top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 121 points 3 weeks ago (19 children)

It's the nut milk that's weird, not interspecies breast milk.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

    I mean do you want to see human breast milk in stores?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    If you're appalled by the idea of human milk in stores, you need to reconsider why you find consuming milk from other animals to be acceptable. It's weird as fuck. Just because it's normalized doesn't make it not weird. It just means you don't think about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    I don’t drink milk, I’m just asking if you want to see it in stores.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    Personally, no, and I don't want to see animal milk in stores either. There are only two logically consistent answers to that and it's this one or the inverse; yes. I guess the yes could be two reasonable answers of "yes, and..." or "yes, but not animal milk."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 weeks ago (6 children)
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    The only answer left is "animal milk is fine, except for humans." I don't see how that one is logical. It's emotional only. Humans are animals, and human milk is the stuff that is actually made for human consumption. Humans can also consent. I don't see any logical way you could exclude human milk but include other animals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 3 weeks ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    It is extracted to be used by humans, but it is evolved to be consumed by their babies. The ratios of fat, protein, and sugar are evolutionarily optimized for their baby to consume. Humans decided to drink it too, but that is not why it exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    I don't see where I said evolution has intent. Care to explain? It is made for feeding babies of that species. That is what the animal makes it for. Are you arguing against that? That is the purpose. There is no conscious decision needed for a purpose to be had.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    There is a why. Are you stupid. You literally said it. It's evolutionarily advantageous. "Why" does not imply a conscious decision. I can tell you why a rock rolled down a hill without the rock needing to have decided to roll down the hill. Stop trolling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 139 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    Until god admits he also gave me lactose intolerance he can fuck all the way off

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

    He also gave us the science to fix it with gene therapy, but we won't for reasons.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY

    I just skimmed the video again, and in the vein of being fair, he did revert to being intolerant over the period of 18 months and is considering changing it up and doing it again in the future. He can't just use the same virus, (he's now immune) and he'd need to change up how it's done so it doesn't fade when his intenstines schlough off over time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoczYXJeMY4

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Lactose intolerance is also the default - we evolved to stop drinking milk after childhood. Only eastern Europeans (and a few other areas) gained lactose tolerance due to access to cow breeding.

    Forcing an animal to continuously breed and steal the calf away to steal the milk is a little weird..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 72 points 3 weeks ago (45 children)

    Don’t have to non-consensually impregnate the almond and force it to stand in one spot hooked up to machinery against its will daily.

  • source
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago

    I only have almond milk that was obtained consensually. I get it from an almond-whisperer I met in Santa Fe. She has reassured me multiple times that she asks each almond individually if they're ok with being milked. It's $400 per bottle, but I swear to god it tastes so much better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Almonds also wear armor to keep themselves clean and aren't forced to wade around and dangle their milkmakers in sewage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -23 points 3 weeks ago* (40 children)
  • [–] 16 points 3 weeks ago (22 children)

    You think the cows don't very obviously express their displeasure at what's being done to them? My cat uses body language to convey when they're upset I pet them at the wrong time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 3 weeks ago (22 children)
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (21 children)

    Is physically resisting not an expression of not consenting to something being done to you? Also, abinals absolutely can express that they like something being done to them, which would be an expression of consent for the respective behavior. We don't need them to be able to talk to draw the conclusion that artificial insemination isn't ethical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 3 weeks ago (21 children)
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

    Is full understanding necessary? If they find it unpleasant, then resist because of it, and you continue anyways, you're violating their bodily autonomy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    What I'm reading as your position here is that it's not needed to consider an animals feelings on it's body in regards to how we treat that animal. Which I frankly see as downright inhumane.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

    This is a casual conversation, not an academic one. Clearly people are using terms like consent and autonomy more loosely, conflated with animal assent and instinctual drive--which is totally fine in context. The crux of the argument is around the suffering of sentient beings, even non-sapient ones like humans.

    In order to properly communicate using a language such an English, it's often necessary in casual conversation for both sender and receiver to be a bit more generous with interpreting others'meaning beyond strict field-specific definitions. This is because such languages are organic and evolve in many directions. Therefore, slight differences between intended meanings and understood meanings are to be expected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I think your original comment indicating it's absurd to discuss consent in this context is misguided. I think it's entirely appropriate to discuss the ethics of how and when we inflict suffering on other animals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Like I said, I disagree that it's an absurd starting point. Animal research applies animal assent rules as a consent analog all the time as part of ethical research.

