Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

> wrote in message ups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > >
> > > You conveniently left out the most relevant difference between man and animal.
> > > Unlike animals, except for a few minor exceptions like a bird or monkey using a
> > > stick, man has the brain power to invent tools to do what he needs done.

> >
> > Man is fortunate to have hands, which enables such activities.
> >
> > 'Natural carnivores have the inherent anatomical equipment provided
> > as their birthright with which to apprehend, capture, kill, and rend their
> > quarry.

>
> Man has tools.


Man NEEDS tools.

> > Dogs have powerful jaws that inflict fatal wounds to their prey.
> > Humans however, have no sharp claws for tearing; no sharply pointed
> > fangs for slashing; nor are our eyes or olfactory senses well developed
> > for hunting.

>
> Man has eyes at the front of the head for excellent depth perception
> and relatively poor peripheral vision, as does all predators.
> Non-predators have the eyes on the side of their heads, have relatively
> poor depth perception but great peripheral vision.


'b. Vision
1. Color vision - tree dweller who eats fruit - need color vision
to see fruit
a. Contrast with dogs and cats - no color vision - they have
better vision in dim light
b. Steroscopic vision - both eyes directed forward
1. Better able to judge distances in trees
http://www.siue.edu/~rbrugam/humevol.html

> > Nor is the human body designed to run fast enough to
> > capture prey. Humans cannot grab animals in their mouth as do dogs,
> > coyotes, wolves, jackals, lions, tigers, or cats. We instead inflict more
> > damage with our hands and brute strength.

>
> and tools.


Noted.

> organized group hunts. snares and traps. bows and arrows,
> spears, clubs, ropes, etc.
>
> And gathering apllies to the collection of small creatures like bugs
> and water creatures like mollusks etc.


Yum!

> > Humans do however, have
> > marvelous fingers, thumbs, and limbs for reaching, climbing and
> > grabbing.

>
> and fashioning snares and traps and tools to hunt with.


Noted.

> > Our natural food gathering capacity is very similar to the
> > chimpanzees. Fruitarians of the primate order also have revolving joints
> > in their shoulder, wrist, and elbow joints that allow for free movement
> > in all directions. Frugivores have soft pliable, sensitive hands and
> > fingers with opposable thumbs and flat nails that are perfect for
> > grasping and gathering fruit.
> > ............'
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
> >
> > Suggest you have a good read at all of these links.

>
> Children have died in the care of parents who forced them into a
> fruitarin existence. If that does not convince you then you are a fool.


That case where they gave their child FISH oil? (hint)

> > > Man has always been a hunter and killer. The vegetarianism came later as an
> > > alternative.

> >
> > False. It is the other way around.

>
> man has always been a hunter and a killer when ther was something to
> hunt and kill. They resorted to vegetarianism only when forced to.


Repeat it a thousand more times and it still won't be true.

> > 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities
> > have been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater
> > the reliance on meat. There are sound biological and economic
> > reasons for this, not least in the ready availability of large amounts
> > of fat in arctic mammals. From this, it has been deduced that the
> > humans of the glacial periods were primarily hunters, while plant
> > foods were more important during the interglacials.
> > http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm

>
> Circular logic. Of course the northern peoples relied more on meat,
> while southern peoples ate more plant foods.


Not according to what you (erroneously) claim above.

> > Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social
> > Animals, Not Predators
> > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011
> >
> > '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."
> > ..
> > "In fact, at least two-thirds of the inhabitants of the world make
> > so little use of flesh that it can hardly be considered an essential
> > part of their diet...."
> > http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

>
> I always find it interesting to see how very well respected scientists
> from ages ago were still completely off the mark on some topics.


Clue. It is YOU who's still completely off the mark, tunderbar.


  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

Gary wrote:

<snip>
> You conveniently left out the most relevant difference between man and animal.


As you point out, it is not a difference at all.

> Unlike animals, except for a few minor exceptions like a bird or monkey using a
> stick, man has the brain power to invent tools to do what he needs done.


Many species of animals make tools, or use tools which animals find
in their environment. Probably as many non-humans as humans create
tools -- most humans merely make use of tools invented and produced
by others. Animals even have culture -- animals of a species in one
area will use tools or methods which animals of the same species
elsewhere do not. Like humans, animals of a variety of social species
learn from others of their group.

> Man has always been a hunter and killer. The vegetarianism came later as an
> alternative.


That is something we cannot prove conclusively from available
evidence. Even if it were so, it is irrelevant to the ethical
issue of how we *ought* to treat other animals.


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote


>> >>>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
>> >>>
>> >>> Looked like it ain't wanted here.

>
> You're absolutely right, Paul, it wasn't.


As the great "paster/waster of bandwidth" I know you believe that no amount
of repetition of the same old same old is excessive as long as it's your
drum that's getting beaten, but usenet protocol says that one should include
the minimum amount necessary to provide context for your comments.
>
>> >>> But I will
>> >>
>> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
>> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".

>
> The quote:
>
> In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
> "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
> provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
> devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
> destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
> or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
> along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
> to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
> him for hunting."
>
> What part of that can you refute?


All of it.

> You can't negate any part of it;
> therefore, like you, your colleague resorts to attacking the person.


Nature, meaning natural selection, equipped man ideally for hunting of game,
he gave him supreme intelligence to outwit his prey and the ability to
invent and use weapons and tools. The successful homo sapiens was a long
distance runner, able to outlast any large animal. While an animal such as a
lion was adapting by selection to have larger teeth, strong shoulders and
jaws, to be fleet of foot to overtake prey in short wind-sprints, man was
developing his own strengths. The most adaptable, intelligent and cunning
survived. Developing large teeth and claws would never have evolved in man
because it was not one of the requirements of the successful homo sapiens.


<snip usual nonsense>


  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Gary wrote:


[..]

>> Man has always been a hunter and killer. The vegetarianism came later as
>> an
>> alternative.

>
> That is something we cannot prove conclusively from available
> evidence.


Archeological evidence is clear that hominid bands hunted and fished from
the very beginning, it's why they were so successful in so many varied
environments.

> Even if it were so, it is irrelevant to the ethical
> issue of how we *ought* to treat other animals.


Right, I think we can agree that humans ought to be kind to animals, the
main point of contention is in what context we view other animals. If one of
those contexts is as a source of food, then naturally we must kill them as
we do with animals in many other contexts. I think it is key to understand
that although not viewing animals as food is possible, it does not result in
the elimination of killing of animals. That understanding may or may not be
instrumental in your particular moral equation, but it is in mine.




  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote

>
> >> >>>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Looked like it ain't wanted here.

> >
> > You're absolutely right, Paul, it wasn't.

>
> As the great "paster/waster of bandwidth" I know you believe that no amount
> of repetition of the same old same old is excessive as long as it's your
> drum that's getting beaten, but usenet protocol says that one should include
> the minimum amount necessary to provide context for your comments.


As the great complainer about "control freaks", you need to reel your head in.

> >> >>> But I will
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
> >> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".

> >
> > The quote:
> >
> > In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
> > "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
> > provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
> > devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
> > destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
> > or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
> > along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
> > to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
> > him for hunting."
> >
> > What part of that can you refute?

>
> All of it.


All you've said is that man can outrun large animals (haw) and use tools.

> > You can't negate any part of it;
> > therefore, like you, your colleague resorts to attacking the person.

>
> Nature, meaning natural selection, equipped man ideally for hunting of game,


Why are you so bad at it, then.

'It has long been held that big game hunting is THE key development
in human evolutionary history, facilitating the appearance of patterns
in reproduction, social organization, and life history fundamental to
the modern human condition. Though this view has been challenged
strongly in recent years, it persists as the conventional wisdom, largely
for lack of a plausible alternative. Recent research on women's time
allocation and food sharing among tropical hunter-gatherers now
provides the basis for such an alternative.

The problem with big game hunting

The appeal of big game hunting as an important evolutionary force
lies in the common assumption that hunting and related paternal
provisioning are essential to child rearing among human foragers:
mother is seen as unable to bear, feed and raise children on her
own; hence relies on husband/father for critical nutritional support,
especially in the form of meat. This makes dating the first
appearance of this pattern the fundamental problem in human
origins research. The common association between stone tools
and the bones of large animals at sites of Pleistocene age suggests
to many that it may be quite old, possibly originating with Homo
erectus nearly two million years ago (e.g. Gowlett 1993).

Despite its widespread acceptance, there are good reasons to be
skeptical about the underlying assumption. Most important is the
observation that big game hunting is actually a poor way to support
a family. Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed
with bows and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat
acquire large animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days,
not nearly often enough to feed their children effectively. They
could do better as provisioners by taking small game or plant
foods, yet choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting
serves some other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship
(Hawkes et al. 1991). Whatever it is, reliable support for children
must come from elsewhere.

The importance of women's foraging and food sharing

Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns
shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's
gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). The most difficult
time of the year for the Hadza is the dry season, when foods
younger children can procure for themselves are unavailable.
Mothers respond by provisioning youngsters with foods they
themselves can procure daily and at relatively high rates, but that
their children cannot, largely because of handling requirements.
Tubers, which require substantial upper body strength and
endurance to collect and the ability to control fire in processing,
are a good example.

Provisioning of this sort has at least two important implications:
1) it allows the Hadza to operate in times and places where they
otherwise could not if, as among other primates, weaned offspring
were responsible for feeding themselves; 2) it lets another adult
assist in the process allowing mother to turn her attention to the
next pregnancy that much sooner. Quantitative data on time
allocation, foraging returns, and changes in children's nutritional
status indicate that, among the Hadza, that other adult is typically
grandmother. Senior Hadza women forage long hours every day,
enjoy high returns for effort, and provision their grandchildren
effectively, especially when their daughters are nursing new
infants (Hawkes et al. 1989, 1997). Their support is crucial to
both daughters' fecundity and grandchildren's survivorship,
with important implications for grandmothers' own fitness.
....
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes.../oconnell.html

> he gave him supreme intelligence to outwit his prey and the ability to
> invent and use weapons and tools. The successful homo sapiens was a long
> distance runner, able to outlast any large animal. While an animal such as a
> lion was adapting by selection to have larger teeth, strong shoulders and
> jaws, to be fleet of foot to overtake prey in short wind-sprints, man was
> developing his own strengths.


Being able to run (away) and make tools, doesn't make us a natural predator,
just as flying in airplanes doesn't make us birds, and scuba-diving doesn't
make us fish. The 'supreme intelligence' (rotfl) is from outwitting predators.

> The most adaptable, intelligent and cunning
> survived. Developing large teeth and claws would never have evolved in man
> because it was not one of the requirements of the successful homo sapiens.


I expect that you agree with this:

"The beast of prey is the highest form of active life, ... It represents a mode
of living which requires the extreme degree of the necessity of fighting,
conquering, annihilating, self-assertion. The human race ranks highly because
it belongs to the class of beasts of prey. Therefore we find in man the tactics
of life proper to a bold, cunning beast of prey. He lives engaged in aggression,
killing, annihilation. He wants to be master in as much as he exists."
- Nazi philosopher Oswald Spengler in 1931

> <snip usual nonsense>


Yes, dutch, you are without doubt The Grand Master of snipping.





  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Glorfindel" > wrote
> > Gary wrote:

>
> [..]
>
> >> Man has always been a hunter and killer. The vegetarianism came later as
> >> an alternative.

> >
> > That is something we cannot prove conclusively from available
> > evidence.

>
> Archeological evidence is clear that hominid bands hunted and fished from
> the very beginning, it's why they were so successful in so many varied
> environments.


'The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence
Back To 195,000 Years Ago

When the bones of two early humans were found in 1967 near
Kibish, Ethiopia, they were thought to be 130,000 years old. A
few years ago, researchers found 154,000- to 160,000-year-old
human bones at Herto, Ethiopia. Now, a new study of the 1967
fossil site indicates the earliest known members of our species,
Homo sapiens, roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago.

"It pushes back the beginning of anatomically modern humans,"
says geologist Frank Brown, a co-author of the study and dean of
the University of Utah's College of Mines and Earth Sciences.
...
Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
whom you believe."

Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"

The study moves the date of human skulls found in Ethiopia's
Kibish rock formation in 1967 back from 130,000 years to a newly
determined date of 195,000 years ago, give or take 5,000 years.
Fossils from an individual known as Omo I look like bones of
modern humans, but other bones are from a more primitive cousin
named Omo II.
...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm


  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote

>>
>> >> >>>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Looked like it ain't wanted here.
>> >
>> > You're absolutely right, Paul, it wasn't.

>>
>> As the great "paster/waster of bandwidth" I know you believe that no
>> amount
>> of repetition of the same old same old is excessive as long as it's your
>> drum that's getting beaten, but usenet protocol says that one should
>> include
>> the minimum amount necessary to provide context for your comments.

>
> As the great complainer about "control freaks", you need to reel your head
> in.


Requesting that a poster snip some of 42kb of included text is hardly being
a control freak.

>> >> >>> But I will
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
>> >> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".
>> >
>> > The quote:
>> >
>> > In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
>> > "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
>> > provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
>> > devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
>> > destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
>> > or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
>> > along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
>> > to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
>> > him for hunting."
>> >
>> > What part of that can you refute?

>>
>> All of it.

>
> All you've said is that man can outrun large animals (haw) and use tools.


Being able to successfully run down prey (yes, a man can outrun a horse)
then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical capability
required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears the most
accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop lion-like
claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such mutations would
probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.

>
>> > You can't negate any part of it;
>> > therefore, like you, your colleague resorts to attacking the person.

>>
>> Nature, meaning natural selection, equipped man ideally for hunting of
>> game,

>
> Why are you so bad at it, then.


Lack of practice, what's your point? Whenever man settled and began tilling
the soil hunting became less important for survival.
[..]

>> he gave him supreme intelligence to outwit his prey and the ability to
>> invent and use weapons and tools. The successful homo sapiens was a long
>> distance runner, able to outlast any large animal. While an animal such
>> as a
>> lion was adapting by selection to have larger teeth, strong shoulders and
>> jaws, to be fleet of foot to overtake prey in short wind-sprints, man was
>> developing his own strengths.

>
> Being able to run (away) and make tools,


Away is not the only way one can run.

> doesn't make us a natural predator,
> just as flying in airplanes doesn't make us birds, and scuba-diving
> doesn't
> make us fish.


Your claim was that lack of sharp teeth and claws means that man is not a
predator, that is a fallacious statement, animals evolve the necessary
characteristics to succeed in their environments. Your argument leaves the
impression that you are a creationist, believing that animals were simply
plunked down on the earth by a Supreme Being and given specific roles.

> The 'supreme intelligence' (rotfl) is from outwitting predators.


And prey.

>> The most adaptable, intelligent and cunning
>> survived. Developing large teeth and claws would never have evolved in
>> man
>> because it was not one of the requirements of the successful homo
>> sapiens.

>
> I expect that you agree with this:
>
> "The beast of prey is the highest form of active life, ... It represents a
> mode
> of living which requires the extreme degree of the necessity of fighting,
> conquering, annihilating, self-assertion. The human race ranks highly
> because
> it belongs to the class of beasts of prey. Therefore we find in man the
> tactics
> of life proper to a bold, cunning beast of prey. He lives engaged in
> aggression,
> killing, annihilation. He wants to be master in as much as he exists."
> - Nazi philosopher Oswald Spengler in 1931


Trying to massage a little Godwinism into the discussion? Spengler voted for
the National Socialist party in the early years as many Germans did (it was
dangerous to do otherwise) but was not "a Nazi". He died in 1936, three
years before the second world war.

"Spengler's pessimism about Germany and Europe's future, his refusal to
support Nazi ideas of racial superiority, and his work the Hour of Decision,
which is critical of the Nazis, won him ostracism after 1933."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...

<..>
> Requesting that a poster snip some of 42kb of included text is hardly being
> a control freak.


Leaving the context intact was warranted.

> >> >> >>> But I will
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
> >> >> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".
> >> >
> >> > The quote:
> >> >
> >> > In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
> >> > "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
> >> > provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
> >> > devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
> >> > destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
> >> > or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
> >> > along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
> >> > to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
> >> > him for hunting."
> >> >
> >> > What part of that can you refute?
> >>
> >> All of it.

> >
> > All you've said is that man can outrun large animals (haw) and use tools.

>
> Being able to successfully run down prey (yes, a man can outrun a horse)


No, a man cannot successfully outrun a horse.

'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are sometimes
faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the desert.
...
The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45 minutes.

***** Advantage

He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must make
two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
....'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm

Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!

> then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical capability
> required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears the most
> accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop lion-like
> claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such mutations would
> probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.


So let me get this straight... you are claiming that humans developed
the ability to outrun large animals in distance but not speed and not
the faintest indication of claws and fangs to sieze and then eat them,
nor any other biological adaptation pertaining to carnivorous habits.

Lets look at another example:

'The patas monkey (Cercopithecus patas) is the most terrestrial of
guenons, and is one of the most terrestrial primates. It inhabits open
grasslands and marginal areas of savannah woodlands, avoiding
predation primarily by camouflage, stealth, and vigilance. Its reddish
pelage blends into the predominantly red African soils. Adult males
perform decoy and defensive behaviors. Male patas monkeys,
capable of sustaining running speeds of 50 km per hour, are unique
among nonhuman primates. Even though some mammalian predators
can manage short dashes of more than 100 km per hour, no predator on
the African savannah can outrun an adult male patas except in ambush.
...
The male patas monkey performs a role of vigilance and decoy.
When a troop approaches a dangerous area, such as a water source
(ambush predators find water sources convenient places to hunt), the
male approaches first and is not joined by the group until he finds it
safe and proceeds to drink. If a predator is encountered in a context
dangerous to the troop, the male may run near the predator in a
conspicuous display. If the predator gives chase, the male runs just
fast enough to maintain a safety margin against a sudden dash by the
hunter as pursuit lures the danger away from the troop. [..] Patas
monkeys forage throughout the grasslands eating seeds, shoots,
fruits, berries, gums, and beans from savannah grasses shrubs and
trees. The troop disperses widely in relaxed circumstances so that
adjacent individuals are sometimes out of sight of each other.
Troops are territorial and their home ranges often exceed 5,000 ha.
Patas day ranges are second in size only to humans among primates.
....'
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/eight.html

'This suggests that information on the number and types of predatory
species at primate study sites may be useful for interpreting key
differences between primate communities such as body size ranges,
population densities, and even locomotor adaptations
....
Ecospace or ecological space refers to the area held by primates in
multivariate analyses of ecological adaptations, e.g., diet, substrate
use, or locomotor pattern (Fleagle and Reed,1996).
....
http://:www.public.asu.edu/~kreed/Reed_Bidner_2004.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/oc8yz (HTML)

'the size of an animal's territory (and its population density)
depends on the distribution of its preferred foods

Folivores (leaf eaters)
leaves are widely distributed
many kinds of trees produce edible leaves
available most of the year
so folivores can get enough food in a fairly small home range

Frugivores (fruit eaters)
fruits are concentrated in certain trees
many trees do not produce edible fruits
any given tree produces fruit only for a brief period each year
so frugivores typically need a larger home range in which to
find enough food throughout the year

http://bruceowen.com/introbiological/20104s15.htm

> >> > You can't negate any part of it;
> >> > therefore, like you, your colleague resorts to attacking the person.
> >>
> >> Nature, meaning natural selection, equipped man ideally for hunting of
> >> game,

> >
> > Why are you so bad at it, then.

>
> Lack of practice, what's your point? Whenever man settled and began tilling
> the soil hunting became less important for survival.


The Hadza are 'hunter'/foragers. They have had plenty of practice.

> [..]
>
> >> he gave him supreme intelligence to outwit his prey and the ability to
> >> invent and use weapons and tools. The successful homo sapiens was a long
> >> distance runner, able to outlast any large animal. While an animal such
> >> as a
> >> lion was adapting by selection to have larger teeth, strong shoulders and
> >> jaws, to be fleet of foot to overtake prey in short wind-sprints, man was
> >> developing his own strengths.

> >
> > Being able to run (away) and make tools,

>
> Away is not the only way one can run.


Good luck, doc'.

> > doesn't make us a natural predator,
> > just as flying in airplanes doesn't make us birds, and scuba-diving
> > doesn't make us fish.

>
> Your claim was that lack of sharp teeth and claws means that man is not a
> predator, that is a fallacious statement, animals evolve the necessary
> characteristics to succeed in their environments.


Behavioural adaptations. To survive. This is degeneration:

'..many fossils of early man show the sutures of the skull to
have virtually completely closed, a circumstance indicating
extreme age. [Dawson, Sir William, Meeting Place of
Geology and History, Revell, New York, 1904, p.63.]
...
Ales Hrdlicka made a special study of this question and
commented in connection with the earlier remains as follows: (70)

There is no trace in the adults of any destructive constitutional
disease. There are marks of fractures, some traces of arthritis of
the vertebrae, and in two cases (La Chapelle and the Rhodesian
Skull) much less of teeth and dental caries. The teeth in the
remaining specimens are often more or less worn, but as a rule
free from disease, and there is, aside from the above mentioned
two specimens, but little disease of the alveolar processes.

It appears, therefore, that on the whole, early man was remarkably
free from disease that would leave any evidence on his bones and
teeth.

Then he turned to later human remains and observed, "Such
diseases as syphilis, rachitis, tuberculosis, cancer (of the bone
at least), hydrocephalus, etc., were unknown or rare in these. . . ."
Subsequently he showed the gradual increase of other diseases
of bone and teeth, and speaking of the much later remains of
early man he concluded:

"As we proceed towards men of today, particularly in the white
race pathological conditions of the bone become more common."

In a similar vein George A. Dorsey pointed to the evidence of
degeneration in the human body as it now is: (71)

"There are more than mere structural variations in our food canal:
there are signs of degeneracy -- in teeth, in jaws and throat, and in
the large intestine. Changed diet does it. To digest raw food our
ancestors had to chew it. They had strong jaws, heavy muscles,
sound teeth properly aligned, big throats, and colons that could
digest husks of grain and skins of fruits and vegetables. "
...... '
http://custance.org/Library/Volume3/.../Appendix.html

You call this "success"?.....

'Deaths per year (US) 6
-------------------------------------------------------
heart disease 709,894
cancer 551,833
stroke 166,028
diabetes 68,662
Chronic Liver Disease/Cirrhosis 26,219
high blood pressure 17,964
------------------------------------------------------
...
Number of Americans Living with Diet- and
Inactivity-Related Diseases
-------------------------------------------------------
Seriously Overweight/Obese9 113,360,000
High Blood Pressure9 50,000,000
Diabetes10 15,700,000
Coronary Heart Disease9 12,600,000
Osteoporosis7 10,000,000
Cancer11 8,900,000
Stroke9 4,600,000]
-------------------------------------------------------
...'
http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpoli...on_policy.html

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a
range of dietary plant food composition that suggested
an absence of a disease prevention threshold. That is,
the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

> Your argument leaves the
> impression that you are a creationist, believing that animals were simply
> plunked down on the earth by a Supreme Being and given specific roles.
>
> > The 'supreme intelligence' (rotfl) is from outwitting predators.

