Vegan extremists

[Davos123]

Rollin said:

Yes we do have to. On a massive scale and either directly or indirectly. Sometimes the cute cuddly ones, sometimes not. To think otherwise is totally deluded.

Granted, you can try to minimise this and guess what?....You don't have to be a self righteous vegan to do that.

Veganism is literally about minimising the suffering caused to other sentient life...

[LDN]

Davos123 said:

There's a whole Wikipedia page to explain to you why your line of reasoning is a fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

HTH

Appeal to nature is most certainly a ‘thing’. And most of the time, posted by people on iPhones who wouldn’t last 24 hours without their creature comforts. Nature indeed.

[Kenny Powers]

LDN said:

Problem being for you; is that he has logic on his side. You have sarcasm. And not a witty strain at that

Well that’s a matter of opinion, but he certainly has you on his side. Then again they say the easiest way to become an extremist is to hang out with people you agree with

[LDN]

Kenny Powers said:

LDN said:

Problem being for you; is that he has logic on his side. You have sarcasm. And not a witty strain at that

Well that’s a matter of opinion, but he certainly has you on his side. Then again they say the easiest way to become an extremist is to hang out with people you agree with

Indeed. Goes both ways, that particular path

[Willy Nilly]

Evanivitch said:

So what would the consequence be if the cattle were granted free roaming access in and out of barns in winter? Efficiency? Productivity? A rough field?

The cattle that are housed in winter, generally speaking, are less hardy that the ones that aren't. The modern dairy cow is a bit diva compared with say a Belted Galloway or Highland cattle, she's your Premier League footballer who wants and needs everything to be top draw and wouldn't like a Sunday league club facilities.

The grass during the winter has very little feed value in it, besides not growing much if at all because the days are short and cold, so food would have to be brought to them, which makes a mess or they would have to come in to feed. If they come in to feed, they might as well stay because they spend so much time eating, they'd almost certainly not bother to go out if there was nothing for them outsides.

The Olympic mountain bike course is just down the road from me. They use a herd of Red Polls to keep the country park vegetation under control and they are utterly lovely, placid cattle. Right now, I don't know where they get taken, Suffolk I think, on some lighter land, because is they stay where they are, they just churn the land up and there will be nothing for them in the spring. This is much the same reason cattle are brought inside in the winter, it just makes too much mess of the land.

It's very easy to see with dairy cows how they are feeling, so to speak because the milk yield drops. Even a cold day in the summer and the milk drops. So as the grass quality reduces, down goes the milk yield. The grass they get fed inside as silage will be the top quality grass cut in the summer mixed maybe with some maize, straw and concentrates to top the diet up depending on the stage of lactation of the cows.

Also mastitis is more difficult to control when they are outside because you have less control of their environment. This is very costly and can lead to poorly cows, which nobody wants.

Water pipes for the water troughs can freeze in the winter and you physically can't see them when you go to round them up twice a day and before you go to bed at night.

Your Belted Galloways, Red Polls, Highland Cattle and other lower production hardy breeds don't do a well inside, so they would be kept outside, but they are farmed much less intensively.

The really big herds that are house all year around are mainly housed because of the practicalities of moving say 1,000 cows in and out of the fields every day. They would need several hundred acres of grazing and would likely end up walking several KM per day to and from the milking parlour. Not good for the cows or the land.

[Rollin]

LDN said:

Davos123 said:

There's a whole Wikipedia page to explain to you why your line of reasoning is a fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

HTH

Appeal to nature is most certainly a ‘thing’. And most of the time, posted by people on iPhones who wouldn’t last 24 hours without their creature comforts. Nature indeed.

LDN said:

There’s nothing natural’ about one species breast feeding from another

[Evanivitch]

Willy Nilly said:

It's very easy to see with dairy cows how they are feeling, so to speak because the milk yield drops.

Except that's not "how a cow feels", it's a farmer measuring productivity!

Willy Nilly said:

Also mastitis is more difficult to control when they are outside because you have less control of their environment. This is very costly and can lead to poorly cows, which nobody wants.

Which comes back to the earlier point you raised about modern dairy cows lacking hardiness. The same can be said about their susceptibility to mastitis. They've been bred for productivity, and the quality of the animal itself has been sacrificed.

Willy Nilly said:

The really big herds that are house all year around are mainly housed because of the practicalities of moving say 1,000 cows in and out of the fields every day. They would need several hundred acres of grazing and would likely end up walking several KM per day to and from the milking parlour. Not good for the cows or the land.

The blind mindset is even clearer here. The justification for intensively farming them in sheds is justified because they are already so intensively farmed it's impossible to move them and out of the sheds. Don't you see that we've crossed a line there somewhere?

[LDN]

Rollin said:

LDN said:

Davos123 said:

There's a whole Wikipedia page to explain to you why your line of reasoning is a fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

HTH

Appeal to nature is most certainly a ‘thing’. And most of the time, posted by people on iPhones who wouldn’t last 24 hours without their creature comforts. Nature indeed.

LDN said:

There’s nothing natural’ about one species breast feeding from another

Thanks Point being?

To be clear; I was referring to people stating that it was natural to drink the milk of another species. And so, my point was... that’s not true... it’s not natural; because no other species on earth does it. And so, saying that X, Y or Z is ok because other animals do it; doesn’t really stack up; only when it suits, it seems.

In the same way; I’ve said there’s nothing natural about breeding, drugging, fortifying, and then killing en masse, billions of animals each year, for human consumption, at the expense of the animals, the environment, our own health and the fabric of society, when we all have to pay for the care and associated costs with treating the biggest killers in the west; all related to meat and dairy consumption. It wasn’t an appeal to nature on my part; rather - pointing out the irony in those saying such and such is only natural; when it’s anything but.

[Evanivitch]

LDN said:

To be clear; I was referring to people stating that it was natural to drink the milk of another species. And so, my point was... that’s not true... it’s not natural; because no other species on earth does it.

Many species have unique traits and behaviours, that doesn't make them unnatural.

Is a chimpanzee fishing with a stick for termites unnatural?

[Leithen]

Willy Nilly said:

The cattle that are housed in winter, generally speaking, are less hardy that the ones that aren't. The modern dairy cow is a bit diva compared with say a Belted Galloway or Highland cattle, she's your Premier League footballer who wants and needs everything to be top draw and wouldn't like a Sunday league club facilities.

.....

The really big herds that are house all year around are mainly housed because of the practicalities of moving say 1,000 cows in and out of the fields every day. They would need several hundred acres of grazing and would likely end up walking several KM per day to and from the milking parlour. Not good for the cows or the land.

We in-winter our beef suckler Luing herd for about five months. They do well outside, but the change to wetter winters has meant that ground conditions can quickly become a nightmare. Much easier calving inside. Bale shredders keep the straw bedding up and the sheds are mucked out during winter and middened on the fields before being spread the next year to help fertility. The sheds they are in are designed to be very open, giving shelter but not preventing air movement. All works very well. Happy cows and calves.

[LDN]

Evanivitch said:

LDN said:

To be clear; I was referring to people stating that it was natural to drink the milk of another species. And so, my point was... that’s not true... it’s not natural; because no other species on earth does it.

Many species have unique traits and behaviours, that doesn't make them unnatural.

Is a chimpanzee fishing with a stick for termites unnatural?

Fair point. And so I could have said: ‘that’s not necessarily true’. The appeal to nature regard drinking the milk from a species other than our own, can only be based on the fact that it’s been the norm for so long. An appeal to tradition / history. Another can of worms. One of the reasons put forth; MANY a time regard eating meat; is that other animals do it. And so, the point was that; no other animals feed on the milk of another species. So... again, appeals to nature only when it suits, from those arguing vegan diets. Do you see what I mean?

As an aside; but related - whether it’s natural or not, is not related to whether it’s necessary. It’s certainly not necessary. The crux of my point in any case.

[anonymous-user]

Biker 1 said:

Probably wear textile gear. But then, if they're vegan, they're usually 'green', so wouldn't be petrolheads/bikers anyway. Sorry, but I see most of them as quite pathetic killjoys. They should rename the green party 'the killjoy party'....

What a load of absolute bks. I do wear leathers when riding my ninja, but I bought them long before I went vegan and I'm not going to just get rid of them and replace them for the sake of it when they have loads of life left in them. I also wear non vegan chainsaw boots for climbing, as again I bought them long before I started thinking the way I do. Will replace all of these things when they are fked with vegan alternatives, but I'm certainly not going to stop caning fast bikes or doing tree work. I do have to wear leather boots and gloves for my job as a firefighter, unfortunately there's nothing I can do about that as I'm not going to start making any sort of fuss about it, it's what I get given and it's what I will wear. To be honest I don't see myself as a 'pathetic killjoy',but who knows maybe you are so masculine and an incredibly exciting human being that I seem that way. But I doubt it.

[LDN]

hucumber said:

Biker 1 said:

Probably wear textile gear. But then, if they're vegan, they're usually 'green', so wouldn't be petrolheads/bikers anyway. Sorry, but I see most of them as quite pathetic killjoys. They should rename the green party 'the killjoy party'....

What a load of absolute bks. I do wear leathers when riding my ninja, but I bought them long before I went vegan and I'm not going to just get rid of them and replace them for the sake of it when they have loads of life left in them. I also wear non vegan chainsaw boots for climbing, as again I bought them long before I started thinking the way I do. Will replace all of these things when they are fked with vegan alternatives, but I'm certainly not going to stop caning fast bikes or doing tree work. I do have to wear leather boots and gloves for my job as a firefighter, unfortunately there's nothing I can do about that as I'm not going to start making any sort of fuss about it, it's what I get given and it's what I will wear. To be honest I don't see myself as a 'pathetic killjoy',but who knows maybe you are so masculine and an incredibly exciting human being that I seem that way. But I doubt it.

I doubt that also

[Rollin]

LDN said:

Rollin said:

LDN said:

Davos123 said:

There's a whole Wikipedia page to explain to you why your line of reasoning is a fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

HTH

Appeal to nature is most certainly a ‘thing’. And most of the time, posted by people on iPhones who wouldn’t last 24 hours without their creature comforts. Nature indeed.

LDN said:

There’s nothing natural’ about one species breast feeding from another

Thanks Point being?

To be clear; I was referring to people stating that it was natural to drink the milk of another species. And so, my point was... that’s not true... it’s not natural; because no other species on earth does it. And so, saying that X, Y or Z is ok because other animals do it; doesn’t really stack up; only when it suits, it seems.

In the same way; I’ve said there’s nothing natural about breeding, drugging, fortifying, and then killing en masse, billions of animals each year, for human consumption, at the expense of the animals, the environment, our own health and the fabric of society, when we all have to pay for the care and associated costs with treating the biggest killers in the west; all related to meat and dairy consumption. It wasn’t an appeal to nature on my part; rather - pointing out the irony in those saying such and such is only natural; when it’s anything but.

Hilarious. You're so full of st.

[Willy Nilly]

Evanivitch said:

Willy Nilly said:

It's very easy to see with dairy cows how they are feeling, so to speak because the milk yield drops.

Except that's not "how a cow feels", it's a farmer measuring productivity!

Willy Nilly said:

Also mastitis is more difficult to control when they are outside because you have less control of their environment. This is very costly and can lead to poorly cows, which nobody wants.

Which comes back to the earlier point you raised about modern dairy cows lacking hardiness. The same can be said about their susceptibility to mastitis. They've been bred for productivity, and the quality of the animal itself has been sacrificed.

Willy Nilly said:

The really big herds that are house all year around are mainly housed because of the practicalities of moving say 1,000 cows in and out of the fields every day. They would need several hundred acres of grazing and would likely end up walking several KM per day to and from the milking parlour. Not good for the cows or the land.

The blind mindset is even clearer here. The justification for intensively farming them in sheds is justified because they are already so intensively farmed it's impossible to move them and out of the sheds. Don't you see that we've crossed a line there somewhere?

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on all of that.

I've obviously been out of dairying too long and being brought up on a dairy farm in a dairy region along with doing 2 years on a farm with 140 cows, going through the agricultural education system, working on another farm with 140 cows and doing relief on one of the Co-ops farms counts for nothing now and my experience counts for nothing.

I shall get on all of the various farming websites with your useful information regarding mastitis control and send them links to this thread so they can digest you sage words of advice. It is a problem that costs dairy farming a considerable amount of money, so your suggestions will be most welcome.

[LDN]

Rollin said:

LDN said:

Rollin said:

LDN said:

Davos123 said:

There's a whole Wikipedia page to explain to you why your line of reasoning is a fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

HTH

Appeal to nature is most certainly a ‘thing’. And most of the time, posted by people on iPhones who wouldn’t last 24 hours without their creature comforts. Nature indeed.

LDN said:

There’s nothing natural’ about one species breast feeding from another

Thanks Point being?

