Do you think drinking cow's milk is moral or not?
Cow's milk is good for a person. Loads of calcium for the teeth, builds strong bones, that's why babies drink so much of it. Plus it tastes good. You can drink all the vegan milk you want, if there is such a thing, and in the long run, your health will suffer.
Your wrong StarzAbove, human's milk is good for humans and cow's milk is good for cows. Cow's milk does not build strong bones for humans. In fact, drinking cow's milk weakens bones.
Soy milk is much healthier than cow's milk. Antioxidants, phyotonutrients, and fiber.
You're wrong, you ask any doctor and they will tell you to drink lots of milk for the calcium and it builds strong bones.
And just where are you gonna get all this human milk of which you speak.
I don't think cows drink milk...lol What a joke.
"You're wrong, you ask any doctor and they will tell you to drink lots of milk for the calcium and it builds strong bones." StarzAbove
You are correct that almost all doctors will recommend milk. Yet, that is an appeal to authority fallacy. Doctors receive little nutritional training. Therefore, doctors are not qualified authorities on nutrition.
Instead, doctors repeat whatever they were told by the corrupt dairy industry. Our educations systems have been infiltrated by the corrupt dairy industry.
I mean human's milk is good for human babies and cow's milk is good for calves. I doubt human milk would do much good for adult humans.
After-all, the point of milk is to feed the species' young.
Are you for real, doctors study and study and they don't take the words of any industry. And every doctor that I know of recommends we drink milk.
Don't drink milk that's your choice, but don't make rash statements that you know nothing about. And if you want to keep eating that crappy vegan food, you will pay for it down the road, when your body falls apart, and you loose your teeth at an early age.... for not having enough protein, or good food.
Enjoy that tofu crap, go for it.
Doctors study and study just like lawyers study and study and engineers and art students.
Michael Greger M.D. is a doctor and he doesn't recommend cow's milk. Below video shows just how little doctors know about nutrition.
As for the rest of your post, it seems to be inflammatory without any back of up such provocative claims. In other words you are simply vegan baiting.
No, I gave a truthful opinion.
To recap, doctors study hard, but are not qualified in the field of nutrition.
You are the one making rash claims. I supply evidence from peer reviewed journals to back up my claims. You do not back up your claims.
Tofu is more healthy than hamburgers and milk. Fiber is good for you, tofu and soy milk has fiber, but cow's milk doesn't. Therefore, soy milk and tofu are healthier than cow's milk.
" The ASN position, based on the current state of the science, is that consumption of foods rich in cereal fiber or mixtures of whole grains and bran is modestly associated with a reduced risk of obesity, T2D, and CVD. "
Well when you start getting stress fractures in your feet, back, etc, and when your teeth start falling out, then I hope you remember our conversation, abut milk and calcium building strong bones and teeth.
Until then keep preaching, no one is listening to your crap. We need a balanced diet, and a vegan diet is not healthy no matter what you say.
There are many vegan sources of calcium. In the chart in the link below sesame seeds and many leafy greens including spinach are rich in calcium.
I use as often as possible scholarly peer reviewed articles to back up my claims. My opponent makes provocative bare assertions.
This is a debate site designed for us to argue, I am respectful, and back up my claims. I am not a troll in any way.
Care to elaborate?
I'm curious, I want to know your point of view. Vegetarians and vegans are more emphatic than omnivores.
Milk is fine.
Any explanation on why you think milk is fine?
it has calcium and unlike vegan deceptive sources say, milk is healthy. nothing more needs to be said.
Soy milk has 368mg of calcium per cup. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that vegan sources are deceptive?
soy products are bad for you, so their is one deception for you, you enjoy poisoning yourself
and how do you get iron? sure some veggies have iron but your body cannot absorb it very well. our bodies best absorb iron through MEAT. but you vegans will never accept those facts
Soy is healthy, also you can get plenty of iron from other sources. In fact, I would be worried about too much iron for meat eaters. Your second source links to the Weston Price foundation who's owner promoted vegetarianism.