>
> And prey.


You couldn't outwit a wabbit.

> >> The most adaptable, intelligent and cunning
> >> survived. Developing large teeth and claws would never have evolved in
> >> man
> >> because it was not one of the requirements of the successful homo
> >> sapiens.

> >
> > I expect that you agree with this:
> >
> > "The beast of prey is the highest form of active life, ... It represents a mode
> > of living which requires the extreme degree of the necessity of fighting,
> > conquering, annihilating, self-assertion. The human race ranks highly because
> > it belongs to the class of beasts of prey. Therefore we find in man the tactics
> > of life proper to a bold, cunning beast of prey. He lives engaged in aggression,
> > killing, annihilation. He wants to be master in as much as he exists."
> > - Nazi philosopher Oswald Spengler in 1931

>
> Trying to massage a little Godwinism into the discussion?


Do you agree with it? You do, don't you.

> Spengler voted for
> the National Socialist party in the early years as many Germans did (it was
> dangerous to do otherwise) but was not "a Nazi". He died in 1936, three
> years before the second world war.
>
> "Spengler's pessimism about Germany and Europe's future, his refusal to
> support Nazi ideas of racial superiority, and his work the Hour of Decision,
> which is critical of the Nazis, won him ostracism after 1933."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler


'The soul of Western Civilization is dead. The age of soulless expansionism
and Caesarism is upon us. It is better for Western man, therefore, to be
engineer rather than poet, soldier rather than artist, politician rather than
philosopher. Spengler was more concerned with the present and future
rather than with the origins of civilization. His verdict greatly encouraged the
Nazis although Spengler never became one himself.

The following selection comes from Spengler's Years of Decision (1933),
in which he develops his own brand of fascist racism and illuminates the
significance of the Nazi seizure of power.
* * * * *
The Celtic-German "race" has the strongest will-power the world has ever
seen. But this "I will", "I will!" ...
...
Destiny, once confined within imposing institutions and weighty traditions,
will make history through amorphous and unique expressions of force.
The legions of Caesar are reawakening.

Here, perhaps even in this century, the final decisions are waiting for the
man to take them. In front of him the petty goals and concepts of today's
politics count as nothing. Whoever holds the sword which wrests victory
now will be lord of the world. There lies the dice of this monstrous game.
Who dares to cast them?

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/spengler.html

Do you agree with those er sentiments too, 'dutch'?





  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> > ...

> <..>
>> Requesting that a poster snip some of 42kb of included text is hardly
>> being
>> a control freak.

>
> Leaving the context intact was warranted.


How so? He did not respond to 98% of it. In fact when he did respond all he
did was cry "Ad hominem, Ad hominem!"

>> >> >> >>> But I will
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
>> >> >> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".
>> >> >
>> >> > The quote:
>> >> >
>> >> > In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
>> >> > "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
>> >> > provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
>> >> > devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
>> >> > destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
>> >> > or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
>> >> > along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
>> >> > to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
>> >> > him for hunting."
>> >> >
>> >> > What part of that can you refute?
>> >>
>> >> All of it.
>> >
>> > All you've said is that man can outrun large animals (haw) and use
>> > tools.

>>
>> Being able to successfully run down prey (yes, a man can outrun a horse)

>
> No, a man cannot successfully outrun a horse.


Yes he can..

LOS ANGELES TIMES "When it comes to long-distance running, however, a
healthy human jogger can outrun most animals, sustaining a pace of 24km a
day or more for extended periods of time."

>
> 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are sometimes
> faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the desert.
> ..
> The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45 minutes.
>
> ***** Advantage
>
> He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must make
> two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
> ...'
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
>
> Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!


Not if he is surrounded.

>> then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical capability
>> required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears the most
>> accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop
>> lion-like
>> claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such mutations would
>> probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.

>
> So let me get this straight... you are claiming that humans developed
> the ability to outrun large animals in distance but not speed and not
> the faintest indication of claws and fangs to sieze and then eat them,
> nor any other biological adaptation pertaining to carnivorous habits.


Endurance is a biological adaptation. Lions developed through natural
selection, so did man.

> Lets look at another example:


Let's not, since you are an stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic
facts.


  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> >> > ...

> > <..>
> >> Requesting that a poster snip some of 42kb of included text is hardly
> >> being
> >> a control freak.

> >
> > Leaving the context intact was warranted.

>
> How so? He did not respond to 98% of it. In fact when he did respond all he
> did was cry "Ad hominem, Ad hominem!"


To show the extent of the evasion and lies, and Paul said more than just that.

> >> >> >> >>> But I will
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
> >> >> >> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The quote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
> >> >> > "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
> >> >> > provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
> >> >> > devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
> >> >> > destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
> >> >> > or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
> >> >> > along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
> >> >> > to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
> >> >> > him for hunting."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What part of that can you refute?
> >> >>
> >> >> All of it.
> >> >
> >> > All you've said is that man can outrun large animals (haw) and use
> >> > tools.
> >>
> >> Being able to successfully run down prey (yes, a man can outrun a horse)

> >
> > No, a man cannot successfully outrun a horse.

>
> Yes he can..
>
> LOS ANGELES TIMES "When it comes to long-distance running, however, a
> healthy human jogger can outrun most animals, sustaining a pace of 24km a
> day or more for extended periods of time."


In the race described below, the horse runs 27km in one hour and 28 minutes.

Left eating dust. Endurance hunting is acknowledged as unusual and rare.

The way I've seen it done (on a t.v docu') is tracking on the run in desert a
medium-size animal (a Kudu - type of antelope) in the hot mid-day sun, not
allowing the animal time to rest and recover. Try that on predator-inhabited
grassland, through abundant growth, and it'll be you who attracts attention..

> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are sometimes
> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the desert.
> > ..
> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45 minutes.
> >
> > ***** Advantage
> >
> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must make
> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
> > ...'
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
> >
> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!

>
> Not if he is surrounded.


You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably surrounded.

> >> then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical capability
> >> required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears the most
> >> accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop
> >> lion-like
> >> claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such mutations would
> >> probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.

> >
> > So let me get this straight... you are claiming that humans developed
> > the ability to outrun large animals in distance but not speed and not
> > the faintest indication of claws and fangs to sieze and then eat them,
> > nor any other biological adaptation pertaining to carnivorous habits.

>
> Endurance is a biological adaptation. Lions developed through natural
> selection, so did man.


See what you've snipped.

> > Lets look at another example:

>
> Let's not, since you are an stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic
> facts.


Since you are the stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic facts.







  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> > <..>
>> >> Requesting that a poster snip some of 42kb of included text is hardly
>> >> being
>> >> a control freak.
>> >
>> > Leaving the context intact was warranted.

>>
>> How so? He did not respond to 98% of it. In fact when he did respond all
>> he
>> did was cry "Ad hominem, Ad hominem!"

>
> To show the extent of the evasion and lies, and Paul said more than just
> that.
>
>> >> >> >> >>> But I will
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
>> >> >> >> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The quote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
>> >> >> > "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
>> >> >> > provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
>> >> >> > devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
>> >> >> > destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a
>> >> >> > horse
>> >> >> > or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
>> >> >> > along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
>> >> >> > to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not
>> >> >> > equipped
>> >> >> > him for hunting."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What part of that can you refute?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> All of it.
>> >> >
>> >> > All you've said is that man can outrun large animals (haw) and use
>> >> > tools.
>> >>
>> >> Being able to successfully run down prey (yes, a man can outrun a
>> >> horse)
>> >
>> > No, a man cannot successfully outrun a horse.

>>
>> Yes he can..
>>
>> LOS ANGELES TIMES "When it comes to long-distance running, however, a
>> healthy human jogger can outrun most animals, sustaining a pace of 24km a
>> day or more for extended periods of time."

>
> In the race described below, the horse runs 27km in one hour and 28
> minutes.
>
> Left eating dust. Endurance hunting is acknowledged as unusual and rare.
>
> The way I've seen it done (on a t.v docu') is tracking on the run in
> desert a
> medium-size animal (a Kudu - type of antelope) in the hot mid-day sun, not
> allowing the animal time to rest and recover. Try that on
> predator-inhabited
> grassland, through abundant growth, and it'll be you who attracts
> attention..


So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid warrior-hunters.

>> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are
>> > sometimes
>> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the desert.
>> > ..
>> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45 minutes.
>> >
>> > ***** Advantage
>> >
>> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must make
>> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
>> > ...'
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
>> >
>> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!

>>
>> Not if he is surrounded.

>
> You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably surrounded.


See above. Man in his element fears no animal.

>> >> then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical capability
>> >> required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears the
>> >> most
>> >> accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop
>> >> lion-like
>> >> claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such mutations
>> >> would
>> >> probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.
>> >
>> > So let me get this straight... you are claiming that humans developed
>> > the ability to outrun large animals in distance but not speed and not
>> > the faintest indication of claws and fangs to sieze and then eat them,
>> > nor any other biological adaptation pertaining to carnivorous habits.

>>
>> Endurance is a biological adaptation. Lions developed through natural
>> selection, so did man.

>
> See what you've snipped.


It doesn't matter. There is only one kind of natural selection. Man using
his adaptations is no different than a lion using his.

>> > Lets look at another example:

>>
>> Let's not, since you are an stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic
>> facts.

>
> Since you are the stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic facts.


That's not true. Unlike you I am not unwilling to accept facts that don't
fit an agenda. You have this "animal rights" idea that precludes you from
accepting any facts that don't favour that conclusion, and causes you to
pollute this group with reams of selectively gathered data to support your
bias.


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> > <..>
> >> >> Requesting that a poster snip some of 42kb of included text is hardly
> >> >> being
> >> >> a control freak.
> >> >
> >> > Leaving the context intact was warranted.
> >>
> >> How so? He did not respond to 98% of it. In fact when he did respond all
> >> he
> >> did was cry "Ad hominem, Ad hominem!"

> >
> > To show the extent of the evasion and lies, and Paul said more than just
> > that.
> >
> >> >> >> >> >>> But I will
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
> >> >> >> >> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The quote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
> >> >> >> > "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
> >> >> >> > provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
> >> >> >> > devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
> >> >> >> > destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
> >> >> >> > or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
> >> >> >> > along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
> >> >> >> > to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not
> >> >> >> > equipped
> >> >> >> > him for hunting."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What part of that can you refute?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> All of it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > All you've said is that man can outrun large animals (haw) and use
> >> >> > tools.
> >> >>
> >> >> Being able to successfully run down prey (yes, a man can outrun a
> >> >> horse)
> >> >
> >> > No, a man cannot successfully outrun a horse.
> >>
> >> Yes he can..
> >>
> >> LOS ANGELES TIMES "When it comes to long-distance running, however, a
> >> healthy human jogger can outrun most animals, sustaining a pace of 24km a
> >> day or more for extended periods of time."

> >
> > In the race described below, the horse runs 27km in one hour and 28
> > minutes.
> >
> > Left eating dust. Endurance hunting is acknowledged as unusual and rare.
> >
> > The way I've seen it done (on a t.v docu') is tracking on the run in
> > desert a
> > medium-size animal (a Kudu - type of antelope) in the hot mid-day sun, not
> > allowing the animal time to rest and recover. Try that on
> > predator-inhabited
> > grassland, through abundant growth, and it'll be you who attracts
> > attention..

>
> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid warrior-hunters.


Yeah... you're soooo intimidating... moreso than large animals with
teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those sticks
you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.

You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.

Run!

> >> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are
> >> > sometimes
> >> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the desert.
> >> > ..
> >> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45 minutes.
> >> >
> >> > ***** Advantage
> >> >
> >> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must make
> >> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
> >> > ...'
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
> >> >
> >> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!
> >>
> >> Not if he is surrounded.

> >
> > You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably surrounded.

>
> See above. Man in his element fears no animal.


Where do you get this crap from?

> >> >> then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical capability
> >> >> required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears the
> >> >> most
> >> >> accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop
> >> >> lion-like
> >> >> claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such mutations
> >> >> would
> >> >> probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.
> >> >
> >> > So let me get this straight... you are claiming that humans developed
> >> > the ability to outrun large animals in distance but not speed and not
> >> > the faintest indication of claws and fangs to sieze and then eat them,
> >> > nor any other biological adaptation pertaining to carnivorous habits.
> >>
> >> Endurance is a biological adaptation. Lions developed through natural
> >> selection, so did man.

> >
> > See what you've snipped.

>
> It doesn't matter. There is only one kind of natural selection. Man using
> his adaptations is no different than a lion using his.


Man does or rather, did use his adaptations, but not as you claim.

> >> > Lets look at another example:
> >>
> >> Let's not, since you are an stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic
> >> facts.

> >
> > Since you are the stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic facts.

>
> That's not true.


Yes. it is. <start ad hominem spiel-->>

> Unlike you I am not unwilling to accept facts that don't
> fit an agenda. You have this "animal rights" idea that precludes you from
> accepting any facts that don't favour that conclusion, and causes you to
> pollute this group with reams of selectively gathered data to support your
> bias.


<<-- end ad hominem spiel

Yep... and I didn't even bother to read it first... You're a disgrace, ditch.

Address / refute / ...... you can't do it. And as usual you are projecting.

Unlike me, you are unwilling to accept facts that don't fit your agenda.
You have this anti animal rights idea that precludes you from accepting
any facts that don't favour that conclusion, and causes you to pollute
this group with reams of baseless personal attacks to support your bias.

QED.





  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote


[..]

>> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid warrior-hunters.

>
> Yeah... you're soooo intimidating...


Not me, a band of hominid hunters. You're damn right they were intimidating.

> moreso than large animals with
> teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those sticks
> you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.
>
> You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.
>
> Run!


You're the one living in the fantasy world miss little green men. Hominid
hunter bands would NEVER be attacked by any other animal, except other
hominids. Your perception that they were like sheep, weak and vulnerable is
absurd, if they had been we would not be here today. Wild animals attack
vunerable individuals.

>> >> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are
>> >> > sometimes
>> >> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the desert.
>> >> > ..
>> >> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45
>> >> > minutes.
>> >> >
>> >> > ***** Advantage
>> >> >
>> >> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must make
>> >> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
>> >> > ...'
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
>> >> >
>> >> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!
>> >>
>> >> Not if he is surrounded.
>> >
>> > You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably
>> > surrounded.

>>
>> See above. Man in his element fears no animal.

>
> Where do you get this crap from?


That's the million dollar question you need to answer.

>> >> >> then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical
>> >> >> capability
>> >> >> required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears the
>> >> >> most
>> >> >> accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop
>> >> >> lion-like
>> >> >> claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such mutations
>> >> >> would
>> >> >> probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.
>> >> >
>> >> > So let me get this straight... you are claiming that humans
>> >> > developed
>> >> > the ability to outrun large animals in distance but not speed and
>> >> > not
>> >> > the faintest indication of claws and fangs to sieze and then eat
>> >> > them,
>> >> > nor any other biological adaptation pertaining to carnivorous
>> >> > habits.
>> >>
>> >> Endurance is a biological adaptation. Lions developed through natural
>> >> selection, so did man.
>> >
>> > See what you've snipped.

>>
>> It doesn't matter. There is only one kind of natural selection. Man using
>> his adaptations is no different than a lion using his.

>
> Man does or rather, did use his adaptations, but not as you claim.


Man developing the ability to hunt with spears is no different than a lion
developing large teeth and claws. It's the same process of natural
selection, one is not more "natural" than the other. That whole line of
argument is bullshit.

>> >> > Lets look at another example:
>> >>
>> >> Let's not, since you are an stubborn ass who won't accept the most
>> >> basic
>> >> facts.
>> >
>> > Since you are the stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic facts.

>>
>> That's not true.

>
> Yes. it is.
>
>> Unlike you I am not unwilling to accept facts that don't
>> fit an agenda. You have this "animal rights" idea that precludes you from
>> accepting any facts that don't favour that conclusion, and causes you to
>> pollute this group with reams of selectively gathered data to support
>> your
>> bias.


> Yep... and I didn't even bother to read it first...


I have read enough of your crap. It's always the same nonsense.


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote

>
> [..]


> >> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid warrior-hunters.

> >
> > Yeah... you're soooo intimidating...

>
> Not me, a band of hominid hunters. You're damn right they were intimidating.


lol. Early |bipedal| hominids stood between 3 to 5 feet tall. Terrifying!

> > moreso than large animals with
> > teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those sticks
> > you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.
> >
> > You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.
> >
> > Run!

>
> You're the one living in the fantasy world miss little green men.


You can't even get your oh-so-tired ad hominem factually correct.

> Hominid
> hunter bands would NEVER be attacked by any other animal, except other
> hominids. Your perception that they were like sheep, weak and vulnerable is
> absurd, if they had been we would not be here today. Wild animals attack
> vunerable individuals.


Like an animal being run to exhaustion? You've got company.....

'The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."

Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.

Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.

"One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
being preyed upon."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

> >> >> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are
> >> >> > sometimes
> >> >> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the desert.
> >> >> > ..
> >> >> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45
> >> >> > minutes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ***** Advantage
> >> >> >
> >> >> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must make
> >> >> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
> >> >> > ...'
> >> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!
> >> >>
> >> >> Not if he is surrounded.
> >> >
> >> > You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably
> >> > surrounded.
> >>
> >> See above. Man in his element fears no animal.

> >
> > Where do you get this crap from?

>
> That's the million dollar question you need to answer.


I need to guess what your sources are. Interesting.

> >> >> >> then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical
> >> >> >> capability
> >> >> >> required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears the
> >> >> >> most
> >> >> >> accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop
> >> >> >> lion-like
> >> >> >> claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such mutations
> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >> probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So let me get this straight... you are claiming that humans
> >> >> > developed
> >> >> > the ability to outrun large animals in distance but not speed and
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > the faintest indication of claws and fangs to sieze and then eat
> >> >> > them,
> >> >> > nor any other biological adaptation pertaining to carnivorous
> >> >> > habits.
> >> >>
> >> >> Endurance is a biological adaptation. Lions developed through natural
> >> >> selection, so did man.
> >> >
> >> > See what you've snipped.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter. There is only one kind of natural selection. Man using
> >> his adaptations is no different than a lion using his.

> >
> > Man does or rather, did use his adaptations, but not as you claim.

>
> Man developing the ability to hunt with spears is no different than a lion
> developing large teeth and claws. It's the same process of natural
> selection, one is not more "natural" than the other. That whole line of
> argument is bullshit.


Your whole line of argument is demonstrably bullshit. And QED.

> >> >> > Lets look at another example:
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's not, since you are an stubborn ass who won't accept the most
> >> >> basic
> >> >> facts.
> >> >
> >> > Since you are the stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic facts.
> >>
> >> That's not true.

> >
> > Yes. it is. <start ad hominem spiel-->>
> >
> >> Unlike you I am not unwilling to accept facts that don't
> >> fit an agenda. You have this "animal rights" idea that precludes you from
> >> accepting any facts that don't favour that conclusion, and causes you to
> >> pollute this group with reams of selectively gathered data to support
> >> your
> >> bias. <<-- end ad hominem spiel

>
> > Yep... and I didn't even bother to read it first...

>
> I have read enough of your crap. It's always the same nonsense.


Keep on running, ditch.




  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"pearl" > wrote in message ...

> Early |bipedal| hominids stood between 3 to 5 feet tall.


'Until 1994, A. afarensis was the earliest Hominid species yet discovered.
At that time, remains of another species, tentatively called Australopithicus
anamensis, was discovered in the Lake Turkana region of east Africa and
appears contemporary with afarensis, dating to approximately 4.2 million
years ago. A. anamensis is also an erect, bi-pedal species, and its discovery
pushes direct evidence of our distinctive Hominid form of locomotion back
to over 4 million years ago. The first studies of this species are still in progress
and more information will be forthcoming. There is evidence that, contrary to
previous assumptions, these early Hominids had developed bi-pedalism prior
to the disappearance of woodlands and forests in eastern Africa--that is, our
Hominid ancestors were by chance "pre-adapted" to the conditions of drier,
more open country that came to prevail in eastern Africa later on.
http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modul...arensis-a.html
(Take a look at the images on that page, dutch.. these guys could run.)

'the size of an animal's territory (and its population density)
depends on the distribution of its preferred foods

Folivores (leaf eaters)
leaves are widely distributed
many kinds of trees produce edible leaves
available most of the year
so folivores can get enough food in a fairly small home range

Frugivores (fruit eaters)
fruits are concentrated in certain trees
many trees do not produce edible fruits
any given tree produces fruit only for a brief period each year
so frugivores typically need a larger home range in which to
find enough food throughout the year

http://bruceowen.com/introbiological/20104s15.htm

'Ecospace or ecological space refers to the area held by primates
in multivariate analyses of ecological adaptations, e.g., diet,
substrate use, or locomotor pattern (Fleagle and Reed,1996).
....
http://:www.public.asu.edu/~kreed/Reed_Bidner_2004.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/oc8yz (html)

'The patas monkey (Cercopithecus patas) is the most terrestrial of
guenons, and is one of the most terrestrial primates. It inhabits open
grasslands and marginal areas of savannah woodlands, avoiding
predation primarily by camouflage, stealth, and vigilance. Its reddish
pelage blends into the predominantly red African soils. Adult males
perform decoy and defensive behaviors. Male patas monkeys,
capable of sustaining running speeds of 50 km per hour, are unique
among nonhuman primates. Even though some mammalian predators
can manage short dashes of more than 100 km per hour, no predator on
the African savannah can outrun an adult male patas except in ambush.
...
The male patas monkey performs a role of vigilance and decoy.
When a troop approaches a dangerous area, such as a water source
(ambush predators find water sources convenient places to hunt), the
male approaches first and is not joined by the group until he finds it
safe and proceeds to drink. If a predator is encountered in a context
dangerous to the troop, the male may run near the predator in a
conspicuous display. If the predator gives chase, the male runs just
fast enough to maintain a safety margin against a sudden dash by the
hunter as pursuit lures the danger away from the troop. [..] Patas
monkeys forage throughout the grasslands eating seeds, shoots,
fruits, berries, gums, and beans from savannah grasses shrubs and
trees. The troop disperses widely in relaxed circumstances so that
adjacent individuals are sometimes out of sight of each other.
Troops are territorial and their home ranges often exceed 5,000 ha.
Patas day ranges are second in size only to humans among primates.
....'
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/eight.html

'This suggests that information on the number and types of predatory
species at primate study sites may be useful for interpreting key
differences between primate communities such as body size ranges,
population densities, and even locomotor adaptations
....
Ecospace or ecological space refers to the area held by primates
in multivariate analyses of ecological adaptations, e.g., diet,
substrate use, or locomotor pattern (Fleagle and Reed,1996).
....
http://:www.public.asu.edu/~kreed/Reed_Bidner_2004.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/oc8yz (html)





  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote

>>
>> [..]

