but some non-vegans don't even seem to realise that cows need to have calves in order to produce milk
This is soo true, my parents have struggled with the idea of me being vegan, even though I live away to study. But over Christmas a rather large debate came up and my Mum will not accept that a cow has to be pregnant to produce the milk.. Does anyone have any evidence from a website somewhere to prove that they do? You and I know its true but others find it difficult to accept!
Does anyone also have the problem that people will talk about things but if you show them evidence from a vegan website their immediate response is that the view is biased.. Well surely people who believe the ethics of eating animals and dairy to be wrong are going to be the ones to research it? If a Doctor turned around and provided you advice on how to best maintain one of your organs after researching it themself, would you turn around and say Im sorry your information is biased, do you have any unbiased evidence? Bah!!
Hi phiewe - there is an earlier thread here http://www.veganforum.com/forums/sho...dairy-industry where I and others posted some links that may provide you with ammunition. I think I found some from DEFRA which as a government department can't be accused of having a vegan bias. Shout if you don't see what you need and I'll have a further dig.
I think it's true that cows can go on producing milk for a long time after having a calf but to maintain the required levels of "productivity" they need to have more calves. I don't think they will produce milk without having at least one calf unless there is some hormonal abnormality.
I suspect that part of the problem is that people just won't listen to this sort of information until they're in some sense "ready" for it - so (even if they're not as forceful as Cupid Stunt ) it would probably difficult to persuade them to take it in before that time. I think if you stick to being vegan for a while and show that you're happy and healthy with it, your family may listen a bit more later.
Cupid. You are strong and forceful with your opinions and no doubt before you became a vegan, you were equally strong and forceful with your opinions. I think it's a bit rich though if/when we present ourselves as the victims and blame others because they didn't try hard enough to persuade us to go veggie/vegan. We expect omnis to take full responsibility for their actions but this has to apply to us too when we were omnis.
Leedsveg
Don't, in the nicest way, agree LV ...
I don't expect omnis to take responsibility for their actions.
I expect omnis to be brainwashed slaves to the meat eating habit exactly the same as I was.
I don't expect omnis to take responsibility for their actions.
I expect omnis to be brainwashed slaves to the meat eating habit exactly the same as I was.
Cupid. I'm afraid I just couldn't see you as a brain-washed victim nor could I imagine, in view of your personality, that veg-heads would have found you in your omni days, an 'easy convert'. So these veg-heads lacked compassion because they didn't try harder? Mm. I'd love to hear their side of the story!
(add to last post because edit function not working)
Not trying to 'have a go' at you Cupid, by the way. I'm just desperately trying to follow the logic of what you're saying. Can I ask you if anybody at all in the whole animal food producing/eating business should feel/accept any sense of responsibilty for what they're doing or are they all brain-washed?
Cupid. I'm afraid I just couldn't see you as a brain-washed victim nor could I imagine, in view of your personality, that veg-heads would have found you in your omni days, an 'easy convert'. So these veg-heads lacked compassion because they didn't try harder? Mm. I'd love to hear their side of the story!
lv
I don't know what side of the story the few veg-heads I ever encountered (they were rare in our younger days?) would tell LV.
I do know this tho'; All the veg-heads I ever met, without exception, were easy enough for meat eaters to laugh at and make fun of and my personality then was not as it is now. (I was bullied virtualy non-stop as a child, phsycologicaly at home and physicaly outside). That alone, as I was terrified of becoming a 'target', was enough to overide anything 'gentle' veg-heads had to say. They were weak in my eyes and no ferkin' way was I was joining the weaklings again.
Probably posted this before ... I did not ever mean to become a veg-head. I accidentaly de-toxed during my super-fit days (I was in training for a 'knock down' competition, basicaly the nearest thing to legal bare knuckle fighting that existed at the time) and couldn't eat meat again. The toxicity of the stuff simply meant that my system rejected it (and the taste became disgusting beyond belief!) and that was that. No going back.
Now I was terrified again. All the bad things that I had been brainwashed into believing (mainly by exploitation of my fears) were going to happen. I was going to become weak. I was going to become ill. I was going to become marginalised and bulllied again.
None of that actualy came to be, obviously. What actualy happened was, paraphrasing the buddha, that the "great obstacle to my compassion" no longer existed. Without that the meat eater lies and bullying tactics that I had never been able to see before became clear as day. That pissed me off most mightily. The b'stards had 'had' me! Not only had I been 'bullied' without being aware but I had also been made a 'bully' of animals and had joined in with the bullying of those who did not eat them.
