>>..For one, it is intended
>>to be used by a baby cow, hence the sole purpose of cows milk.
>
>This is an absurd argument - a strawberry is "intended" to be used by the ground
>to grow a new strawberry bush, not for our digestion, yet all reports are that
>strawberries are excellent for your health, and part of virtually all diet
>plans.

Your analogy is also faulty. Strawberries are intended indeed as a means of
propagating strawberries, and aside from the odd allergy, is perfectly
suited for all animal consumption. However, milk is tailored to the needs of
the subject species. Animal milk will always be a distant second to
breastmilk in terms of supporting human brain development, and contains
growth factors that are unsuitable for adult consumption, regardless of
species.

>This is not an argument against milk, it is an argument against certain
>practices in the processing and production of milk by certain corporations.
>The same argument applies to beef, lettuce and corn.

But we're not considering those other products. The milk industry
continues to insist that "milk is good food" for all, but plenty
of research suggests the opposite. The situation is very similar
to the tobacco industry's shrill and insistent denial that smoking
contributes to cancer.

Many Paleos and others who go off milk for more than a month cannot
return to it without suffering the mucousy side effects.