If I read correctly, organic soy doesn't not contain hexane nor do many soy products.
Soy and cancer
Immoral? - No.
A little over the top there, don't you think, Vegan?
I beg to differ, what gives you the right to cause other sentient beings pain and suffering?
A number of studies have shown that plants feel pain, and vegetables are picked and often eaten while still alive.
From your same link
"As far as I know no reputable study has ever shown that plants can "feel pain". They lack the nervous system and brain necessary for this to happen. A plant can respond to stimuli, for example by turning towards the light or closing over a fly, but that is not the same thing. It is also hard to see what purpose pain could serve for the plant, since they can hardly run away."
Plants probably can't feel pain and even they do, it won't be on the same level as animals. No brain no pain. :)
But what level of pain is acceptable Veg? Are you willing to torture a stalk of celery because you think it can't feel stuff? Are you?
People have the right to learn the truth. Cows are mistreated even when pegged as "humane" "free range" "organic" "grass fed" and so forth. There will always be a conflict of interest between animal welfare and profits.
I recommend soy milk.
I've read it on the internet too, yet that does not make it true. Soy milk is good for men.
That's not how it's done (the picture). You grab one teet in each hand and squeeze the milk out into a bucket. That would be cutting out the middle man and I wouldn't have a problem with doing that.
Just make sure it's a cow.
Your missing the point. A cow is supposed to feed her calf. Humans are the middle man. Using a bucket would still place humans as the middle man.
Besides cow's milk is disgusting, why would you want to drink it anyways?
I'm not sure you know what a middle man is. A middle man is usually a supplier of something. Like a weed dealer. Weed dealer gets his weed from a grower and sells to individuals. If you decide to bypass your dealer and buy directly from the weed grower, you would be cutting out the middle man.
Cows milk is delicious. That's why I drink it. Your disgust of milk is irrelevant to my love of it.
There will always be the conflict of interest between profits and animal welfare.
It's almost 100% debates and disagreements - so yeah it's fun. The notifications aren't very good over there though, so it's sometimes hard to locate the people who need re-educating.
Depends on how you define immorality? You seem to define it as anything that negatively impacts human health (ie cancer). In that case, are cell phones also immoral, if proven to cause cancer?
Would you be in favor of exterminating an entire herd of swine if found to be sick with diseases that can transmit to humans? In this scenario, human health would be protected by their extermination - thus the moral thing to do (by your definition anyways).
Humans have draw an arbitrary line between non-human animals and humans. I'll throw the same question back at you, would you exterminate a whole community of humans if they found to be sick with a disease that can transmit to other humans?
No I would not and I cite God as my objective moral authority.
I don't see how that's the same question though, because that's humans vs. humans, whereas my question to you was humans vs. swine. So would you kill a herd of swine if they were found to be ill with something that humans can catch?
Your entitled to believe in a person who can walk on water, and another person who can survive three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish and survive.
Yet, I think using the God excuse is a low quality argument.
As for the swine I would quarantine the swine. We must show compassion and mercy for animals.
Why "must" we? If humans are essentially nothing more than mere animals and we're all here due to random processes (time + matter + chance), then where does this objective obligation come from that compels us to treat other species with compassion and mercy?
Evolution. Simply put, if we do not adapt morals the human race will be selected out.
Why would the human race be "selected out" if we don't develop morally? Bacteria seem to be doing ok and I doubt they're too concerned with morality.
Attributing morality to evolution is a bit self-defeating. It assumes morality already exists (begs the question), because morality deals mainly with the future (i.e. what one "ought" to do), but to plan a future altruistic act because it may benefit the species, is to rely on an already existing sense of morality - i.e. benefiting the species is a "good" thing and ought to happen.
Early hominids have been around for over one million years. The earliest homo sapiens over 100,000 years ago. There is no way humans could have survived without evolving morals.
As for bacteria, I doubt they have morals, but why would they need morals? They don't have anywhere near the intellect of humans.
