pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:ljlAi.95007$rX4.80497@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Tf2Ai.93433$rX4.6214@pd7urf2no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:92Jzi.90416$rX4.55798@pd7urf2no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:N60zi.81621$fJ5.41962@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
>>>>>>>>>>>> trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
>>>>>>>>>>>> been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
>>>>>>>>>>>> ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
>>>>>>>>>>> The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
>>>>>>>>>> Then the choice must not be trivial.
>>>>>>>>> It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.
>>>>>>>> Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
>>>>>>>> trivial or not.
>>>>>>> I think that meat's the illusion of food.
>>>>>> That is obviously incorrect.
>>>>> 'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:
>>>>> "The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears
>>>>> to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent
>>>>> parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for
>>>>> gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the
>>>>> other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the
>>>>> other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other,
>>>>> would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to
>>>>> devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared
>>>>> by cooking."
>>>> Baron Cuvier died 1832, reaching a little for that scientific reference
>>>> aren't you?
>>> Quoting an qualified, authoritative source. Show otherwise?
>> C'mon fer chrissake, 200 years ago. The guy probably had slaves and was
>> prescribed leeches for his indigestion.
>
> !
>
> 'Without a doubt, Georges Cuvier possessed one of the
> finest minds in history.

Yeah, great, 200 years ago!

> Add:

Don't bother, for every 19th century author you can quote, there are
1000 modern scientists, anthropologists and nutritionists who believe
that meat is and always has been a beneficial part of the human diet.


[..]

>> Nobody is obliged to disprove the musings of poets.
>
> Failure to disprove

Is meaningless when the burden of proof does not exist.


[..]
>> Ask any reasonable, educated person if one can "need" something without
>> stipulating or at least implying what for.
>
> The connection between that and what you just claimed being..?

You have apparently lost the gist of the thread, forget it.


[..]
>>> http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial
>>
>> All these personal attacks and projection are self-descriptive. That is
>> painfully obvious. You are attempting to bully me into submission.
>
> All of that is a perfect description of you and your tactics, bully.

Why are you bullying me by calling me names, like "Ditch", "balloon",
and projecting all this nonsense about bullying onto me? Is disagreement
with your point of view bullying by definition in your little world?

>>>>>>>>>>> If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
>>>>>>>>>>> have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
>>>>>>>>>> To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
>>>>>>>>>> them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
>>>>>>>>>> promote.
>>>>>>>>> To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.
>>>>>>>> I don't hide from any truth, but that is exactly what you attempt to do
>>>>>>>> by denying the reality of collateral deaths.
>>>>>>> We have been asking you to support your claims for years, and at
>>>>>>> every stage you've failed to support them with credible evidence.
>>>>>>> Even in this very thread you've been asked to repeatedly, and every
>>>>>>> time you've tried to wriggle out of it with a half-assed 'clever' quip,
>>>>>>> or just snipped it, along with a great deal more you can't address.
>>>>>> You're engaging in blatant disinformation. Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald.
>>>>>> 1993. The effects of harvest on arable wood mice. Biological
>>>>>> Conservation 65:279-283.Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available,
>>>>>> but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density
>>>>>> in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
>>>>>> postharvest. This decrease was
>>>>> ***attributed***
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>> ***migration out of the field***
>>>>>
>>>>>> and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to
>>>>> ***estimate***
>>>>>
>>>>>> mortality
>>>>>> of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is where you typically move the goalposts, so go ahead.
>>>>> There's NOTHING conclusive about deaths there whatsoever!
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to see counts of sliced, diced, shredded little bodies!
>>>> No body counts would satisfy you, your filters won't allow you to accept
>>>> anything that disrupts your illusions.
>>> You've nothing. QED!
>> Denial. You embrace the musings of nineteenth century poets as revealed
>> truth and reject out of hand the findings of modern scientists.
>
> Still nothing.

Head in sand.

> And the ignorance you display is astounding.

More projection.


[..]
>> What I am saying is that avoiding *consuming animal products*, the vegan
>> "solution", is falsely presented as a moral imperative based on the
>> fallacious notion that non-animal products don't cause animal deaths.
>
> Based on the known fact that animal 'products' do cause deaths.

All agriculture causes deaths.

>> To
>> find a "solution" one must clearly define a problem to be solved. If the
>> problem is the killing of animals, it is not solved by veganism.
>
> Only by a bare minimum of ten and a half thousand million beings.
> (in the US alone)

It's not solved by veganism.

>> I
>> submit that is not a problem that commands our attention anyway.
>>
>> A more pressing problem
>
> Trivialization.

Hysterical nonsense.

>
>> in agriculture is the overuse of chemicals which is
>> robbing the soil of it's natural properties and degrading the quality of
>> our food.
>
> That's one reason I promote organic food and veganic horticulture.

How?

>>>>>>>> The world could not function that way.
>>>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>> Because the very ecosystem of earth is based on death of the old and
>>>>>> regeneration of new organisms. A whale consumes hundreds of thousands of
>>>>>> living organisms every day.
>>>>> But we're talking about humans.
>>>> We're part of the same ecosystem as other animals. What you advocate
>>>> goes far beyond *compassion*, it is an attempt to separate man from his
>>>> very roots in the ecosystem. It can never work.
>>> Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are appealing to nature, humans
>>> are not a naturally carnivorous species. Humans are frugivores.
>>> What I advocate: compassion, respect for Nature, healthy diet..
>>> reconnects man to his very roots in the ecosystem. It works.
>> I'm not appealing to nature, I am looking at it. Man's roots as far back
>> as the evolution of the species include the use of animals as food.
>
> "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
> divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
> and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
> Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). - Foraging profiles of sympatric
> lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179,
> Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295,
> No. 1270
>
>>>>>>>> There could easily be a million animals in a single field.
>>>>>>> Give us some proper evidence to work with.
>>>>>> See above. You need to start dealing with reality, not your idealized
>>>>>> version of it.
>>>>> It says above that there were 25 wood mice per hectare preharvest..
>>>> Right, wood mice, 25 of one mammal species in one hectare.
>>> Name some other species would you expect to find.
>> Voles, moles, toads, frogs, lizards, birds, spiders, grasshoppers, etc etc.
>
> Sounds more like pristine natural habitat to me.

It is, until plowing, seeding, spraying, harvesting occurs.

Evidence?

Head in sand.


[..]
>>>> And that
>>>> study referred to a field of grass which would not have been subject to
>>>> nearly the same degree of interference as a grain or vegetable crop,
>>>> such as plowing, planting or spraying.
>>> Fields of grass are sprayed with herbicides and fertilized,
>> No they aren't.
>
> Yes, they are. Very much so.

Nope.

>>> in addition to being cut right down to the bare ground..
>> Wrong.
>
> Not wrong at all.

Dead wrong.

>>> Millions of hectares of grass and grains unecessarilly.
>>> And you've been shown how horticulture can be done.
>> You're misusing the term necessary again.
>
> You're trying to avoid the issue with nonsense obfuscation again.

You're misusing the term "necessary" again.

You're boring and repetitious, and deluded, and a serial bully. No
wonder people resort to verbal abuse when dealing with you, you invite it.