We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Raw milk in Yorkshire?
Comments
-
And my gran smoked for 85 years, but it doesn't mean smoking doesn't kill you dingbat.0
-
-
Go on then, humour me. Please post the source of your statistic which proves that 99% of humans have drank unpasteurised milk from non-humans.
That's easy enough, the source is human history.
Pasteurised milk has only been commercially available for around 200 years. Even then only in the west, most of the world didn't have it, many people still don't have it. All those Chinese people who don't live in cities get their milk straight from the cow, same in Africa, India, South America and many other countries.
Even in the Uk half the people didn't drink it because they got milk straight from the farm. It was only people in cities and large towns that had buy pasteurised milk.
But people have been drinking animal milk for many thousands of years before pasteurisation was invented.
So, some people have had pasteurised milk for around 200 years and all the rest of the people who have ever lived have not.
You don't need a web page full of figures and statistics to understand that almost all of the people who ever lived have never seen or heard of pasteurised milk. The figure is probably higher than 99%, but that's close enough.0 -
-
geordie_joe wrote: »That's easy enough, the source is human history.
Pasteurised milk has only been commercially available for around 200 years. Even then only in the west, most of the world didn't have it, many people still don't have it. All those Chinese people who don't live in cities get their milk straight from the cow, same in Africa, India, South America and many other countries.
"Human history" is not specific enough to be a source, you are basically saying that the figure is accurate because you made it up and so it must be true...
However, I will run with your theory that up until 200 years ago people drank unpasteurised cows milk. If you do actually bother to do any research to try to understand when people began to drink it, you would come to the conclusion that it would be around the 15th century. If you look back to the 13th & 14th century, almost all land was arable growing crop. It wasn't until the 15th century that land was widely converted from arable to pasture and therefore wasn't until this time that any significant kind of dairy farming would have been introduced.
But of course, you know for a fact that before this time, 99% of the population were drinking animal milk - so to clarify, you are seriously suggesting that human beings were suckling random animals rather than their own mothers?0 -
-
"Human history" is not specific enough to be a source, you are basically saying that the figure is accurate because you made it up and so it must be true...
I don't need a source, I was born and raised before the internet so I can use my knowledge and experience to form my own conclusions. I can think for myself and don't need a web page to tell me what may or may not have happened in the past.However, I will run with your theory that up until 200 years ago people drank unpasteurised cows milk.
It's not a theory, it's a well documented fact. Have you not read any history books?If you do actually bother to do any research to try to understand when people began to drink it, you would come to the conclusion that it would be around the 15th century. If you look back to the 13th & 14th century, almost all land was arable growing crop. It wasn't until the 15th century that land was widely converted from arable to pasture and therefore wasn't until this time that any significant kind of dairy farming would have been introduced.
My god, you didn't seriously write that, did you?
Convert arable to pasture, are you kidding? You don't need to convert land to pasture, most of it already is. All you do is let the animal live on the land it is already living on and prevent it from straying.
Man has always taken the easy route, that is well documented throughout history. He invented the rowing boat before he invented the steamboat, he invented the aeroplane before he invented the space rocket, he invented the telegraph before he invented the radio.
Always the easy things first.
It is easier to tether or prevent an animal from straying from the land it is alreadey living on than it is to harvest seeds, clear land of vegetation, plough it, plant seeds and look after them until they grow big enough to eat.
So it is natural to assume man did the easy thing first.
Also, the dna from domesticated cows has been traced back 10,500, so you are completely wrong about it not being until the 15th century.
It was domesticating animals that allowed our nomadic ancestors to stay in one place long enough for the crops to grow, so domesticated animals had to have come first.But of course, you know for a fact that before this time, 99% of the population were drinking animal milk -
Yes, and at least one old queen was bathing in it. Try reading some history books, or even the bible. You don't have to believe the bible but at the time it was written they had Shepherds, goatherds and cowherds and they were drinking milk.so to clarify, you are seriously suggesting that human beings were suckling random animals rather than their own mothers?
You have completely twisted what I said into something ridiculous, a sure sign that you know you have completely lost the argument.
So to clarify, I did not say human being suckled up to animals rather than their own mother.
I said that when the mothers milk had dried up it would be natural for them to find another source of milk to continue to feed their babies. Animal milk was the only other milk available to them, so it's a valid conclusion that they used that.
Also, many mothers died during child birth, so another source of milk would be needed.
Why don't you just accept that you said something stupid and leave it at that, instead of adding to your humiliation by making even more stupid comments.
If you can't win an argument without lying about what the other person said then then you shouldn't be arguing in public.0 -
geordie_joe wrote: »It's not a theory, it's a well documented fact. Have you not read any history books?
Read history books? I thought you said in the same post that you dont need a source, you can think for yourself and form your own conclusions about what may or may not have happened in the past.geordie_joe wrote: »So it is natural to assume man did the easy thing first.
Yes, it is natural to make assumptions, but try to stick to facts. Perhaps you could refer to some of those history books you mentioned.geordie_joe wrote: »If you can't win an argument without lying about what the other person said then then you shouldn't be arguing in public.
I have definitely not lied about anything, it would be foolish to do so when everything is here in black and white for people to see. Read through again, you will find there are no lies.
What I have done however is posted logical statements based in facts. What you appear to have done, and indeed reiterated in your last post, is guess things that may have happened, purely because you thought for yourself that it could have happened, and claimed as though it is gospel. I have never read such utter drivel.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards