Christian capitalism?

MightyObserver wrote:

In my opinion, the bottom line is: Capitalism is not a greedy system but a system which makes room for greed. There are lots of working class people in America looking to make a better life for themselves. They are Capitalists because providing a better life for themselves and their family, to them, means moving up in the system of Capitalism. In what I think is your understanding of Communism people are all essentially already at the top because their is no bottom. If Communism were introduced into the lives of this working class family they might see it as all they've worked for being taken away and being being automaticly forced to the bottom with the top no where in sight. My point is, not all capitalists are the people running the buisnesses and that a worker cannot exploit himself.

...What?
No, in socialism they'd get what they worked for, rather than giving most of it to the capitalists for free. Also, workers are capitalists? What? They may support capitalism due to the fact that people are brainwashed into it from birth, but they're certainly not members of the capitalist class.
Also, in capitalism the point is production for profit, which means squeezing out as much work from the workers for as little money as possible, stealing from the workers in order to succeed, using ads and marketing research to make people buy shit that they have no real reason to, sending workers to die in imperialist wars, etc. So yes, it is a system of greed, selfishness and exploitation.

Stos wrote:

No, in socialism they'd get what they worked for,

No one is debating this. I'm explaining their point of view not defending it.

Stos wrote:

rather than giving most of it to the capitalists for free.

They're all Capitalists. Socialist beleifs are very rare in everyone here.

Stos wrote:

Also, workers are capitalists? What?

That is part of what I'm saying, yes.

Stos wrote:

people are brainwashed

Including you, me, and every other human being who lived long enough to learn how to manifest their thoughts into words.

Stos wrote:

they're certainly not members of the capitalist class.

There is no "Capitalist class", and if there is so many people are a part of it that it might as well be considered a classless society. If it's a classless society it can't possibley be Capitalism. Maybe you're refering to the rich?

Stos wrote:

in capitalism the point is production for profit

Yes

Stos wrote:

which means squeezing out as much work from the workers for as little money as possible

Whereas to the workers it means working towards a more profitable future for themselves and their families.

Stos wrote:

stealing from the workers in order to succeed

on occasion

Stos wrote:

using ads and marketing research to make people buy shit that they have no real reason to

This can be attributed to the bulging mass of ignorance which envelopes humanity in it's entirity.

Stos wrote:

sending workers to die in imperialist wars.

Capitalists opose imperialism. That's not to say they know what it is.

Stos wrote:

So yes, it is a system of greed, selfishness and exploitation.

Your assumptions and stereotypes prove nothing. Attributing systems to behaviors and degrees of morality is really begining to get on my nerves. I could just as easilly say that communism is evil for "denying me the freedom to own private property", etc. as so many people I know of would. I won't, of course, because that's sinking to the level at which I find so many people. You would have some sort of opposing arguement, of cource, and then I'm more than sure they would have already found away to veiw your ideals as evil when the basis on which they were founded are things like equality, fairness, etc.. Few people are so corrupt that they lose hold of such basic values... few people make it that high up the financial latter. Few people fit your Capitalist mould: your Capitalist stereotype.


Before thinking about a response I'd appreciate it greatly if you thought very long and hard about what I have said. If you decide that I'm blatantly in the wrong, well, that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. All I ask of you is that you actually think about it. I'm not asking you to stop being communist. Please, continue doing so. My only hope is that you take a little step forward in your understaning of others.

Thank you for your time.

MightyObserver wrote:

Stos wrote:

rather than giving most of it to the capitalists for free.

They're all Capitalists. Socialist beleifs are very rare in everyone here.

Here I'm referring to the capitalist class, the people that own the means of production.

Quote :

Stos wrote:

people are brainwashed

Including you, me, and every other human being who lived long enough to learn how to manifest their thoughts into words.

...Alright then. So are you denying the fact that people are brainwashed into supporting capitalism through the media, school, etc? Of course, there's also the fact that long work hours mean less time to think, and that a "man is only human, he must eat before he can think."

Quote :

Stos wrote:

they're certainly not members of the capitalist class.

There is no "Capitalist class", and if there is so many people are a part of it that it might as well be considered a classless society. If it's a classless society it can't possibley be Capitalism. Maybe you're refering to the rich?

What?
...What?
......What?
Of course there's a capitalists class. Capitalists are the people that own the means of production.

Quote :

Stos wrote:

which means squeezing out as much work from the workers for as little money as possible

Whereas to the workers it means working towards a more profitable future for themselves and their families.

...Eh?

Quote :

Stos wrote:

stealing from the workers in order to succeed

on occasion

No, always.

Quote :

Stos wrote:

using ads and marketing research to make people buy shit that they have no real reason to

This can be attributed to the bulging mass of ignorance which envelopes humanity in it's intirity.

Workers who can think critically aren't profitable.

Quote :

Stos wrote:

sending workers to die in imperialist wars.

Capitalists opose imperialism. That's not to say they know what it is.

They don't oppose it at all. Sure, some people who support capitalism do, but the capitalists need war. Of course, peace can be beneficial towards them, but it's often not possible.

Quote :

Stos wrote:

So yes, it is a system of greed, selfishness and exploitation.

Your assumptions and stereotypes prove nothing. Attributing systems to behaviors and degrees of morality id really begining to ge on my nerves. I could just as easilly say that communism is evil for "denying me the freedom to own private property", etc. as so many people I know of would. I won't, of course, because that's sinking to the level at which I find so many people. You would have some sort of opposing arguement, of cource, and then I'm more than sure they would have already found away to veiw your ideals as evil when the basis is on things like equality, fairness, etc.. Few people are so corrupt that they lose hold of such basic values... few people make it that high up the financial latter. Few people fit your Capitalist mould: your Capitalist stereotype.

I'm sure there's a very important lesson in all of this, I just have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Quote :

Before thinking about a response I'd appreciate it greatly if you thought very long and hard about what I have said. If you decide that I'm blatantly in the wrong, well, that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. All I ask of you is that you actually think about it. I'm not asking you to stop being communist. Please, continue doing so. My only hope is that you take a little step forward in your understaning of others.

...What the hell?
Also, the KGB sucks. Down with censorship.

Stos wrote:

Here I'm referring to the capitalist class, the people that own the means of production.

Then how am I supposed to know when you are referring to your little label, "the Capitalist class", and when your referring to a Capitalist: someone who supports Capitalism? Couldn’t you just call them the rich or the bourgeoisie?

Stos wrote:

...Alright then. So are you denying the fact that people are brainwashed into supporting capitalism.

No, I'm saying they are. I'm also saying that there isn't a single person not brainwashed in one way or another on this entire planet.