If humans don't continue to use morals, we will simply obliterate ourselves. Two most likely scenarios are global climate change and nuclear holocaust. These two scenarios would select out the human race.
So now you define immorality as anyone who drinks milk and drives an SUV?
Why should the first human ancestors develop morality in the first place? What advantage does altruism give an individual compared to another who thinks stealing is more beneficial? Please answer this at the individual level - i.e. not at the species level (because natural selection can only work on the individual).
Natural selection can work within a small community. Think of a group of chimpanzees, if the group is too selfish they will fight among each other and probably be selected out.
If the group works together, through teamwork and cooperation they can overcome obstacles. This would be an evolutionary advantage. Watch the documentary chimpanzee for more details. Also, bonobo monkey's are closer to humans than chimps.
"Bonobos are one of humankind’s closest living relatives, sharing more than 98% of our DNA."
While 98% homology with bonobos might sound impressive to some, don't forget we also share 97.5% with mice, 90% with cats, 80% with cows and an embarrassing 50% with bananas. Genomic homologies are silly "proofs" for Darwinian evolution.
Natural selection only works on the individual. That individual may belong to a larger group, but if that individual doesn't get to reproduce, then it wasn't "selected". This has no genetic effect on the rest of the group. Do you know of a particular case, where a small group or organisms was either selected for or against, all in one generation?
In your fighting chimpanzee example, suppose all the chimps were initially selfish - but then the first chimp with a morality mutation appeared. How likely would it be for that first moral chimp to be selected? I'm thinking it's more likely to become a victim, rather than a genetic forerunner of things to come.
I thank you for continuing to debate. Got any outside sources to back up your claim of 97.5% similarity of mice to humans?
"Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. "
Which means humans are more similar to mice than chimps. Which does not make sense. For starters humans are great apes and mice are rodents.
As for evolutionary psychology and morals.
"Descriptive Evolutionary Ethics: appeals to evolutionary theory in the scientific explanation of the origins of certain human capacities, tendencies, or patterns of thought, feeling and behavior. For example: the appeal to natural selection pressures in the distant past to explain the evolution of a capacity for normative guidance, or more specifically the origins of our sense of fairness or our resentment of cheaters. (See section 2.)"
The first moral chimp would have very basic morals. Fairness for example. I think the community of chimps would benefit from a moral chimp. If you watch the documentary chimpanzee you will see that chimps are very depend upon their fellow chimps for survival.
Chimps are not the same as a lone tiger hunting. Either the group survives or doesn't. I don't think the first moral chimp would be more likely to be a victim.
Mice 97.5% homologous with human:
Mice 95% - 98% homologous with humans:
This is why mice are so often used as test subjects. I'm not saying this disproves evolution, but it certainly doesn't prove it either. Genetic homologies don't really prove anything. The numbers are constantly changing anyways (chimps used to be 99% similar, but now are 96%).
I disagree with your premise that morality is an evolutionary trait, but if I grant that for a moment, I'm still curious why you think our morality needs to extend to other species at all (i.e. cows)? You claim our chimp-like ancestors developed morality - fine - but what evolutionary advantage can there be for us to extend our sense of morality to cows (or pigs, chickens, fish, etc)? From an evolutionary standpoint, morality ought to discourage us from eating each other, but that's all. The animals are still on the table, so to speak.
Just for starters, chimpanzee are almost herbivores. The amount of meat they eat is very small. Even then, a large portion is insects. The conclusion is that humans were never supposed to eat meat unless we were starving.
Bonboo monkeys eat 57% fruit. "Their diet consists mainly of plant products including fruit, seeds, sprouts, leaves, flowers, bark, stems, pith, roots, and mushrooms. Though the majority of their diet is fruit (57%)"
Second, we need morals and justice to survive. I cannot imagine how a completely immoral and injustice society would last very long. The members would kill each other.
If you actually believe in evolution, then this line can't be true: "humans were never supposed to eat meat unless we were starving."
