Nekio, Sorry, didn't mean to come across as mean.

no problem cyrijl, the comment was a little tongue in cheek, I wouldn't really take anything serious when we're discussing "milk"... Now, if we were discussing what ice cream is better, that's another matter.... Damn, I want ice cream

then... don't. I cry easily.

Must be a side effect from your withdrawal from dioxin

Now if you're just breaking the new guys balls, then... don't. I cry easily.
No, I don't think anyone is breaking your balls, it's just the nature of the site to ensure only substanitate information be disseminated.
People on here pride themselves in well-thought presentation.

That's an excellent point, and again I'm going to state that I'm not a doctor. However, if you guys are really curious about this stuff then try googling "milk dioxin". Theres lot's of information on teh interwebs.
So the basis of the post shouldn't be milk=poison but air=poison?

Again, I will revel in my evolutionary superiority and not only subjagate the lower species but will do so with my superior brain:
I am willing to pay extra and drink the Organic Milk.

and yes, there is alot of information and misinformation on the interwebs.

I can only speak for my self when I say this: I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking this particular topic which you bring to us.

I disagree, I think you have attacked me. You've lowered my karma (or varrots), and you've personally insulted me. But hey, this is Bullshido.net not LetsBeLevelHeadedGentlemen.org. Now if you really want to discuss this topic with me, let's refrain from being cavemen. I promise that I'll do the same.

Consider also that prior to the 20th century, meat and dairy were rare luxuries, and still are in many parts of the world.meat and dairy are staple foods for subsistence farmers the world over, and have been for millenia.

People on here pride themselves in well-thought presentation.


Aside from you and a few others, I have yet to see one well-thought presentaion.

So the basis of the post shouldn't be milk=poison but air=poison?


Again, I will revel in my evolutionary superiority and not only subjagate the lower species but will do so with my superior brain:
I am willing to pay extra and drink the Organic Milk.

You sir, are a cunning linguist, however, you should read this article:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2000/08/38302

Organic milk isn't safe either, unfortunately.

I disagree, I think you have attacked me. You've lowered my karma (or varrots), and you've personally insulted me. But hey, this is Bullshido.net not LetsBeLevelHeadedGentlemen.org.

I decreased your varrot because I think the topic you presented in your posts is retarded (something for which I don't have to mince words), and because, up to this point, you have not provided a counter argument to the statements I've made on human evolution.

I attacked your point, and your common sense, for posting such a diatribe in the PT forums, where it's been perfectly clear for anyone who read the stickies what it's allowed and what is not allowed.

And I'm attacking your point and your common sense now because you choose to drabble about rep instead of answering the questions that I've stated (this is what, the fourth time that I'm telling you to answer the fucking question.)


Now if you really want to discuss this topic with me, let's refrain from being cavemen. I promise that I'll do the same.Brother, if you want to go at it with me, let's do it.

Answer the fucking questions, and yes, the website is fucking retarded, the opinion in that website is fucking retarded, saying that these are good points of views is fucking retarded, and saying that you are spreading knowledge is fucking retarded.

So you have four choices here:

a. answer the questions (which you can do politely or as a cavemen, I don't give a **** so long as you answer it), or

b. avoid answering the question as you go off the tangent on how much I've insulted you, or

c. reply in kind with cavemen rudeness and insults (which I don't mind nor care) while avoiding answering the questions.

d. ignore the questions completely while spreading your "valid points and knowledge".

Pick one.

If you're trying to avoid Dioxins you should eat... well... nothing. You should also drink nothing. Dioxins are spread throughout the entire food chain in every animal, every plant, in the water, everywhere. That means that Dioxin content is essentially a null factor when choosing foods because all foods contain it. So continue to choose your foods based on nutritional value, taste, and moral/religious grounds as you were before. This fellow is a lunatic and should be dismissed.

Edit: Also, it takes a very large amount of dioxin to actually poison someone. So unless you're rendering the fat down and drinking it by the pound every day you're probably fine....

ATT handoverfist:

So, just so that you don't miss it, let me reiterate what I previously posted, which you haven't addressed yet (and I've removed the cursing to provide a quasi-decent statement, whatever):


I mean, I really hate this:


Compassion to animals ultimately results in
compassion to one's own body, for their flesh and milk are
filthy, inefficient fuels that were not designed for human
consumption.

How are animal flesh and milk filthy, inefficient fuels that were not designed for human consumption? If this is about dioxin in milk, why doesn't it said so? This is clearly an statement on the value of foods of animal origins. Plain and simple.

We evolved into scavengers when we split off the austrolopitecines over 2 million years ago. This is not counting on the fact that austrolopitecines were already omnivores (based on their dentition), meaning they evolved to eat anything, including animals (lizards, grubs) or flesh out of carcasses whenever they got the chance.

At this time, the austrolopitecine cranial capacity was about 27% the cranial capacity of modern humans. That's just below the average Chimpanzee cranial capacity (29% of modern humans). It bears to note that austrolopitecines were opportunistic, casual scavengers (grab a lizard and chew on it) whereas chimps are active hunters, meat eaters.

Advance the clock a bit - Homo Abilis was already an scavenger when it came into the scene 2.4 million years ago. The tools they left behind and their dentition indicate so. It is at this time, with an increase in animal flesh in their diets, that you see a remarkable increase in cranial capacity (36% of modern humans.)

Enter Homo Ergaster about 1.9 million years ago. He's no longer an scavenger but an active hunter (again, this is proved by their tools and dentition.) By this time, their cranial capacity is 50% that of modern humans.