Stos wrote:

Of course, there's also the fact that long work hours mean less time to think, and that a "man is only human, he must eat before he can think."

Sure. If you say so.

Stos wrote:

What?
...What?
......What?
Of course there's a capitalists class. Capitalists are the people that own the means of production.

I would love to know how this notion entered your mind.

Stos wrote:

MightyObserver wrote:

Whereas to the workers it means working towards a more profitable future for themselves and their families.

...Eh?

Think about it. This is one way in which it is commonly interpreted by Capitalists.

Stos wrote:

No, always.

Excuse me if I’m wrong, but do you have a medical condition involving your skeletal structure? I’m under the impression that your skull has developed a curtain degree of thickness.

Stos wrote:

Workers who can think critically aren't profitable.

Now it’s my turn to say… what? Are you saying a worker has to be a moron to get anywhere in life?

Stos wrote:

They don't oppose it at all. Sure, some people who support capitalism do, but the capitalists need war. Of course, peace can be beneficial towards them, but it's often not possible.

I didn’t say they opposed war. Manufacturers need someone to sell their guns to. Please name for me one occasion in which a Capitalist society supported an empire.

Stos wrote:

I'm sure there's a very important lesson in all of this

That’s progress.

Stos wrote:

I just have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

You’re clearly an intelligent person, Stos. I’m sure you can figure it out eventually.

Stos wrote:

...What the hell?
Also, the KGB sucks. Down with censorship.

How delightfully random of you.

MightyObserver wrote:

Then how am I supposed to know when you are referring to your little label, "the Capitalist class", and when your referring to a Capitalist: someone who supports Capitalism? Couldn’t you just call them the rich or the bourgeoisie?

By definition the burgeoise are the capitalist class. The bulk of capitalists belongs to this class because afer all the majourity of those benefitted by capitalism are capitalists. However yes, a capitalist could be also a person who conscious about the existance of other socioeconomic systems and knowing how economy works defends capitalism even being a worker.

MightyObserver wrote:

No, I'm saying they are. I'm also saying that there isn't a single person not brainwashed in one way or another on this entire planet.

Really how is that so? Is the simple acquisition of knowledge brainwashing too?

Stos wrote:

I would love to know how this notion entered your mind.

The burgeoise is the capitalist class. It is a social class composed by the owners of the means of production. They're the capitalists, owners of the capital.

MightyObserver wrote:

Think about it. This is one way in which it is commonly interpreted by Capitalists.

You mean that capitalists often say that the worker is also benefited by capitalism in that they get a salary that ensures economic wellbeing and freedom for the workers, right? Yet it is also a fact that most workers don't have chance to think about an alternative system in which they could all live by the same living standards and not be exploited.

Mighty Observer wrote:

Now it’s my turn to say… what? Are you saying a worker has to be a moron to get anywhere in life?

No. A worker capable of critcal thinking will question his laboural conditions and demand improvement or in the best of cases a total change of system. This does not benefit the capitalist which in the first case would force him to invest more in wages and improvement of working conditions while not increasing the value of the product (otherwise it would make not much difference for the worker) hindering the profit. In the second and best-case scenary the worker would overthrow capitalism eliminating the upper hand the capitalist (understood as "boss" and owner of the means of production) has over the worker.

Mighty Observer wrote:

I didn’t say they opposed war. Manufacturers need someone to sell their guns to. Please name for me one occasion in which a Capitalist society supported an empire.

Could you elaborate a bit more?

Capitalism supports empires of many kinds and for many reasons. For example, capitalism nowadays supports commercial imperialism. How does it work? A company of a certain country excerts domainance over other companies of the same industrial branches by domination of other countries markets. That is Germany will favour German companies trying to excert domainance over say the Mexican or Brazialian markets. This will benefit Germany as a nation for the revenue taken from those nations under their commercial domainance will go to Germany.

There are cases in which a nation's state favours a limited ammount of nations while restricting others, good examples of this are Iraq and Iran. The Iraqi government gave preferential market conditions to French, Germans and Russians while Americans had it much harder to establish companies there. Else, French and Germans would get better prices in regards to oil. Aside from the strategic implications of Iraq, it represented a market not open to USA interests "in a sufficient" manner. USA sent its army to excert imperial domination of Iraq, to force USA market as a dominant one into Iraq.

In the case of Iran, the preferential trade and market partners are Russia and China, else Iran is developing several technological projects of its own to develop a certain automoy within this world. Such an autonomy is not desirable by the G-7 powers as they require their markets to have the largest dominion possible the result is a great hostility towards Iran from part of G-7 nations while Russia is supportive and China assumes a neutral position.

These are just few very recent examples of how capitalism and Imperialism are intertwined.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

By definition the burgeoise are the capitalist class. The bulk of capitalists belongs to this class because afer all the majourity of those benefitted by capitalism are capitalists.

It would be simpler for me if they were referred to simply as the bourgeoise.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

However yes, a capitalist could be also a person who conscious about the existance of other socioeconomic systems and knowing how economy works defends capitalism even being a worker.

I don't think your typical Capitalist is particularly aware of other systems or has put a whole lot of thought into it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Really how is that so? Is the simple acquisition of knowledge brainwashing too?

Not the simple acquisition of knowledge. It is often difficult to get unbiased explanation of something, or to explain something you have an opinion on in an unbiased way. This affects a child's early understanding of something. If this happens on even one occasion in their life, intentional or otherwise, it is a form of brainwashing, however large or small.

There is brainwashing outside of politics, not necessarily intentional either. I shall give you an example.:

In most cultures, as far as I know, the supply of milk comes from cows. This, from a certain perspective, is most unusual. The human race, as with most or perhaps all mammals, has organs designed to produce milk specifically for themselves. It would be logical that the brain perceive it as gross to consume milk from another animal. Because a child grows up drinking cow milk and has never known of such an alternative, often unaware until later in life that the breasts produce milk, the child typically finds the concept of purchasing human milk gross and favors cow milk. This is brainwashing, and every human being is more than susceptible to it.
This is brainwashing. It is not deliberate, evil, or sinister in any way, but it is brainwashing and every human being has had their taste of it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

You mean that capitalists often say that the worker is also benefited by capitalism in that they get a salary that ensures economic wellbeing and freedom for the workers, right? Yet it is also a fact that most workers don't have chance to think about an alternative system in which they could all live by the same living standards and not be exploited.