The reason is because if macro-evolution were true, then the humans of today are merely the products of a completely naturalistic, evolutionary process. As such, we can't be blamed for eating meat, since we simply came to that conclusion from our own naturally evolved minds. You can't say that we were never supposed to do something - since that would imply we somehow deviated from what we were supposed to do.
You have yet to answer my question as to why you think our moral code should extend to another species? You say you can't imagine how an immoral society could last very long because the members would kill each other (I agree), but why should those same members be morally obligated to members of a completely different and competing species? There's no evolutionary advantage in that - it's actually a disadvantage since it limits the food supply.
I strongly agree with evolution. As for eating meat in the quantities we do now, it was not always that way. Big agribusiness deceived us into idolizing meat. We ate far less meat in the past.
As for morals for another species, biodiversity come to mind. Small creatures often play critical roles in the food chain. Also, there is no good reason to raise an animal for food.
I asked for a reason in showing altruism to another species - and you cite the "critical role" of being in the food chain? Huh?
Let's say we arbitrarily kill a mouse. That mouse, could plant seeds via hoarding them underground. That mouse could also be a meal for an owl. The owl in turn could help keep the mouse population from disease.
It might take a while, but killing that one mouse might mean less trees and more disease.
More importantly its unjust. We shouldn't just randomly snuff out life.
"Let's say we arbitrarily kill a mouse. That mouse, could plant seeds via hoarding them underground. That mouse could also be a meal for an owl. The owl in turn could help keep the mouse population from disease."
Haha! That's pretty good. So why wouldn't the owl be immoral for eating the mouse? What if we arbitrarily killed the mouse, so as to keep their population down and to prevent disease (as is often done with deer btw)? Then we could leave the mouse carcass on the patio for the owl to grab later that night.
Owls are hunters not scavengers. So leaving the carcass out for the owl would most likely attract scavengers like raccoons.
The way humans would kill mice would be in a way non-consistent with survival of the fitness. We would be more likely to catch a higher % of healhty mice then an owl.
As for judging the owl for being immoral, we can't judge an owl by our standards. More importantly owls are natural predators, unlike humans.
Well that's fine then too - now the raccoons get a snack instead of the owl. Still a win, isn't it? Scavengers have to eat too, don't they?
So then you do in fact believe in survival of the fittest? Because if so, then clearly cows deserve their lot in life since they're not nearly as fit as humans are. From an evolutionary standpoint they're not as fit, since they can't seem to prevent themselves from getting their teats regularly hooked to milking machines. We humans - the alleged products of evolution too - are simply behaving in a way nature has evolved us to behave.
"We would be more likely to catch a higher % of healhty mice then an owl." And do you know why that is? Because we're more fit and evolved (allegedly).
Let me sum up your argument how I view it. Your argument is that humans are superior from an evolutionary point of view so we are free to use animals anyway we choose.
As humans we have superior intelligence which in turn means greater responsibility. With great power comes great responsibility. Therefore, we must be use our power in a considerate way.
It is not within our evolution to drink other species milk nor is it to our advantage. Finally, that argument could be used to say that white people are superior to all others. Your argument sets a dangerous precedence.
As for the raccoons, mice, and owls. I don't see why anyone would want to feed mice to raccoons. Owls are predators and by their very nature of predators they cull the weak, the sick and old. This in turn helps the prey species because it keeps them healthy.
Human traps on the other hand seem just as likely to catch a diseased mouse than a healthy.
Yes - well that's my devil's advocate position anyways - assuming I believed in macro-evolution, which I don't. But if it were true, then there's no harm no foul when it comes to how nature interacts with nature (i.e. humans with cows, etc). We'd all be the natural products of random chance + time. We'd be nothing more than stardust, essentially, so who cares what one clump of stardust does to another clump of stardust.
"As humans we have superior intelligence which in turn means greater responsibility. With great power comes great responsibility."
That's a nice Hallmark card statement, but why is that a true statement? Can you tell me, without using a subjective opinion? I ask, because you're suggesting others should also follow these rules - yet if we're all nothing more than molecules in motion, then why (objectively) should we feel obligated to show compassion to another species?