Anyways, the short of that self indulgent ramble is this: I am, unashamedly, a butt kicking vegan who takes on absolutely anyone, any place in any numbers. I make damn sure that anyone who takes me or any other veg*an on, mistaking the 'gentleness' of veg*ism for weakness, learns as thorough a lesson as it is within my personal abilities to give them.
That is exactly what I needed someone to do for me (but no one did do) when I was a brainwashed slave to the meat eating habit and so it is exactly what I do for others.
Not trying to 'have a go' at you Cupid, by the way. I'm just desperately trying to follow the logic of what you're saying. Can I ask you if anybody at all in the whole animal food producing/eating business should feel/accept any sense of responsibilty for what they're doing or are they all brain-washed?
Would have to do a 1,000+ page 'buddhist logic 101' to cover that fully most honourable matey ...
Bottom line is this though; Absolutely everyone in the whole animal food producing/eating business is a victim of delusion as to the root causes of their own suffering and to the qualities of mind that bring out about their own happiness.
By the very nature of delusion no one can be entirely responsible for their actions for as long as they are victims to it.
Thanks CS for taking the time to compose such a long reply. We obviously see some things in different ways and as the song says "You sat tom-ay-toe and I say tom-ah-toe". I'm aware that I've gone off topic in the last couple of days so I'll "call the whole thing off" and leave the thread now.
I don't think it's a case of level of intelligence, or lack of; some things are simply so ingrained in our society as being "normal" that we don't even question them
and you said
Festered
For me-intelligence encompasses questioning everything and not accepting things as okay just because the majority does them. Thinking for onself, in other words.
... I could have sworn you meant... oh, never mind.
Why would you do that - since their milk is for their own babies - and since you don't need that milk? ;-)
1.) All mamal species are capable of producing excess milk. With proper feed and timing of milking goats and cows can and do produce enough milk to feed their young and also to supplu human needs.
2.) If one has an infant and the infants mother is not producing enough milk, there is a need.
3.) Soy production harms the environnment and directly contributes to deforestation of the Amazon rain forest and the biological desertification of the plains of North America.
4.) If one lives in a northern climate with lots of snow and forest -- a goat can live on what it browses in your own yard and surrounding woods. A soy or other vegan milk-like product would require the destruction of wildlife habitat as well as fossil fuels to grow, harvest, process and transport it.
5.) A milk substitute product for an infant in addition to the energy and land-use damage caused, costs a large amount of money for a family trying to live close to the land in the upper parts of rural North America.
As an adult, would you milk your mom and drink her milk? Would you milk your dog and drink his milk?
Well I have drunk my wife's while she nursed (unintentionally). ; )
If my mother was lactating and I needed milk for my baby -- sure no problem. It's called wet-nursing and is as old humankind.
It would not make sense to keep dogs for milk. There is no cost benefit as dogs eat meat. Goats browse on all sorts of plants. Cows graze grass. Cows and goats convert abundant, locally native, natural plant matter into protein needed for developing babies.
1.) All mamal species are capable of producing excess milk. With proper feed and timing of milking goats and cows can and do produce enough milk to feed their young and also to supplu human needs.
They can provide more milk than their babies nee, but that's not a reason to use their milk.
2.) If one has an infant and the infants mother is not producing enough milk, there is a need.
Your bringing up another 'special situation' here; human babies that can't get human milk from their babies. Most non-human milk consumed by humans isn't within such special situations, and babies don't need milk from goats or cow's. And: not only do I not want to keep animals in captivity and take their milk, nor do I need it - but there are other solutions that doesn't involve using milk from other species. No other animals use milk from other species, or drink it throughout their whole life, by the way.
3.) Soy production harms the environnment and directly contributes to deforestation of the Amazon rain forest and the biological desertification of the plains of North America.
Then don't use soy milk. I never do, and lots of vegans never use anything with soy in it. The possible bad effects of producing soy is no reason to keep a goat.
4.) If one lives in a northern climate with lots of snow and forest -- a goat can live on what it browses in your own yard and surrounding woods. A soy or other vegan milk-like product would require the destruction of wildlife habitat as well as fossil fuels to grow, harvest, process and transport it.