This is exactly what I'm saying.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

No. A worker capable of critcal thinking will question his laboural conditions and demand improvement or in the best of cases a total change of system. This does not benefit the capitalist which in the first case would force him to invest more in wages and improvement of working conditions while not increasing the value of the product (otherwise it would make not much difference for the worker) hindering the profit. In the second and best-case scenary the worker would overthrow capitalism eliminating the upper hand the capitalist (understood as "boss" and owner of the means of production) has over the worker.

Is this what Stos was trying to say? The way he'd worded it it made no sence to me.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Could you elaborate a bit more?

Capitalism supports empires of many kinds and for many reasons. For example, capitalism nowadays supports commercial imperialism. How does it work? A company of a certain country excerts domainance over other companies of the same industrial branches by domination of other countries markets. That is Germany will favour German companies trying to excert domainance over say the Mexican or Brazialian markets. This will benefit Germany as a nation for the revenue taken from those nations under their commercial domainance will go to Germany.

There are cases in which a nation's state favours a limited ammount of nations while restricting others, good examples of this are Iraq and Iran. The Iraqi government gave preferential market conditions to French, Germans and Russians while Americans had it much harder to establish companies there. Else, French and Germans would get better prices in regards to oil. Aside from the strategic implications of Iraq, it represented a market not open to USA interests "in a sufficient" manner. USA sent its army to excert imperial domination of Iraq, to force USA market as a dominant one into Iraq.

In the case of Iran, the preferential trade and market partners are Russia and China, else Iran is developing several technological projects of its own to develop a certain automoy within this world. Such an autonomy is not desirable by the G-7 powers as they require their markets to have the largest dominion possible the result is a great hostility towards Iran from part of G-7 nations while Russia is supportive and China assumes a neutral position.

These are just few very recent examples of how capitalism and Imperialism are intertwined.

You simply have a more thorough understanding of what imperialism is than I do.

MightyObserver wrote:

It would be simpler for me if they were referred to simply as the bourgeoise.

Some people belonging to the burgeoise class are not capitalists.

MightyObserver wrote:

I don't think your typical Capitalist is particularly aware of other systems or has put a whole lot of thought into it.

Most capitalists don't. I think that the only way in which one person that is not a capitalist (as in owner of the means of production) and calls himself an apologist of capitalism (or a capitalist) can only do so after knowing about other systems of socio-economic organization and rejecting them considering that a system based on exploitation is the best we can have.

MightyObserver wrote:

Not the simple acquisition of knowledge. It is often difficult to get unbiased explanation of something, or to explain something you have an opinion on in an unbiased way.

It's difficult but not impossible.

MightyObserver wrote:

This affects a child's early understanding of something. If this happens on even one occasion in their life, intentional or otherwise, it is a form of brainwashing, however large or small.

That's pretty much what happens with capitalism. It's so compenetrated within the human modus vivendi that most accept it as something natural. However, we communists try to explain why it is not natural, how it can be changed and why should it be changed.

MightyObserver wrote:

There is brainwashing outside of politics, not necessarily intentional either. I shall give you an example.:

In most cultures, as far as I know, the supply of milk comes from cows. This, from a certain perspective, is most unusual. The human race, as with most or perhaps all mammals, has organs designed to produce milk specifically for themselves. It would be logical that the brain perceive it as gross to consume milk from another animal. Because a child grows up drinking cow milk and has never known of such an alternative, often unaware until later in life that the breasts produce milk, the child typically finds the concept of purchasing human milk gross and favors cow milk. This is brainwashing, and every human being is more than susceptible to it.
This is brainwashing. It is not deliberate, evil, or sinister in any way, but it is brainwashing and every human being has had their taste of it.

You know why I would find it gross that we industrially produced human milk? Because it would imply we're milking women somethihg that would have brutal consequences.

We breed cows to provide us with food. Cows provide three main products: meat, milk and lard in rare cases. We consider driking cow's milk as something as natural as eating meat because it is an edible produce of cows.

Saying cow's milk consumption is product of brainwashing is like saying all alimentary activities are product of it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

You mean that capitalists often say that the worker is also benefited by capitalism in that they get a salary that ensures economic wellbeing and freedom for the workers, right? Yet it is also a fact that most workers don't have chance to think about an alternative system in which they could all live by the same living standards and not be exploited.

This is exactly what I'm saying.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

No. A worker capable of critcal thinking will question his laboural conditions and demand improvement or in the best of cases a total change of system. This does not benefit the capitalist which in the first case would force him to invest more in wages and improvement of working conditions while not increasing the value of the product (otherwise it would make not much difference for the worker) hindering the profit. In the second and best-case scenary the worker would overthrow capitalism eliminating the upper hand the capitalist (understood as "boss" and owner of the means of production) has over the worker.

Is this what Stos was trying to say? The way he'd worded it it made no sence to me.

MightyObserver wrote:

You simply have a more thorough understanding of what imperialism is than I do.

And in no way am I pretending to be a snob my friend. I'm a teacher of a subject to those that know less than me about it and I'm a student of those who about a subject know more than me.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Some people belonging to the burgeoise class are not capitalists.

Wasn't this the point I was trying to make?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

a system based on exploitation

You still feel content to call it that in such a matter-of-fact way? You still have no intention of politely inserting words like "seemingly" into it? I give up.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

It's difficult but not impossible.

I see no one calling it impossible. The point is that is that at some point in life a person is and will be affected by an unbiased statement.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

It's so compenetrated within the human modus vivendi that most accept it as something natural.

I hope you realize that you are simply elaborating on a point I'm already trying to make.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

we're milking women

Which sounds especialy weird when you say it in such a way that it is someone doing something to someone else.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

We consider driking cow's milk as something as natural as eating meat

I'm not suggesting that we should begin to use human milk. The thing about it that's odd, when you begin to think about it, is that a cow's milk is meant for cows and a human's milk is meant for humans. It's not natural to think of this as natural without the influence of culture and not knowing otherwise. The concept up drinking human milk is gross to me (or any milk for that matter... I get those vitamins elsewhere...) but I am aware that this it is considerabley strange for a species to do this to another.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Saying cow's milk consumption is product of brainwashing is like saying all alimentary activities are product of it.

I will now clarify:
A cow produces milk for cows. A cow does not produce it's meat for anything but simply has it. Other animals seek to eat this meat which it is offering to nothing but only humans seek it's milk which it provides for it's own kind.

Please think about it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And in no way am I pretending to be a snob my friend. I'm a teacher of a subject to those that know less than me about it and I'm a student of those who about a subject know more than me.

I didn't get the impression you were a snob.

It's kind of weird how we all misinterpret what MightObserver is saying.

Liche wrote:

It's kind of weird how we all misinterpret what MightObserver is saying.

It's never easy to understand a giant, gray nose.