To be clear; I was referring to people stating that it was natural to drink the milk of another species. And so, my point was... that’s not true... it’s not natural; because no other species on earth does it. And so, saying that X, Y or Z is ok because other animals do it; doesn’t really stack up; only when it suits, it seems.

In the same way; I’ve said there’s nothing natural about breeding, drugging, fortifying, and then killing en masse, billions of animals each year, for human consumption, at the expense of the animals, the environment, our own health and the fabric of society, when we all have to pay for the care and associated costs with treating the biggest killers in the west; all related to meat and dairy consumption. It wasn’t an appeal to nature on my part; rather - pointing out the irony in those saying such and such is only natural; when it’s anything but.

Hilarious. You're so full of st.

Thanks. I get the feeling the level of debate here went over you’re head? Hence the response

[Willy Nilly]

LDN said:

Fair point. And so I could have said: ‘that’s not necessarily true’. The appeal to nature regard drinking the milk from a species other than our own, can only be based on the fact that it’s been the norm for so long. An appeal to tradition / history. Another can of worms. One of the reasons put forth; MANY a time regard eating meat; is that other animals do it. And so, the point was that; no other animals feed on the milk of another species. So... again, appeals to nature only when it suits, from those arguing vegan diets. Do you see what I mean?

As an aside; but related - whether it’s natural or not, is not related to whether it’s necessary. It’s certainly not necessary. The crux of my point in any case.

Ants milk aphids.

It's unnatural to drink beer
It's unnatural to have a weeks worth of food a few steps from where you sleep
It's unnatural for humans to fly
It's unnatural to any species to fly into space
There are lots of things you do, such as communicate electronically, that are unnatural.

[LDN]

Willy Nilly said:

LDN said:

Fair point. And so I could have said: ‘that’s not necessarily true’. The appeal to nature regard drinking the milk from a species other than our own, can only be based on the fact that it’s been the norm for so long. An appeal to tradition / history. Another can of worms. One of the reasons put forth; MANY a time regard eating meat; is that other animals do it. And so, the point was that; no other animals feed on the milk of another species. So... again, appeals to nature only when it suits, from those arguing vegan diets. Do you see what I mean?

As an aside; but related - whether it’s natural or not, is not related to whether it’s necessary. It’s certainly not necessary. The crux of my point in any case.

Ants milk aphids.

It's unnatural to drink beer
It's unnatural to have a weeks worth of food a few steps from where you sleep
It's unnatural for humans to fly
It's unnatural to any species to fly into space
There are lots of things you do, such as communicate electronically, that are unnatural.

Exactly. We are stating the same thing...

So, when people - on this thread and elsewhere claim that one of the reasons to eat meat is because ‘other animals do it’ - that’s been the ‘appeal to nature’ we have been talking about. But when I point out that drinking the milk of another species is NOT something other species do... to highlight the irony of the first appeal; that doesn’t fit their narrative and so is ignored. Surely you see how the two things don’t fit?

[DoubleD]

My cat loves cows milk and cheese.

[Rollin]

LDN said:

Willy Nilly said:

LDN said:

Fair point. And so I could have said: ‘that’s not necessarily true’. The appeal to nature regard drinking the milk from a species other than our own, can only be based on the fact that it’s been the norm for so long. An appeal to tradition / history. Another can of worms. One of the reasons put forth; MANY a time regard eating meat; is that other animals do it. And so, the point was that; no other animals feed on the milk of another species. So... again, appeals to nature only when it suits, from those arguing vegan diets. Do you see what I mean?

As an aside; but related - whether it’s natural or not, is not related to whether it’s necessary. It’s certainly not necessary. The crux of my point in any case.

Ants milk aphids.

It's unnatural to drink beer
It's unnatural to have a weeks worth of food a few steps from where you sleep
It's unnatural for humans to fly
It's unnatural to any species to fly into space
There are lots of things you do, such as communicate electronically, that are unnatural.

Exactly. We are stating the same thing...

So, when people - on this thread and elsewhere claim that one of the reasons to eat meat is because ‘other animals do it’ - that’s been the ‘appeal to nature’ we have been talking about. But when I point out that drinking the milk of another species is NOT something other species do... to highlight the irony of the first appeal; that doesn’t fit their narrative and so is ignored. Surely you see how the two things don’t fit?

You said drinking the milk of another species was not natural to bolster your opinion that drinking milk was wrong. It wasn't in response to any other "appeal to nature'