On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can). So how do you justify that statement?

On 07/05/2021 17:19, newshound wrote:
On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can). So how do you justify that statement?

He can't, his hatred towards milk drinkers is down to envy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-...face-1.2557070

On Fri, 7 May 2021 17:19:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can).

More than 60+% of the population can't so if that was an EU referendum
result that would be a win to 'The world population is lactose
intolerant. ;-)

So how do you justify that statement?

Do you really think I would need to justify a statement re humans
evolving a tolerance to something we should never have been consuming
in the first place?

Did we have to become tolerant to our mothers milk, apples, nuts or
berries (we as in the vast majority, not some obscure cases)?

Cheers, T i m

On 07/05/2021 17:21, Tim Streater wrote:
On 07 May 2021 at 13:36:47 BST, Fredxx wrote:

On 07/05/2021 11:31, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2021 08:51:42 +0100, SH wrote:

On 07/05/2021 08:34, williamwright wrote:
On 07/05/2021 06:30, Richard wrote:
milk works if they are not agin it

You seem to not grasp the "vegan" bit of this.

Vegans won't have milk because milking a cow kills it.

Bill

There is a range of vegan milk options available:

Soya milk
Oat milk
coconut milk
Peanut milk
cashew milk
Almond milk
Pistachio milk

They aren't actually 'vegan milk options', they are 'human milk
options' as we should never have been consuming the growth fluid of a
different species in the first place!

Given we have evolved to have the necessary genes to digest lactose in
adulthood, that is not true.

Once you have undone all the indoctrination you (we) have been
subjected to for (for most here), many many years you should be able
to see it for the weird behaviour that it has always been.

Only weird to fanatical vegans who don't think it's weird to consume
soya milk in its place.

Now, 'I get' you might stoop to all sorts of levels to do things to
survive but we aren't talking about survival in 2021, well not for a
vast proportion of the population in any case. And given 65% of the
population are lactose intolerant (more intolerant of cows milk than
pretty well anything else), that should give you the clue that maybe
we weren't ever meant to drink it.

The western population has the gene to process lactose. If you were
Asian then I would extend my sympathies to your inability to digest milk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

Building up a tolerance to something we weren't naturally tolerant to
(because it wasn't meant for us) makes as much sense of keeping
smoking even though it makes you sick until you can do it without
being sick.

You're now talking gibberish.

He's talking ********. We are naturally tolerant towards lactose. Every baby
is.

Anothe faceplant from T r o l l , who would be well advised to do a bit of
research before sounding off.



Nutters never let facts get in the way of their made up stats.

--
Adam

On 7 May 2021 16:25:36 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 07 May 2021 at 17:19:04 BST, newshound
wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can). So how do you justify that statement?

He can't, beacuse what humans and other mammals have done is evolve to consume
milk - full stop.


Bwhahahahaa ... stupid Goblin, like you would have a clue about any of
this, you are *way* too old and stupid!

Huamn milk has a different make-up to cows milk, but both
contain lactose.

Doh, strange that a lot more than 60% of the population aren't
intolerant to the milk from their same *SPECIES* you weird freak!

And worse, we are talking about your sucking on a cows teat when you
are a big boy and supposed to be on solids!!!

Feck, even a calf doesn't keep drinking it's mothers milk as it grows
up, something you could try doing (growing up).

Cheers, T i m

ps. Infant *milk allergies* are rarely any form of lactose intolerance
and only one in 50 have it. *Massive* difference to adult lactose
intolerance levels of over 1 in 2.

On 7 May 2021 13:44:14 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 07 May 2021 at 13:18:43 BST, williamwright wrote:

On 07/05/2021 11:31, T r o l l wrote:

Once you have undone all the indoctrination you (we) have been
subjected to for (for most here), many many years you should be able
to see it for the weird behaviour that it has always been.

I'm a member of a species that has co-existed with farm animals for
millennia. That's not indoctrination, it's the natural world as it's
evolved.

I suspect if T r o l l tried to discuss these views with humans from say 20k
years ago, the response would be short, sharp, and stone-age.

I wouldn't be doing so if we were trying to *SURVIVE* you stupid
Goblin.

He quotes 65% of the population as lactose intolerant. I assume he means the
world population,

Doh!. No, I mean 60% of my local pub or your asylum. rolls eyes

since such a number certainly wouldn't apply to just this
country.

No **** sherlock.

Here, we are in the group that is mostly lactose tolerant.

And in other countries / cultures (that think drinking a mothers milk
after you have weaned to be weird) have much greater levels of lactose
intolerance.

https://milk.procon.org/lactose-intolerance-by-country/

And from
what I recall, it's not that the others are intolerant per se, just that their
cultures don't include drinking cows milk later in life.

Bwhaha ... (you are funny).

But ours does, and so
we stay tolerant to it.

Only those who have gained that 'tolerance (to something we shouldn't
have been consuming in the first place) by long term exposure to it.
Hardly an indicator that we were *meant* to consume it eh freak?