MightyObserver wrote:

Liche wrote:

It's kind of weird how we all misinterpret what MightObserver is saying.

It's never easy to understand a giant, gray nose.

XD

MightyObserver wrote:

Wasn't this the point I was trying to make?

Then why would you want us to simply refer to them as burgeoise?

MightyObserver wrote:

You still feel content to call it that in such a matter-of-fact way? You still have no intention of politely inserting words like "seemingly" into it? I give up.

No need to use euphemisms where they do not fit.

Capitalism is based on exploitation, plain and simple. How? The capitalist (as owner of the means of production) has a certain ammount of workers working for him. The capitalist gets a profit much bigger than the one to be given to the workers that provide him that profit. That's what you call exploitation, to profit at the expense of others.

MigtyObserver wrote:

I see no one calling it impossible. The point is that is that at some point in life a person is and will be affected by an unbiased statement.

No need to be unbiased always. Your personal concept of "good" and "bad" is neccesarily biased.

MightyOberver wrote:

I hope you realize that you are simply elaborating on a point I'm already trying to make.

So?

MightyObserver wrote:

Which sounds especialy weird when you say it in such a way that it is someone doing something to someone else.

No need for partial uncontextual quoting though.

MightyObserver wrote:

I'm not suggesting that we should begin to use human milk. The thing about it that's odd, when you begin to think about it, is that a cow's milk is meant for cows and a human's milk is meant for humans. It's not natural to think of this as natural without the influence of culture and not knowing otherwise. The concept up drinking human milk is gross to me (or any milk for that matter... I get those vitamins elsewhere...) but I am aware that this it is considerabley strange for a species to do this to another.

It's absolutely not strange that humans exploit other species' bodily produces or bodies. Since the dawn of man we have used animals' bodies in different ways: we have used them as clothing and still do, we have used them and their produces as food, we have used them for transport and industry.

What's weird about all that? In fact if the "oddity" of human activities relies on other species not performing similar activities well, that oddity would be arguable. For example if you were to assert that we are the only species to use other species for fun you'd be utterely wrong.

But once again I don't see what is odd about this.

MightyObserver wrote:

I will now clarify:
A cow produces milk for cows. A cow does not produce it's meat for anything but simply has it. Other animals seek to eat this meat which it is offering to nothing but only humans seek it's milk which it provides for it's own kind.

Please think about it.

Cows do not intentionally produce milk for their kind, they naturally produce it just like other mammals, automatically. As a produce of their bodies it's absolutely not odd that we humans exploit it.

Once again how is this different from other animal exploitation activities performed by the human?

MightyObserver wrote:

I didn't get the impression you were a snob.

You seemed to imply it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Some people belonging to the burgeoise class are not capitalists.

...
What?
Well, duh, what the hell is the burgeoise class? Also, 'capitalists' usually sounds less awkward than 'bourgeoisie'. It's like using the SLP term 'bureacratic state despotism' every time one refers to the USSR. Generally, the way one is using 'capitalists' is obvious from context, as it was for my usage earlier.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Then why would you want us to simply refer to them as burgeoise?

Oh. I see you meant something different. My mistake.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

No need to use euphemisms where they do not fit.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The capitalist (as owner of the means of production)

Thank you for clarifying which definition you are using.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

No need to be unbiased always. Your personal concept of "good" and "bad" is neccesarily biased.

What... the...

What's that got to do with anything?!

No one is saying that you should remain completely unbiased. The point is that you will be affected by an unbiased statement at some point in your life. This has nothing at all to do with what one should or shouldn't do...

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

we have used them as clothing and still do

This isn't odd in any way because as little hair as humans have covering their bodies it can be more difficult to keep warm in many areas of the world. This led to some (perhaps most) humans being embarrassed to be unclothed.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

we have used them and their produces as food

All carnivores and omnivores use other animals as food. What's normal about eating other things produced by animals (like honey) is that humans cannot make it on their own, as far as I know.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

we have used them for transport

We're not going to climb on the backs of other humans, are we?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

and industry

The same arguments apply here.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

What's weird about all that?

Nothing., which is what separates it from my example with the cow's milk.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In fact if the "oddity" of human activities relies on other species not performing similar activities well, that oddity would be arguable.

Not entirely. That is one aspect of it, however.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

For example if you were to assert that we are the only species to use other species for fun you'd be utterely wrong.

It's a good thing that I don't, didn't, never have, and probably never will, attempt to make that argument, isn't it? People used to believe that humans were the only species to harm other members of their own species. This is not true. There are apes that have waged what are essentially wars on each other. There are snakes that eat snake eggs. If I were to assert that we are the only species to kill other organisms of the same species I would be utterly wrong, but pointing that out would have proven nothing.

Ants do something vaguely similar. Aphids produce a substance which ants enjoy consuming so ants "farm" them for it. The important exception, in this case, is that ants cannot produce it themselves (they also product them instead of killing them but that's beside the point).

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Cows do not intentionally produce milk for their kind,

Of course not

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

they naturally produce it just like other mammals, automatically.

Yes. Mammals do this naturally for the sole purpose of nurturing young... of their own species. You will automatically take your hand off a hot stove for the sole purpose of protecting yourself.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Once again how is this different from other animal exploitation activities performed by the human?

If you don't already understand, please read on, here. Humans use parts of other animals for warmth because they cannot survive without clothing under certain temperatures. Humans use and have used animals for transportation because for quite sometime it was the most convenient way to get around. It wouldn't be a very good idea to ride on other humans. Humans eat other animals... but that's very normal. It makes sense for humans to use certain produce of animals, as explained more lengthily above. Cows are able to produce milk because growing cows need milk... from milk-producing cows. Humans can do the same for themselves but for some reason started to use cow milk instead. It is not odd to continue using cow milk today with the world as it is. From our perspective it is not odd in the slightest and most will never hear that it could be considered odd. However, over all, the concept is... at best... unusual... from an outside perspective.

I repeat: Cows are able to produce milk because growing cows need milk... from milk-producing cows. Humans can do the same for themselves but for some reason started to use cow milk instead.

This all comes back around to my argument towards every human being a brainwashed one in some sense of the word (even if only slightly): Myself, you, and everyone you ever have known or ever will know. The exception consists of humans who simply didn't live long enough to understand words.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

MightyObserver wrote:

I didn't get the impression you were a snob.

You seemed to imply it.

I value you knowledge and intelligence greatly. You can plainly see what my signature says. If you wish to observe it as judgmental in any way, please, take it as a compliment.

Quite frankly, I'm probably closer to being a snob than you are... I don't think I am one, but the point remains valid.