>
>> >> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid
>> >> warrior-hunters.
>> >
>> > Yeah... you're soooo intimidating...

>>
>> Not me, a band of hominid hunters. You're damn right they were
>> intimidating.

>
> lol. Early |bipedal| hominids stood between 3 to 5 feet tall.
> Terrifying!
>
>> > moreso than large animals with
>> > teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those sticks
>> > you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.
>> >
>> > You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.
>> >
>> > Run!

>>
>> You're the one living in the fantasy world miss little green men.

>
> You can't even get your oh-so-tired ad hominem factually correct.


"Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your ridiculous
beliefs.

>> Hominid
>> hunter bands would NEVER be attacked by any other animal, except other
>> hominids. Your perception that they were like sheep, weak and vulnerable
>> is
>> absurd, if they had been we would not be here today. Wild animals attack
>> vunerable individuals.

>
> Like an animal being run to exhaustion? You've got company.....


Huh?

> 'The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
> afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
> There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
> and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
> Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
> and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
> social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
> them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."


Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous, no
predator does. Of course hominids were prey, that does not mean they were
not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also apparently quite
small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the capabilities of
later hominids.

I love the supreme arrogance of Sussman in this paragraph,
"The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human
evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology
of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when
you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is
just not the case.""

In one broad stroke he accuses the rest of the scientific community of
basing their findings on religion and speculation, and suggests a novel
approach, "really examine the fossil.. evidence". What a colossal ego the
man must possess! *I* am the first archeologist to properly examine fossil
evidence!

> Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
> preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
> on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
> into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
> rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
> today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.
>
> Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
> human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
> developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
> ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
> trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.
>
> "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
> physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
> all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
> permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
> pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
> In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
> and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
> by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
> is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
> being preyed upon."
>
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011


As you always do, you dig up a tiny minority opnion that fits your bias and
present it as indisputable fact.

>> >> >> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are
>> >> >> > sometimes
>> >> >> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the
>> >> >> > desert.
>> >> >> > ..
>> >> >> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45
>> >> >> > minutes.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ***** Advantage
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must make
>> >> >> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
>> >> >> > ...'
>> >> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not if he is surrounded.
>> >> >
>> >> > You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably
>> >> > surrounded.
>> >>
>> >> See above. Man in his element fears no animal.
>> >
>> > Where do you get this crap from?

>>
>> That's the million dollar question you need to answer.

>
> I need to guess what your sources are. Interesting.


Everything below is thoroughly referenced

Paleontological evidence shows
humans have always been omnivores


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of "evidence" are we talking about here?

At its most basic, an accumulation of archaeological excavations by
paleontologists, ranging all the way from the recent past of 10,000-20,000
years ago back to approximately 2 million years ago, where ancient "hominid"
(meaning human and/or proto-human) skeletal remains are found in conjunction
with stone tools and animal bones that have cut marks on them. These cut
marks indicate the flesh was scraped away from the bone with human-made
tools, and could not have been made in any other way. You also find
distinctively smashed bones occurring in conjunction with hammerstones that
clearly show they were used to get at the marrow for its fatty material.[3]
Prior to the evidence from these earliest stone tools, going back even
further (2-3 million years) is chemical evidence showing from
strontium/calcium ratios in fossilized bone that some of the diet from
earlier hominids was also coming from animal flesh.[4] (Strontium/calcium
ratios in bone indicate relative amounts of plant vs. animal foods in the
diet.[5]) Scanning electron microscope studies of the microwear of fossil
teeth from various periods well back into human prehistory show wear
patterns indicating the use of flesh in the diet too.[6]

The consistency of these findings across vast eons of time show that these
were not isolated incidents but characteristic behavior of hominids in many
times and many places.

Evidence well-known in scientific community; controversial only for
vegetarians. The evidence--if it is even known to them--is controversial
only to Hygienists and other vegetarian groups, few to none of whom, so far
as I can discern, seem to have acquainted themselves sufficiently with the
evolutionary picture other than to make a few armchair remarks. To anyone
who really looks at the published evidence in the scientific books and
peer-reviewed journals and has a basic understanding of the mechanisms for
how evolution works, there is really not a whole lot to be controversial
about with regard to the very strong evidence indicating flesh has been a
part of the human diet for vast eons of evolutionary time. The real
controversy in paleontology right now is whether the earliest forms of
hominids were truly "hunters," or more opportunistic "scavengers" making off
with pieces of kills brought down by other predators, not whether we ate
flesh food itself as a portion of our diet or not.[7]

Timeline of dietary shifts
in the human line of evolution


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you give us a timeline of dietary developments in the human line of
evolution to show readers the overall picture from a bird's-eye view, so we
can set a context for further discussion here?

Sure. We need to start at the beginning of the primate line long before apes
and humans ever evolved, though, to make sure we cover all the bases,
including the objections often made by vegetarians (and fruitarians for that
matter) that those looking into prehistory simply haven't looked far enough
back to find our "original" diet. Keep in mind some of these dates are
approximate and subject to refinement as further scientific progress is
made.
65,000,000 to 50,000,000 B.C.: The first primates, resembling today's mouse
lemurs, bush-babies, and tarsiers, weighing in at 2 lbs. or less, and eating
a largely insectivorous diet.[8]

50,000,000 to 30,000,000 B.C.: A gradual shift in diet for these primates to
mostly frugivorous in the middle of this period to mostly herbivorous
towards the end of it, but with considerable variance between specific
primate species as to lesser items in the diet, such as insects, meat, and
other plant foods.[9]

30,000,000 to 10,000,000 B.C.: Fairly stable persistence of above dietary
pattern.[10]

Approx. 10,000,000 to 7,000,000 B.C.: Last common primate ancestor of both
humans and the modern ape family.[11]

Approx. 7,000,000 to 5,000,000 B.C.: After the end of the previous period, a
fork occurs branching into separate primate lines, including humans.[12] The
most recent DNA evidence shows that humans are closely related to both
gorillas and chimpanzees, but most closely to the chimp.[13] Most
paleoanthropologists believe that after the split, flesh foods began to
assume a greater role in the human side of the primate family at this
time.[14]

Approx. 4,500,000 B.C.: First known hominid (proto-human) from fossil
remains, known as Ardipithecus ramidus--literally translating as "root ape"
for its position as the very first known hominid, which may not yet have
been fully bipedal (walking upright on two legs). Anatomy and dentition
(teeth) are very suggestive of a form similar to that of modern
chimpanzees.[15]

Approx. 3,700,000 B.C.: First fully upright bipedal hominid,
Australopithecus afarensis (meaning "southern ape," for the initial
discovery in southern Africa), about 4 feet tall, first known popularly from
the famous "Lucy" skeleton.[16]

3,000,000 to 2,000,000 B.C.: Australopithecus line diverges into
sub-lines,[17] one of which will eventually give rise to Homo sapiens
(modern man). It appears that the environmental impetus for this "adaptive
radiation" into different species was a changing global climate between 2.5
and 2 million years ago driven by glaciation in the polar regions.[18] The
climatic repercussions in Africa resulted in a breakup of the formerly
extensively forested habitat into a "mosaic" of forest interspersed with
savanna (grassland). This put stress on many species to adapt to differing
conditions and availability of foodstuffs.[19] The different
Australopithecus lineages, thus, ate somewhat differing diets, ranging from
more herbivorous (meaning high in plant matter) to more frugivorous (higher
in soft and/or hard fruits than in other plant parts).

There is still some debate as to which Australopithecus lineage modern
humans ultimately descended from, but recent evidence based on
strontium/calcium ratios in bone, plus teeth microwear studies, show that
whatever the lineage, some meat was eaten in addition to the plant foods and
fruits which were the staples.[20]

2,300,000 to 1,500,000 B.C.: Appearance of the first "true humans"
(signified by the genus Homo), known as Homo habilis ("handy man")--so named
because of the appearance of stone tools and cultures at this time. These
gatherer-hunters were between 4 and 5 feet in height, weighed between 40 to
100 pounds, and still retained tree-climbing adaptations (such as curved
finger bones)[21] while subsisting on wild plant foods and scavenging and/or
hunting meat. (The evidence for flesh consumption based on cut-marks on
animal bones, as well as use of hammerstones to smash them for the marrow
inside, dates to this period.[22]) It is thought that they lived in small
groups like modern hunter-gatherers but that the social structure would have
been more like that of chimpanzees.[23]

The main controversy about this time period by paleoanthropologists is not
whether Homo habilis consumed flesh (which is well established) but whether
the flesh they consumed was primarily obtained by scavenging kills made by
other predators or by hunting.[24] (The latter would indicate a more
developed culture, the former a more primitive one.) While meat was becoming
a more important part of the diet at this time, based on the fact that the
diet of modern hunter-gatherers--with their considerably advanced tool
set--has not been known to exceed 40% meat in tropical habitats* like
habilis evolved in, we can safely assume that the meat in habilis' diet
would have been substantially less than that.[25]

1,700,000 to 230,000 B.C.: Evolution of Homo habilis into the "erectines,"*
a range of human species often collectively referred to as Homo erectus,
after the most well-known variant. Similar in height to modern humans (5-6
feet) but stockier with a smaller brain, hunting activity increased over
habilis, so that meat in the diet assumed greater importance. Teeth
microwear studies of erectus specimens have indicated harsh wear patterns
typical of meat-eating animals like the hyena.[26] No text I have yet read
ventures any sort of percentage figure from this time period, but it is
commonly acknowledged that plants still made up the largest portion of the
subsistence.* More typically human social structures made their appearance
with the erectines as well.[27]

The erectines were the first human ancestor to control and use fire. It is
thought that perhaps because of this, but more importantly because of other
converging factors--such as increased hunting and technological
sophistication with tools--that about 900,000 years ago in response to
another peak of glacial activity and global cooling (which broke up the
tropical landscape further into an even patchier mosaic), the erectines were
forced to adapt to an increasingly varied savanna/forest environment by
being able to alternate opportunistically between vegetable and animal foods
to survive, and/or move around nomadically.[28]

For whatever reasons, it was also around this time (dated to approx. 700,000
years ago) that a significant increase in large land animals occurred in
Europe (elephants, hoofed animals, hippopotamuses, and predators of the
big-cat family) as these animals spread from their African home. It is
unlikely to have been an accident that the spread of the erectines to the
European and Asian continent during and after this timeframe coincides with
this increase in game as well, as they probably followed them.[29]

Because of the considerably harsher conditions and seasonal variation in
food supply, hunting became more important to bridge the seasonal gaps, as
well as the ability to store nonperishable items such as nuts, bulbs, and
tubers for the winter when the edible plants withered in the autumn. All of
these factors, along with clothing (and also perhaps fire), helped enable
colonization of the less hospitable environment. There were also physical
changes in response to the colder and darker areas that were inhabited, such
as the development of lighter skin color that allowed the sun to penetrate
the skin and produce vitamin D, as well as the adaptation of the fat layer
and sweat glands to the new climate.*[30]

Erectus finds from northern China 400,000 years ago have indicated an
omnivorous diet of meats, wild fruit and berries (including hackberries),
plus shoots and tubers, and various other animal foods such as birds and
their eggs, insects, reptiles, rats, and large mammals.[31]

500,000 to 200,000 B.C.: Archaic Homo sapiens (our immediate predecessor)
appears. These human species, of which there were a number of variants, did
not last as long in evolutionary time as previous ones, apparently due
simply to the increasingly rapid rate of evolution occurring in the human
line at this time. Thus they represent a transitional time after the
erectines leading up to modern man, and the later forms are sometimes not
treated separately from the earliest modern forms of true Homo sapiens.[32]

150,000 to 120,000 B.C.: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis--or the
Neanderthals--begin appearing in Europe, reaching a height between 90,000
and 35,000 years ago before becoming extinct. It is now well accepted that
the Neanderthals were an evolutionary offshoot that met an eventual dead-end
(in other words, they were not our ancestors), and that more than likely,
both modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were sister species descended from
a prior common archaic sapiens ancestor.[33]

140,000 to 110,000 B.C.: First appearance of anatomically modern humans
(Homo sapiens).[34] The last Ice Age also dates from this period--stretching
from 115,000 to 10,000 years ago. Thus it was in this context, which
included harsh and rapid climatic changes, that our most recent ancestors
had to flexibly adapt their eating and subsistence.[35] (Climatic shifts
necessitating adaptations were also experienced in tropical regions, though
to a lesser degree.[36]) It may therefore be significant that fire, though
discovered earlier, came into widespread use around this same time[37]
corresponding with the advent of modern human beings. Its use may in fact be
a defining characteristic of modern humans[38] and their mode of
subsistence. (I'll discuss the timescale of fire and cooking at more length
later.)

130,000 to 120,000 B.C.: Some of the earliest evidence for seafoods
(molluscs, primarily) in the diet by coastal dwellers appears at this
time,[39] although in one isolated location discovered so far, there is
evidence going back 300,000 years ago.[40] Common use of seafoods by coastal
aborigines becomes evident about 35,000 years ago,[41] but widespread global
use in the fossil record is not seen until around 20,000 years ago and
since.[42] For the most part, seafoods should probably not be considered a
major departure,* however, as the composition of fish, shellfish, and
poultry more closely resembles the wild land-game animals many of these same
ancestors ate than any other source today except for commercial game farms
that attempt to mimic ancient meat.[43]

40,000 to 35,000 B.C.: The first "behaviorally modern" human beings--as seen
in the sudden explosion of new forms of stone and bone tools, cave paintings
and other artwork, plus elaborate burials and many other quintessentially
modern human behaviors. The impetus or origin for this watershed event is
still a mystery.[44]

40,000 B.C. to 10-8,000 B.C.: Last period prior to the advent of agriculture
in which human beings universally subsisted by hunting and gathering (also
known as the "Late Paleolithic"--or "Stone Age"--period). Paleolithic
peoples did process some of their foods, but these were simple methods that
would have been confined to pounding, grinding, scraping, roasting, and
baking.[45]

35,000 B.C. to 15-10,000 B.C.: The Cro-Magnons (fully modern pre-Europeans)
thrive in the cold climate of Europe via big-game hunting, with meat
consumption rising to as much as 50%* of the diet.[46]

25,000 to 15,000 B.C.: Coldest period of the last Ice Age, during which
global temperatures averaged 14°F cooler than they do today[47] (with local
variations as much as 59°F lower[48]), with an increasingly arid environment
and much more difficult conditions of survival to which plants, animals, and
humans all had to adapt.[49] The Eurasian steppes just before and during
this time had a maximum annual summer temperature of only 59°F.[50]

Humans in Europe and northern Asia, and later in North America, adapted by
increasing their hunting of the large mammals such as mammoths, horses,
bison and caribou which flourished on the open grasslands, tundra, and
steppes which spread during this period.[51] Storage of vegetable foods that
could be consumed during the harsh winters was also exploited. Clothing
methods were improved (including needles with eyes) and sturdier shelters
developed--the most common being animal hides wrapped around wooden posts,
some of which had sunken floors and hearths.[52] In the tropics, large areas
became arid. (In South Africa, for instance, the vegetation consisted mostly
of shrubs and grass with few fruits.[53])

20,000 B.C. to 9,000 B.C.: Transitional period known as the "Mesolithic,"
during which the bow-and-arrow appeared,[54] and gazelle, antelope, and deer
were being intensively hunted,[55] while at the same time precursor forms of
wild plant and game management began to be more intensively practiced. At
this time, wild grains, including wheat and barley by 17,000 B.C.--before
their domestication--were being gathered and ground into flour as evidenced
by the use of mortars-and-pestles in what is now modern-day Israel. By
13,000 B.C. the descendants of these peoples were harvesting wild grains
intensely and it was only a small step from there to the development of
agriculture.[56] Game management through the burning-off of land to
encourage grasslands and the increase of herds became widely practiced
during this time as well. In North America, for instance, the western high
plains are the only area of the current United States that did not see
intensive changes to the land through extensive use of fire.[57]

Also during this time, and probably also for some millennia prior to the
Mesolithic (perhaps as early as 45,000 B.C.), ritual and magico-religious
sanctions protecting certain wild plants developed, initiating a new
symbiotic relationship between people and their food sources that became
encoded culturally and constituted the first phase of domestication well
prior to actual cultivation. Protections were accorded to certain wild food
species (yams being a well-known example) to prevent disruption of their
life cycle at periods critical to their growth, so that they could be
profitably harvested later.[58] Digging sticks for yams have also been found
dating to at least 40,000 B.C.,[59] so these tubers considerably antedated
the use of grains in the diet.

Foods known to be gathered during the Mesolithic period in the Middle East
were root vegetables, wild pulses (peas, beans, etc.), nuts such as almonds,
pistachios, and hazelnuts, as well as fruits such as apples. Seafoods such
as fish, crabs, molluscs, and snails also became common during this
time.[60]

Approx. 10,000 B.C.: The beginning of the "Neolithic" period, or
"Agricultural Revolution," i.e., farming and animal husbandry. The
transition to agriculture was made necessary by gradually increasing
population pressures due to the success of Homo sapiens' prior hunting and
gathering way of life. (Hunting and gathering can support perhaps one person
per square 10 miles; Neolithic agriculture 100 times or more that many.[61])
Also, at about the time population pressures were increasing, the last Ice
Age ended, and many species of large game became extinct (probably due to a
combination of both intensive hunting and disappearance of their habitats
when the Ice Age ended).[62] Wild grasses and cereals began flourishing,*
making them prime candidates for the staple foods to be domesticated, given
our previous familiarity with them.[63] By 9,000 B.C. sheep and goats were
being domesticated in the Near East, and cattle and pigs shortly after,
while wheat, barley, and legumes were being cultivated somewhat before 7,000
B.C., as were fruits and nuts, while meat consumption fell enormously.[64]
By 5,000 B.C. agriculture had spread to all inhabited continents except
Australia.[65] During the time since the beginning of the Neolithic, the
ratio of plant-to-animal foods in the diet has sharply increased from an
average of probably 65%/35%* during Paleolithic times[66] to as high as
90%/10% since the advent of agriculture.[67]

Remains of fossil humans indicate decrease in health status after the
Neolithic. In most respects, the changes in diet from hunter-gatherer times
to agricultural times have been almost all detrimental, although there is
some evidence we'll discuss later indicating that at least some genetic
adaptation to the Neolithic has begun taking place in the approximately
10,000 years since it began. With the much heavier reliance on starchy foods
that became the staples of the diet, tooth decay, malnutrition, and rates of
infectious disease increased dramatically over Paleolithic times, further
exacerbated by crowding leading to even higher rates of communicable
infections.

Skeletal remains show that height decreased by four inches* from the Late
Paleolithic to the early Neolithic, brought about by poorer nutrition, and
perhaps also by increased infectious disease causing growth stress, and
possibly by some inbreeding in communities that were isolated. Signs of
osteoporosis and anemia, which was almost non-existent in pre-Neolithic
times, have been frequently noted in skeletal pathologies observed in the
Neolithic peoples of the Middle East. It is known that certain kinds of
osteoporosis which have been found in these skeletal remains are caused by
anemia, and although the causes have not yet been determined exactly, the
primary suspect is reduced levels of iron thought to have been caused by the
stress of infectious disease rather than dietary deficiency, although the
latter remains a possibility.[68]


>
>> >> >> >> then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical
>> >> >> >> capability
>> >> >> >> required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> most
>> >> >> >> accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop
>> >> >> >> lion-like
>> >> >> >> claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such
>> >> >> >> mutations
>> >> >> >> would
>> >> >> >> probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So let me get this straight... you are claiming that humans
>> >> >> > developed
>> >> >> > the ability to outrun large animals in distance but not speed and
>> >> >> > not
>> >> >> > the faintest indication of claws and fangs to sieze and then eat
>> >> >> > them,
>> >> >> > nor any other biological adaptation pertaining to carnivorous
>> >> >> > habits.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Endurance is a biological adaptation. Lions developed through
>> >> >> natural
>> >> >> selection, so did man.
>> >> >
>> >> > See what you've snipped.
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't matter. There is only one kind of natural selection. Man
>> >> using
>> >> his adaptations is no different than a lion using his.
>> >
>> > Man does or rather, did use his adaptations, but not as you claim.

>>
>> Man developing the ability to hunt with spears is no different than a
>> lion
>> developing large teeth and claws. It's the same process of natural
>> selection, one is not more "natural" than the other. That whole line of
>> argument is bullshit.

>
> Your whole line of argument is demonstrably bullshit. And QED.


The prevailing view of anthropology is demonstrably bullshit. Okey-dokey.


>
>> >> >> > Lets look at another example:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Let's not, since you are an stubborn ass who won't accept the most
>> >> >> basic
>> >> >> facts.
>> >> >
>> >> > Since you are the stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic
>> >> > facts.
>> >>
>> >> That's not true.
>> >
>> > Yes. it is. <start ad hominem spiel-->>
>> >
>> >> Unlike you I am not unwilling to accept facts that don't
>> >> fit an agenda. You have this "animal rights" idea that precludes you
>> >> from
>> >> accepting any facts that don't favour that conclusion, and causes you
>> >> to
>> >> pollute this group with reams of selectively gathered data to support
>> >> your
>> >> bias. <<-- end ad hominem spiel

>>
>> > Yep... and I didn't even bother to read it first...

>>
>> I have read enough of your crap. It's always the same nonsense.

>
> Keep on running, ditch.


I have indulged in some of the same massive pasting that you seem to think
lends credibility to your ideas. I expect you to ignore it.







Attached Images
 
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >>
> >> [..]

> >
> >> >> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid
> >> >> warrior-hunters.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah... you're soooo intimidating...
> >>
> >> Not me, a band of hominid hunters. You're damn right they were
> >> intimidating.

> >
> > lol. Early |bi-pedal| hominids stood between 3 to 5 feet tall.
> > Terrifying!
> >
> >> > moreso than large animals with
> >> > teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those sticks
> >> > you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.
> >> >
> >> > You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.
> >> >
> >> > Run!
> >>
> >> You're the one living in the fantasy world miss little green men.

> >
> > You can't even get your oh-so-tired ad hominem factually correct.

>
> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your ridiculous
> beliefs.


Ipse dixit.

> >> Hominid
> >> hunter bands would NEVER be attacked by any other animal, except other
> >> hominids. Your perception that they were like sheep, weak and vulnerable is
> >> absurd, if they had been we would not be here today. Wild animals attack
> >> vunerable individuals.

> >
> > Like an animal being run to exhaustion? You've got company.....

>
> Huh?


That's right. And you wouldn't make it that far.

> > 'The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
> > afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
> > There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
> > and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
> > Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
> > and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
> > social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
> > them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."

>
> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous, no
> predator does. Of course hominids were prey,


And your small band running about the countryside were different, how?

> that does not mean they were
> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also apparently quite
> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the capabilities of
> later hominids.


What 'capabilities'? And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.

> I love the supreme arrogance of Sussman in this paragraph,
> "The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human
> evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology
> of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when
> you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is
> just not the case.""
>
> In one broad stroke he accuses the rest of the scientific community of
> basing their findings on religion and speculation, and suggests a novel
> approach, "really examine the fossil.. evidence". What a colossal ego the
> man must possess! *I* am the first archeologist to properly examine fossil
> evidence!