Again, even if a goat *can* survive in the snow - that, in itself, is no reason to use it's milk. A vegan group of humans wouldn't seek or settle in an area where they can't survive on plants. The reason some people live in areas where plants don't grow is either that they weren't vegans in the first place, that they arrived in a season where there was no snow, or that their ancestors arrived in this area when the climate was different/warm. Or they got stuck there!
5.) A milk substitute product for an infant in addition to the energy and land-use damage caused, costs a large amount of money for a family trying to live close to the land in the upper parts of rural North America.
[/QUOTE]
It seems that you try to focus on special situations which for some people would be seen as valid reasons to use animal products in order to survive. But what about all those who don't live under these conditions? Would you - if you aren't a baby, or a parent to a child in an area covered my snow 6 months a year (etc) live on a vegan diet? If not - why?
Producing nutrients for humans through raising animals and then killing the animals or using their milk seems like cruel waste of a lot of energy and land. The amount of wild animals - in most parts of the world - isn't enough to keep the local humans supplied with meat (etc) for more than a few weeks anyway, given the high number of animals and the low number of wild animals. So what was possible 10,000 years ago isn't possible today, even if you'd prefer such a lifestyle.
We don't need milk from goats or other animals. We need nutrients, and we can get them all without killing or harming any animals.
Since you think that there's nothing wrong with killing animals for food ("so long as the animals are treated respectfully"), of course you don't mind keeping them for milk (milk which you don't even need). The question isn't - the way I see it - if you think it's OK to kill an animal for food, but if the animal feels that it's "OK". It doesn't. And you don't need to kill it. I don't know if you feel an urge to kill animals, but even if you do - that alone isn't a valid reason to kill it.
With all due respect: I see that you - in multiple posts - have posted some of the same questions several times now. All these questions have already been discussed, several times, in other threads. And: threads discussing a multitude of topics often end up quite chaotic. So my humble suggestion is that instead of repeating your questions, please spend a day or two searching for our existing threads about the same topics, and come back afterwards if there are questions that aren't already addressed.
Hi Spartacus and welcome to the forum.
Obviously it is easier to be vegan in some places than in others. Being aware of the health risks associated with the consumption of milk, by infants and adults alike, I would choose not to expose my child to that risk. Unfortunately there are a lot of humans on the planet, and feeding us all, by whatever methods, unfortunately does involve the destruction of habitats, as the population of the planet continues to expand.
As far as infant formula is concerned, I see the use of soy formula as more ethical and less damaging to my child's health than feeding him or her cow's milk. Indeed the WHO has estimated that as much as 75% of the world's population may be intolerant to cow's milk. It does make sense, since it is meant for baby cows, not for baby humans.
If we continue to rear and use livestock for our own purposes, this involves a greater use of resources than would the adoption of a plant-based diet.
You constantly mention soy; many vegans are actually allergic to it and do not consume it as part of a plant-based it. It is not essential! I consume very little soy, if at all.
Vegans are against the use of animals on ethical grounds; ultimately each and every one of us makes our own decisions based on our own conscience.
If my mother was lactating and I needed milk for my baby -- sure no problem. It's called wet-nursing and is as old humankind..
I said 'as an adult'.
spartacus
It would not make sense to keep dogs for milk. There is no cost benefit as dogs eat meat. Goats browse on all sorts of plants. Cows graze grass. Cows and goats convert abundant, locally native, natural plant matter into protein needed for developing babies.
Cows and goats convert abundant, locally native, natural plant matter into protein needed for developing babies.
The fact that animal protein is "needed" for developing babies is a fallacy, disproved by numerous studies and generations of healthy vegan children and adults. Moreover, it has been linked to a whole host of diseases, including most types of cancer.
Type 1 diabetes along with several other autoimmune diseases, heart disease...
Being from Alberta -- you might find the article I linked to about the diets of the American Indians of the plains of interest.
Among the Lakota and other tribes, where Diabetes has had a horrible impact on the tribe, traditional healers have reversed it by prescribing a Traditional Diet rich on grass-fed bison and other wild game. Interestingly, Diabetes did not occur among the tribes until they were forcibly put on reservations and forced to eat domestic grains and vegetables.
Interestingly, Diabetes did not occur among the tribes until they were forcibly put on reservations and forced to eat domestic grains and vegetables.
... and drink milk, I presume?
(There are a lot of studies that suggest a causal relationship between drinking milk as a kid and the occurrence of diabetes)
... and drink milk, I presume?
