Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 145 posts

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#91

Post by sedachv »

gambiting wrote: post #87
sedachv wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> milk… is something that everyone pretty much still uses today worldwide I don't understand where people come up with this nonsense. Do you just generalize your experience to everyone else? 68% of the world population is lactose intolerant: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28690131/

You might be surprised, but being lactose intolerant doesn't mean you don't consume milk. Lactose-free milk exists, tablets that allow you to consume lactose exist, and most importantly, even lactose intolerant people can usually eat a small amount without suffering ill effects. So someone who can't drink a glass of milk usually can eat some pastry made with milk. So just because 68% of humanity is lactose intolerant…

Why do you think the genetic mutation for lactose tolerance is so geographically specific to Northern Europe? It is obviously an adaptation for when milk was the only available source of nutrition to those populations during times of famine. And the selection pressure for this is not ancient history - my grandparents experienced exactly that scenario due to food shortages during WWII. I don't know why you would advocate de-lactosed milk, lactase supplements, or "sneaking a little bit in" for the vast majority of people who are lactose intolerant, unless you had some agenda of pushing dairy on people who do not particularly want it and have no cultural traditions of consuming it. There is no reason for lactose tolerant people to eat dairy on a regular basis because it contributes to heart disease. Advocating it for those who are lactose intolerant is just insane.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#92

Post by DanBC »

imwillofficial wrote: post #75
hombre_fatal wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you don’t think you’re pwning them by repeating their point back to them thinking they care that you don’t care about whales and dogs anymore. It’s pretty weak snark, especially because you’re pretending to do something that agrees with their point thinking you got them good. I saw this sad interaction a lot in the wild when someone at lunch at work orders a vegetarian option and someone else leaves them in ab…

He really got under your skin didn’t He? It was a joke my friend.

> It was a joke my friend.

Can you explain the joke? What was the set up? What's the punchline?

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#93

Post by bluefirebrand »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #71
bluefirebrand wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've convinced me. I no longer care that some countries kill dolphins or whales or cats or whatever for food and foxes for fur.

I hope you don’t think you’re pwning them by repeating their point back to them thinking they care that you don’t care about whales and dogs anymore. It’s pretty weak snark, especially because you’re pretending to do something that agrees with their point thinking you got them good. I saw this sad interaction a lot in the wild when someone at lunch at work orders a vegetarian option and someone else leaves them in ab…

I'm just showing that the argument can easily be used to draw the opposite and "wrong" conclusion from the one that was intended to be reached.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#94

Post by throwaway744678 »

nickkell wrote: post #86
WJW wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume they either use a bull or use artificial insemination and the calf gets taken away to be slaughtered and eaten. Do they do it differently in France?

As it's a monastery we must leave open the possibility of immaculate conception

Immaculate conception refers to the fact that Mary was born free from original sin, not that Jesus was conceived with a sexual intercourse.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#95

Post by africanboy »

ben_w wrote: post #82
africanboy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I challenge you to define “free will” in a way which is simultaneously testable, and also something humans have and other animals lack every animal, except humans, lack the neurological structures to process the concept of "free will" which is entirely a human construct. If they had free will, they would fight for it or at least some of them would. One could argue that we still don't know the human brain, so how ca…

> If they had free will, they would fight for it or at least some of them would. What would that look like? Running away? Because that behaviour pops up in news often enough. Conversely, there’s learned helplessness — discovered by animal research and yet also demonstrated in humans. Do humans demonstrating this lack free will? > One could argue that we still don't know the human brain, so how can we exclude that ani…

> What would that look like? Running away? Because that behaviour pops up in news often enough.

Exactly.