What arrogance yourself. Who are you? What are *your* qualifications?

"We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."

> > Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
> > preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
> > on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
> > into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
> > rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
> > today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.
> >
> > Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
> > human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
> > developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
> > ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
> > trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.
> >
> > "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
> > physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
> > all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
> > permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
> > pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
> > In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
> > and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
> > by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
> > is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
> > being preyed upon."
> >
> > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

>
> As you always do, you dig up a tiny minority opnion that fits your bias and
> present it as indisputable fact.


Argumentum ad populum. Another of those fallacies you rely on, ditch.

> >> >> >> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are
> >> >> >> > sometimes
> >> >> >> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the
> >> >> >> > desert.
> >> >> >> > ..
> >> >> >> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45
> >> >> >> > minutes.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ***** Advantage
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must make
> >> >> >> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
> >> >> >> > ...'
> >> >> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not if he is surrounded.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably
> >> >> > surrounded.
> >> >>
> >> >> See above. Man in his element fears no animal.
> >> >
> >> > Where do you get this crap from?
> >>
> >> That's the million dollar question you need to answer.

> >
> > I need to guess what your sources are. Interesting.

>
> Everything below is thoroughly referenced


'beyondveg'... riiight.

> Paleontological evidence shows
> humans have always been omnivores


Also from 'beyondveg':

'Chivers appears to define an omnivore as a general
feeder with a gut morphology that supports a diet that
includes significant amounts of all three types of foods:
fruits, leaves, and animal matter. Such a gut morphology
is not found in mammals, hence the term is indeed
inappropriate for mammals.'

'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that
would correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously
not supported by our data (fig. 1). The large variations
in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized
"frugivores," a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and
several other populations, present and past, to feed
extensively on animal matter...' Hladik et al. [1999,
pp. 696-697] '

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What kind of "evidence" are we talking about here?


Your point? I have already posted the following repeatedly.

".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much
meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging.
It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000
years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .." - The Rise
and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34

'Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

> >> >> >> >> then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical
> >> >> >> >> capability
> >> >> >> >> required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> most
> >> >> >> >> accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop
> >> >> >> >> lion-like
> >> >> >> >> claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such
> >> >> >> >> mutations
> >> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >> >> probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So let me get this straight... you are claiming that humans developed
> >> >> >> > the ability to outrun large animals in distance but not speed and not
> >> >> >> > the faintest indication of claws and fangs to sieze and then eat them,
> >> >> >> > nor any other biological adaptation pertaining to carnivorous habits.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Endurance is a biological adaptation. Lions developed through
> >> >> >> natural
> >> >> >> selection, so did man.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > See what you've snipped.
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't matter. There is only one kind of natural selection. Man
> >> >> using
> >> >> his adaptations is no different than a lion using his.
> >> >
> >> > Man does or rather, did use his adaptations, but not as you claim.
> >>
> >> Man developing the ability to hunt with spears is no different than a
> >> lion
> >> developing large teeth and claws. It's the same process of natural
> >> selection, one is not more "natural" than the other. That whole line of
> >> argument is bullshit.

> >
> > Your whole line of argument is demonstrably bullshit. And QED.

>
> The prevailing view of anthropology is demonstrably bullshit. Okey-dokey.


'Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature,
previously having been little more that a systematic, but lose,
body of "say-so" information which attempted to explain our
species history and origins. With advances in dating methods,
including DNA analysis and more fossil finds, the science is
now embarking on its integration with biology. Previously,
anthropology was a pseudo-scientific marriage of traditional
views attempting to link the findings of robust sciences, such
as geology, palaeontology and archaeology. However, even
though anthropologists like Richard Leakey are aware that
their 'science' is often "based on unspoken assumptions"
(The Making of Mankind, p. 82, R. Leakey), they show that
they will persist in making them.

Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a
reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food.
....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

> >> >> >> > Lets look at another example:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Let's not, since you are an stubborn ass who won't accept the most
> >> >> >> basic
> >> >> >> facts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Since you are the stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic
> >> >> > facts.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's not true.
> >> >
> >> > Yes. it is. <start ad hominem spiel-->>
> >> >
> >> >> Unlike you I am not unwilling to accept facts that don't
> >> >> fit an agenda. You have this "animal rights" idea that precludes you
> >> >> from
> >> >> accepting any facts that don't favour that conclusion, and causes you
> >> >> to
> >> >> pollute this group with reams of selectively gathered data to support
> >> >> your
> >> >> bias. <<-- end ad hominem spiel
> >>
> >> > Yep... and I didn't even bother to read it first...
> >>
> >> I have read enough of your crap. It's always the same nonsense.

> >
> > Keep on running, ditch.

>
> I have indulged in some of the same massive pasting that you seem to think
> lends credibility to your ideas. I expect you to ignore it.


You seem to think it lends credibility to your ideas. Think again.

'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
1153S-1161S.
A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html

I expect you to ignore this, as ever.




  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" > wrote
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> [..]
>> >
>> >> >> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid
>> >> >> warrior-hunters.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yeah... you're soooo intimidating...
>> >>
>> >> Not me, a band of hominid hunters. You're damn right they were
>> >> intimidating.
>> >
>> > lol. Early |bi-pedal| hominids stood between 3 to 5 feet tall.
>> > Terrifying!
>> >
>> >> > moreso than large animals with
>> >> > teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those
>> >> > sticks
>> >> > you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.
>> >> >
>> >> > You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.
>> >> >
>> >> > Run!
>> >>
>> >> You're the one living in the fantasy world miss little green men.
>> >
>> > You can't even get your oh-so-tired ad hominem factually correct.

>>
>> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your
>> ridiculous
>> beliefs.

>
> Ipse dixit.


Well-documented and admitted.

>> >> Hominid
>> >> hunter bands would NEVER be attacked by any other animal, except other
>> >> hominids. Your perception that they were like sheep, weak and
>> >> vulnerable is
>> >> absurd, if they had been we would not be here today. Wild animals
>> >> attack
>> >> vunerable individuals.
>> >
>> > Like an animal being run to exhaustion? You've got company.....

>>
>> Huh?

>
> That's right. And you wouldn't make it that far.


Whaaa?

>> > 'The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
>> > afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
>> > There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
>> > and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
>> > Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
>> > and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
>> > social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
>> > them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."

>>
>> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous, no
>> predator does. Of course hominids were prey,

>
> And your small band running about the countryside were different, how?


Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly obtuse.

>> that does not mean they were
>> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also apparently quite
>> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the capabilities
>> of
>> later hominids.

>
> What 'capabilities'?


Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the biological
adapations that made hominids successful hunters.

And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.
>
>> I love the supreme arrogance of Sussman in this paragraph,
>> "The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human
>> evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian
>> ideology
>> of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact,
>> when
>> you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that
>> is
>> just not the case.""
>>
>> In one broad stroke he accuses the rest of the scientific community of
>> basing their findings on religion and speculation, and suggests a novel
>> approach, "really examine the fossil.. evidence". What a colossal ego the
>> man must possess! *I* am the first archeologist to properly examine
>> fossil
>> evidence!

>
> What arrogance yourself. Who are you? What are *your* qualifications?


I didn't dismiss the bulk of anthropological science, he did that.

> "We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
> bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
> hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."


I'm sure the rest of the scientific community is rushing to study these
novel ideas. Study fossil remains!? What a concept!

>> > Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
>> > preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
>> > on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
>> > into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
>> > rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
>> > today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.
>> >
>> > Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
>> > human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
>> > developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
>> > ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
>> > trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.
>> >
>> > "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
>> > physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
>> > all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
>> > permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
>> > pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
>> > In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
>> > and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
>> > by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
>> > is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
>> > being preyed upon."
>> >
>> > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

>>
>> As you always do, you dig up a tiny minority opnion that fits your bias
>> and
>> present it as indisputable fact.

>
> Argumentum ad populum. Another of those fallacies you rely on, ditch.


It's not a fallacy, it's a rational approach. If we are going to rely on
quoting articles and studies, which you appear to like to do, then what's
the superior approach, only quote ones that say what you want to hear, or
look at all of it and see what the majority says?


>> >> >> >> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are
>> >> >> >> > sometimes
>> >> >> >> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the
>> >> >> >> > desert.
>> >> >> >> > ..
>> >> >> >> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45
>> >> >> >> > minutes.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ***** Advantage
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must
>> >> >> >> > make
>> >> >> >> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
>> >> >> >> > ...'
>> >> >> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not if he is surrounded.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably
>> >> >> > surrounded.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> See above. Man in his element fears no animal.
>> >> >
>> >> > Where do you get this crap from?
>> >>
>> >> That's the million dollar question you need to answer.
>> >
>> > I need to guess what your sources are. Interesting.

>>
>> Everything below is thoroughly referenced

>
> 'beyondveg'... riiight.


Every single statement is extensively documented and cited, you predictable
ditz.

<!>




  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "pearl" > wrote
> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> [..]
> >> >
> >> >> >> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid
> >> >> >> warrior-hunters.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yeah... you're soooo intimidating...
> >> >>
> >> >> Not me, a band of hominid hunters. You're damn right they were
> >> >> intimidating.
> >> >
> >> > lol. Early |bi-pedal| hominids stood between 3 to 5 feet tall.
> >> > Terrifying!
> >> >
> >> >> > moreso than large animals with
> >> >> > teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those
> >> >> > sticks
> >> >> > you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Run!
> >> >>
> >> >> You're the one living in the fantasy world miss little green men.
> >> >
> >> > You can't even get your oh-so-tired ad hominem factually correct.
> >>
> >> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your
> >> ridiculous
> >> beliefs.

> >
> > Ipse dixit.

>
> Well-documented and admitted.


What is? And it's not me making utterly laughable comments..

> >> >> Hominid
> >> >> hunter bands would NEVER be attacked by any other animal, except other
> >> >> hominids. Your perception that they were like sheep, weak and vulnerable is
> >> >> absurd, if they had been we would not be here today. Wild animals attack
> >> >> vunerable individuals.
> >> >
> >> > Like an animal being run to exhaustion? You've got company.....
> >>
> >> Huh?

> >
> > That's right. And you wouldn't make it that far.

>
> Whaaa?


Uhuh.

> >> > 'The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
> >> > afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
> >> > There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
> >> > and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
> >> > Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
> >> > and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
> >> > social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
> >> > them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."
> >>
> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous, no
> >> predator does. Of course hominids were prey,

> >
> > And your small band running about the countryside were different, how?

>
> Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly obtuse.


Than hominid prey. You're becoming progressively more dense.

> >> that does not mean they were
> >> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also apparently quite
> >> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the capabilities
> >> of
> >> later hominids.

> >
> > What 'capabilities'?

>
> Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the biological
> adapations that made hominids successful hunters.


When? We are *still* not successful hunters using primitive weapons.

> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.


Established.

> >> I love the supreme arrogance of Sussman in this paragraph,
> >> "The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human
> >> evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology
> >> of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when
> >> you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is
> >> just not the case.""
> >>
> >> In one broad stroke he accuses the rest of the scientific community of
> >> basing their findings on religion and speculation, and suggests a novel
> >> approach, "really examine the fossil.. evidence". What a colossal ego the
> >> man must possess! *I* am the first archeologist to properly examine
> >> fossil evidence!

> >
> > What arrogance yourself. Who are you? What are *your* qualifications?

>
> I didn't dismiss the bulk of anthropological science, he did that.


No he hasn't, actually. He dismissed a certain line of thinking.

> > "We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
> > bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
> > hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."

>
> I'm sure the rest of the scientific community is rushing to study these
> novel ideas. Study fossil remains!? What a concept!


He hasn't pointed out anything scientifically contradictory.

> >> > Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
> >> > preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
> >> > on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
> >> > into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
> >> > rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
> >> > today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.
> >> >
> >> > Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
> >> > human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
> >> > developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
> >> > ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
> >> > trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.
> >> >
> >> > "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
> >> > physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
> >> > all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
> >> > permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
> >> > pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
> >> > In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
> >> > and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
> >> > by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
> >> > is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
> >> > being preyed upon."
> >> >
> >> > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011
> >>
> >> As you always do, you dig up a tiny minority opnion that fits your bias
> >> and present it as indisputable fact.

> >
> > Argumentum ad populum. Another of those fallacies you rely on, ditch.

>
> It's not a fallacy, it's a rational approach. If we are going to rely on
> quoting articles and studies, which you appear to like to do, then what's
> the superior approach, only quote ones that say what you want to hear, or
> look at all of it and see what the majority says?


You're confused. Try addressing what has actually been said.

> >> >> >> >> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are
> >> >> >> >> > sometimes
> >> >> >> >> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the
> >> >> >> >> > desert.
> >> >> >> >> > ..
> >> >> >> >> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45
> >> >> >> >> > minutes.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > ***** Advantage
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must
> >> >> >> >> > make
> >> >> >> >> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
> >> >> >> >> > ...'
> >> >> >> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Not if he is surrounded.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably
> >> >> >> > surrounded.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> See above. Man in his element fears no animal.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Where do you get this crap from?
> >> >>
> >> >> That's the million dollar question you need to answer.
> >> >
> >> > I need to guess what your sources are. Interesting.
> >>
> >> Everything below is thoroughly referenced

> >
> > 'beyondveg'... riiight.

>
> Every single statement is extensively documented and cited, you predictable
> ditz.


Keep on running, ditch...

>
> <!>
>
>
>
>



  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "pearl" > wrote
>> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [..]
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid
>> >> >> >> warrior-hunters.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yeah... you're soooo intimidating...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not me, a band of hominid hunters. You're damn right they were
>> >> >> intimidating.
>> >> >
>> >> > lol. Early |bi-pedal| hominids stood between 3 to 5 feet tall.
>> >> > Terrifying!
>> >> >
>> >> >> > moreso than large animals with
>> >> >> > teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those
>> >> >> > sticks
>> >> >> > you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Run!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're the one living in the fantasy world miss little green men.
>> >> >
>> >> > You can't even get your oh-so-tired ad hominem factually correct.
>> >>
>> >> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your
>> >> ridiculous
>> >> beliefs.
>> >
>> > Ipse dixit.

>>
>> Well-documented and admitted.

>
> What is?


You.

>> And it's not me making utterly laughable comments..

>
>> >> >> Hominid
>> >> >> hunter bands would NEVER be attacked by any other animal, except
>> >> >> other
>> >> >> hominids. Your perception that they were like sheep, weak and
>> >> >> vulnerable is
>> >> >> absurd, if they had been we would not be here today. Wild animals
>> >> >> attack
>> >> >> vunerable individuals.
>> >> >
>> >> > Like an animal being run to exhaustion? You've got company.....
>> >>
>> >> Huh?
>> >
>> > That's right. And you wouldn't make it that far.

>>
>> Whaaa?

>
> Uhuh.
>
>> >> > 'The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
>> >> > afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
>> >> > There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
>> >> > and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
>> >> > Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
>> >> > and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
>> >> > social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
>> >> > them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."
>> >>
>> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous,
>> >> no
>> >> predator does. Of course hominids were prey,
>> >
>> > And your small band running about the countryside were different, how?

>>
>> Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly obtuse.

>
> Than hominid prey. You're becoming progressively more dense.


**** off if you can't articulate coherent questions.


>> >> that does not mean they were
>> >> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also apparently
>> >> quite
>> >> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the
>> >> capabilities
>> >> of
>> >> later hominids.
>> >
>> > What 'capabilities'?

>>
>> Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the biological
>> adapations that made hominids successful hunters.

>
> When? We are *still* not successful hunters using primitive weapons.


How would you know? When we develop better tools we generally use them.

>> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.

>
> Established.


Irrelevant.

>> >> I love the supreme arrogance of Sussman in this paragraph,
>> >> "The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of
>> >> human
>> >> evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian
>> >> ideology
>> >> of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In
>> >> fact, when
>> >> you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence,
>> >> that is
>> >> just not the case.""
>> >>
>> >> In one broad stroke he accuses the rest of the scientific community of
>> >> basing their findings on religion and speculation, and suggests a
>> >> novel
>> >> approach, "really examine the fossil.. evidence". What a colossal ego
>> >> the
>> >> man must possess! *I* am the first archeologist to properly examine
>> >> fossil evidence!
>> >
>> > What arrogance yourself. Who are you? What are *your* qualifications?

>>
>> I didn't dismiss the bulk of anthropological science, he did that.

>
> No he hasn't, actually. He dismissed a certain line of thinking.


The line of thinking supported by the archeological evidence and espoused by
the rest of the scientific community. You've read the references. The
article you posted even says this.

>> > "We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
>> > bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
>> > hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."

>>
>> I'm sure the rest of the scientific community is rushing to study these
>> novel ideas. Study fossil remains!? What a concept!

>
> He hasn't pointed out anything scientifically contradictory.


He pronounces that he examined the evidence as if he invented the concept,
as if the rest of the scientific community, blinded by some ovewhelming bias
that he escapes, somehow neglected to do so.

>> >> > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011
>> >>
>> >> As you always do, you dig up a tiny minority opnion that fits your
>> >> bias
>> >> and present it as indisputable fact.
>> >
>> > Argumentum ad populum. Another of those fallacies you rely on, ditch.

>>
>> It's not a fallacy, it's a rational approach. If we are going to rely on
>> quoting articles and studies, which you appear to like to do, then what's
>> the superior approach, only quote ones that say what you want to hear, or
>> look at all of it and see what the majority says?

>
> You're confused.


Not in the least.

> Try addressing what has actually been said.


I have, I just choose to consider everything, not search out minority
conclusions that appear to reinforce my bias.





  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "pearl" > wrote
> >> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid
> >> >> >> >> warrior-hunters.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yeah... you're soooo intimidating...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not me, a band of hominid hunters. You're damn right they were
> >> >> >> intimidating.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > lol. Early |bi-pedal| hominids stood between 3 to 5 feet tall.
> >> >> > Terrifying!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > moreso than large animals with
> >> >> >> > teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those
> >> >> >> > sticks
> >> >> >> > you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Run!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You're the one living in the fantasy world miss little green men.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You can't even get your oh-so-tired ad hominem factually correct.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your
> >> >> ridiculous
> >> >> beliefs.
> >> >
> >> > Ipse dixit.
> >>
> >> Well-documented and admitted.

> >
> > What is?

>
> You.


What? You're going to have to support your claim with evidence, you know.

> > And it's not me making utterly laughable comments..
> >
> >> >> >> Hominid
> >> >> >> hunter bands would NEVER be attacked by any other animal, except
> >> >> >> other
> >> >> >> hominids. Your perception that they were like sheep, weak and
> >> >> >> vulnerable is
> >> >> >> absurd, if they had been we would not be here today. Wild animals
> >> >> >> attack
> >> >> >> vunerable individuals.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Like an animal being run to exhaustion? You've got company.....
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh?
> >> >
> >> > That's right. And you wouldn't make it that far.
> >>
> >> Whaaa?

> >
> > Uhuh.
> >
> >> >> > 'The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
> >> >> > afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
> >> >> > There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
> >> >> > and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
> >> >> > Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
> >> >> > and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
> >> >> > social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
> >> >> > them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous,
> >> >> no predator does.


"Man in his element fears no animal."

> >> > Of course hominids were prey,
> >> >
> >> > And your small band running about the countryside were different, how?
> >>
> >> Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly obtuse.

> >
> > Than hominid prey. You're becoming progressively more dense.

>
> **** off if you can't articulate coherent questions.


Gutter language now as well. You're really shinin', jack.

> >> >> that does not mean they were
> >> >> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also apparently
> >> >> quite
> >> >> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the
> >> >> capabilities
> >> >> of
> >> >> later hominids.
> >> >
> >> > What 'capabilities'?
> >>
> >> Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the biological
> >> adapations that made hominids successful hunters.

> >
> > When? We are *still* not successful hunters using primitive weapons.

>
> How would you know? When we develop better tools we generally use them.


You should know it too, as I've posted relevant information.

> >> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.

> >
> > Established.

>
> Irrelevant.


Not in the least. <sigh>

> >> >> I love the supreme arrogance of Sussman in this paragraph,
> >> >> "The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human
> >> >> evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology
> >> >> of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when
> >> >> you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence,
> >> >> that is just not the case.""
> >> >>
> >> >> In one broad stroke he accuses the rest of the scientific community of
> >> >> basing their findings on religion and speculation, and suggests a
> >> >> novel
> >> >> approach, "really examine the fossil.. evidence". What a colossal ego
> >> >> the
> >> >> man must possess! *I* am the first archeologist to properly examine
> >> >> fossil evidence!
> >> >
> >> > What arrogance yourself. Who are you? What are *your* qualifications?
> >>
> >> I didn't dismiss the bulk of anthropological science, he did that.

> >
> > No he hasn't, actually. He dismissed a certain line of thinking.

>
> The line of thinking supported by the archeological evidence and espoused by
> the rest of the scientific community. You've read the references. The
> article you posted even says this.


".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much
meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging.
It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000
years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .." - The Rise
and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34

'Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
whom you believe."

Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm

> >> > "We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
> >> > bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
> >> > hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."
> >>
> >> I'm sure the rest of the scientific community is rushing to study these
> >> novel ideas. Study fossil remains!? What a concept!

> >
> > He hasn't pointed out anything scientifically contradictory.

>
> He pronounces that he examined the evidence as if he invented the concept,
> as if the rest of the scientific community, blinded by some ovewhelming bias
> that he escapes, somehow neglected to do so.


He is hardly alone.

'It has long been held that big game hunting is THE key development
in human evolutionary history, facilitating the appearance of patterns
in reproduction, social organization, and life history fundamental to
the modern human condition. Though this view has been challenged
strongly in recent years, it persists as the conventional wisdom, largely
for lack of a plausible alternative. Recent research on women's time
allocation and food sharing among tropical hunter-gatherers now
provides the basis for such an alternative.

The problem with big game hunting

The appeal of big game hunting as an important evolutionary force
lies in the common assumption that hunting and related paternal
provisioning are essential to child rearing among human foragers:
mother is seen as unable to bear, feed and raise children on her
own; hence relies on husband/father for critical nutritional support,
especially in the form of meat. This makes dating the first
appearance of this pattern the fundamental problem in human
origins research. The common association between stone tools
and the bones of large animals at sites of Pleistocene age suggests
to many that it may be quite old, possibly originating with Homo
erectus nearly two million years ago (e.g. Gowlett 1993).

Despite its widespread acceptance, there are good reasons to be
skeptical about the underlying assumption. Most important is the
observation that big game hunting is actually a poor way to support
a family. Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed
with bows and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat
acquire large animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days,
not nearly often enough to feed their children effectively. They
could do better as provisioners by taking small game or plant
foods, yet choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting
serves some other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship
(Hawkes et al. 1991). Whatever it is, reliable support for children
must come from elsewhere.

