Ain't it a bit late by that point?It doesn't make me healthy it makes something else grow
Milk is bad for you
- Thread starter Ssssuper
- Start date
- Views 88,822
- Replies 1,162
- Likes 5
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2014
- Messages
- 276
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 28
- Location
- On the Kitchen Table Obviously
- XP
- 199
- Country
Hmm I might actually try it just for the heck of it. If I don't get the runs, I can finally get off this disgusting almond-soy milk I'm drinking one cup a week just because.
Got any recommended recipes?
Also how fresh can these stay for?
Last edited by CheeseCake,
Lol
There is a documentary called 'cowspiracy' explaining everything for anyone who is interested. Watch it here:
Oh hey, OP still alive
7.6/10, would troll again, but too much water and still feel like a milk thread.
7.6/10, would troll again, but too much water and still feel like a milk thread.
Sorry but the "appeal to nature" is a fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Here in Italy, it's currently used by fundamentalist catholics when they argue against gay civil unions - yeah we're so behind in comparison to other countries - when they say that straight marriage is "natural".
The problem with this (as that article explains) is that there's no clear definition of "nature" and "natural". We might say it's opposed to "artificial"="man made", but even then it's not that clear-cut. And mostly everything we use and base our lives on is "artificial": right now, we're doing something "unnatural" by talking from such a great distance on our "unnatural" computers. Is everything that we do that we biologically couldn't do "unnatural"?
The only proper definition of "natural" is "everything that abides by the laws of nature" (laws of physics, etc.). An human being with two heads, or traveling beyond the speed of light are unnatural (as far as we know). Because they don't exist. All that exists is "natural". Having a vegan or vegetarian diet is also "natural", as it's possible to do (you have to supplement a vegan diet, but that's "natural" too).
Since the OP I already was able to tell that this was a lame stupid excuse to promote his channel and gain money from the views.
Broccoli.
There's some evidence showing high calcium intake may increase risk of osteoporosis, but the evidence is mixed. I'm really not trying to trick anyone into anything, but it's important to remember that the dairy industry has poured a TON of money into making people believe milk is a health drink. It has a lot sugar, lots of people can't process lactose, and the protein casein may cause inflammation for many people. Also, animal agriculture is the number one cause of greenhouse gases.
Just some things to consider next time you go to get milk. I recommend trying almond, soy, or coconut, but try to get the sugar free kind as sugar has a compromising effect on the immune system. It's better for most people's bodies and the planet.
First of all, Appeal to Nature is a rhetorical tactic, not a formal fallacy - there are many instances when you can reasonably state that something that's "natural" is, indeed, good for you. For instance, let's make things go full circle and head straight into milk - newborn babies naturally crave mother's milk, it's natural for them to drink it, thus we can reasonably conclude that it's good for them - mammals drink mother's milk by design. RationalWiki lists it as an Informal Fallacy (a formally-valid argument with a *potentially* unsound premise) which is different from a Formal Fallacy and Wikipedia doesn't even call it one, so you're on a slippery slope here. That's all besides the point though.Sorry but the "appeal to nature" is a fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Here in Italy, it's currently used by fundamentalist catholics when they argue against gay civil unions - yeah we're so behind in comparison to other countries - when they say that straight marriage is "natural".
The problem with this (as that article explains) is that there's no clear definition of "nature" and "natural". We might say it's opposed to "artificial"="man made", but even then it's not that clear-cut. And mostly everything we use and base our lives on is "artificial": right now, we're doing something "unnatural" by talking from such a great distance on our "unnatural" computers. Is everything that we do that we biologically couldn't do "unnatural"?
The only proper definition of "natural" is "everything that abides by the laws of nature" (laws of physics, etc.). An human being with two heads, or traveling beyond the speed of light are unnatural (as far as we know). Because they don't exist. All that exists is "natural". Having a vegan or vegetarian diet is also "natural", as it's possible to do (you have to supplement a vegan diet, but that's "natural" too).