    If you want to get into an argument about whether or not it's absurd, we can do that. But we're both clear where we stand and we can agree to disagree as well.

    If we can't agree on the meaning of "animal consent" in this context, I think there will too much semantic friction to have a fruitful discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

    I mean it sounds like you are being willfully obtuse about the concept of colloquial language vs jargon for the sake of being a dick on the internet to strangers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (11 children)

    So do you feel that it is okay to do literally whatever you want to a creature just because it is not capable of complex understanding or having the ability to make an informed decision?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

    I think cruelty is bad. but just killing nonhumans is probably fine. killing them for food, clothing and medicine is absolutely acceptable. breeding them for food clothing and medicine is also acceptable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

    Do you feel that the meat industry in its current form is cruel or no? As opposed to hunting and/or typical ranching and animal husbandry

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    I don't think I'm informed enough to have an opinion the whole industry but I live in a rural area and know plenty of farmers. I don't think they're cruel to their livestock.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    I don’t think I’m informed enough to have an opinion on whether artificially inseminating an animal when it appears to be resisting is cruel, or not—but if you are self aware enough to admit that then consider that causing an animal undue stress and/or pain seemingly against it’s will may be on a level of cruelty that you may have not considered, and is part of a system that may no longer be necessary due to our current level of technology as it was in the past. They used to not anesthetize babies for surgery because it was widely believed that they couldn’t feel pain, now we know better than that.

    It sounds like you may be making an assumption that might makes right, and just because we are more complex and intelligent than other creature that somehow means our lives are inherently worth more than theirs and that innately gives us the right to kill animals for food and resources—despite having the ability to no longer depend on that as our ancestors did. That or you possibly believe that we were given divine agency to do so, idk. I say all this as someone who currently consumes meat. It’s just something to consider

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    our lives are inherently worth more

    I certainly think people are more important than non-people. but there is no such thing as inherent worth. worthiness is a value statement, and is subjective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    I realize you didn’t use the words “might makes right”, but that is essentially what you are saying when you say our live are more important. Why do you think they are more important? Because of our intelligence? Would that mean that the lived of a more intelligent species would be worth more than our own? And if so, why do you think that? Do you think it would give them the right to eat us? I’m not saying I disagree with you that a human is more important per se, but I can’t really imagine a truly justifiable why reason it would be that doesn’t rely on logical fallacy and superstition

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Why do you think they are more important?

    because I value people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    All people? Are you saying that animal lives don’t have any value whatsoever? Saying that you value people and saying that our lives aren’t inherently more valuable than another’s aren’t mutually exclusive. What metric is that value based on? Or is it purely emotional? Do you think that value you attribute to people has a conditional effect on their value versus someone else’s opinion?

    I’m not going to harass you to answer that or say that you’re wrong or argue about it. But you started this by arguing with someone on the “logic” of something—and It’s healthy to challenge your beliefs, convictions, and opinions and to ask yourself what the real bases of those are, and the root of your own logic. That is all that I’m getting at

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I know you're used to "having it your way" but you're getting pretty trounced in this one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    I think it's bc you don't actually believe the ridiculous shit you're saying. you don't actually think sawing off a table leg carries the same moral weight as slicing through a cow's throat; or that animals can't have preferences or are unable to dislike being confined or abused. just unhinged shit that gives away that the last thing you're capable of is having an honest look at your habits. unless you actually think that shit, in which case you should be kept away from animals, children, and any other vulnerable person.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 19 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    Okay so if you agree that animals can't consent, then we should leave them alone.

    And I would get consent from my sink if it was a sentient being. (What a weird non-sequitur comparison)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Ideally yeah, we should stop doing to animals what we've been doing for a while now. People would rather feel right about eating meat because powerful people tell them too, than feel wrong because people like them tell them so.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -5 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    They're used to being an ml tankie responding to everyone on their .world outreach comm then deleting the all the wrong think comments they're replying to.

    How the turntables.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -3 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    What a chickenshit way to lose an argument lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    this user has been stalking and harassing me all year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    By that logic there's nothing wrong with pedophaelia or child labour either (as long as the kids are young enough to be unable to inform)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 30 points 3 weeks ago

    If god doesn't want almond milk why did he give them nipples

  • source
  • [–] 57 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Oats make better milk anyway

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    In terms of cost, environmental impact, and ease of making your own, yeah absolutely. In terms of flavor, it's almonds hands down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›