This is because if you drink cows milk as a child, and
then stop, the body loses the ability to produce lactase, the enzyme that can
break down lactose, the sugar in milk. Drinking milk as adults is part of our
culture, so talking about intolerance is ********.

Aw bless, the stupid goblin tries to conflate science and biology with
culture. Awww ...

Lactase is found in other mammals than humans. We are all born with the
ability to produce it - wouldn't be able to digest human milk otherwise.

Yes, *before we wean' you cow nipple sucking weirdo!

Occasionally you see animals sucking offspring of other species; usually the
latter are orphans.

'Occasional ... so even less than the 40% then? It's the exception
that proves the rule to you does it (I suppose it would if you are
desperately trying to justify your position).

Prhaps T r o l l needs to go have a word with them about
it.

Yeah, of course, because in the world of a sick Goblin desperately
trying to substantiate it's disgusting habit ... they will suddenly
gain the powers of speech?

No, we may have taken the surplus milk from a cow at some point in our
past TO SURVIVE but outside of that, the idea is still *disgusting* to
a very large percentage of the world population ... and I'm not even
talking about the many million who agree (but aren't vegan) and have
moved onto alternative milks that are no only more 'natural' (they
aren't the growth fluid for a different species) but cause fewer
health issues, are more sustainable, far less cruel, create less
pollution, create fewer greenhouse gasses, use far less water and are
more sustainable.

But you carry on sucking on that cows teat baby! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 May 2021 08:51:42 +0100, SH wrote:

On 07/05/2021 08:34, williamwright wrote:
On 07/05/2021 06:30, Richard wrote:
milk works if they are not agin it

You seem to not grasp the "vegan" bit of this.

Vegans won't have milk because milking a cow kills it.

Bill

There is a range of vegan milk options available:

Soya milk
Oat milk
coconut milk
Peanut milk
cashew milk
Almond milk
Pistachio milk

They aren't actually 'vegan milk options', they are 'human
milk options' as we should never have been consuming
the growth fluid of a different species in the first place!

But its fine to munch of the sexual organs of plants ?

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

On 07/05/2021 18:23, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2021 17:19:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can).

More than 60+% of the population can't so if that was an EU referendum
result that would be a win to 'The world population is lactose
intolerant. ;-)

So how do you justify that statement?

Do you really think I would need to justify a statement re humans
evolving a tolerance to something we should never have been consuming
in the first place?

Not when it doesn't suit your flavour of fanaticism, of course not.

Contrary to your belief, we should be consuming milk as part of natural,
balanced diet.

Did we have to become tolerant to our mothers milk, apples, nuts or
berries (we as in the vast majority, not some obscure cases)?

Tolerance for most animals is only in the infant stage. It is lost
through maturity, except for us humans of course.

On 7 May 2021 16:21:48 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

Building up a tolerance to something we weren't naturally tolerant to
(because it wasn't meant for us) makes as much sense of keeping
smoking even though it makes you sick until you can do it without
being sick.

You're now talking gibberish.

He's talking ********.

Aww, poor stupid Goblin ...

We are naturally tolerant towards lactose.

Nope.

Every baby
is.

Oh look, a great big lump of disingenuous troll **** there, like
*anyone* was talking about babies.

When *normal people* talk of 'lactose intolerance we are (of course)
referring to it in it's more complete description of 'Adult lactose
intolerance'.

Anothe faceplant from T r o l l ,

Oh, beautiful, that mirror rebound faceplant must *really* hurt eh
Goblin!

who would be well advised to do a bit of
research before sounding off.

Ah, yes, you and your research. I think you must have confused the
word 'research from 'guesswork' as so far, that's all you seem to have
come up with!

So, when we are babies you think the best thing we can have is cows
milk and the best thing (all round, for us, the environment, the cows,
in 2021) is to carry on drinking the growth fluid you should have
never been drinking in the first place (because it's from a different
species, unless you *are* a baby cow and that would make much more
sense) even though after all these years, over 60% of the (world)
population is *still* intolerant to it!?

If I was trying to convince you to drink cows milk for the first time
*today*, you would have every right to consider me weird (because it
is).

Now, I get the 'I drink cows milk because I've always drunk it, there
weren't that many alternatives in those days and I'd never really
considered the negatives ...', and that because you are old and
obviously don't care about animals, don't see any reason why you
should do anything more informed or progressive today.

You would also have been of the last one to get rid of your slaves and
stop bear baiting. :-(

Cheers, T i m

"SH" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2021 11:31, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2021 08:51:42 +0100, SH wrote:

On 07/05/2021 08:34, williamwright wrote:
On 07/05/2021 06:30, Richard wrote:
milk works if they are not agin it

You seem to not grasp the "vegan" bit of this.

Vegans won't have milk because milking a cow kills it.