Half a million years ago we get Homo heidelbergensis, a full blown hunter with a cranial capacity bordering over 80% the cranial capacity of modern humans.

Neanderthals, our closests cousins, had a cranial capacity equal, and cases, superior to ours. They had evolved similar, if not larger structures in their craneum to support the nerves which control tongue movement, as well as vocal tracks sufficient for speech.

And guess what???? Analysis of carbon and other components in their bones suggest their diet was 90% meat.

And here we are, humans, evolved from cursorial predators, and at each step of human evolution, the increase of our cranial capacity goes in tandem with an increase of animal flesh in our diets.


WE EVOLVED TO EAT ANIMAL FLESH.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN WAS PROPELLED BY CONSUMPTION OF ANIMAL FLESH AND FAT.

EVOLUTION DICTATED THAT ANIMAL FLESH WAS THE MOST EFFICIENT, CLEANEST FUEL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPLEX BRAIN.

IN FACT, ALL ACTIVE OR OPPORTUNISTIC CARNIVOROURS MAMMALS AND MOST OMNIVOROUS ONES (SUCH AS PIGS) AND ALL ANIMALS DESCENDENT FROM THEM WHO HAVE REVERTED BACK TO OMNIVORY OR HERBIVORY HAVE SUPERIOR BRAINS TO THOSE WHICH ARE (OR HAVE DESCENDED FROM) STRICT HERBIVORES.

SO HOW CAN ANYONE CLAIM, THEN, THAT ANIMAL FLESH AND FLUIDS ARE FILTHY, INEFFICIENT FOOD SOURCES FOR HUMANS, WHEN IN FACT, NATURE AND HUMAN EVOLUTION PROVES OTHERWISE?

SO ALL OF THE SUDDEN, 3 MILLION YEARS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION ARE BASED ON AN EVOLUTIONARY MISTAKE, THAT FLESH WAS AN USUITABLE FUEL FOR OUR EVOLUTION, JUST BECASE YOU WANT TO EMBELLISH YOUR BELIEFS WITH PSEUDO-SCIENCE AND SNAKE OIL????

CREATIONIST COUSIN, PLEASE.




If you choose to stay away from foods of animal origins based on moral or religious grounds, that's fine and more power to you.

meat and dairy are staple foods for subsistence farmers the world over, and have been for millenia.

Subsistence farmers might have had animals that they used for meat, but frankly speaking, a subsistence farmer could not afford to eat meat the way many Americans do - every day. The staple diet for a European peasant consisted mostly of grains and vegetables. Dairy could be had more often, of course, because it doesn't kill the farm animal, but even then, that assumes that one HAD a farm animal. A sert or other tenant farmer might not have any animals to raise, and would have been wholly vegetarian, save for rare occasion.

Aside from you and a few others, I have yet to see one well-thought presentaion.
You sir, are a cunning linguist, however, you should read this article:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2000/08/38302
Organic milk isn't safe either, unfortunately.

I have read that article and I am of the firm opinion that Wired shouldn't stray out of the realm of technology. I have been annoyed by their political posturing several times.

Did they do a comparable study to soy-based dairy products? I didn't see one so the results mentioned in the article.

The FDA should adopt a standard and unform guideline for "organic" as opposed to the state mandated ones. I generally will look for products certified by Oregon and/or California and am comfortable with them.

Once it becomes financially worthwhile, the Feds will most likely do this.

Compassion to animals ultimately results in
compassion to one's own body, for their flesh and milk are
filthy, inefficient fuels that were not designed for human
consumption.



Okay, I've been annoyed by this quote, but kept ignoring it. On an off topic matter, no organism is "designed" to be eaten by another. In fact, organisms aren't designed. In any given ecosystem, lifeforms adapt to the conditions / food sources present.

Subsistence farmers might have had animals that they used for meat, but frankly speaking, a subsistence farmer could not afford to eat meat the way many Americans do - every day. The staple diet for a European peasant consisted mostly of grains and vegetables. Dairy could be had more often, of course, because it doesn't kill the farm animal, but even then, that assumes that one HAD a farm animal. A sert or other tenant farmer might not have any animals to raise, and would have been wholly vegetarian, save for rare occasion.
It all depends on where you are in the world and how you feed yourself. Traditional inuit lived on a diet that was so meat focused that it took decades to convince scientists that it wasn't poisonous to non inuit. Just because your (and my) ancestors lived on way too much grain, that isn't globally true, and it certainly isn't good evidence for the "right" way to eat. Your (and my, and everyone elses) ancestors died alot younger than we do.

Okay, I've been annoyed by this quote, but kept ignoring it. On an off topic matter, no organism is "designed" to be eaten by another. In fact, organisms aren't designed. In any given ecosystem, lifeforms adapt to the conditions / food sources present.

phagocytosis?

Here are some more info that you guys might want to check out (or not, I get the feeling that my credibility has been compromised on this matter):


This is an Open Access Study:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1367832

It all depends on where you are in the world and how you feed yourself. Traditional inuit lived on a diet that was so meat focused that it took decades to convince scientists that it wasn't poisonous to non inuit. Just because your (and my) ancestors lived on way too much grain, that isn't globally true, and it certainly isn't good evidence for the right way to eat. Your (and my, and everyone elses) ancestors died alot younger than we do.

Fair enough. My point wasn't so much that we should eat the diet of a European peasant, just that meat wasn't necessarily a staple food for subsistence farmers. As I said earlier, the best solution is a balanced diet of primarily fruits & veggies, supplemented by meat and dairy. However, good point about the Inuit. Had not considered hunter / gatherer societies from the colder regions.