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
You're confusing two different meanings of the word "nature" - you're thinking of "nature" as the collective phenomena of the world, I'm thinking of basic, inherent features. If I were to say that something is "not of nature/doesn't belong in nature", I would probably use the word "unnatural". Nothing in the natural world marries eachother, it's a social construct that we created, it doesn't occur "naturally", so the premise is false, along with the rest of the argument. If I have a mischivous nature, but briefly level with someone to explain something rather than cause more havoc as I normally do, I do that against my nature.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nature
The difference is minute, but it's there. There is a number of thinigs that are "in our nature" as a species, for instance curiosity. Us being omnivores is an inherent characteristic of the species, it is *unquestionably* natural for us to eat food of all food groups. It is also *unquestionable* that meat is good for us - meat is what made us evolve (among other things), our ancestors preferred meat due to how nutritionally rich it was etc. It is also unquestionable that I'm exaggerating and don't really give a f*ck about what others eat as long as they don't evangelize me with their diet.
As for the whole kerfuffle with gay marriage, the institution of marriage itself is "unnatural", I prefer the distinction of "normal" vs. "abnormal". For instance, it's completely natural for a person to have two different-coloured eyes, however heterochromia is an abnormality - normally people have two of the same-coloured eyes. It's natural to catch the flu, but being sick is an abnormal state. There's a slew of examples you could bring up to show the difference between the two terms. The issue here is that the word has negative connotations when in fact an "abnormality" is just an exception from a general rule. It's a touchy subject and I don't think it's the word use that offends people, rather the premise with which they're used, and that's coming from a linguist. That's all besides the point, though.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2014
- Messages
- 276
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 28
- Location
- On the Kitchen Table Obviously
- XP
- 199
- Country
Hmm actually checked some sources. Idk about the others but grain/seed milks seem to have a high amount of carbs and decent amount of sugar (This is without adding all that "sweet fruit and sugar" you were saying), which will lead to high blood sugar. Also it's a terrible source of protein, 2-3g/cup (from general info I searched)...yea that's not even alot unless the stuff you're getting has been fortified like my bird's food
http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/in-search-of-a-milk-alternative
You seem to be right about the Omega fatty acids and iron.
http://www.bastyr.edu/news/health-tips-spotlight-1/2013/03/so-many-milk-choices-which-choose
Again, idk about the other stuff but you never mentioned any negative effects of drinking this...
Also Dr. Oz, that quack doctor, endorses it so kinda reluctant now.
Although Silk tastes like bean water, I might stay with it.
This could be a great alternative to my OJ drinking habit though since it'll be just as sweet after adding the fruit in
I'll try it but I won't treat it like medicine
Last edited by CheeseCake,
Guys, the danger is real. I spilt some milk on the floor this morning and look what happened:
Just because "appealing to nature" rationally works at times doesn't mean it does in your case though.
We also usually crave sugary foods, but it doesn't mean that eating as much sugar as we would like is actually good for us.
As another example, as a species, other than having altruism and empathy we're also intrinsically violent and egoists (both are useful in an evolutionary perspective). However, we decided that violence is "wrong".
Yes, it's true that as a species we're omnivores. We can eat and digest food derived from both vegetables and animals, and this has helped us in the past. However, this doesn't imply that today we *must* follow an omnivore diet. It's a non-sequitur. Yeah, meat is good (like many other foods) if the recommended amounts are respected. But following an equally adequate vegetarian or vegan diet is also possible for us today (thanks to technology): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
Finally, you're correct about marriage, but no such thing as a "natural world" exists: for us (who are a social species) culture can't be clearly separated from biology (the two very often intertwine). So while marriage is of course a purely cultural construct, there's no "natural world" for humans
I agree with the rest of your post.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution - we are social because of our nature, not in spite of it. We became social through evolution because co-operation is a trait conducive to the survival of the species. We didn't "choose" to be social - we just became social because it was beneficial to us, we're stronger when we're together. Survival of the fittest is only one mechanism of evolution - being social is another conduit through which evolution can occur. You don't have to look for evidence far - it's in nature. Most animals operate in packs, herds or swarms - that's a primitive version of society.Just because "appealing to nature" rationally works at times doesn't mean it does in your case though.
We also usually crave sugary foods, but it doesn't mean that eating as much sugar as we would like is actually good for us.
As another example, as a species, other than having altruism and empathy we're also intrinsically violent and egoists (both are useful in an evolutionary perspective). However, we decided that violence is "wrong".