(There are a lot of studies that suggest a causal relationship between drinking milk as a kid and the occurrence of diabetes)
Best regards,
Andy
Actually drinking milk on reservations was not very common until very recently when the federal government instituted free milk for impoverished children at school.
There just aren't a lot of dairy operations between the Mississippi and the Rocky mountains. The grasslands are not suited for dairy.
The advice I have heard all my life from my grandmother to my doctor is "everything in moderation" when it comes to food. If you have any links to studies about the risks of milk consumption, I'd like to see it. The studies I mean...not articles alluding to studies.
Which brings me to another question:
There are a number of studies that show the health benefits from consuming live cultures of healthful bacteria like what one finds in yogurt. I have personally benefited from "pro-biotics" especially after coming off an antibiotic following a serious infection.
How do vegans get the benefits of these bacteria without causing harm to an animal?
Being from Alberta -- you might find the article I linked to about the diets of the American Indians of the plains of interest.
Among the Lakota and other tribes, where Diabetes has had a horrible impact on the tribe, traditional healers have reversed it by prescribing a Traditional Diet rich on grass-fed bison and other wild game. Interestingly, Diabetes did not occur among the tribes until they were forcibly put on reservations and forced to eat domestic grains and vegetables.
A traditional diet rich on grass-fed bison and other wild game? I wouldn't consider dying from heart disease or cancer to be a cure for diabetes. Simply a misunderstanding that renders you dead before diabetes would have... And why would living in Alberta make me any less of a vegan? Sorry, I have no interest in reading that article or your pro-omnivorous bull shit.
There are a number of studies that show the health benefits from consuming live cultures of healthful bacteria like what one finds in yogurt. I have personally benefited from "pro-biotics" especially after coming off an antibiotic following a serious infection.
How do vegans get the benefits of these bacteria without causing harm to an animal?
Since following a vegan diet, I've never had the need for antibiotics. There are enzymes available on the market to aid in the production of healthful intestinal flora which are not animal derived.
And I'm sorry but none of the information I've read correlates a diet rich in grains and vegetables with the onset of diabetes. You may want to look to animal protein for that one.
There are a number of studies that show the health benefits from consuming live cultures of healthful bacteria like what one finds in yogurt. I have personally benefited from "pro-biotics" especially after coming off an antibiotic following a serious infection.
How do vegans get the benefits of these bacteria without causing harm to an animal?
There are plenty of vegan probiotics on the market if you search for them. I am not your google monkey.
The advice I have heard all my life from my grandmother to my doctor is "everything in moderation" when it comes to food. If you have any links to studies about the risks of milk consumption, I'd like to see it. The studies I mean...not articles alluding to studies.
Voskuil DW, Vrieling A, van’t Veer LJ, Kampman E, Rookus MA. The insulin-like growth factor system in cancer prevention: potential of dietary intervention strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:195-203.
Cadogan J, Eastell R, Jones N, Barker ME. Milk intake and bone mineral acquisition in adolescent girls: randomised, controlled intervention trial. BMJ. 1997;315:1255-60.
Cohen P. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I levels and prostate cancer risk—interpreting the evidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:876-9.
Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Science. 1998;279:563-5.
Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Ma J, Gann PH, Gaziano JM, Giovannucci E. Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians' Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;74:549-54.
Tseng M, Breslow RA, Graubard BI, Ziegler RG. Dairy, calcium and vitamin D intakes and prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:1147-54.
Cramer DW, Greenberg ER, Titus-Ernstoff L, et al. A case-control study of galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9:95-101.
Larsson SC, Bergkvist L, Wolk A. Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:1353-7.
Kushi LH, Mink PJ, Folsom AR, et al. Prospective study of diet and ovarian cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:21-31.
Saukkonen T, Virtanen SM, Karppinen M, et al. Significance of cow’s milk protein antibodies as risk factor for childhood IDDM: interaction with dietary cow’s milk intake and HLA-DQB1 genotype. Childhood Dibetes in Finland Study Group. Dibetologia. 1998;41:72-8.
Paronen J, Bjorksten B, Hattevig G, Akerblom HK, Vaarala O. Effect of maternal diet during lactation on development of bovine insulin-binding antibodies in children at risk for allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106:302-306.
Howell MA. Factor analysis of international cancer mortality data and per capita food consumption. Br J Cancer 1974;29:328-36.
Armstrong B, Doll R. Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in different countries, with special reference to dietary practices. Int J Cancer 1975;15: 617-31.