As I've said if they can't explain to us what they are doing and why, it is completely useless to try to frame or define it.

it would simply be what we think it is, but not the real thing

> Conversely, there’s learned helplessness — discovered by animal research and yet also demonstrated in humans. Do humans demonstrating this lack free will?

difference being humans can explain why they ran and we can rationalize post facto and learn from each other

children don't run if they see a gun

do they lack free will, chose to not move, or lack the ability (and the knowledge) to process that information?

free will probably does not even exists as consciousness, they are poor terms to describe what we already don't have a solid explanation for

but since we are able to process context, something cows are not capable of, I understood that OP meant the most common meaning of free will: acting in a non predetermined way (however bad or inexact as a definition it is)

cows don't

because we have selected them in centuries and only kept the most docile, so it is expected that they won't run or act in expectedly, we literally engineered them to be what they are, we can rake it for granted, the same way we can be sure that a car with an empty tank won't start

asking for a satisfying definition of free will in this context completely misses the point

yes they could still have free will in the sense that they chose to walk or eat orm ove their tail, of course

but in that sense a plant chose to grow towards the light or not?

I actually believe free will does not exists and everything is pre-determined.

We are born and have to die, don't get to chose our parents, how we look, where we are born, our gender etc. etc.

We can however micromanage the time in between being born and dying, as every other living creature in the World, but we have far more sophisticated micro managing tools

we also have vastly superior tools in general, we are the only animal on the planet that can control fire and have an opposable thumb thus we are the only animal on the planet that could evolve to the level we have reached

which also gave us the ability to entertain ourselves with intellectual riddles such as free will

> I'm not asking if animals understand free will, but if they have it

as I've said I don't believe free will exists, but a cow lack the machinery to process the concept of free will, which also involves guilt, morality, responsibility and deliberation AKA being able to determine the consequences of different courses of actions.

If cows have it, it's not like ours, it must be something far simpler.

the point about aggression is that cows still have their own personalities, but that doesn't qualify as freedom of choice

many people see cows behaving differently and assume they chose to act that way, but it's not like that.

it's simply the result of some random combination of DNA and environment

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#96

Post by gambiting »

sedachv wrote: post #91
gambiting wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be surprised, but being lactose intolerant doesn't mean you don't consume milk. Lactose-free milk exists, tablets that allow you to consume lactose exist, and most importantly, even lactose intolerant people can usually eat a small amount without suffering ill effects. So someone who can't drink a glass of milk usually can eat some pastry made with milk. So just because 68% of humanity is lactose intolerant…

Why do you think the genetic mutation for lactose tolerance is so geographically specific to Northern Europe? It is obviously an adaptation for when milk was the only available source of nutrition to those populations during times of famine. And the selection pressure for this is not ancient history - my grandparents experienced exactly that scenario due to food shortages during WWII. I don't know why you would advoc…

>>I don't know why you would advocate de-lactosed milk, lactase supplements, or "sneaking a little bit in"

Are you definitely replying to the correct comment? I'm not advocating anything. I'm purely stating a fact that just because 68% of humanity is lactose intolerant doesn't mean 68% of humanity does not consume milk. I just said lactose free milk exists(because it does), lactose-digestion enzyme pills exist(because they do) and people with lactose intolerance can usually eat a little without suffering any bad effects(because most people can). Is stating facts propaganda now?

>> unless you had some agenda of pushing dairy

Yes you're absolutely right, my check from big milk industry will surely arrive any day now. You looked right through me.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#97

Post by watwut »

sedachv wrote: post #91
gambiting wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be surprised, but being lactose intolerant doesn't mean you don't consume milk. Lactose-free milk exists, tablets that allow you to consume lactose exist, and most importantly, even lactose intolerant people can usually eat a small amount without suffering ill effects. So someone who can't drink a glass of milk usually can eat some pastry made with milk. So just because 68% of humanity is lactose intolerant…

Why do you think the genetic mutation for lactose tolerance is so geographically specific to Northern Europe? It is obviously an adaptation for when milk was the only available source of nutrition to those populations during times of famine. And the selection pressure for this is not ancient history - my grandparents experienced exactly that scenario due to food shortages during WWII. I don't know why you would advoc…

The lactose intolerant people I knew all do drink de-lactozed milk or non-cow milk. They also eat it with cereals. Practically, somewhat lactose intolerant people eat food with milk inside (whether in sauce or cheese) and avoid only quantities that cause them troubles.

