"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> > To the point where you must unethically edit what your opponent writes.
>>
>> I didn't edit anything,
>
> You snipped my sentences
>
>> I snipped away your irrelevant snarky comments
>
> You know all about snarky comments. What you sow is what you reap.

I didn't change the meaning, I just removed the snarkiness. You should be
thankful, if you're so concerned about being respectful.

>> [..]
>>
>> >> >> The people who have wasted their time with you before have
>> >> >> themselves
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> blame.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's right
>
> And you've done it again.

As long as you insert snarkiness I'll remove it.

>> >> I know.
>> >
>> > Get to it then.
>>
>> Give me your email address, I'll notify you when I decide I need someone
>> to
>> tell me how to run my life.
>
> What are you doing in these NGs?

Like I just said, trying to get the message through that we don't need
people like you telling us how to run our lives. If along the way the
occasional person learns the futility of "veganism" all the better.

[..]
>>
>>
>> >> Not in his element, in a well-armed group. No predator attacks man or
>> >> any
>> >> other animal when they are well-defended.
>> >
>> > Ah... so 'in his element' means in a group armed to the teeth. LOL!
>>
>> Carrying spear, clubs, knives and operating in groups? Of course that is
>> implied. That is the nature of hominid hunters.
>
> Your ''spears, clubs and knives" are not going to prevent you and your
> mates
> from being mauled and torn assunder. Go ahead and try it - I won't stop
> you.

Yes they would, you underestimate man. Predators don't attack groups of
apes, especially not hominids with spears.

>> > Were weapons originally developed for defensive purposes? Maybe.
>>
>> I am quite sure that both defensive and offensive uses were obvious right
>> away.
>
> Defensive - yes; offensive - no.

Don't be daft. The first hominds that used spears probably realized that
they could use them to spear fish and and rodents.
>
>> [..]
>> >> Accurate observation. You project your own self-loathing causing you
>> >> to
>> >> hold
>> >> the rest of the human race in contempt.
>> >
>> > Rotfl! That's you, liar ditch. Still feeling good deluding yourself?
>>
>> You forget, I gave it up in favour of honesty.
>
> It is perfectly clear that you are still living in a land that reality
> forgot.

Are you daring me to post the list with the urls showing where you profess
almost every crazy belief ever invented?

>> [..]
>>
>> >> >> There's that "big-game" strawman again.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're the one claiming humans' endurance is because of hunting.
>> >>
>> >> Endurance is one of the qualities that aids hunting. The game does not
>> >> have
>> >> to be big.
>> >
>> > The non-human animal doesn't have to be big to leave you well behind.
>>
>> So hominids in your imaginary world were not successful hunters? You are
>> going to rewrite human morality AND human history. Better get to work.
>
> I've done my work. Time for you to do yours.

I did. The site I posted contained copious references.

>> > Tell us which wild animals you can chase and catch, marathon man.
>>
>> What an idiotic comment.
>
> Evasion.

It was an idiotic comment, I may be in a wheelchair for all you know. What
the hell does that prove?


>
> [..]
>>
>> >> >> > Hominids were terrestrial frugivores.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which hominids? What tribe, which period?
>> >> >
>> >> > ALL hominids.
>> >>
>> >> Good lord. Did they live in caverns under mountains? Were they
>> >> descended
>> >> from aliens?
>> >
>> > Relevance?
>>
>> The relevance is that you are attempting to rewrite nature, the history
>> of
>> man and reality itself to fit some bizarre ideal.
>
> Not me.

Yes you. Wistfully trying to bend the past to conform to some "inspiring
ethic" is not the way to look at history.

[..]
>>
>> >> >> > That depended on weapons and tools; not biological adaptations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The ability to use weapons and tools is a biological adaptation,
>> >> >> selection
>> >> >> for intelligence, an adaptation you seem bent on reversing.
>> >> >
>> >> > 650,000 Iraqis killed since the beginning of your 'war', according
>> >> > to a
>> >> > new study, from your "ability to use weapons". How does that fit
>> >> > into
>> >> > your "biological adaptation" and "selection for intelligence"
>> >> > scenario?
>> >
>> > Hello? Shall I try to answer this for you, dutch?
>>
>> No, war is not hunting and I have never supported the Iraq war.
>> Vegetarians
>> could have deadly conflicts with other humans without eating meat.
>
> Your claim is that devising 'better, new, improved' ways of killing
> is a biological adaptation - selection for intelligence. So why not
> 'advances' in the killing of other humans for whatever purpose?

I answered it. War is not hunting, that's like saying that self-defense is
the same as murder. Your preception of the world is warped.

[..]
>> > http://alh.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/4/818
>>
>> Interesting but full of misconceptions, for one thing she reveals her
>> bias
>> at the end, she is viewing a world though the lens of "an inspiring
>> ethic"
>> not through a desire for objective learning.
>
> Says biased dutch, who views the world through the lens of 'might makes
> right',

I never said that might makes right. Might made man safe, and successful, to
a degree.

> and ignores or spins away evidence that trashes his views as he has
> no desire for objective learning.

That's hilarious coming from you.

>
>> Also, to observe that animals
>> who have never seen a man do not view him as a predator does not mean
>> that
>> there are no predators in nature for god's sake, it means that they do
>> not
>> see man as one. You think seals and sea birds are not predators? Do you
>> think they are not themselves subject to predation? That's what I mean by
>> attempting to rewrite reality to fit some ideal.
>
> Who is?

whooooosh.........

[..]

>> Compare that to simply
>> using an expletive like "for **** sakes" which does not insult anyone,
>> which
>> you intimated was unethical behaviour.
>
> The 'f' word is an obscenity.

Why? While you're rewriting human morality why don't you remove harmless
expletives.

[..]
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point,
>
> How's that?

You just demonstrated your utter disdain for the human race. Yet you shriek
like a wounded cow at a harmless expletive.

>> >> you believe you can rewrite history too.
>> >
>> > Who are you referring to above? When?
>>
>> The theme of your posting for years has been to rewrite reality to fit
>> some
>> strange brew of idealism and phantasy.
>
> Projection.

Just observation.

> Who were you referring to by 'hominids' in "Hominids hunted"?

You want another word for them? Human ancestors.

[..]

>> Collecting shellfish is hunting,
>
> Which requires "Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics,etc..etc..
> all the biological adapations that made hominids successful hunters."?

Not particularly, that seems obvious. Why do you ask? I may walk around the
block with ease, that does not mean I can run a marathon, unless my life
depended on it.

>> fishing is hunting,

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm

So there is debate about early human behaviour, so what?

>> scavenging is meat-eating.
>
> If you want to call bone marrow 'meat', and it's not *hunting*.

So what?

>> Large mammals are not the only kind of animal.
>
> Which smaller wild animals can you chase and catch, 'dutch'?

I could snare an animal if my life depended on it, couldn't you?