The importance of women's foraging and food sharing

Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns
shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's
gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). The most difficult
time of the year for the Hadza is the dry season, when foods
younger children can procure for themselves are unavailable.
Mothers respond by provisioning youngsters with foods they
themselves can procure daily and at relatively high rates, but that
their children cannot, largely because of handling requirements.
Tubers, which require substantial upper body strength and
endurance to collect and the ability to control fire in processing,
are a good example.

Provisioning of this sort has at least two important implications:
1) it allows the Hadza to operate in times and places where they
otherwise could not if, as among other primates, weaned offspring
were responsible for feeding themselves; 2) it lets another adult
assist in the process allowing mother to turn her attention to the
next pregnancy that much sooner. Quantitative data on time
allocation, foraging returns, and changes in children's nutritional
status indicate that, among the Hadza, that other adult is typically
grandmother. Senior Hadza women forage long hours every day,
enjoy high returns for effort, and provision their grandchildren
effectively, especially when their daughters are nursing new
infants (Hawkes et al. 1989, 1997). Their support is crucial to
both daughters' fecundity and grandchildren's survivorship,
with important implications for grandmothers' own fitness.
....
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes.../oconnell.html

> >> >> > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011
> >> >>
> >> >> As you always do, you dig up a tiny minority opnion that fits your
> >> >> bias
> >> >> and present it as indisputable fact.
> >> >
> >> > Argumentum ad populum. Another of those fallacies you rely on, ditch.
> >>
> >> It's not a fallacy, it's a rational approach. If we are going to rely on
> >> quoting articles and studies, which you appear to like to do, then what's
> >> the superior approach, only quote ones that say what you want to hear, or
> >> look at all of it and see what the majority says?

> >
> > You're confused.

>
> Not in the least.


You don't even know it.

> > Try addressing what has actually been said.

>
> I have, I just choose to consider everything, not search out minority
> conclusions that appear to reinforce my bias.


You haven't, and you don't. You're bleeding all over the place.




  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote

[..]

>> >> >> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your
>> >> >> ridiculous
>> >> >> beliefs.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ipse dixit.
>> >>
>> >> Well-documented and admitted.
>> >
>> > What is?

>>
>> You.

>
> What? You're going to have to support your claim with evidence, you know.


The evidence is in the archives, forever. Who is going to benefit from me
digging up crap that has been posted a hundred times before? Do you think
that if you outlast your critics and make the final denial that it will all
evaporate?

[..]
>> >> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or
>> >> >> dangerous,
>> >> >> no predator does.

>
> "Man in his element fears no animal."


Those statement are not contradictory. Use your head, I can't think for you.

>
>> >> > Of course hominids were prey,
>> >> >
>> >> > And your small band running about the countryside were different,
>> >> > how?
>> >>
>> >> Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly obtuse.
>> >
>> > Than hominid prey. You're becoming progressively more dense.

>>
>> **** off if you can't articulate coherent questions.

>
> Gutter language now as well. You're really shinin', jack.


Cram your phony sensibilities up your ass princess, along with your
crocodile tears over animals.

>> >> >> that does not mean they were
>> >> >> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also apparently
>> >> >> quite
>> >> >> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the
>> >> >> capabilities
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> later hominids.
>> >> >
>> >> > What 'capabilities'?
>> >>
>> >> Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the
>> >> biological
>> >> adapations that made hominids successful hunters.
>> >
>> > When? We are *still* not successful hunters using primitive weapons.

>>
>> How would you know? When we develop better tools we generally use them.

>
> You should know it too, as I've posted relevant information.


You posted selectively, information that tells a small part of a very long
complex story. A huge part of that story involves the development and use of
weapons and tools for hunting among early hominids. The archeological
evidence is overwhelming. Did ALL hominids hunt? No, they didn't, and they
didn't survive long either.

>> >> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.
>> >
>> > Established.

>>
>> Irrelevant.

>
> Not in the least. <sigh>


What is the relevance?

[..]
>> The line of thinking supported by the archeological evidence and espoused
>> by
>> the rest of the scientific community. You've read the references. The
>> article you posted even says this.

>
> ".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much
> meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging.
> It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
> evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
> were still very ineffective big-game hunters.


Strawman, I never stipulated that all hominids hunted "big game", I didn't
use the term. In fact they probably began with insects, shellfish and worked
their way up though the animal kingdom until they eventually could take down
buffalo and other large game. That's exactly what archeologists will tell
you the evidence shows. Also, the fact that they were also sometimes prey is
irrelevant.

<snip a shitload of rubbish>


  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote

> [..]
>
> >> >> >> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your
> >> >> >> ridiculous
> >> >> >> beliefs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ipse dixit.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well-documented and admitted.
> >> >
> >> > What is?
> >>
> >> You.

> >
> > What? You're going to have to support your claim with evidence, you know.

>
> The evidence is in the archives, forever. Who is going to benefit from me
> digging up crap that has been posted a hundred times before? Do you think
> that if you outlast your critics and make the final denial that it will all
> evaporate?


Evidence for -what-? What will "all evaporate"? What indeed has it
benefitted you to resort to the same old ad hominem crap that your
equally desperate ex fellow trolls have shat a thousand times before?
Nothing. They're gone without a shred of respect, and you'll follow.

> [..]
> >> >> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or
> >> >> >> dangerous, no predator does.

> >
> > "Man in his element fears no animal."

>
> Those statement are not contradictory. Use your head, I can't think for you.


They certainly are contradictory. Use your head to think for yourself.

> >> >> > Of course hominids were prey,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And your small band running about the countryside were different,
> >> >> > how?
> >> >>
> >> >> Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly obtuse.
> >> >
> >> > Than hominid prey. You're becoming progressively more dense.
> >>
> >> **** off if you can't articulate coherent questions.

> >
> > Gutter language now as well. You're really shinin', jack.

>
> Cram your phony sensibilities up your ass princess, along with your
> crocodile tears over animals.


I was brought up to value decency, and I do. You are projecting.

> >> >> >> that does not mean they were
> >> >> >> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also apparently
> >> >> >> quite
> >> >> >> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the
> >> >> >> capabilities
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> later hominids.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What 'capabilities'?
> >> >>
> >> >> Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the biological
> >> >> adapations that made hominids successful hunters.
> >> >
> >> > When? We are *still* not successful hunters using primitive weapons.
> >>
> >> How would you know? When we develop better tools we generally use them.

> >
> > You should know it too, as I've posted relevant information.

>
> You posted selectively, information that tells a small part of a very long
> complex story. A huge part of that story involves the development and use of
> weapons and tools for hunting among early hominids. The archeological
> evidence is overwhelming. Did ALL hominids hunt? No, they didn't, and they
> didn't survive long either.


Nothing to do with "Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc..
all the biological adapations that made hominids successful hunters."

**"biological adaptations".**

"early hominids"?

'... while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much meat
they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging. It is
not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000
years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective.
.....
Western male writers and anthropologists are not the only men with
an exaggerated view of hunting. In New Guinea I have lived with real
hunters, men who recently emerged from the stone age. .... To listen
to my New Guinea friends, you would think that they eat fresh
kangaroo for dinner every night and do little each day except hunt.
In fact, when pressed for details, most New Guinea hunters admit
that they have bagged only a few kangaroos in their whole life.
The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991,
pp.33-34
....'
http://web.archive.org/web/200303011...mc/origins.htm

"survive"? The Hazda cannot rely on their 'hunters' to survive.

> >> >> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.
> >> >
> >> > Established.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant.

> >
> > Not in the least. <sigh>

>
> What is the relevance?


Hominids were terrestrial frugivores. Use your head, I can't think for you.

> [..]
> >> The line of thinking supported by the archeological evidence and espoused
> >> by the rest of the scientific community. You've read the references. The
> >> article you posted even says this.

> >
> > ".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much
> > meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging.
> > It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
> > evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
> > were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000

years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .." - The Rise
and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34
>
> Strawman, I never stipulated that all hominids hunted "big game", I didn't
> use the term. In fact they probably began with insects, shellfish and worked
> their way up though the animal kingdom until they eventually could take down
> buffalo and other large game. That's exactly what archeologists will tell
> you the evidence shows. Also, the fact that they were also sometimes prey is
> irrelevant.


That depended on weapons and tools; not biological adaptations.

Humans canot "take down" large animals with their bare hands.

> <snip a shitload of rubbish>


The usual evasion. The only rubbish here is coming from you.

--restore--

'Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
whom you believe."

Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm

'It has long been held that big game hunting is THE key development
in human evolutionary history, facilitating the appearance of patterns
in reproduction, social organization, and life history fundamental to
the modern human condition. Though this view has been challenged
strongly in recent years, it persists as the conventional wisdom, largely
for lack of a plausible alternative. Recent research on women's time
allocation and food sharing among tropical hunter-gatherers now
provides the basis for such an alternative.

The problem with big game hunting

The appeal of big game hunting as an important evolutionary force
lies in the common assumption that hunting and related paternal
provisioning are essential to child rearing among human foragers:
mother is seen as unable to bear, feed and raise children on her
own; hence relies on husband/father for critical nutritional support,
especially in the form of meat. This makes dating the first
appearance of this pattern the fundamental problem in human
origins research. The common association between stone tools
and the bones of large animals at sites of Pleistocene age suggests
to many that it may be quite old, possibly originating with Homo
erectus nearly two million years ago (e.g. Gowlett 1993).

Despite its widespread acceptance, there are good reasons to be
skeptical about the underlying assumption. Most important is the
observation that big game hunting is actually a poor way to support
a family. Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed
with bows and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat
acquire large animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days,
not nearly often enough to feed their children effectively. They
could do better as provisioners by taking small game or plant
foods, yet choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting
serves some other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship
(Hawkes et al. 1991). Whatever it is, reliable support for children
must come from elsewhere.

The importance of women's foraging and food sharing

Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns
shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's
gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). The most difficult
time of the year for the Hadza is the dry season, when foods
younger children can procure for themselves are unavailable.
Mothers respond by provisioning youngsters with foods they
themselves can procure daily and at relatively high rates, but that
their children cannot, largely because of handling requirements.
Tubers, which require substantial upper body strength and
endurance to collect and the ability to control fire in processing,
are a good example.

Provisioning of this sort has at least two important implications:
1) it allows the Hadza to operate in times and places where they
otherwise could not if, as among other primates, weaned offspring
were responsible for feeding themselves; 2) it lets another adult
assist in the process allowing mother to turn her attention to the
next pregnancy that much sooner. Quantitative data on time
allocation, foraging returns, and changes in children's nutritional
status indicate that, among the Hadza, that other adult is typically
grandmother. Senior Hadza women forage long hours every day,
enjoy high returns for effort, and provision their grandchildren
effectively, especially when their daughters are nursing new
infants (Hawkes et al. 1989, 1997). Their support is crucial to
both daughters' fecundity and grandchildren's survivorship,
with important implications for grandmothers' own fitness.
....
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes.../oconnell.html



  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message ps.com...
> >
> > Paul Hilbert wrote:
> > > > "Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >>> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
> > > >>>>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
> > > >>
> > > >> Looked like it ain't wanted here.
> > > >>
> > > >> But I will
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of "Argumentum ad Hominem".
> > > > If cites are used then the implication is that the person being quoted has
> > > > the credentials to back them up. It is reasonable to question if a turn of
> > > > the century physician, the inventor of the cornflak is an authoritative
> > > > source on the science of history of man. "Argumentum ad Hominem" would occur
> > > > if it were argued that his opinion was questionable because he had been
> > > > convicted of beating his wife.
> > >
> > > Not exactly. What you are talking about is more an armument against a
> > > person.
> > > It would be completely true if Kellogg would have completely ignored
> > > methods of science. Talking about his beliefs and intentions is irrelevant
> > > if you consider that he used statistical and measuring methods. So in an
> > > abstract way (and argumentative logic allows for abstraction of this kind),
> > > it is an Argumentum ad Hominem.
> > > I for sure have to admit, that the part, that has been quoted lacks
> > > sources, but that's not because of the quoted, but the quoting one.
> > >
> > > Further investigation into the studies of Kellogg would have cleared that,
> > > and I clearly doubt that tunderbar did so - in this context it would have
> > > been an Argumentum ad Hominem by definition, regardless of the reality.

> >
> > His "science" was based on his religious beliefs. He became a doctor to
> > give an appearance of legitimacy to his beliefs. His studies are an
> > attempt to bolster and support his religious beliefs.

>
> The religious beliefs are irrelevant to Dr. Kellogg's medical studies.


It is extremely relevant. He became a doctor specifically in order to
legitimize his religious beliefs to his followers. His science served
to legitimize his beliefs. That is why he did his research.

>
> > The entire scientific community looks upon Kellogg as a quaint quack
> > and a cereal salesman and nothing more. He is an embarassment to the
> > american scientific community.

>
> Ipse dixit, quackpot.


Every thing Kellogg promoted was and is ipse dixit. None of his
"science" has survived actual scientific inquiry and study.

The man is a quack.

TC

>
> 'Healthy Diet And Lifestyle Become Part of Medicine
>
> Dr. Kellogg's medical treatment embraced all branches of medicine,
> including surgery, but with emphasis on fresh air, sunshine, exercise,
> rest and diet. The SDA dietary practices eliminated meats, condiments,
> spices, alcohol, chocolate, coffee and tea. Nutritious substitutes were
> created for "harmful" foods. Dr. Kellogg invented some 80 grain and
> nut products. ...
> ...
> The national and international reputation of the San continued to grow,
> as did that of the extroverted little (about 5 feet 4 inches tall) doctor,
> ...
> The famous doctor was absorbed with running "his spa." He spent
> his time editing magazines, authoring and publishing books, traveling,
> inventing medical equipment, creating health foods, lecturing,
> administering his Battle Creek College, operating his numerous
> business enterprises and performing as a highly skilled physician and
> surgeon.
> ...
> http://www.dlis.dla.mil/FederalCenter/Sanyears.asp
>
> Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
> Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
> and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
> Seventh-day Adventists.
> Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
> Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.
>
> Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
> California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
> Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
> range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
> studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
> consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
> doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
> showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
> ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
> subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
> significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
> and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
> who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
> <1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
> to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
> 31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
> vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
> prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
> and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
> risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
> with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
> cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
> with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
> Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
> lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
> nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
> healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
> absence of meat. - PMID: 10479227


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

> wrote in message ps.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > > wrote in message ps.com...
> > >
> > > Paul Hilbert wrote:

<..>
> > > > Not exactly. What you are talking about is more an armument against a
> > > > person.
> > > > It would be completely true if Kellogg would have completely ignored
> > > > methods of science. Talking about his beliefs and intentions is irrelevant
> > > > if you consider that he used statistical and measuring methods. So in an
> > > > abstract way (and argumentative logic allows for abstraction of this kind),
> > > > it is an Argumentum ad Hominem.
> > > > I for sure have to admit, that the part, that has been quoted lacks
> > > > sources, but that's not because of the quoted, but the quoting one.
> > > >
> > > > Further investigation into the studies of Kellogg would have cleared that,
> > > > and I clearly doubt that tunderbar did so - in this context it would have
> > > > been an Argumentum ad Hominem by definition, regardless of the reality.
> > >
> > > His "science" was based on his religious beliefs. He became a doctor to
> > > give an appearance of legitimacy to his beliefs. His studies are an
> > > attempt to bolster and support his religious beliefs.

> >
> > The religious beliefs are irrelevant to Dr. Kellogg's medical studies.

>
> It is extremely relevant. He became a doctor specifically in order to
> legitimize his religious beliefs to his followers. His science served
> to legitimize his beliefs. That is why he did his research.


Inaccurate. Repeat it again, and it still won't be relevant.

> > > The entire scientific community looks upon Kellogg as a quaint quack
> > > and a cereal salesman and nothing more. He is an embarassment to the
> > > american scientific community.

> >
> > Ipse dixit, quackpot.

>
> Every thing Kellogg promoted was and is ipse dixit. None of his
> "science" has survived actual scientific inquiry and study.


Ipse dixit and false. Take a look at the abstract below.

> The man is a quack.


Says the quackpot troll, TC.

> > 'Healthy Diet And Lifestyle Become Part of Medicine
> >
> > Dr. Kellogg's medical treatment embraced all branches of medicine,
> > including surgery, but with emphasis on fresh air, sunshine, exercise,
> > rest and diet. The SDA dietary practices eliminated meats, condiments,
> > spices, alcohol, chocolate, coffee and tea. Nutritious substitutes were
> > created for "harmful" foods. Dr. Kellogg invented some 80 grain and
> > nut products. ...
> > ...
> > The national and international reputation of the San continued to grow,
> > as did that of the extroverted little (about 5 feet 4 inches tall) doctor,
> > ...
> > The famous doctor was absorbed with running "his spa." He spent
> > his time editing magazines, authoring and publishing books, traveling,
> > inventing medical equipment, creating health foods, lecturing,
> > administering his Battle Creek College, operating his numerous
> > business enterprises and performing as a highly skilled physician and
> > surgeon.
> > ...
> > http://www.dlis.dla.mil/FederalCenter/Sanyears.asp
> >
> > Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
> > Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
> > and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
> > Seventh-day Adventists.
> > Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
> > Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.
> >
> > Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
> > California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
> > Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
> > range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
> > studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
> > consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
> > doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
> > showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
> > ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
> > subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
> > significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
> > and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
> > who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
> > <1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
> > to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
> > 31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
> > vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
> > prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
> > and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
> > risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
> > with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
> > cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
> > with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
> > Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
> > lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
> > nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
> > healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
> > absence of meat. - PMID: 10479227







  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote

>> [..]
>>
>> >> >> >> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your
>> >> >> >> ridiculous
>> >> >> >> beliefs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ipse dixit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well-documented and admitted.
>> >> >
>> >> > What is?
>> >>
>> >> You.
>> >
>> > What? You're going to have to support your claim with evidence, you
>> > know.

>>
>> The evidence is in the archives, forever. Who is going to benefit from me
>> digging up crap that has been posted a hundred times before? Do you think
>> that if you outlast your critics and make the final denial that it will
>> all
>> evaporate?

>
> Evidence for -what-?


Apparently you do.

> What will "all evaporate"? What indeed has it
> benefitted you to resort to the same old ad hominem crap that your
> equally desperate ex fellow trolls have shat a thousand times before?
> Nothing. They're gone without a shred of respect, and you'll follow.


The people who have wasted their time with you before have themselves to
blame.

>> [..]
>> >> >> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or
>> >> >> >> dangerous, no predator does.
>> >
>> > "Man in his element fears no animal."

>>
>> Those statement are not contradictory. Use your head, I can't think for
>> you.

>
> They certainly are contradictory.


No they're not.

>> >> >> > Of course hominids were prey,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And your small band running about the countryside were different,
>> >> >> > how?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly
>> >> >> obtuse.
>> >> >
>> >> > Than hominid prey. You're becoming progressively more dense.
>> >>
>> >> **** off if you can't articulate coherent questions.
>> >
>> > Gutter language now as well. You're really shinin', jack.

>>
>> Cram your phony sensibilities up your ass princess, along with your
>> crocodile tears over animals.

>
> I was brought up to value decency, and I do. You are projecting.


BULL-SHIT, you don't have a shred of decency, if you did you would not hold
the good people of the world in such contempt. An "F word" and you're
shrieking?? You're disgusting.

>> >> >> >> that does not mean they were
>> >> >> >> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also
>> >> >> >> apparently
>> >> >> >> quite
>> >> >> >> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the
>> >> >> >> capabilities
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> later hominids.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What 'capabilities'?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the
>> >> >> biological
>> >> >> adapations that made hominids successful hunters.
>> >> >
>> >> > When? We are *still* not successful hunters using primitive
>> >> > weapons.
>> >>
>> >> How would you know? When we develop better tools we generally use
>> >> them.
>> >
>> > You should know it too, as I've posted relevant information.

>>
>> You posted selectively, information that tells a small part of a very
>> long
>> complex story. A huge part of that story involves the development and use
>> of
>> weapons and tools for hunting among early hominids. The archeological
>> evidence is overwhelming. Did ALL hominids hunt? No, they didn't, and
>> they
>> didn't survive long either.

>
> Nothing to do with "Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc..
> all the biological adapations that made hominids successful hunters."
>
> **"biological adaptations".**
>
> "early hominids"?
>
> '... while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much meat
> they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging. It is
> not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
> evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
> were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000
> years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective.


There's that "big-game" strawman again.
....
> Western male writers and anthropologists are not the only men with
> an exaggerated view of hunting. In New Guinea I have lived with real
> hunters, men who recently emerged from the stone age. .... To listen
> to my New Guinea friends, you would think that they eat fresh
> kangaroo for dinner every night and do little each day except hunt.
> In fact, when pressed for details, most New Guinea hunters admit
> that they have bagged only a few kangaroos in their whole life.
> The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991,
> pp.33-34
> ...'
> http://web.archive.org/web/200303011...mc/origins.htm


"Venus-Veganmc.." Ya - right.

> "survive"? The Hazda cannot rely on their 'hunters' to survive.


So? Survival depended on the ability to sustain the tribe through shortages
of game or of edible plants.

>> >> >> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.
>> >> >
>> >> > Established.
>> >>
>> >> Irrelevant.
>> >
>> > Not in the least. <sigh>

>>
>> What is the relevance?

>
> Hominids were terrestrial frugivores.


Which hominids? What tribe, which period?

[..]
>> >> The line of thinking supported by the archeological evidence and
>> >> espoused
>> >> by the rest of the scientific community. You've read the references.
>> >> The
>> >> article you posted even says this.
>> >
>> > ".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much
>> > meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging.
>> > It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
>> > evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
>> > were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000

> years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .." - The Rise
> and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34
>>
>> Strawman, I never stipulated that all hominids hunted "big game", I
>> didn't
>> use the term. In fact they probably began with insects, shellfish and
>> worked
>> their way up though the animal kingdom until they eventually could take
>> down
>> buffalo and other large game. That's exactly what archeologists will tell
>> you the evidence shows. Also, the fact that they were also sometimes prey
>> is
>> irrelevant.

>
> 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.

> Humans canot "take down" large animals with their bare hands.


A weakened buffalo, separated from the herd, with several spears to the
vitals.

>> <snip a shitload of rubbish>

>
> The usual evasion.


The usual rubbish, you think you can make a case by sheer volume.

Your audience: "Look pearl pasted more quotes than Dutch, she wins".

>
> --unrestore--


That didn't prove what you claim. Hominids hunted AND gathered, the two are
not mutually exclusive, hence the term "hunter-gatherer". We do it to this
day. Also "big game" is not necessarily the only or primary form of hunting.
Subsistence hunters to this day hunt for small animals like rodents or
rabbits. That behaviour is still seen in isolated tribes.



  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your
> >> >> >> >> ridiculous
> >> >> >> >> beliefs.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Ipse dixit.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Well-documented and admitted.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What is?
> >> >>
> >> >> You.
> >> >
> >> > What? You're going to have to support your claim with evidence, you
> >> > know.
> >>
> >> The evidence is in the archives, forever. Who is going to benefit from me
> >> digging up crap that has been posted a hundred times before? Do you think
> >> that if you outlast your critics and make the final denial that it will
> >> all
> >> evaporate?