"Finally, that argument could be used to say that white people are superior to all others. Your argument sets a dangerous precedence."
Yeah exactly - now you're getting it - this is the natural, logical outcome of atheism and evolution. It's no surprise Mao and Stalin were such fans.
I'm assuming you're against windmills, correct?
We are nothing more than stardust? That's one way of putting an atheist evolutionist point of view. That without God nothing matters. So why not just give up and veg out in front of the telly (television)?
We could, but I doubt we would be very happy with this attitude. I'm pretty sure we have to strive and work for something.
We should feel an obligation to other species because a person who is mistreats an animal is more likely to mistreat humans.
"Beginning in 2016, the FBI also will begin collecting data on animal cruelty. This will enable the bureau to learn more about a correlation between animal cruelty and other crimes. Serial killers, for instance, often have histories of torturing and killing animals."
As for Mao and Stalin, people can come to that conclusion, but that is not the only conclusion.
Windmills aren't ideal, yet they seem better than coal power plants.
And, from an atheistic perspective, is mistreating humans "wrong"? If so, why?
Note - your use of the word "mistreating" and "wrong" both presuppose objective morality (not subjective). What I'm trying to determine here, is how you arrive at so much objective morality without an objective moral authority (i.e. God). I agree that mistreating humans is wrong too, but that's because I believe we're all made in the image of God - thus we have much worth. If, on the other hand, you believe we're all the product of unintelligent, random, natural mutations, then how can you get an objective set of rules that all humans must follow, from natural random processes? Atheists can be very moral people too (and theists can act immorally), so I'm not suggesting you must be a believer to be moral, but the atheist simply can't account for his/her morality. It just doesn't logically follow, from purely natural processes.
Are you aware that the growing use of windmills are to blame for bringing multiple species of bats to the point of extinction? The bats can't "see" the blades and often get sliced-n-diced when they fly into them. We lose over half a million annually. Is "green" energy worth the extinction of even one species? Morally speaking, how would you judge the use of windmills?
Humans have logic, we are able to perform mathematics. There is many philosophies Utilitarian for example. Humans already have morals, we wouldn't have lasted this long without them.
We can logically and objectively perform many tasks, so why not use rational thinking for morals? We may not be able to be 100% objective, but I think humans can be objective enough to distinguish between moral and immoral.
Besides, if you want to take the Christian angle, we have many reasons not to drink milk.
Environment, steward of the land. Health, the body is a temple. Let alone the entire greed and gluttony of over consumption. The only reason we drink milk today is consumerism and misinformation campaigns by the dairy industry.
Finally, there is many Bible verses against animal cruelty.
As for windmills, we are in the middle of a sixth mass extinction. We make compromises all the time. How does the loss of bats compare to the air pollution from coal? The fact that we even recognize bats being killed by windmills is a step in the correct direction.
"New International Version
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
Yes we have math and logic, but I fail to see the connection they have with morality. How do you mathematically arrive at an "ought" (i.e. what one ought or ought not do)? There's no mathematical or logical reason to be moral. Computers are extremely mathematical and logical, but are they also moral? Criminals take what they want and if the pesky police didn't get in their way all the time, they'd prosper much better than those of us who slave 9-to-5.
You're moving the goal posts a bit if you start to argue from the health point of view. You stated drinking cow milk is immoral, so that's where the argument ought to stay.
So you believe the use of modern windmills is moral then, since the alleged good (cleaner air) will eventually outweigh the certain bad (loss of bat species)?
Although your use of the word immoral is a bit off-putting for this subject, I'd say yes, in most cases.
I have read and seen enough about excepted practices in the dairy industry, to know that there is nothing moral or ethical about how the animals are treated. They suffer.
I'm glad you admit eating those foods is immoral.
Cow's milk should not be had by anyone other than calves...
Unfortunately we've gotten used to it...like eating meat.
