"Dutch" > wrote in message news:vrHAi.98263$rX4.46761@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:ljlAi.95007$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. Almost single-handedly, he founded
vertebrate paleontology as a scientific discipline and created
the comparative method of organismal biology, an incredibly
powerful tool. It was Cuvier who firmly established the fact
of the extinction of past lifeforms. He contributed an immense
amount of research in vertebrate and invertebrate zoology and
paleontology, and also wrote and lectured on the history of
science. ..'
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html
>
> Yeah, great, 200 years ago!

And what? Has human anatomy somehow changed since?

> > 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.

Ipse dixit. Try finding scientists who refute the following.

-restore-

'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming
plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote:
"Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that
of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables
constitute his natural food."

Dr. F.A. Pouchet, 19th century author of The Universe, wrote
in his Pluralite' de la Race Humaine: "It has been truly said
that Man is frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal,
and above all his dentition, prove it in the most decided manner."

Professor William Lawrence, FRS, in his lectures delivered at the
Royal College of Surgeons in 1822, said:

"The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of
the carnivorous animals, excepting that their enamel is confined
to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called canine;
but they do not exceed the level of others, and are obviously
unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute
in carnivorous animals. Thus we find, whether we consider the
teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, that the
human structure closely resembles that of the apes, all of whom,
in their natural state, are completely herbivorous (frugivorous)."

Professor Charles Bell, FRS, wrote in his 1829 work, Anatomy,
Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth: "It is, I think, not going
too far to say that every fact connected with the human
organisation goes to prove that man was originally formed a
frugivorous animal. This opinion is derived principally from the
formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the
character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs."

Professor Richard Owen, FRS, in his elaborate 1845 work,
Odontography, wrote: "The apes and monkeys, whom man
nearly resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from
fruits, grain, the kernels of nuts, and other forms in which the
most sapid and nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom
are elaborated; and the close resemblance between the
quadrumanous and the human dentition shows that man was,
from the beginning, adapted to eat the fruit of the tree of the
garden."

"Behold! I have given you every plant-yielding seed which is
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its
fruit; you shall have them for food."---Genesis 1:29

"Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal,"
wrote John Ray, FRS, "nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with
jagged and pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with
gentle hands to gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to
chew and eat them."

According to Dr. Spenser Thompson, "No physiologist would
dispute with those who maintain that men ought to have a
vegetable diet."

Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man's Natural Food: An
Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology
indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man."

More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens
concluded: "Examination of the dental structure of modern man
reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous
animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has
perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It
is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the
carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of
arteriosclerotic disease."
...'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

'Furthermore, William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director
of the Baylor University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the
American Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,

Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one,
human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to
eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains
cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings,
who are natural herbivores.[11]
...
[11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology.
Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 .
...'
http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi...f_property.htm

> [..]
>
> >> Nobody is obliged to disprove the musings of poets.
> >
> > Failure to disprove any point therein expected and noted.
>
> Is meaningless when the burden of proof does not exist.

You've called these the "musings of a 19th century poet"
repeatedly in your lowlife attempt to belittle the evidence.

Again you end up crawling away with pie on your face.

> [..]
> >> 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.

You're apparently trying to cover your tracks by snipping.

> [..]
> >>> 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?

The game's up, ditch.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

That's not going to help you.

> > And the ignorance you display is astounding.
>
> More projection.

Only from you.

> [..]
> >> 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.

Still waiting for evidence.

> >> 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.

Only by a bare minimum of ten and a half thousand million beings.
(in the US alone)

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

That too.

> >> 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?

Check the archives, for a start.

> >>>>>>>> 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 we're supposed to wait for you to remove it, or what?

> [..]
> >>>> 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.

They are.

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

No.

> >>> 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.

Projection.