Stos wrote:

What?

You love to say this, don't you?

Stos wrote:

what the hell is the burgeoise class?

You keep losing credibility with me...

Stos wrote:

sounds less awkward than 'bourgeoisie'

Maybe it does when spoken. I don't know how it's pronounced. The difference is that it has one clear meaning.

Stos wrote:

Generally, the way one is using 'capitalists' is obvious from context, as it was for my usage earlier.

Not at all. I continue to wonder what environment you must have grown up in...

If this is your definition for 'Capitalist'...

What, exactly, is your definiton of 'Communist'?

It's like using the SLP term 'bureacratic state despotism' every time one refers to the USSR. Generally, the way one is using 'capitalists' is obvious from context, as it was for my usage earlier. [/quote]

MightyObserver wrote:

Not at all. I continue to wonder what environment you must have grown up in...

If this is your definition for 'Capitalist'...

What, exactly, is your definiton of 'Communist'?

Somebody, or a group that believe in socialism. Can also be used to describe a society living under the state of socialism.

MightyObserver wrote:

Stos wrote:

sounds less awkward than 'bourgeoisie'

Maybe it does when spoken. I don't know how it's pronounced.

Ber-jwah-zee.

Zeronos wrote:

Ber-jwah-zee.

Really? Weird. I've been thinking something like "burger-oise".

MightyObserver wrote:

Zeronos wrote:

Ber-jwah-zee.

Really? Weird. I've been thinking something like "burger-oise".

Bur jwa zee

MightyObserver wrote:

What... the...

What's that got to do with anything?!

No one is saying that you should remain completely unbiased. The point is that you will be affected by an unbiased statement at some point in your life. This has nothing at all to do with what one should or shouldn't do...

So what's the relevance of mentioning that point?

MightyObserver wrote:

If you don't already understand, please read on, here. Humans use parts of other animals for warmth because they cannot survive without clothing under certain temperatures. Humans use and have used animals for transportation because for quite sometime it was the most convenient way to get around. It wouldn't be a very good idea to ride on other humans. Humans eat other animals... but that's very normal. It makes sense for humans to use certain produce of animals, as explained more lengthily above. Cows are able to produce milk because growing cows need milk... from milk-producing cows. Humans can do the same for themselves but for some reason started to use cow milk instead. It is not odd to continue using cow milk today with the world as it is. From our perspective it is not odd in the slightest and most will never hear that it could be considered odd. However, over all, the concept is... at best... unusual... from an outside perspective.

1.Which outside perspective?

2. It's very simple: Cows produce an edible substance. We humans exploit that edible substance.

MightyObserver wrote:

I repeat: Cows are able to produce milk because growing cows need milk... from milk-producing cows. Humans can do the same for themselves but for some reason started to use cow milk instead.

After some time the woman stops producing milk. It's not like we can base a milk industry on humans. Humanity realized cow milk is edible and started exploiting it. Why? For a very simple reason: it's a steady source of food.

MightyObserver wrote:

This all comes back around to my argument towards every human being a brainwashed one in some sense of the word (even if only slightly): Myself, you, and everyone you ever have known or ever will know. The exception consists of humans who simply didn't live long enough to understand words.

I don't see how is brainwashing linked to milk consumption. Milk consumption is merely a practical way to get food. It's more steady than the produce of slaughter and provides a resource that can be transformed into different products.

A better example of brainwashing is the capitalist consumerist campaings. Or the sole idea that by some reason some guys do have the right to exploit others and that this is intrinsic to human nature.

MightyObserver wrote:

I value you knowledge and intelligence greatly. You can plainly see what my signature says. If you wish to observe it as judgmental in any way, please, take it as a compliment.

Quite frankly, I'm probably closer to being a snob than you are... I don't think I am one, but the point remains valid.

Thanks.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So what's the relevance of mentioning that point?

It's a supporting factor in the idea that everyone has been, is, or once was, brainwashed, in one way or another.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

1.Which outside perspective?

That's a question for another day...

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

It's not like we can base a milk industry on humans.

No. It's the early stages that make it unusual. It didn't begin as an industry; as a product.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Humanity realized cow milk is edible

They better have. It can come out of some of them.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I don't see how is brainwashing linked to milk consumption.

Norton the Borton has a spout on his back. It squirts out water. The water is used to as a form of sustenance for Bortons. One day Norton finds a Glorton. Glortons also have water spouts on their backs which they use to nourish other Glortons. Borton decided to start taking water from the Glortons instead of using his own. At first the idea of drinking non-Borton water is disgusting to the other Bortons. The idea is alien to them. As time comes by they learn to drink it instead. They raise their children to drink Glorton water and the idea of drinking Borton-water becomes alien to them. The idea becomes disgusting. And so they raise their children the same way and so on. Eventually Gorton water becomes incorporated into an industry and it's too late to go back now. A world where Borton water is... sold... as a product... is just... just... unimaginable. It was back when it was the only source, too, but on that route it probably would have never been used in an industry.

~Fin~

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

A better example of brainwashing is the capitalist consumerist campaings.

It happens to be a lot easier to explain to a person that they've been brainwashed when you don't have people trying to shoot down a key example; you know, the whole cow milk thing.

You don't have to acknowledge or understand the milk thing. I hope you've given it thought before defending the opposing arguement or while doing so. None the less, I hope you can already agree to the central point that everyone has been, is, or once was, brainwashed, in one way or another. That's not to say that this still has it's hold on everyone today, but that it was a definate factor in their lives.

MightyObserver wrote:

It's a supporting factor in the idea that everyone has been, is, or once was, brainwashed, in one way or another.

So your point is that being based on unbiased information equals to brainwashing?

MightyObserver wrote:

That's a question for another day...

What about for never?

MightyObserver wrote:

No. It's the early stages that make it unusual. It didn't begin as an industry; as a product.

Which early stages?

MightyObserver wrote:

They better have. It can come out of some of them.

Cow milk could be non-edible by humans.

MightyObserver wrote:

Norton the Borton has a spout on his back. It squirts out water. The water is used to as a form of sustenance for Bortons. One day Norton finds a Glorton. Glortons also have water spouts on their backs which they use to nourish other Glortons. Borton decided to start taking water from the Glortons instead of using his own. At first the idea of drinking non-Borton water is disgusting to the other Bortons. The idea is alien to them. As time comes by they learn to drink it instead. They raise their children to drink Glorton water and the idea of drinking Borton-water becomes alien to them. The idea becomes disgusting. And so they raise their children the same way and so on. Eventually Gorton water becomes incorporated into an industry and it's too late to go back now. A world where Borton water is... sold... as a product... is just... just... unimaginable. It was back when it was the only source, too, but on that route it probably would have never been used in an industry.