Yes, it's true that as a species we're omnivores. We can eat and digest food derived from both vegetables and animals, and this has helped us in the past. However, this doesn't imply that today we *must* follow an omnivore diet. It's a non-sequitur. Yeah, meat is good (like many other foods) if the recommended amounts are respected. But following an equally adequate vegetarian or vegan diet is also possible for us today (thanks to technology): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
Finally, you're correct about marriage, but no such thing as a "natural world" exists: for us (who are a social species) culture can't be clearly separated from biology (the two very often intertwine). So while marriage is of course a purely cultural construct, there's no "natural world" for humans
I agree with the rest of your post.
As for sugary foods, we crave them because, in a way, they are beneficial to us. We eat food to acquire nutrients and energy, and there's no larger source of energy than sugars. In fact, our bodies operate on glucose (from conversion or direct ingestion) and ketones (from breaking down fats) - we like sugar because it is in fact beneficial. What you're touching upon is moderation - you feel "ill" when you've eaten too much - that's your body telling you that you've eaten one too many gummy bears.
Regarding technology, yes, it is possible to be on a vegetarian/vegan diet and acquire all tge necessary nutrients today - that's the first thing I touched upon. Vegetarians and vegans subsist reliant on the methods we developed as a species - both in the medical field (supplements) and the food processing field (processed foods of all-sorts), but it's extremely hard to keep proper track of.
Yeah, what I meant was that in our "nature" there are both altruism and empathy, and egoism and violence.That's a fundamental misundetstanding of evolution - we are social because of our nature, not in spite of it. We became social through evolution because co-operation is a trait conducive to thr survival of the species. Survival of the fittest is only one mechanism of evolution - being social is another conduit through which evolution can occur. You don't have to look for evidence far - it's in nature. Most animals operate in packs, herds or swarms - that's a primitive version of society.
As for sugary foods, we crave them because, in a way, they are beneficial to us. We eat food to acquire nutrients and energy, and there's no larger source of energy than sugars. In fact, our bodies operate on glucose (from conversion or direct ingestion) and ketons (from meat) - we like sugar because it is in fact beneficial. What you're touching upon is moderation - you feel "ill" when you've eaten too much - that's your body telling you that you've eaten one too many gummy bears.
Not that we're just egoist and violent
I never claimed that. I just don't feel kinship with cows because I'm not a cow - I'm empathetic towards them, but they're still food.Yeah, what I meant was that in our "nature" there are both altruism and empathy, and egoism and violence.
Not that we're just egoist and violent
That was in response to the fact that we should always follow our "nature". I never claimed that you "should" be empathetic towards cows (that would even be hypocritical, as I'm not myself XD)
If you want to follow the route of misplaced empathy, you should eat meat. There are millions of animals killed every year during the growth and harvest of crops, from simple insects to mice, snakes and deer. Billions of microorganisms are killed as we spray crops to protect them from parasites, weeds and varmint. The argument that limiting meat consumption is limiting suffering only works if you're a speciest and assume that the life of a cow is more valuable than the life of a weed, an insect, a mouse or a snake. It's short-sighted, myopic and hypocritical - you can empathize with a cow easily because it has a "face" and cute cow eyes, you can't empathize with a grasshopper because it's different to you and alien. The moral argument of vegetarianism is flawed at the core. Meat-eaters are speciests too, but they're not hypocrites - they eat cows because they treat them as food.
I think it's not that easy because we also grow a lot of plant-based food to feed cows (if I'm not mistaken, it's a significant percent on the total).
Actually, what I think is that there's no cosmic law which forces me to be empathetic towards animals, and I really am not that much. Even with people, I feel affective empathy (meaning that I participate in their feelings) for a limited few; for the others I rationally understand what they're feeling and act in response.
And I'm actually a "speciesist" in that I subjectively give a greater importance to other humans, not because they're superior by some universal standard, but because I can actually cooperate with them, exchange ideas, thoughts, have a mutual improvement with them. Other animals are actually way more intelligent than we thought in the past, but the fact still stands that I can't have the same bond I can have with other humans with a member of any other species.
Last edited by Aurora Wright,
Similar threads