> >
> > Evidence for -what-?

>
> Apparently you do.


Apparently you're running away like the other predictable losers.

> > What will "all evaporate"? What indeed has it
> > benefitted you to resort to the same old ad hominem crap that your
> > equally desperate ex fellow trolls have shat a thousand times before?
> > Nothing. They're gone without a shred of respect, and you'll follow.

>
> The people who have wasted their time with you before have themselves to
> blame.


That's right, timewaster. Get a hobby.

> >> [..]
> >> >> >> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or
> >> >> >> >> dangerous, no predator does.
> >> >
> >> > "Man in his element fears no animal."
> >>
> >> Those statement are not contradictory. Use your head, I can't think for
> >> you.

> >
> > They certainly are contradictory. Use your head to think for yourself.

>
> No they're not.


Man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous, because
......... man fears no animal. Yep... not contradictory at all, you moron.

> >> >> >> > Of course hominids were prey,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And your small band running about the countryside were different,
> >> >> >> > how?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly
> >> >> >> obtuse.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Than hominid prey. You're becoming progressively more dense.
> >> >>
> >> >> **** off if you can't articulate coherent questions.
> >> >
> >> > Gutter language now as well. You're really shinin', jack.
> >>
> >> Cram your phony sensibilities up your ass princess, along with your
> >> crocodile tears over animals.

> >
> > I was brought up to value decency, and I do. You are projecting.

>
> BULL-SHIT, you don't have a shred of decency, if you did you would not hold
> the good people of the world in such contempt. An "F word" and you're
> shrieking?? You're disgusting.


Projection.

> >> >> >> >> that does not mean they were
> >> >> >> >> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also
> >> >> >> >> apparently
> >> >> >> >> quite
> >> >> >> >> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the
> >> >> >> >> capabilities
> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> >> later hominids.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What 'capabilities'?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the
> >> >> >> biological
> >> >> >> adapations that made hominids successful hunters.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > When? We are *still* not successful hunters using primitive
> >> >> > weapons.
> >> >>
> >> >> How would you know? When we develop better tools we generally use
> >> >> them.
> >> >
> >> > You should know it too, as I've posted relevant information.
> >>
> >> You posted selectively, information that tells a small part of a very
> >> long
> >> complex story. A huge part of that story involves the development and use
> >> of
> >> weapons and tools for hunting among early hominids. The archeological
> >> evidence is overwhelming. Did ALL hominids hunt? No, they didn't, and
> >> they
> >> didn't survive long either.

> >
> > Nothing to do with "Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc..
> > all the biological adapations that made hominids successful hunters."
> >
> > **"biological adaptations".**
> >
> > "early hominids"?
> >
> > '... while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much meat
> > they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging. It is
> > not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
> > evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
> > were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000
> > years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective.

>
> There's that "big-game" strawman again.


You're the one claiming humans' endurance is because of hunting.

Marathon running rabbits, huh.

> ....
> > Western male writers and anthropologists are not the only men with
> > an exaggerated view of hunting. In New Guinea I have lived with real
> > hunters, men who recently emerged from the stone age. .... To listen
> > to my New Guinea friends, you would think that they eat fresh
> > kangaroo for dinner every night and do little each day except hunt.
> > In fact, when pressed for details, most New Guinea hunters admit
> > that they have bagged only a few kangaroos in their whole life.
> > The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991,
> > pp.33-34
> > ...'
> > http://web.archive.org/web/200303011...mc/origins.htm

>
> "Venus-Veganmc.." Ya - right.


More intelligence and knowledge in his big toe than you'll ever have.

> > "survive"? The Hadza (c) cannot rely on their 'hunters' to survive.

>
> So? Survival depended on the ability to sustain the tribe through shortages
> of game or of edible plants.


In those times it is the Hadza grandmothers who provide critical support.

> >> >> >> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Established.
> >> >>
> >> >> Irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> > Not in the least. <sigh>
> >>
> >> What is the relevance?

> >
> > Hominids were terrestrial frugivores.

>
> Which hominids? What tribe, which period?


ALL hominids.

> [..]
> >> >> The line of thinking supported by the archeological evidence and
> >> >> espoused
> >> >> by the rest of the scientific community. You've read the references.
> >> >> The
> >> >> article you posted even says this.
> >> >
> >> > ".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much
> >> > meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging.
> >> > It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
> >> > evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
> >> > were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000

> > years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .." - The Rise
> > and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34
> >>
> >> Strawman, I never stipulated that all hominids hunted "big game", I
> >> didn't
> >> use the term. In fact they probably began with insects, shellfish and
> >> worked
> >> their way up though the animal kingdom until they eventually could take
> >> down
> >> buffalo and other large game. That's exactly what archeologists will tell
> >> you the evidence shows. Also, the fact that they were also sometimes prey
> >> is
> >> irrelevant.

> >
> > 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?

> > Humans canot "take down" large animals with their bare hands.

>
> A weakened buffalo, separated from the herd, with several spears to the
> vitals.


"weakened" how? How do you 'separate it from the herd' exactly?

> >> <snip a shitload of rubbish>

> >
> > The usual evasion. The only rubbish here is coming from you.

>
> The usual rubbish, you think you can make a case by sheer volume.


Real scientists with genuine research. You are a foolish liar.

> Your audience: "Look pearl pasted more quotes than Dutch, she wins".


You've lost it, troll. It is quality, not quantity, that counts.

> > --unrestore--

>
> That didn't prove what you claim. Hominids hunted


Unproven assertion.

> AND gathered, the two are
> not mutually exclusive, hence the term "hunter-gatherer". We do it to this
> day. Also "big game" is not necessarily the only or primary form of hunting.
> Subsistence hunters to this day hunt for small animals like rodents or
> rabbits. That behaviour is still seen in isolated tribes.


Using weapons and tools - a recent development; not running after them.



  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" > wrote
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
>> >> [..]
>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of
>> >> >> >> >> your
>> >> >> >> >> ridiculous
>> >> >> >> >> beliefs.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Ipse dixit.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Well-documented and admitted.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You.
>> >> >
>> >> > What? You're going to have to support your claim with evidence, you
>> >> > know.
>> >>
>> >> The evidence is in the archives, forever. Who is going to benefit from
>> >> me
>> >> digging up crap that has been posted a hundred times before? Do you
>> >> think
>> >> that if you outlast your critics and make the final denial that it
>> >> will
>> >> all
>> >> evaporate?
>> >
>> > Evidence for -what-?

>>
>> Apparently you do.

>
> Apparently


Obviously

>> > What will "all evaporate"? What indeed has it
>> > benefitted you to resort to the same old ad hominem crap that your
>> > equally desperate ex fellow trolls have shat a thousand times before?
>> > Nothing. They're gone without a shred of respect, and you'll follow.

>>
>> The people who have wasted their time with you before have themselves to
>> blame.

>
> That's right


I know.

>> >> [..]
>> >> >> >> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or
>> >> >> >> >> dangerous, no predator does.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Man in his element fears no animal."
>> >>
>> >> Those statement are not contradictory. Use your head, I can't think
>> >> for
>> >> you.
>> >
>> > They certainly are contradictory. Use your head to think for yourself.

>>
>> No they're not.

>
> Man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous, because
> ........ man fears no animal. Yep...


Not in his element, in a well-armed group. No predator attacks man or any
other animal when they are well-defended.

>
>> >> >> >> > Of course hominids were prey,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > And your small band running about the countryside were
>> >> >> >> > different,
>> >> >> >> > how?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly
>> >> >> >> obtuse.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Than hominid prey. You're becoming progressively more dense.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> **** off if you can't articulate coherent questions.
>> >> >
>> >> > Gutter language now as well. You're really shinin', jack.
>> >>
>> >> Cram your phony sensibilities up your ass princess, along with your
>> >> crocodile tears over animals.
>> >
>> > I was brought up to value decency, and I do. You are projecting.

>>
>> BULL-SHIT, you don't have a shred of decency, if you did you would not
>> hold
>> the good people of the world in such contempt. An "F word" and you're
>> shrieking?? You're disgusting.

>
> Projection.


Accurate observation. You project your own self-loathing causing you to hold
the rest of the human race in contempt.

>> >> >> >> >> that does not mean they were
>> >> >> >> >> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also
>> >> >> >> >> apparently
>> >> >> >> >> quite
>> >> >> >> >> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the
>> >> >> >> >> capabilities
>> >> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> >> later hominids.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What 'capabilities'?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the
>> >> >> >> biological
>> >> >> >> adapations that made hominids successful hunters.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > When? We are *still* not successful hunters using primitive
>> >> >> > weapons.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How would you know? When we develop better tools we generally use
>> >> >> them.
>> >> >
>> >> > You should know it too, as I've posted relevant information.
>> >>
>> >> You posted selectively, information that tells a small part of a very
>> >> long
>> >> complex story. A huge part of that story involves the development and
>> >> use
>> >> of
>> >> weapons and tools for hunting among early hominids. The archeological
>> >> evidence is overwhelming. Did ALL hominids hunt? No, they didn't, and
>> >> they
>> >> didn't survive long either.
>> >
>> > Nothing to do with "Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics,
>> > etc..etc..
>> > all the biological adapations that made hominids successful hunters."
>> >
>> > **"biological adaptations".**
>> >
>> > "early hominids"?
>> >
>> > '... while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much meat
>> > they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging. It is
>> > not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
>> > evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
>> > were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000
>> > years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective.

>>
>> 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.

> Marathon running rabbits, huh.


You're a two-dimensional person.

>> ....
>> > Western male writers and anthropologists are not the only men with
>> > an exaggerated view of hunting. In New Guinea I have lived with real
>> > hunters, men who recently emerged from the stone age. .... To listen
>> > to my New Guinea friends, you would think that they eat fresh
>> > kangaroo for dinner every night and do little each day except hunt.
>> > In fact, when pressed for details, most New Guinea hunters admit
>> > that they have bagged only a few kangaroos in their whole life.
>> > The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991,
>> > pp.33-34
>> > ...'
>> > http://web.archive.org/web/200303011...mc/origins.htm

>>
>> "Venus-Veganmc.." Ya - right.

>
> More intelligence and knowledge in his big toe than you'll ever have.


I never hoped for intelligence in my big toe.

>> > "survive"? The Hadza (c) cannot rely on their 'hunters' to survive.

>>
>> So? Survival depended on the ability to sustain the tribe through
>> shortages
>> of game or of edible plants.

>
> In those times it is the Hadza grandmothers who provide critical support.


Terrific, yay granny.

>> >> >> >> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Established.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not in the least. <sigh>
>> >>
>> >> What is the relevance?
>> >
>> > 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?

>> [..]
>> >> >> The line of thinking supported by the archeological evidence and
>> >> >> espoused
>> >> >> by the rest of the scientific community. You've read the
>> >> >> references.
>> >> >> The
>> >> >> article you posted even says this.
>> >> >
>> >> > ".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much
>> >> > meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or
>> >> > scavenging.
>> >> > It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have
>> >> > good
>> >> > evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans
>> >> > then
>> >> > were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of
>> >> > 500,000
>> > years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .." - The Rise
>> > and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34
>> >>
>> >> Strawman, I never stipulated that all hominids hunted "big game", I
>> >> didn't
>> >> use the term. In fact they probably began with insects, shellfish and
>> >> worked
>> >> their way up though the animal kingdom until they eventually could
>> >> take
>> >> down
>> >> buffalo and other large game. That's exactly what archeologists will
>> >> tell
>> >> you the evidence shows. Also, the fact that they were also sometimes
>> >> prey
>> >> is
>> >> irrelevant.
>> >
>> > 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?
>
>> > Humans canot "take down" large animals with their bare hands.

>>
>> A weakened buffalo, separated from the herd, with several spears to the
>> vitals.

>
> "weakened" how?


Any number of possible ways. Think. Fatigue, hit by a spear, injured, old,
young.

> How do you 'separate it from the herd' exactly?


Planning to do some hunting are you? You *surround it* once it falls back
from the herd. There are always stragglers. I can't believe I am bothering
to answer such stupid questions.

>> >> <snip a shitload of rubbish>
>> >
>> > The usual evasion. The only rubbish here is coming from you.

>>
>> The usual rubbish, you think you can make a case by sheer volume.

>
> Real scientists with genuine research.


Sometimes, always chosen selectively, seldom making the point you claim.

> You are a foolish liar.


Omigod I am shocked at such language <shriek!>

>> Your audience: "Look pearl pasted more quotes than Dutch, she wins".

>
> You've lost it, troll. It is quality, not quantity, that counts.


Then you lost ages ago.
>
>> > --unrestore--

>>
>> That didn't prove what you claim. Hominids hunted

>
> Unproven assertion.


You're not only so arrogant that you believe you can rewrite human morality,
you believe you can rewrite history too.

>> AND gathered, the two are
>> not mutually exclusive, hence the term "hunter-gatherer". We do it to
>> this
>> day. Also "big game" is not necessarily the only or primary form of
>> hunting.
>> Subsistence hunters to this day hunt for small animals like rodents or
>> rabbits. That behaviour is still seen in isolated tribes.

>
> Using weapons and tools - a recent development; not running after them.


Weapons and tools are not a recent development, even apes use them.


  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "pearl" > wrote
> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> >> [..]
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of
> >> >> >> >> >> your
> >> >> >> >> >> ridiculous
> >> >> >> >> >> beliefs.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Ipse dixit.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Well-documented and admitted.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What is?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What? You're going to have to support your claim with evidence, you
> >> >> > know.
> >> >>
> >> >> The evidence is in the archives, forever. Who is going to benefit from
> >> >> me
> >> >> digging up crap that has been posted a hundred times before? Do you
> >> >> think
> >> >> that if you outlast your critics and make the final denial that it
> >> >> will
> >> >> all
> >> >> evaporate?
> >> >
> >> > Evidence for -what-?
> >>
> >> Apparently you do.

> >
> > Apparently you're running away like the other predictable losers.

>
> Obviously


To the point where you must unethically edit what your opponent writes.

> >> > What will "all evaporate"? What indeed has it
> >> > benefitted you to resort to the same old ad hominem crap that your
> >> > equally desperate ex fellow trolls have shat a thousand times before?
> >> > Nothing. They're gone without a shred of respect, and you'll follow.
> >>
> >> The people who have wasted their time with you before have themselves to
> >> blame.

> >
> > That's right, timewaster. Get a hobby.

>
> I know.


Get to it then.

> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >> >> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or
> >> >> >> >> >> dangerous, no predator does.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Man in his element fears no animal."
> >> >>
> >> >> Those statement are not contradictory. Use your head, I can't think
> >> >> for
> >> >> you.
> >> >
> >> > They certainly are contradictory. Use your head to think for yourself.
> >>
> >> No they're not.

> >
> > Man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous, because
> > ........ man fears no animal. Yep... not contradictory at all, you moron.

>
> 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!

Were weapons originally developed for defensive purposes? Maybe.

> >> >> >> >> > Of course hominids were prey,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > And your small band running about the countryside were
> >> >> >> >> > different,
> >> >> >> >> > how?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly
> >> >> >> >> obtuse.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Than hominid prey. You're becoming progressively more dense.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> **** off if you can't articulate coherent questions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gutter language now as well. You're really shinin', jack.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cram your phony sensibilities up your ass princess, along with your
> >> >> crocodile tears over animals.
> >> >
> >> > I was brought up to value decency, and I do. You are projecting.
> >>
> >> BULL-SHIT, you don't have a shred of decency, if you did you would not
> >> hold
> >> the good people of the world in such contempt. An "F word" and you're
> >> shrieking?? You're disgusting.

> >
> > Projection.

>
> 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?

> >> >> >> >> >> that does not mean they were
> >> >> >> >> >> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also
> >> >> >> >> >> apparently
> >> >> >> >> >> quite
> >> >> >> >> >> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the
> >> >> >> >> >> capabilities
> >> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> >> >> later hominids.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > What 'capabilities'?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the
> >> >> >> >> biological
> >> >> >> >> adapations that made hominids successful hunters.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > When? We are *still* not successful hunters using primitive
> >> >> >> > weapons.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How would you know? When we develop better tools we generally use
> >> >> >> them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You should know it too, as I've posted relevant information.
> >> >>
> >> >> You posted selectively, information that tells a small part of a very
> >> >> long
> >> >> complex story. A huge part of that story involves the development and
> >> >> use
> >> >> of
> >> >> weapons and tools for hunting among early hominids. The archeological
> >> >> evidence is overwhelming. Did ALL hominids hunt? No, they didn't, and
> >> >> they
> >> >> didn't survive long either.
> >> >
> >> > Nothing to do with "Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics,
> >> > etc..etc..
> >> > all the biological adapations that made hominids successful hunters."
> >> >
> >> > **"biological adaptations".**
> >> >
> >> > "early hominids"?
> >> >
> >> > '... while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much meat
> >> > they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging. It is
> >> > not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
> >> > evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
> >> > were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000
> >> > years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective.
> >>
> >> 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.

> > Marathon running rabbits, huh.

>
> You're a two-dimensional person.


Tell us which wild animals you can chase and catch, marathon man.

> >> ....
> >> > Western male writers and anthropologists are not the only men with
> >> > an exaggerated view of hunting. In New Guinea I have lived with real
> >> > hunters, men who recently emerged from the stone age. .... To listen
> >> > to my New Guinea friends, you would think that they eat fresh
> >> > kangaroo for dinner every night and do little each day except hunt.
> >> > In fact, when pressed for details, most New Guinea hunters admit
> >> > that they have bagged only a few kangaroos in their whole life.
> >> > The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991,
> >> > pp.33-34
> >> > ...'
> >> > http://web.archive.org/web/200303011...mc/origins.htm
> >>
> >> "Venus-Veganmc.." Ya - right.

> >
> > More intelligence and knowledge in his big toe than you'll ever have.

>
> I never hoped for intelligence in my big toe.


Hope for it in a more appropriate place then, besides your fat gut.

> >> > "survive"? The Hadza (c) cannot rely on their 'hunters' to survive.
> >>
> >> So? Survival depended on the ability to sustain the tribe through
> >> shortages
> >> of game or of edible plants.

> >
> > In those times it is the Hadza grandmothers who provide critical support.

>
> Terrific, yay granny.


Indeed.

> >> >> >> >> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Established.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Irrelevant.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not in the least. <sigh>
> >> >>
> >> >> What is the relevance?
> >> >
> >> > 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 line of thinking supported by the archeological evidence and
> >> >> >> espoused
> >> >> >> by the rest of the scientific community. You've read the
> >> >> >> references.
> >> >> >> The
> >> >> >> article you posted even says this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much
> >> >> > meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or
> >> >> > scavenging.
> >> >> > It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have
> >> >> > good
> >> >> > evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans
> >> >> > then
> >> >> > were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of
> >> >> > 500,000
> >> > years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .." - The Rise
> >> > and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34
> >> >>
> >> >> Strawman, I never stipulated that all hominids hunted "big game", I
> >> >> didn't
> >> >> use the term. In fact they probably began with insects, shellfish and
> >> >> worked
> >> >> their way up though the animal kingdom until they eventually could
> >> >> take
> >> >> down
> >> >> buffalo and other large game. That's exactly what archeologists will
> >> >> tell
> >> >> you the evidence shows. Also, the fact that they were also sometimes
> >> >> prey
> >> >> is
> >> >> irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> > 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?

'Rivers's book has ambitions to be more than a history of a minor
literary and regionalist genre. He wants to make some very large
claims for hunting as the heritage of all humans; so despite his
disavowal of theory, he marshals his own theorist on behalf of
what he calls "hunting's indelible heritage" (xii). He draws heavily
on José Ortega y Gasset, the Spanish philosopher whose 1942
book Meditations on Hunting served for a time as a kind of bible
of modern hunters. Ortega y Gasset argues that hunting returns
humans to our Paleolithic and zoological origins. Hunting occurs
"throughout the zoological scale" (Ortega y Gasset 46), and
Paleolithic man had to "devote himself wholly to hunting." It was
our "first occupation" and part of our "universal history" (118).

By the 1950s and 1960s, hunting as human origin became a privileged
theory in anthropological literature and was given a scientific pedigree.
This view of the role of hunting in human evolution climaxed in a 1969
conference and book of proceedings called Man the Hunter (1968),
edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore. The idea was popularized
by a number of writers, perhaps most famously by Robert Ardrey in
The Hunting Hypothesis (1976). According to this theory, human
evolution-biological, behavioral, cultural- can be understood by
hunting. Hunting hardwired into our genes certain traits and behaviors.
As William S. Laughlin wrote in "Hunting: An Integrated Behavior
System" in Man the Hunter, hunting is "the master behavior pattern
of the human species" (Lee and DeVore 311). Human reason and
forethought, the sexual division of labor, cooperation among males,
violence, war, and tool use were all the products of the evolutionary
pressures of hunting. Hunting propelled us past the beasts and into
humanity. As Ardrey put it, we became human because "for millions
and millions of years we killed for a living" (11).

<however>

So overdetermined is this view of hunting that it could not long survive
critique. Feminists were among the most critical. Mary Zeiss Stange's
Woman the Hunter (1997) clearly glances at this view of hunting,
because she wants to take on one of its central features-gender.
Reviewing the literature of feminist anthropologists, Stange shows how
this overweening theory of the prehistoric hunter was critiqued. As many
anthropologists have noted, it amounts to little more than a scientific
"just-so story," not so much explaining the past as projecting the present
into prehistory. A theory of the violent origins of humanity fit well in
explaining the circumstances of World War II and the Cold War. It also
explained rigid gender roles in the middle of the century- man the hunter
and woman the gatherer. But the problems are scientific and logical as
well: if human reason and intelligence are the gifts of hunting, why are
they shared by both men and women, when only men hunted? Evolution
does not squander such gifts. Additionally, Richard B. Lee himself noted
that hunting is not universal, as the theory claims. Modern hunting cultures
sometimes devote as little as "only twelve to nineteen hours a week" to
getting food (37). More devastating, as Lewis Binford noted in Bones:
Ancient Men and Modern Myths (1981), proto-humans were scavengers
and prey before they were hunters. But man the scavenger is not as
romantic as man the hunter.

For its theoretical hubris and scientific inaccuracies, anthropologists
were led "to abandon the hunting hypothesis long ago" (Stange 57).
....
The tough realism of the hunter is just as much a fantasy as anything
hunters accuse non-hunters of doing. They try to dress their sport in
Darwinian terms, but the view of nature is really Hobbesian-nasty and
brutish. Their Darwinism is skewed in the same way that social
Darwinism is a skewed attempt to justify predatory economic behavior.
Darwinism posits a struggle for life, but Darwin himself is clear that
struggle is a complex interaction of climate, geography, adaptation,
and population dynamics. It is not simply about predation.