Bill

There is a range of vegan milk options available:

Soya milk
Oat milk
coconut milk
Peanut milk
cashew milk
Almond milk
Pistachio milk

They aren't actually 'vegan milk options', they are 'human milk
options' as we should never have been consuming the growth fluid of a
different species in the first place!

Once you have undone all the indoctrination you (we) have been
subjected to for (for most here), many many years you should be able
to see it for the weird behaviour that it has always been.

Now, 'I get' you might stoop to all sorts of levels to do things to
survive but we aren't talking about survival in 2021, well not for a
vast proportion of the population in any case. And given 65% of the
population are lactose intolerant (more intolerant of cows milk than
pretty well anything else), that should give you the clue that maybe
we weren't ever meant to drink it.

Building up a tolerance to something we weren't naturally tolerant to
(because it wasn't meant for us) makes as much sense of keeping
smoking even though it makes you sick until you can do it without
being sick.

Cheers, T i m


Well mothers do produce human milk for their babies. Its also documented
that mothers can breast feed for several years..... I've heard of kids
still breast feeding at age 6.

So clearly humans can at least drink & digest human milk.....

What would your thoughts be on harvesting human milk and making cheese,
butter, yoghurt etc out of it?

Bit of a problem getting enough of it to be useful.

And the brat would starve.

(a genuine question rather than an attempt to wind anyone up... :-) )

A likely story.

It has to be 100% vegan or timmy will burst a blood vessel, stupid.

GB wrote

https://imgur.com/hhkmIVX

On Sat, 8 May 2021 05:44:34 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

On Sat, 8 May 2021 05:43:09 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sat, 8 May 2021 05:19:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



They aren't actually 'vegan milk options', they are 'human
milk options' as we should never have been consuming
the growth fluid of a different species in the first place!

But its fine to munch of the sexual organs of plants ?

Plants don't have any organs. And anyway, what you call their "sexual
organs" is being produced by them to get eaten, senile twit!

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

Says, of all people, the sociopathic troll who gets up EVERY NIGHT between 1
and 4 am in Australia just so he can continue with his idiotic trolling on
Usenet without too long a break!!!!

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On 07/05/2021 20:41, T i m wrote:
On 7 May 2021 16:21:48 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

Building up a tolerance to something we weren't naturally tolerant to
(because it wasn't meant for us) makes as much sense of keeping
smoking even though it makes you sick until you can do it without
being sick.

You're now talking gibberish.

He's talking ********.

Aww, poor stupid Goblin ...

We are naturally tolerant towards lactose.

Nope.

We are, however much you would like it to be otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

Every baby
is.

Oh look, a great big lump of disingenuous troll **** there, like
*anyone* was talking about babies.

When *normal people* talk of 'lactose intolerance we are (of course)
referring to it in it's more complete description of 'Adult lactose
intolerance'.

Which is rare in the Western World:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

Anothe faceplant from T r o l l ,

Oh, beautiful, that mirror rebound faceplant must *really* hurt eh
Goblin!

I guess it did from your desperation.

who would be well advised to do a bit of
research before sounding off.

Ah, yes, you and your research. I think you must have confused the
word 'research from 'guesswork' as so far, that's all you seem to have
come up with!

So, when we are babies you think the best thing we can have is cows
milk

Actually it is recommended that babies drink their mother's breast milk.

and the best thing (all round, for us, the environment, the cows,
in 2021) is to carry on drinking the growth fluid you should have
never been drinking in the first place (because it's from a different
species, unless you *are* a baby cow and that would make much more
sense) even though after all these years, over 60% of the (world)
population is *still* intolerant to it!?

You are an idiot. You have been told many times that the native
population of the developed western world has evolved a gene to digest
milk in adulthood.

Only a fanatic would continue to be blind to the facts.

If I was trying to convince you to drink cows milk for the first time
*today*, you would have every right to consider me weird (because it
is).

If it was for the first time there is a chance we might not have evolved
to posses the gene to digest milk.

Now, I get the 'I drink cows milk because I've always drunk it, there
weren't that many alternatives in those days and I'd never really
considered the negatives ...', and that because you are old and
obviously don't care about animals, don't see any reason why you
should do anything more informed or progressive today.

From someone who admits they don't care about animal welfare while the
animal is a alive that's a bit rich. Some of do care about animal
welfare, while you don't.

You would also have been of the last one to get rid of your slaves and
stop bear baiting. :-(

That is a strange accusation. Which can only be made from someone who is
envious we are free to do what we like (within laws and social morals),
drink what we like, and eat what we like. And we are allowed to use eggs
for glazing pasties and breads.

This envy is eating away at your soul. Please get help.

"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot can).

Just as true of meat.

So how do you justify that statement?

Same mindless bull**** he spews about meat.

On 07/05/2021 17:23, T i m wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can).

More than 60+% of the population can't
Claptrap. Unadulterated claptrap.

If humans hadn't been able to process lactose, humans would not have
succeeded as a species.