Changing the whole natural balance of life.
nope. not the least bit immoral, meat and milk SO GOOD
I don't think I understand your argument. Can you please elaborate on how the taste of meat and milk affects whether it's morally okay to forcefully impregnate a cow, kill her baby so we can drink its milk, and then kill the mother years before the end of her natural lifespan when she stops being useful?
Disgusting? Most definitely!
Cow's are sentient beings that are surely capable of feeling empathy. Enslaving a being capable of sentience and empathy and then murdering it when it is no longer profitable is immoral.
Rats feel empathy for example.
"If one rat is drowning, another will step in to save it. The new finding suggests that these rodents feel empathy"
I feel differently about morality than you.
Perfect, except subjective morality isn't a fun place to be. Person A could think a crime was moral and person B not. There would be disputes.
I don't see how raising a sentient being for profit and pleasure is moral.
Clearly people have different ideas what is morally wrong: from spanking kids, to eating meat, to abortion. Morality is subjective. It was once considered moral to own slaves, beat your wife and lynch horse thieves.
The very fact that we consider such actions immoral now supports the fact that morals are objective. Just because some tyrant decreed that slavery was moral, doesn't make it true.
Just because one decrees marijuana use immoral doesn't' make it so, or does it?
Maybe it's OK for one culture to allow circumcision and not OK for another .
I am afraid that there is no objective morals. Killing is not 'always' wrong. Stealing is sometimes OK. Lying is not black and white. Using profanity does always mean you are going to hell.
It be nice if everyone understood that the world is not black and white - it is all grey, every inch of it is muddy drab grey.
Anyone who thinks they know exactly what is right and exactly what is wrong has the potential to become the tyrant of whom you speak.
We have our intellect and brains to figure out such matters. Nations make laws all the time. We can create a hypothetical situation where killing is moral and another where it is immoral. Yet, this doesn't mean morals are subjective. All it means is the circumstances are different.
I think its safe to say most will agree that killing in self defense is moral, yet killing arbitrarily is not. This fits in with objective morality.
"Anyone who thinks they know exactly what is right and exactly what is wrong has the potential to become the tyrant of whom you speak." VicZinc
Why are you so worried about someone becoming a tyrant when there are billions of sentient animals suffering? Are not the big agribusiness who own the factory farms the tyrants?
You seem to think a person is a tyrant if they stick up for the weak and voiceless. You imply a person who defends the powerful people as a champion of justice. Your reasoning seems completely backwards, to the point you have moral and immoral confused.
What is immoral to you is moral and what is moral is immoral. We have to stick up for the underdog, defend the weak against the strong. Yes, humans will lose their freedom to abuse animals via factory farming. Yet, did we really want to see humans exercise that freedom?
It is immoral for a human to drink cow's milk in most circumstances, it is not human's to take. Cow's milk is for calves.
You put word in my mouth.
What I imply is simply - "I cannot not judge, so I will not"
I defend no action and I condemn no action. Do as you will to achieve your moral standards. I will concern myself only with my own behaviors. If I am doing what I feel is moral then I am at peace, if I slip and act immorally then I am ashamed; nothing more, nothing less.
I am not sure what I said that inspired you to lecture me on morality - I only know that it is not for me to judge that actions of another, I neither know their motives nor their circumstance so I shall not accuse them of immorality.
If you feel qualified to judge agribusiness than judge, but do not ask me to break my covenant, I shall not judge.
Terrific, so you only look at your own problems and completely ignore everyone else. This sounds like some twisted interpretation of Matthew 7:1. Yet, this passage is supposed to be against hypocrisy.
"1Do not judge, or you will be judged. 2For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you"
Yet, clearly in other passages your are supposed to point out the sinner.
"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
If I see somebody doing something immoral, I have a moral obligation to call them out. Personally, I wouldn't want to inadvertently perform an immoral deed and have people just stand around and watch. Instead, I would want them to tell me.
I wonder which covenant you belong? A witch covenant? I'm just guessing by the way.
