willpeavy Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 The Center for Consumer Freedom is basically a propaganda group paid for by the tobacco and junk food industries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinisterkungfu Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 The Center for Consumer Freedom is basically a propaganda group paid for by the tobacco and junk food industries and the PCRM is basically a propaganda group paid for by PETA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 well then i suppose you have to say that every organisation has an agenda, so you have to take everything said by everyone with a pince of salt and draw your own conclusions, rather than taking propaganda material as gospel........thoughts people? jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I think the argument about cow's milk being for calves is more of an ethical one than a health one. I disagree, it's not only the ethical point: it's because there is a large content of cholesterol in milk and it's products. Humans consume milkproducts maybe for about 2000 years. Over 40 percent of humans in the whole world don't tolerate lactose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinisterkungfu Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 well then i suppose you have to say that every organisation has an agenda, so you have to take everything said by everyone with a pince of salt and draw your own conclusions, rather than taking propaganda material as gospel........thoughts people? jonathan I prefer to get my information from valid scientific sources. It's hard to tell who's being paid off by whom and for what though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 The Center for Consumer Freedom is basically a propaganda group paid for by the tobacco and junk food industries so true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 Sinister, how do you know which sources are valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 well then i suppose you have to say that every organisation has an agenda, so you have to take everything said by everyone with a pince of salt and draw your own conclusions, rather than taking propaganda material as gospel........thoughts people? jonathanYeah that's what I told him earlier in this thread. I prefer to get my information from valid scientific sources. It's hard to tell who's being paid off by whom and for what though. They're all valid but all biased. They all have agendas. They are all getting paid by someone. There is no such thing as objectivity. Expose yourself to multiple biased sources and come to your own conclusion. I wish people could understand that there is no such thing as objectivity. It drives me nuts that the MSM news pretends some kind of magical objectivity and people actually believe it and think they don't need to look at any other source. They're not necessarily outright lying, so much as twisting their 'research' to support their agenda. To "twist" your research would be to lie. Which they are not doing. They're an animal rights organization so naturally all of their research is going to reflect that, regardless of whether it's the truth or not. So of course, according to them, eating fish is unhealthy because.If it's not the truth, then it's a lie. But they aren't lying. Yes, they do studies with the hopes of finding provegan findings, the same as studies funded by the meat industry hope to have promeat/antivegan findings. So again, you take it all with a "pinch of salt" and put it together and come to your own conclusion. With all this said, it's OK to point out the agenda of each group. That just doesn't mean what they say is a lie or only worth totally dismissing out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willpeavy Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I think the argument about cow's milk being for calves is more of an ethical one than a health one. I disagree, it's not only the ethical point: it's because there is a large content of cholesterol in milk and it's products. Humans consume milkproducts maybe for about 2000 years. Over 40 percent of humans in the whole world don't tolerate lactose... They sell lactose free milk at the supermarket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compassionategirl Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) well then i suppose you have to say that every organisation has an agenda, so you have to take everything said by everyone with a pince of salt and draw your own conclusions, rather than taking propaganda material as gospel........thoughts people? jonathan I prefer to get my information from valid scientific sources. It's hard to tell who's being paid off by whom and for what though. I agree Sinister. I would just add though that I have increasingly come to realize over the years that even "neutral" and "objective" scientific processes and data can be value-laden, so the objectivity and neutrality of "cold, hard science" is often more ostensible than actual. Edited January 11, 2006 by compassionategirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarz Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 well then i suppose you have to say that every organisation has an agenda, so you have to take everything said by everyone with a pince of salt and draw your own conclusions, rather than taking propaganda material as gospel........thoughts people? jonathan Wise words from one so young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 They sell lactose free milk at the supermarket If milk is healthy: Why then remove the lactose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compassionategirl Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 well then i suppose you have to say that every organisation has an agenda, so you have to take everything said by everyone with a pince of salt and draw your own conclusions, rather than taking propaganda material as gospel........thoughts people? jonathan true, but I (as I am sure most of us here, including you if I know you at all by now ) would give the benefit of any doubt to an organization with a compassionate and/or noble "agenda" sooner than we would give it to one with a capitalist, exploitative agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinisterkungfu Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 They sell lactose free milk at the supermarket If milk is healthy: Why then remove the lactose? Because some people are lactose intolerant..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Because some people are lactose intolerant..... yep, I know which is another reason therefore that milk isn't natural and healthy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinisterkungfu Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Because some people are lactose intolerant..... yep, I know which is another reason therefore that milk isn't natural and healthy... I don't disagree with you, but that hardly proves it's unnatural or unhealthy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I don't disagree with you, but that hardly proves it's unnatural or unhealthy... If you think so! http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3623/92668491l5qf.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compassionategirl Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 okay how about some good ol' common sense then. Picture this, because it is essentially what most milk drinkers are currently doing: A human approaches a cow, pushes a suckling calf out of the way to get to the bovine mother's milk and starts suckling. Does that seem natural or healthy to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compassionategirl Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 hahahaha Atilla it looks like we posted pretty much the same idea at the same time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compassionategirl Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 only thing missing in that pic is the human pushing the bovine mother's baby out of the way to drink the milk for themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaSiren Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 If you think so! http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3623/92668491l5qf.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 hahahaha Atilla it looks like we posted pretty much the same idea at the same time! hehe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willpeavy Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I don't disagree with you, but that hardly proves it's unnatural or unhealthy... If you think so! http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3623/92668491l5qf.gif It's not unhealthy for a lactose intolerant person to drink lactose free skim milk on occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 Most lactose intolerant people can handle other forms of dairy anyway. I think the only argument for not drinking milk is because it is unethical in unnatural. Many many people who drink milk are health. Just as many people who drink alcohol are health and many people who do drugs are health. For the most part I think we should stop using the health aspect to entice people into being vegan, because the first time they feel run down or get sick they’ll realize that being vegan doesn’t make you superman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willpeavy Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Most lactose intolerant people can handle other forms of dairy anyway. I think the only argument for not drinking milk is because it is unethical in unnatural. Many many people who drink milk are health. Just as many people who drink alcohol are health and many people who do drugs are health. For the most part I think we should stop using the health aspect to entice people into being vegan, because the first time they feel run down or get sick they’ll realize that being vegan doesn’t make you superman. I second that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now