--
Spike

On Sat, 8 May 2021 12:53:09 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll****

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sat, 8 May 2021 02:13:59 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip bs unread

Just in case this saves you some time, let me tell you how I use my
newsreader.

When I first open it it's not set to download any new headers, I click
on that manually.

Then I see any new threads, threads with new messages and new messages
in those threads (if expanded or when I expand them) marked in red.

If I see a reply from you, Spike, crazy-dave and a few others I
typically don't open them (especially when I know you are likely to be
spouting more trolling bollox), just reading the normals and for a
laugh, the Squeaker Goblin and Turnip etc.

When I check again for new messages, it changes the colour of the red
ones to black and hence they disappear into the background, never to
be read.

So, given it's pretty obvious you are never going to stop causing
animals to die and suffer unnecessarily ... just for your personal
pleasure and it's patently obvious to any normal person that vegans
don't do that, I *really* DGAF what BS you have to say on the subject
so please don't bother on my behalf (as I'm never going back to
causing animals to suffer and die, just because you (trolls) do).

Cheers, T i m

On 8 May 2021 11:00:14 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

T r o l l still hasn't grasped the basics, namely that we are all (all
mammals, that is) born with the ability to process lactose. From Wikipedia:

"Infant mammals nurse on their mothers to drink milk, which is rich in
lactose."

so that includes humans, most particularly babies.

Yes, and? Where does wiki say that human babies are best raised on
cows milk?

Winky goes on to say:

"Many people with ancestry in Europe, West Asia, South Asia, the Sahel belt in
West Africa, East Africa and a few other parts of Central Africa maintain
lactase production into adulthood. In many of these areas, milk from mammals
such as cattle, goats, and sheep is used as a large source of food.

Yup, for them it's normally called 'survival' rather than choice.

Hence, it
was in these regions that genes for lifelong lactase production first evolved.
The genes of adult lactose tolerance have evolved independently in various
ethnic groups. By descent, more than 70% of western Europeans can digest
lactose as adults, compared with less than 30% of people from areas of Africa,
eastern and south-eastern Asia and Oceania."

Yup, because of the circumstances / cultures / religions of 'some
people', those people have *developed a tolerance to something they
were never designed in nature to consume, certainly after they had
weaned themselves*.

Humans were ,meant to drink human mother breast milk, cow calves were
meant to drink cow mother breast milk, etc etc.

So as I said before, at the root of it is whether your culture included
drinking milk. If it did, then over the millenia your group might well evolve
genes to enable drinking into adulthood, as that would confer an evolutionary
advantage.

Yup, but still very very weird in 2021, not the 1821 that the Squeaker
Goblin was born and still lives in.

Speaking of drinking fluids from other species, T r o l l might like to have
a friendly word with various ant species, which farm aphids and use their
secretions as food.

Ah, so now the Goblin thinks we should use ants as a guide for our
morals and ethics!

The benefit to the aphids is protection from predators.

If only then we weren't slaughtering all those cows and calves just
for you to be able to drink the growth fluid that was meant for the
calves and not you, we could say we had a symbiotic relationship like
the ants ... Do the ants artificially inseminate the aphid as well?

https://ibb.co/G0VSBDw

Cheers, T i m

On 08/05/2021 09:49, T i m wrote:

Just in case this saves you some time, let me tell you how I use my
newsreader.

When I first open it it's not set to download any new headers, I click
on that manually.

Then I see any new threads, threads with new messages and new messages
in those threads (if expanded or when I expand them) marked in red.

If I see a reply from you, Spike, crazy-dave and a few others I
typically don't open them (especially when I know you are likely to be
spouting more trolling bollox), just reading the normals and for a
laugh, the Squeaker Goblin and Turnip etc.

IOW, you don't like your *claims* being countered by *facts*. This
thread has contained good examples of that.

--
Spike

On 08/05/2021 12:30, T i m wrote:

Yup, because of the circumstances / cultures / religions of 'some
people', those people have *developed a tolerance to something they
were never designed in nature to consume, certainly after they had
weaned themselves*.

Claptrap. Pure, unadulterated claptrap.

People do not "...[develop] a tolerance to something they were never
designed in nature to consume...", they have the ability to digest it
*from* *birth*. HTH.

--
Spike

On 08/05/2021 13:30, T i m wrote:
On 8 May 2021 11:00:14 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

T r o l l still hasn't grasped the basics, namely that we are all (all
mammals, that is) born with the ability to process lactose. From Wikipedia:

"Infant mammals nurse on their mothers to drink milk, which is rich in
lactose."

so that includes humans, most particularly babies.

Yes, and? Where does wiki say that human babies are best raised on
cows milk?

Winky goes on to say:

"Many people with ancestry in Europe, West Asia, South Asia, the Sahel belt in
West Africa, East Africa and a few other parts of Central Africa maintain
lactase production into adulthood. In many of these areas, milk from mammals
such as cattle, goats, and sheep is used as a large source of food.

