organic and local with recycled packaging...but still not animal friendly?

everything_is · Aug 20, 2006

hi 
i am not trying to start an argument and have every intention of continuing my movement towardds veganism but i just want to hear others opinions on this: 
if milk is produced locally, organically and in a non intensive way do you think it is still cruel? 
if so, why? 
also organic milk has been shown to have large amounts of omega 3 in which is healthy. 
is it ethical and/or healthy iyo to drink milk like this or is it much better to cut out milk completely. 
sorry i have milk on the brain at the moment lol 
you can tell i'm craving

troub · Aug 20, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by everything_is <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> 
if milk is produced locally, organically and in a non intensive way do you think it is still cruel? </div>
</div>
 
Organic simply means no pestisides/antibiotics were used on the cow. Artificial insemination still may be the method to keep the cow pregnent, and stealing the baby away to make veal. They may also keep the cow locked up and hooked up to large machines to extract the milk. If then we go further and say that the cow is in a field, has a baby naturaly, the calf is not taken, and ol farmer john is out milkin with his hands - it is still stealing the food from the calf. Which that situation is almost completely not financially viable, as you have to wait for the cow ot get pregent, and you have to share the milk she produces with her young. <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block"> 
also organic milk has been shown to have large amounts of omega 3 in which is healthy. </div>
</div>
 
also has cholestoral, fat, and animal proteins that have been shown to lower the calcium in your body. Omega 3 can be found in many places, including Flax and Hemp seeds/oil. Hemp having the balanced ratio of Omega 6 to 3. <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block"> 
is it ethical and/or healthy iyo to drink milk like this or is it much better to cut out milk completely. </div>
</div>
 
Giving up milk is probably the best food to give up for the sake of your health. More good can be done for your own body by giving up cows milk, then giving up red meat. The dairy industry is believed to also cause more harm and suffering to the animals then the other meat industries - specially since Veal is tied into dairy. Yes, supporting dairy - supports veal. Giving up milk and still eating fish or whatever would actualy do better for yourself, and for the animals then giving up mammals but still consuming dairy. 
I fully recommend giving up dairy completely. Although it was the last thing I myself gave up before going vegan, I wish it was the first. I feel a million times better now that dairy is out of my life - physically and emotionally. I even recommend that omnivores at the very least highly reduce dairy consumption because of its ill effect on ones health.

Ludi · Aug 20, 2006

The boy calves still usually get killed, because there is not a big market for pet bulls or steers. 
Same with organic homefarm raised eggs. The boys still end up getting killed, because there is not a big market for pet roosters (even among the vegan community). 
So, if you think killing an animal is cruel, these things are still cruel.

everything_is · Aug 20, 2006

ahh yes of course <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/dunce.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":dunce:"> 
sorry i think i had a momentary lapse there 
thanks for the info

teddygee · Aug 21, 2006

My main reason for not drinking milk is simple; cows do not lactate to feed me, therefore I am not going to consume it. It is not for me to consume.

zoebird · Aug 21, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by everything_is <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> 
if milk is produced locally, organically and in a non intensive way do you think it is still cruel?</div>
</div>
 
i think that it is more humane than factory farming methods. <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">if so, why?</div>
</div>
 
if the animal is still slaughtered, i think that this can be considered cruel, but the methodology is important to determine whether or not it is more humane (or less cruel) than other methods. <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">also organic milk has been shown to have large amounts of omega 3 in which is healthy.</div>
</div>
 
this is true. but <a href="http://www.realmilk.com" target="_blank">raw milk</a> is even healthier than typical, organic pasturized milk. My prefered milk sources are organic or biodynamic farms that raise pastured animals and sell raw milk. Raw milk and raw milk products are an excellent source of nutrition. <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">is it ethical and/or healthy iyo to drink milk like this or is it much better to cut out milk completely?</div>
</div>
 
i do not think it is per se unethical to consume milk and milk products. it may be entirely appropriate. 
i base my opion based on the following logical process: 
if something is necessary, then it is appropriate and not immoral. What can be immoral is the method by which we procure something. If we utilize methods that are humane (or less cruel or more humane), then we are behaving in an ethical manner. if we do not utilize these methods, then we are behaving unethically. 
Therefore, only the individual can determine whether or not it is appropriate for them to consume milk and milk products. It is appropriate for me; it may not be appropriate for others. 
Oh, and i don't drink milk 'straight.' i simply don't like it.