~Fin~

You seem to imply that cow milk is used as a substitute to human milk. Somethng that is totally false.

Cow milk is simply an edible substance which many consider to have good flavour, that has many uses and that we employ mainly as one form to suffice dietary needs. It's not a substitute to human milk, it is just another edible produce which is besides economically efficient since its production can be steady.

So once again, how is cow milk consumption linked to brainwashing? And, if product of brainwashing, how is it possible that the consumption of other edible produces is not also product of brainwashing?

MightyObserving wrote:

It happens to be a lot easier to explain to a person that they've been brainwashed when you don't have people trying to shoot down a key example; you know, the whole cow milk thing.

Since your "cow milk consumption as product of brainwashing" arguement is phallacious it doesn't serve as a key example.

MightyObserver wrote:

You don't have to acknowledge or understand the milk thing.

It doesn't make sense at all anyway.

MightyObserver wrote:

I hope you've given it thought before defending the opposing arguement or while doing so.

Quite enough.

MightyObserver wrote:

None the less, I hope you can already agree to the central point that everyone has been, is, or once was, brainwashed, in one way or another. That's not to say that this still has it's hold on everyone today, but that it was a definate factor in their lives.

I agree that at some point of our lives we have been subject to some sort of brainwashing. However, my question is the next: What's precisely the relevance of that assertion?

Please read this entire post. Thank you.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So your point is that being based on unbiased information equals brainwashing?

"being based on"? No. Not exactly. What you're trying to... er... interpret is not a point but a supporting factor in describing and/or explaining it. I don't understand what is so complex about this.

Because your decisions and thoughts have been affected by unbiased opinions, you have been brainwashed, however slightly.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Which early stages?

Do I seriously have to explain this? Is it that you don't know what they're the early stages of or that you seriously don't know which ones?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Cow milk could be non-edible by humans.

Well I for one was surprised to know that both Orange Juice companies produce edible substances when I applied for each this morning.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

You seem to imply that cow milk is used as a substitute to human milk.

Imply? No wonder this has been so difficult. You're only just now understanding things central to m explanation of a key example in explaining... *sigh*

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Something that is totally false.

Milk is milk. It is the same substance. It all has the same chemical and physical structure. The source of it is the only difference. Humans, like other mammals, have the convenience of being able to produce from their bodies. Cow milk is no different a substance than human milk.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So once again, how is cow milk consumption linked to brainwashing?

This has been explained to you repeatedly. It is not that difficult a concept to grasp. You've been stating this question repeatedly, like a broken record or tape recorder. It's beginning to get annoying.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And, if product of brainwashing, how is it possible that the consumption of other edible produces is not also product of brainwashing?

I don't think I managed to explain anything else better than this. I have clearly and plainly laid out what separates the consumption of cow milk from other consumption and animal exploitation. Please take a look at it and tell me what it is about it you don't understand.

MightyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

we have used them as clothing and still do

This isn't odd in any way because as little hair as humans have covering their bodies it can be more difficult to keep warm in many areas of the world. This led to some (perhaps most) humans being embarrassed to be unclothed.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

we have used them and their produces as food

All carnivores and omnivores use other animals as food. What's normal about eating other things produced by animals (like honey) is that humans cannot make it on their own, as far as I know.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

we have used them for transport

We're not going to climb on the backs of other humans, are we?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

and industry

The same arguments apply here.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

What's weird about all that?

Nothing., which is what separates it from my example with the cow's milk.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In fact if the "oddity" of human activities relies on other species not performing similar activities well, that oddity would be arguable.

Not entirely. That is one aspect of it, however.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

For example if you were to assert that we are the only species to use other species for fun you'd be utterely wrong.

It's a good thing that I don't, didn't, never have, and probably never will, attempt to make that argument, isn't it? People used to believe that humans were the only species to harm other members of their own species. This is not true. There are apes that have waged what are essentially wars on each other. There are snakes that eat snake eggs. If I were to assert that we are the only species to kill other organisms of the same species I would be utterly wrong, but pointing that out would have proven nothing.

Ants do something vaguely similar. Aphids produce a substance which ants enjoy consuming so ants "farm" them for it. The important exception, in this case, is that ants cannot produce it themselves (they also product them instead of killing them but that's beside the point).

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

phallacious

Check your spelling, please. I don't know what you're saying.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

It doesn't make sense at all anyway.

At all? You don't comprehend? This is beyond your understanding? Vos can't agnosco?

After all this time you don't even slightly understand how it might make sense to another person, even if not to yourself?

If so, the matter is becoming almost... laughable.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Quite enough.

By what apparatus did you determine this?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I agree that at some point of our lives we have been subject to some sort of brainwashing.

That will do.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

What's precisely the relevance of that assertion?

Relevance? To what? That's all we're talking about? This started when Stos misinterpreted something I said;

Quote :

MightyObserver wrote:

Stos wrote:

people are brainwashed

Including you, me, and every other human being who lived long enough to learn how to manifest their thoughts into words.

...Alright then. So are you denying the fact that people are brainwashed into supporting capitalism through the media, school, etc? Of course, there's also the fact that long work hours mean less time to think, and that a "man is only human, he must eat before he can think."

Now, would i like to elaborate? Why not. What follows is a summary so large the word 'summary' may be improper in describing it. I expect you to read it anyway.

Every human being has been, at one point in their life, brainwashed, however slightly, in one way or another. In the instance that your way of thinking is affected by an unbiased opinion/statement, probably many, you have been, or are in a longer process of being, brainwashed.

One very widespread example of this is the consumption of cow milk as opposed to human milk, which is exactly the same. That's right, the only thing separating these kinds of milk is the source. They are the exact same substance. I cannot stress this enough.

Humans are conveniently able to produce such a substance for themselves but instead use milk from cows whose milk is produced because other cow's need it. This, from an outside perspective (which instant to say for sure that there is one, as should be clear from how this is worded), is rather unusual.

It is separated from the consumption of other edible materials and from other exploitation of animals for several reasons. Humans, after beginning to walk upright, evolved in such a way that hair is only on top of their heads. When they developed the need for more warmth it was only natural that they use the furs of animals.

It is not at all unnatural for humans to eat the meat of other animals because all omnivores and carnivores do exactly the same. This is far from an oddity.

It is not at all unusual for humans to use other animals as a means of transportation because humans needed to get around more quickly and that was a quick and accessible way. It would have been counter-productive to ride on other humans (this is mentioned because it is the part of this scenario that parallels the concept of drinking human milk).

