Vegetarian Discussion: Question For Lacto Vegetarians

Question For Lacto Vegetarians
Posts: 22

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Dave
2005-10-07 00:41:11 EST
In order to keep a cow in milk, it is necessary to have
her give birth to calves. Even then, she will dry up well
before her natural lifespan is over. My question to
lacto-vegetarians is what would you have done with the male
calves and the 'OAP'-cows? If you raise them all you will soon
run out of land. If you kill them you may as well eat them.


Dutch
2005-10-07 04:44:46 EST

"Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote
> In order to keep a cow in milk, it is necessary to have
> her give birth to calves.

No it's not, if you keep milking a cow her milk will continue to flow. You
still have unwanted male calves in dairy cow production though. Mmmm veal
parmigiana



Dave
2005-10-07 08:44:02 EST

Dutch wrote:

> "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote
> > In order to keep a cow in milk, it is necessary to have
> > her give birth to calves.
>
> No it's not, if you keep milking a cow her milk will continue to flow.

Well that's not what I've been told but you may be right.

> You
> still have unwanted male calves in dairy cow production though. Mmmm veal
> parmigiana

I no longer stand by my argument here. If you don't kill of your
cattle,
you will have rather more than half of them producing nothing but it is
exagerrating to say you would run out of land in a vegetarian society.

A real life dairy industry would still kill its male calves and old
cows,
even if there was no market for beef though and the dairy industry is
IMHO crueler than many forms of meat production so I am still
curious how ehtical lacto-vegetarians rationalize their diet.


TinaBeana
2005-10-07 12:01:39 EST
i think it's just an easier way to becoming a vegan... you know? giving
up meant, then dairy? a lot of people arent mentally/physically strong
enough to just go cold turkey on the animal products... especially if
they were raised on a hardcore meat diet ya know? :-)


Dave
2005-10-07 12:13:27 EST

TinaBeana wrote:

> i think it's just an easier way to becoming a vegan... you know? giving
> up meant, then dairy? a lot of people arent mentally/physically strong
> enough to just go cold turkey on the animal products... especially if
> they were raised on a hardcore meat diet ya know? :-)

Some people may use vegetarianism as a stepping stone towards
veganism but there are many lacto-vegetarians who have no intention
of ever giving up dairy. Also would you not agree that reducing your
consumption of all animal products brings you closer to the vegan ideal
and is probably easier to do than totally giving up meat while
consuming unlimited quantities of dairy?


TinaBeana
2005-10-07 12:51:52 EST
true true... maybe they are just satisfied with the fact that they are
at least saving 38 cows a year? Maybe they have other things that they
are focused on... maybe they think of it like this: trying to save
animals is like trying to save world hunger or finding the cure to
breast cancer... they will do a little bit, but they arent going to
revolve their whole life around it... like, they'll throw some change
in buckets here or there, but they arent going to dedicate half of
their paycheck to ending world hunger... or like, they arent going to
dedicate half of their paycheck to helping find the cure for breast
cancer... they'll buy a pink ribbon every now and then. You know what
im sayin? maybe "just being vegetarian" is good enough for them? who
knows? lol.
honestly, i do agree that just going vegan would be a lot easier... you
also have to think about those kids/teens that live in a meat eating
family and are trying to make a difference (this was my case). My
parents agreed to it so long as i still had dairy... it's kind of hard
to be a middle schooler/high schooler and buying/cooking your own food
when your parents like, forbid it... you know? the whole, "my house/my
rules" thing? but i mean... as an adult it would totally be easier to
just go straight to vegan... :-)


Dave
2005-10-07 14:16:26 EST

TinaBeana wrote:

> true true... maybe they are just satisfied with the fact that they are
> at least saving 38 cows a year?

Are they though? There are very few, if any, dairy farmers who would
keep cattle alive if they aren't either producing a milk or intended
for breeding. My argument is that the non-productive cattle will be
killed even if there is nobody consuming the veal or beef.

> Maybe they have other things that they
> are focused on... maybe they think of it like this: trying to save
> animals is like trying to save world hunger or finding the cure to
> breast cancer... they will do a little bit, but they arent going to
> revolve their whole life around it... like, they'll throw some change
> in buckets here or there, but they arent going to dedicate half of
> their paycheck to ending world hunger... or like, they arent going to
> dedicate half of their paycheck to helping find the cure for breast
> cancer... they'll buy a pink ribbon every now and then. You know what
> im sayin? maybe "just being vegetarian" is good enough for them?

The attitude of doing a little bit but not more than they are
comfortable with is fair enough. I'm just questioning what is gained
by giving up meat while increasing consumption of dairy. I do
believe that lacto-vegetarian diets generally involve consumption
of more dairy than omnivorous diets in practise.

> who knows?

I'm sure there are almost as many explainations as there are
lacto-vegetarians. I'd just be interested to discuss the issues
with one of them.

> lol.
> honestly, i do agree that just going vegan would be a lot easier...

I never said going vegan was easier, just that if you are going to
stop half-way then it seems most logical to be selective about
the animal products you do consume and/or reduce the consumption
of both meat and dairy. I don't really understand the rationale behind
eliminating meat altogether while consuming unlimited quantities
of dairy products.

> you
> also have to think about those kids/teens that live in a meat eating
> family and are trying to make a difference (this was my case). My
> parents agreed to it so long as i still had dairy... it's kind of hard
> to be a middle schooler/high schooler and buying/cooking your own food
> when your parents like, forbid it... you know? the whole, "my house/my
> rules" thing? but i mean... as an adult it would totally be easier to
> just go straight to vegan... :-)

Sure. Compromise is often a necessary part of family life.


D*@.
2005-10-07 15:50:16 EST
On 7 Oct 2005 11:16:26 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>TinaBeana wrote:
>
>> true true... maybe they are just satisfied with the fact that they are
>> at least saving 38 cows a year?
>
>Are they though? There are very few, if any, dairy farmers who would
>keep cattle alive if they aren't either producing a milk or intended
>for breeding. My argument is that the non-productive cattle will be
>killed even if there is nobody consuming the veal or beef.

Well yeah. PeTA kills plenty of pets, so just from that we know
"AR" would mean the killing of unwanted livestock too. Plus Newkirk
herself is even in favor of a horrible hoof and mouth epidemic in
the US:
_________________________________________________________
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
These people are completely inconsiderate of the lives of food animals.
All they know is that they are disturbed because people "kill" animals
for food, so they want it to stop. They give absolutely no thought to
what the animals gain at all. Some of their lives are of positive value
and some are of negative value, but "ARAs" won't take that into
consideration.

D*@.
2005-10-07 15:50:24 EST
On 7 Oct 2005 09:51:52 -0700, "TinaBeana" <christina@dcmpower.com> wrote:

>true true... maybe they are just satisfied with the fact that they are
>at least saving 38 cows a year?

What??? How do you figure anyone is saving any cows???

D*@.
2005-10-07 16:07:19 EST
On 7 Oct 2005 09:01:39 -0700, "TinaBeana" <christina@dcmpower.com> wrote:

>i think it's just an easier way to becoming a vegan... you know? giving
>up meant, then dairy? a lot of people arent mentally/physically strong
>enough to just go cold turkey on the animal products... especially if
>they were raised on a hardcore meat diet ya know? :-)

I still don't understand why people who want to consume meat
and want to have a positive influence on human influence on
animals, don't deliberately contribute to products which provide
decent lives for the animals involved....like cage free eggs, and
grass raised beef and dairy.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron