• SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    A carnivore eating an animal and including their mammary glands in the flesh they’re eating is very distinct from deliberately drinking their milk, either suckling on their teats or milking them. It’s a very rare practice (“milking” another animal never happens in nature, as we do), but humans have made it a norm for our species. Human adults were lactose intolerant by default before the lactase persisten gene developed as an adaptation to tolerate drinking cow’s milk made for calves. My point being it wasn’t previously normal for humans either. It’s an avoidable practice, so arguing that the processes involved in it are necessary is simply untrue and logically false.

      • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s really not. What we do, exploiting an animal directly for their milk, is not normal in the animal kingdom. You’re trying to argue that it is because mammaries are part of the meat that some animals consume. That’s a false equivalency.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          What we do, exploiting an animal directly for their milk, is not normal in the animal kingdom.

          this is a bandwagon fallacy.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’re trying to argue that it is because mammaries are part of the meat that some animals consume. That’s a false equivalency.

          i think it’s absolutely no different ethically, but what differences exist make our practices more humane: we don’t murder a cow every time we drink milk.