Of course it tracks - You think that breast milk produced by cows and goats for baby cows and goats specifically is intended for human consumption? No, of course not. That animal breast milk is intended for the young of that species.
Humans may continue to suckle at the teats of other animals, and it may continue to be common, and it will be weird.
That just brings back the question of how’s cow meat is intended to be eaten by you. That muscle is intended to let the cow walk and eat and reproduce. It is specifically evolved for those purposes.
I don’t think I have the time or inclination to explain the entire history of predator and prey to you, but if you type in those two p-words, you’re going to learn a whole lot about a very long history of carnivores and omnivores eating meat.
Carnivores are meat eaters and omnivores eat many things, btw.
Humans as a predator, are biologically and historically intended to eat prey, the cow. Or pig, or whatever animal.
Look it up, you can choose nearly any animal you are familiar with, and they will fit into the food chain somewhere as an iteration of predator or prey.
You are just keep switching the subject of intention for your convenience. Milk is not intended to be… humans are intended to… If you only consider the intention of the consumer, of course it is always intended to consume whatever is nutritious. The logic flaw is in the case of milk you suddenly switch to consider the intention of the producer which is the cows. Are you doing this intentionally (pun intended) or is it a blind spot for you because you hate milk?
If you keep asking questions about different topics, you’re going to receive answers about different topics.
That doesn’t mean I’m being inconsistent, it means that I’m consistently answering your inconsistent questions.
Your newest topic is based on the false premise that I am considering the intention of cows, which I am not.
You’re making that up and then following up your false claim by asking me why I believe cows have intention because it’s an indefensible point.
You got confused four or five comments ago and you’re trying to use disingenuous, obscure questioning and false assertions in an attempt to ignore and draw attention away from the clear answers you’ve received that logically show you why meat is biologically and historically intended to be eaten by carnivores and omnivores.
It’s not working, but it is funny that you keep trying, so go wild.
Of course it tracks - You think that breast milk produced by cows and goats for baby cows and goats specifically is intended for human consumption? No, of course not. That animal breast milk is intended for the young of that species.
Humans may continue to suckle at the teats of other animals, and it may continue to be common, and it will be weird.
That just brings back the question of how’s cow meat is intended to be eaten by you. That muscle is intended to let the cow walk and eat and reproduce. It is specifically evolved for those purposes.
I don’t think I have the time or inclination to explain the entire history of predator and prey to you, but if you type in those two p-words, you’re going to learn a whole lot about a very long history of carnivores and omnivores eating meat.
Carnivores are meat eaters and omnivores eat many things, btw.
Humans as a predator, are biologically and historically intended to eat prey, the cow. Or pig, or whatever animal.
Look it up, you can choose nearly any animal you are familiar with, and they will fit into the food chain somewhere as an iteration of predator or prey.
You have a lot to learn, that’ll be fun for you!
You are just keep switching the subject of intention for your convenience. Milk is not intended to be… humans are intended to… If you only consider the intention of the consumer, of course it is always intended to consume whatever is nutritious. The logic flaw is in the case of milk you suddenly switch to consider the intention of the producer which is the cows. Are you doing this intentionally (pun intended) or is it a blind spot for you because you hate milk?
If you keep asking questions about different topics, you’re going to receive answers about different topics.
That doesn’t mean I’m being inconsistent, it means that I’m consistently answering your inconsistent questions.
Your newest topic is based on the false premise that I am considering the intention of cows, which I am not.
You’re making that up and then following up your false claim by asking me why I believe cows have intention because it’s an indefensible point.
You got confused four or five comments ago and you’re trying to use disingenuous, obscure questioning and false assertions in an attempt to ignore and draw attention away from the clear answers you’ve received that logically show you why meat is biologically and historically intended to be eaten by carnivores and omnivores.
It’s not working, but it is funny that you keep trying, so go wild.
Hmm, I see. How about you go ahead and clarify for me whose intention you’re talking about in either cases?
Initially, I said that cow milk is intended for cow babies and goat milk is intended for goat babies.
You asked why that means humans are intended to eat cow meat.
Doesn’t really follow, but I played along and explained the biological and historical intentions of predator and prey.
You got confused real quick, didn’t you?