Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honeydew isn't tit secretion, it's vomit/shit. And how can a symbiosis of ants and aphids be a parallel for humans and cows. We do not protect cows from their predators, we slit their throats and they know that that's coming. We also do not eat cow's shit. Hilarious parallel. When did we ever in history of our evolution have a need for another mammal's milk? From an evolutionary perspective, from a perspective of nat…
Honeydew isn't tit secretion, it's vomit/shit Choose one phony analogy at a time, willya? Point being, ants keep aphids as livestock: they are captives, herded, controlled, denied free will and their preferred environment, and exploited for food products. The ethical questions are exactly parallel. We do not protect cows from their predators In your universe, sheepdogs, cattle dogs, and other shepherd dogs don't exis…
I asked you what about 75% herbivores, you cherry picked.
> yet indigenous peoples all over the world independently developed diets with dairy, from central Africa to Mongolia to neolithic Britain to Sinai to Mesopotamia and India.
Yeah, people are known to be very smart and very natural. Lets cherry pick again, people have developed weapons to hunt animals with, but then used them to kill humans. People developed technology to kill animal efficiently with it, then they used the same techniques on humans. I guess we are so smart and natural and it makes sense to do it because everyone did it. We all know what they did when they did that, they raised their utility function. At some point it was a rational decision, at another it stopped being.
Sorry, but this discussion is over, if you aren't kind and compassionate, if you do not value human life, if you do not think that values of the theory of evolution matter, then go keep raising that utility function, I entirely understand your viewpoint and with that there's nothing to discuss.