Rose DP, Boyar AP, Wynder EL. International comparisons of mortality rates for cancer of the breast, ovary, prostate, and colon, and per capita food consumption. Cancer 1986;58:2363-71.
Hebert JR, Hurley TG, Olendzki BC, Teas J, Ma Y, Hampl JS. Nutritional and socioeconomic factors in relation to prostate cancer mortality: a cross national study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90(21):1637-47.
Snowdon DA, Phillips RL, Choi W. Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer. Am J Epidemiology 1984;120:244-50.
LeMarchand L, Kolonel LN, Wilkens LR, Myers BC, Hirohata T. Animal fat consumption and prostate cancer: a prospective study in Hawaii. Epidemiology 1994;5:276-82.
Schuurman AG, van den Brandt PA, Dorant E, Goldbohm RA. Animal products, calcium and protein and prostate cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Br J Cancer 1999;80:1107-1113.
Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Wolk A, Ascherio A, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Willett WC. Calcium and fructose intake in relation to risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Res 1998a;58:442-7.
Ross RK, Henderson BE. Do diet and androgens alter prostate cancer risk via a common etiologic pathway? J Natl Cancer Inst 1994:86:252-4.
Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Ascherio A, Chute CC, Willett WC. A prospective study of dietary fat and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1571-9.
I think the point that Spartucus was tryin to make was - 'If I'm keeping goats as pets (so they are babied, not killed later on, etc), what would be wrong with milking them?'
He wasn't asking whether we Need the milk, but rather, "If I'm not harming the goat (which he wouldn't be), what would be wrong with taking some milk"?
Also, I don't think it's necessary to be quite so mean to the him. He is being very pleasant and respectful (towards the people of the forum) in his replies, so I think we should treat him the same.
And Wooow vorpal, I'm very impressed at the research you did there. *nod*
(P.s. - I'm not sure if responding to a thread from Feb counts as reviving a dead topic or not (especially since active topics in the "Non-Vegan" section aren't abundant), but if it is.. I'm sorry ^^;..)
He wasn't asking whether we Need the milk, but rather, "If I'm not harming the goat (which he wouldn't be), what would be wrong with taking some milk"?
Hi Minka!
I know, and he received replies to both this^^^ and his other questions in several threads.
He asked/repeated a few questions - several times, in multiple threads, including questions about what's wrong with killing animals if they are "treated respectfully" etc., and didn't follow up on responses with links to threads where the topics he brought up were discussed in detail .
We welcome people who want an actual discussion with vegans, but if they come here to repeat what I consider pseudo-arguments for using animal products - without actually taking part in the discussion, their accounts will be deactivated. It's not about how he treated me/us, but about the idea that it's OK to kill animals if one treat them 'respectfully' and take their milk. Some of these repeated questions were removed, so what you see in this thread is only part of his eager repetition of a message essentially saying that we could treat animals as our slaves and kill them if we 'respected' them.
I don't think anyone was mean to him, but I do think it's mean to kill an innocent, living being and at the same time that you 'respect' them'. And I can't see how humans possible can declare that they have the right to take other animals' milk and give to their own babies (or that there are health reasons to do so).
I'm not sure if responding to a thread from Feb counts as reviving a dead topic
I, for one, can't see anything wrong with reviving old thread - and as long as humans kill animals/treat them as their slaves, these topics won't be too old...
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
He asked/repeated a few questions - several times, in multiple threads, including questions about what's wrong with killing animals if they are "treated respectfully" etc., and didn't follow up on responses with links to threads where the topics he brought up were discussed in detail .
Ah... If i had known, I wouldn't have stood up for him...
I, for one, can't see anything wrong with reviving old thread - and as long as humans kill animals/treat them as their slaves, these topics won't be too old...
So even if I go way back to 2009 or 2007 nobody will get upset?
I just know most forums have a rule against reviving threads which are over _____ months old, a year old, etc.
Sure - many forum threads are 'timeless' anyway, so I can't see what should be wrong with following up on a post from eg. 2004. We (and many other forums) actually encourage people to search for existing threads before tarting new ones, and only close threads (+ suggest people to start new ones) if they get very long. And - bringng up what you did in this thread is OK too; because there may be others out there as well who don't know the story behind why we actually deactivated this member's account.
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
Why is milk considered wrong?
Cupid Stunt
). 
Bookmarks