You are starting to come across as a righteous little so-and-so. Beat your drum as you see fit and I shall beat my own.
I do not make my choices in a vacuum. I act according to my conscience which includes a view of how my actions affect others and the entire planet.
I do not judge the actions of others as "moral or immoral" because I cannot know the consequences or motives for those actions. That you seem to believe you have some prescient and predictive power akin to a omnisciences is scary as hell to me.
Tread carefully or you may discover too late that your pontifications have led you awry.
I make educated guesses based upon my knowledge and the body of evidence before me. I go out on a limb and tell people what I think is right and wrong. Meanwhile, you seem fit to sit back and criticize anyone who dares speak up.
This type of attitude benefits the oppressor. If people are quiet because they don't want to come off as preachy or sanctimonious, the bad guys win. Instead of yelling at me, why don't you attempt to prove me wrong?
I find your attitude has a hidden sanctimonious slant. A false modesty of sorts. Sit back and stay silent, while judging others for speaking up.
I am a human being capable of logic and rational thought. I have weighted the evidence and come to the conclusion that raising, enslaving, exploiting, and slaughtering animals for profit is immoral.
Animals are capable of feeling pain, they are sentient.
Why is it moral to drink cow's milk in your opinion?
"Here is an excerpt from the section on dairy cows and their calves, and what happens when a calf is born and separated from it’s mother…
On a factory farm, cow’s milk is not intended for baby cows – it’s intended for humans. Therefore, baby calves are not allowed to nurse. They are taken from their mothers as soon as two hours after birth, and are either fed a commercial milk replacer that is made from dried milk powder, or they are fed milk that has been deemed unfit for human consumption."
I don't ever touch the stuff.
I don't have a problem with your campaign, I just disagree with your definition of immoral.
Why is it so important to you that I acquiesce to your dogmatic definition of morality?
I love animals. They deserve respect, compassion, mercy, and justice in my opinion.
So, by your notion slavery is moral? If a slave has a need and we provide that need for him/her, its okay? I don't buy this argument. Even "nice" slavery is immoral.
Yes, but you open the doors to all sorts of wrongdoings by justifying raising of cows for human exploitation and profit.
goes in for the kiss.
It's not, cows actually feel very nervous if they're not milked
Drinking cow's milk is usually immoral.
Exceptions, people with rare medical conditions, and extraordinary circumstances. For example, stranded on a desert island and/or about to go into a diabetic coma.
II. Animal ethics
We shouldn't drink bovine milk because it encourages the slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of cows. Not only that, but slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of one animal paves the way for this same treatment towards other animals. Cows milk is unhealthy nor environmentally sustainable.
II. Animal ethics
"A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare." 
Animals on so called "humane" farms don't fare much better. 
"Even under the best circumstances, the incentive to treat animals “humanely” is limited to the extent to which it is necessary to raise them to market weight (which is just a fraction of their natural lifespan). Any humane practice beyond this would be seen as inefficient and unsustainable by today’s business standards." 
Between the inherit conflict of interest between animal welfare and profit. and the brutal realities there is no moral justification for humans drinking bovine milk.
Milk causes osteoporosis and increases chances of hip fractures. Contains, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, high in fat, high in saturated fat, and high in dead bacteria endotoxins.
"These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer. " 
" Studies have shown that IGFs are potent mitogens for a variety of cancer cells including prostate cancer since they stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress programmed cell death. " 
"Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population." 
As you can see from above, milk increases cancer risk. IGF-1 is found in cow's milk and is associated with increased cancer risk.
"These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates." 
Casein is a protein that can cause an immune system response which can lead to type I diabetes.