There is really no reason to get offended over that reality. I don't really know why those people consume milk and I was never rude enough to ask. It is their diet. But, they in fact eat it even in situations where they don't have to and go out of their way to get sorts of milk they can consume.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#98

Post by sedachv »

gambiting wrote: post #96
sedachv wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the genetic mutation for lactose tolerance is so geographically specific to Northern Europe? It is obviously an adaptation for when milk was the only available source of nutrition to those populations during times of famine. And the selection pressure for this is not ancient history - my grandparents experienced exactly that scenario due to food shortages during WWII. I don't know why you would advoc…

>>I don't know why you would advocate de-lactosed milk, lactase supplements, or "sneaking a little bit in" Are you definitely replying to the correct comment? I'm not advocating anything. I'm purely stating a fact that just because 68% of humanity is lactose intolerant doesn't mean 68% of humanity does not consume milk. I just said lactose free milk exists(because it does), lactose-digestion enzyme pills exist(becaus…

You don't need paid sponsorships to push your colonialist attitudes on other people.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#99

Post by simias »

tsimionescu wrote: post #68
uppe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe don't impregnate them then. Cows don't magically produce milk, they are mammals and lactate because they had babies. They actually forcibly impregnate them and kill their babies if it's a male (veal) and keeps the loop going until the mother can't produce more babies and thus becomes unprofitable. That's funny to you? Sounds like torture and slavery to me. edit: wow, what a surprise, downvoted to the bottom. I…

With the exception of industrial farming, everything that humans normally do to animals is much nicer than the way wild animals live and end their lives. So as long as you make sure to get your milk and meat from traditional farming, you're supporting practices that are much kinder to the animals then nature would be. Animals in nature inevitably die violent or painful deaths, often being eaten alive by other animals…

I don't think it's a good ethical argument. We decide to birth these animals for our own well being, ergo we are responsible for their suffering. If we only rescued lost cows from the wilderness, giving them shelter and a good life until we decided to quickly end their life to get their meat you might have a point (and even then, I still think it would be a bit shaky IMO) but that's not how it's done.

If a cat is born in the wild and ends up dying of a curable disease then it sucks for it but that's life. If you have a cat as a pet and when it gets sick you decide to abandon it to fend for itself and die in the wild then you're a bad person. Same outcome, very different ethical implications.

>So as long as you make sure to get your milk and meat from traditional farming

That's another gotcha that I really dislike. Every time the problem of animal suffering comes up there's always this opposition between "those crazy vegoons" vs. "the pop and mom farm who love their animals and take good care of them".

If that were the case, I agree that the situation would be very different. It's not though, you can't just ignore the woes of industrial farming when that's the vast majority of the meat products that surround us. These animals are for the most part born into horrible living conditions. In that sense I suppose that killing them early when they stop producing enough might be one of the least worse things that happens to them.

It would be like responding to somebody lamenting the deforestation of the Amazonia by bringing up the story of a poor farmer tending to his two acres of land in order to sustain his family. That's a best missing the point, at worse a truly disingenuous argument.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#100

Post by sedachv »

watwut wrote: post #97
sedachv wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the genetic mutation for lactose tolerance is so geographically specific to Northern Europe? It is obviously an adaptation for when milk was the only available source of nutrition to those populations during times of famine. And the selection pressure for this is not ancient history - my grandparents experienced exactly that scenario due to food shortages during WWII. I don't know why you would advoc…

The lactose intolerant people I knew all do drink de-lactozed milk or non-cow milk. They also eat it with cereals. Practically, somewhat lactose intolerant people eat food with milk inside (whether in sauce or cheese) and avoid only quantities that cause them troubles. There is really no reason to get offended over that reality. I don't really know why those people consume milk and I was never rude enough to ask. It…

> I don't really know why those people consume milk and I was never rude enough to ask.

Can you take any guesses as to why? Do you think it might have anything to do with the colonialist attitude of "of course, everybody drinks milk!" displayed in the parent comment? Are your acquaintances in the US? Do you think it has anything to do with the $500 million spent over 20 years on "Got Milk?" propaganda?

Post reply on HN