You don't know what I like to drink or have a farm of in my garage

>>4997518 (OP)
I could see this being a failed jacklinks product line in the future.

I would drink a dog's milk and vegans have a lower birthrate than atheists so no thanks, go extinct on your own loser

the whole point of dairy cows is when they get too old to produce good milk you can still eat the meat
also they're dumb as a rock

God I hate vegans

>>4997518 (OP)
Should i try pig milk? I have the chance to harvest some, maybe.

>>4997518 (OP)
>If you wouldn't drink the milk of this animal that has been specifically bred & farmed for it's milk production, then why would you drink the milk of an animal that has?
Hey, if some pussy vegan can find me dog milk that's as cheap as, as easy to obtain as, and as regulated for public safety as cow milk then I'd be happy to give it a swig.

if dog milk was commonly sold in grocery stores I would drink it

>>4997579
Why concede to their terms, which will eventually lead to cannibalism and chinese bugmannery? Just lay it down. Dogs are not cows. End of.

>cattle and sheep are well adapted to live on grazing grass, converting widely available biomass which humans cannot make effective use of into nutritionally dense meat and milk
>dogs are carnivores and thus require meat to raise, making raising them for food instead of utility redundant because you could just cut out the middle man (middle dog?) and eat the food yourself, plus you'd inevitably get less out of them than you put in
"hurr y u no eat le dog" arguments are retarded and fall apart if you consider basic agricultural economics

would you?

>>4997593
we don't need economics not to eat dog. they were selectively bred to be our friends. if they don't trigger some empathy in you, at lesat one party is not functioning correctly.

livestock have been bred to be contemptible. the animals they descend from would fight for their lives in circumstances livestock tolerate well, like, watching their friends magically drop dead thanks to the wizards magic wand.

>>4997634
Livestock animals are pretty easy to dislike regardless. Why would anyone want a pet chicken? Get a budgie

>>4997635
But I don't want a flying, biting, and shitting everywhere 7 year old...

>>4997639
Get a pigeon then, still better than chickens

>>4997566

>>4997646
Button quail are top tier indoor birb. Chickens are fantastic if you like eggs and can keep them outside and a little ways away from your house.

>>4997518 (OP)
Why does that dog look so satisfied and content

>>4997669
it's peta, they're into it. you should have seen the sexy cows.

>>4997669
Smug, even

>>4997632
hello saaar can I redeem thatd cow pleeze?

>>4997587
Because there really isn't any moral difference between milking one animal or another. The differences are purely practical & economical Like what >>4997593 said.

>>4997739
Cool, you are free to drink dog milk if you want to.
>>4997587
Vegans fantasize about controlling how other people live a lot. It's weird.

>>4997518 (OP)
has anyone ever tried dog milk? what does it taste like.

>>4997739
There is some room for difference, but only if you subscribe to correct (natural) morality, where morality emerges from a matter of fact, rather than reasoned out principles and the distinctly human hubris where a monkey believes it is intelligent enough to come up with a perfect and entirely consistent system for governing its own behavior. >>4997634

But if the dog LIKES being milked, and is just being milked incidentally, then there's not just no difference, it is actually preferable.

>>4997632
would i?

if you wouldn't eat grass then why eat lettuce?

vegans (and liberals in general) be like
>why would you step on an ant if you wouldnt crush a baby with a sledgehammer
>why would you have sex with a woman if you wouldnt have sex with a man
>why is it okay to cut off an adults nuts but not a toddlers?
>end ethical inconsistency now. reality has a liberal bias.

>lasts longer than any other type of milk, dog's milk
>why's that, Hol?
>no bugger will drink it

>>4997593
>cattle and sheep are well adapted to live on grazing grass, converting widely available biomass which humans cannot make effective use of into nutritionally dense meat and milk
>dogs are carnivores and thus require meat to raise, making raising them for food instead of utility redundant

The other thing is how important the dog is to this equation as a worker. It's hard to explain to someone unless they've tried to get stock of 2000 acres of hills and gullys and onto a truck and into the market, let alone when there was no truck and they had to walk the stock all the way there. But suffice to say in this situation a dog does the work of 10 men.

Tldr people who make your food know what they are doing and I never met one who milks his dog

>>4997632
Iirc that was a big 1400kgs steer that was too big to go through the meat works and got famous somehow. Probably would get stuck in the race or wouldn't fit in the knock box or something and screw up their run so they turned him away or never bought in the first place.

He would be about the same size as picrel so the answer is yes, and probably for like the next 2 years

>>4997518 (OP)
I wouldn't need to drink cow's milk if it were legal for me to buy buy milk from 18 year old women. Provide me with a gallon of milk a week from cute teenage girls and I'll go vegan.