Recently, I traveled to the Galápagos Islands, the location most intimately
associated with Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact, it is often called a
living laboratory of evolution. Research continues there to this day on
"Darwin's finches," the seed-eating exemplars of evolution. These finches
are not predatory. The greatest predation in the Galápagos was introduced
by humans, the whalers and buccaneers who devastated the populations
of iguanas and Galápagos tortoises. Those who visit these islands
comment on the animals and their "tameness." Darwin noted it, too, as he
played with marine iguanas and rode the tortoises. Melville did as well.
The animals are variously called tame, friendly, curious, silly, stupid,
fearless. Sea lions swim up to you in the sea or walk up to you on the
beach. Mockingbirds land on you. Blue-footed boobies let you approach
to within inches. Over five million years of evolution without predators
gave the creatures this wonderful tameness.

This intimacy with animals is deeply moving and utterly different from the
violent "blood intimacy" praised by hunters like Ortega y Gasset (91). It is
an intimacy that many people now long for as nature becomes more
threatened and vulnerable, more driven into the remote corners of the world.
Wildlife writer Peter Matthiessen describes the feeling well in The Birds of
Heaven (2001). He is speaking about cranes in this passage: "Perhaps they
will one day regain the confiding trust that is so moving in wild creatures of
remote places which man reached very late, places such as the Galapagos
[sic], or where for centuries man has honored a prohibition against killing,
as in certain Buddhist regions of the Himalaya" (182). In our relations with
animals, I find this ethic much more inspiring and noble than hunting.
...'
http://alh.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/4/818

> >> > Humans canot "take down" large animals with their bare hands.
> >>
> >> A weakened buffalo, separated from the herd, with several spears to the
> >> vitals.

> >
> > "weakened" how?

>
> Any number of possible ways. Think. Fatigue, hit by a spear, injured, old,
> young.


There were many large *real* predators on the lookout for such animals.

What are these "spears" made from and how?

> > How do you 'separate it from the herd' exactly?

>
> Planning to do some hunting are you? You *surround it* once it falls back
> from the herd. There are always stragglers. I can't believe I am bothering
> to answer such stupid questions.


"falls back from the herd"? You are running after herds now? lol.

There were always teams of *real* predators after such animals.

> >> >> <snip a shitload of rubbish>
> >> >
> >> > The usual evasion. The only rubbish here is coming from you.
> >>
> >> The usual rubbish, you think you can make a case by sheer volume.

> >
> > Real scientists with genuine research.

>
> Sometimes, always chosen selectively, seldom making the point you claim.


Ipse dixit, and you have zero credibility.

'Most anthropologists have tacitly assumed that human culture was
established by men. The 'Man the Hunter' myth has dominated
palaeoanthropology, now, almost since the inception of the discipline.
Through the 1960s and 1970s, it was taken as self-evident that the sexual
division of labour, with males going away hunting and bringing home the
bacon, emerged millions of years ago in a process linked with the
evolution of bipedalism, tool-making and the unusually large human brain.

In the past decade, there's been a revolution in archaeology and
palaeontology, leading to the view that all this is nonsense, that the early
hominids ('australopithecines') were ape-like creatures leading ape-like
lives,and that it was only in a relatively recent 'human revolution' that
culture as we know it emerged. Leading archaeologists Lewis Binford
and Olga Sofferare now showing that in Europe, at least, there is no
evidence that organized hunting bands were traveling distances, hunting
large game animals and bringing meat back to semi-permanent base
camps until at most 50,000 yearsago.

Up-to-date archaeologists and palaeontologists such as Chris Stringer
of the London Natural History Museum are today almost unanimously
agreed: the Neanderthals were not our ancestors and were not culturally
'modern'. The dominant view today is (a) that the human species
emerged in a revolutionary way, (b) that this revolution began in Africa
about 120,000 years and was consummated on a global level some
60,000-40,000 years ago, and (c) that only during this revolution did
symbolic language and culture emerge. Those primatologists,
sociobiologists and others attempting to work out the internal dynamics
of this revolution, moreover, stress that women's interests and initiatives
must have been paramount. This has little to do with feminist political
thinking. The scientists' confidence on this score is rooted partly in
standard sociobiological theory: among mammalian species including
all primates, it's female strategies which tend to drive evolutionary change.
...'
http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/...rganiser.p df

> > You are a foolish liar.

>
> Omigod I am shocked at such language <shriek!>


What language?

> >> Your audience: "Look pearl pasted more quotes than Dutch, she wins".

> >
> > You've lost it, troll. It is quality, not quantity, that counts.

>
> Then you lost ages ago.


You wish.

> >> > --unrestore--
> >>
> >> That didn't prove what you claim. Hominids hunted

> >
> > Unproven assertion.

>
> You're not only so arrogant that you believe you can rewrite human morality,


'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
...
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
"cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

> you believe you can rewrite history too.


Who are you referring to above? When?

> >> AND gathered, the two are
> >> not mutually exclusive, hence the term "hunter-gatherer". We do it to
> >> this
> >> day. Also "big game" is not necessarily the only or primary form of
> >> hunting.
> >> Subsistence hunters to this day hunt for small animals like rodents or
> >> rabbits. That behaviour is still seen in isolated tribes.

> >
> > Using weapons and tools - a recent development; not running after them.

>
> Weapons and tools are not a recent development, even apes use them.


'Electron microscope studies of fossil teeth found in East Africa
(Walker 1984) suggest a diet composed primarily of fruit, while a similar
examination of stone tools from a 1.5 million-year-old site at Koobi Fora
in Kenya (Keeley and Toth 1981) shows that they were used on plant
materials. The small amount of meat in the early Paleolithic diet was
probably scavenged, rather than hunted (Ehrenberg 1989b).

The `natural' condition of the species was evidently a diet made up
largely of vegetables rich in fiber, as opposed to the modern high fat
and animal protein diet with its attendant chronic disorders
(Mendeloff 1977). Though our early forbears employed their "detailed
knowledge of the environment and cognitive mapping" (Zihlman 1981)
in the service of a plant-gathering subsistence, the archaeological evidence
for hunting appears to slowly increase with time (Hodder 1991).

Much evidence, however, has overturned assumptions as to widespread
prehistoric hunting. Collections of bones seen earlier as evidence of large
kills of mammals, for example, have turned out to be, upon closer
examination, the results of movement by flowing water or caches by
animals. Lewis Binford's "Were There Elephant Hunters at Tooralba?"
(1989) is a good instance of such a closer look, in which he doubts there
was significant hunting until 200,000 years ago or sooner. Adrienne Zihlman
(1981) has concluded that "hunting arose relatively late in evolution," and
"may not extend beyond the last one hundred thousand years." And there
are many (e.g. Straus 1986, Trinkhaus 1986) who do not see evidence for
serious hunting of large mammals until even later, viz. the later Upper
Paleolithic, just before the emergence of agriculture.
.....'
http://www.ranadasgupta.com/notes.asp?note_id=40



  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote


[..]

> To the point where you must unethically edit what your opponent writes.


I didn't edit anything, I snipped away your irrelevant snarky comments

[..]

>> >> The people who have wasted their time with you before have themselves
>> >> to
>> >> blame.
>> >
>> > That's right

>>
>> 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.

[..]


>> 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.
>
> Were weapons originally developed for defensive purposes? Maybe.


I am quite sure that both defensive and offensive uses were obvious right
away.

[..]
>> 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.

[..]

>> >> 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.

> Tell us which wild animals you can chase and catch, marathon man.


What an idiotic comment.


[..]

>> >> > 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.


[..]

>> >> > 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.

> 'Rivers's book has ambitions to be more than a history of a minor
> literary and regionalist genre. He wants to make some very large
> claims for hunting as the heritage of all humans; so despite his
> disavowal of theory, he marshals his own theorist on behalf of
> what he calls "hunting's indelible heritage" (xii). He draws heavily
> on José Ortega y Gasset, the Spanish philosopher whose 1942
> book Meditations on Hunting served for a time as a kind of bible
> of modern hunters. Ortega y Gasset argues that hunting returns
> humans to our Paleolithic and zoological origins. Hunting occurs
> "throughout the zoological scale" (Ortega y Gasset 46), and
> Paleolithic man had to "devote himself wholly to hunting." It was
> our "first occupation" and part of our "universal history" (118).
>
> By the 1950s and 1960s, hunting as human origin became a privileged
> theory in anthropological literature and was given a scientific pedigree.
> This view of the role of hunting in human evolution climaxed in a 1969
> conference and book of proceedings called Man the Hunter (1968),
> edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore. The idea was popularized
> by a number of writers, perhaps most famously by Robert Ardrey in
> The Hunting Hypothesis (1976). According to this theory, human
> evolution-biological, behavioral, cultural- can be understood by
> hunting. Hunting hardwired into our genes certain traits and behaviors.
> As William S. Laughlin wrote in "Hunting: An Integrated Behavior
> System" in Man the Hunter, hunting is "the master behavior pattern
> of the human species" (Lee and DeVore 311). Human reason and
> forethought, the sexual division of labor, cooperation among males,
> violence, war, and tool use were all the products of the evolutionary
> pressures of hunting. Hunting propelled us past the beasts and into
> humanity. As Ardrey put it, we became human because "for millions
> and millions of years we killed for a living" (11).
>
> <however>
>
> So overdetermined is this view of hunting that it could not long survive
> critique. Feminists were among the most critical. Mary Zeiss Stange's
> Woman the Hunter (1997) clearly glances at this view of hunting,
> because she wants to take on one of its central features-gender.
> Reviewing the literature of feminist anthropologists, Stange shows how
> this overweening theory of the prehistoric hunter was critiqued. As many
> anthropologists have noted, it amounts to little more than a scientific
> "just-so story," not so much explaining the past as projecting the present
> into prehistory. A theory of the violent origins of humanity fit well in
> explaining the circumstances of World War II and the Cold War. It also
> explained rigid gender roles in the middle of the century- man the hunter
> and woman the gatherer. But the problems are scientific and logical as
> well: if human reason and intelligence are the gifts of hunting, why are
> they shared by both men and women, when only men hunted? Evolution
> does not squander such gifts. Additionally, Richard B. Lee himself noted
> that hunting is not universal, as the theory claims. Modern hunting
> cultures
> sometimes devote as little as "only twelve to nineteen hours a week" to
> getting food (37). More devastating, as Lewis Binford noted in Bones:
> Ancient Men and Modern Myths (1981), proto-humans were scavengers
> and prey before they were hunters. But man the scavenger is not as
> romantic as man the hunter.
>
> For its theoretical hubris and scientific inaccuracies, anthropologists
> were led "to abandon the hunting hypothesis long ago" (Stange 57).
> ...
> The tough realism of the hunter is just as much a fantasy as anything
> hunters accuse non-hunters of doing. They try to dress their sport in
> Darwinian terms, but the view of nature is really Hobbesian-nasty and
> brutish. Their Darwinism is skewed in the same way that social
> Darwinism is a skewed attempt to justify predatory economic behavior.
> Darwinism posits a struggle for life, but Darwin himself is clear that
> struggle is a complex interaction of climate, geography, adaptation,
> and population dynamics. It is not simply about predation.
>
> Recently, I traveled to the Galápagos Islands, the location most
> intimately
> associated with Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact, it is often called
> a
> living laboratory of evolution. Research continues there to this day on
> "Darwin's finches," the seed-eating exemplars of evolution. These finches
> are not predatory. The greatest predation in the Galápagos was introduced
> by humans, the whalers and buccaneers who devastated the populations
> of iguanas and Galápagos tortoises. Those who visit these islands
> comment on the animals and their "tameness." Darwin noted it, too, as he
> played with marine iguanas and rode the tortoises. Melville did as well.
> The animals are variously called tame, friendly, curious, silly, stupid,
> fearless. Sea lions swim up to you in the sea or walk up to you on the
> beach. Mockingbirds land on you. Blue-footed boobies let you approach
> to within inches. Over five million years of evolution without predators
> gave the creatures this wonderful tameness.
>
> This intimacy with animals is deeply moving and utterly different from the
> violent "blood intimacy" praised by hunters like Ortega y Gasset (91). It
> is
> an intimacy that many people now long for as nature becomes more
> threatened and vulnerable, more driven into the remote corners of the
> world.
> Wildlife writer Peter Matthiessen describes the feeling well in The Birds
> of
> Heaven (2001). He is speaking about cranes in this passage: "Perhaps they
> will one day regain the confiding trust that is so moving in wild
> creatures of
> remote places which man reached very late, places such as the Galapagos
> [sic], or where for centuries man has honored a prohibition against
> killing,
> as in certain Buddhist regions of the Himalaya" (182). In our relations
> with
> animals, I find this ethic much more inspiring and noble than hunting.
> ..'
> 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. 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.

>> >> > Humans canot "take down" large animals with their bare hands.
>> >>
>> >> A weakened buffalo, separated from the herd, with several spears to
>> >> the
>> >> vitals.
>> >
>> > "weakened" how?

>>
>> Any number of possible ways. Think. Fatigue, hit by a spear, injured,
>> old,
>> young.

>
> There were many large *real* predators on the lookout for such animals.


Sure, and small ones. Predation is common in nature.

> What are these "spears" made from and how?


What the hell do you think?

>> > How do you 'separate it from the herd' exactly?

>>
>> Planning to do some hunting are you? You *surround it* once it falls back
>> from the herd. There are always stragglers. I can't believe I am
>> bothering
>> to answer such stupid questions.

>
> "falls back from the herd"? You are running after herds now? lol.


Of course you follow herd animals in herds.

> There were always teams of *real* predators after such animals.


Man was a real predator in competition with others.

>> >> >> <snip a shitload of rubbish>
>> >> >
>> >> > The usual evasion. The only rubbish here is coming from you.
>> >>
>> >> The usual rubbish, you think you can make a case by sheer volume.
>> >
>> > Real scientists with genuine research.

>>
>> Sometimes, always chosen selectively, seldom making the point you claim.

>
> Ipse dixit,


And true
<snip propaganda>

>> > You are a foolish liar.

>>
>> Omigod I am shocked at such language <shriek!>

>
> What language?


You called me a liar, you insulted my character. Compare that to simply
using an expletive like "for **** sakes" which does not insult anyone, which
you intimated was unethical behaviour.

>> You're not only so arrogant that you believe you can rewrite human
>> morality,

>
> 'in·hu·man


Thanks for proving my point,

>> 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.

>> >> AND gathered, the two are
>> >> not mutually exclusive, hence the term "hunter-gatherer". We do it to
>> >> this
>> >> day. Also "big game" is not necessarily the only or primary form of
>> >> hunting.
>> >> Subsistence hunters to this day hunt for small animals like rodents or
>> >> rabbits. That behaviour is still seen in isolated tribes.
>> >
>> > Using weapons and tools - a recent development; not running after them.

>>
>> Weapons and tools are not a recent development, even apes use them.

>
> 'Electron microscope studies of fossil teeth found in East Africa
> (Walker 1984) suggest a diet composed primarily of fruit, while a similar
> examination of stone tools from a 1.5 million-year-old site at Koobi Fora
> in Kenya (Keeley and Toth 1981) shows that they were used on plant
> materials. The small amount of meat in the early Paleolithic diet was
> probably scavenged, rather than hunted (Ehrenberg 1989b).
>
> The `natural' condition of the species was evidently a diet made up
> largely of vegetables rich in fiber, as opposed to the modern high fat
> and animal protein diet with its attendant chronic disorders
> (Mendeloff 1977). Though our early forbears employed their "detailed
> knowledge of the environment and cognitive mapping" (Zihlman 1981)
> in the service of a plant-gathering subsistence, the archaeological
> evidence
> for hunting appears to slowly increase with time (Hodder 1991).
>
> Much evidence, however, has overturned assumptions as to widespread
> prehistoric hunting. Collections of bones seen earlier as evidence of
> large
> kills of mammals, for example, have turned out to be, upon closer
> examination, the results of movement by flowing water or caches by
> animals. Lewis Binford's "Were There Elephant Hunters at Tooralba?"
> (1989) is a good instance of such a closer look, in which he doubts there
> was significant hunting until 200,000 years ago or sooner. Adrienne
> Zihlman
> (1981) has concluded that "hunting arose relatively late in evolution,"
> and
> "may not extend beyond the last one hundred thousand years." And there
> are many (e.g. Straus 1986, Trinkhaus 1986) who do not see evidence for
> serious hunting of large mammals until even later, viz. the later Upper
> Paleolithic, just before the emergence of agriculture.
> ....'
> http://www.ranadasgupta.com/notes.asp?note_id=40


Collecting shellfish is hunting, fishing is hunting, scavenging is
meat-eating. Large mammals are not the only kind of animal.




  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"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 to change the meaning. You have no credibility.

> I snipped away your irrelevant snarky comments


You know all about snarky comments. What you sow is what you reap.

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


And you've done it again. You have zero credibility, 'dutch'.

> >> 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, ditch?

> [..]
>
>
> >> 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.

> > 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.

> [..]
> >> 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.

> [..]
>
> >> >> 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.

> > Tell us which wild animals you can chase and catch, marathon man.

>
> What an idiotic comment.


Evasion. Answer the question, idiot.

[..]
>
> >> >> > 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.

> [..]
>
> >> >> > 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?

> > 'Rivers's book has ambitions to be more than a history of a minor
> > literary and regionalist genre. He wants to make some very large
> > claims for hunting as the heritage of all humans; so despite his
> > disavowal of theory, he marshals his own theorist on behalf of
> > what he calls "hunting's indelible heritage" (xii). He draws heavily
> > on José Ortega y Gasset, the Spanish philosopher whose 1942
> > book Meditations on Hunting served for a time as a kind of bible
> > of modern hunters. Ortega y Gasset argues that hunting returns
> > humans to our Paleolithic and zoological origins. Hunting occurs
> > "throughout the zoological scale" (Ortega y Gasset 46), and
> > Paleolithic man had to "devote himself wholly to hunting." It was
> > our "first occupation" and part of our "universal history" (118).
> >
> > By the 1950s and 1960s, hunting as human origin became a privileged
> > theory in anthropological literature and was given a scientific pedigree.
> > This view of the role of hunting in human evolution climaxed in a 1969
> > conference and book of proceedings called Man the Hunter (1968),
> > edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore. The idea was popularized
> > by a number of writers, perhaps most famously by Robert Ardrey in
> > The Hunting Hypothesis (1976). According to this theory, human
> > evolution-biological, behavioral, cultural- can be understood by
> > hunting. Hunting hardwired into our genes certain traits and behaviors.
> > As William S. Laughlin wrote in "Hunting: An Integrated Behavior
> > System" in Man the Hunter, hunting is "the master behavior pattern
> > of the human species" (Lee and DeVore 311). Human reason and
> > forethought, the sexual division of labor, cooperation among males,
> > violence, war, and tool use were all the products of the evolutionary
> > pressures of hunting. Hunting propelled us past the beasts and into
> > humanity. As Ardrey put it, we became human because "for millions
> > and millions of years we killed for a living" (11).
> >
> > <however>
> >
> > So overdetermined is this view of hunting that it could not long survive
> > critique. Feminists were among the most critical. Mary Zeiss Stange's
> > Woman the Hunter (1997) clearly glances at this view of hunting,
> > because she wants to take on one of its central features-gender.
> > Reviewing the literature of feminist anthropologists, Stange shows how
> > this overweening theory of the prehistoric hunter was critiqued. As many
> > anthropologists have noted, it amounts to little more than a scientific
> > "just-so story," not so much explaining the past as projecting the present
> > into prehistory. A theory of the violent origins of humanity fit well in
> > explaining the circumstances of World War II and the Cold War. It also
> > explained rigid gender roles in the middle of the century- man the hunter
> > and woman the gatherer. But the problems are scientific and logical as
> > well: if human reason and intelligence are the gifts of hunting, why are
> > they shared by both men and women, when only men hunted? Evolution
> > does not squander such gifts. Additionally, Richard B. Lee himself noted
> > that hunting is not universal, as the theory claims. Modern hunting cultures
> > sometimes devote as little as "only twelve to nineteen hours a week" to
> > getting food (37). More devastating, as Lewis Binford noted in Bones:
> > Ancient Men and Modern Myths (1981), proto-humans were scavengers
> > and prey before they were hunters. But man the scavenger is not as
> > romantic as man the hunter.
> >
> > For its theoretical hubris and scientific inaccuracies, anthropologists
> > were led "to abandon the hunting hypothesis long ago" (Stange 57).
> > ...
> > The tough realism of the hunter is just as much a fantasy as anything
> > hunters accuse non-hunters of doing. They try to dress their sport in
> > Darwinian terms, but the view of nature is really Hobbesian-nasty and
> > brutish. Their Darwinism is skewed in the same way that social
> > Darwinism is a skewed attempt to justify predatory economic behavior.
> > Darwinism posits a struggle for life, but Darwin himself is clear that
> > struggle is a complex interaction of climate, geography, adaptation,
> > and population dynamics. It is not simply about predation.
> >
> > Recently, I traveled to the Galápagos Islands, the location most intimately
> > associated with Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact, it is often called a
> > living laboratory of evolution. Research continues there to this day on
> > "Darwin's finches," the seed-eating exemplars of evolution. These finches
> > are not predatory. The greatest predation in the Galápagos was introduced
> > by humans, the whalers and buccaneers who devastated the populations
> > of iguanas and Galápagos tortoises. Those who visit these islands
> > comment on the animals and their "tameness." Darwin noted it, too, as he
> > played with marine iguanas and rode the tortoises. Melville did as well.
> > The animals are variously called tame, friendly, curious, silly, stupid,
> > fearless. Sea lions swim up to you in the sea or walk up to you on the
> > beach. Mockingbirds land on you. Blue-footed boobies let you approach
> > to within inches. Over five million years of evolution without predators
> > gave the creatures this wonderful tameness.
> >
> > This intimacy with animals is deeply moving and utterly different from the
> > violent "blood intimacy" praised by hunters like Ortega y Gasset (91). It is
> > an intimacy that many people now long for as nature becomes more
> > threatened and vulnerable, more driven into the remote corners of the world.
> > Wildlife writer Peter Matthiessen describes the feeling well in The Birds of
> > Heaven (2001). He is speaking about cranes in this passage: "Perhaps they
> > will one day regain the confiding trust that is so moving in wild creatures of
> > remote places which man reached very late, places such as the Galapagos
> > [sic], or where for centuries man has honored a prohibition against killing,
> > as in certain Buddhist regions of the Himalaya" (182). In our relations with
> > animals, I find this ethic much more inspiring and noble than hunting.
> > ..'
> > 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', and ignores or spins away evidence that trashes his views as he has
no desire for objective learning. The misconceptions are all yours, ditch.

> 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?

'This is a swallow-tail gull and its chick. These animals are so
unaccustomed to predators that they will sit right next to the
trail as visitors walk by, allowing for some great photographic
opportunities. (689x509; 54KB)

Here we have a juvenile Galapagos hawk. It's pretty much the
only predator in the islands, and it can only go after small prey
--an adult iguana would be too big for it. (726x668; 65KB)
....
http://space.mit.edu/~kenton/Galapagos/Welcome.html

> >> >> > Humans canot "take down" large animals with their bare hands.
> >> >>
> >> >> A weakened buffalo, separated from the herd, with several spears to
> >> >> the
> >> >> vitals.
> >> >
> >> > "weakened" how?
> >>
> >> Any number of possible ways. Think. Fatigue, hit by a spear, injured,
> >> old,
> >> young.