Human milk and cow milk are exactly the same substance. At times it is affected by the health of the animal (etc.) but that applies in either case. Drinking cow milk is a substitute for drinking human milk. They are the exact same substance.

Again, it is an oddity because humans can produce this substance for themselves but choose not to, It is an oddity.

Because it would naturally sound gross to consume cow milk as opposed to the milk that develops in humans it is the result of a long cycle of brainwashing that it has been the other way around for all this time.

Everyone is brainwashed. The consumption of cow milk is an oddity resulting from a small form of brainwashing and is an excellent example from it.

As it has been frustrating to find myself having to repeatedly state essentially the same thing, I sincerely hope you at least understand how it might make sense to someone else and am glad that it is here that I will stop.

I will not take you seriously if I don't think you read all of this. I feel like I should keep going but that it will be no use. It seems as though there is no convincing you of a fairly simple concept which only needs to be mentioned in passing as a supporting factor and moved on with, usually quite casually.

Again, I will not take you seriously if I think you did not read all of this.

Thank you for your time.

Note: For forum limitations I had to write this in two posts.

MightyObserver wrote:

Please read this entire post. Thank you.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So your point is that being based on unbiased information equals brainwashing?

"being based on"? No. Not exactly. What you're trying to... er... interpret is not a point but a supporting factor in describing and/or explaining it. I don't understand what is so complex about this.

Because your decisions and thoughts have been affected by unbiased opinions, you have been brainwashed, however slightly.

To some extent.
I'll adress this part in a more thorough way later in the post.

MightyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Which early stages?

Do I seriously have to explain this? Is it that you don't know what they're the early stages of or that you seriously don't know which ones?

Which early stages are you refering to? That's the question.

MightyObserver wrote:

Well I for one was surprised to know that both Orange Juice companies produce edible substances when I applied for each this morning.

Good for you.

MightyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

You seem to imply that cow milk is used as a substitute to human milk.

Imply? No wonder this has been so difficult. You're only just now understanding things central to m explanation of a key example in explaining... *sigh*

I just couldn't believe you were actually asserting such a thing.

Cow milk is one of many edible produces nature provides us with. Unlike human milk, it is massively exploitable by us.

While both substances are milk they're different kinds of milk not only for the chemical composition (yes, they also differ chemically from each other) they are also different for the type of product they are.

Cow milk, unlike human milk, is a massively exploitable edible produce we get from animals.

Being different kinds of products one cannot serve a a substitute for the other.

MightyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Something that is totally false.

Milk is milk. It is the same substance. It all has the same chemical and physical structure. The source of it is the only difference. Humans, like other mammals, have the convenience of being able to produce from their bodies. Cow milk is no different a substance than human milk.

This is wrong from so many perspectives...

Milk, by definition, is a substance produced by the body of a mammal which serves the objective of nurturing the newborns of their species. That what "milk" stands for.

Yet, the chemical composition of different kinds of milk varies. The milk produced by humans is not, in chemical terms, the same substance as the milk produced by dolphins or in the case were talking about, cows. Blood is blood but a Squid's blood is not the same substance as a human's blood.

So well, cow's milk and human milk have different chemical compositions being thus different substances. And yes, they come from different sources. Two differences. The second difference is essential to understand the third difference: Cow's milk, unlike human's milk, is a massively exploitable edible animal product. Do you understand? ¿Comprendes? Du Versteit? Понимаешь?

MigtyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So once again, how is cow milk consumption linked to brainwashing?

This has been explained to you repeatedly. It is not that difficult a concept to grasp. You've been stating this question repeatedly, like a broken record or tape recorder. It's beginning to get annoying.

The problem is that you've always failed to give a proper explanation mainly because your whole explanation is based on a fallacy.

MightyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And, if product of brainwashing, how is it possible that the consumption of other edible produces is not also product of brainwashing?

I don't think I managed to explain anything else better than this. I have clearly and plainly laid out what separates the consumption of cow milk from other consumption and animal exploitation. Please take a look at it and tell me what it is about it you don't understand.

Cow's milk shares a similarity with things like honeybee: They're massively exploitable edible animal products.

In that tenure cow's milk also shares some similarities with cow's and other animals' flesh: it's a massively exploitable edible animal product.

And also with other non-ediblle produces like fur: It's a massively exploitable animal product.

And cow's milk just as the strength of donkeys used for cargo and the Orca's different qualities used for entertainment is product of animal exploitation.

Look at all the common grounds these different phenomena have.

MightyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

phallacious

Check your spelling, please. I don't know what you're saying.

Then check your phonetic interpretation skills and your comon sense. "ph" sounds like "f" leading to the word "fallacious". Meaning that I deem your arguement a fallacy, an untrue statement.

MightyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

It doesn't make sense at all anyway.

At all? You don't comprehend? This is beyond your understanding? Vos can't agnosco?

It's understandable as when someone randomly says "babblee". I can phonetically understand what the person says, repeat it and transcript it yet it doesn't make any sense since it doesn't have any meaning.

MightyObserver wrote:

After all this time you don't even slightly understand how it might make sense to another person, even if not to yourself?

The matter is that the arguement in question is a fallacy, that means it is untrue. If untrue it is wrong.

For it to make sense to someone that someone must:

1. Be ignorant about the particular characteristics of milk production and consumption and the context in which they develop. Knowlegde should revert the effect of ignorance. That way the person gets to know that the arguement in question is a fallacy and so rejects it.
2. If knowledge is possesed then the person should be silly enough to disregard important facts regarding to milk production and consumption for example, that unlike human milk, cow's milk is a massively exploitable edible animal product. This way the person disregards that the arguement in question is a fallacy and, in a stubborn fashion, defends a wrong point he/she doesn't want to admit is wrong.
3. Be nuts enough to propose we rather exploit humans for milk production since after all "humans can also produce milk" (this requires of course some disregard of the context).

MightyObserver wrote:

If so, the matter is becoming almost... laughable.

Could be, but not as laughable as deeming cow milk consumption product of brainwashing and moreover use it as a prime example of it.

MightyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Quite enough.

By what apparatus did you determine this?

Why apparatus?

MigtyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I agree that at some point of our lives we have been subject to some sort of brainwashing.

That will do.

Which doesn't mean that I agree with the next:

MightyObserver wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

What's precisely the relevance of that assertion?

Relevance? To what? That's all we're talking about? This started when Stos misinterpreted something I said;

Quote :

MightyObserver wrote:

Stos wrote:

people are brainwashed

Including you, me, and every other human being who lived long enough to learn how to manifest their thoughts into words.