>>4998045
>why would you step on an ant if you wouldnt crush a baby with a sledgehammer
This is a legitimate question, though. Nothing good has ever come from attempting to assign different value to the lives of different beings. If you have sufficient empathy to understand why you shouldn't stomp a baby to death then you have sufficient empathy to understand why you shouldn't stomp an ant to death.

There's a reason why serial killers so frequently begin by killing animals.

>>4998708
Nothing good has ever come of comparing apples to oranges, and yet here we are

>>4998709
>breaking out the logical fallacies already
Impressive anon, very nice. I am not making an appeal to any characteristics exclusive to either being. The only quality that they need to share is their status as living beings, a category in which they are both identical. Maintaining your moral composure, especially in the modern world, in the face of the rampant death and suffering caused by a normal human life does require some extensive cognitive dissonance and I see that you're no exception.

There are only two logically consistent, respectable opinions with regards to this issue. One, intentionally killing other living beings is wrong. Plenty of religions and philosophers throughout history have taken this position so it's hardly unique. Two, intentionally killing other living beings is not wrong. Less socially acceptable to pronounce but many people clearly demonstrate via their actions that they feel this way.

Anything between the two is cope, simple as. You want to feel that you're a good person but it's also very convenient or pleasurable for you to regularly kill other living things, so you've developed a bunch of elaborate coping methods to assuage your guilt. But it would be far more respectable, not to mention logically consistent, for you to just admit that you believe that no life has value and there's nothing morally wrong with killing either a baby or an ant.

>>4997632
>>4998703
Aside from obviously being incompatible with existing infrastructure, would there be any reason why they couldn't be bred to make extra large cattle? Is the extra mass mostly skeletal to support the weight? Would they be more prone to health problems, or potentially more difficult/dangerous to work with?

>>4997770
why ami horny

>>4998723
>>4998718
>there's nothing morally wrong with killing either a baby or an ant

The value of life is a human construct and is as we decide it to be.

I can save you some time here. You say these are the only two logical opinions. I will say, there are only two logical actions to take having considered them.

One is you live, one is you don't. You've already done the damage by being here.

Up to you bud

>>4998723
Quite a few cattle are already this large at their full growth. The practical limit is a sweet spot, you aren't taking years more to finish for diminishing gains and increasing welfare issues and management issues, and diminishing meat quality

A full grown bull might be 1600kgs and hes going to wreck stuff. Several 1600kgs bulls are going to wreck an exponential amount of stuff, even the very ground they walk on will become pugged burying the plants they graze on. As well as diminishing quality of the meat.

There's no point to aim for that kind of weight as a target. Even if the infrastructure was different and they would fit through the works, fit onto a truck without rubbing their backs raw and bleeding. He will produce a lot more beef raising more animals to a more reasonable weight and avoiding all the aforementioned issues.

Obviously there are people raising breeding animals to this weight for the genetic gain. But other animals that are raised well past their "prime" are sometimes pets and they finally decide to kill them as a mercy when they get bad feet or become clearly obese, or some other management issue (or the freezer finally gets empty)

Making me think of another point to the poster who loves talking about moral conundrums, would he squish his favorite ant humanely if it was clearly old and suffering? If not he should please stay away from ever actually keeping and being responsible for ants, it would be too much for him.

>>4997571
There's that one guy that's been trying to make pig's cheese for years. The main problem is that pigs really really don't like being milked.

https://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/milk-pig/

>>4998723
>>4998732 (You)
>Quite a few cattle are already this large at their full growth

I should rephrase it's not really "normal" but it is quite possible especially when really fat.

That homekill picture is a bull, and iirc he was 700kgs on the hook, so I am estimating his liveweight. Dunno what breed it was. And it's not covered in fat either.

Old knickers isn't super fat, well he is pretty fat but not ridiculous he is just a really big framed boy.

I wonder if he's still around, I think he become a bit of a star attraction after being in the media. But he is after all a steer, and he is going to die one way or another well before most of us.

There are some breeds of holstein dairy cattle around which I think are getting too large. They do well for and are bred in more indoors settings where they can be fed large amounts of supplementary feed. Mostly in North America. They rarely look good on a pasture based system and when they do they are being stuffed full of supplementary feeds

>>4998734
I met a guy who milked pigs as part of his job. Only they were boars.

Takes about 10 minutes each and apparently they didn't mind at all, sometimes they fell asleep half way through.

Hell of a job

>>4998752
>sometimes they fell asleep half way through
Me browsing sadpanda at 2am

>>4998732
>I can save you some time here. You say these are the only two logical opinions. I will say, there are only two logical actions to take having considered them.
>One is you live, one is you don't. You've already done the damage by being here.
Son, this is a complete non-sequitur. I didn't make a value judgement for either option and spouting off this sort of nonsense just makes you look like you don't understand what we're talking about.