Yup, for them it's normally called 'survival' rather than choice.

I survive each day and eat meat as a natural balanced diet. Need, want,
choice are meaningless words in the context of human emotion. Very few,
as a proportion to world population, succumb to famine.

Hence, it
was in these regions that genes for lifelong lactase production first evolved.
The genes of adult lactose tolerance have evolved independently in various
ethnic groups. By descent, more than 70% of western Europeans can digest
lactose as adults, compared with less than 30% of people from areas of Africa,
eastern and south-eastern Asia and Oceania."

Yup, because of the circumstances / cultures / religions of 'some
people', those people have *developed a tolerance to something they
were never designed in nature to consume, certainly after they had
weaned themselves*.

That is perhaps what has held them back, while the rest of the world
with the lactase persistent gene advanced through industrialisation.

Humans were ,meant to drink human mother breast milk, cow calves were
meant to drink cow mother breast milk, etc etc.

Some species have, of course, evolved to drink milk into maturity.

So as I said before, at the root of it is whether your culture included
drinking milk. If it did, then over the millenia your group might well evolve
genes to enable drinking into adulthood, as that would confer an evolutionary
advantage.

Yup, but still very very weird in 2021, not the 1821 that the Squeaker
Goblin was born and still lives in.

It is only weird to fanatical vegans, envious our loved ones allow us to
drink milk.

Speaking of drinking fluids from other species, T r o l l might like to have
a friendly word with various ant species, which farm aphids and use their
secretions as food.

Ah, so now the Goblin thinks we should use ants as a guide for our
morals and ethics!

Given they have a social structure and are sentient beings, they can be
no worse that your morals.

On 08/05/2021 10:49, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2021 02:13:59 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip bs unread

Facts you dare not read.

You come across as being intensely ignorant in the RW with your head
firmly planted in the sand.

On 8 May 2021 15:26:16 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 08 May 2021 at 13:30:47 BST, T i m wrote:

On 8 May 2021 11:00:14 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

T r o l l still hasn't grasped the basics, namely that we are all (all
mammals, that is) born with the ability to process lactose. From Wikipedia:

"Infant mammals nurse on their mothers to drink milk, which is rich in
lactose."

so that includes humans, most particularly babies.

Yes, and? Where does wiki say that human babies are best raised on
cows milk?

It doesn't, and they aren't, and no one has suggested they should be.

So why the (/YOUR) focus / distraction with babies then?

Yup, because of the circumstances / cultures / religions of 'some
people', those people have *developed a tolerance to something they
were never designed in nature to consume, certainly after they had
weaned themselves*.

No, ****-for-brains, they haven't developed a tolerance. The point is thay
*haven't* developed an *intolerance*.

Semantics (re the actual point of course).

Which is not the same thing at all. Getting a clue yet?

Let's see (and see how much harder your faceplant ends up being ...)

So, when you are a baby you (naturally) drink the milk (of the same
species) until you are weaned, *THEN YOU STOP DRINKING MILK AND GO
ONTO SOLIDS* (****-for-brains).

If you then (unnaturally) *continue drinking milk, after you have
weaned*, yes, you *then* continue the infant lactose tolerance.

But no animal does that so WTF do you think it's 'perfectly natural'
that we do, and if we then do again, after we have weaned, as adults,
there is a more than 60% chance (worldwide) that we will then be
intolerant of it?

What part of any of that makes you think it's something that we should
be doing, especially as adults in 2021? The fact that we have taken
thousands of years to become tollerant to a food that was never meant
for us in the first place (and the children of mothers have to be
killed for us to have) doesn't ring any alarm bells with you?

Well, it might be different for you as you are probably now back on
rusks and eat your solids blended though a straw. ;-(

So, just so you realise what we are *actually* talking about (before
you try any more desperate distraction bollox) ...

OK, a little backgrounder for you on what cows would look like in
nature and when we exploit them (into milk making machines):
https://ibb.co/XVHHvxf

Does this look comfortable for her (should you give a fcuk etc)?
https://ibb.co/59x8X9c

Does this look like she could run from a predator easily?
https://ibb.co/qRQD1MV

Look how proud they are about what they are doing ...
https://ibb.co/54WVzw1

Another reason why we should be using alternatives:
https://ibb.co/RNfst01

Plus all the methane, pollution, waste, suffering and death, I really
don't know why anyone would support it (in 2021).

Well, I do ... it's because 'that's what they have always done' *so*
it's ok to carry on doing it. No chance of any updating their views to
match the changing circumstances or even any consideration for the
animals themselves, now they have such a massive range of
alternatives?

Try any justify it if you like but you won't change the *fact* that
suckling on the teat of a different species is both weird and
unnatural.

https://ibb.co/CvQTxM5

Cheers, T i m

On 08/05/2021 13:45, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/05/2021 10:49, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2021 02:13:59 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip bs unread

Facts you dare not read.

