"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>>><...>
>>>
>>>>>>Rick, you should know by now that
>>>>>>beans, grains and some other seeds
>>>>>>can be sprouted and eaten raw. And
>>>>>>of course many fruits and vegetables
>>>>>>and nuts can obviously be eaten raw too.
>>>>>
>>>>>======================
>>>>>And, as you are apparently too stupid to understand, there are
>>>>>many plants that are outright poisonous for people, and many many
>>>>>more that contain no nutrients for human consumption. Name a
>>>>>meat that isn't.....
>>>>
>>>>Blowfish.
>>>
>>>Guess again, dummy. Fugu contains nutrients, and is safe when processed
>>>properly.
>>
>>
>> "When processed properly" is *very* key here. Not just anybody can
>> prepare fugu, you have to be specially trained and licensed to do so.
>
> Skanky made a *blanket* statement that fugu is poisonous and/or contains
> no nutrients. I specified that it can be safe when properly processed.
>
>> To be fair in these comparisions I think you have to consider that many
>> animals are dangerous to hunt: boars, snakes, bears, large cats, charging
>> rumnants, some fish, and many now extinct species to name a few.
>
> I think your concern about the danger is overblown.

Maybe today it is but it was a very serious concern before technology gave
us an advantage.

>> Plants cannot hunt, charge, maul, bite, or tear flesh.
>
> Tearing flesh? My legs beg to differ with you after a little incident with
> some briar last weekend.

I mean tearing flesh in the way that animals tear flesh, not little
scratches from briars.

> And if your definition of hunting includes using some form of lure to
> attract prey, what do you consider these plants to be doing?
> http://tinyurl.com/ddu75

We're talking about people, not insects. Carnivorous plants don't eat
people.

>> Animals can also become toxic if they consume toxic foods or if they
>> become ill. This is not a problem with plants since they are at the
>> bottom of the food chain.
>
> Plants grown intentionally or unintentionally in the presence of various
> chemicals can be toxic and cause poisoning of humans and other animals.
> Crops are routinely deemed unfit for human consumption because of toxic
> exposure to banned pesticides, overuse of pesticides, contact with human
> excreta, exposure to carcinogenic and other dangerous chemicals, etc.

Again, pesticides and other chemicals are products of technology. Plants
weren't artificially toxic before chemicals were invented.

The context of this discussion is whether humans were intended to be
herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores. It is an evolutionary process and not
one that can be greatly effected by the last few hundred years that we've
had technology.

Positions and attitudes aside, what do you think humans were intended to eat
and why?