You're implying what, that if you accept that intentionally killing other living beings is wrong, your only logical recourse is suicide? How do you possibly arrive at that conclusion? What you're doing here is another elaborate cope. The actual logical action to take in response to accepting that killing other beings is wrong is to try to live your life in a way that causes as little harm as possible. This is the conclusion reached by every religion that holds this as a core tenet.

But this is inconvenient, so you cope by suggesting this illogical conclusion:
>yeah, it's wrong to kill other living things but I can't live without doing it and I don't want to die, therefore I can do it as much as I want
This is the same logic as justifying littering by saying, well, there's already litter there so it doesn't matter what I do. The fact that some wrong has already been done and is unavoidable doesn't justify further wrongs.

I can see that you have a lot of experience creating elaborate mental exercises to cope with your cognitive dissonance, ala
>would he squish his favorite ant humanely if it was clearly old and suffering?
It's embarrassing. Do you really need all these mental gymnastics? Either killing other beings is wrong or it's not. There's nothing wrong with taking the latter position, by the way, especially if it spares you being a hypocrite.

>>4998718
>The only quality that they need to share is their status as living beings
Says who? To what benefit?

>>4998708
>This is a legitimate question, though.
No, it is not. The superior value of a child is self evident. If you do not hold it to be true, your bloodline will perish, and self preserving bloodlines may be obligated to ensure you perish before you cause THEM to perish.
>Nothing good has ever come from attempting to assign different value to the lives of different beings.
Life itself comes from this. You do this, or you die.
>If you have sufficient empathy to understand why you shouldn't stomp a baby to death then you have sufficient empathy to understand why you shouldn't stomp an ant to death.
You have gotten empathy, which is an animal instinct hard coded into the brain that uses mirror neurons to force you to feel emotions due to social stimulus, mixed up with buddhist virtue ethics.

Empathy can simply not apply to ants. And for normal people this is the case. You do not empathize with the ant. You delve into a buddhist fantasy where the ant has an unproven "soul" and go full pascal's wager on pseudo-spiritual nonsense, without ever articulating from what the supreme value of simply being alive is, or WHY you should be "good" according to you.

By all means, perish being "good" according to yourself. Perish childless and supremely morally good according to your half baked religion, I mean, system of ethics. But you will still perish, childless, and never exist again. People will remember you as a man of little faith and great hubris.

i ain't reading all that

>>4998780
>Either killing other beings is wrong or it's not.
This is a false dichotomy. Terminating other chemical processes (you keep trying to anthropomorphize things and call them beings, sentient beings, and god forbid, fellow souls - and i believe this is because you have a genetic tendency towards asiatic spiritual thought) can also be... totally irrelevant, with only WHICH things and how and why they are killed mattering.

Your argument is
1: "I am a shitty buddhist"
2: "Therefore you have to kill everything equally or kill nothing"

>>4998785
Also I fully acknowledge the possibility you think not having emotions is le based due to consuming too much shitty sci fi

>>4998718
Or, there's position three. Humans matter, everything else is literally subhuman (Read: Below humans) and has no value beyond how humans extract and use resources from it. Simple as.

>>4998788
>Or, there's position three. Humans matter, everything else is literally subhuman (Read: Below humans) and has no value beyond how humans extract and use resources from it. Simple as.
Position 3 is just the autistic retard version of the objectively correct conclusion:
Everything is worth less than a human, but some non human things are worth more than others and in various different ways.

The world is complex. Your monkey mind can not formulate a supreme guiding principle that only does good. If you could, your name would be Jehova.

>>4997806
I can't be bothered finding the screencap but thier was that anon was farming dog milk in house trying to give the puppies away to school kids.

>>4997635
>Why would anyone want a pet chicken?
You'd be surprise. Most livestock animals actually make great pets due to how docile they are, if you have the means of accomodating them.
That being said, vegans are retarded.

>>4998734
Pigs milk has a superior globulization profile for cheese making. Only problem is they're harder to milk.

Humans are a close second and much easier to milk. It's really just a matter of time until someone gets that business model past the ick factor. If I was a woman I'd do it myself. Like if you're not milking yourself and making cheese with your milk you're leaving value on the table.

>>4999513

>>4997635
dumb animals make the best pets and i steal their eggs

>>4999471
I have eight chickens. They make horrid companion animals. They are dumber than fuck and take massive shits like it's just breathing. And I mean dumb. After 2 days you will be able to 100% predict everything a chicken does. They do not have the capacity for free will or independent thought.