There you seem to be implying that you, Stos, me and nearly everyone else are still brainwashed. Something I disagree with.

A further implication of that statement could be, though I won't go as far as claiming you actually intended to imply that, is that language itself is product of brainwashing.

Quote :

...Alright then. So are you denying the fact that people are brainwashed into supporting capitalism through the media, school, etc? Of course, there's also the fact that long work hours mean less time to think, and that a "man is only human, he must eat before he can think."

MightyObserver wrote:

Now, would i like to elaborate? Why not. What follows is a summary so large the word 'summary' may be improper in describing it. I expect you to read it anyway.

Thanks for elaborating and be sure that I have read it.

Note: 2nd part of previous post.

MightyObserver wrote:

Every human being has been, at one point in their life, brainwashed, however slightly, in one way or another. In the instance that your way of thinking is affected by an unbiased opinion/statement, probably many, you have been, or are in a longer process of being, brainwashed.

X=ab² = Brainwashing?
1+1=2 = Brainwashing?

MightyObserver wrote:

One very widespread example of this is the consumption of cow milk as opposed to human milk, which is exactly the same. That's right, the only thing separating these kinds of milk is the source. They are the exact same substance. I cannot stress this enough.

I'll stress it again although it has been alreay explained above more than once. Cow milk and Human milk are not the same substance, that's one, and second they're not the same kind of product.

Cow milk can be produced en masse and doesn't require the depletion of human's bodies nutrients' sources. It's a nutritional source comming from a body alien to human bodies.

MightObserver wrote:

Humans are conveniently able to produce such a substance for themselves but instead use milk from cows whose milk is produced because other cow's need it. This, from an outside perspective (which instant to say for sure that there is one, as should be clear from how this is worded), is rather unusual.

"Conveniently" is a subjective word. I'll explain though why it doesn't apply (unless you're a wacko or a dumb individual).

Firstly, humans require certain hormonal stimuli to produce milk, otherwise they won't. This is one inconvenience for it requires the female to induce herself into a certain hormonal condition just natural under pregnancy.

Secondly, that milk production implies the depletion of the female's body's nutrients being inconvenient for other purpose than nourishing the female's infant. Else females cannot self-nourish from drinking their own milk.

Thirdly, for the aforementioned reasons and other bodiliy characteristics of human females, human milk production cannot be achieved in a massive way in order to suffice societal demand of this product.

The natural function of milk is providing the infants of the own species with nutrients directly from the mother, that is, directly depleting mother's nutrients's reserves. Depleting the female. This function is not substituted by cow milk in any way since nursing is far more common than feeding an infant cow milk.

Cow milk implies the depletion of cows, a depletion we can perform en masse. Just like when we eat their flesh instead of ours, depleting them instead of ourselves, we take their milk as one of the many edible produces their exploitation can offer us.

MightyObserver wrote:

It is separated from the consumption of other edible materials and from other exploitation of animals for several reasons. Humans, after beginning to walk upright, evolved in such a way that hair is only on top of their heads. When they developed the need for more warmth it was only natural that they use the furs of animals.

It is not at all unnatural for humans to eat the meat of other animals because all omnivores and carnivores do exactly the same. This is far from an oddity.

It is not at all unusual for humans to use other animals as a means of transportation because humans needed to get around more quickly and that was a quick and accessible way. It would have been counter-productive to ride on other humans (this is mentioned because it is the part of this scenario that parallels the concept of drinking human milk).

MightyObserver wrote:

Human milk and cow milk are exactly the same substance. At times it is affected by the health of the animal (etc.) but that applies in either case. Drinking cow milk is a substitute for drinking human milk. They are the exact same substance.

Once again, they're not the same substance. They're not the same kind of product. They're homologous products but they're not the same product.

Once again, infants are not fed cow milk instead of human milk. The consumption of cow milk is mainly performed by post-infant humans (which are not a target for human milk's funtion) as a complement to their diet and as a prime material to produce other kinds of both edible and non-edible products. Consuming cow milk implies bodily depletion which we rather perform on other species than ours.

MightyObserver wrote:

Again, it is an oddity because humans can produce this substance for themselves but choose not to, It is an oddity.

1. Humans cannot produce themselves Cow Milk.
2. Humans naturally prefer to deplete other species for nourishment than deplet their own species.
3. Cow Milk and Human milk, while homologous, have different objectives: The first is for the bovine cubs while the second for human infants. Human milk is used for its function by humans and is not substituted by cow milk in this role. Cow milk is a separate product we humans take from cows as a variety meal at the cows' expense.
4. Milk production implies the depletion of the producer's body. The producer cannot nourish itself from its produce and nourishing from other producers nulifies the convenience of its production. However, if a possible producer of a homologous substance doesn't produce this substance and consumes an edible homologous produce there is a nutritional profit. Species naturally deplet other species.
5. A single cow produces much more milk than a human can produce making its exploitation convenient.

MightyObserver wrote:

Because it would naturally sound gross to consume cow milk as opposed to the milk that develops in humans it is the result of a long cycle of brainwashing that it has been the other way around for all this time.

Since the first part of this statement is false, the whole statement is too.
As it thoroughly explained, not only are cow milk and human milk different substances, one can be produced en masse while the other can't and besides since milk production implies the depletion of bodily nutrients its consumption is a way to deplete the body.

Applying the same logic used in te adressed statement, it would actually be more gross to deplete our own species' females' bodies to nourish ourselves.

MightyObserver wrote:

Everyone is brainwashed. The consumption of cow milk is an oddity resulting from a small form of brainwashing and is an excellent example from it.

Remarking why this statement is fallacious would be too redundant.

MightyObserver wrote:

As it has been frustrating to find myself having to repeatedly state essentially the same thing, I sincerely hope you at least understand how it might make sense to someone else and am glad that it is here that I will stop.

I understand that... I had to do it myself several times and again this time... but we could have avoided this if you hadn't recurred to a fallacious arguement.

MightyObserver wrote:

I will not take you seriously if I don't think you read all of this. I feel like I should keep going but that it will be no use.

Imagine how I should be feeling...

MightyObserver wrote:

It seems as though there is no convincing you of a fairly simple concept which only needs to be mentioned in passing as a supporting factor and moved on with, usually quite casually.

I would have let it pass if it wasn't a fallacy.

MightyObserver wrote:

Again, I will not take you seriously if I think you did not read all of this.

Sometimes I feel like doing so too but it's hard.

MightyObserver wrote:

Thank you for your time.

Same to you.

This discussion is a monument to relative off-topic

Monument to relative off-topic?