You come across as being intensely ignorant in the RW with your head
firmly planted in the sand.

Next weekends dinner sorted.

Ostrich steaks.

--
Adam

On 08/05/2021 19:17, ARW wrote:
On 08/05/2021 13:45, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/05/2021 10:49, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2021 02:13:59 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip bs unread

Facts you dare not read.

You come across as being intensely ignorant in the RW with your head
firmly planted in the sand.

Next weekends dinner sorted.

Ostrich steaks.


If you are going to eat animal, ostrich steaks are one of the most
nutritious. White meat. Very lean. Really, quite good for you, if not
for the ostrich. I hope I'm not putting you off?

On 08/05/2021 19:17, ARW wrote:
On 08/05/2021 13:45, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/05/2021 10:49, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2021 02:13:59 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip bs unread

Facts you dare not read.

You come across as being intensely ignorant in the RW with your head
firmly planted in the sand.

Next weekends dinner sorted.

Ostrich steaks.

Something I have never eaten.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 08/05/2021 13:45, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/05/2021 10:49, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2021 02:13:59 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip bs unread

Facts you dare not read.

You come across as being intensely ignorant in the RW with your head
firmly planted in the sand.

Next weekends dinner sorted.

Ostrich steaks.

We've told the zoo what you are up to. You'll be soorree...

On Sun, 9 May 2021 05:21:57 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID:

On 08/05/2021 15:26, Tim Streater wrote:
T i m wrote:

Yup, because of the circumstances / cultures / religions of 'some
people', those people have *developed a tolerance to something they
were never designed in nature to consume, certainly after they had
weaned themselves*.

No, ****-for-brains, they haven't developed a tolerance. The point is they
*haven't* developed an *intolerance*.

That's a scientifically-correct, logical, double negative that goes against
T i m ' s latest vegan-claptrap shibboleth.

T i m will never grasp the complexity of it.

Which is not the same thing at all. Getting a clue yet?

I'm not holding my breath.

--
Spike

On 8 May 2021 21:55:48 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip
T r o l l still hasn't grasped the basics, namely that we are all (all
mammals, that is) born with the ability to process lactose. From Wikipedia:

"Infant mammals nurse on their mothers to drink milk, which is rich in
lactose."

so that includes humans, most particularly babies.

Yes, and? Where does wiki say that human babies are best raised on
cows milk?

It doesn't, and they aren't, and no one has suggested they should be.

So why the (/YOUR) focus / distraction with babies then?

It's not a distraction, it's part of the discussion.

If we are born with lactose tolerance then lactose tolerance in
infants is not and never has been 'the discussion re 'lactose
intolerance' in adults which is what we mean where we are talking of
such. So it's not and never has been part of the discussion about how
*adults* not only shouldn't (and typically don't) drink growth fluid
of our own species but certainly shouldn't drink the growth fluid of a
different species!

Yup, because of the circumstances / cultures / religions of 'some
people', those people have *developed a tolerance to something they
were never designed in nature to consume, certainly after they had
weaned themselves*.

No, ****-for-brains, they haven't developed a tolerance. The point is thay
*haven't* developed an *intolerance*.

Semantics (re the actual point of course).

Meaning that you can't tell the difference. Figures.

Nope, I fully understand the difference but it's only semantics as
it's not relevant *to the point*.

Which is not the same thing at all. Getting a clue yet?

Let's see (and see how much harder your faceplant ends up being ...)

So, when you are a baby you (naturally) drink the milk (of the same
species) until you are weaned, *THEN YOU STOP DRINKING MILK AND GO
ONTO SOLIDS* (****-for-brains).

Ooh look, you're talking about babies. But I thought that for you they're not
relevant.

Only for the means of proving your attempt of distraction.

If you then (unnaturally) *continue drinking milk, after you have
weaned*, yes, you *then* continue the infant lactose tolerance.

Ah good, you're starting to show understanding of the point.

Your (irrelevant) point.

Which is all
about us all starting *with* the tolerance (or, expressed more usefully, we
start with the *ability* to digest the lactose in milk (any milk, note) and
then we might or might not lose it).

We generally did lose it, just that continuous exposure to it has
allowed us to maintain a tolerance to it.

But no animal does that so WTF do you think it's 'perfectly natural'
that we do, and if we then do again, after we have weaned, as adults,
there is a more than 60% chance (worldwide) that we will then be
intolerant of it?

Mmm oh dear, I thought I was being over-optimistic.

You are very simple that's for sure.

It is, of course,
perfectly natural for one species to exploit another, and be exploited right
back.

Except we are talking about *human* exploitation of other species
here, nothing else (so yet another strawman from you).

I've already mentioned ants, and we could also mention the bacteria we
permit to live in our gut, which excrete B-vitamins for our benefit, then
there are the mitochondria in every one of our body cells which provide us
with energy in exchange for free grub. Or the microscopic mites which live on
your eyelashes and oil them (not quite sure why that's a benefit to us).