jeezycreezy · Aug 21, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by zoebird <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> 
if something is necessary, then it is appropriate and not immoral.</div>
</div>
 
In my country (Canada) we call this a syllogism. 
You start off with a faulty premise: Cow's milk is only necessary for calves. Humans can get by just fine without it. 
Humans have just got millions of dollars worth of milk marketing hype to make us think otherwise. One of my favourites is for a brand called Natrel. As you can imagine with a name like that they romanticize milk and make it sound natural when it's anything but. 
Furthermore, if I was stranded on a desert island and there was no food save for another survivor and his death was necessary for my survival, would it be appropriate and not immoral to murder him? Even if I did it quickly in his sleep with minimal suffering? 
I say that humans should be evolved enough to not put something as trivial as satiating their taste buds ahead of even a minimal amount of animal suffering or death. 
But, hey! That's just me. 
Cheers! 
TJ, a friend to all cowkind.

zoebird · Aug 21, 2006

actually TJ, the question begins with 
'is it necessary for me to consume dairy products for me to thrive?' 
and if that answer is 'yes' taking in all the considerations that would need to be weighed in such a question, then this act is not immoral. but, what can be immoral is how we then procure that food source. if we do not choose the sources which are most humane, then we are participating in a immoral act.

zoebird · Aug 21, 2006

also, we're not on a desert island. we have many food choices, but some of us require nutrients in certain forms that do not exist in the plant world, and some of us need elements found in animal products (such as cholesterol) that are not found in the plant world. 
and that someone--like me--could choose eggs, milk, or meat for those nutrients, and because of food availablity and diversity issues, i choose eggs and milk products.

jeezycreezy · Aug 21, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by zoebird <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> 
actually TJ, the question begins with 
'is it necessary for me to consume dairy products for me to thrive?' </div>
</div>
 
That might have been what you meant to type. 
I just replied to what you originally wrote. 
Which wasn't that. 
I apologize for the confusion. 
It sounded like you were applying your own specific set of ethical parameters as they pertain to your particular medical/dietary problems across the board. (ie. As if to help milk drinkers sleep at night using spurious logic.) 
I was speaking in generalities, not specifics. 
If it is necessary for you then that's cool or whatever. At least you look for a means of cholesterol intake that is the least cruel. 
But I think that the vast majority of humans don't need animal products to survive and pretty much stand by my initial post with you as the sole exception. 
Cheers! 
TJ

zoebird · Aug 21, 2006

sole exception my a$$. there are lots of us. but, most people refuse to look at that. 
and that's what i said initially anyway: <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">if something is necessary, then it is appropriate and not immoral.</div>
</div>
 
this requires determining if something is necessary. duh.

compassionate1 · Aug 21, 2006

Please pardon my ignorance, but you need cholesterol? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/huh.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="

">

zoebird · Aug 21, 2006

yes. my body doesn't produce enough. 
my husband needs vitamin a--not in beta carotene form because he can't convert it--which comes in animal products. he needs therapeutic doses, so he consumes cod liver oil, eggs, and dairy for that nutrient. he consumes other meats to increase protien and decrease volumn since he consumes nearly 3000 cals a day and has a relatively small frame. 
so, there are lots and lots and lots of exceptions.

jeezycreezy · Aug 21, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by zoebird <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> 
sole exception my a$$. there are lots of us. but, most people refuse to look at that. 
and that's what i said initially anyway: 
this requires determining if something is necessary. duh.</div>
</div>
 
You didn't preface anything you said with a medical or dietary need for cholesterol. 
So how was I supposed to make the leap that you do need cholesterol in order to follow your syllogism through to its logical conclusion? 
I'm not trying to pick a fight here; just trying to understand. So no need for implications that I am stupid please and thanks. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="