“Total protein consumption did not correlate with diabetes incidence (r = +0.402), but consumption of the beta-casein A1 variant did (r = +0.726). Even more pronounced was the relation between beta-casein (A1+B) consumption and diabetes (r = +0.982). These latter two cow caseins yield a bioactive peptide beta-casomorphin-7 after in vitro digestion with intestinal enzymes whereas the common A2 variant or the corresponding human or goat caseins do not. beta-casomorphin-7 has opioid properties including immunosuppression, which could account for the specificity of the relation between the consumption of some but not all beta-casein variants and diabetes incidence. “ 
Women who drank three glasses of milk or more every day had a nearly doubled risk of death and cardiovascular disease, and a 44 percent increased risk of cancer compared to women who drank less than one glass per day, the researchers found.
Men's overall risk of death increased about 10 percent when they drank three or more glasses of milk daily, said the study, published online Oct. 28 in BMJ."” 
“The risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated. “ 
Fat is not only the densest of the three macro nutrients at 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4 for carbohydrates and proteins. This can lead to obesity and intramyocellular lipid build up.
Saturated fat increases blood viscosity which makes the heart work harder. Lactose is a sugar that many people are intolerant towards.
Inherently due to trophic levels milk must be worse for the environment. From the American Journal of Clinical nutrition we can see that lupine, a vegan alternative, is better for the environment than cow's milk. 
In conclusion, there is only one ethical choice, and that is to stop drinking bovine milk. Thanks for the debate.
Nicely done. Hope you get an A+
Geez, Vic...I thought that was your comment...lol...
"Over 99% of livestock is raised in a factory farm." Bullshit.
99%... what a turd of a statistic that's been pulled out of someone's ass.
I don't have time at the moment to go through every link, but where does that 99% come from? They show no link to any statistics showing demographics of animals on what types of farms. They don't even include what's defined to be a "factory farm".
A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare."
Where did they get 99% from?
Here's the Merriam-Webster definition:
// a farm on which large numbers of livestock are raised indoors in conditions intended to maximize production at minimal cost.// It just so happens to be the image in everybody's head when we imagine a 'factory farm'. ASPCA's defition, while similar, seems to try and include every farm they can into that figure.
Simple fact: Every farm is not a factory farm. If you've ever taken a trip outside of biased Youtube videos and looked out at cow pastures as you travel down the road, you might notice that. I won't argue that a large portion of meat doesn't come from factory farms but it's nowhere near 99% and the fact that ASCPA feels the need to exaggarate numbers takes away from their validity.
"Over 99% of farm animals" Aspca
Your comparing farms to factory farms. The example I used is animals raised on factory farms compared to non-factory farms.
Considering factory farms are high yield this make sense. Even if there was 100 small farms for every factory farm, 99% of animals would still be raised on factory farms.
Why? Because, factory farms are huge and high yield. A small farm may have a cow herd size of 50 or so. A factory farm would have at least 10,000.
Also, due to the short lifespan of the cows on factory farms this makes sense. Think of a mom & pa store compared to a gigantic box store like Walmart, Home Depot, Costcos.
"Between 6 months and a year of age, cattle are moved from pasture to feedlots to be fattened for slaughter. Calves gain weight on an unnatural diet and reach “market weight” of 1,200 pounds in just 6 months."
It's not 99%.
Then, what is it StickCaveman?
You've caught me at a disadvantage in that I have only my phone to research and reply with limited amounts of time. That said, I've deemed it not worth it to take part in this argument any longer.
I will leave with this statement: Nothing you ever say or do will ever make me desire meat or dairy products less than I currently do. Good luck with your endeavor of convincing people to go vegan by way of scare tactics and guilt tripping.
In other words you cover your ears while shouting inflammatory words with backup from authoritynutrition.com a paleo website. I do believe you that nothing I say or do will change your mind. Nevertheless, I can still defeat your argument.
First, authoritynurtrition mocks the China study. Yet, the critic has already been defeated.
oh yeah ASPCA, about as credible as stupid PETA! aka NOT credible. full of BS
Do you have any evidence that the ASPCA or PETA isn't credible?
"10. Of the 9 million dairy cows in the U.S., 3 million are slaughtered each year at only a fraction of their natural lifespan. (8) Their worn out bodies become ground beef and restaurant hamburgers. (9)"