*Still* completely and utterly irrelevant.

These are all symbiotic relationships between species, and nature abounds with
them.

See above but I appreciate you set your moral standards on what
animals have to do to survive.

What part of any of that makes you think it's something that we should
be doing, especially as adults in 2021? The fact that we have taken
thousands of years to become tollerant to a food that was never meant
for us in the first place (and the children of mothers have to be
killed for us to have) doesn't ring any alarm bells with you?

As you continually fail to appreciate, the tolerance is something we are born
with.

And *still* completely and utterly irrelevant to our consumption of a
growth fluid and *especially* from a different species (where we have
to slaughter and enslave their young to steal it) when we are 'grown
ups' and where there are many alternatives that are better for us,
better for them and better for the planet.

Again, what is your justification for knowingly causing *unnecessary*
suffering and death of these innocent and sentient creatures (in
2021)?

Cheers, T i m

On 09/05/2021 08:33, T i m wrote:

If we are born with lactose tolerance then lactose tolerance in
infants is not and never has been 'the discussion re 'lactose
intolerance' in adults which is what we mean where we are talking of
such. So it's not and never has been part of the discussion about how
*adults* not only shouldn't (and typically don't) drink growth fluid
of our own species but certainly shouldn't drink the growth fluid of a
different species!

Where is this law about 'other species' written down?

--
Spike

On 06/05/2021 19:03, GB wrote:
I bake most of the bread we eat, and it's nearly all vegan. But, for one
thing!

I need/like to glaze some of the loaves, and I haven't found a decent
substitute for egg to do that. I've tried the liquid from tinned
chickpeas, but it's really naff compared to nice shiny egg.

So, can you suggest a decent vegan substitute, please?

We have vegan guests, and I'm fed up with apologising for the poorly
glazed bread.



what's wrong with eggs from local suppliers, the hobby farm types
who treat their hens like pets ?.

On 06/05/2021 20:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/05/2021 19:03, GB wrote:
I bake most of the bread we eat, and it's nearly all vegan. But, for
one thing!

I need/like to glaze some of the loaves, and I haven't found a decent
substitute for egg to do that. I've tried the liquid from tinned
chickpeas, but it's really naff compared to nice shiny egg.

So, can you suggest a decent vegan substitute, please?

We have vegan guests, and I'm fed up with apologising for the poorly
glazed bread.


milk works if they are not agin it

I guess you need a protein? Lentils boiled to destruction?

Mung Beans are used to make transparent noodles somewhere
in Asia. It was on TV the other night. ?Rick stein

On 08/05/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
On 07/05/2021 17:23, T i m wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can).

More than 60+% of the population can't
Claptrap. Unadulterated claptrap.

If humans hadn't been able to process lactose, humans would not have
succeeded as a species.


It was the ability to devise ways to turn cows milk into a form
that could be stored for consumption during the winter months
(plus other plant-based stuff) that allowed the humans who
migrated north to survive the winter. Ditto using animal hides
and fleeces to keep warm and dry. A useful side effect of this
was better development, leading ultimately to the industrial
revolution.

Meanwhile in Africa and pacific countries, all they needed to
do was catch fish, collect breadfruit and taro to survive. No
impetus to devise a way to survive a food shortage because they
never had one. QED They mostly couldn't be arsed, and when it
is so hot an humid, doing as little as possible is so much
easier.

On Sun, 9 May 2021 11:46:29 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 08/05/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
On 07/05/2021 17:23, T i m wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 07/05/2021 12:13, T i m wrote:

However, what we are doing then is comparing the taste of something we
are used to, something we shouldn't have been consuming in the first
place ('cows milk' was meant for 'cows', not humans

But humans have *evolved* to be able to consume it (at least, a lot
can).

More than 60+% of the population can't
Claptrap. Unadulterated claptrap.

If humans hadn't been able to process lactose, humans would not have
succeeded as a species.


It was the ability to devise ways to turn cows milk into a form
that could be stored for consumption during the winter months
(plus other plant-based stuff) that allowed the humans who
migrated north to survive the winter.

True, but no more 'natural' than saying they ate each other whilst
there to survive or stealing someone else's food to do the same.

(eg, For us to consume milk we need to deny it to the very creature it
was made for).

Ditto using animal hides
and fleeces to keep warm and dry.

See above. Maybe what might have made more sense is staying where were
could survive more easily?

A useful side effect of this
was better development, leading ultimately to the industrial
revolution.

And the near destruction of the planet.

Meanwhile in Africa and pacific countries, all they needed to
do was catch fish, collect breadfruit and taro to survive. No
impetus to devise a way to survive a food shortage because they
never had one. QED

And most native peoples had more respect for 'the land' and only took
what they needed (to survive).

They mostly couldn't be arsed, and when it
is so hot an humid, doing as little as possible is so much
easier.

And makes much more sense than trying to live is less naturally
hospitable places.

Many animals migrate exactly for this reason (including us who because
there is generally an easy supply of food wherever we go for the sun
(without having to hunt it ourselves), we can do similar. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 09/05/2021 13:33, T i m wrote:


And most native peoples had more respect for 'the land' and only took
what they needed (to survive).


They took what they needed because there was no shortage of fish and
the climate meant root crops, bananas etc grow almost all year round.
And without electricity there is no chance of keeping for more than a
few hours.

And when the occasional Reverend Baker turns up, why not have a
wonderful BBQ with him on the menu ?.

It was the clever, industrious north americans and europeans who had the
brains (from meat and protein eating) and the requirement to invent
and develop refridgeration and the means to make ice in huge quantities.
This brought cheap meat and fish to the global poor, who benefitted
greatly.

On Sun, 9 May 2021 11:34:29 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 19:03, GB wrote:
I bake most of the bread we eat, and it's nearly all vegan. But, for one
thing!

I need/like to glaze some of the loaves, and I haven't found a decent
substitute for egg to do that. I've tried the liquid from tinned
chickpeas, but it's really naff compared to nice shiny egg.

So, can you suggest a decent vegan substitute, please?

We have vegan guests, and I'm fed up with apologising for the poorly
glazed bread.



what's wrong with eggs from local suppliers, the hobby farm types
who treat their hens like pets ?.

Because (and possibly though ignorance) they aren't treating them like
pets they are (typically) abusing and exploiting them like slaves. ;-(

Most people don't keep a dog and have it work for them generating
electricity on a treadmill or getting it to dig over the garden by
burying bones here and there?

A chicken is no different to no other bird in that they have a desire
to lay eggs, build a clutch (of varying number depending on the
species), sit on those eggs (incubation), have them hatch and then
tend / feed / protect their chicks until they are mature enough to
'fly the nest'. They might also only have restricted breeding seasons.

We have exploited the chicken (and some other birds) by taking their
eggs away from them and so forcing them to keep laying them in an
effort to form a clutch and in so doing cause them mental stress and
putting extra strain on their reproductive systems. By taking the eggs
away you also remove the ability for her to use the egg itself as a
way of recouping some of the lost calcium (seen at it's worst in
battery farms by all the birds with broken limbs).

Taking on an ex battery hen is obviously a good thing in the sense of
their living conditions (they are also under mental strain when forced
into a shed containing 10,000 other chickens because they can't cope
with that large a social group (they would normally be in flocks of
less than 100 as they can only recognise 100 other birds to know they
are friends / family and not aggressors from another flock) but may
not be much better off in other ways.

Also, they are typically forced to roost on the ground (and so
vulnerable to foxes as foxes do get into their cages etc) when they
would normally roost in the trees to be away from such predators.
Having a fox wandering round at eye level and trying to get into your
house is way more stressful than looking at that fox from 20 feet
above it.

Also, if you take on (and especially if you 'buy' from the farmer) an
ex battery chicken you aren't doing the chickens (in general) any
favour if that outlet is more profitable (or even less loss) for the
farmer.

It's the same as people who buy animals from food markets in China and
set them free, the person trapping them in the wild is still getting
reward for their exploitation.

On top of that, given that male chickens play no part useful in the
egg industry, they are all generally killed at about 1 day old by
being fed live into a macerator.

https://ibb.co/JmYzpVz

https://ibb.co/YyrMXZc

Rarely is it the obvious, it's often also all the stuff that goes on
behind the scenes that people who don't want to support all this
cruelty and exploitation want to make people aware of.

Given humans are supposed to be so intelligent and therefore
remorseful, you would think we would have devise other ways of
surviving without having to cause suffering, exploitation and death of
millions of sentient, intelligent, social and trusting [1] animals by
now ... and for the vast majority we have of course.

https://ibb.co/rdQvftm ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] And that makes even more disgusting. In general we only
'domesticated' animals that were generally gentle, curious,
intelligent (I think pigs are the 4th most intelligent animal, over
dogs and cats) and trusting. We keep, feed and provide shelter ...
then cut their throats ...

On 06/05/2021 21:17, Robin wrote:
On 06/05/2021 21:02, ARW wrote:
On 06/05/2021 20:49, Robin wrote:
On 06/05/2021 19:46, williamwright wrote:
On 06/05/2021 19:03, GB wrote:
We have vegan guests, and I'm fed up with apologising for the
poorly glazed bread.

Why on earth do you let these lunatics in your house, never mind
humour their dietary obsessions?



Vegan guests mean more Zebra left for GB? And he can argue that he's
doing his bit to save the planet by not inviting, say, you and Adam.



Swordfish steak tonight for tea.


lovely jubbly

but after the zebra et al I can't help but wonder if you've been working
at a zoo lately


I am working in an old folks home tomorrow....

--
Adam