"> 
Like compassionate1 I have never heard of such a condition. 
Cheers! 
TJ

zoebird · Aug 21, 2006

the problem is, many vegetarians function under the false assumption that 'nobody needs this or that.' that is just as problematic as the assumption that 'everyone needs this or that' to be healthy. 
what is logical is to hold the question open ended. it is feasable that some individuals may need this or that to be healthy. it is feasable that some individuals may need this or that for basic survival (as in desert island examples). 
because of this possibility, the ethical implications have to function liberally. And, an outside individual cannot determine what is right for another--biologically or along specific ethical lines--because the outside individual simply doesn't have enough information about the specific biological needs of another person, the food availability in their area, their economic constraints in regards to this food availability, and a myriad of other factors that are often so obscure, detailed, and specialized that we can hardly begin to consider what they may entail. 
therefore, i set forth a general premise that can be applied in any situation. If i were on a desert island with another human being, it is a reasonable question to ask if killing them for my own sustainence would be appropriate. In legal circles, it is deemed appropriate, to be honest, and there are cases that demonstrate this point. In times of survival, what is necessary is considered not immoral or a specialized case outside of the bounds of the normal legal strictures and structures. 
and thus, i set forth a liberal premise that can be applied in numerous ways.

compassionate1 · Aug 21, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by zoebird <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> 
If i were on a desert island with another human being, it is a reasonable question to ask if killing them for my own sustainence would be appropriate. In legal circles, it is deemed appropriate, to be honest, and there are cases that demonstrate this point. In times of survival, what is necessary is considered not immoral or a specialized case outside of the bounds of the normal legal strictures and structures.</div>
</div>
 
Unfortunately the question is not posed from a legal standpoint; it is posed from an ethical one. Your stance is clearly summed up by your last sentence in the quoted section. 
The problem with ethics is it is not mathematics. It's hard to argue that 57*93 = 5,301 is incorrect. You can spin the wheels for days on ethics and still not come up with a consensus.

zoebird · Aug 21, 2006

of course, which again points to the liberalism idea that i stated before. 
and law is applied social ethics.

GhostUser · Aug 21, 2006

Do what you can, or believe is right. I do think organic, biodynamic, local, ect. dairy products are better and a step towards better circumstances and conditions for animals. If you can or want to, visit the local farm you would get the products from and make your own judgement on whether or not the animals are treated well/fairly and if you want to support what the farm is doing. I don't think eating animal products is as black and white and some here believe. 
I myself don't eat much dairy or eggs because I'm still deciding my own position on the matter, which so far does tend toward lessening my consumption. I don't have a problems with eggs at all, but dairy is less certain for me. It may take awhile for you to sort out your stance on it, so I think that at least consuming organic/local dairy products is a step in the right direction.

jeezycreezy · Aug 21, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by DreamWavez <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> 
visit the local farm you would get the products from and make your own judgement on whether or not the animals are treated well/fairly and if you want to support what the farm is doing.</div>
</div>
 
If only cows could talk. I wonder what their take on all this would be. 
Cheers! 
TJ

GhostUser · Aug 21, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by jeezycreezy <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> 
If only cows could talk. I wonder what their take on all this would be. 
Cheers! 
TJ</div>
</div>
 
That's true, but unfortunately we'll never really know, so the best we can do is come up with what we feel/believe. To me it's the same as having a pet, you never really know if the decisions you make for them are right or make them happy. 
Although I do think that visiting the farm can certainly give a better understanding on what the animals are going through, especially if you visit specifcally for that purpose, you'll be more aware of little things that other times might go unnoticed. 
I remember when I was little (I grew up and live in WI) we went to farms as field trips for school, but I also went to farms my friends lived on. There were definately people who were mean to cows, poked them with pitchforks, ect. And they were all kept for the most part in stalls, unable to move much at all, not thought of or treated an animals but as $$. Seeing that, I wouldn't want to support those people at all. 
On the other hand, there is a local dairy that is basically organic (just don't want to pay the $$ to be certified) and is family owned and been here forever. You can visit anytime and they're happy to talk about the farm and what they do, ect. Granted, I'm sure some of the things may apply to them (like selling the cattle for beef), but they do treat their animals pretty well. Our co-op has done interviews with them, visited the farm and written articles on them, ect. So if I wanted to buy dairy, I wouldn't feel bad about supporting them.

organic and local with recycled packaging...but still not animal friendly?

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered