Poster's sister: ""Milk is good but you shouldn't drink it. Think about it. It's produced by a mother cow and is formulated to make that calf grow into a full adult in a matter of months. No other animals in the world drink milk into adulthood, much less the milk of another animal. Almost everyone in the world who is not of European descent is lactose intolerant."
This is a pet peeve of mine ... insane variations on the naturalism fallacy. By the argument above, no other animal cooks its food, therefore we shouldn't. Almost no other animals use tools (see: some apes, some birds), therefore we shouldn't. Other animals don't see dentists wear clothes or or or ... therefore we shouldn't. (see also: UNIDENT's post)
200POUNDQUEST has it right: "Nothing from nature that we eat was formulated with us eating it in mind". It's a fact; not an argument.
Because you live in a post-industrial nation of plenty you more or less have the choice to eat what you want, within reason, your means, etc. "Milk bad for you???" isn't a sensible question (in the sense that Wolfgang Pauli might formulate it); it needs more definition. And the poster's sister's comment doesn't even address that, as it instead skirts around this idea that "ooh, ick, *not natural* ... ooh, ick!" Do you need to drink milk? No. Is it healthful? It contains a lot of nutrients: vitamins and minerals, protein, fat, some sugars, and it's pretty well-balanced. Can too much milk be problematic? Yeah, too much saturated fat if you're drinking cup after cup of 3.5% every day; and not many would choose to drink cup after cup of skim for fun/flavor. This of course doesn't address issues of a safe food supply, treatment of livestock, other ethical concerns, individual concerns about lactose (in)tolerance or allergies, etc., but those are sort of beside the point here.
"Habe nun, ach! Philosophie, Juristerei und Medizin, Und leider auch Theologie Durchaus studiert ..." (Goethe, "Faust")
| current weight: 203.0