> >
> > There were many large *real* predators on the lookout for such animals.

>
> Sure, and small ones. Predation is common in nature.


And there you are - right there in the middle of it.. fair game, I say.

> > What are these "spears" made from and how?

>
> What the hell do you think?


I don't know. Do you? Answer the question.

> >> > How do you 'separate it from the herd' exactly?
> >>
> >> Planning to do some hunting are you? You *surround it* once it falls back
> >> from the herd. There are always stragglers. I can't believe I am
> >> bothering to answer such stupid questions.

> >
> > "falls back from the herd"? You are running after herds now? lol.

>
> Of course you follow herd animals in herds.


You couldn't keep up with a stampeding herd of buffalo.

> > There were always teams of *real* predators after such animals.

>
> Man was a real predator in competition with others.


Real predators are equipped by nature to catch and kill.

Humans are not.

> >> >> >> <snip a shitload of rubbish>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The usual evasion. The only rubbish here is coming from you.
> >> >>
> >> >> The usual rubbish, you think you can make a case by sheer volume.
> >> >
> >> > Real scientists with genuine research.
> >>
> >> Sometimes, always chosen selectively, seldom making the point you claim.

> >
> > Ipse dixit, and you have zero credibility.

>
> And true


A lie. All we can expect from you.

> <snip propaganda>


Says propagandist dutch, who ignores or spins away evidence
that trashes his views, as he has no desire for objective learning. .

'Most anthropologists have tacitly assumed that human culture was
established by men. The 'Man the Hunter' myth has dominated
palaeoanthropology, now, almost since the inception of the discipline.
Through the 1960s and 1970s, it was taken as self-evident that the sexual
division of labour, with males going away hunting and bringing home the
bacon, emerged millions of years ago in a process linked with the
evolution of bipedalism, tool-making and the unusually large human brain.

In the past decade, there's been a revolution in archaeology and
palaeontology, leading to the view that all this is nonsense, that the early
hominids ('australopithecines') were ape-like creatures leading ape-like
lives,and that it was only in a relatively recent 'human revolution' that
culture as we know it emerged. Leading archaeologists Lewis Binford
and Olga Sofferare now showing that in Europe, at least, there is no
evidence that organized hunting bands were traveling distances, hunting
large game animals and bringing meat back to semi-permanent base
camps until at most 50,000 yearsago.

Up-to-date archaeologists and palaeontologists such as Chris Stringer
of the London Natural History Museum are today almost unanimously
agreed: the Neanderthals were not our ancestors and were not culturally
'modern'. The dominant view today is (a) that the human species
emerged in a revolutionary way, (b) that this revolution began in Africa
about 120,000 years and was consummated on a global level some
60,000-40,000 years ago, and (c) that only during this revolution did
symbolic language and culture emerge. Those primatologists,
sociobiologists and others attempting to work out the internal dynamics
of this revolution, moreover, stress that women's interests and initiatives
must have been paramount. This has little to do with feminist political
thinking. The scientists' confidence on this score is rooted partly in
standard sociobiological theory: among mammalian species including
all primates, it's female strategies which tend to drive evolutionary change.
...'
http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/...rganiser.p df

> >> > You are a foolish liar.
> >>
> >> Omigod I am shocked at such language <shriek!>

> >
> > What language?

>
> You called me a liar,


You ARE a liar!

> you insulted my character.


You ARE a fool, you fat leech.

> 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.

> >> You're not only so arrogant that you believe you can rewrite human
> >> morality,

> >
> > 'in·hu·man

adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
...
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
"cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>
> Thanks for proving my point,


How's that?

> >> 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.

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

> >> >> AND gathered, the two are
> >> >> not mutually exclusive, hence the term "hunter-gatherer". We do it to
> >> >> this
> >> >> day. Also "big game" is not necessarily the only or primary form of
> >> >> hunting.
> >> >> Subsistence hunters to this day hunt for small animals like rodents or
> >> >> rabbits. That behaviour is still seen in isolated tribes.
> >> >
> >> > Using weapons and tools - a recent development; not running after them.
> >>
> >> Weapons and tools are not a recent development, even apes use them.

> >
> > 'Electron microscope studies of fossil teeth found in East Africa
> > (Walker 1984) suggest a diet composed primarily of fruit, while a similar
> > examination of stone tools from a 1.5 million-year-old site at Koobi Fora
> > in Kenya (Keeley and Toth 1981) shows that they were used on plant
> > materials. The small amount of meat in the early Paleolithic diet was
> > probably scavenged, rather than hunted (Ehrenberg 1989b).
> >
> > The `natural' condition of the species was evidently a diet made up
> > largely of vegetables rich in fiber, as opposed to the modern high fat
> > and animal protein diet with its attendant chronic disorders
> > (Mendeloff 1977). Though our early forbears employed their "detailed
> > knowledge of the environment and cognitive mapping" (Zihlman 1981)
> > in the service of a plant-gathering subsistence, the archaeological evidence
> > for hunting appears to slowly increase with time (Hodder 1991).
> >
> > Much evidence, however, has overturned assumptions as to widespread
> > prehistoric hunting. Collections of bones seen earlier as evidence of large
> > kills of mammals, for example, have turned out to be, upon closer
> > examination, the results of movement by flowing water or caches by
> > animals. Lewis Binford's "Were There Elephant Hunters at Tooralba?"
> > (1989) is a good instance of such a closer look, in which he doubts there
> > was significant hunting until 200,000 years ago or sooner. Adrienne Zihlman
> > (1981) has concluded that "hunting arose relatively late in evolution," and
> > "may not extend beyond the last one hundred thousand years." And there
> > are many (e.g. Straus 1986, Trinkhaus 1986) who do not see evidence for
> > serious hunting of large mammals until even later, viz. the later Upper
> > Paleolithic, just before the emergence of agriculture.
> > ....'
> > http://www.ranadasgupta.com/notes.asp?note_id=40

>
> Collecting shellfish is hunting,


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

> fishing is hunting,


'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
whom you believe."

Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm

> scavenging is meat-eating.


If you want to call bone marrow 'meat', and it's not *hunting*.

> Large mammals are not the only kind of animal.


Which smaller wild animals can you chase and catch, 'dutch'?




  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"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?



  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "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

to change the meaning. You have no credibility.
> >
> >> I snipped away your

> >
> > You know all about snarky comments. What you sow is what you reap.

>
> I didn't change the meaning, I


Liar.

> You should be thankful, if you're so concerned about being respectful.


You first.

> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> >> The people who
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's right

> >
> > And you've done it again.

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


You started it. You stop it.

> >> >> I know.
> >> >
> >> > Get to it then.
> >>
> >> Give me your email

> >
> > What are you doing in these NGs?

>
> Like I just said,


Snarkiness removed.

> [..]
> >>
> >>
> >> >> 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.


'Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.

Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.

"One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
being preyed upon."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

> >> > 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.


'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
whom you believe."

Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm

> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> >> 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.


Post a relevant cite then.

> >> > 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?


More evasion.

> [..]
> >>
> >> >> >> > 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.


No you haven't. You can't not have it both ways.

> [..]
> > ..'
> >> > http://alh.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/4/818

>>
>>> Interesting but full

>
>> 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.


In times of need, meat helped humans to survive. What's your excuse now?

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


Of course there are predators in -nature-. Nobody has claimed otherwise.

> [..]

--restore questions you need to answer, ditch--

> > What are these "spears" made from and how?

>
> What the hell do you think?


I don't know. Do you? Answer the question.

> >> > How do you 'separate it from the herd' exactly?
> >>
> >> Planning to do some hunting are you? You *surround it* once it falls back
> >> from the herd. There are always stragglers. I can't believe I am
> >> bothering to answer such stupid questions.

> >
> > "falls back from the herd"? You are running after herds now? lol.

>
> Of course you follow herd animals in herds.


You couldn't keep up with a stampeding herd of buffalo.

> > There were always teams of *real* predators after such animals.

>
> Man was a real predator in competition with others.


Real predators are equipped by nature to catch and kill.

Humans are not.

'Most anthropologists have tacitly assumed that human culture was
established by men. The 'Man the Hunter' myth has dominated
palaeoanthropology, now, almost since the inception of the discipline.
Through the 1960s and 1970s, it was taken as self-evident that the sexual
division of labour, with males going away hunting and bringing home the
bacon, emerged millions of years ago in a process linked with the
evolution of bipedalism, tool-making and the unusually large human brain.

In the past decade, there's been a revolution in archaeology and
palaeontology, leading to the view that all this is nonsense, that the early
hominids ('australopithecines') were ape-like creatures leading ape-like
lives,and that it was only in a relatively recent 'human revolution' that
culture as we know it emerged. Leading archaeologists Lewis Binford
and Olga Sofferare now showing that in Europe, at least, there is no
evidence that organized hunting bands were traveling distances, hunting
large game animals and bringing meat back to semi-permanent base
camps until at most 50,000 years ago.
...'
http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/...rganiser.p df

...
> > The 'f' word is an obscenity.

>
> Why?


'It is generally considered to be an offensive profanity.' - Wikipedia.

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


You're making no sense, as per usual.

> [..]


> > 'in·hu·man

adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
...
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
"cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"

> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
> >>
> >> Thanks for proving my point,

> >
> > How's that?

>
> You just demonstrated your utter disdain for the human race.


Where?! On the contrary. People like you who defend the needless killing
and torture of sentient beings including humans (remember the 500 million
people starving so a minority can eat meat) are -not- normal human beings.

'In 1716 the poet John *** advised Londoners :
"To shun the surly butchers greasy tray Butchers, whose hands are
dy'd with bloods foul stain, And always foremost in the hangmans
train."

In 1748 David Hartley the philosopher noted that
'frequent hard-heartedness and cruelty found amongst those persons
whose occupations engaged them in destroying animal life'

Many butchers were considered ineligible for jury service in capital
cases. (Thomas 1983 pp294-5)

People who work in slaughterhouses are considered to become
hardened and callous and uncaring not only toward animals but
other humans.

Some murderers have been raised as children in the slaughter of
animals, and it is but a short step for them to the killing of human
beings, as adults.

Now we need to recognize that butchers are not singly responsible
for killing animals, but all who eat animals share some of that blame.
Each must pay the price of their actions, those who do a little evil
will receive a lighter punishment than those who do a lot. Some
may have no understanding of what they are doing, because of a
sleeping conscience and lack of feeling for others, but this is a
serious character fault and no excuse.
...
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/creatures.htm

'Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no
feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting
sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or
even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a
single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish,
lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.
....
The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a
profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet,
too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized.
The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our
relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our
self-esteem, our very peace on earth.
....'
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm

'Hope
Henry See
6 August 2006
Signs of the Times

Hope is often a fragile thing. We hope for so much, yet we seem to attain so
little. Looking back, we see our hopes are often based upon illusion, and it
is therefore not surprising that they are dashed, that they amount to nothing.
And if it is so with our petty, individual hopes, what of our hopes for the
world at large?

What of the hope for peace, for a world free from violence and war and fear,
a world where the needs of everyone are met?

A vain hope we are told. A vain hope we conclude from our study of history.
Man is an animal, has a dark side, something that cannot be done away with,
that is an integral part of who he is. We are told, and come to accept, that it has
always been this way, and ever so shall it be.

Moreover, the greatest and most respected minds of our species have sought
to find the way out of this predicament for thousands of years. They have
elaborated moral systems, religions, philosophies, rules and regulations, laws,
political and economic systems, all to this end. For naught. The last century
saw monstrous wars on a scale worthy of man's great technical progress. By
the end of the Second World War, it had become easy to kill hundreds of
thousands with one bomb, and tens of millions over the course of several years.
The intervening decades have only upped the numbers. Single bombs can now
potentially kill millions. Most of the planet's population could be hit in a matter
of minutes.

Where war was once the domain of soldiers, it is more and more aimed at
civilians. We see this today with Israeli attacks on the civilian population of
Lebanon, their attacks on the civilian population of Gaza and the West Bank.
We see it, too, in the war in Iraq waged by the United States of America
against a people who were no threat to anyone.

There are also the manmade viri that spread from the laboratory into the
population, causing diseases that can potentially kill millions more.

All the evidence points to the fact that war, violence, and the killing of
innocents is part of who we are as a species.

But what if the initial assumptions are wrong?

How many of you reading these words would be able to do such a thing as
kill a baby or small child? How many of you could put a bullet, or several,
into the head of a ten-year-old on her way to school, or empty your pistol's
clip into the body of a child wounded at your feet? How many of you could
order the bombing of an appartment block knowing that the dead will be
civilians, families, people who have never raised a gun against an enemy in
their lives?

We ask again. What if our initial assumptions are wrong? What if this
violence we see all around us does not come from within us, from within
people of conscience, but comes from another source?

What if the evil we see around us in the world is not born from human nature?

Our studies on psychopathy, and the work of Polish psychologist Andrew
Lobaczewski on the dynamics of psychopathic political systems, suggests very
strongly that everything we "know" about the dark side of human nature is wrong,
that the primary source of the violence and active harming of other beings on our
planet comes not from mankind, but from an almost human species in our midst,
a species that looks human, but that is missing that which we would say is the
defining characteristic of humanity: conscience.

Could it really be that these horrors that we live with on the nightly news, that we
read about in history books, that have always been with us and which seem such
an integral part of human life, are not a necessary component of life? That they are
injected into our lives through a parasite/predator in our midst? One that moves
invisibly within society?

If you have done no research into psychopthy, such a hypothesis may well seem
far-fetched, an idealist fantasy. It seems outrageous. It goes against everything you
have been taught. It goes against everything you think you "know". However, once
you have studied the issue, have read the research into psychopathic behaviour,
have studied a psychopath's methods and means of manipulation, once you have
understood the individual psychopath and have traced its predation as the most
successful ones move into positions of power in the law, politics, business, the
police and the military, and as these individuals join together with others of their
ilk to form cohesive structures that can take over social movements and political
parties, once all of this is understood, and the horror of what we are facing hits
home, then, in the face of this horror, a small spark of hope is lit.

An in-depth understanding of psychopathy and ponerology brings the realization
that the violence around us is not an instrinic part of who we are. It is an intrinsic
part of who they are.

Having potentially identified the true source of evil doesn't mean that it can be
easily eradicated. Obviously, there are no easy solutions. It is way too late for
easy solutions.

However, instead of constantly fighting against the branches, we can begin to
strike at the root.

The first thing people need is knowledge of the true problem. Just that, just
identifying the real cause, is a large step. It makes the world understandable.
You can understand why there is such relentless bombing of Lebanon, of the
Gaza. You understand why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of their
gang can lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, in spite of it costing
the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. You stop wondering how people
can do such horrors because you see them for who they are. You understand
that they act this way because that is who they are.

So the first thing this knowledge brings is clarity. I think that this understanding
alone may well make a big difference in how we approach the problems facing
us. With a clear mind, solutions will appear that have eluded us while we
suffered under the delusion that the problem came from within us.

If the origin of evil is genetic, that is, it arises from those psychopaths with this
genetic difference who have a predisposition to committing acts that the rest of
us judge as evil while we, the people of conscience, do not, we need to become
aware of this difference and the way it is being used against us.

And here is where such understanding brings hope. Such violence is not part
of what makes us human. This understanding will give to people a hope that
the senseless slaughters of history, that have been put down to "human nature",
and therefore to a certain inevitability, can be ended once and for all. If the
psychopaths who rule our societies and who deform our understanding of
ourselves can eventually be isolated, human history might well embark on a
completely different path.

If that was understood, would it not be a powerful motivating force for people
of conscience?

Further, the implications of there being a group of people who share a genetic
distinction of which they are conscious, and that these people can band together
to achieve their goals, provides a grounding for much of what is called
"conspiracy theory". It takes it out of the realm of the fantastic and gives it an
easily understandable explanation, one that people can understand.

Imagine being able to give this as an explanation for why a "conspiracy" like
the US/Israeli attacks on 9/11 were able to come off successfully. How often
do you hear that it is impossible because "someone would have talked"? That
answer is based upon the idea that those who carried it out are like you and me.

They aren't.

Moreover, our understanding of current events, as well of history, is completely
changed.. Yes, there can be groups of people working together even over
centuries to accomplish goals. And they will not "talk" or betray the conspiracy
because they are so different from the rest of us that it is unthinkable. They do
not care about us because all they can "care" about is winning, is the next rush
from entrapping in some way another "normal person", from the next figurative
or literal kill.

They do this because they understand full well that if the truth were known, if
people of conscience were to wake up to the fact that they are ruled over by
such almost humans, there would be a revolt. The psychopaths and their
accomplices would be overthrown. They know it is a question of "us or them".

The rest of us have yet to awaken to this fact.

But to see how deep this could go, one must study up on psychopathy, really
understand how different they are.

Imagine being able to kill for the hell of it. Imagine having no remorse. Ever.
No feelings of guilt. Ever. Imagine being able to kill, lie, cheat, and manipulate
and never have a second thought. And imagine what such a world would look
like, how horrible it would be to inhabit.

That is our world under pathocratic domination.

If it appears on the macroscopic scale in international relations, it also exists
in our daily lives. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt to others for bad
behaviour and project onto them our own ways of thinking and behaving.
We say "He must be stressed", or "She had a rough childhood". We think
that, everything being equal, everyone else on the planet would respond as
we do. They could only be driven to harmful behaviour towards others under
extreme conditions, or under the influence of drugs.

So the first step on our way out of this world of horrors is to learn to
distinguish between those people who may be a little off some days because
they are stressed and those are are that way because that is who they are. The
first step is to learn to identify the psychopaths around us, those deviants
who are in our lives and who are running our world.

The following books are a good place to start:

The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout
The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley
Without Conscience and Snakes in Suits by Dr. Robert Hare

These works will give you a grounding in psychopathy. Once you have this
understanding, you can then learn about how these types work together:

Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski

These books will change your way of seeing the world. They will open your
eyes to the real workings on our planet.

Once the dynamic is understood by enough people, and individuals learn how
to extricate themselves from these manipulations in their own lives, they can
help others to see the real problem and to extricate themselves. If we have
enough time, and there are days when I really wonder how much time we have
left, we can isolate the psychopaths, remove them from power, and take back
the governance of our lives ourselves, perhaps for the first time in history.

I am not saying that this will be easy or that having this understanding is
some sort of magic bullet. It isn't. But with this knowledge, we can at least
to work against the root problem. And if the hope of a peaceful world where
this barbarism is a thing of the past can be ignited in the hearts of people of
conscience, there is no telling what could happen.

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/...60807_Hope.php

> >> >> you believe you can rewrite history too.
> >> >
> >> > Who are you referring to above? When?

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

>
> You want another word for them? Human ancestors.


When?

> [..]
>
> >> 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.


Ok.

> >> fishing is hunting,


'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
whom you believe."

Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"

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

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


~50,000 years ago. Read and digest what you keep snipping.

> >> scavenging is meat-eating.

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

>
> So what?


So where are your carnivorous biological adaptations?

> >> 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?


No. And there's your "endurance" argument done and dusted.




  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "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

> to change the meaning. You have no credibility.
>> >
>> >> I snipped away your
>> >
>> > You know all about snarky comments. What you sow is what you reap.

>>
>> I didn't change the meaning,

>
> Liar.



>
>> You should be thankful, if you're so concerned about being respectful.

>
> You first.


I respect your right to live as your conscience dictates.

Now you.

[..]

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

>
> You started it. You stop it.


I don't agree, but fine. No more snarkiness.

>
>> >> >> I know.
>> >> >
>> >> > Get to it then.
>> >>
>> >> Give me your email
>> >
>> > What are you doing in these NGs?

>>
>> Like I just said,

>
> Snarkiness removed.


You asked the question then removed the answer. It wasn't snarkiness, it was
the honest truth.

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.

Why is snarkiness to tell the truth about how *I* feel?


>> [..]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> 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.


Stop pasting the same stuff, it doesn't say that I am wrong.

>> >> [..]
>> >>
>> >> >> >> 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.

>
> Post a relevant cite then.


Unlike you, I do not post the same information over and over like a broken
record.

>> >> > 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?

>
> More evasion.


You're lost it.

>> [..]
>> >>
>> >> >> >> > 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.

>
> No you haven't. You can't not have it both ways.


It's another idiotic question, "Why not kill humans for whatever
purpose?"??? The only function that question serves is to illustrate how
far gone your thinking has become.


>> [..]
>> > ..'
>> >> > http://alh.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/4/818
>>>
>>>> Interesting but full

>>
>>> 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.

>
> In times of need, meat helped humans to survive. What's your excuse now?


Where did you get the idea that I need one?

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

>
> Of course there are predators in -nature-. Nobody has claimed otherwise.


Humans are part of nature, we're animals too. The strange contradiction in
AR idealism is this notion that animals should be treated with equal
consideration as humans but it doesn't work the other way around.

>
>> [..]

> --restore questions --
>
>> > What are these "spears" made from and how?

>>
>> What the hell do you think?

>
> I don't know. Do you? Answer the question.


What the hell do you think spears are made of? Stop being obtuse.


>> >> > How do you 'separate it from the herd' exactly?
>> >>
>> >> Planning to do some hunting are you? You *surround it* once it falls
>> >> back
>> >> from the herd. There are always stragglers. I can't believe I am
>> >> bothering to answer such stupid questions.
>> >
>> > "falls back from the herd"? You are running after herds now? lol.

>>
>> Of course you follow herd animals in herds.

>
> You couldn't keep up with a stampeding herd of buffalo.


Hominds could follow animals for days, animals can only run for minutes, a
couple of hours at most.
>
>> > There were always teams of *real* predators after such animals.

>>
>> Man was a real predator in competition with others.

>
> Real predators are equipped by nature to catch and kill.
>
> Humans are not.


Yes they are, nature equipped humans with every ability they possess. How
else do you suppose we got them?

I'm not going to read a bunch of your pasted crap until you start listening
at least half as well as you pontificate.



  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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?
>
>
>Enough already, you two are really boring. Go hire a hall somewhere - - -
>anywhere





  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?

"Chuck" > wrote in message news:EYYXg.18097$vC3.3079@dukeread02...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...


<.....>

> >Enough already, you two are really boring. Go hire a hall somewhere - - -
> >anywhere


http://macteens.com/gallery/displayi...at=3&pos=-3290 ,
Chuck?



That's ok....agreed.. coulda let it be some oh fifty posts back.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Red Meat Consumption vs. White Meat Consumption Sqwertz General Cooking 18 25-03-2009 11:01 PM
Red Meat Consumption vs. White Meat Consumption blake murphy[_2_] General Cooking 0 24-03-2009 03:08 PM
Red Meat Consumption vs. White Meat Consumption cybercat General Cooking 4 24-03-2009 01:30 AM
Red Meat Consumption vs. White Meat Consumption jmcquown[_2_] General Cooking 0 24-03-2009 01:20 AM
Red Meat Consumption vs. White Meat Consumption Dimitri General Cooking 1 24-03-2009 12:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"